• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad letter to Bush revealed

Adam

TRIBE Member
Since he omitted any real discussion of the nuclear issue, he might as well have sent a paper bag full of dog shit.

Boss Hog, what did you think about this:

And he even questioned why the American intelligence services did not do more to stop the 11 September attacks - asking: "Why have various aspects of the attacks been kept secret?"
(Not baiting, just curious. ;))
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
It's a pretty legitimate question... one that anyone with a brain should be asking if not at the time, at least since so much other information has come out. The official report's response to it is pretty laughable.

But then this is a guy who still thinks Jews should be living in exile so I wouldn't turn to him for endorsement on the issue.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Boss Hog said:
It's a pretty legitimate question... one that anyone with a brain should be asking if not at the time, at least since so much other information has come out. The official report's response to it is pretty laughable.


all official reports are pretty laughable.


Do we have an actual copy of this letter, I'd love to give it a read.
 

man_slut

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
all official reports are pretty laughable.


Do we have an actual copy of this letter, I'd love to give it a read.
As a matter of fact we do:

Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush

I mean it's a bunch of stuff we are already familiar with... that being the many contradictions of Bushes regime and Christianity or the lessons bestowed on to us by the prophets.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Adam

TRIBE Member
Boss Hog said:
But then this is a guy who still thinks Jews should be living in exile
Or, more likely, not living at all.

Side note: Do Iranian editions of MS Word not have spell and grammar check?
 
Last edited:

Genesius

TRIBE Member
man_slut said:
That is an absolutely brilliant piece of political manouevering. What does Bush do now? Deny he's a Chrisitian and say 'f-you'? Does he respond to the letter at all? How can he now go about and bomb this believer in God?

I think this is an excellent appeal to the American and really global public. I really really hope Bush responds.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
ahahah he goes on about how evil Jews are for a couple of pages before asking why any technological achievements in the middle east are seen as a threat to Zionism.
 

Lurker

TRIBE Member
Genesius said:
That is an absolutely brilliant piece of political manouevering. What does Bush do now? Deny he's a Chrisitian and say 'f-you'? Does he respond to the letter at all? How can he now go about and bomb this believer in God?

I think this is an excellent appeal to the American and really global public. I really really hope Bush responds.
Good point. Even though his views are pretty bizarre (to put it mildly) he's extended the olive branch of dialogue, pretty much calling out the Americans to be the aggressors.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Genesius

TRIBE Member
Lurker said:
Good point. Even though his views are pretty bizarre (to put it mildly) he's extended the olive branch of dialogue, pretty much calling out the Americans to be the aggressors.
Keep in mind, to the average 'believer' his views are not so bizarre (maybe except for the Jew thing). Any religious person will view the dialogue as normal 'God talk' and he has some good points about what Bush believes vs. what he practices. Although, who knows how the US public will respond...
 

Lurker

TRIBE Member
Genesius said:
Keep in mind, to the average 'believer' his views are not so bizarre (maybe except for the Jew thing). Any religious person will view the dialogue as normal 'God talk' and he has some good points about what Bush believes vs. what he practices. Although, who knows how the US public will respond...
Exactly. i hope, though severely doubt, that the US public takes the time to read the letter and think about it for themselves. Will this happen? Not fucking likely. Add to that, you'll have congressmen and senators up for re-election pushing their own views on this letter down their consituents throats with their own personal spin on it.

Kudos to CNN for posting the whole thing.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
I don't think this is all that Brilliant. It's a half-assed peice of IR play that Ahmadenijad pulled out of his $8 blazer. Does he think he's Nikita Khruschev pursuing detente with Nixon or some shit? Fuck off.

The thing with Iran is that they are in an EXCELLENT strategic position. All their revolutionary hopes and dreams vis-a-vis Iraq are being fulfilled. There WILL be an "Islamic Republic of Iraq" populated and dominated by Shia--though they will be Arab and not Persian. The Iranian-backed Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) is the strongest political party now. Iran knows that the US lacks the political and even military capital to effectively wage war against them. The Iraq debacle has taught the world only one lesson: The United States can definitely--and successfully--be confronted militarily.

