Counter Punch
December 3, 2004
The EU, US, Israel and Iran
The Good, the Bad, the Ugly and the "Mullahs"
Dr. Sasan Fayazmanesh
The international community now realizes that Iran--with missiles that can
reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia - does not only pose a
threat to the security of Israel, but to the security and stability of the
whole world. Indeed, Iran has replaced Saddam Hussein as the world's number
one
exporter of terror, hate and instability. (Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan
Shalom speech at the U.N. General Assembly September 23, 2004)
In reference to a deal being worked out between Iran and the EU
negotiators, Britain, France and Germany, over Iran freezing uranium
processing, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said on November 20,
2004 that "my view would be that the incentives of the Europeans only work
against the backdrop of the United States being strong and firm on this
issue . . . In the vernacular, it's kind of a good-cop bad-cop arrangement.
If it works, we'll all have been successful" (New York Times, November 21,
2004).
Instead of the "good-cop bad-cop" scenario, it would have been more apt for
Mr. Armitage to use the good, the bad and the ugly scheme, since Iran faces
not two characters, but three. The third character, the "ugly," is played by
Israel. Mr. Armitage conveniently left out the important role of this last
character. But this is quite expected. Israel, as the late Edward Said used
to say, is the last taboo. It is sacrosanct. No mention of it in the context
of the US foreign policy is possible. It is the Teflon state. Nothing sticks
to it, not even the charge of spying.
It was only a few months ago-to be exact, late August 2004-when it was first
reported that the FBI had discovered a spy network in the Department of
Defense which passed confidential documents, particularly those detailing
the Bush Administration's policy toward Iran, to the main Israeli lobby
group in the US, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
AIPAC-whose website proudly states that through "more than 2,000 meetings
with members of Congress - at home and in Washington - AIPAC activists help
pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year"-brought out
its heavy artillery. All the AIPAC men and women, including its top
leadership, the leadership of other Israeli lobby groups, Congressmen,
Israeli officials, and even the officials in the current Administration,
went to work and used the O.J. Simpson defense- i.e., anti-Semitism of the
FBI agent involved-to put an end to the whole sordid affair in a few days.
Indeed, the representatives of both Presidential candidates, namely,
Condoleezza Rice and Richard Holbrooke, appeared at AIPAC's "Largest-Ever
National Summit" on October 24-25 in Hollywood, Florida, to pay homage to an
agency that was accused of involvement in spying. Soon after, AIPAC's usual
website, which was temporarily halted by the cries of we are "loyal U.S.
citizens," went back to what it does best, i.e., trying to lead the US to
wage another war in the Middle East, this time against Iran:
Today, AIPAC has 65,000 members across all 50 states who are at the
forefront of the most vexing issues facing Israel today: stopping Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons, fighting terrorism and achieving peace. And above
all, ensuring that Israel is strong enough to meet these challenges. (AIPAC
website)
As I have shown in CounterPunch and elsewhere, Israel, its lobby groups, its
Congressmen, its friends in the Administration-both the cons and the
neocons-as well as its Chalabi-like mercenaries, who are in the business of
fabricating lies, have been trying for sometime to repeat in Iran what they
did in Iraq. That is, by accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons, they
have attempted to get the UN to pass economic sanctions against Iran. Once
the sanctions are imposed, Israel and its cohorts believe, Iran will be
weakened sufficiently to make a military operation against it succeed. That
would destroy yet another supporter of the Palestinians and would make
Israel's rule over the entire land between "the river of Egypt to the great
river, the Euphrates" possible.
Smelling blood, in recent months Israel and the gang increased their
attacks. As the above quotation from Silvan Shalom shows, Iran was said to
have "replaced Saddam Hussein as the world's number one exporter of terror,
hate and instability," and Iranian missiles were ready to reach "London,
Paris, Berlin and southern Russia." Similarly, Ariel Sharon said on October
25, 2004 that "Iran is making every effort to arm itself with nuclear
weapons, with ballistic means of delivery, and it is preparing an enormous
terrorist network with Syria and Lebanon." This was, of course, the same
Sharon who as far back as February 5, 2002, had told The Times of London
that "Iran is the center of 'world terror,' and as soon as an Iraq conflict
is concluded, he will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do list'".
Even though the "Iraqi conflict" is not yet concluded, Sharon was doing his
best to push the US in the direction of destroying Iran. In other words, the
tail was once again trying to wag the dog.
