(Robert Naiman | Truthout | 8 October 2009) - The relationship between the United States and Iran with respect to Iran’s nuclear file is playing out at two levels. One level revolves around formal obligations and agreements and diplomacy. The second level is the long-running contest between the United States and its allies and Iran and its allies for power and influence in the region. The contest at the formal-obligations level on the nuclear program is a proxy for the contest for power and influence, and accommodation on the nuclear program likely implies some acceptance of Iran’s power and influence in the region.

The level of formal obligations is where the conflict is most likely to be resolved or managed diplomatically because there are rules for the interaction and third parties that both sides respect. There is no international treaty that says how much power and influence Iran should have in Iraq, but there is an international treaty that gives Iran rights and obligations with respect to its nuclear program. The two sides may argue over their interpretations of the rules, but they both concede that there are rules that have to be followed, and they appeal to the same rules. So, for example, the US claims that Iran broke its obligations by not disclosing the enrichment facility at Qom earlier; Iran claims that its disclosure last week met its obligations; but both sides agree that the facility has to be disclosed at some point and that Iran has to open the facility to UN inspection.

The US and Iran agree that Iran has rights and responsibilities under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The United States recognizes that Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program. Iran recognizes that it has an obligation not to produce a nuclear weapon and says it has no intention of doing so.

However, regarding Iran’s enrichment of uranium, the US and Iran have not historically agreed what Iran’s rights are. Iran says it has not only a right to a peaceful nuclear program, but also a right to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program. The plain meaning of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty would seem to support Iran’s view. Article IV says:

“Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.”

Since Brazil, for example, enriches uranium and is not held to be in violation of the NPT, that would seem to imply that Iran also has the right to enrich uranium.

Under the Bush administration, the US position was effectively that Iran had forfeited the right to enrich uranium by its past bad behavior. But there is no provision about forfeiting such rights in any agreement Iran has signed. The Obama administration has remained ambiguous on the topic, perhaps understandably so, as it seems likely that even if some in the Obama administration do not privately see ending Iranian enrichment as a feasible goal, they still hope to get something from Iran in exchange for formally conceding this; and politically it would be much easier for the Obama administration to make such a concession in the context of a deal. But this summer, Senator Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that the US should accept that Iran has the right to enrich uranium. Senator Kerry does not, of course, speak for the administration, but if I were an analyst in Iran, trying to understand the possible boundaries of future US policies, I would take that as a positive signal.

As a candidate, President Obama pledged he would engage Iran diplomatically without preconditions. The specific precondition at issue was the Bush administration’s insistence that Iran suspend the enrichment of uranium before negotiations could begin.

This past week, we saw the first signs of concrete results of the implementation of that promise in the talks in Geneva among the P5+1 countries and Iran, which apparently included bilateral talks between chief US negotiator William Burns and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili. President Obama called the talks a “constructive beginning,” and The New York Times noted as signs of progress that both sides agreed to further negotiations soon, and that Iran had agreed to allow IAEA inspectors into its enrichment facility at Qom.

In his remarks following the talks, President Obama made no mention of previous US demands that Iran suspend uranium enrichment. Instead, he insisted that Iran enact its agreement to allow IAEA inspectors at Qom and undertake confidence-building measures it had already agreed to.

US officials have stressed that the main thing they were looking for in the initial talks were signs that the Iranian side was negotiating seriously. Of course, Iran is looking for the same thing. The fact that the Obama administration is currently focusing attention on the implementation of concrete, achievable demands that Iran has already agreed to is a sign that the Obama administration is serious. Many people were alarmed that the Obama administration appeared to be pounding the table; but what was more significant was that the Obama administration was pounding the table in support of reasonable, achievable demands. When the Obama administration demanded that Iran allow UN inspectors at Qom, it was demanding something that Iran had already agreed to and that Iran never disputed it was required to do.

There has long been a widespread view among many US analysts that, in the end, the US will have to accept Iranian enrichment in some form as part of any realistic deal. For example, former US Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering and others have argued for multinational enrichment of uranium in Iran. Last May, Iran indicated its willingness to negotiate on such a proposal in a letter to the United Nations.

Others have suggested that agreement on an enhanced UN inspections regime should be able to satisfy legitimate Western concerns about the possible diversion of nuclear materials to a military program.

Indeed, the recent revelation of the facility at Qom supports such a view. Senior administration officials suggested that Iran undertook the creation of the new facility because the enrichment facility at Natanz was under UN inspection and, therefore, useless for clandestine enrichment. Now, it seems almost certain that the new facility will be under UN inspection. According to the logic of US statements, the new facility will now also be useless for clandestine enrichment. This means that, from the US point of view, Iranian clandestine enrichment has been set back and it was set back not by military action or threats of military action nor by sanctions, crippling or otherwise, but by surveillance and multilateral diplomatic action to hold Iran to account to its international obligations.