Furthermore, Iran is an undisputed expert in state-sponsorship of insurgeant and terrorist warfare. They single-handedly scared the USA out of Lebanon and even killed the CIA's entire leadership echelon in Beirut including the station cheif. Hezbollah = Iranian Revolutionary Guards-trained militants. (This method of operation is literally the definition of special forces--training and assisting someone else and letting them take the credit.)

Iran almost overthrew the government of Bahrain a good five times and hatched a dozen plots to overthrow Kuwait, Oman amd Qatar and sponsored & trained Hezbollah militants in those countries to carry out terrorist attacks against American, French and British embassies and other targets.

So the price for attacking Iran will be exceedingly high. You will see a rash of highly elaborate and exceptionally violent covert militant attacks against all manner of Western interests all over the place...and not just symbolic targets; real fucking serious targets. Oil pipe-lines, refineries, military bases, dams (the desctruction which causes staggering casualties). You don't wanna know what'll happen to the World Economy when Saudi Hezbollah manages to hit the Saudi Abqaiq (I think it's called) oil feild facilities--which are located in the Shia-dominated Eastern Province. And I haven't even mentioned the Lebanese Hezbollah's 10,000 medium range artillery missiles pointed at Israeli civillian villages in the North. The Iranians have a global reach too--in the late 1980s, they avenged some assassination (or something) by parking a truck bomb outside the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, killing some eighty civillians. The do NOT fuck around.

The point of all this is that Iran is aggressively milking their strategic position by going for an all-fronts propaganda offensive against the USA. That's why they're talking all this shit about the Holocaust, Jews, Zionism and the rest of that "begging to be bombed" stuff that seems so insane to us. They're doing it to humiliate the USA and show how Iran is powerful enough to say whatever they want, enrich as much Uranium as they want, and thumb their nose at the so-called 'international community' as they want, all while America is incapable of stopping them.

As for this this letter...meh, it's just as tacky as Ahmadenijad's two-bit fashion sense. I'm serious, his blazer cost $8--look at it! He looks like a hobo with a court date.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Yeah, I mentioned this a ways back in regards to the Iranian administration. Ahmadenijad's (apparently) "insane" position on a few issues is largely a display of power, totally audacious and intended to provoke the global community. It's certainly aggressive and "inappropriate", but then, so is most of what comes out of Bush's mouth.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

man_slut

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
The point of all this is that Iran is aggressively milking their strategic position by going for an all-fronts propaganda offensive against the USA. That's why they're talking all this shit about the Holocaust, Jews, Zionism and the rest of that "begging to be bombed" stuff that seems so insane to us. They're doing it to humiliate the USA and show how Iran is powerful enough to say whatever they want, enrich as much Uranium as they want, and thumb their nose at the so-called 'international community' as they want, all while America is incapable of stopping them.
It seems like you are siding with the Americans in that you beleive Iran doesn't deserve the sovereignty to develope thier own technology?

Do you really think Iran is going to cause a lot of covert wars/killings now that they are in the eyes of the world?
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
^^^

SellyCat said:
So the price for attacking Iran will be exceedingly high.

The debate about what Iran will do with the freedom and power they are getting is quite different then their response to being attacked.

I tend to agree with SellyCat that the price will be high if anyone decides to invaded (aka pre-emptive defensive strike) Iran. I don't think she really touched on the price of conceding that they are correct in their [Iran] assessment of their position of power and leaving them to develop weapons technology.

I would even go so far as to add a political price to an invasion of Iran. It would cause a rift between the invader and the Russians and especially the Chinese because neither of those countries even supports sanctions. If the invasion is carried out with the specific purpose of eliminating the nuclear facilities of Iran the cost is even higher as it shows that the invaders do not put stock in their own non-proliferation treaty. Who is going to sign another treaty with a government that doesn't pay attention to them? What would the point be? All that would do is give them an excuse to attack.