The cons and the neocons also went on a massive campaign to assist the
leader of "the only democracy" in the Middle East, or as some know him, the
"butcher of Sabra and Shatila." On August 2, 2004, in reference to the EU's
attempt to engage Iran in a dialogue concerning processing uranium and to
prevent another US-Israeli (USraeli) war in the Middle East, the national
security adviser Condoleezza Rice warned: "The Iranians have been trouble
for a very long time. And it's one reason that this regime has to be
isolated in its bad behavior, not quote-unquote, 'engaged'" (Reuters, Aug 2,
2004). This was, of course, the same Condoleezza Rice who on September 8,
2002, warned the world about Iraq's non-existing nuclear weapons by saying
"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Similarly, on August 17, 2004, the Undersecretary of State John Bolton-who
after discussing the Iran case with the EU and Russians often stops in Tel
Aviv before returning to Washington-said at a neocon event held at the
Hudson Institute:
"Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is moving it further and
further down the path toward international isolation. We cannot let Iran, a
leading sponsor of international terrorism, acquire nuclear weapons and the
means to deliver them to Europe, most of central Asia and the Middle East,
or beyond. Without serious, concerted, immediate intervention by the
international community, Iran will be well on the road to doing so." (US
Department of State)
Then, of course, there are the USraeli mercenaries and hirelings who, like
the old Iraqi National Congress, are in the business of cooking up evidence
for sanctioning Iran and ultimately attacking it. One such group is the
Mujahideen-e Khalq Organization, the "good terrorists" who used to work for
Saddam, but now work for the USraelis. Every few weeks these Chalabi-like,
men-in-black characters-and also Fox News commentators-come up with some
"top secret satellite photos" showing non-existent nuclear weapons sites in
Iran (how a US designated terrorist organization gets top secret satellite
photos is, of course, beyond one's imagination).
It was apparently one of these men-in-black characters who was behind Colin
Powell's embracing revelation on November 17, 2004. According to the
Washington Post, "a 'walk-in' source approached U.S. intelligence earlier
this month with more than 1,000 pages purported to be Iranian drawings and
technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to
enable Iranian ballistic missiles to deliver an atomic strike" (November 19,
2004). The Secretary of State, who seems to be easily duped, then made a
great "revelation" by stating that he was given "some information that would
suggest that they [Iranians] have been actively working on delivery systems.
"I'm not talking about uranium or fissile material or the warhead," Powell
told the reporters, "I'm talking about what one does with a warhead"
(Washington Post, November 19, 2004). This revelation, similar to the
"irrefutable evidence" that the Secretary of State presented in February of
2003 at the UN Security Council concerning the Iraqi's WMD, of course turned
out to be nothing but another fabrication.
Such non-existent sites are also reported by other individuals who are in
the business of fabricating sensational news. On September 16, 2004, David
Albright, a former arms inspector, who now heads some "Institute for Science
and International Security," made a "disclosure" which appeared as headlines
in many major US news outlets. This "prominent international expert,"
according to Reuters, "disclosed" that the "new satellite images showed the
Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran may be a site for research,
testing and production of nuclear weapons." Reuters then added that a
"senior U.S. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity" that "this
clearly shows the intention to develop weapons." The day after, IAEA chief
ElBaradei stated: "We do not have any indication that this site has
nuclear-related activities (BBC September 17, 2004). As usual, the news
disappeared without a single major US news media reporting that the earlier
story was a lie.
All this effort on the part of USraelis, however, has so far failed to
produce the desired result. Having lied too many times, USraelis have had a
hard time convincing the rest of the world that Iran's missiles will soon
rain on London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia. Exasperated by their
futile efforts, in late November, 2004, the "bad" and the "ugly" had to
watch with dismay a deal finalized between the "good" and what the USraelis
call the "mullahs" (this is a pejorative and demonizing term used by the
USraelis in reference to the primitive nature of the ruling clergy in Iran,
as if the Zionist rulers of the "Jewish State" or the Christian
fundamentalist rulers of the US are any more modern!).
On November 29, 2004, the Board of Governors of IAEA passed a resolution
stating what the "mullahs" had said all along, i.e., "all declared nuclear
material in Iran has been accounted for." It further announced what the
"mullahs" had demanded all along, i.e., the halt to enriching uranium by
Iran "is a voluntary confidence building measure, not a legal obligation."
It also noted with "interest" a deal made between the EU negotiators,
Britain, France and Germany, and the "mullahs." According to this deal, not
only Iran does not give up its right to enrich uranium permanently, but it
will get some goodies from the EU. For example, the EU will resume trade
negotiations with Iran, which had been halted since the enrichment
controversy arose. Also, the EU will actively support Iran joining the World
Trade Organization, which so far the US has prevented. In addition, the EU
"will confirm its determination to combat terrorism, including the
activities of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, such as Mojahedin-e Khalq
Organization" (IRNA, November 15, 2004).
In the final analysis, the "mullahs" have, at least for now, outfoxed the
"bad" and the "ugly." If the "good" can also deliver the promised goodies,
the clever "mullahs" will definitely have the last laugh.