As administration officials have said, the United States has no plausible alternative to diplomacy for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. A unilateral US military strike or US-permitted Israeli strike would be a grave violation of international law. As Defense Secretary Gates has emphasized, such a strike would at best set back the Iranian nuclear program temporarily in a physical sense while impelling it forward politically. As Admiral Mullen has noted, such an attack would destabilize a region where the US has more than 180,000 troops fighting two wars in countries where Iran has significant influence and ability to shape events in ways that would put US troops in greater danger.

Sanctions are also not a plausible alternative to diplomacy. At best, existing and threatened US and international sanctions support US diplomatic efforts by increasing the benefit to Iran of a negotiated agreement. But it is extremely unlikely that sanctions alone will cause Iran to capitulate.

Many in Congress have supported efforts to try to block Iran’s imports of gas. But such efforts will be no panacea.

Some recent estimates in the press of Iran’s gas imports have varied between 25 percent and 40 percent of Iran’s gas consumption. Whatever the number is, it is likely to decrease as Iran builds up its own domestic refining capacity. Any effective gas embargo would require Russian and Chinese cooperation, which is highly unlikely. Russian and Chinese cooperation on gas sanctions is even more unlikely if such sanctions are attempted on the basis of Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium, as opposed to something around which there is stronger international consensus, such as an Iranian refusal to accept IAEA inspectors. It was widely reported that Russia had indicated possible support for increased sanctions if there was no progress in negotiations; less reported were subsequent Russian statements that they had agreed to no specific measures. Venezuela recently announced that beginning in October it would export 20,000 barrels per day of gasoline to Iran, about a sixth of current imports. Venezuela would almost certainly not comply with any embargo that did not have UN Security Council sanction. Iranian gas consumption is artificially high due to steep subsidies, which the Iranian government would like to curtail. An external gas embargo would likely provide political space for the government to reduce these subsidies, thereby reducing consumption. Whatever impact such an embargo did have would likely be felt by the Iranian population more than the government. The likelihood that such sanctions would hurt the Iranian public has been cited by the French foreign minister in opposition to such sanctions, and opposition leaders in Iran have spoken out against such sanctions. Of course, there is a school of thought that you hurt the leaders by hurting the population, but in addition to ethical concerns, there is the likelihood that such measures will backfire, strengthening the domestic political position of the government.

Some advocate a policy of “regime change,” either trying to bring about a government in Iran that wouldn’t pursue a nuclear program or trying to bring about a government friendly enough to the United States that the US wouldn’t be concerned if it had a nuclear program. Putting to the side the morality and legality of trying to overthrow the Iranian government, the feasibility and desirability of doing so is extremely doubtful. Relative, at the very least, to its nuclear program, the Iranian government is highly stable. There is a national consensus in support of the program, and any successor government to a US overthrow attempt would be as likely to pursue a nuclear program as the present one, and might well be at least as hostile as the present one. The “regime change” policy of the US in Iran in the 1950s helped produce the Iranian government we see today.

So, at the level of the formal conflict over Iran’s nuclear program, the Obama administration has no option besides the diplomacy which it promised to engage in and is now engaging in. And, as President Obama has said, a “constructive beginning” has been made.

Underneath the dispute about Iran’s nuclear program is a dispute about Iran’s role in the region. If the US didn’t have issues with Iran’s influence and activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, if the United States and Israel did not have concerns about Iran’s influence and activities in Lebanon and Palestine, it is very likely that there would be a lot less concern in the US and Israel about Iran’s nuclear program. Many in Washington and Tel Aviv, as well as Iran, see an Iranian enrichment capacity as a deterrent against a US or Israeli attack, and they object to Iran’s nuclear program precisely because they object to Iran having such a deterrent. If Iran feels secure from a US or Israeli attack, the reasoning goes, then Iran will not be afraid to “meddle” in Iraq or Afghanistan or Lebanon or Palestine.

But arguably, Iran already feels fairly secure from a US or Israeli attack, and already Iran is acting in the region in ways that the US and Israel don’t like.

Moreover, recent history indicates that direct engagement can lead to Iranian actions that the US likes better. In the case of Iraq, the US says the flow of weapons from Iran has decreased; Iran has used its influence to defuse conflicts between the Iraqi government and Shiite militias. In the case of Afghanistan, the US and Iran had a strong cooperation after the US invasion in 2001, in which Iran helped organize the post-invasion government. This cooperation ended after the Bush administration branded Iran as part of its “axis of evil.” Under the Obama administration, some cooperation has resumed. In the case of Lebanon, in May 2008 a new national accord was negotiated – the Doha Agreement – which created a national unity government including Hizbollah and ended the 18-month political crisis. The Doha Agreement was supported by both Iran and Saudi Arabia. Similarly, Saudi Arabia in the past was able to broker a national unity government between Fatah and Hamas – i.e., between its own client and Iran’s client. The Obama administration has indicated that it might be able to support a Palestinian national unity government that included Hamas.

