Democracy Arsenal

« Islamic World Top 10 | Main | A New Grand Bargain for Nuclear Nonproliferation »

January 15, 2006

Preemptive War in Iran
Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The latest disturbing news out of Iran is that the government now plans a conference on the Holocaust.   Having already judged the Nazi genocide a myth and called for Israel's destruction, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems bent on making a name for himself as this century's leading violent anti-Semitic megalomaniac, this time with nukes.

The Jerusalem Post has over the last few days published a succession of articles examining the potential for a preemptive Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, akin to the country's successful 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor, credited with setting back Baghdad's nuclear ambitions by years if not decades.   The Post reports that Israeli pilots have trained for such an attack, but pulling it off this time will be far tougher than 25 years ago because the Iranians have dispersed and defended their facilities.   Israel appears to be proceeding on the basis that for reasons including chiefly Iraq, it may not be able to count on the US to deal with Tehran on its behalf.

Putting aside whether Israel could successfully destroy Iran's nukes, this confrontation could shape up into the first major test of where the doctrine of preemption stands post-Iraq.   While the Israelis have never been able to afford the luxury of adhering rigidly to consensus international legal interpretations, after the Iraq War it would sure make things easier if Tel Aviv was on firm ground should the need to preempt arise.   

There were two primary criticisms of the Bush Administration's invocation of preemption in Iraq - failure to exhaust peaceful alternatives and failure to establish the imminence of the threat. 

It's easy to envisage the exhaustion requirement being met vis-a-vis Iran.  If, likely due to Russian or Chinese intransigence, the UN Security Council declines to take up the Iranian threat, the major forum for peaceful resolution of global disputes will be de facto foreclosed.  Likewise if the Security Council opens debate but cannot agree on action, it could be fair to judge the UN channel exhausted.   

Another realistic scenario is that the Security Council musters the political will to move, but confines itself to measures short of sanctions targeting the Iranian oil supplies on which the Chinese and indeed our own economy depend.   If that happens, and the lesser sanctions don't deter Tehran, the international community may have exhausted its willingness to pressure Iran through peaceful means.   

Exhaustion of peaceful means as a result of limited international political will should not be discounted as grounds for justifying preemptive action, particularly where powerful global economic interests are being weighed against a threat targeting one country in particular.   This principle is in essence, I think, what makes us judge the Kosovo intervention as legitimate in retrospect despite the absence of UNSC imprimatur.   The fact that one or a handful of countries block measures out of self-interest cannot be grounds for delegitimizing otherwise justified action by others.

Judging from past experience, however, under any of these scenarios, countries may not fully foreclose further peaceful measures against Iraq, making it difficult to judge exactly when the exhaustion requirement is met.  If countries claim that they might be willing to reexamine the possibility of banning Iranian oil sales in future, will Israel be forced to sit and wait?

This is where the exhaustion and imminence tests tie together.  Israel may face a challenge in establishing that the threat it faces is imminent.  With Ahmadinejad openly advocating Israel's destruction and cutting the UN seals on its nuclear installations, there would seem adequate grounds today for preventive action to stop Iran from acquiring the means to carry out its destructive aims against Israel.   But the principle of preventive war is even more controversial than preemptive war, since its not predicated on a threat that's close at hand.

Some analysts have said that the imminence test is met if preemptive action is carried out at the last moment when it is still possible to defend against the anticipated attack.  Under this theory, hitting Iranian nuclear facilities that are almost but not quite capable of attacking Israel would be justified.   In the event that Iran does not cooperate with the UN and IAEA inspectors, its unlikely that Israel or anyone else will know precisely how close Tehran is to creating deployable nukes.  That uncertainty, particularly if created by Iran's own obfuscations, could justify action at any time on the basis that it may be impossible to know when its too late to frustrate Ahmadinejad's apparent goal of having weapons capable of attacking Israel.

That leads back to the exhaustion point.   If imminence of a threat can be established, then it seems fair to say that the exhaustion requirement is met if peaceful means have been exhausted for the present time, regardless of what more might be done in future.  So if, in a debate in Spring of 2006 let's say, the UNSC opts against quarantining Iranian oil, if Tehran's nuclear program is proceeding apace, peaceful means should be considered exhausted even if the SC members claim willingness to revisit the question of broader sanctions at a later time.

For the immediate term, Israel awaits the fate of a leader and the results of an upcoming election, both of which need resolution before military action in Iran will be seriously considered.  In the meantime, the international community will put diplomacy and other forms of peaceful response to the Iranian threat to the test.   If those efforts fail, Israel may have to put the question of preemptive war back on center stage.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Preemptive War in Iran:

» Preemptive War in Iran from
Courtesy of Democracy Arsenal: Posted by Suzanne Nossel The latest disturbing news out of Iran is that the government now plans a conference on the Holocaust. Having already judged the Nazi genocide a myth and called for Israels destruction... [Read More]

» Snarky Snippets from 100 monkeys typing.
* Solution for a dwindling military. Find a new threat, deem the current deployments overextended and then institute a draft. * War creates strange bedfellows. * "How to Lose Votes" by the RNC. * Lipstick looks fantastic on most pigs.... [Read More]


J Thomas has a good point - Saying of Iran: "We (Iran)welcome friendly relations with any nation who wants them, and any nation that fights us will suffer losses." Imagine Iran promising China their total oil output in exchange for China's protection. Can anyone see the price of oil in the USA going to $20.00 per gallon?

I think it's truly disgusting that the Foreign Ministry of a UN recognized government would hold such a conference on the Holocaust.

Even the Saudis realize now that a nuclear armed Iran is bad for the region and bad for the world.

John -- China can't survive without the U.S. market - you won't see any $20 gas prices.

The USA cannot survive without China's loaning the US Governemnt money by buying treasury notes and therefore financing the US Government. I believe the latest figures are about $80Billion per month.
Concerning the $20.00 per gallon gasoling prices, I hope I don't live to see them, but expect them within the next 50 years. The amount of oil available in this world is limited, admittedly it is still large, but is still limited and getting smaller all the time while oil use is increasing. $20.00 per gallon gasoline prices are just a matter of time, use, and availability.

Never will we see $20/gallon prices as there are cheaper substitutes out there if there is a rapid rise due to ME problems. for instance, shale oil which Canadian has huge deposits. Capitalism is a wonderful system when you need something badly and potential big money is a huge motivator.

Zachary, exactly what do the chinese need us for?

They give us consumer goods, we give them little blips in a computer that represent little pieces of paper.

They give us stuff. We give them symbols. Why can't they give themselves their own symbols? In theory when we go into debt to them we're promising we'll repay it someday, but we've already done a whole lot of devaluation. They've watched us break the promise. Why do they keep playing this game where they work hard to make stuff for us, and we give them promises that we start to break before the year is out?

One guess is that they have a whole lot of citizens who're on the edge of revolt. Those citizens demand jobs. They want to work hard for low pay. And if the USA stops paying for them to have jobs, they won't have any. The chinese government can't get them jobs, only the US economy can supply the demand that lets them have jobs. So if anything happens so that US consumer demand stops giving jobs to chinese workers, the chinese workers will be unemployed, and the chinese economy will collapse, and they'll revolt and overthrow the government. Why is it that the US government can give people welfare money so they can buy stuff at WalMart and support the chinese economy, but the chinese government couldn't do it for themselves? I don't know. Why is it that the chinese government couldn't pay its own workers to produce consumer goods and pay them enough to buy the stuff themselves? I don't know. Why is it that americans are just fine getting welfare and unemployment benefits and tax cuts while the chinese insist on working hard for little compensation? I don't know. For some unknown reason chinese workers are like brownies or Harry Potter house-elves. This is the House-Elf theory.

