Gareth Porter--Heinonen Pushed Dubious Iran Nuclear Weapons Intel (IPS)

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52043

 

Heinonen Pushed Dubious Iran Nuclear Weapons Intel Analysis by Gareth Porter* Commentary by William O. Beeman: This is a definitive report on the highly questionable information cooked up by IAEA Deputy Director Olli Heinonen on Iran's nuclear program. It explains quite a bit about the "shift" in tone at the IAEA. I emphasize that IAEA reports still clearly state that "no nuclear material has been diverted" for military use in Iran, i.e. there is no proof of a nuclear weapons program. Gareth Porter is a scrupulously honest and thorough investigator.  WASHINGTON, Jul 2, 2010 (IPS) - Olli Heinonen, the Finnish nuclear engineer who resigned Thursday after five years as deputy director for safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was the driving force in turning that agency into a mechanism to support U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran. Heinonen was instrumental in making a collection of intelligence documents showing a purported Iranian nuclear weapons research programme the central focus of the IAEA's work on Iran. The result was to shift opinion among Western publics to the view that Iran had been pursuing a covert nuclear weapons programme. But his embrace of the intelligence documents provoked a fierce political struggle within the Secretariat of the IAEA, because other officials believed the documents were fraudulent. Heinonen took over the Safeguards Department in July 2005 - the same month that the George W. Bush administration first briefed top IAEA officials on the intelligence collection. The documents portrayed a purported nuclear weapons research programme, originally called the "Green Salt" project, that included efforts to redesign the nosecone of the Shahab-3 missile, high explosives apparently for the purpose of triggering a nuclear weapon and designs for a uranium conversion facility. Later the IAEA referred to the purported Iranian activities simply as the "alleged studies". The Bush administration was pushing the IAEA to use the documents to accuse Iran of having had a covert nuclear weapons programme. The administration was determined to ensure that the IAEA Governing Board would support referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council for action on sanctions, as part of a larger strategy to force Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programme. Long-time IAEA Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei and other officials involved in investigating and reporting on Iran's nuclear programme were immediately sceptical about the authenticity of the documents. According to two Israeli authors, Yossi Melman and Meir Javadanfar, several IAEA officials told them in interviews in 2005 and 2006 that senior officials of the agency believed the documents had been "fabricated by a Western intelligence organisation". Heinonen, on the other hand, supported the strategy of exploiting the collection of intelligence documents to put Iran on the defensive. His approach was not to claim that the documents' authenticity had been proven but to shift the burden of proof to Iran, demanding that it provide concrete evidence that it had not carried out the activities portrayed in the documents. From the beginning, Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, denounced the documents as fabrications. In Governing Board meetings and interviews, Soltanieh pointed to several indicators, including the absence of official stamps showing receipt of the document by a government office and the absence of any security markings. The tensions between Heinonen and the senior officials over the intelligence documents intensified in early 2008, when Iran provided detailed documentation to the agency disproving a key premise of the intelligence documents. Kimia Maadan, a private Iranian company, was shown in the intelligence documents as having designed a uranium conversion facility as part of the alleged military nuclear weapons research programme. Iran proved to the satisfaction of those investigating the issue, however, that Kimia Maadan had been created by Iran's civilian atomic energy agency solely to carry out a uranium ore processing project and had gone out of business before it fulfilled the contract. Senior IAEA officials then demanded that Heinonen distance the organisation from the documents by inserting a disclaimer in future agency reports on Iran that it could not vouch for the authenticity of the documents. Instead Heinonen gave a "technical briefing" for IAEA member countries in February 2008 featuring a diagram on which the ore processing project and the uranium processing project were both carried out by the firm and shared the same military numbering system. The IAEA report published just three days earlier established, however, that the ore processing project number -- 5/15 -- had been assigned to it not by the military but by the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran. And the date on which it was assigned was August 1999 - many months before the purported nuclear weapons programme was shown to have been organised. Heinonen carefully avoided endorsing the documents as authentic. He even acknowledged that Iran had spotted technical errors in the one-page design for a small-scale facility for uranium conversion, and that there were indeed "technical inconsistencies" in the diagram. He also admitted Iran had provided open source publications showing spherical firing systems similar to the one depicted in the intelligence documents on alleged tests of high explosives. Heinonen suggested in his presentation that the agency did not yet have sufficient information to come to any firm conclusions about those documents. In the May 2008 IAEA report, however, there was no mention of any such caveats about the documents. Instead, the report used language that was clearly intended to indicate that the agency had confidence in the intelligence documents: "The documentation presented to Iran appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, is detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent." That language, on which Heinoen evidently insisted, did not represent a consensus among senior IAEA officials. One senior official suggested to IPS in September 2009 that the idea that documents came from different sources was not completely honest. "There are intelligence-sharing networks," said the official. It was possible that one intelligence organisation could have shared the documents with others, he explained. "That gives us multiple sources consistent over time," said the official. The same official said of the collection of intelligence documents, "It's not difficult to cook up." Nevertheless, Heinonen's position had clearly prevailed. And in the final year of ElBaradei's leadership of the agency, the Safeguards Department became an instrument for member states - especially France, Britain, Germany and Israel - to put pressure on ElBaradei to publish summaries of intelligence reports portraying Iran as actively pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. The active pressure of the United States and its allies on behalf of the hard line toward Iran was the main source of Heinonen's power on the issue. Those states have been feeding intelligence on alleged covert Iranian nuclear activities to the Safeguards Division for years, and Heinonen knew that ElBaradei could not afford to confront the U.S.-led coalition openly over the issue. The Bush administration had threatened to replace ElBaradei in 2004 and had reluctantly accepted his reelection as director-general in 2005. ElBaradei was not strong enough to threaten to fire the main antagonist over the issue of alleged studies. ElBaradei’s successor Yukio Amano is even less capable of adopting an independent position on the issues surrounding the documents. The political dynamics of the IAEA ensure that Heinonen's successor is certain to continue the same line on the Iran nuclear issue and intelligence documents as Heinonen's.

Interview with William O. Beeman: Iranians Deny the Arrogant Literature of the West Kourosh Ziabari

Salem-News.com (Jun-28-2010 10:36)

Iranians Deny the Arrogant Literature of the West

Kourosh Ziabari Salem-News.com

Kourosh and Prof. Beeman discuss a variety of Iran-involved topics including the media propaganda, nuclear dossier and the prospect of revolution.

(TEHRAN) - Prof. William O. Beeman is the head of anthropology department at the University of Minnesota. His inimitable and independent approach toward the current affairs of Iran, one of the most controversial countries of the world, resembles the attitude of Noam Chomsky in terms of perspective and mindset and has cost him his reputation, professional credit.

Regrettably, he was insulted and attacked by a number of American mainstream media and fanatic neoconservatives over the past years and even his academic colleagues blamed him for what they considered to be his support for the main pivot of the “axis of evil”.

Prof. Beeman who speaks the Persian language fluently believes that Iranian people should not be treated with disdain and arrogance since their ancient superiority and historical backgrounds causes them to be resistant toward the hostile rhetoric and inimical literature.

He says that it’s not justifiable with any conscious and knowledgeable mind to allow Israel to accumulate an arsenal of 200 atomic warheads while putting lethal pressure on Iran to suspend its civilian nuclear program.

In an interview for the Foreign Policy Journal, I talked to Prof. Beeman on a variety of Iran-involved topics including the media propaganda, nuclear dossier and the prospect of revolution.

The Islamic Revolution of Iran emerged alongside a series of brisk transformations and makeovers in the arrangement of international deals and equations. One of these prominent contributions was the permanent dissolution of CENTO pact. How do you perceive that? How did the Iranian Revolution of 1979 impact upon the formation of international relations?

 

The Islamic movement has been active for more than 100 years. One of the most important figures, Jamal ed-Din al-Afghani, (Asadabadi for most Iranians) was very influential throughout the Islamic world. The Islamic world was suffering from military and economic oppression from Europe, largely because of the advantages the West gained through the Industrial Revolution. He urged the following remedies:

Purification of Islam– He claimed that the Islamic world had lapsed because faith in Islam had lapsed. Renewed faith and practice in Islam was necessary.Reform– He urged Islamic leaders to re-examine Shari’a Law and practice to modernize in conformity with the modern world. One of his followers, Mohammad Abduh of Egypt, “opened the door of ‘Ijtehad” to enact legal reform.Resistance– He urged Muslims everywhere to resist colonial influence. This led to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and indirectly to the Iranian Revolution.

All three of these elements were active in the Iranian Revolution. The Iranian revolution was the first revolution in the Middle East to oppose Western colonialism in the name of Islam. This was a complete fulfillment of the promise of the Islamic movement. It was very inspirational for the rest of the Islamic world. There was one difficulty–the Sunni world was uncomfortable that it was undertaken by the Shi’a community, but Ayatollah Khomeini’s picture was on the walls of Muslim homes everywhere in the Islamic world from Morocco to the Philippines.

So, do you believe that the new government of Iran managed to polarize the distribution of political power by giving birth to a new regional hub and fading the hegemony of the U.S. and Russia?