So, in all these arenas, there is evidence that the US and Iran could get along better, regardless of the state of Iran’s nuclear program; and if the present talks between the US and Iran lead to agreements in these areas, it will lead to a reduction in tension around Iran’s nuclear program and pave the way for a real resolution of the nuclear issues.

Robert Naiman is senior policy analyst at Just Foreign Policy.

Armed with the disclosure of a secret Iranian nuclear facility, President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain demanded Friday that Tehran fully disclose its nuclear ambitions “or be held accountable.”

(Ed Hale | Transcendence Diaries | 25 September 2009) - CNN the most rusted name in fake-news reported today that the United States, France and Britain have presented “detailed evidence” to the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog that “Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility,” President Obama said Friday before the start of the G-20 economic summit here.”

What’s ironic of course about this sudden announcement is that those same three countries — in a covert CIA-led coup d’etat never reported by Western media but largely known about now after the fact — invaded and then ousted Iran’s democratically elected president, Mosaddeq, in 1953 after they became a democracy in the early nineteen-fifties. Those same three countries — United States, France, Great Britain — then installed ‘the Shah’ as a puppet leader against the people’s will and split Iran’s oil up three ways for themselves, paying the Iranians pennies a barrel for it for nearly thirty years; they called their new “company” British Petroleum, or BP – you might have heard of it. This led of course to the extreme ‘Islamic revolution’ of 1979. (Religious fervor as the powers that be would have dumbed-down TV guzzlers believe had nothing to do with the American Embassy hostage “crisis,” but rather thirty years of rage and frustration over imperialist domination and their oil being stolen from them.)

Next up came the eight year US-led Iran-Iraq war where the Reagan administration funded a young CIA operative named Saddam Hussein, giving him millions of dollars and chemical and biological weapons to use against the Iranian people, where over 20 million of them died. And then when Iraq proved unable to defeat the strongly proud and patriotic Iranians, Reagan decided to play both sides against the other in the infamous Iran-Contra Affair and started illegally selling weapons of mass destruction to Iran as well, thinking one assumes that if both countries destroy each other in the process with US money and weapons that the US and Britain could walk right in and grab at all the oil in the region. Of course the plan didn’t work. The United States added yet another fallen hero to its shelf of publicly shamed and sham presidents. Iran and Iraq eventually called a truce.

The Iranian people sit at a crossroads now.

Gordon Brown accuses Iran of deception in its pursuit of a nuclear programme and warns of more sanctions.

Their first Democratic Revolution of 1950 didn’t work because the Great Britain wouldn’t allow it. They needed Iranian oil too badly to win World War I, so they installed Shah number one and forced the Iranian people into totalitarian monarch rule. Their second democratic revolution of 1950 didn’t work because the United States and Britain wouldn’t allow it due to still wanting all their oil. And now unhappy with their third ‘Islamic Revolution, they need help, but can’t trust the largest alleged democracies in the world due to past deceit and abuses; so they fight, or sit as many do out of fear and rightly so, helplessly alone not sure of what to do. It is obvious to anyone who visits Iran, as I did in 2008, that the people there are no different than any other country, West or East. They dress the same, look the same, act the same, and want to be LED democratically, not RULED by an Islamic dictatorship. They just don’t know how to make it happen, and don’t know who to trust.

One thing is for sure, anything that the United States, Great Britain, or France “say” about Iran is probably no more credible or legitimate than their BP corporation was when it was first formed. So they know they can’t trust these countries. But at the same time, they don’t want to continue to be led astray by their current government. Another thing is also obvious when one is so closely associated with Iran’s people as we now are at the non-profit PeaceWithIran.com, and that is this: the Iranian people do not hate America, nor do they harbor any negative feelings toward American people. In fact, they are rather awe struck by Americans and love their art and entertainment. Most Iranians are too young to remember the past abuses levied upon them by the United States. (Iran has the youngest population out of any country in the civilized world today.)

The most blatant disregard for ‘truth’ and respect if one is still hoping for an ounce of it to come out of Washington or mainstream media about this whole charade is that the same countries that are demanding that Iran “not be allowed” to make nuclear weapons all currently have, make, and sell for profit nuclear weapons themselves. An irony that is not lost on Iran – a deeply intelligent, insightful and wise country that was once the largest empire on planet earth known as Persia. Newly selected Bilderberg Group Managing Director, better known to most as “President Obama” is being forced by his bosses to go public and mandate “rules” to the country of Iran regarding their nuclear program, a preposterous notion given that Iran, just like the United States, is a sovereign nation of planet earth and doesn’t have any ‘rules’ to follow. (Isn’t that precisely what then-select GW Bush said when he broke every “rule” in the “rulebook” and even international law when he illegally invaded the country of Iraq?)