A second theory is that it's all because the US dollar is the international unit of exchange. Everybody wants a chance to work and get paid. But when their currency gets too strong they can't, the work will get outsourced to somebody who lives in a nation that makes his work cheaper. So lots of countries deliberately set their exchange rate so their labor will be cheaper than US labor. They get the work. We buy the stuff and inflate the dollar. They then have to work hard collecting dollars they will never have any use for, so their currency will stay undervalued and they can keep the work. But -- they're working hard just to give the stuff away to us! What do they think they're accomplishing that way? Well, maybe they just don't have it thought out. Maybe various people see it's stupid but nobody can quit until everybody else does. This is the Evil America version.

A third theory is that maybe they're mercantilists. Back when the japanese looked like they were winning in the world economy, they had a theory that it was more important to get market share than to make a profit. Once you own the market you can set your own prices. But if you get priced out of the market you ave nothing. This didn't work well for japan in the long run, it turned out that by the time they owned a market there would be imitators springing up with lower costs, who likewise were willing to sacrifice profitability for market share. But suppose china doesn't care so much about making a profit, as they do about strategic concerns. If they see the USA as an enemy, and they can persuade us to shut down whole industries simply by selling to us below cost, for depreciating dollars -- who cares if they lose money at it? How much more would it cost them to bomb out those industries in wartime! Our workers sit around and their skills depreciate, theirs learn the latest methods. Our factories get sold for scrap, they build newer and better factories. And when the dollar depreciates enough, nobody will want to sell to us just when we need a lot of investment moey to rebuild the economy we let them choke off, when we are in a crisis and they look like the superpower. What better way to win a war against a country that has lots and lots of nukes, that spends more than anyone else on military stuff, that owns the oceans? This is the Evil China version.

There are other variations. I'm not fully convinced by any of them. But I'm clear it's simplistic to say china can't survive without the US market.

But about $20 gas, suppose we depreciate the dollar to the point that it's so much waste paper, and china etc stop propping the dollar up. We have enough oil to supply 40% of our current needs. If the time ever came that we couldn't be the high bidders for oil on the world market, we could run an economy on 40% of the oil we use now. Except -- why should US oil companies sell it to us, for dollars, when they could sell it on the world market for hard currencies? $20 gas wouldn't be out of the question at all.

I don't understand the world economy well enough to say whether that's possible. By common sense it should be quite possible. Why should the world keep giving us stuff in exchange for computer blips that represent pieces of paper? It isnt obvious what we contribute. But common sense is ntoriously unreliable for thinking about economics.

J Thomas:
Your first guess worries me the most. Government officials do not take kindly to revolt. They are more likely to hire all those unemployed workers into the army and invade the rest of asia to give them something to do. It has happened before. Remember the Mongols and Gengis Kahn.

John, that makes some sense. But who can china invade? They already have most of asia, apart from siberia. Say for example they conquer vietnam, what good does that do them? They do better to give the vietnamese some rope, let them do what they want with some economic carrots and the merest threat of a military attack.

And the russians would oppose them taking siberia. Almost better to get the russians to let them move through siberia to take alaska. We aren't ready to put many troops into alaska, we'd probably be reduced to nuking them or something. Nuking them. Ah, I'm not clear there are any good targets for china to invade.

They could though point out the insane imperialists in the USA, and stress that they need to be ready to stop 5 to 7 carrier groups at once.

Suppose they stopped supporting the dollar. Then the dollar would depreciate fast. The renminbi would go up and up. So they could print more of them to bring them down some, and spend the new moey themselves. They could buy lots of imports, and also pay their workers enough to buy a bigger share of what they produce. They're happy. The workers are happy. No revolt, no war. Nobody loses except the USA.

Why haven't they done it yet? Is it becuse they're stupid? Or are they too afraid of us, that they keep giving us stuff for nothing? Or is it they just aren't ready yet, we're chest-deep in debt but they want to get us nose-deep before they'll be ready to push us completely under....

It is an unfortunate but demonstrated international fact that those who are believed to have nuclear weapons get harsh rhetoric, and those who do not have been told that they may be bombed or invaded. QED. If you wish to have a future you MUST have nuclear weapons. This is not the world that came about by consensus. This is the world that America has made. I'm sorry.


First of all everyone who is giving opinions should look at primary sources like scientific reports by international experts and inspectors in Iran and the charter of the IAEA. All the information these opinions in claims to a clandestine plan by Iran to produce nuclear weapons are based on distortions of the truth, speculation, politically motivated fabrications, and other opinionative and grossly misleading opinions.

1. The technical inspectors of the IAEA, the actual experts and scientists have declared that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and Iran is compliant with its obligations. The fact is that the diplomatic representatives of some of the nations that are members of the IAEA overruled the technical inspectors and scientists findings and rulings. This means that the qualified experts’ legal and factual declarations were overturned by politically appointed representatives for political and self serving reasons. It is devious and corrupt how the IAEA was manipulated for the first time ever to vote on an issue rather than its standard format of international consensus. The IAEA always reached decisions based on consensus and group agreement of all its members. For the first time ever in the organization’s history an issue was voted over. Iran’s impressive civilian nuclear program was criticized by certain member nations under the IAEA banner illegitimately. When the actual working experts, scientists, and field workers of the IAEA declared Iran cleared and honourable to its treaty responsibilities the decision was overruled by diplomatic representatives taking orders from their capitals, like Washington and London, who have other ideas and disgusting plans.

2. The United States of America bars IAEA inspection of its nuclear facility sites and neglects IAEA and international requirements and demands to check its nuclear facilities as does Brazil, India, China, Russia, France, and the infamous Israel. None of these nations have cooperated to the level Iran has with the IAEA. Israel will not let any inspectors step foot in its nuclear zones and disregards international calls and edicts to open up its nuclear facilities to inspections. It is ironic how nations like the United States of America and Israel that themselves posses nuclear weapons, continue to develop nuclear arsenals, do not follow Non-Proliferation, and posses weapons of mass destruction (WMD) order a nation like Iran, that has openly declared and demonstrated that it will not produce nuclear weapons to the point where it has proved it according to set international standards and regulations, to bow to their will. Iran is being ordered by the United States of America and a small group of nations, with histories of warfare and manipulation, to give up its national civilian (not military) nuclear program, which is needed for Iranian energy production aims. These demands by Washington and London are unwarranted and dishonest reasons that have more to do with geo-politics and economics than peace and security. The United States of America, Britain, and Israel say nothing about Brazil and its feud with the IAEA. In fact Brazil’s civilian nuclear program is not publicized anywhere near as much as is Iran’s civilian nuclear program. Nothing is said or demanded of Brazil who is in breach of its responsibilities. In reality Brazil refuses to allow any inspections to the parallel of the ones Iran does. There is great hypocrisy and intentional deceit on the part of the United States of America and its partners, which include the British and Israeli ruling elites. The United States of America has even sold dual use nuclear technology, which can be used for civilian and weapons purposes to India, which is counter to American pledges and international treaty requirements. This is due to a deal made between the American and Indian governments, after negotiations with the Indian government to override its specialized inspectors declaration that the Iranian civilian nuclear dossier should be closed and that Iran was not attempting to producing nuclear weapons. The American government promised to transfer nuclear technology and assistance to India on condition of India politically overruling the inspection team’s findings, afterwards conceding without objection the group consensus mechanism at the IAEA boards meeting of international governors, and finally voting in favour of the American push against Iran. Consequently this did not go well with the masses in India who see Iran in an extremely good light and almost led to the collapse of the Indian government. There was much anger in India over the unfair government decision, which countered Indian foreign policy. Under American’s own laws and its treaty obligations it is not to assist other nations in manufacturing nuclear weapons or power plants or to help nations in the nuclear arena that refuse to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or have breached the treaty. The United States of America has done precisely this. It has helped Israel, a known and flagrant violator of international law and human rights, in its nuclear schemes, India, after the fact that the whole world made a resolution to stop nuclear proliferation in the Indian sub-continent between India and Pakistan, and even North Korea. Yet this is not surprisingly when you look at the American governing elite’s duplicity and double standards.