As for the letter to Bush. It seems so weird that he would bang of a cheap letter like that. No official headings, no state seals or anything. It almost seems like more of an insult then an honest effort at diplomacy. Kind of like throwing Bush a bone saying, "here's a last chance to redeam yourself in the eyes of the lord". I don't understand why it got played up so much.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
man_slut said:
It seems like you are siding with the Americans in that you beleive Iran doesn't deserve the sovereignty to develope thier own technology?

Do you really think Iran is going to cause a lot of covert wars/killings now that they are in the eyes of the world?
I actually didn't say anything about their right to develop that technology. Either way--regardless of one's position--it remains true that they are thumbing their nose at the international community (or rather, "The West") who clearly don't think Iran should develop nukes. Obviously the position is hypocritical since all these nations are fucking armed to the teeth with atomic weapons. "Brissling" with them--I think deafplayer used that term once and I liked it a lot.

Also....did someone refer to me as a she? I am not a she. I am very much a he!
 

Onthereals

TRIBE Member
I found this interesting. Recently I have been reading VS Naipauls book on his travels through Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia. Basically, its an interesting book that takes an elitist western perspective on the islamic culture.

Anyways, the book was published way back in 1981, and when he went to Iran it was 6 months into the revolution. What was interesting is how he mentioned that under the Shah, there was a nuclear energy program underway with a german firm, but that it was left uncompleted after the revolution. So its funny how the western world had no problem with Iran developing nuclear energy under the Shah, ( of course because he was US sponsered, no matter how terrible he was) but when now Iran wants to do it its a big deal. What would have happened if the Shah had stuck around long enough to develop nuclear energy and then the revolution had happened? Well the discussion would be completely different today. Anyways it shows how the concern over Iran getting nuclear weapons is complete propaganda.

It also gives the concern shades of being upset about a islamic nation getting nuclear technology. which further inflames the christian vs muslim deal
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Onthereals said:
I found this interesting. Recently I have been reading VS Naipauls book on his travels through Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia. Basically, its an interesting book that takes an elitist western perspective on the islamic culture.

Anyways, the book was published way back in 1981, and when he went to Iran it was 6 months into the revolution. What was interesting is how he mentioned that under the Shah, there was a nuclear energy program underway with a german firm, but that it was left uncompleted after the revolution. So its funny how the western world had no problem with Iran developing nuclear energy under the Shah, ( of course because he was US sponsered, no matter how terrible he was) but when now Iran wants to do it its a big deal. What would have happened if the Shah had stuck around long enough to develop nuclear energy and then the revolution had happened? Well the discussion would be completely different today. Anyways it shows how the concern over Iran getting nuclear weapons is complete propaganda.

It also gives the concern shades of being upset about a islamic nation getting nuclear technology. which further inflames the christian vs muslim deal

The issue isn't nuclear power, it never has been. Iran has the right to develop nuclear power and has infact been given the technology to do so on the NPT. The issue comes down to fuel cycle and enrichment.

When Iran agreed to the NPT and agreed to accept nuclear technology that it built reactors on they also agreed to purchase the fuel as a whole and not to enrich uranium themselves. The reason for this is that enriched uranium can be used for a bomb while the unenrched uranium isn't really all that useful.

So this has never been an issue of if they are allowed to have a reactor or not. Its an issue of if they process there own fuel they can make a bomb.

http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue14/Vol3Issue14Bucy.html

is a fun little article that compares the highly questionable Iranian program with the equally questionable Brazilian one.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

atbell

TRIBE Member
^^^^^
I think Brazil has been working on this techonolgy for a couple of years now. I'm pretty sure it has to do with using magnets to float the rotating cylinders (like magnaleve trains) so that higher rotating velocities can be obtained with less power.

It makes me wonder when the last time US facilities were subjected to IAEA inspections though. Do they happen regularily in all countries?