What Iran might be prone to do though is FOLLOW the United State’s lead… should they ever decide to lead again and disarm themselves. Obama is a smart man. He knows this. He just can’t say it out loud, not in public. He might get fired. The same way JFK was fired. In other words, he takes his orders and shouts about Iran every few weeks to keep the powers that be happy without once mentioning that the US is the largest owner and profiteer of nuclear weapons in the world. Sad. Funny. Ironic. Twisted. Truth is that way sometimes.

To the country of Iran/Persia, with a five-thousand year history and a claim to being the longest running and greatest kingdom on earth for hundreds of years, the United States — with its crumbling economy and long-ago eroded democracy — must seem like the tail that’s still trying to do the barking. Iranians are known for their patience and their skill in poetic diplomacy. While the US sits around complaining and name-calling over the last few years, Iran quietly walked into recently ‘liberated’ Iraq and discreetly took over that country’s fragile government in less than a day, turning it Shia overnight. The embarrassed United States is of course in a tizzy as it has over one-hundred and twenty thousand troops stationed there fighting to maintain stability in a country now being controlled by none other than the Iranian government. One reason possibly why the United States seems so hellbent on continuously publicly attacking Iran, rather than sitting down to diplomatic talks with them, an option that every country in the free world, even the US itself, knows that they will eventually have to do if they are going to get anywhere with either country; or with any other Middle Eastern country at this point. Iran is still one of the most respected countries in the entire region, being the only one bold enough to continue to not take United States bribe money like Turkey or Pakistan AND speak the truth about what is actually happening to them.

And yes, they still send their presidents and other government leaders to the United States to speak and invite Americans to come there as well, an honor that I partook in personally. Again and again they implore the United States to shut down its tail-barking, grow up, forgive the inequities of the past, and come to the diplomatic side of the fence to talk. The US continues to refuse. And in the process continues to lose respect in the international community. Twentieth century politics don’t work in the twenty-first century world of today. The United States is going to eventually have to sit down and start acting like a leader of the free world, and not its wanna-be ruler.

If one wants to learn more, simply google any of the keywords here. There is nothing here that is not common knowledge or easily obtainable. But most importantly head to PeaceWithIran.com to join up for free and stay in touch with world news about Iran/US relations which tends to be much less biased and more honest than White House-dictated US news.

God bless the United States. I have a feeling we’re going to need it.

(Mike Hanna | Al Jazeera English | 23 September 2009) — US president, Barack Obama, outlined his vision of a new world order in which the US would participate fully – during his first address to the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. His vision was rooted on four basic principles: Non proliferation and disarmament, the promotion of peace and security, the preservation of the planet, and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people. Among the speakers that followed was the leader of Libya – Muammar Gaddafi, and the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon.

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna reports from New York on the days events.

Statement and Call to Action

July 9, 2009

Dear Friend of United for Peace and Justice,

Over three weeks ago, Iranians held a presidential election. What followed remains unclear, but one thing is for certain: the Iranian government engaged in the suppression of the rights of Iranians to protest their government.

While UFPJ strongly supports the principle of non-interference in the affairs of others, we also feel compelled – as a coalition which has protested the policies of our government for more than six years now – to stand in solidarity with the people of Iran and their struggle for the elementary right to protest their government and its actions without the threat of death, arrest, or censorship. What has happened in Iran is more than unfortunate; we hope that the people of Iran, regardless of their politics, can remain resilient in their demand for such a basic right.

At the same time, for us here in the U.S., what is even more important is the actions of our own government during this crisis, especially in light of the unfortunate historical role we have played and continue to play in this region. In this regard, signs are mixed.

UFPJ has been encouraged that the Obama administration continues to stick to its campaign promise of direct talks with Iran. At a time of increasing regional instability, the world cannot afford heightened hostilities between the U.S. and Iran.

However, UFPJ is deeply concerned over potential developments in the White House’s policy towards Iran. While official statements have made clear that direct talks remain the key goal, we have heard high administration officials deviate from that official stance time and again. A disturbing example of this discrepancy was Vice President Biden’s comment this weekend in which he indicated that the U.S. would not intervene if Israel decided to militarily attack Iran. These comments are counter-productive, harming not just the potential for constructive talks between the two countries, but also giving an excuse to Iran’s leaders for further reactionary action, such as the suppression of Iranian protestors.