3. In a true and real democratic society and by democratic norms of justice an individual is innocent and only guilty if proven beyond the shadow of a doubt as blameworthy or guilty. The term guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt comes to play. If there exists even the slightest doubt of innocence in any criminal case against an individual, that individual is found innocent. This principle of justice can be applied to nations. First of all Iran is not on trial and there exists no genuine authority in the world to try whole nations. Yet Iran is not afforded this democratic principle in any manner. In actuality it is the American establishment and elite who deceitfully act in the name of democracy that undermine true democracy and democratic principles. One needs to look at American intervention in Asia and Latin America against democratic governments and movements or American support for pro-American dictatorships and authoritarian regimes like those of Egypt or Jordan or even American intervention in Imperial Iran, where in the past an established secular and responsible democracy under the premiership of Dr. Mossadegh counter to American and British interests was deposed. Secondly, Iran is wilfully cooperating in concerns to its civilian nuclear dossier with the offensive forces at play against itself, which so often use the term international community and world body to try and falsely show wide support and credibility to their darker ends. Iran is opting for a peaceful solution to stop the ravenous false accusations spearheaded by Washington and Tel Aviv. Iran’s justifications and explanations in this particular case are perfectly reasonably, legal, and in accordance to international norms and practises.

4. Iran has justified its position and given explanations past the point of obligation to show good will besides signing and implementing out of good spirit the additional IAEA protocols asked of it by Britain, France, and Germany. It has allowed inspections constantly. The United States of America pushed to derail the process by manipulating the IAEA to request to inspect sensitive Iranian military sites and infrastructure in addition to Iranian civil nuclear sites. No nation would allow for their military sites to be inspected, including the United States of America. Not one nation would allow its military secrets to be revealed to the whole of the world extending from the Russia, India, Britain, France, Brazil, Turkey, and Israel to Pakistan, Greece, Nigeria, Argentina, and China. Especially after it was obvious that certain United Nations inspectors in Iraq under President Saddam Hussein gave information and intelligence reports to American and British military planners, thus violating their sacred position of trust and responsibility to impartiality and neutral fairness. These inspectors duties and aims where to make sure pre-American occupied Iraq was meeting the internationally defined status of armament and not to spy or give information to hurt Iraqi national and security interests. When is enough actually enough?


For half a century, the American dollar has been the world’s reserve currency: Seventy percent of all currency reserves are in dollars.

This has a lot to do with the fact that oil, the most important commodity traded in the world, is mostly priced in U.S. dollars. This, together with related economic considerations, encourages the majority of countries—being oil importers—to keep most of their foreign currency in dollars.

The debt-burdened U.S. economy is dependent upon this high demand for its currency in order to remain afloat. The day this demand comes to an end will portend disaster for the American economy.

There is a move underway, however, to end the dollar’s reign. Behind it is the world’s fourth-largest producer of crude oil—and declared enemy of the United States—Iran.

In August, Tehran reconfirmed that it plans to create a euro-based exchange in oil—to compete with the London and New York dollar-denominated oil exchanges, both American-owned.

The proposed March 2006 launch of the Iranian oil bourse (iob), if successful, would give the euro a foothold in the international oil trade, solidifying its status as an alternative oil-transaction currency. This, in turn, could be a catalyst for a major currency flight from the dollar to the euro—and a disaster for America.

The iob will see crude oil, petrochemicals and other commodities of the same kind traded in euros.

Iran no doubt has multiple motives for making this move. For one, it makes sense economically, especially since the European Union is Iran’s biggest trading partner. But more importantly, it would strike a blow to Iran’s archenemy, America—and, by helping Iran become the main hub for oil deals in the region, help drive the Islamic Republic forward in its quest for regional supremacy.

George Perkovich, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, stated it frankly: “It’s part of a very intelligent, creative Iranian strategy—to go on the offense in every way possible and mobilize other actors against the U.S.” (Christian Science Monitor, August 30).

For Iran, which foresees a “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the west—particularly America—undermining the dollar could prove to be its best and most effective strike against a more capable military foe.

Asia Times reported that only one major actor stands to lose if oil-trading in euros takes hold: the U.S. By contrast, “Oil in euros would benefit millions … in the EU and its trading partners …. And it would loosen the grip the U.S. has on opec members” (August 26).

“One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in the spring of 2006,” one expert on the subject stated, “when it appears that international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $60 on the nymex [New York Mercantile Exchange] and ipe [London’s International Petroleum Exchange] or purchase a barrel of oil for €45 to €50 via the Iranian bourse” (Global Politician, September 2).

If oil-trading in euros were to get going, the current global trend of foreign currency reserves being shifted from dollars to euros would rapidly accelerate. In turn, “countries switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the U.S. currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more …. As countries and businesses converted their dollar assets into euro assets, the U.S. property and stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst” (Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability, Nov. 15, 2004).

The snowballing effect of a reserve currency switch would be catastrophic for the U.S., according to the Global Politician. The U.S. “would simply have to stop importing” (op. cit.).

Considering how America’s industrial and agricultural heartland has been gutted over the last half century, this possibility would be grave. As one commentator put it, the impact of the Iranian oil bourse on the U.S. dollar—and the follow-on effect on the U.S. economy—could be worse than Iran launching a direct nuclear attack.

Though many economists consider the chances of Iran’s ambition succeeding as remote, we can know from Bible prophecy that the U.S. financial system will be brought down—along with the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency

You don't need to believe Bible Prophecies or any other prophecies or agree with Chrisitan or non-Chrisitan views. That is only one article I selected and I am aware that some will dismiss it due to the fact that it places a tint of Chrisitan views on it. There are aspects that I also do not agree with in the above article that paint a somewhat aggresive picuture of Tehran. In reality Washington is the main aggresor in the world and was also one of the main forces that pushed and ignited the Iran-Iraq War, wishing to see both nations shattered to pieces. It is funny the same group of people who were know to deal, support, and shake Saddam's hands are the same who turned on him and pushed for an Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.

The confrontation brewing between America and Iran is based on a momentum of tangents and abstract views, but can be squared off into one raison d'être or motivation. That is power. Power is linked to desires, control, and money. Money is in term affiliated with luxury, ease, control, and once again 'power'—and the cycle rotates thus like a wheel. This has been a cycle throughout history from the times of the Romans, Ancient Greeks, and Ancient Iranians to the Napoleonic era and the two World Wars. Sure, nationalism, ideology, and religion have come to play, but what were the primary triggers and underlying motivations of conflict? If you study the cycle of motivation, that I illustrated, you will see that former conflicts in history can be fit very comfortably somewhere within the confides of this simplistic analysis of cause and motivation.

Furthermore, it is not nations that go to war. Nations are ‘led’ to 'war.’ Nations and their masses suffer from war. The American soldiers who died in the illegal invasion and eventual occupation of Iraq are also victims, in a different respect from Iraqi civilians, of the transgressions and objects of the American elite. Mind you out of respect for the blood and suffering of innocent Iraqi civilians I would like to point out that the victimization of American troops is different. Iraqi civilians in all different walks from children, the old, mothers, and men to handicaps, newborns, fathers, and public servants did not have much choice in being in a war zone or being players in a conflict. War was brought to them and their homes, schools, hospitals, neighbourhoods, and places of work. American troops had the choice of enlist in the military. Again, mind you, not many American enrolees knew about the prospects of war and did it for naïve and purely non-malicious reasons. These reasons include post-secondary education assistant and subsidies used to lour these young men to fight for the American elites’ military-industrial complex. Other reasons include love and patriotism for America which has been misguided and misused to undermine America and core American and human values by the American elite and the American media, which is a tool of control belonging to the American elite. Another reason is the reality of fiscal stress and the desperation of needed employment. Is it a surprise that many of the deprived of America are the ones who signup for service in the American military? The truth is the money used for military operations, in all countries, should be use for the education of the masses and to improve their quality of life. Making sure the youth of America are educated and employed is what Washington D.C. and the White House’s priority should be and not the immoral and ignoble occupation of other nations and peoples!