SellyCat said:
Also....did someone refer to me as a she? I am not a she. I am very much a he!
ooops, one hell of a typo :p
 

man_slut

TRIBE Member
Just read this article. It does a really good job at breaking down the current hypocracy (orientalism) defended by some on this board. Anyways give a read when you got the time:

The Fourth "Supreme International Crime" in Seven Years is Already Underway, with the Support of the Free Press and the "International Community"

US Aggression-Time Once Again: Target Iran

By EDWARD S. HERMAN
and DAVID PETERSON

With the United States having initiated wars in violation of the UN Charter, and hence engaged in the "supreme international crime,"1 against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq in 1999, 2001, and 2003, one might have expected that its commencement of a fourth aggression only a few years later against Iran would arouse the UN, EU, other international institutions and NGOs, and even the supposedly moral and independent Free Press, to serious protest and counter-action, including referral to the UN Security Council under Chapter VII's "threat of peace" articles and support of possible diplomatic and economic sanctions. This has not happened, and in fact the Bush administration has successfully mobilized the UN, whose "primary responsibility" is the "maintenance of international peace and security," and the EU, as well as the Free Press, to facilitate its fourth attack.

We say that the fourth aggression is already underway, because once again, as in the Iraq case, the United States has been attacking Iran for many months, and not just with verbal insults and threats. It has been flying unmanned aerial surveillance drones over Iran since 2004; it has infiltrated combat and reconnaissance teams into Iran "to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic minority groups" (Seymour Hersh);2 it has bestowed an ambiguous "protected" status upon the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a group which, since 1997, the U.S. Department of State has designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization, but a group that the Washington regime now uses to launch cross-border attacks on Iran from within U.S.-occupied Iraq;3 and it and its Israeli client have repeatedly threatened larger scale and more open attacks. This pre-invasion aggression was an important feature of the overall aggression against Iraq, where the US and British greatly increased their "spikes of activity" with massive bombing well before the March 19, 2003 invasion4-major acts of war and aggression begun as early as April 2002, that were almost wholly ignored by the Free Press and "international community."

What is mind-boggling in all this is that new attacks and threats by a country that is in the midst of a serial aggression program, that runs a well documented and widely condemned global gulag of torture,5 that has committed major war crimes in Iraq-Fallujah may well replace Guernica as a symbol of murderous warfare unleashed against civilians6-and that openly declares itself exempt from international law and states that the UN is only relevant when it supports U.S. policy,7 is not only not condemned for its Iran aggression, but is able to enlist support for it in the EU, UN and global media. This enlistment of support occurs despite the further fact that it is now generally recognized that the Bush and Blair administrations lied their way into the Iraq invasion-occupation (but still quickly obtained UN and EU acceptance of the occupation and ensuing ruthless pacification program),8 and that they cynically misused the inspections program, all of which makes the new accommodation to the aggression-in-process and planned larger attack truly frightening.

The mechanism by which this is accomplished by the aggressor state is to cry-up an allegedly dire threat that Iran might be embarking on a program to obtain nuclear weapons-it might be doing this secretively, and although it has submitted itself to IAEA inspections for the past three years, it has not been 100 percent cooperative with the Agency.9 Combining this with demonization,10 intensive and repeated expressions of indignation and fear, and threats to do something about the intolerable threat, the Washington regime has managed to produce a contrived "crisis," with huge spikes in media attention and supportive expressions of concern and actions by the UN, IAEA, and international community.11 These groups join the aggressor partly to avoid offending it, but also to try to constrain its determination to get its way-but in the process they accept its premises that there is a real threat and hence give at least tacit support to its aggression program, and sometimes more. On the home front, with the acceptance of the seriousness of the manufactured crisis by the mainstream media and Democrats, and with leading politicos like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh even egging Bush on, the noise creates its own self-fulfilling pressures on the leadership that manufactured the crisis, who now must "do something" about it to avoid political loss.12

