Greetings Readers,
While researching material for this vital topic I was astonished to find a great deal of misunderstanding, distrust, and hypocrisy on both sides of this important issue, but mostly pertaining to the United States, the West, and Israel. The general public does not appear to know, nor perhaps is unwilling to accept the historic background haunting these critical negotiations. After a brief respite deliberations will begin again on 17 December in Geneva, Switzerland. Although not apparent at this time their success would become a welcomed first step forward for the long-term survival of the human race as we know it. Therefore, I wish to clear this matter up and make it understandable.
In the meantime the American public is confused on the seriousless of the issue and I’ll tell you why. In recent decades the American public has become complacent, careless, addicted to and dependent on sound bites, clips and talking points memos that when meld lead to diverse policies toward Iran that are contradictory and confusing. The Public is flung from one convincing stead-fast opinion to another. During reports and talk programs we see segments in which the Network hosts are complimentary toward the Iranian people for one reason or another, their food, or their friendliness toward tourist and visitors. Shortly we view other points of view with strong aversions toward the Iranian government and country. (They alleged support of Hezbollah terrorism etc.) Further we may periodically receive sound bites by Neo-con types similar to the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu diatribes spreading fear and encouraging preemptive attacks on Iran to prevent the nation from obtaining a nuclear weapon capability, and to secure U. S. interests in the oil rich Gulf, and seemingly more important to protect Israel form a possible nuclear Armageddon.
However, what I present here are undeniable facts that support the premise we have nothing to fear from the nation of 60 million people. Iran most certainly doe not want to commit suicide by attacking the U. S. or its allies. I would maintain Iran is a poor candidate for committing to an act of war for any reason. Iran remains entirely within its borders has not been a colonial power and has not invaded another country in 500 years.
Aside from its peaceful record, the country has severe economic problems due to sanctions imposed by the West for over 40 years that cannot be reversed or resolved by war with neighbors or with the United States or with Israel, only thorough honest peaceful negotiations can these issues be met and defeated. Meanwhile the Persians are surrounded by dangers and potential crises at every turn. Because of this uncertain situation we may eventually be confronted by a nuclear armed Iran quite like other nations in the region seeking protection for themselves.
Iran is surrounded by nuclear armed counties that could become hostile adversaries. To the north is its only ally Russia, to the south the U. S. Navy fleet loaded with nuclear armaments, a bordering NATO member, Turkey, and a short distance to the southwest is the armed to the teeth Israel loaded with 200 plus ready to launched warheads, and to the east, last but not least,is the American presence in Afghanistan, and a nuclear armed Pakistan, India, and let’s not forget China. The reader may conclude the Iranians are in a tight bind, and continually in a state of uncertainty, suspicion, and fear.
Today the standard claim is Iran has no need for nuclear power as one of the leading oil producers, and therefore must have a “secret” program to enrich uranium that must be for weaponry of which there does not exist at present verifiable proof. But why do they need nuclear facilities and nuclear power? Maybe they do. Oh my, oh my, how things have changed.
Before 1979, when the oppressive American ally, the Shaw of Iran, was in power Washington enthusiastically, urgently supported a nuclear program. Henry Kissinger, then National Security Advisor to president Nixon stated, ‘The introduction of nuclear power will both proved for the growing needs for Iran’s industry and free remaining domestic oil production for export or conversion to a petrochemical Industry.’
After, after 1979, Henry changes his tune, writes ‘For a major oil producer such as Iran nuclear power is a wasteful use of resources and should be avoided‘ or so quoted in the Washington Post and in his recently published book. When asked about the reversal of opinion Kissinger responded with frankness. ‘They, Iran, was our ally then therefore a need for nuclear energy.‘ Well, I’ll buy that, it’s plain and simple practicality, a political reason to avoid nuclear proliferation, always in the best interest of the U. S. and for world peace. We need another nuclear power on the nine country list like we need a hole in the head. But for various reason stated above we may get one, no matter what we do.
Perhaps: Just perhaps, Charles De Gualle’s dictum is on the mark ‘No country without an atom bomb can properly consider its self free and independent.’
During the 1975 Gerald Ford Administration the U. S endorsed plans to build an enormous nuclear energy industry and worked to complete multibillion dollar deals to give Tehran control of large qualities of plutonium and enriched uranium which are of course essential on the pathway to a nuclear bomb, (Do you kind of wonder?) At the time National Security Team members Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz enthusiastically endorsed and supported the effort of a nuclear Iran, but currently, they vehemently oppose and denounce any nuclear program for Iran at all.
These reversals to the Iranians denote hypocrisy and self-interest of western power politics that have dogged, intimated, and threatened them when dealing with previous colonists in the early 1900’s and on to the present period. This is the reason many Iranians dislike us and a few hate us. As we , in the West, have quickly discarded recent history, other than to recall the 1979 Hostage crisis, and the embarrassing Ollie North-CIA scandal of Iranian arms intermediary purchases for the benefit of the Nicaraguan Contras. The Persians go back a long way and remember its own history entirely refusing to relegate the subject to the dust heap. Inclusive of the bitter history of course is the 1953 U.S, and U.K. coup that replace a popular democratically elected parliament with an unpopular Shah’s regime that lorded over the people and reigned as a U.S, sycophant for 27 years, finally deposed in 1978 by the then popular Anatole Khomeini Shiite Revolution.