The fermenting confrontation between Iran and the United States of America is ‘not’ a matter of clash of cultures or civilizations. This is a matter of the masses taking control and responsibility for their collective destinies. The bulk of humanity has fallen into a state of disenfranchisement and dreariness, while an extremely small group control almost everything from decision making and law to wealth, property, taxes, and consumer spending.

I have been interacting with politicians, academics, officials, and writers on this issue for sometime now. All in all underneath the surface this is a matter of collective rights. We, as a greater human family, are in a fork wedged in the road. As for those individuals who issue God’s name and believe in Him, let them honour Him (God) and act in a manner that would please Him (God). If they truly believe in God and refer to His name, then let them do this with a conviction that they will later have to answer to Him (God). This is not about nations nor is this about Muslims and non-Muslims, in the conventional sense, either. This is about regular people who wish to live in peace and those people of power with unhealthy and malignant minds who wish to control everything. Little do they, the transgressing elitist of America and other global circles, fully comprehend that in a world of such great variables there is no such thing as absolute control. Iraq is a living testimony of this fact.

To all readers with questions I fully encourage you to read the Non-Proliferation Treaty, then to visit and carefully look for primary sources on the IAEA inspections in Iran, including data from inspectors. Look at various forms of media in whatever language you are able to read, from Iran, the Russian Federation, China, South Africa, Brazil, Lebanon, Germany, Malaysia, and so on. Look through archives of the United Nations resolutions and carefully examine the difference in American, Israeli, European, and Iranian media……



According to Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Stoere, Norway is deeply worried about the emerging confrontation between Iran, supported by Russia and China, on one side and the United States of America, Israel, Britain, Germany, and France on the other side.

Tension has risen over the complex and advanced Iranian Civilian Nuclear Program since Iran informed the IAEA that it wished to resume its nuclear research and development activities, which it had put on hold voluntarily for approximately over 2 years, and had IAEA officials come and remove the seals that IAEA inspectors had closed Iranian facilities off with. The United States of America and Israel were the first to condemn and threaten Iran with punishment, such as sanctions, and possible military attacks, followed by Britain, France, and Germany.

What has been pointed out the world over by experts in international law and jurisprudence is that there is growing and open disregard for international consensus and laws by many nations. The value of collective international bodies like the United Nations is being watered down and dismantled. The United States of America and Britain are two of the main forces behind this emerging chaotic atmosphere in the world and have even been alleged to undermine the unity of the European Union by pushing for the inclusion of nations like Turkey, Albania, Ukraine, and Romania who are premature in many aspects such as human rights, democratic values, education standards, and economic health to join the European Union.

The Iranian Civilian Nuclear Program is not a matter of legality it is a matter of geo-politics and American dominated corporate 'criminal' interests. Legally Iran is in the right. Under the international Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran is allowed to develop the nuclear fuel cycle without any hassle or objection. So why is Iran being asked to do what would not be asked of any other country? Brazil’s nuclear file is a perfect example! Brazil is in the same situation as Iran, but nothing is being said by the American or British governments. In fact, Brazil has even not allowed inspections by the IAEA and therefore broken its treaty obligations unlike Iran which has voluntarily received the strictest IAEA inspections in the agency’s history!

It is unfortunate, but true that the very European nations that are trying to coerce Iran from gaining technological breakthroughs and advancements, to better itself as a nation, are the same that profit off all forms of conflict and wars, are major arms dealers, are the nations that helped Saddam Hussein of Iraq build chemical weapons which he used against Iranians, both soldiers and civilians, and the Kurdish citizens of Iraq in massacres like Halabja, and aided the Iraqi invasion of Iran. In that particular situation the American government and almost the whole of Europe stayed silent! Whatever voices came from European governments were weak. European citizens know that their governments play a role in fostering international conflicts and profit off them. The so-called EU-3 are not negotiating with Iran, but trying to coerce it. If one looks at the offers made to Iran they will conclude that they are nothing but ‘we might do this after we study and vote’ that will amount to nothing, but an actual loss for Iran. North Korea was offered a world more than Iran was and North Korea is a totalitarian, undemocratic, Stalinist state.

The truth is Iran is already waiting for the Europeans to make good on their promises from the past. The negotiations between Iran and Britain, France, and Germany are over the nuclear fuel cycle which Iran is developing on its own and also permitted to due so under the international Non-Proliferation Treaty that was signed and agreed to be respected by France, Germany, Austria, America, Britain, Russia, China, Iran, Sweden, Norway, and a whole host of other nations. The so-called EU3 are trying to persuade Iran to give it up and purchase costly nuclear fuel from outside sources like themselves.

In reality Iran has been waiting for its share of nuclear fuel, which it legally owns, for years now and has been forced to produce into a position where it must produce own nuclear fuel. Mind you that Iranian policy after much deceit from European partners is to be independent of any means of foreign manipulation or foreign economic lifelines. Iran has a policy of total self-sufficiency, which cannot be blamed of for any country, especially one like Iran that has suffered so much at the hands of foreigners.

In 1975, Iran purchased a share in a ‘Eurodif’ uranium enrichment plant being built in France and agreed to buy a quota from the new plant. The government of pre-1979 Iran gave one billion (US) dollars of financial aid to Eurodif, but Iran has not received any uranium till this day, which it had asked for repeatedly many years ago, when the Russians initiated cooperation with Iran, before it decided to develop its own nuclear fuel cycle. Even in the 1970s the American government sold Iran enriched uranium to experiment with without any questions or preconditions.

Some argue that the Iranian President’s statements about Israel and Zionism are points that verify European, American, and Israeli concerns in regards to Iranian nuclear development and scientific research.

Iranian foreign policy can be clarified in respects to Israel or any other charter member of the United Nations. Official Iranian policy has been and continues to be one of never using or threatening the use of force on any country. This policy is entrenched and encoded in the Iranian system. The Iranian political system, as well as Iranian people and religious bodies, disavows any aggression on any nation and force can only be used as a means of national defence. Non-aggression is entrenched in Iranian policy and is one of the cornerstones of Iranian guiding principle, especially after a brutal war with Iraq which was egged on and profited from in many different ways by the United States of America, Israel, Britain, Europe and all the major arm sellers in the world. The American military even intervened in the air and sea on behalf of Iraq resulting in combat in the Persian Gulf between Iranian forces and America military forces. Both the Soviet Union and America gave strong support to Iraq to balance power between the two states, but the United States of America also wanted to see, as did Israel, the two neighbours destroy themselves. Israel even took advantage of the war and attacked Iraq and destroyed the only Iraqi nuclear power plant at Osirak in 1981. It later turned out that France who was contracted to build the facility also secretly cooperated with the Israeli government and military on the raid in Iraq.

The Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs has invited world policy makers to study the context of the statements in full and stated, “We have asked all our embassies to clarify any ambiguities that any country might have regarding the issue by explaining our position. But [we] also advise them to ask the question why the same countries support the crimes of the Zionist [Israeli] regime. Why do they ignore the rights of an oppressed nation [Palestine] which has endured brutality, persecution, and injustice for over 60 years? The whole world has witnessed the humiliation and killing of these people [the Palestinians]. Why are they being ignored?”

Iranian Foreign Affairs spokesmen went on to reaffirm Iranian foreign policy and initiative on October 29, 2005, by stating, “Iran adheres to the UN charter and has never used or threatened or is intending to use force against any country.”

Iranian foreign policy since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 has been to usher the revival of elementary Palestinian human rights and the resurrection of a Palestine state with equal civil liberties for Muslims, Jews, and Christians. The initial structure of Iranian policy towards Palestine and the Israeli government was the call for comprehensive resurrection of Palestinian fundamental rights, support of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and national sovereignty, and distinguishing the government of Israel as an illegitimate occupying force that would not be legitimately recognized by Iran until the Palestinians were dealt with fairly and justly. Iranian foreign policy also accepts and values the decision making mechanisms of the Palestinian people. After the Oslo Agreement was signed in Norway, the Iranian government and Parliament in Tehran publicly declared they would abide by the collective will of the Palestinian people and respect the decisions of their political leaders even if it meant a ‘two-state solution,’ but had their reservations and healthy scepticism of Israeli sincerity.