What we need is a White House that is clear in both its promise to engage in direct talks with Iran in the near-future and its principle of non-interference in Iran’s internal affairs. To do this, UFPJ urges you to take the following action:

1] Call the White House at 202-456-1111 and let it know that you want Obama to stick to his promise of direct talks with Iran.

2] Sign-on to Just Foreign Policy’s petition to President Obama, which urges him to keep to the principle of non-interference in Iran’s internal affairs.

And to show solidarity with the people of Iran and their elementary right to protest their government’s actions, we urge you to join up with the United For Iran, Global Day of Action, for a rally in your city on July 25. This Global Day of Action is endorsed by such groups as Amnesty International and Physicians for Human Rights and is a non-partisan event.

The Carnegie Endowment For International Peace

Policy Discussion held on June 25, 2009 in Washington D.C.

With demonstrations across Iran subsiding under a brutal security crackdown, and opposition leaders hoping to turn protests into strikes and other acts of civil disobedience, Carnegie hosted leading Iran experts Ambassador Nicholas Burns, Abbas Milani, and Karim Sadjadpour to discuss the aftermath of the election and its implications for U.S. foreign policy in the region.  David Ignatius moderated the discussion.

Worldwise:  Witnessing History in Iran

Gary Sick from Columbia University and founder of the Gulf/2000 Project and Afshin Molavi of the New America Foundation and author of “The Soul of Iran” discuss the divisions in the Iranian regime, the opposition movement, political Islam, and the challenges facing a US response.  Recorded June 19, 2009 and posted June 21, 2009 on Bloggingheads.tv.

Worldwise: Witnessing History in Iran
Deep divisions within the Iranian regime (09:37)
Moussavi, the “accidental leader” of the opposition (03:39)
Eroding legitimacy and expanding repression (06:10)
Obama’s huge challenge (06:57)
Afshin: What viewers can do (01:23)
Political Islam: It’s not easy being green (05:00)

Worldwise: Witnessing History in Iran
Deep divisions within the Iranian regime (09:37)
Moussavi, the “accidental leader” of the opposition (03:39)
Eroding legitimacy and expanding repression (06:10)
Obama’s huge challenge (06:57)
Afshin: What viewers can do (01:23)
Political Islam: It’s not easy being green (05:00)

Ed Hale :: Peace With Iran

Journalist Roxana Saberi, who has been held for more than two months in Iran, has been charged with espionage, her lawyer said Wednesday.

Saberi, who has been a freelance reporter for NPR, ABC News, the BBC and other news organizations, was born in the United States and holds dual citizenship. She was told of the charges against her just two days after receiving a visit from her parents at Tehran’s Evin prison, according to her lawyer, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi.

Under Iran’s penal code, Saberi, 31, faces possible execution.

Iran’s ISNA quoted a judge Haddad as saying Saberi “had been carrying out espionage activities…under the cover of a journalist…and she has accepted the accusations.” The news agency only gave the judge’s last name.

“She has been charged and a branch of the Revolutionary Court is reviewing her case now,” Haddad said, according to ISNA.

The move to charge Saberi after weeks of uncertainty over her fate was certain to complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to thaw relations between Washington and Tehran. The two nations cut ties nearly three decades ago, after Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution. But President Obama has offered to extend a hand of peace if Iran “unclenches its fist”.

At the time of Saberi’s arrest Jan. 31, Iranian officials said she was working with expired press credentials. However, Saberi’s father, told NPR in February that his daughter was detained for buying a bottle of wine. Purchasing alcohol is banned under Iran’s Islamic law.

“She said that she had bought a bottle of wine and the person that sold it had reported it and then they came and arrested her,” Reza Saberi said, adding that she believed the incident was a pretext to arrest her.

The journalist’s father confirmed that her credentials had been revoked in 2006, but said the government had tolerated her reporting short news stories out of the country. He said she had stayed in Tehran to pursue a master’s degree and was performing research for a book about Iranian society, but was planning to move back to the United States later this year.

Saberi’s parents, who live in Fargo, N.D., visited her Monday in Tehran. Khorramshahi said she was in good physical and mental health. Last month, her parents appealed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for their daughter’s release, saying she was in a “critical” mental condition.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week that Washington was pushing for Saberi’s release. In February, Clinton called publicly for the journalist’s release “to return home to her family in North Dakota as soon as possible.”