This time, the EU appears to be cooperating even more fully in the developing aggression against Iran than it did in the Iraq case. Although Iran has an absolute and "inalienable" right to enrich uranium under NPT rules (i.e., the NPT's sole condition is that the enrichment can only be "for peaceful purposes"), and although the NPT imposes upon other parties to the treaty the obligation to "facilitatethe fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy,"13 under British, French and German urging Iran, in November 2004, agreed "on a voluntary basis to continue and extend its suspension to include all enrichment related and reprocessing activities," while these states agreed to continue negotiations in good faith for the sake of an agreement that "will provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes," and "firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues."14

But subsequent stages of negotiations foundered mainly because the three EU states could not provide Iran with guarantees on security-related issues without also securing U.S. guarantees for the same-and not only were U.S. guarantees never forthcoming, but Washington and Israel escalated their threats instead. Moreover, it is the longstanding U.S. position that "no enrichment in Iran is permissible," in the words of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. "The reason for that," he added, "is that even a small so-called research enrichment program could give Iran the possibility of mastering the technical deficiencies it's currently encountering in its program. Once Iran has the scientific and technological capability to do even laboratory size enrichment, that knowledge could be replicated in industrial-size enrichment activities elsewhere, that's why we've felt very strongly that no enrichment inside Iran should be permitted, and that remains our position."15 In short, the United States unilaterally refuses to allow Iran its rights granted it by the NPT.

Now some 18 months later, a U.S.-led consortium of states has introduced a draft resolution within the UN Security Council with the intent of imposing upon Iran a deadline for terminating all indigenous "enrichment-related and reprocessing activities" (pars. 1-2), as well as calling on all states to prevent the transfer of the technology and the expertise "that could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and missile program" (par. 4)-thereby following the U.S. lead and criminalizing Iran's and only Iran's pursuit of its "inalienable" rights under Article IV of the NPT, and treating Iran's otherwise legal, NPT-sanctioned enrichment program as a Chapter VII threat to international peace and security. Equally striking, this draft resolution also expresses the Security Council's "intention to consider such further measures as may be necessary to ensure compliance with this resolution" (par. 7).16 This is exactly the kind of phraseology that, if adopted, the Washington regime would have be eager to interpret as a use-of-force type resolution, regardless of whether other members of the Security Council went along with it.

We regard the terms of this draft resolution as well as the general thrust of British, French, German, and European Union diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear issue to be a perfect accommodation to the needs of the aggressor state, which openly denies Iran its "inalienable" rights under NPT rules. This also constitutes a death-blow-by-politicization to the NPT and a gross abuse of the functions and powers of the Security Council, all in deference and service to a program in violation of the most basic principle of the UN Charter-that all members "shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means" and refrain from the "threat or use of force" (Article 2).

Since the spring of 2003, U.S. power has produced a steady and indignant focus on Iran's alleged foot-dragging on inspections. As in the case of Iraq's failure through March 2003 to prove that it did not possess any "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), the U.S.-driven allegations and inspections regime channeled through the IAEA have focused on Iran's parallel failure to disprove a negative-namely, that Iran prove that it is not secretly engaging in practices that are prohibited under the NPT and subsequent Safeguards Agreement (May 15, 1974) and the Additional Protocols (signed December 18, 2003, though only observed "on a voluntary basis"). Moreover, throughout the current 38-month cycle of allegations and inspections to which the IAEA has now subjected Iran, the IAEA has repeatedly adopted a phraseology to the effect that the IAEA is "unable to confirm the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities inside Iran"-an inherently politicized condition that no state would be capable of meeting, no matter what it agreed to do, and whose application depends ultimately on the strength of the political forces that pressure the IAEA to continue the search.17 With enough political pressure, no amount of "transparency" and "confidence-building" measures on the part of the accused state can meet it, as was evident in the Iraq case. And as long as the IAEA reports that it is unable to confirm the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities inside Iran, Iran is helpless before the IAEA's negative condition.