Iran officially maintained a policy of healthy scepticism regarding Israeli fulfillment of Israeli obligations and Israeli pledges of the Oslo Accord. Once the Israeli government pronounced that the Oslo agreement was dead, that Israel had no intentions of implementing the agreement, and that there were possibilities of Israel annexing sections of the Occupied Territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) the governing bodies of Iran felt their cynicism and distrust of Israel was justified. Israel violated its pledge not to build new settlements and to press forward for full Palestinian self-rule and statehood. This deceit and duplicity in turn resulted in a more forceful pro-Palestinian policy in Iran, the Middle East, sections of Europe, the Islamic World, Russia, and the nations of the Non-Alignment Movement.

It is the United States of America, Israeli, Britain, France, and Germany that are states with histories as aggressors who were and still are combatants of imperialist wars and modern policies.

Israel continues to violate its neighbours’ territories, airspaces and sovereignties. Israel continues to occupy other states territories. Israel is the nation that invaded and occupied Lebanon and invaded Egypt. Israel is the state that defies both the international community and international law by actions such as ignoring numerous UN resolutions. It is Israel that attacked and killed American servicemen on the USS Liberty. It is Israel that has been undeniably convicted of deliberately killing UN workers, Peace Keepers, and journalists. It is Israel that has been caught using other nations forms of identification (such as Canada) for terrorist actions in the past. It is Israel that is known to maintain nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Furthermore, Israel has purchased at the cost of German tax payers new Dolphin-class submarines from the German government that it asserts will further enhance its second strike capabilities (possibly including missiles with nuclear warheads) that will be positioned to a certain extent off Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. These actions are genuine deterrents to peace in the entire Middle East, Europe, and the world. I ask you, the reader, this: ‘Is this how Germany and the individuals running the European Union wish to diffuse tension and establish peace, through supporting an arms race in the Middle East?’

Readers ask the question why Israel receives arms and advanced weaponry from the federal government of the United States of America at almost no cost? Israel has historically receives unparalleled amount of aid in monetary funds, weapons, and technology from the United States of America and certain other nations. The American government gives the most foreign aid to Israel and bills American taxpayers for Israeli purchases of military hardware. One-third of American foreign aid goes to Israel! Does Israel need that much? Since 1949, Israel has received over 135 billion (US) dollars in aid. Almost all this aid is free without any repayment obligations.

Though Israel is the wealthiest country to receive American aid, with a per capita income higher than Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and all Eastern Europe, the free handouts triggers little opposition in the American Congress or among the unsuspecting American electorate. Elsewhere in the world, like Norway or Sweden or Japan, it can provoke deep resentment and accusations. The American taxpayer has unsuspectingly funded illegal settlements with multi-million (US) dollar homes countering the terms of the Oslo Accord or the building of a fence around Israel.

To show the deceitful nature of the American ruling establishment is Joel Johnson, a representative of the Aerospace Industries Association of America, which represents many American weapons producers, who has stated officially, “We give them [the Israelis] money to build stuff [homes, farms, factories, weapons] for themselves [Israel] and the U.S. taxpayer gets nothing in return.”

There is great hypocritical positioning by America and European Union members in regards to Israel and furthermore Israeli military threats aimed at Iran cannot be dismissed as disconnected from Israeli policy and objectives. It is Israel that is in manifest violation of the UN charter by openly threatening the use of force against another member state. This is not uncommon behaviour coming from Israel either. Israel is a regular violator of human rights, respect of international boundaries, weapons proliferation, international conventions, world laws, and internationally accepted norms.

Recently a unanimous declaration was passed by the 26th Annual Summit of the GCC that the Middle East be turned into a nuclear weapons free zone in December, 2005. This was based on an earlier Iranian UN resolution passed in 1974, which Israel and America have ignored till this day. The declaration was predominantly intended for Israel, which is seen as the chief cause of proliferation in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. I would like to cite Shaikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahyun, the President of the United Arab Emirates in his statement to the world, “We [the UAE and members of the GCC] have confidence in Iran, but we do not want to see an Iranian nuclear reactor that is closer to our territorial waters than it is to Tehran. This [can] causes danger and harm to us,” and the Arab leader also stated, “We want Iran to be logical in dealing with the nuclear issue, in such a manner that it meets its peaceful purposes without inflicting damage on its neighbours.”

The following is a direct citation from formal Iranian pledges to the United Nations during the First Committee of Disarmament and International Security:

Iranian diplomat Reza Najafi acknowledged the following, “that nuclear weapon free zones were recognized [by the Iranian government] as a regional instrument to strengthen regional and international peace and security. Such zones were instrumental in preventing the threat of nuclear war, and were in conformity with the provisions of the final document of the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. Three decades had elapsed since Iran had first submitted the idea for a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East, in 1974. The resolutions on the establishment of such a zone in the region had been adopted by the General Assembly since 1980 without a vote, administration of the significance of that noble idea,” and continued to also say, “that Iran, by renouncing the nuclear option and placing its nuclear facilities under the IAEA system, had shown its determination to achieve the total elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. Such an act had underscored Iran's undiminished support for the establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East, with the ultimate objective of ridding the world of those weapons. Iran ratified the IAEA statute in 1958 and, subsequently, signed the NPT in 1969, which its parliament ratified in 1970. That process had been furthered by the ratification of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement in 1973, and further accomplished by the signing of the Additional Protocol in 2003. In implementing its NPT obligation, specifically Articles II and III, all of Iran's nuclear facilities were devoted to peaceful purposes and under full-scope IAEA safeguards.” Najafi went on to finish up by saying, “Owing to Israel's non-adherence to the NPT, and more importantly, its refusal to place its regime under the IAEA system, the realization of a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East had not materialized.”

The Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki has also reaffirmed this countless times along with various Iranian administrations and the Iranian Parliament in Tehran. The Foreign Minister of Iran, in the presence of diplomats from the Baltic, stated that, “not only the Middle East but the whole world should be free of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).”

The issue of nuclear weapons in Iran is absolute nonsense and fabrication on the part of Washington, Tel Aviv, and certain European governments. Firstly, Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and the religious authorities have declared it a sin and evil counter to their religious beliefs. We are talking about a theocratic democracy here where state and church/mosque are somewhat amalgamated.

Secondly, the very deceitful nations that attack other states, overthrow democratically elected governments in other nations (i.e. Chile & the region of Latin America) for the sake of profit, have known weapons of mass destruction (WMD), brake international laws and regulations, are known to continue to develop illegitimate nuclear weapons, appose an international court of justice that could possible reign in all tyrants, and bar IAEA and international inspections of their nuclear sites are foremost the United States of America and Israel.

If you look at the recent history of hostile activities of the United States of America, Israel, and Britain (UK) as apposed to Iran you will come to the conclusion that these unproven speculations and claims against the state of Iran are very much fabricated slurs and slander that are pretexts for attacking a nation that will fuel the rise of China to superpower status, help Russia consolidate its power, strengthen India to a world powerhouse, contest American and British economic influence in Central Asia, give strengthened support to the Palestinian right to live freely outside of the oppressive and cruel Israeli occupation, and challenge the technological and economic status quo. These accusations against Iran, as a whole, are falsification, perversions of truth, and distortions of reality engineered for future conflict with Iran. It is the United States of America, Britain, and Israel who have attacked other nations as aggressors in recent history (even past history in the case of America and Britain). There are many examples, but I will only cite a few.