Yes, I agree. However, just as the original Islamic movement identified the alliance between corrupt Middle Eastern leaders and European colonial power as the basis for misery in the Middle East in the 19th and 20th Centuries, so today do the leaders of some Middle Eastern nations, who are allied with the West, decry Iran. However, the people of the Islamic World respect and admire Iran’s willingness to carry out the philosophy of “Neither East nor West.” So there is a distinction between leaders of Islamic States, many of whom are even afraid of the Iranian philosophy, and the people, who admire the Iranian philosophy. Again, this distinction is more than 150 years old.

Was the omnipotent catchphrase of Iranian revolutionary thinking, i.e. the supportive umbrella for the oppressed nations and subjugated people of the world, a major factor in the ultimate victory of anti-Western movement of Iranians in 1979 which was spearheaded by Imam Khomeini?

Yes, actually Imam Khomeini’s philosophy was inspirational for many people throughout the world; I certainly support this ideal. This has been one of the hallmarks of the Iranian Revolution as it goes forward. However, I would be less than honest if I didn’t admit that this ideal has not been completely realized in Iran. Iran’s support for downtrodden people in Lebanon and the Palestinian world shows the power of this philosophy. It is an ideal toward which we all must strive. Consequently, people must continually make their leaders aware of these ideals, and hold them to those ideals. This should be a theme in the next Iranian elections, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, Iran has been grappling with a huge amount of black propaganda and psychological attacks vindicated by the corporate and so-called independent media of the West since the dissolution of the U.S.-backed monarchy. How do you perceive that?

Unfortunately, Iran has become the most popular villain for American politicians. Both Democrats like Representative Gary Ackerman and Republicans like Senator Sam Brownback can attack Iran and become popular. In fact no American politician ever lost a vote by attacking Iran. Partly, Americans are still mad about the American hostages in 1979-80. They are also mad about Iranian opposition to Israel, which is largely supported in the U.S. It wasn’t always so. In the 1980′s the universal villain was Libya, and the rhetoric against Iran today is almost exactly the same as the rhetoric against Libya. There is a practical reason for this. Lobbying groups, such as AIPAC have enormous influence in the United States They review all candidates for election, and have influence over every newspaper, television and radio station. Their sponsored organizations, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have millions of dollars behind them, and large publicity agencies working for them, their opinions and editorials appear in every U.S. media outlet every day. It is very difficult to counteract these people. They are actively working to promote attacks on Iran.

As you implied, the root of anti-Iranian sentiments lies in the nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic which the Western governments and their affiliated corporate media portray as threatening to international peace. Should Iran pursue its nuclear programs under the current pressures?

Iran is granted the “inalienable right” to the development of peaceful nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States and some European powers want to claim that Iran should be different, and should have its treaty rights denied, because some people thought that Iran “might” be making weapons. There is absolutely no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and it should be allowed to continue to exercise its rights under the Treaty.

How should the Western powers deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program? Will the continuation of current “stick and carrot” stance be fruitful in this framework?

Iranians will grant legitimate respect to those who deserve it–to honorable leaders, virtuous scholars and wise teachers. They hate “ghodrat talabi” (Desire for illegal power) when people try to exercise power without legitimacy. Yazid is an example of such a person. Just as Imam Hossein would not yield to the illegitimate authority of Yazid, so will the Iranian people not yield to the illegitimate authority of, for example, George W. Bush. The strong sense of spiritual purity and justice is a characteristic of Iranian life, and Iranians will resist injustice and illegitimate exercise of power, even if they must die for it.

=================================================

The latest writer to join Salem-News.com's team; Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian media correspondent, freelance journalist and the author of Book 7+1. He is a contributing writer for websites and magazines in the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Hong Kong, Bulgaria, South Korea, Belgium, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. He was once a member of Stony Brook University Publications’ editorial team and Media Left magazine’s contributing writer, as well as a contributing writer for Finland’s Award-winning Ovi Magazine. As a young Iranian journalist, he has been interviewed and quoted by several mainstream mediums, including BBC World Service, PBS Media Shift, the Media Line network, Deutsch Financial Times and L.A. Times. Currently, he works for the Foreign Policy Journal as a media correspondent. He is a member of Tlaxcala Translators Network for Linguistic Diversity and World Student Community for Sustainable Development. You can write to Kourosh Ziabari at: kziabari@gmail.com

Iranians Deny the Arrogant Literature of the West

Salem-News.com

William O. Beeman--Regime Change in Iran: The Fantasy That Will Not Die (New America Media)

http://newamericamedia.org/2010/06/regime-change-in-iran-the-fantasy-that-will-not-die.php


Regime Change in Iran: The Fantasy That Will Not Die

William O. Beeman
New America Media

June 18, 2010

The American political establishment will not give up the fantasy that they can somehow bring about regime change in Iran—that the United States can somehow topple the Iranian leadership just like it supposedly toppled the Soviet Union.

Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Sam Brownback of Kansas have introduced legislation (S-3008) that, in Cornyn’s own words: “. . . states that it is U.S. policy to support the Iranian people’s efforts to establish a truly democratic and accountable government and free themselves from the regime headed by Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. ”

Self-avowed neoconservative Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on June 14 entitled "Iran's Revolution: Year 2.” It calls on the Obama administration to support the Green Movement to effect regime change. He writes: “By throwing in his lot with the freedom movement, (President Obama) would surely increase the odds that we won’t have to live with a nuclear bomb controlled by virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic clerics. Democrats, once the champions of promoting pro-democracy movements, need to understand that the good that they can do for the people of Iran far exceeds the great harm that comes from doing nothing.”

Not to be outdone, Democrats are doing something, too. Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) introduced a resolution in 2008 with Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) declaring that Iran was inimical to "the vital national security interests of the United States" and "demanding" that the president impose a full-scale naval, air and land blockade on Iran effectively, an act of war. The resolution failed, but Ackerman continues to press for similar actions from the Obama administration.

The question of regime change in Iran is warmed-over Cold War logic dating from the Revolution of 1978-79. In 1980, Edward Sa'id wrote a trenchant piece in the Columbia Journalism Review. He made the point that the dominant government stance after the Revolution had nothing to do with understanding Iran or Iranian history. Instead it asked just one question: "Is Islam for or against the United States?" And, of course, he meant Iran as the embodiment of Islam at that moment.

The answer that has emerged over four decades in the regime change circles is clearly that "Islam (read Iran) is against the United States." It is from that point that the fantasizing begins: How to destroy this anti-American regime.

The government of Israel has succeeded in creating a codicil--also right out of the Cold War: "What threatens Israel also threatens the United States."

The answers are Cold War answers. No imagination. No attempt to understand Iran in social, cultural or historical terms. Just a repeat of what "worked" to bring down the Soviet Union short of direct attack: isolation, inflicting economic pain, scaring the world into thinking “the enemy” is dangerous, and finally fomenting and encouraging internal dissent.

The reason this rhetoric works is because the U.S. public and perhaps many Europeans are already primed to accept both this logic and these solutions having been taught to fear the Soviet Union for three decades. However these stratagems won't work with Iran. Iran is not the Soviet Union. Iran sees itself not as the aggressor, but rather the defender.

All of these strategies have thus far failed.

Isolation of Iran is not working. At a recent conference on the Middle East in London, a leading Italian economist said: "We are Iran's largest European trade partner. When our businessmen show up in Tehran, there are three Chinese businessmen waiting in the outer office. The U.S. is driving Iran into the hands of Asian partners, and ruining our business with them--and for what? To satisfy some American ideology?" The only nation that truly desires Iranian isolation and believes that it can be achieved is the United States.

Inflicting economic pain is not only ineffective, it is counter-productive. We may have brought the Soviet Union down by creating an arms race that they couldn't sustain, but nothing we have or could do to Iran is going to cripple the country to the point of collapse, and it is laughable to think that that could happen. The Iranian people are inconvenienced by these low-level unilateral economic sanctions, such as those pushed through the United Nations Security Council on June 9, 2010, and the U.S. Treasury on June 16. They thus are embittered about the United States, but nothing more. It most decidedly does not make U.S. overtures to them to overthrow their own government more probable.

Scaring the world about Iran has been a complete failure outside of the United States. No one has any proof whatever that Iran has a nuclear weapons program--it is a red herring, and the world knows it. The Non-aligned Movement has continually issued support for Iran’s nuclear energy program. Even if there were a nuclear military program, Iran is years away from having anything that could pass for an effective weapon. The Gulf States may be concerned, as they always have been, about the Shi'a community, since they constitute either a majority (Bahrain) or a significant minority (UAE, Saudi Arabia), but the dead-end idea promulgated by the Bush administration and carrying forward, that Iran is about to attack its neighbors--and with a non-existent nuclear warhead--is the stuff of fiction. Iran would destroy its own economy if it did this. Its relations with its neighbors are completely symbiotic.

Finally, Cornyn and Brownback, Ackerman, Gerecht, and others of their ilk utterly misunderstand the post-1999-election Green Movement in Iran. If the movement is eventually successful, it will not usher in some kind of purging revolution that will create a pro-American government. The Green Movement is about legitimacy of leadership within the current Iranian governmental framework, not about overthrowing the government. Nor will trying to foment dissent in Iran's many ethnic communities, another strategy favored by the regime-change fans, be any more effective. The many ethnic groups that make up Iran’s pluralistic civilization have identified with Great Iranian civilization for more than two millennia.