The U.S. role in the overthrows of the British imperialist in the 1950’s occurred as Eisenhower became president and a cut and dry operation had already succeeded. The British-Iranian Oil company, later to become British Petroleum (BP) owned 51% of the operation, that at the time was the third largest crude-oil producer in the world, while keeping 84% if the revenue and dispensing the Iranians a slim 16% of revenues. Oil workers were paid 50 cents a day. The BIOC had a cozy relationship with the then ruler, Reza Shaw who had seized power in a coup decades earlier. The Iranians become furious when they learned that ARAMCO Corporation had signed a contract giving Saudi Arabia a 50 percent share deal, whereas the BIOC had denied similar to them. Thus the spark was lit.
Mohammed Mossadeq the Parliament’s Prime Minister challenged the oil monopoly and was quickly incarcerated. The popular, emotional Mossadeq was the first Iranians to acquire an advanced degree from a European University, and at the time had a 94%-98% public approval rating, Time Magazine voted him Man of the Year in 1951. The British Navy blocked harbors and threatened invasion. The classic coup was instigated shortly thereafter by a joint U. S. -British -CIA-MI-6 plot by infiltrating the press and paid rumor spreader, demonstrators, and rioters, not mentioning an assortment of turn-coat politicians. Mossadeq who had advocated the nationalization of the petroleum industry was kept under house arrest for 14 years. (The episode is detain in Stepen Kinzer’s book Overthrow)
The Shah’s rule was bitter-sweet. Sweet for his family, the wealthy and Western interest, bitter for the urban poor and much of the worker class. Years after the Shah and his entourage departed the International Media finally saw through the cover-up and exposed the many outrageous financial crimes and atrocities that the Shah committed utilizing his feared henchmen the brutally efficient SAVAK, a well-trained dedicated security and intelligence organization that did the Shah’s dirty work, as the power of the Pahavi Dynasty catered to the United States, receiving substantial military and economic aid while scooping up countless billions for himself and extended family members. (I was in Iran during the period)
Since the forgotten early 195o’s oil coup which dislodged the British from its commercial sphere of influence and replaced by the U. S. for substantive oil revenues and enhancements within western Europe and of course the Iranians were angered to say the least, distrustful of the United States and its allies, and who’s to blame them? The Iranians are reluctant to dispose of these historical events displayed for all to see, but generally not understood or forgotten in the West for lack of knowledge or curiosity.
Shortly after the 1978 overthrow of the Shah by the Anatolia Komeini’s Shiite Revolution the U. S. became alarmed. The balance of power had shifted within the strategic Persian Gulf region. Almost immediately the American administration realized it could not do business with the new regime and got busy to contain the possible threat to the Strait of Harmusz choke point for by which 50% of the worlds crude oil is shipments by tanker and realized the U. S. with contract terminations, enterprises would receive less or no oil from a once long time world supplier.
The Reagan Administration utilized the state department and the CIA to execute a program to contain the advancement of the Shiite Muslim Sect. Their plot was to encourage and support a conflict between the Sunni Iraqis and the Shiites in Iran in order to weaken the latter participant. With a greedy demotic Saddam Hussein under Washington’s wing it would prove to be an easy task. Shortly the Iraqis invaded Iran at the behest of theirU. S. sponsor who immediately become complicit by providing loans, credits, arms, intelligence, and chemicalsto its understudy while instigating an eight year war which killed more than a million people and maimed hundreds of thousands including many innocents. The conflict specifically targeted the northern Iraqi Kurds, considered by Hussien as disloyal, as well as an unpopular off-shoot of the Shiite religion. Within the battle fields of the war, 1980 through 1987, poison gas was used and frontal suicide attacks were periodically deployed.
Feeling independent, cocky, and on top of the world Saddam with what he believed to be the approval of the Americans invaded Kuwait. Censured for the invasion, and unceremoniously booted out of Kuwait during America’s Gulf War, Iraq I, Saddam became an international pariah. What followed was Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 sanctions that severely degraded the country.
In 2003 a reformist government came to power in Iran. Led by a moderate Mohammad Khatami who proposed a diplomatic agenda fashioned to eliminate and resolve all differences between the U. S., Europe and Iran, including the weapons of mass destruction issue, a two state solution for the long hanging Palestine-Israeli, nightmare, the future of Iranians support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah organization and in particular cooperation between the U. N. and Iran in safeguarding nuclear material. The Bush #43 Administration refused to attend.
A year later the European Union and Iran struck a deal Iran would suspend uranium enrichment in return Europe would provide assurances that the United State and Israel would not attack Iran. Under pressure from the U. S and Israel the European retreated, and Iran renewed its enrichment program three fold. The U. S. and Israel ignored the European offer to attend again. It must be surmised for whatever reason, the Americans had too much on their plate at the time with problematic Iraq falling apart, or they may have determined Iran would not negotiate in good faith, or else U. S. Neo-cons did not want multinational solution, but would keep their options open. At the time you may remember the gleam was in the eye of the far Right-wing Conservatives that if the war improved in Iraq and if proved successful, it would lean-to another country on the list to be invaded, Syria, Iran, etc.
Over the years cautious approaches have been attempted by Iran that never bore fruit. Suddenly at a 2014 U. N. conference, a passing acknowledgement by Obama and the Iranian president rekindled hope for a possible improved outcome and a series of meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s President Rohani were schedule. At first little was accomplished, but presently we are on another page. On December 17, 2014 negotiations will resume. Let’s hope for the best.
All the best.
Ron