A list of nations that have been attacked and almost all invaded include Yugoslavia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Panama, Vietnam, Honduras, Libya, Somalia, Laos, Haiti, Grenada, Bolivia, and Iraq on the part of the Americans and the British. The American and British governments have made a mockery of both their national governance systems and international institutions and laws by providing falsified dossiers on Iraq like forged documents claiming Iraq wanted uranium from Nigeria that are publicly admitted known forgeries in the United States of America, Britain, continental Europe, and the rest of the world. Both the United States of America and Britain have an aggressive history of engaging in wars based on false or manufactured pretexts. It is now known and by and large taught in history classes that the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine was a false pretext by the American government for war with Spain in 1898 to annex resource rich Spanish territory. Claims of attacks on American troops by Panama in 1989 were false reason to invade and secure the Panama Canal, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was also pretext to invade Vietnam by the American military. Britain has intervened, alongside the Israelis, in Egypt when the Suez Canal was nationalized as public property by the Egyptian government, waged war with Argentina in 1982 over the Falkland Islands which has been under British occupation since 1833, and helped the United States of America impose an internationally illegal no fly zone over parts of pre-invasion Iraq for years that were claimed to be enforced to protect the Shiite Arabs and the Kurds, but in reality was to slowly destroy Iraqi infrastructure and defensive resistance to the future illegal Anglo-American invasion of the oil rich state. Even an example of a past war on the part of the British will show the British elites conning and disregard for morality. A perfect example of which would be the Opium War, between Britain and China, in which Britain gained Hong Kong. The Chinese government has come to the conclusion that the addictive narcotic opium was bad for its citizens and society so outlawed it in China. The British were the imperial masters of India at the time were the profited out of the growth of opium which was sold in a large Chinese market next door. When the law was passed Britain stood to loose much profit so it went to war with China to allow the public use of narcotics. These are the real reasons behind American and British wars such as the illegal invasion of Iraq, which was a farce conducted for the personal gain of the American, British, and Israeli elite.

As for Israel it continues on a regular basis to violate its neighbours’ territories, airspaces and sovereignties. It illegally sends assassins and kidnappers into other states to kill its opponents and so-called enemies, which include politicians, the old, women, activists, diplomats, ideologues, intellectuals, and religious leaders (including Christian priests and nuns, like in Lebanon, and Muslim religious leaders). Israel has illegal kidnapped various individuals, from Nazi Germans to Arab figures resisting Israeli occupation, without any consultation or respect of other nations or governments from Europe and the Middle East to South America. It has regularly used so-called counter-terrorism behaviour, such as car bombs, to kill individuals termed as threats to the Israeli military and security apparatus. One example of this former Israeli ally Elie Hobeika who was killed in a devistating car bomb, on January 24, 2002, when he was on his way to Belgium to testify in front of the world media, Beligian leaders, and European representatives that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Israeli military where the organizers of the Sabra and Shatila massacres of Palestinian refugees who were mostly old people, women, and children. The Lebanese Christian leader, Elie Hobeika, was blown up outside his house in Beirut on January 24, 2002, together with three bodyguards and a civilian bystander. The car-bomb was the work of professional assassins of the Israeli Mossad. The explosion occurred two days after Hobeika agreed to give evidence against Sharon in Belgium in an agreement made with Belgian Senators Josy Dubie and Vincent van Quickenborne in Beirut. Israel has invaded Egypt with so-called pre-emptive strikes destroying its entire air force, attacked Syria, invaded and occupied Lebanon committing terrible atrocities, and attacked the kingdom of Jordan. Israel has intentionally attacked an American naval ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, killing many servicemen on board, traded secrets between American and the former Soviet Union, regularly ignored the Geneva Convention by massacring prisoners of war and civilians, ignores calls to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, unilaterally attacked Iraq in an unprovoked operation and destroyed the Osirak power plant while Iraq was at war with Iran. The Israeli nuclear complex, Dimona, in the Negev Desert was developed with the assistance of France and support of America. For the reactors designs and constructions, Israel sought the assistance of France. Nuclear cooperation between the two nations dates back as far as early 1950's, when construction began on France's 40MWt heavy water reactor and a chemical reprocessing plant at Marcoule. This complex helped develop an unknown clandestine nuclear weapons program secretly supported by the American government, and now continues to make nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

The American, British, and Israeli elite now look to Iran, the most importantly placed geo-strategic nation in the world now and an energy giant that will be the kingmaker of the next superpower. Iran is the undisputable powerhouse of the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Iran is also strategically placed between the Indian sub-continent, former Soviet Central Asia, the Caucasus and Russia, Turkey, Europe, and the Arab World. It is extremely rich in a wide variety of natural resources including fossil foils, metals, and minerals. Is a highly educated nation with advanced industries that include making submarines, super oil tankers, automobiles, space technology, cement factories, military hardware (such as tanks, missiles, and jets), and computers. Iran is also vying for formal leadership of the Islamic World and the nations of the Non-Alignment movement that includes Latin America, Africa, and the Asia. Iran is a challenge to the status quo and even worst in the eyes of the American, British, and Israeli elites is threatening to rupture it. Iran is about to open its own Middle East oriented oil and fossil fuel based bursary or exchange dated to roughly open as soon as March 2006. This is the same time Israel falsely claims Iran will be past the point of no return in relations to the Iranian civil nuclear program. This could be a point of no return possibly, but not in the peaceful civilian nuclear program. It could possibly be the end of the supremacy of the American dollar and economy on one hand and the world status quo that the elite are trying to protect and strengthen on the other hand. Oil and oil related petrochemicals are traded through American currency in the world’s oil exchanges, the New York City NYMEX and the London IPE in Britain. These are both American owned and American regulated. The use of American dollars at the London IPE is one of the reasons why Britain has not adopted the Euro currency yet. If it does take on European Union currency reform and switch from the British Pound Sterling to the Euro it could endanger the American dollar. There are strong probabilities of demands or legislature with Euro currency adoption and reform to replace the American dollar with the Euro at the London IPE. There could be strong pressure from the rest of the European Union, Russia, OPEC, Iran, China, and many other nations in the world for the switch. Iran is circumnavigating around these institutions. It is worth looking into and researching. From an economical point a Euro based oil exchange is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC and the Arab states than the America market does. It would benefit all parties except the United States of America and the elites of Israel and Britain who have many interests in keeping American economic hegemony.

Finally the inspectors and scientists of the IAEA recommended that the inspections on Iran should be ended and that in their technical opinions and expertise Iran is not planning on making atomic bombs or using nuclear technology for military reasons. These findings were overruled by politically appointed diplomatic representatives at the IAEA board of International Governs. The actually inspectors were overruled by the diplomats following orders from their capitals like Washington, Berlin, Paris, and London. This was done even though technical inspectors of the IAEA, the actual experts and scientists have declared that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and Iran is compliant with its obligations. The fact is that the diplomatic representatives of some of the nations that are members of the IAEA overruled the technical inspectors and scientists findings and rulings for political reasons. This means that the qualified experts’ legal and factual declarations were overturned by politically appointed representatives for political and self serving reasons. It is devious and corrupt how the IAEA was manipulated for the first time ever to vote on an issue rather than its standard format of international consensus. The IAEA always reached decisions based on consensus and group agreement of all its members. For the first time ever in the organization’s history an issue was voted over. This is evident disregard for international law and peace on the part of America, Britain, France, and Germany. Force is not law! The colonial era is supposed to be over, but imperialism is still strong!

In a true and real democratic society and by democratic norms of justice an individual is innocent and only guilty if proven beyond the shadow of a doubt as blameworthy or guilty. The term guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt comes to play. If there exists even the slightest doubt of innocence in any criminal case against an individual, that individual is found innocent. This principle of justice can be applied to nations. First of all Iran is not on trial and there exists no genuine authority in the world to try whole nations. Yet Iran is not afforded this democratic principle in any manner. In actuality it is the American establishment and elite who deceitfully act in the name of democracy that undermine true democracy and democratic principles. One needs to look at American intervention in Asia and Latin America against democratic governments and movements or American support for pro-American dictatorships and authoritarian regimes like those of Egypt or Jordan or even American intervention in Imperial Iran, where in the past an established secular and responsible democracy under the premiership of Dr. Mossadegh counter to American and British interests was deposed. Secondly, Iran is wilfully cooperating in concerns to its civilian nuclear dossier with the offensive forces at play against itself, which so often use the term international community and world body to try and falsely show wide support and credibility to their darker ends. Iran is opting for a peaceful solution to stop the ravenous false accusations spearheaded by Washington, Tel Aviv, and London. Iran’s justifications and explanations in this particular case are perfectly reasonably, legal, and in accordance to international norms and practises.