The worst part of the push for regime change is that the more the United States and other external powers interfere in Iranian affairs, the less likely it is that change will occur. Has no one in power read Iranian history? Does no one understand how Iran has constructed the United States in its own paranoid fantasies? U.S. interference taints every attempt at reform from within, make no mistake.

If there is to be regime change in Iran, it will be from within, over time (and not such a long time frame, either). Yes, talk about the real problem of human rights. Yes, engage in dialogue, but give up the Cold War strategizing with bankrupt, inappropriate methods. They won't work. And open chatter about more strategies for "regime change" merely feeds the Iranian power elite the stuff they need to blame their every weakness and failing on the United States.

William O. Beeman is professor and chair of the Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota. He has lived and conducted research in Iran and the Middle East for more than 30 years and is the author of The “Great Satan” vs. the “Mad Mullahs”: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other (Chicago, 2008).

William O. Beeman--Response to Reuel Marc Gerecht "Help Iran's Reformers"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/opinion/l24iran.html?ref=letters


June 23, 2010

Help Iran’s Reformers?

To the Editor:

Reuel Marc Gerecht correctly assesses the winds of change in the Green movement in Iran (“Iran’s Revolution: Year 2,” Op-Ed, June 15), but he is wrong about the ability of the United States to effectively aid that movement.

Sadly, decades of United States interference in Iranian affairs have guaranteed that any official American support of an Iranian reform movement will poison that movement with the plausible accusation of another round of American desire to dominate Iran.

This happened in 1953 with the C.I.A.-engineered overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, in the 1980s with the tilt toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and today in the United States-led move to curtail Iran’s nuclear energy program.

The reformers have said clearly and repeatedly that they don’t want our “help.” So why would we force it upon them — only to guarantee their failure through invidious association with us?

Iranians are not children. Political evolution in the Islamic Republic is the only way to guarantee permanent reform.

William O. Beeman

London, June 15, 2010

The writer, professor and chairman of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, is the author of “The ‘Great Satan’ vs. the ‘Mad Mullahs’: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other.”

(A version of this letter appeared in print on June 24, 2010, on page A32 of the New York edition.)

Minnesota Peace Project Letter to Senator Amy Klobuchar on Israeli Sea Actions

Dear Senator Klobuchar:

The Minnesota Peace Project (MPP) calls on you to speak out in condemnation of the attack by Israeli forces on the humanitarian aid convoy to Gaza.   As Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur said “Israel is guilty of shocking behavior by using deadly weapons against unarmed civilians on ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas.”

Despite the fact that the Israeli military seized all cameras and imprisoned all reporters on the ship we do know:

·         Under article 3 of the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, it is an international crime for any person to seize or exercise control over a ship by force, and  also a crime to injure or kill any person in the process,

·         One cannot attack a ship and then claim self-defense if the people on board resist the unlawful use of violence,

·         Israel’s attempt to execute a full-scale public relations battle to spin this commando attack on an unarmed civilian ship filled with humanitarian aid into an action of self defense lacks all credibility.

We join others in the international community in calling for an immediate end to the Gaza blockade, a massive form of collective punishment of innocent civilians.    Our continued tolerance of this situation makes us complicit in criminal practices that are threatening the survival of an entire beleaguered community.  Israel’s continued used of disproportionate force has proven to be disastrous for both Israelis and Palestinians and has caused severe set-backs for the peace process.

We urge you to heed the advice of Nobel Peace Laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter who collectively released a statement Monday morning condemning the Israeli attack and calling for a full investigation into the incident with a view to mandating action to end the closure of the Gaza Strip.

Peace-loving people in Minnesota and around the world want an end to the blockade, an end to the illegal settlements and an end to the occupation of Palestine.   We urge you to call for a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel until the blockade is ended and the Israeli government demonstrates a serious commitment to the peace process.

Respectfully,

Roxanne Abbas and Omid Mohseni

For the Minnesota Peace Project

Yvonne Ridley--All At Sea (Middle East Monitor)

All at sea


http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/middle-east/1092-all-at-sea

By Yvonne Ridley

Comment by William O. Beeman: This is a very important article. The principle that those who board a ship illegally for whatever reason cannot under international law claim self defense completely eradicates the principal Israeli excuse for killing nine individuals trying to come to the aid of the citizens of Gaza in the recent action at sea. More dreadful is the fact that the United States will not condemn this clearly illegal action.


I wonder how many of you remember the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship the Achille Lauro way back in October 1985?

Four members of the Palestine Liberation Front took control of the liner off Egypt as she was sailing from Alexandria to Port Said.

It was a bungled operation in which the hijackers killed disabled Jewish-American passenger Leon Klinghoffer and then threw his body overboard.

The incident created headlines around the world and polarized people over the Palestinian cause. It also prompted the law makers to create new legislation making it an international crime for anyone to take a ship by force.

And this is the reason for the brief history lesson - under article 3 of the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, it is an international crime for any person to seize or exercise control over a ship by force, and also a crime to injure or kill any person in the process.

The treaty necessarily adopts a strict approach. One cannot attack a ship and then claim self-defence if the people on board resist the unlawful use of violence.

In other words, according to international law, the actions of the Israeli military were beyond the law and those involved should be treated no differently than, say, the Somali pirates who are also in the habit of boarding ships by force.

Any rights to self defence in such dramatic circumstances rests purely with the passengers and crew on board. Under international maritime law you are legally entitled to resist unlawful capture, abduction and detention.

What those on board the Freedom Flotilla did was perfectly legal. I believe they acted with great courage in the face of heavily armed IDF commandos, while others might have thought their actions reckless.

Whatever your view, a number paid the ultimate price for their international right to resist and hundreds more are locked up in the Zionist State, including my Press TV colleague Hassan al Banna Ghani who joined me on the first Viva Palestina convoy to Gaza last year.

Israel now stands virtually alone having exposed itself as a pariah state.

I wrote an article last year calling them the Pirates of the Mediterranean after they had illegally boarded other aid ships, kidnapping crew and passengers.

Now I want you to ask yourself this question … if a group of Somali pirates had forced their way onto half a dozen humanitarian aid ships from the West, slaughtering around nine or 10 people and injuring scores more what do you think the international reaction would have been?

Let me tell you. A NATO task force would by now be steaming towards the Horn of Africa accompanied by a couple of drones and various members of the press to record the occasion. (On a point of interest the Achille Lauro sank in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Somalia in 1994.)

So why is Israel allowed to get away with murder? In a pre-meditated act the Zionist State showed once again its total disregard for human life – and international law.

There were pensioners, women and children on board those ships which were carrying bags of cement, electric wheelchairs, toys, medicines and water purifiers for Gaza's people.

Realizing Israel had shot itself in the foot, the vile state’s leader Binyamin Netanyahu then started shooting from the lip.

He asked us to believe that his troops were acting in self-defence. And then, 24 hours later, given time to come up with more lies he told the world that the soldiers were armed with paintballs and had not expected to use their weapons. Not content with insulting our intelligence he said his nice, cuddly IDF folk had only boarded the boats to carry out an inspection and inventory.

Then backing him up was Mark Regev, the Zionist State’s political Pinocchio. He reckons these evil-doers on board the boats grabbed the IDF’s real guns and used them to fire on the soldiers.

These are the same soldiers that come from an elite, highly trained, crack squad … hmm Mr Regev, if that’s the case why would you send in the A-Team if they were just going to do an inventory?

And if they were such a hot squad how did a bunch of civilians manage to overpower them and give them a good slap?

Either Israeli soldiers fight like a bunch of old women – which Hizb’Allah says they do – or they intended to massacre those on board to make sure that no other peace activists get involved in trying to help the Palestinian people of Gaza.

Well if that was the aim then it has failed. As I write this some heroic friends of mine from the Free Gaza Movement are bound for Gaza now onboard the appropriately named ship Rachel Corrie.

In our thousands in our millions … today we are all Palestinians.

* Journalist Yvonne Ridley is also the European President of the International Muslim Womens Union, and a committed peace activist who was onboard the first boat to successfully break the siege of Gaza in 2008.

William O. Beeman--New York Times M istaken onIranian NPT Violations

Michael Slackman once again distorts reality in his New York Times reporting on Iran's nuclear program today (Monday, May 24) <http://tinyurl.com/2vk2m3o>. He writes: "Iran is already in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for refusing to answer questions from inspectors and restricting places they can visit."

Who has made this determination? First of all, it is patently not true, or based on such incredibly contentious and insubstantial grounds as to be utterly specious (and Slackman doesn't detail the basis for this judgement).

Although both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have also made this statement in general terms, I know of no arbiter who would be able to make a judgment on this.

If the United States (or the New York Times) wants to make a case for this outrageous canard, let them come forward with specifics, and let the United Nations set up a tribunal to determine if the charges hold water. I guarantee they do not. Iran remains in compliance with the NPT.

Best,

Bill Beeman
University of Minnesota

William O. Beeman--Oh Those Diabolically Tricky Iranians!

Oh, those Diabolically Tricky Iranians!
 