From NPR and wire service reports

 BROOKS SUNDAY GLOBAL REVIEW – NEWSMAKER INTERVIEW 

March 14, 2009

Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi, President of American Iranian Council Discusses 

White Paper on President Obama’s Iran Strategy 

To Hear Interview click on www.brooksreview.wordpress.com 

Hartford, Connecticut — On Sunday March 8, Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi, President of the American-Iranian Council (AIC) and America?s foremost expert on Iran conducted an in-depth interview on the Obama administration and the future of U.S.-Iran relations on the Brooks Sunday Global Review. Under Amirahmadi?s leadership the AIC gained a rare approval from the U.S. government to establish an NGO lobbying group in Tehran, Iran. The AIC has been a leading non-profit/non-partisan organization promoting the renewal of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran. Dr. Amirahmadi is also a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University.

Among the topics Dr. Amirahmadi discussed with host Webster Brooks are Iran?s nuclear program, the June 2009 presidential elections, Iran?s regional involvement in the Middle East and the prospects of improved relations between the U.S. and Iran under President Obama?s administration.*****

Webster Brooks is a Senior Fellow for Foriegn Policy at the Center for New Politics and Policy at the University of Denver.  

www.newpolicycenter.org

The failure by Barack Obama to chart another course in the Middle East, to defy the Israel
lobby and to denounce the Bush administration’s inexorable march toward a conflict with
Iran is a failure to challenge the collective insanity that has gripped the political leadership
in the United States and Israel.

Obama, in a miscalculation that will have grave consequences, has given his blessing to
the widening circle of violence and abuse of the Palestinians by Israel and, most
dangerously, to those in the Bush White House and Jerusalem now plotting a war against
Iran. He illustrates how the lust for power is morally corrosive. And while he may win the
White House, by the time he takes power he will be trapped in George Bush’s alternative
reality.

“Humanity Does Not Change”

There is nothing in human nature or human history to justify the idea that we are
progressing morally as a species.

We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to stay the hand of Israel, which is
building more settlements—including a new plan to put 800 housing units in occupied
East Jerusalem—and imposing draconian measures to physically break the 1.5 million
Palestinians in Gaza. We need, most of all, to prevent a war with Iran.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, in a letter to President Bush on May 8, threatened
to open impeachment proceedings if Bush attacked Iran. The letter is a signal that
planning for strikes on Iran is under way and pronounced.

“Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events,” Conyers wrote.
“The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. ‘Fox’ Fallon from the head of U.S.
Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as
the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against
Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning
for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007
National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program
in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.”

The administration, in rhetoric that is eerily similar to that used to build the case for a war
against Iraq, asserts that the Iranian Quds Force is arming anti-American groups in Iraq
and providing them with high-tech roadside bombs and sophisticated rockets. It
dismisses the National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Iran suspended its nuclear
weapons program. The White House has not provided evidence to back up its claims. I
suspect it never will. And when Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz tells the Israeli
newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth an attack on Iran is “unavoidable” if Tehran does not halt its
alleged nuclear weapons program, what he is really telling us is we should prepare for war.
Conyers’ threat is too little too late, especially if the Bush White House, possibly assisted
by Israel, launches airstrikes on some or all of 1,000 selected Iranian targets in the final
weeks of the administration. But it is an effort. Conyers tried.

This is more than we can say for the presumptive Democratic nominee. Obama went
before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Wednesday and said he will
stand with the right-wing Israeli government, even if this means backing an attack on Iran.
“As president I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran,” he said. “I will
do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in
my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything.”
Obama went on to blame the Palestinians for the conflict, although the ratio of
Palestinians to Israelis killed in 2007 was 40 to 1. This is an increase from 30 to 1 in 2006
and 4 to 1 in 2000-2005.

“I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. That starts
with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage, …” Obama told AIPAC. “I will ensure
Israel can defend itself from any threat, from Gaza to Tehran. …”
Obama spoke about Israelis whose houses were damaged by the crude rockets, most
made out of old pipes, fired from Gaza on Israeli towns. He never mentioned the Israeli
siege of Gaza, the world’s largest open-air prison, or that Israel was deploying fighter jets
and helicopters to attack densely crowded refugee camps with missiles and iron
fragmentation bombs or that it had cut off food and fuel. He ignored the steady expansion
of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. He called for Jerusalem to become the
“undivided capital” of the Jewish state, erasing Arab East Jerusalem from the map in
contravention of international law. East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are
internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territories, which Israel took over in
1967. Obama’s stance is the moral equivalent of assuring the Johannesburg government
during the apartheid era that one would support their repressive efforts to punish the
restive blacks in the townships.

The deterioration of the conflict in Israel, which would be accelerated by airstrikes on Iran
and an ensuring regional war, will propel us into the Armageddon-type scenario in the
Middle East relished by the lunatic fringes of the radical Christian right. And so, with
Obama’s enthusiastic endorsement, we barrel toward a Dr. Strangelove self-immolation.
No one will be able to say we did not go out with a spectacular show of firepower, gore
and death. Our European and Middle Eastern allies, who are numb with consternation over
our death spiral, are frantically trying to reach out to Tehran diplomatically.