Confrontation with Iran and an undeniably emerging Iranian Bloc will cause fundamental changes the world over at great costs to America, Israel, the European Union, and Iran itself, but Iran is a strong nation with one of the most educated populations in the world with great diversity and a profound history. Iran will survive, but will the status quo? Hopefully, not! In conclusion, the confrontation with Iran in another fabrication just as the confrontation with Iraq was that resulted in an illegal Anglo-American occupation.

Mahdi Nazemroaya



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

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.


This is An Article in regards to IRAN VS. AMERICAN WORLD DOMINATION

Iraq, Iran and China: a New Global Alliance?
Beyond the Ballot

The US President Bush called last month's Iraqi elections a "major milestone in the march to democracy." They are indeed a milestone -- just not the kind that Washington would welcome. Disregarding the standard declarations of benign intent on the part of leaders, let's review the history. When Bush and Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, invaded Iraq, the pretext, insistently repeated, was a "single question": Will Iraq eliminate its weapons of mass destruction?

Within a few months this "single question" was answered the wrong way. Then, very quickly, the real reason for the invasion became Bush's "messianic mission" to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. Even apart from the timing, the democratisation bandwagon runs up against the fact that the United States has tried, in every possible way, to prevent elections in Iraq.

Last January's elections came about because of mass nonviolent resistance, for which the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani became a symbol. (The violent insurgency is another creature altogether from this popular movement.) Few competent observers would disagree with the editors of the Financial Times, who wrote last March that "the reason (the elections) took place was the insistence of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them."

Elections, if taken seriously, mean you pay some attention to the will of the population. The crucial question for an invading army is: "Do they want us to be here?"

There is no lack of information about the answer. One important source is a poll for the British Ministry of Defence this past August, carried out by Iraqi university researchers and leaked to the British Press. It found that 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops and less than 1 per cent believe they are responsible for any improvement in security.

Analysts of the Brookings Institution in Washington report that in November, 80 per cent of Iraqis favoured "near-term US troop withdrawal." Other sources generally concur. So the coalition forces should withdraw, as the population wants them to, instead of trying desperately to set up a client regime with military forces that they can control. But Bush and Blair still refuse to set a timetable for withdrawal, limiting themselves to token withdrawals as their goals are achieved.

There's a good reason why the United States cannot tolerate a sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq. The issue can scarcely be raised because it conflicts with firmly established doctrine: We're supposed to believe that the United States would have invaded Iraq if it was an island in the Indian Ocean and its main export was pickles, not petroleum.

As is obvious to anyone not committed to the party line, taking control of Iraq will enormously strengthen US power over global energy resources, a crucial lever of world control. Suppose that Iraq were to become sovereign and democratic. Imagine the policies it would be likely to pursue. The Shia population in the South, where much of Iraq's oil is, would have a predominant influence. They would prefer friendly relations with Shia Iran.

The relations are already close. The Badr brigade, the militia that mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The highly influential clerics also have long- standing relations with Iran, including Sistani, who grew up there. And the Shia-dominant interim government has already begun to establish economic and possibly military relations with Iran.

Furthermore, right across the border in Saudi Arabia is a substantial, bitter Shia population. Any move toward independence in Iraq is likely to increase efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice there, too. This also happens to be the region where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. The outcome could be a loose Shia alliance comprising Iraq, Iran and the major oil regions of Saudi Arabia, independent of Washington and controlling large portions of the world's oil reserves. It's not unlikely that an independent bloc of this kind might follow Iran's lead in developing major energy projects jointly with China and India.

Iran may give up on Western Europe, assuming that it will be unwilling to act independently of the United States. China, however, can't be intimidated. That's why the United States is so frightened by China.

China is already establishing relations with Iran -- and even with Saudi Arabia, both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security grid, based on China and Russia, but probably bringing in India, Korea and others. If Iran moves in that direction, it can become the lynchpin of that power grid.

Such developments, including a sovereign Iraq and possibly even major Saudi energy resources, would be the ultimate nightmare for Washington. Also, a labour movement is forming in Iraq, a very important one. Washington insists on keeping Saddam Hussein's bitter anti-labour laws, but the labour movement continues its organising work despite them.

Their activists are being killed. Nobody knows by whom, maybe by insurgents, maybe by former Baathists, maybe by somebody else. But they're persisting. They constitute one of the major democratising forces that have deep roots in Iraqi history, and that might revitalise, also much to the horror of the occupying forces. One critical question is how Westerners will react. Will we be on the side of the occupying forces trying to prevent democracy and sovereignty? Or will we be on the side of the Iraqi people?


Here is an aricle by an American writter;

by Mike Whitney

In less than 24 hours the Bush administration has won impressive victories on both domestic and foreign policy fronts. At home, the far-right Federalist Society alum, Sam Alito, has overcome the feeble resistance from Democratic senators; ensuring his confirmation to the Supreme Court sometime late on Tuesday. Equally astonishing, the administration has coerced both Russia and China into bringing Iran before the United Nations Security Council although (as Mohamed ElBaradei says) “There’s no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.” The surprising capitulation of Russia and China has forced Iran to abandon its efforts for further negotiations; cutting off dialogue that might diffuse the volatile situation.

“We consider any referral or report of Iran to the Security Council as the end of diplomacy,” Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told state television.

The administration’s success with Iran ends the diplomatic charade and paves the way for war. Now, UN Ambassador John Bolton can make his appearance before the Security Council with allegations of “noncompliance” that will rattle through the corporate media and prepare the world for unilateral military action.

The administration has no expectation of securing the votes needed for sanctions or punitive action. Its all for show. The trip to the Security Council is simply a ploy to provide the cover of international legitimacy to another act of unprovoked aggression. The case has gone as far as it will go excluding the requisite “touched up” satellite photos and spurious allegations of unreliable dissidents.

We should now be focused on how Washington intends to carry out its war plans, since war is inevitable.

Those who doubt that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team will attack Iran, while so conspicuously overextended in Iraq, are ignoring the subtleties of the administration’s Middle East strategy.

Bush has no intention of occupying Iran. Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth. Ultimately, Washington will aim to replace the Mullahs with American-friendly clients who can police their own people and fabricate the appearance of representative government. But, that will have to wait. For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar. There have many fine articles written about the proposed “euro-based” bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback. The best of these are “Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar” by William R. Clark, and “The Proposed Oil Bourse” by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

The bottom line on the bourse is this; the dollar is underwritten by a national debt that now exceeds $8 trillion dollars and trade deficits that surpass $600 billion per year. That means that the greenback is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind. It’s utterly worthless. The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. If Iran is able to smash that monopoly by trading in petro-euros then the world’s central banks will dump the greenback overnight, sending markets crashing and the US economy into a downward spiral.

The Bush administration has no intention of allowing that to take place. In fact, as the tax-cuts and the budget deficits indicate, the Bush cabal fully intends to perpetuate the system that trades worthless dollars for valuable commodities, labor, and resources. As long as the oil market is married to the dollar, this system of global indentured servitude will continue.

Battle Plans

The Bush administration’s attention has shifted to a small province in southwestern Iran that is unknown to most Americans. Never the less, Khuzestan will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext disarming Iran’s nuclear programs) and put Iran’s prodigious oil wealth under US control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved.

Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Hussein’s strategy in 1980 when he initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green light for the invasion from the Reagan White House. Many of Reagan’s high-ranking officials currently serve in the Bush administration; notably Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Khuzestan represents 90% of Iran’s oil production. The control over these massive fields will force the oil-dependent nations of China, Japan and India to continue to stockpile greenbacks despite the currency’s dubious value. The annexing of Khuzestan will prevent Iran’s bourse from opening, thereby guaranteeing that the dollar will maintain its dominant position as the world’s reserve currency. As long as the dollar reigns supreme and western elites have their hands on the Middle East oil-spigot, the current system of exploitation through debt will continue into perpetuity. The administration can confidently prolong its colossal deficits without fear of a plummeting dollar. In fact, the American war-machine and all its various appendages, from Guantanamo to Abrams Tanks, are paid for by the myriad nations who willingly hold reserves of American currency.

This extortion-scheme is typically referred to as the global economic system. In reality, it has nothing to do with either free markets or capitalism. That is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It is the dollar-system; predicated entirely on the ongoing monopoly of the oil trade in dollars.

Invading Khuzestan

In a recent article by Zolton Grossman, “Khuzestan; the First Front in the War on Iran?”, Grossman cites the Beirut Daily Star which predicts that the “"first step taken by an invading force would be to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan Province, securing the sensitive Straits of Hormuz and cutting off the Iranian military's oil supply, forcing it to depend on its limited stocks."

This strategy has been called the “Khuzestan Gambit”, and we can expect that some variant of this plan will be executed following the aerial bombardment of Iranian military installations and weapons sites. If Iran retaliates, then there is every reason to believe that either the United States or Israel will respond with low-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. In fact, the Pentagon may want to demonstrate its eagerness to use nuclear weapons do deter future adversaries and to maintain current levels of troop deployments without a draft.

Tonkin Bay Redux

On January 28, 2006, Iranian officials announced that they would “hand over evidence that proved British involvement in bombings in the southern city of Ahvaz earlier in the week” that killed eight civilians and wounded 46 others. This was just one of the many bombings, incitements, and demonstrations that have taken place in Khuzestan in the last year that suggest foreign intervention. The action is strikingly similar to the 2 British commandoes who were apprehended in Basra a few months ago dressed as Arabs with a truckload of explosives during the week of religious festival.


Probably not.

Step by step, Iran is being set up for war. What difference does the provocation make? The determination to consolidate the oil reserves in the Caspian Basin was made more than a decade ago and is clearly articulated in the policy papers produced by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) The Bush administration is one small province away from realizing the its dream of controlling the world’s most valued resource. They won’t let that opportunity pass them by.

We're in for another war.


Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?

Posted: February 3, 2006
11:00 a.m. Eastern

Beginning in 2003, Iran began demanding oil payment in euros, not dollars, although the oil itself was still priced in U.S. currency. Now, Iran is seriously considering establishing an Iranian Oil Bourse, with the goal of competing with the New York Mercantile Exchange, NYMEX, and London's International Petroleum Exchange, IPE.

Right now, the NYMEX and IPE use three oil "markers" to establish price – West Texas Intermediate crude, Norway Brent crude and the UAE Dubai crude. With the establishment of an Iranian Oil Bourse, Tehran wants to create a fourth oil marker, this one priced in the euro.

In 2000, as Saddam Hussein continued to sell the United Nations on what became the "oil for food" scandal, Iraq received U.N. permission to sell Iraqi oil for euros, not dollars. Saddam even received permission from the U.N. to convert the $10 billion oil-for-food reserve fund from dollars to euros.

Many administration critics argue today that the real reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was not to remove WMD from Iraq or to establish freedom but to preserve the dollar dominance of the world's oil market. These same critics argue today that the real reason for the ramp-up of concern over Iran has nothing to do with Iran's secret nuclear weapons program or with President Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel but everything to do with oil.

If the Iranians persist in creating a market mechanism to settle world oil transactions in the euro, the United States will attack just to preserve the oil market for the dollar.

Today, about 70 percent of the world's international foreign currency reserves are held in dollars. If the petroeuro begins to challenge the petrodollar, this percentage could diminish drastically.

The United States depends on the dollar foreign-currency reserves in order to sell the Treasury debt that sustains budget deficits. What if foreign-exchange portfolios from oil sales fell to 60 percent being held in dollars – would that cause a crisis in the U.S. economy? Or would it take 55 percent? Most Americans are completely unaware of this threat Iran represents to the U.S. economy.

The Iranians, however, are fully aware of what they are threatening, and so are top economic experts within the administration.

The Islamic world also has realized that America is at risk because we no longer have a gold-backed currency. For years, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has championed a move for the Muslim nations of the world to establish the gold dinar as the standard currency for settling international oil transactions. In November 2002, the West Malaysian Royal Mint reissued the gold dinar that was in common use in the Muslim world during the Ottoman Empire.

The idea would be to challenge the dollar by arguing that a fixed-value currency backed in gold is more resistant to devaluation than a floating dollar such as the U.S. has had since the administration of Richard Nixon.

In writing "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," Craig Smith and I argued that the United States should seriously consider establishing a gold-backed international-trade dollar to preserve stability and value in the international oil market. Clearly, any threat to petrodollar holdings could undermine social programs in the U.S., including Medicare and key welfare programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

How close is Iran to opening the Iranian Oil Bourse? The Iranian Oil Bourse is scheduled to be opened in March. Curiously, that is the same month Israel has quietly set as a deadline for a diplomatic resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Last year, President Bush was ready to concede to his liberal Democratic Party critics, allowing the EU-3 and the IAEA to lead the negotiations with Iran. Our guess is that if Iran does open an oil bourse as planned in March, Bush will take the gloves off.

The Bush administration might play with a nuclear Iran, comfortable with intelligence estimates that Iran needs much more time to produce a bomb. Maybe Iran should look more closely at the lesson of Saddam Hussein. We didn't find the WMDs our faulty intelligence claimed were in Iraq, but Hussein was trading in pertoeuros, with the full blessing of the U.N.

If Iran does open an oil bourse in March 2006, we should expect the warplanes will soon thereafter begin to fly.


Jerome R. Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including co-authoring with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." Dr. Corsi's most recent books include "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," which he co-authored with WND columnist Craig. R. Smith, and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians."

# re: Preparing for war
2/3/2006 7:08 PM by MAHDI NAZEMROAYA
I would strongly suggest thast you surf
through the hundreds of documents we have posted on our special "IAEA and Iran"
pages. Here is the link:

This is what "I" was diplomatically told by the IAEA when I brought up questions of ethics, morality, and law

IAEA: "First, last September, Iran was found by the IAEA Board of Governors to be in
"noncompliance" with its Safeguards agreements. The principal violation has been
the concealment of many of its nuclear activities from the IAEA over a period of
almost 20 years. The IAEA Board will consider next month whether these
violations of international agreements warrent a referral of the issue to the UN
Security Council."

REALITY: Iran's response is that it has 6-months before these facilities start running to inform the IAEA and thius did not violate any regulations.

IAEA: "Second clarification: Israel is a member of the IAEA, but it has not acceded to
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Moreover, the IAEA
is not the implementing body of the NPT, which does not have a standing
secretariat. The authority of the IAEA for carrying out inspections is very
limited, in most instances, by the Safeguards agreements it signs with
governments. Israel currently has only one "facility specific" safeguards

Many of the important questions like why the IAEA's consensus system was suddenly changed when it came to the issue of Iran or Brazil's nuclear activity which is on the same course as Iran's is not objected too.

Lastly is anyone reasons that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism they should look the groups up. Those groups are not classified as terorists by most the world and acted in the same manner the French, Polish and Russians did when occupied by Nazi Germany. Actually counter to what is beleived in America, the United States is seen as the biggest sponsor of state terorism in the world.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the truth on the fabricated crisis with the Iranian peoples.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Emeritus Contributors
Sign-up to receive a weekly digest of the latest posts from Democracy Arsenal.
Powered by TypePad


The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use