Driven to Distraction, the U.S. Engages in Schoolyard Behavior on Iran


William O. Beeman

It is bizarre watching the Washington talking heads falling all over

themselves trying to condemn Iran for actually taking up the American

offer to move their Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) to a third country. Oh those tricky Iranians! They actually accepted the American offer just as it was presented, and (gasp) they had the audacity to accept it while it was still on the table. Oh how diabolical! And then they went ahead and kept on enriching uranium so the American offer looked a lot less attractive to the West then it did in October.

And they did it for all the wrong reasons. They didn't cringe under American pressure like they were supposed to! They had a friendly talk with Turkey and Brazil and in total disrespect for the big American stick, agreed through the underhanded sneakiness of actual negotiations.

How purely evil. They should have stood still until we could beat them to a bloody pulp instead of this unsportsmanlike dodging and weaving. This left the White House sputtering, wheezing and gasping about how untrustworthy they were, and no one believed their intentions anyway.

My friends, sometimes we make bad bargains, and if the U.S. thinks that this is a bad bargain now, why did American officials offer it in the first place? Now Washington is stuck with egg on its face, its silly sanctions policy in shambles and risking offending Brazil and Turkey, upon whom it depends to carry out the sanctions policy. Russia now has the perfect excuse to escape the thumscrews Washington was putting on it, and China--well, forget it!

When are we going to stop playing schoolyard games with Iran and get down to real diplomacy? This is truly embarrassing behavior. Tit-for-tat, insults hurled, snippy rhetoric, take-backs. Honestly, seven year olds know how to play nicer than this.

What makes the entire exercise utterly silly is that Iran poses zero nuclear danger to anyone. The hyper-ventilation of commentators spouting hypothetical fantasy scenarios of Iran suddenly dropping the NPT and rolling out a bomb the next day from their secret undetected caves is worthy of ten Tom Clancy's. We have so much to gain by cooperating with Iran, including increased influence over their human-rights record. Why are we spinning our wheels in this useless and childish manner?

Bill BeemanUniversity of Minnesota

William O. Beeman--Is Iran a Nuclear Danger? Don’t Believe It!

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=66257a9422271ca87bdeddb383d4ad2c

Is Iran a Nuclear Danger? Don’t Believe It!

New America Media, News Analysis, William O. Beeman and Behrad Nakhai, Posted: May 05, 2010

In advance of this week’s United Nations Security Council Meeting on Nuclear Non-proliferation in New York, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed be gearing up for a fight. On NBC’s “Meet The Press” on May 2, she declared that, “Iran is in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

However, Clinton is mistaken. There is no proof whatsoever that Iran is engaged in nuclear weapons production — a fact re-affirmed by the National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007 and every report by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, Iran is guaranteed the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory.

These points were underscored by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his speech to the General Assembly on Monday, May 3. It is too bad that Ahmadinejad has such abysmally low credibility. Though his assertions were true, they were dismissed immediately by the Obama administration as “a stunt.” Here the old French proverb “if it isn’t true, it should be” is seen in reverse. Iran’s denial of a nuclear weapons program is assessed as “if it is true, it shouldn’t be.”

Consequently, the veiled accusations abound, usually in the form of a semi-rhetorical question: Is Iran a year away from making a nuclear bomb?

This is what has been whispered in Washington virtually every year since 1990. Merely asking the question seems to have made an Iranian nuclear weapons program a fact in many people’s minds, inspiring fear.

Moreover, this is a fear that threatens to spill over into violent action. Many people want to bomb Iran to stop this hypothetical program. On a frequent basis, a “parade” of Israeli officials comes to Washington to consult on Iran and presumably to renew Israel’s request for the U.S. administration’s blessing to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. The neo-conservatives, never fully out of the scene, fan the flames. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on February 11, stating, “America's central focus must be to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons in the first place. Doing so requires decisive, and likely military, action now, since there is essentially no likelihood that an Obama-inspired ‘regime of sanctions’ will achieve that objective.”

So, although Bolton, other neoconservatives and military hawks in Israel and the United States can’t prove that Iran is making weapons, they can insinuate it by fantasizing that a “turning point” is imminent whereby Iran could quickly produce a weapon. Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the conservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy and senior editor of Middle East Quarterly, told Mother Jones magazine on July 10, 2008: “It certainly appears from the last [International Atomic Energy Agency] report that Iran is on track to have enough kilos [of low enriched uranium that can be enriched to weapons grade] within a year…. What most people concentrate on is when Iran would have 600 to 700 kilos of its own low enriched uranium, which is enough to make enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb…. If everything works perfectly, [it would take] two months. If everything doesn't work perfectly, a bit longer. The answer would be the space of a few months."

On May 3, the New York Times breathlessly reported, with no verification and no source whatever that “[Iran’s] supply is now thought to be more than 2,100 kilograms, or about 4,600 pounds, enough for two bombs.”

These assessments would be both ominous and convincing if they were true, but it is false and utterly misleading. Unfortunately, Clawson, Bolton and those who make similar predictions know nothing about nuclear engineering. The truth is that there is little relationship between Iran’s current state of low enriched uranium and the production of a nuclear weapon. There are many intervening steps that would take years to accomplish.

Getting from low enriched uranium (LEU) to high enriched uranium (HEU) not only requires enough quality LEU, but also perfectly tuned working machineries that Iran currently lacks. Contrary to Clawson’s assertions, Iran is far from being at that point. The quality of the LEU is also questionable. Moreover, from all indications, Iran's current setup is fragile and prone to breakage. By some reports, the Iranian equipment is almost non-usable even for low enrichment purposes.

Even if another nation were to provide good quality LEU to Iran, Iran does not currently have the required resources to enrich the LEU to HEU. And if another nation were to provide Iran with HEU, Iran does not have the capability to assemble a test bomb, let alone a threatening bomb.

Commentators like Clawson make it appear trivial to assemble a “bomb” once HEU is obtained. In practice, however, handling of such HEU and the ability to assemble a working bomb is not at all trivial. That is why the United States, Russia and other nuclear nations have atomic tests. Once testing begins, the bomb-making process could never proceed unnoticed — even if conducted underground. We should remember that North Korea’s nuclear bomb tests were unsuccessful. This may be one reason they were willing to relinquish their nuclear program.

Finally, even if Iran were to obtain a bomb, it is not clear how they could provide a delivery system for the bomb with their present level of military technology. Iran has been testing conventional missiles — and not very successfully, as was recently seen in their over-hyped “show of strength” on July 10, when missile launches failed and had to be “Photoshopped” in to the publicity pictures.

A nuclear loaded missile is a vastly different technological accomplishment from a conventional missile. An airplane might be an alternative delivery mechanism, but Iran has no aircraft capable of delivering a sophisticated nuclear weapon.

Looking carefully at Iran’s nuclear program as it stands at present, it is only reasonable to conclude that Iran’s uranium enrichment efforts have so far been very elementary — effectively just practice runs for the very lowest levels of enrichment. In theory, LEU, with the proper technological equipment and skill, could be developed into a weapon. But this is a bit like saying that theoretically carbon could be made into dynamite. In both cases, it is a long way from the raw material to the finished product. Iran’s LEU is currently of no practical use except as a means to learning the enrichment process. And it is certainly no cause whatever for a military attack.

Added to this, the U.S. military, including Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, is firmly opposed to military action against Iran. They cite the fact that such action wouldn’t deter Iran in any significant way in its nuclear program, and the retaliation by Iran to attacks would inflame the region in war for decades.

This leaves the question: Why all of the political pressure to bomb Iran? Since the answer cannot lie in Iran posing any real danger, the reason must be political. Iran is a universally effective bogeyman. No American politician has lost a vote by threatening to attack Iran. Israeli politicians also can use the “Iranian existential danger” as a smokescreen to cover their political disarray, and disagreements with the Obama administration. Successfully hyping the existence of a fearsome external enemy is extremely useful to politicians, especially when that enemy poses no danger whatever.

Dr. Behrad Nakhai is a nuclear scientist. He holds a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from the University of Tennessee. He is currently working as a nuclear engineer, performing nuclear safety analysis. He was formerly a research nuclear scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and has also been a faculty member at the Center for Nuclear Studies in Memphis, Tenn. and the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. He has just returned from Iran.

William O. Beeman is Professor and Chair of the Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. He is president of the Middle East Section of the American Anthropological Association and former director of Middle East Studies at Brown University. His most recent book is “The ‘Great Satan’ vs. the ‘Mad Mullahs’: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other,” University of Chicago Press.

Stephanie Zvan Interviews Dr. William Beeman

Iran is never far from U.S. news headlines. Nuclear threats, unfair elections, captive reporters, a lack of religious freedom, all seem to demand that we do something. But what is to be done? What are the actual conditions in Iran, and what kind of leverage do we in the Western world, and particularly in the U.S. have to effect change? Last summer, Stephanie Zvan was privileged to chat with Dr. William Beeman, professor of anthropology at the University of Minnesota and a leading Western scholar of Iran. They discussed the intersection of religion and politics in Iran, U.S.-Iranian relations, and the culture of Iran, including conditions for women. Some of what she learned surprised her. It may surprise you too.