The instant we attack Iran, oil prices will double, perhaps triple. This price increase will
devastate the American economy. The ensuing retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well
as on American military installations in Iraq, will leave hundreds, maybe thousands, of
dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, will see an attack on Iran as
a war against Shiism. They will turn with rage and violence on us and our allies. Hezbollah
will renew attacks on northern Israel. And the localized war in Iraq will become a long,
messy and protracted regional war that, by the time it is done, will most likely end the
American empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins.

The Israeli leadership, like the Bush White House, is increasingly bellicose and threatening.
The Israeli prime minister, after a 90-minute meeting with Bush in the White House on
Wednesday, said the two leaders were of one mind. “We reached agreement on the need to
take care of the Iranian threat,” Ehud Olmert said. “I left with a lot less questions marks
[than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American
resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian
threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his
term in the White House.”

This time around, unlike about the war with Iraq, the Washington bureaucracy, loathed by
the Bush White House, did not remain silent and complicit. The National Intelligence
Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program released last Dec. 3 distinguished Iran’s enrichment of
uranium at Natanz and Arak from its formal nuclear weapons program, which it said had
halted in 2003 after the American invasion of Iraq. Adm. Fallon, who put his country and
his integrity before his career, spoke out against a war with Iran, tried to stop it and lost
his job as the head of CENTCOM. He has been replaced with Gen. David H. Petraeus,
whose devotion to his career admits no such moral impediments.

” … There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran,” Obama assured AIPAC. “This
audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. And the enemies of Israel should
have no doubt that regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in support
of Israel’s security. … The Iran regime supports violent extremists and challenges us
across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race
and … its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. … [M]y
goal will be to eliminate this threat.”

Barack Obama, when we need sane leadership the most, has proved feckless and weak.
He, and the Democratic leadership, is as morally bankrupt as those preparing to ignite our
funeral pyre in the Middle East.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama on screen receives applause during
his address before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference 2008 in
Washington.

Already starting to change colors right before our eyes? Well one isn’t quite sure yet. But how utterly and typically “political” this most recent stunt has made Obama appear. He failed to have either the knowledge or the courage – right now we aren’t sure which – to remind the crowd that Iran is legally entitled under international law to be working on researching nuclear energy under the Nuclear Proliferation Act – they currently have approximately one-hundred and twenty-thousand citizens employed and working at various plants around their country in this program – nor did he mention that they were given authorization from and originally purchased their nuclear energy knowledge and many materials to do so from the United States as far back as the Eisenhower administration.

How on earth can this man be talking about more sanctions against Iran and trying to stop them from enriching uranium when it is absolutely none of his business is the question that is begged to be answered here.

And also, even more questionable, is how can a man who clearly owes his rise to power to the peace-card carrying doves of the left already be making right-wing hawkish threats against a country who are clearly only growing in strength and power and in political unions all over the globe every year as the United States continues to grow weaker and less threatening to a world who is waking up to some obvious cracks in the once-great nation’s armor? Windbag rhetorical threats are the last thing any candidate needs to be showing us as we continue to interview the applicants for the job. We’ve already had plenty of that from the last assholes that we hired to fill the position.

Either 1, Barack is just kowtowing to AIPAC to win Jewish votes (which means he lacks integrity by not just being honest with how he really feels), or 2, he is ignorant about how ignorant it is for him to be making such statements that it is somehow the US Government’s right to try to stop another country from harnessing nuclear energy, or 3, he is just ignorant as to how arrogant and erroneous it is for one country to attempt to stop another country from harnessing nuclear energy for the betterment of their own people — especially when all American Intelligence reports clearly show that they STOPPED working on nuclear WEAPONS research 4 years ago.

So which is it?

I have said from the beginning and I will say it again here: I lean neither left nor right but straight down the middle – I am a member of the “human being” party. You might have heard of it. It means that I care not to be placed in a box and slapped on the back with any labels but purely and simply care about all human beings on planet earth. Period. I’m too old now to believe that either party gives a shit about what they promise, nor has the power to do anything about it, before they get into office. What I am concerned with is how humane that particular job applicant appears to be. After all, the most important aspect of his job is in essence to secure another few years of our survival as a species – in this case collected under the banner of the United States. If we were in France, it would be under the banner of France. Etc ad nauseum.

Again, lest we forget the endless replies I have already given to the thousands of comments on YouTube and various other social networking sites around the world over the years accusing me of not being a “proud enough American,” one could have just as easily barraged me with such accusations during Hitler’s Germany, during Napoleon’s France, during Great Britain’s brutal fight against “colonial” India, during Nero’s Rome, or even during America’s attempted occupation of Vietnam. People still even do it today under Bush’s America, which is to say the least just plain sad.

