The
Iran Threat
By
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
30 November,
2007
Countercurrents.org
In
2001, 83% of the Pakistanis supported the Taliban . Six years later,
in a 2007 World Public Opinion poll , 84% of the Pakistanis thought
attacks on civilians for the purpose of reaching a political goal was
justified. Given that there are radicals who support terrorism with
the possibility of gaining access to nuclear bombs in a country that
is currently under emergency rule, common sense demands that world leaders
turn their attention to Pakistan. Yet, inexplicably, the United States
continues to hand out aid to its ‘ally’ Pakistan while quietly
upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island of Diego
Garcia in preparation for a military assault against Iran . What motivates
the United States to take such paradoxical action?
America and
Israel have accused Iran of intending to diversify its program –
they allege that Iran is using its civilian program as a cover to build
nuclear bombs. This supposition begs the question why Iran would place
itself in the spotlight instead of renouncing the energy program for
history has shown that having an operating nuclear power reactor is
no longer a prerequisite or even a necessary condition of obtaining
fissile material which can be used for the development of nuclear materials.
South Africa was able to develop five nuclear bombs without having a
nuclear energy program. North Korea was able to acquire enriched uranium
with mundane centrifuges and other technologies to constitute the critical
mass needed for a low-yield “dirty” bomb (Meshkati ).
Iran has also been accused of pursuing its nuclear program in ‘secret’,
further ‘proof’ of its alleged intentions to divert its
nuclear program into a bomb making one. Contrary to these allegations,
the new Iranian government decided to continue its nuclear energy projects
to meet the surging needs of the growing population and to compensate
for the immense damage caused to the infrastructure of the country during
the war with Iraq. In 1982 Iranian officials announced that they planned
to build a reactor powered by their own uranium at the Isfahan nuclear
technology centre. In 1983, the IAEA reported that they were ready to
“contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed
to sustain an ambitious program in the field of nuclear power reactor
technology and fuel cycle technology”. Under pressure from the
United States, their cooperation was terminated .
Tehran openly
negotiated with several nations (unsuccessfully under pressure from
Washington) until finally it struck a deal with Moscow. This met with
former President Clinton’s ‘duel-containment’ policy.
Executive Order 12957 given by Clinton specifically banned any "contract
for the financing of the development of petroleum resources located
in Iran."
In addition,
President Yeltsin had assured Washington that Iran would not be able
to make weapons-grade plutonium and that he had canceled the "military
components" of two nuclear reactors bound for Iran. Under U.S.
pressure, both Ukraine and China had made some adjustments. Ukraine,
announced that it would not supply turbines for a Russian reactor project
at Bushehr. China suspended the sale of a plant for the conversion of
uranium hexafluoride, which is required for making fuel rods . In 1997,
Russian officials expelled Iranians studying nuclear physics and missile
science from Russian schools in late 1997 . They have also halted all
vocational training of Iranian students in fields that may have applications
for nuclear weapons and missiles.
America had
long said –and it continues to say today, that its single biggest
concern is for Iran to have the knowledge which could lead to making
the bomb. So why did it not stop its confrontational path?
Ideology
- Regrettably, the history of the Middle East shows that secular resistance
to foreign exploitation has been crushed by imperial powers. Mossadeq,
a fierce nationalist, who was democratically elected to be prime minister
of Iran, was removed by a CIA-backed coup when he nationalized Iran’s
oil. Likewise, Egypt’s leader, Nasser, a secular and fiercely
nationalist leader, was called ‘Hitler on the Nile’ for
wishing to control the Suez canal. Six months before the French and
the British invaded Egypt in 1956, Britain had drawn up secret plans
to cut off the flow of the River Nile to try to force Nasser to give
up the Suez Canal .
Islam, it
would seem, has proven itself capable of challenging the world’s
superpower. And it was not with its effects on the region. Saudi Arabia
felt unsettled with events in Iran and the lack of support the Shah
seemed to have received from the U.S. “The Saudis undoubtedly
felt considerable annoyance at the United States for doing too little
to prevent the Shah’s fall and too much to promote Sadat’s
peace initiative”. For this reason, at the onset of the Iranian
revolution, the Saudis dropped their production by 1 million barrels
per day, playing havoc on oil markets at a most crucial time (Deese
and Nye 68) . Although Saudi Arabia later picked up Iran’s slack,
Washington was not prepared to have Saudi Arabia follow Iran’s
suite. Nor was Washington accustomed to having an Arab nation ‘threaten’
its oil supply.
The Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan was the pretext Washington needed to make its
move. The ‘Carter Doctrine’ was nothing short of putting
American soldiers in harms way to protect the free flow of oil. In subsequent
years this doctrine took on other forms such as the Gulf War, and War
on Terror and democratization. But putting the life of American soldiers
in harms way for the sake of oil required a noble cause – the
public have always been led to believe that wars have been necessary
to defeat ‘evil’.
Money: The
root of all Evil - In 1960s, an agreement was struck with OPEC to price
oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. In essence,
the dollar was now backed with oil instead of gold. In return, the U.S.
promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf
against threat of invasion or domestic coup. The arrangement gave the
dollar artificial strength. Deviation from this by any OPEC member would
impact the dollar. Iran announced its intentions to convert to Euros
in 1999.
Other economic
factors include a renewable 15-year Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
between the U.S. and Israel signed in September 1975, in which the United
States Government has undertaken to promptly make oil available for
purchase by Israel. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means
to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make
every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport
.
The 1979
overthrow of the Shah created added expense and inconvenience for Israel
and America. The Shah supplied all Israel's oil needs via a pipeline
from Eilat. After the revolution, the clergy put a stop to this and
Israel was forced to buy more expensive oil – footed by the U.S.
In the 1980’s, Israel’s National Infrastructure Minister
Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct
oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa in northern
Israel. Syria, acceded to a request from Iran to block the flow of Iraqi
oil to the Mediterranean (The flow of oil from Mosul was redirected
from Haifa to Syria after the British Mandate for Palestine expired
in 1948). The plan was postponed.
The ‘war
on terror’ presented yet another opportunity, but Washington's
game plan seems to have been stymied by Iraq's Shiite majority which
is a close ally of Iran’s. This explains why Iran is cast as a
threat and the endless efforts of the mainstream media delivering news
to every living room of deaths caused by ‘Iranian-backed Shiite
militias’. This is the evil that must be overcome in order for
democracy to prevail, and this is why American soldiers are dying.
Where there
is oil, there is Plan ‘B’ - Upon taking office, George W.
Bush. commissioned the Bakers Institute (Rice University) and the Council
on Foreign Relations to study the energy trends and requirements of
the 21st century. The comprehensive 99-page report favored the Iranian
route for the Caspian oil exports which would serve several purposes.
In itself, it would translate into a policy shift towards Tehran, and
throw Iran as a counter weight to Iraq. The transport of oil through
Iran versus the prohibitively expensive longer and costly Baku-Ceyhan
pipeline would be of great benefit to the West, and the world, and help
build up the drastically low global spare capacity, according to the
report. Another strong contention of the report was that the U.S. ought
to move the Caspian region into a zone of cooperation with Russia instead
of a zone of competition and confrontation, enabling future cooperation
such as jointly countering Islamic militants in the region (Strategic
Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century, 2001, pp. 38-40,45,)[ii].
Of note, the Kazakh officials had been in favor of the Iran route, as
well as the U.S. oil companies such as Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and Conoco[iii].
In September 2001, A.Nesdat Pamir of the Jerusalem based think-tank
IASPS, challenged the commission report with a strategy paper called
“Turkey: The Key to Caspian Oil and Gas”. He argued that
“ given that the price of oil have allowed states to invest heavily
in Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), the primary external of this development,
both economically and diplomatically, has been Russia”[iv]. Russia,
therefore, is arming the Middle East with WMD and the 80% oil potential
should be rescued. According to him, the lifeline of America would be
for it to use the prohibitively expensive Ceyhan –Baku Pipeline
[through Turkey and Israel] in order to avoid the anti-American Middle
East .
Given that
the mainstream media does not serve the public, it comes at no surprise
that a day after the Israeli assault on Lebanon last summer the inauguration
of the Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline took place . Noted among
the guests at the inauguration reception in Istanbul, hosted which was
by Turkey's President Ahmet Necdet Sezer at Çýraðan
Palace was Israel's Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Binyamin Ben-Eliezer
together with a delegation of top Israeli oil officials.
America and
Israel insist on reject the report card from the IAEA the UN watchdog
chief has been told that he must be ‘sacked’ for not understanding
Iran’s ‘intentions’. One must have a clear understanding
that Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose a threat, however, due
to isolation, Iran has become a self-reliant nation and has escaped
self-colonization. Iran is politically aware, and technologically advanced.
She is keen to pursue her civilian nuclear technology, not as a violation
or as a threat to world order, but as her inalienable right under international
law and in response to the current and future needs of the Iranian people.
No doubt
the perceived threat from Iran will diminish should Tehran yield to
Washington, generously delivers its oil to Israel to better enable it
to continue its expansionist policies, and participate in human rights
abuses in the name of freedom and democracy vs. state sovereignty. But
even if the regime in Tehran succumbs, will the people who have accomplished
so much under such extraordinary circumstances, surrender?
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.