 

• William Beeman at Wikipedia
• Culture and International Affairs
• Iran's Current Turmoil has Deep Cultural Roots
• The Great Satan vs. the Mad Mullahs: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other 

 Listen to the interview here

Yemen is a Haven for Qhat (Qat), not Al-Qaeda--Intervew with William O. Beeman

Yemen: A Haven for Qhat (Qat) Not Al-Qaeda

New America Media, Interview, , Sandip Roy, Video by Ann Bassette, Posted: Jan 30, 2010

At an international forum in London this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Yemen to "take ownership" of their own long-festering problems -- including corruption, internal strife and poor governance -- if the country hopes to overcome threats from Islamist extremists and poverty. University of Minnesota Professor William O. Beeman, a noted scholar on the Middle East, believes the narcotic qhat is one of those root causes. He spoke to NAM's Sandip Roy.


Yemen: A Haven for Qhat Not Al-Qaeda from New America Media on Vimeo.

Why do people lose their accents when they sing? [WCCO TV, Minneapolis/St. Paul

I appeared on WCCO TV today. You might enjoy the segment on singing and accents.

<http://www.wcco.com/video/?id=74139@wcco.dayport.com>
 http://www.wcco.com/video/?id=74139@wcco.dayport.com 




Bill  

Strategic Leaking on Iran (from Gary Sick's public blog)

From Gary Sick's public blog

Note from William O. Beeman:

Gary Sick's superb analysis of recent information leaked from the White House to the Washington Post

and the New York Times has the ring of truth. The New York Times article appeared on Sunday, January 3, but carried

a dateline of January 2. It can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/world/middleeast/03iran.html?hp 

Pretend for a moment that you are the president of the United States and 
you have gotten yourself into a bit of a hole with your Iran policy.

First you offered to negotiate with Iran over nuclear (and potentially 
other) issues without the Bush preconditions. But there were powerful 
political forces that felt this was an example of your inexperience and 
even appeasement tendencies. So you unwisely accepted a six month deadline 
for the negotiations to show that you meant business. You tried to soften 
that by saying you would take another look at the issue at the end of the 
year, but everyone ignored that and let you know that January 1 was the 
drop dead date to solve all the negotiating problems with Iran.

In the meantime, the most serious internal revolt in thirty years exploded 
in Iran. It was not clear how this would affect the behavior of the regime 
on international issues. Some said the regime was weakened and vulnerable 
and so would more readily yield to pressure; others thought Iran's rulers 
would become more belligerent internationally to compensate for their 
internal weakness.

You had a couple of rounds of meetings with the Iranians and jointly came 
up with a fiendishly clever ploy. Iran would ship out quite a lot of its 
low enriched uranium (LEU), thereby reducing its stockpile that might be 
turned into a bomb, and Russia and France would provide them with more 
highly enriched fuel to be used in their research reactor that makes 
medical isotopes. Everybody wins. But when the Iranians took this home, 
they were savaged by their own political opposition for buying a pig in a 
poke. In disarray, they backtracked and started looking for a face-saving 
alternative, specifically to conduct the swap on Iranian soil or, later, 
in Turkey.

This situation was complicated by the discovery (or Iranian announcement, 
we're not quite sure) of a previously unannounced uranium enrichment site 
which was immediately inspected by the IAEA. Some think that this was 
Iran's Plan B, to have a separate enrichment capability if the primary 
site at Natanz was bombed by Israel or the US; others think the site was 
intended as a covert production line to produce a bomb. The punditocracy 
decides that it was a covert bomb production line.

Moreover, the punditocracy, which had already decided on the deadline of 
January 1, now decides that the Iranians negotiated in bad faith and the 
negotiations were at a total dead end. The congress, which had reluctantly 
stayed quiet on the subject, now returned to its usual political game of 
looking tough by bashing Iran. Sanctions bills threatening interdiction of 
gasoline shipments to Iran were passed overwhelmingly in the House and 
were due to pass with equal margins when the Senate returned in January.

Your critics (who wanted merely token negotiations followed by crippling 
sanctions and, if possible, war) rubbed their hands in anticipation. A 
leading neoconservative gleefully remarked that everything was proceeding 
according to script. AIPAC issued a triumphant declaration as gasoline 
sanctions rolled through the congress -- Thread 15 or at: 
http://www.aipac.org/NearEastReport/20091230/house-passes-iran-sanctions-bill.html

So, Mr. President, here you are on January 1. The "deadline" is upon you. 
Your allies and your opponents in congress are ready to hit you with a 
dilemma -- either impose crippling sanctions or look like an appeaser. Yet 
you know that gasoline sanctions are perhaps the worst idea to come out of 
the Congress since they opposed the purchase of Alaska. The sanctions 
would enrich and empower the Revolutionary Guards, undercut the Green 
opposition, identify the US as the enemy of the ordinary citizen in Iran, 
and possibly start us down the slippery slope to another disastrous war in 
the Middle East. But it looks great on a bumper sticker, and Glen Beck 
will savage anyone who dares oppose it.

So what to do?

Well, Mr. President, you have some cards of your own up your sleeve. You 
know that Israel is not really going to attack Iran. They can't do 
anything significant without US help, and George Bush already told them 
not to expect that. But they have invested so much in their campaign to 
convince the Israeli population and the entire world that Israel's 
survival as a nation is imminently in peril that they can't be seen to 
back down. They might welcome some help to get them off their own sticky 
wicket.

You also know that the Iranian nuclear program is nowhere near a bomb and 
has actually made little progress in that direction for years, regardless 
of the punditocracy consensus to the contrary in defiance of the facts. 
There is plenty of time if you can just calm the domestic political furor.

It's time for some strategic leaking.

First, give an exclusive interview to the Washington Post just before the 
New Year's "deadline" -- Thread 15 or 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122903415_pf.html 
that makes two major points: (1) The administration's policy of engagement 
has succeeded in creating turmoil and fractures within Iran's leadership, 
i.e. the policy has been a success, not a failure; and (2) the 
administration is planning for highly targeted sanctions that will hit the 
Revolutionary Guards rather than the average Iranian citizen. That sends a 
clear signal to the congress that its infatuation with petroleum sanctions 
is not replicated in the White House, for all the reasons listed above, 
and to the uber hawks that there will be no rush to war with Iran in the 
new year. At the same time, launch a major rhetorical campaign by the 
president in support of the civil and political rights of the Iranian 
opposition.

It works. The increasingly hawkish Washington Post editorial board 
commends the president for his "shift" on human rights (though piously 
calling for more) and ignores the sanctions game in congress. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/28/AR2009122802007.html

Of course, having fed the Washington Post, the New York Times is jealous 
and needs its own exclusive. Provide that over the New Year holiday by 
letting as many as six top administration officials meet privately and 
anonymously with two NYT reporters to let them in on some more secrets: 
(1) In another cunning success, the administration has outed the covert 
Iran bomb production facility at Qom thereby rendering it useless; (2) 
hint that the administration may be responsible for sabotaging Iran's 
centrifuges, which accounts for the fact (completely unacknowledged until 
now, despite being reported for the past two years by the IAEA) that Iran 
is not actually using about half of its installed centrifuges; (3) 
reiterate that the coming sanctions are to be aimed at the Revolutionary 
Guards, not the average Iranian citizen, and are likely to succeed because 
the regime is so weakened internally; and (4) declare unequivocally that 
the Iranian "breakout capability," i.e. its ability to shift from nuclear 
energy to actually building a bomb, is now years away.

This also works. The two NYT reporters, though apparently a bit confused 
about this U-turn in threat assessment from only three months ago, 
dutifully report what they have been told. The administration is credited 
with several successes, and the reporters seem convinced that the White 
House is showing toughness and skill in derailing the Iranian nuclear rush 
to the bomb. In the meantime, the reporters scarcely note that the 
administration is not declaring the negotiations dead after all and is 
pursuing the Turkish option of a uranium swap. No mention of a deadline.

Finally, the NYT reports that the Israelis have been persuaded that the 
targeted sanctions now being discussed are worth trying "at least for a 
few months." That was attributed to a senior Israeli official on the basis 
of back channel talks, but it had actually been announced by Prime 
Minister Netanyahu to the Knesset a week earlier in a speech that received 
almost no attention in the U.S. See Thread 26 or 
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speech40sigh231209.htm 
No more talk of deadlines, crippling sanctions or air strikes.

In short, Mr. President, you have taken what appeared to be a losing hand 
and, with a few well-placed leaks, transformed it into a victory over 
Iran. You have converted a lose-lose proposition of crippling sanctions vs 
appeasement into an Iranian nuclear collapse. The imminent threat of Iran 
has become an indefinite delay of its breakout capability. The huffing and 
puffing of the congress has been rendered irrelevant even before it hits 
your desk. A deadline has become a new beginning of negotiations. And you 
brought the Israelis along with you, without a peep of complaint. As for 
the punditocracy, so far so good.

Not bad for a beginner, Mr. President!

William O. Beeman--Iran's Uncertain Future (New America Media)

Iran’s Uncertain Future

New America Media, News analysis,

William O. Beeman, Posted: Dec 31, 2009

It is now clear that the population of Iran is in full revolt against its leaders. There is a better than even chance that the government will fall before summer. Sadly, there is no clear successor leadership on the horizon. This may prove to be the worst of all possible revolutions—a leaderless coup often leads to a regime that feeds on itself.

The current governmental regime in Tehran, including spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have made error after error in dealing with the opposition. Iran is a hierarchical society. Persons in high positions are paradoxically in the most fragile positions. Either they must support their followers, or be toppled from power.