* Sasan Fayazmanesh is a professor of economics at Fresno State University.
http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan12032004.html
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly and the "Mullahs" |
06 Dec 2004 08:05:41 AM |
|
|
MonsieurStat a écrit:
Counter Punch
December 3, 2004
Counter-punch, hahahaha. More propaganda *****.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly and the "Mullahs" |
06 Dec 2004 11:52:05 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:VGZsd.351716$SM5.20518@news.easynews.com...
MonsieurStat a écrit:
Counter Punch
December 3, 2004
Counter-punch, hahahaha. More propaganda *****.
J.
No kidding!
Here's one from one of those Anti-semite-Radical-Israeli-Lenenist-Jews
( A university Prof, no less!)
Stat.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon02232004.html
Showdown at The Hague
Israel's Apartheid Wall on Trial
By NEVE GORDON
Jerusalem.
Imagine a domestic terrorist cell loose in the city. They have already
murdered a few people. The intelligence agency claims that members of the
black community are harboring them, and their victims are almost always
white. Since the city is more or less segregated, the police commissioner
decides to erect a 25 foot concrete wall around the different black
neighborhoods. All access to and from each neighborhood is blocked, except
for a single gate which is open from 7 am to 9 am and then again from 5 pm to
7 pm. Special permits to pass through the gate are distributed to a select
few.
The black population is outraged. Their leaders protest the siege and decide
to sue the police. In their petition to the court they underscore that the
commissioner's reaction constitutes a form of collective punishment informed
by racism. Thousands of innocent men and women cannot reach work, their
children cannot attend schools or universities, hospitals are out of bounds,
and patients are dying because they do not receive medical care. "Our life
has become unbearable," they say.
A date is set for the trial, but a few days before the hearing, the police
commissioner notifies the public that he is unwilling to show up in court. He
summons a press conference and tells the reporters that this is a security
issue, not a legal one.
This disturbing story is but an analogy of the Israeli and Palestinian
positions now being argued at the Hague.
On the one hand, Israel is unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of the
International Court of Justice and has concentrated all of its efforts on a
public relations campaign. Its major argument is that while the wall is
uncomfortable and may lead to inconveniences, one cannot compare a bit of
discomfort with the deaths of innocent lives. The security of its citizens,
the Israeli government argues, is more important.
To make its point clear, Israel has brought a shattered bus -- the remains of
a bloody suicide attack -- to the Hague. Parents whose children have been
murdered have been flown in, as has an entourage of university students.
Their goal is to convincingly present Israel's position, which can be summed
up in four words: We are the victims.
The Palestinian delegation, on the other hand, has filed a well-documented
petition against the wall, claiming that Israel is using the terrorist
attacks as pretence to strangle a whole population. Israel's true goal, they
argue, is to undermine the Palestinian infrastructure of existence and to
undercut the possibility of creating a viable Palestinian State. The wall for
them is a catastrophe, a weapon of dispossession, expropriation and expulsion
whose major target is the civilian population. Not unlike the terrorists, it
also makes no distinction between civilians and combatants.
Israel's campaign is informed by two major fallacies. First, it conveniently
ignores the fact that the wall is not being built on the 1967 border (which
is the internationally recognized one), but rather deep inside Palestinian
territory. Why cut through towns and villages, destroy and confiscate fields
and olive groves, separate between farmers and their lands, between the sick
and hospitals if the objective is security? If security were indeed the goal,
wouldn't it be more logical to erect the wall between Israel and the West
Bank, and not inside the West Bank?
Second, Israel like every other country has both the right and obligation to
defend the lives of its citizens. The major reason the Israeli government is
failing to protect its citizenry is not because it isn't building the wall
fast enough, as Israel's Chief of Staff claimed after the last suicide
bombing. Nor can the blame be put on its military, which is by far the most
powerful one in the Middle East.
The major reason Israeli citizens are not safe is because the government has
decided to continue the 37 year-old occupation and oppression of another
people. The only way Israelis and Palestinians will ever be safe is if Israel
ends the very occupation that this separation wall intends to perpetuate by
confiscating more and more land.
Like the imaginary wall built in the midst of a city to protect it from
terrorists, the real wall that is now being built in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem is both immoral and impractical. It is, accordingly, inimical to
Israel's own interests. Paradoxically, then, if the International Court of
Justice rules in favor of the Palestinians, it will also be ruling in
Israel's interests, for it is in Israel's long-term and therefore true
interests that the Court find it guilty.
Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University, Israel, and can be
reached at
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly and the "Mullahs" |
07 Dec 2004 07:43:23 AM |
|
|
MonsieurStat a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:VGZsd.351716$SM5.20518@news.easynews.com...
MonsieurStat a écrit:
Counter Punch
December 3, 2004
Counter-punch, hahahaha. More propaganda *****.
J.
No kidding!
Here's one from one of those Anti-semite-
Yeah, and you wallow in it.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