But again for the record I will state that “nationalistic pride” is something I gave up, or grew out of, long, long ago — as far back as my teenage years. It only took a few years of studying history to realize that it was a useless, short-sighted, and often dangerous stance. Instead, I pledge allegiance to the united state of HUMANITY. And to the safety and security of every human being on the planet today and tomorrow.

Regarding our current dilemma as to which of the two men we should hire in the short term for what in the most ideal case should be a very noble position – that being the president of our beloved company, or country, however you want to look at it, as always we are faced with the same tough issues. Neither of them we know well enough. And no single human being should be expected to fill that role perfectly. Over the last 200 years we have clearly been shown this fact, if nothing else.

At least with Senator John McCain we know he is a patriotic man. We also know that he is not entirely partisan. And we know who he is and what he stands for. He is clearly an honest man who tells us what he really believes. In the case of Iran, Mr. McCain suffers from both maladies number 2 and number 3 above. Both ignorance and arrogance. A little something called “too much nationalistic pride and jingoism” and not enough knowledge (or wisdom gained) from studying history – not quite yet realizing that number one, the USA has only been a world super-power for a few short 60 years at best, and number two, that we are very close to losing this dubious title because the rest of the world has caught up to and are well ahead of us economically, the American dollar doesn’t carry much leverage anymore, threatening to blow someone up with a nuclear weapon as a means of frightening them into submission (which used to be the USA’s big “ace in the hole” for the last fifty years) has flown out the window since we now have NINE countries with nuclear weapons including China and Russia, and the US military is stretched so thin that it is obvious that Iran isn’t even frightened of the US government anymore since they continue to fund groups fighting directly against us such as Hezbollah.

The question that we should all be asking ourselves at this point is when are we going to hire someone to sit in that coveted chair (remember WE the people HIRE the president – he is nothing – absolutely nothing – but our EMPLOYEE) who is smart enough to realize that the days of stomping around the earth like giant idiot-minded dinosaurs threatening other countries to “do what they’re told” are OVER?

Obama? McCain? It all sounds the same to me if they are going to keep on making ignorant and arrogant threats against other nation-states around the world and poking their noses around where they don’t belong. What we need is an applicant for this JOB that we are offering who is smart enough and understands history well enough to realize that it is DIPLOMACY not THREATS that we need in the case of Iran, and in regards to many other countries around the world at this tenuous time in our nation’s history.

As for the historical significance of Obama being the first black person to ever come this far in the race to be president of the United States, let us celebrate it surely as it is indeed a major winning event in our history and in our efforts on behalf of civil rights through the years; but once we get the celebrating out of our systems let us not forget that what we were fighting for in regards to civil rights all these years was to see BEYOND color. So the fact that Barack Obama happens to be a man of color is a non-issue now. That part of the play is over. The applause has died down and we should get back to our seats and prepare for Act II. Let us now move beyond that issue and see who the man really is. Just as we will need to do with Senator McCain.

Obama can be black, brown, white, yellow, red, or even purple as far as I’m concerned and it matters not. (He actually appears to be more of a “tan” if you ask me.) What matters is what’s on the inside. Lest we forget this important fact, all we need to do is look to our fellow brothers and sisters in Africa to see plenty of black men who have failed miserably as “presidents” just as we have seen plenty of white and yellow ones do the same through the years.

Hope? Sure. I’ve got hope. I’ve got hope that one day we will meet a man, or a woman, who wants this job and actually walks their talk and doesn’t just talk it. I’ve got hope that one day a man such as Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. or Nelson Mandela or even a woman such as Mother Theresa or Oprah will walk in one day and say something like “about that job application I noticed in the paper the other day…. you know, I might be interested if the price was right…” That person, if one exists at all in this day and age, is not going to THREATEN – as Obama did the other day at his speech before AIPAC – but they are going to ENLIGHTEN.

That person, should they exist…. They are going to be above threatening. Above imperialism. Above bullying. Above “spin.” Above kowtowing and above lobbying. They are even, dare I say, going to be above “God and country” — and instead be joyously and wholeheartedly on the side of Humanity itself and nothing more nor less. For in the end, we are human beings knowingly or unknowingly disguising ourselves beneath various different masks of religions and nationalities.

What we need to do now is begin to slowly and cautiously pull down our masks and reveal what is really underneath – human faces. Gorgeous and beautiful living breathing human faces of all different colors and ethnicities. If we are going to bring religion into this matter at all, and time has already told that it is a place where it simply does not belong, but if we are, then let us pray that one day this person will grace us with their humble presence at the doorsteps of our office and say “hey, maybe I’ll give it a whirl if you’ll have me.” And for THIS I will pray everyday. THIS is my hope.