The government has, in the face of the questionable presidential elections in June, repressed, murdered and incarcerated thousands of legitimate protestors. They have jailed former architects of the Revolution of 1978-79 that toppled Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and former government officials such as ex-Foreign Minister, Dr. Ibrahim Yazdi. These actions are a betrayal of the social ties that bind political leaders to their followers. In essence, Iran’s political elite has utterly lost its public support. There is no other possible result than that they leave the scene.

The situation has been exacerbated by the confluence of this repression with the annual observances of the martyrdom of Imam Hossein, grandson of the Prophet Mohammad. Hossein’s legitimacy to rule the Islamic community was opposed by the Umayyid Caliph, Yazid. Yazid then ordered his army to Kerbala where Hossein was encamped with his family. The male members of Hossein’s clan were beheaded and the women and children led into captivity in the Umayyid capital, Damascus.

Now the public is equating opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Musavi with Imam Hossein. They chant “Ya Hossein, Ya Mir-Hossein” in their opposition marches. Ayatollah Khamene’i is now equated directly with the Caliph, Yazid in street slogans and banners. Currency is being defaced with insults against the government. As veteran Middle East commentator, Robin Wright, has noted, the current Iranian resistance “is arguably the most vibrant and imaginative civil disobedience campaign anywhere in the world today.”

However, should Ayatollah Khamene’i, President Ahmadinejad and other high officials be toppled from power, it is unclear who will replace them. The opposition candidate, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, has proved to be utterly feckless as a leader. His fortunes only improved shortly before the June election when he suddenly was seen as a viable opponent for the increasingly unpopular President Ahmadinejad. Since the election he has been more a follower than a leader. In fact, his wife, the intrepid Dr. Zahra Rahnavard, who apparently organized his campaign, emerged as a greater political force.

Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, former President and supreme political operative also engineered Mousavi’s campaign. Usually outspoken, he has been exceptionally cautious in recent weeks, and his relatives have been terrorized by Tehran’s leaders. Now in his 70’s, it is unclear that he could emerge as a strong leader in a new government.

There is also the sticky business of the bedrock principle of the Islamic Republic, the “Velayat-e Faqih,” or “Regency of the Chief Jurisprudent.” It is this principle that legitimizes the supreme authority of Ayatollah Khamene’i, who is said to be ruling as regent, or substitute for the 9th Century Imam, Mohammad al-Mahdi, who is believed to be alive, but “in occultation,” until the Day of Judgment. This doctrine was established by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after the 1978-79 Revolution and is ensconced in the Iranian Constitution. If Ayatollah Khamene’i is toppled from power, either the constitution must be scrapped, or a successor must be found. Most religious leaders reject this doctrine today—a fact that has already created a de facto constitutional crisis.

Humanity has seen leaderless revolutions before, and they don’t turn out well. Those vying for power early on are condemned by those who arise after them. There is a perpetual scramble for both power and control of the ideology of the revolution. Much blood flows, and decades can pass before order is restored.

In light of this situation, the Obama administration is wise to stand aside and wait before making any commitments to the present power elite. More importantly, it behooves the administration to start preparing for a post-revolutionary phase, making sure that U.S. actions do not alienate the Iranian public or those who will accede to power.

Sadly, the U.S. Congress is not as wise as the executive branch. Still stuck with a crude and inaccurate fetishization of Iran’s nuclear energy program, they are on the brink of approving economic sanctions that will only cement the Iranian public’s already fixed notion that America only wants their nation to sink in misery and failure.

William O. Beeman is professor and chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, and is past president of the Middle East Section of the American Anthropological Association. He has lived and worked in the Middle East for more than 30 years. His most recent book is "'The Great Satan' vs. the 'Mad Mullahs': How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other." (Chicago, 2008).

IRAN: Story of martyr Imam Hussein fires the protest drama (Los Angeles Times)

Los Angeles Times

IRAN: Story of martyr Imam Hussein fires the protest drama
December 29, 2009 | 8:37 am


It was a political slogan soaked with Iranian history, religion and cultural identity.

"This month is a month of blood. Yazid will be defeated," they chanted on the streets of Tehran last weekend in a popular uprising that roiled the Iranian state and spurred a massive ongoing crackdown.

Beeman-Cov-011The rallying cry referred to one of the Iranian nation's founding myths, the story of Imam Hussein, who fought against the despised Caliph Yazid for the throne of Islam in a 7th century battle.

The story is so central to Iranian national identity that it is reenacted regularly before and during the holiday of Ashura in plays called tazieh that have been explored for years by William O. Beeman, an Iran expert and professor of theater and anthropology at the University of Minnesota.

"People live with this very central event in their religious life," said Beeman, who has written a book on tazieh called "Iranian Performance Traditions," due out next year.

"They’re encouraged to personalize it," he said in an interview this week. "It’s been recast in symbolic terms. Imam Hussein is the central figure in Twelver Shiism, He occupies the same role as Jesus in Christianity. It’s a perpetually recited story, pervasive throughout society."

Iran's street-protest traditions have long been laced with elements of theatrical drama, as explored by The Times a few days ago. More explicitly than ever last weekend, the protests were fueled by the tradition of tazieh and the story of Imam Hussein, who Shiites believe was robbed of his rightful leadership role, just as Iran's opposition believes Mir-Hossein Mousavi was robbed of the presidency.

Iran-ashuraWhen protesters chant, "Ya Hossein, Mir-Hossein," they're directly "equating Mousavi with Imam Hussein," Beeman said.

Last weekend, some protesters held aloft green flags of Islam commemorating the first 10 days of the Islamic month of Muharram, when Hussein was matyred in battle on the fields outside the Mesopotamian city of Karbala.

According to Beeman, anthropologists believe all societies are interlaced with such founding myths, social dramas that people fall back on at times of grave crisis.

"In order to restore social order, they have to go through a ritual period," Beeman said. "People gravitate quite naturally to the ritual expressions that already exist in their cultural vocabulary."

But as far as myths go, Hussein's is particularly powerful when it comes to galvanizing the Iranian public at this particular time.

Iran-beeman Just as Hussein fought under the green banner of Islam and the family of the Prophet Muhammad, the opposition has adopted the color as its own, in contrast to the red worn by Yazid.

And these colors have become identified with Mousavi -- green -- and his hardline opponent, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- red.

During the tazieh plays, the audience is encouraged to identify with the people of Karbala, who did not come to Hussein's aid during the fateful battle, just as protesters today are calling upon ordinary Iranians and members of the security forces to join in the struggle against Iran's establishment.

"By their inaction, the people of Karbala were less than admirable people," Beeman said. "In present-day mourning rituals, they’re asked not to just stand by."

Iranian authorities tried hard to avoid being cast as Yazid but ultimately failed, according to Beeman.

"When you start beating on people who support you, you break a bond between leader and follower," said Beeman (pictured), who speaks fluent Persian and has traveled frequently to Iran.

If Iran's history is any guide, the current group in power is doomed, Beeman said. "I think that the chance that this leadership group is going to be changed or out of office is very strong," he said.

But Beeman and others worry that Iranians will hue too closely to the Hussein narrative.

On the fields of Karbala in AD 680, one relative of Hussein after another was slaughtered by the mighty army of Yazid. One was an infant. Another was killed on the day of his wedding.

"Every possible tragedy you could imagine is projected onto the Karbala story," Beeman said. "In this situation on the street, if you identify with the Karbala story and you’re a protester, you’re emboldened to go up against anyone who is attacking you."

So far, Iranians have been adept at protesting while avoiding being killed. But some worry that could change. Hussein's myth may be powerful as theater and as a cultural backdrop to social change, but it also is a tough act to follow.

"Hussein knows he was going to be martyred," Beeman said. "He rejects all attempts to save him because he submits to the will of God. In his death and refusal to compromise, he serves as an example for the rest of us. But it's an unattainable example. Nobody can be as good as Imam Hussein."

-- Borzou Daragahi in Beirut



Photos, from top: The cover of "Iranian Performance Traditions." Credit: Mazda Publishers. A still from amateur video footage showing a protester holding a green flag during Ashura protests in Tehran. Credit: YouTube. Portrait of the author. Credit: University of Minnesota

Bomb, Bomb Iran: Lessons From Iraq Unlearned

Note: Alan J. Kuperman of the University of Texas wrote a 1500 word op-ed for the New York Times on December 24 calling for the United States to bomb Iran. This astonishing essay has been widely attacked, but the following long essay by Jeremy Hammond is the best response that I have seen so far. I myself have made all of the points included in this essay in the past, but the skillful presentation here makes it extremely important reading.

William O. Beeman

____________________

FOREIGN POLICY JOURNAL

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Bomb, Bomb Iran: Lessons From Iraq Unlearned
December 26, 2009
by Jeremy R. Hammond

In a New York Times op-ed this week that advocates bombing Iran, the author, Alan J. Kuperman, director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin, begins by suggesting that President Barack Obama should “sigh in relief that Iran has rejected his nuclear deal”.

In fact, Iran has said it is still open to discussion with the U.S. about its nuclear program, but that if meaningful dialogue is to continue, the threats of sanctions and military aggression must first cease.

The U.S., however, continues to threaten yet further sanctions, while also insisting that the threat of force must remain “on the table” — a threat of aggression that itself violates the U.N. Charter, which forbids member nations from threatening the use of force as a tool for leverage in international relations.

Kuperman’s reason for why Obama should be happy is that the deal, under which Iran would export uranium to Russia, which would enrich it to 20 percent (not the 90 percent required for weapons-grade uranium) and return it as fuel rods for use in Tehran’s research reactor, “was ill conceived from the start” since Iran would “thus be rewarded with much-coveted reactor fuel despite violating international law.”

His reference is to U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. The problem with these resolutions, as Iran is not hesitant to point out, is that they themselves directly violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which clearly states that parties to the treaty have an “inalienable” right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and that the international community may take no action prejudicial towards that right.

The U.N. resolutions, needless to say, prejudice that “inalienable” right, particularly given the fact that there is no credible evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program – as both the U.S. intelligence community and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have pointed out.

In other words, under U.S. influence, the Security Council in this case has acted as a rogue body itself in violation of relevant treaties constituting international law and the very Charter under which it ostensibly operates.

Iran, on the other hand, remains in compliance with the terms of the NPT and is meeting its obligations in allowing the IAEA to monitor and inspect its nuclear program, despite much talk to the contrary.

Take the most recent example, the charge that Iran’s uranium enrichment facility near Qom, still under construction, was a violation of its obligation to declare any such facility prior to the beginning of construction. We’re told that Iran agreed to an updated version of its safeguards agreement with the IAEA containing a clause specifying that obligation.

What we’re not told is that at that time, Iran had agreed to implement the terms of the Additional Protocol and revised safeguards agreement on a strictly voluntary basis. The voluntary nature of Iran’s implementation of these measures was explicitly, and in writing (see the so-called Paris Agreement), recognized by the IAEA. Iran was under no legal obligation to do so and had done so simply as a “confidence-building measure”.

In return, Iran got nothing but further threats of sanctions and bombing. So it ended its voluntary observance of measures above and beyond that which was legally required of it.

The fact is that Iran has never ratified the revised safeguards agreement, as would be required for the revisions to be legally binding upon Iran. Under the safeguards agreement Iran has formally and legally obligated itself to, it need only declare such facilities six months prior to the introduction of nuclear material (i.e., introduction of uranium into enrichment centrifuges), which is exactly what Iran did in declaring the site several months ago.

In response to meeting its obligations under its safeguards agreement, the West responded by declaring that the “secret” site (an adjective irreconcilable with the fact Iran voluntarily declared it to the IAEA, but obligatorily used in the media anyways) was evidence of Iran’s intentions to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Summarily dismissed was Iran’s quite credible explanation for the site it voluntarily disclosed, which was that it was attempting to diversify its uranium enrichment capabilities under the threat of certain countries to bomb their nuclear facilities.

The demonization and punishment of Iran for its compliance with its obligations under international law is not entirely unlike the charges against Iraq that it was in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding it disarm because it had not disarmed, when in fact it had disarmed, and when in fact there was no credible evidence that it still possessed stockpiles or was still in production of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

The IAEA, for its part, has continuously and consistently reported that it has verified Iran has diverted no nuclear materials towards a weapons program. Former Director General of the IAEA Mohammed ElBaradei, whose term ended just last month, has repeatedly said that there is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program. His successor, Yukiya Amano, has made the same observation.

Then, of course, there is the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) from the U.S. intelligence community that stated Iran today has no nuclear weapons program, which according to Newsweek, is an assessment analysts still stand by. The NIE did claim that Iran once had such a program in the past, but that it ended it in 2003. The IAEA, on the other hand, recently issued a statement saying there is no evidence Iran ever had a weapons program.

Kuperman continues by suggesting that the goal of the international community should be to “compel” Iran “to halt its enrichment program”, which, he claims, the proposal to send its uranium abroad would not have done. It’s worth noting the fact that this is an explicit rejection of the NPT.

He adds, “In addition, the vast surplus of higher-enriched fuel Iran was to get under the deal would have permitted some to be diverted to its bomb program”, claiming that taking uranium from the fuel rods for further enrichment to weapons-grade “is a straightforward engineering task requiring at most a few weeks.”

The truth of the latter assertion aside, which is contrary to most reports on the subject and contrary to the whole supposed point of the deal, what’s notable here is the assumption that Iran has a “bomb program”, despite, as was the case with Iraq, the total lack of credible evidence to support the claim.

It’s enough in the mainstream corporate media simply to take Iran’s “bomb program” as a matter of faith. Evidence is simply not required, and it’s considered perfectly acceptable by the editors of the New York Times and other mainstream sources to print assumptions expressed as statements of fact.

Again, for those who don’t suffer from selective amnesia and aren’t prone to intentional ignorance, the kind of reporting we saw from the Times, et al, prior to the invasion of Iraq might perhaps serve as a lesson about the nature of the role U.S. corporate media play in “manufacturing consent” from the American public for U.S. foreign policies.

Kuperman next begs the question, “if the deal would have aided Iran’s bomb program, why did the United States propose it, and Iran reject it?” Oblivious to the fallacies underlying the question, his own answer is that “The main explanation on both sides is domestic politics.”

Obama simply wanted to “blunt Republican criticism that his multilateral approach was failing” and was seeking a short-term gain.

Iran, for its part, “rejected” the deal that, by Kuperman’s own account, would have helped it towards the presumed goal of achieving the bomb because “such a headlong sprint” towards that goal “is the one step most likely to provoke an international military response that could cripple the bomb program before it reaches fruition.”

In other words, while Israel regularly threatens that it won’t wait much longer for the U.S. to come to some agreement with Iran before it launches an attack against Iran’s nuclear sites that Iran’s possession of the bomb would surely deter, Iran is willing pass up an offer that would constitute “a headlong sprint” towards such a deterrent because doing so could actually jeopardize the possibility of it obtaining the bomb, since if Iran accepted the deal ostensibly designed to prevent it from being able to enrich uranium to weapons-grade, Israel would be even more likely to bomb their nuclear sites even sooner than if it Iran just rejects the proposal.

Truly, Kuperman has a dizzying intellect.

“In sum,” writes Kuperman, “the proposal would not have averted proliferation in the short run, because that risk always was low, but instead would have fostered it in the long run – a classic example of domestic politics undermining national security.”

In sum, Iran is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.

Thus, the bombing of Iran is a foreseeable and unavoidable consequence of the present U.S. policy towards Iran. This consequence, admittedly, might very well be disastrous, but the obvious solution – to alter U.S. policy – is simply inconceivable. A change of policy is off the table. The resort to violence is not.

It’s worth noting that Kuperman acknowledges that the “risk” of Iran obtaining the bomb anytime soon (assuming it actually is seeking it) “always was low”. This is an interesting admission given the tendency of Western media to portray Iran as being practically right on the verge of being able to manufacture a nuclear weapon.

Returning to Iran’s “rejection of the deal”, Kuperman suggests the so-called “rejection” was “likewise propelled by domestic politics – including last June’s fraudulent elections and longstanding fears of Western manipulation.”

The “fears of Western manipulation” is a valid enough observation, the fears warranted enough. But again, as with the presumption of an Iranian bomb program, it’s enough in U.S. mainstream media to assert the claim of “fraudulent elections” as fact, despite the spurious nature of the evidence for fraud and many strong indications that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad legitimately won, including polls conducted by Western organizations both prior to the vote and since showing strong support for his presidency.

Like the “rejection” of the deal, Kuperman goes on to repeat what has become another unquestioned part of the official narrative. Suggesting that President Ahmadinejad “initially embraced the deal because he realized it aided Iran’s bomb program”, he adds, “But his domestic political opponents, whom he has tried to label as foreign agents, turned the tables by accusing him of surrendering Iran’s patrimony to the West.”

The possibility that Iran has not accepted the deal because it consists of an implicit rejection of their right to enrich uranium for themselves is, like the thought of changing U.S. policy, simply inconceivable.

The claim that Ahmadinejad “initially embraced the deal”, only to “renege”, has become standard. But the claim, though widely reported, cannot stand up to scrutiny based on the actual facts that have been reported about the talks. Every indication is that Ahmadinejad himself was open to the proposal, which he continues to be, on the condition that the West cease its threatening and aggressive posture towards Iran, and that the Iranian negotiators during the talks agreed with the proposal on principle, in anticipation of further talks, without formally accepting the deal – something, Iran has pointed out, the negotiators were given no authority to do.

This is part of a larger narrative in Western media in which the Iranian leadership is fractured and the regime in a state of crisis due to the enormity of the opposition to Ahmadinejad’s rule (part of the “fraudulent elections” narrative). While there are elements of truth to this story line, it’s chiefly a product of wishful thinking and the willingness of commentators to succumb to their own propaganda.

Take, for example, reporting on the massive gathering of people honoring the influential Grand Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri upon his death just last week. The opposition, we were told, of whom Montazeri was a leader, effectively took over the rally and was able to turn it into a massive anti-regime protest. Evidence for this was given in the form of amateur videos apparently from cell phones posted to opposition websites showing close-up shots of protesters shouting anti-regime slogans and holding up anti-regime banners.

Wider video shots of the actual funeral march, however, showed only an enormous crowd solemnly and respectfully marching along with the casket, holding up only photos of the cleric, not anti-regime banners. (The London Times, a leading outlet for anti-Iran propaganda, acknowledges that, with no journalists in the country due to restrictions on foreign media operations, much of its reporting comes from anti-regime elements, but insists that its sources are trustworthy, essentially a “just trust us” assertion that depends upon the questionable trustworthiness of the Times itself as a source for news on Iran.)

“Under such domestic pressure, Mr. Ahmadinejad reneged”, claims Kuperman, and then “threatened to enrich uranium domestically to the 20 percent level.” Notice how remarks from Iranian leaders that Iran would do what it has an “inalienable” right to do as a party to the NPT is characterized by the verb “threatened”.

The underlying and familiar assumption is that the rules are set by Washington, not by treaties comprising the body of international law. A dubious enough assumption, but unquestionable in the mainstream.

Iran’s “rejection” of the proposal shows that it “cannot make even temporary concessions on its bomb program”, and therefore, “Since peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work,” – (more the stick than the carrot) – “and an invasion would be foolhardy, the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.”

There are numerous and obvious other options: to assume that evidence should be required of an Iranian nuclear program rather than establishing confrontational and aggressive policies based on the assumption that this is so; to cease from violating international law with threats of military aggression; to cease from deliberately isolating and provoking Iran and instead meaningfully engaging the country in a dialogue that actually recognizes Iran’s rights under the NPT; to live up to the additional obligation under the NPT for the U.S. and other nuclear-armed countries to provide member nations with nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, etc.

But it is simply inconceivable that mainstream sources like the Times would actually find “fit to print” such elementary alternatives.

Without reading further, the conclusion Kuperman would like his readers to draw (and here the headline, “There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran”, is relevant) is clear: obviously, we cannot acquiesce to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons; therefore the only logical choice is to bomb Iran.

To underscore the unacceptability of Iran obtaining the bomb, Kuperman employs a theme that should not be unfamiliar to Americans: “If Iran acquired a nuclear arsenal,” he writes, “the risks would simply be too great that it could become a neighborhood bully or provide terrorists with the ultimate weapon”.

He draws just short of saying that if we don’t bomb Iran, the consequences could come “in the form of a mushroom cloud”, the familiar official refrain prior to the invasion of Iraq – which had no nuclear program at all, much less a weaponized one (Kuperman states further in the article that this fact “eluded American intelligence until after the 2003 invasion”. U.S. intelligence analysts, we are apparently supposed to believe, never bothered themselves to read IAEA reports noting that the agency had completely dismantled Iraq’s nuclear program by the mid-90s).

And so we must bomb Iran. Now, “admittedly, aerial bombing might not work.” It could “backfire” by “undermining Iran’s political opposition, accelerating the bomb program or provoking retaliation against American forces and allies in the region.”

All three are credible consequences widely predicted among analysts. Iran may not have a nuclear weapons program now, but if it is bombed, the likelihood that it would withdraw from the NPT, move its nuclear weapons program underground, and begin work towards obtaining a nuclear deterrent to further such attacks would be increased in no inconsiderable measure.

Again, Iraq provides a useful lesson. It was a direct consequence of Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, according to the U.S.’s own intelligence assessments, that prompted Saddam Hussein to begin pursuing his nuclear program clandestinely and also to begin his pursuit to obtain nuclear weapons.

Kuperman actually mentions the Israeli attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor to support his assertion that bombing Iran – the very thing he advocates – might actually result in Iran “accelerating” efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon, but he obscures the obvious lesson to be had from it by suggesting an opposite and much more dubious conclusion: that the bombing slowed down, rather than accelerated, Saddam’s efforts to obtain the bomb.

In other words, bombing Iran might predictably and admittedly result in the very thing the bombing would ostensibly be aimed at preventing. The obvious corollary is that the bombing would not really be carried out in order to prevent that end.

Again, further lessons from Iraq are instructive. Consider that the war ostensibly fought to make the world safer from WMD and to fight terrorism resulted in the single most probable situation, had Iraq actually had WMD, under which Saddam Hussein would have provided them to terrorists. Again, that was the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community prior to the invasion.

Fortunately, Iraq didn’t have WMD and so this never occurred. But among the direct consequences of the war that did occur was a considerable increase in the threat of terrorism, again according to the U.S.’s own intelligence assessments. Whereas prior to the invasion, terrorist attacks within Iraq were virtually unknown, since the war began, the Iraq people continue to be plagued by terrorism as a direct consequence of the war.

The war, analysts have observed, served as a virtual billboard for terrorist organizations to recruit individuals willing to commit acts of violence in response to U.S. foreign policy – just as U.S. support for Israeli crimes against the Palestinians was a principle causal factor for the 9/11 attacks, if we are to believe the stated grievances of the originally accused mastermind of those attacks himself.

Again, the corollary is obvious: the official reasons for committing such acts of aggression against foreign nations, if we presume leading policymakers are sane and rational, cannot possibly be the actual rationale for them. That is perfectly elementary, albeit a virtual heresy to actually point out in respectable circles.

The war against Iraq had nothing to do with WMD or terrorism. Equally elementary is the observation that U.S. policy towards Iran has nothing to do with preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons.

A further example is NATO’s bombing campaign in 1999 against Yugoslavia, which was ostensibly carried out to end atrocities on the ground, but which instead resulted in a sharp escalation of the violence – a consequence of the bombing predicted by the NATO leadership.

Kuperman also happens to mention that campaign, but, again, as with his mention of Osirak, arrives at other conclusions. Here, ignoring perhaps the most obvious lessons from his own argument and examples, his conclusion is that “Iran’s atomic sites might need to be bombed more than once to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Bombing once won’t work, so Iran must be bombed repeatedly. This logic is akin to arguing that since poking a snake with a stick once might cause it to strike, it must be poked continually in order to prevent it from being able to do so.

Similarly, Kuperman draws other lessons from Iraq. “If nothing else,” he writes, “the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the United States military can oust regimes in weeks if it wants to.”

Indeed. But if we set aside intentional ignorance, other relevant lessons just might perhaps be drawn. Kuperman, rather like the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy and friends to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, goes to extraordinary efforts to deflect attention away from these, though.

Casting aside some of the most obvious lessons from Iraq, Kuperman, having acknowledged the, shall we say, “drawbacks” of his proposed solution, concludes simply that air strikes “are worth a try.”

One might note the rather cavalier attitude towards the use of violence against civilian targets for political ends (the very definition of “terrorism”), an incitement to violence that might raise questions about the nature of American intellectual culture, and the moral values (or lack thereof) of the intelligentsia, if we bother to ponder on the subject.

Kuperman, needless to say, doesn’t. Instead, he has just one “final question”: “who should launch the air strikes?”

The obvious answer is Israel, which “has shown an eagerness” to bomb Iran, the option “some hawks in Washington favor” in order “to avoid fueling anti-Americanism in the Islamic world” – a rationale of astounding ignorance; the Islamic world surely would recognize that were Israel to bomb Iran, it would be with a “green light” from Washington, a wink and a nod. But never mind that.

Kuperman continues, however, with “three compelling reasons that the United States itself should carry out the bombings”, the obvious fueling of anti-Americanism and other predicted and potentially disastrous consequences aside. The U.S. has better equipment to do the job, could more credibly threaten “to expand the bombing campaign” (that is, to repeatedly bomb the country), and it would be an opportunity to send “a strong warning” to other countries.

This latter rationale for the U.S. bombing of Iran provides a more credible explanation for what the actual purpose of such a bombing would be.

Kuperman, in line with the official rationale for keeping the military “option” “on the table” – an explicit rejection of principle that force should be used only as a last resort, as well as a direct violation of international law – suggests the “strong warning” would be for “other would-be proliferators”.

Proliferation being obviously of little to no consideration to U.S. policymakers – an elementary observation drawn even from the arguments provided here – “proliferators” clearly isn’t the right word here. “Nations seeking to act independently from and in opposition to Washington” might be more accurate.

“The sooner the United States takes action” – that is, the sooner it bombs Iran – “the better”, concludes Kuperman.

At stake is U.S. “credibility”, in the Mafioso sense of the word. Washington simply can’t have a country defying its orders. That’s the bottom line. That’s the underlying foundation of the policy of the Obama administration, carried over from the policy of his predecessor.

But, of course, just as the war in Iraq couldn’t be sold to the American public on the basis of its actual rationale, expanding U.S. global hegemony, neither can the true reasons for Washington’s policies towards Iran be mentioned. It just wouldn’t do.

Better, as with Iraq, to construct nonsensical arguments dependent upon an extraordinary level of intentional ignorance and consisting at the most fundamental level of claims for which there is little, if any, evidence to support.

Whether the American public has learned the more obvious and crucial lessons from Iraq and has the moral integrity to act on them remains to be seen. But what is for certain is that without massive public pressure on Washington to alter its Iran policy, the U.S. will maintain a course the consequences of which might very well prove, as with Iraq, to be disastrous.
Jeremy R. Hammond
Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent journalist and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, an online source for news, critical analysis, and opinion commentary on U.S. foreign policy. He was among the recipients of the 2010 Project Censored Awards for outstanding investigative journalism, and is the author of "The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination", available from Amazon.com.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com


© 2009 Foreign Policy Journal
Loading...