The "threat" and crisis have been sustained in the media by the use of patriotic and fear-mongering frames and suppressions of relevant fact that may even be more brazen and misleading than those justifying the invasion of Iraq. The crisis-supporting frames are: (1) that Iran is a dangerous theocratic state, with an irrational and unstable political and clerical leadership that has supported terrorists and threatened Israel and is therefore not to be trusted with a nuclear program; (2) that it has been secretive about its nuclear program, has not been fully cooperative with the inspections program of the IAEA, and that the reason for this secrecy is Iran's intention to develop nuclear weapons; (3) that its acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability would be intolerable, would destabilize the Middle East if not the whole of Western Civilization, and must be stopped.

In sustaining these frames it is necessary to suppress major facts, such as:

(1) that there is no proof that Iran plans to go beyond the civilian uses of nuclear materials to which it is entitled under the NPT and the IAEA has never claimed that it has evidence of such weapons efforts or plans;

(2) that both the United States and Israel possess large and usable nuclear arsenals,18 and both have attacked other countries in violation of the UN Charter, which Iran has not yet done;

(3) that Iran is far less dangerous than Israel and the United States because it is very much weaker than the two that threaten it, and could only use nuclear weapons in self-defense-offensive use would be suicidal, which is not the case should the United States and Israel attack Iran;

(4) that Iran was secretive about its nuclear program because it recognized that the United States and Israel would have opposed it bitterly, but Iran at least did sign up with the NPT and has allowed numerous intrusive inspections, whereas Israel was allowed to develop a nuclear weapons program secretly, with U.S., French and Norwegian aid, refused to join the NPT, and remains outside the inspections system;19

(5) that both the United States and Israel are virtual theocratic states, profoundly influenced by religious parties whose leaders are arrogant, racist, and militaristic, and who have posed persistent threats to international peace and security;

(6) that both the United States and Israel have supported terrorists on a larger scale than Iran (e.g., Posada, Bosch and the Cuban terrorist network, the Nicaraguan contras, Savimbi and UNITA, the South Lebanon Army, among many others); and

(7) that it is the United States and Israel that have destabilized the Middle East, by aggression and ethnic cleansing in violation of international law and by forcing a huge imbalance in which only Israel is allowed nuclear weapons among the countries of the Middle East, a condition which allowed Israel to invade Lebanon and enables it to ethnically cleanse the West Bank without threat of retaliation.

A first alternative-frame that might be used but is not to be found in the mainstream media is based on the fact that, year-in and year-out, the United States has been a chronic violator of the NPT's Article VI requirement that all parties "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." In the context of the U.S.-driven accusations about Iran's violations of the NPT, it is worth emphasizing that in a 1996 decision by the International Court of Justice, the fourteen judges on the Court ruled unanimously that "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control."20 The United States has brazenly ignored this ruling, refusing to countenance any form of disarmament or international control over its sovereign rights on questions of war and peace, openly working on improving its nuclear weapons,21 and even threatening to use them against Iran.22

Hence the United States not only has unclean hands, but its own illegal policies and threats pose a clear and present danger that the UN and international community should be addressing right now. Furthermore, not only is Iran not an immediate threat, but given the U.S. threat to Iran and the U.S. refusal to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons and to pledge non-use against nuclear weapons-free countries like Iran, Iran has a moral right to try to acquire such weapons for self-defense. Noting what the Americans had done to a nuclear-weaponless Iraq in 2003, the Israeli historian Martin van Creveld has written, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."23

This point is reinforced by a second alternative frame: namely, that the United States is using the Iran nuclear threat as a gambit closely analogous to the WMD claim that it employed as the lying rationale for the invasion-occupation of Iraq. As before, the gambit is a cover for a desire to force a "regime change" in Iran to make it into another amenable client state. This is sometimes even openly acknowledged, and helps explain the frenzied threat-inflation and artificial creation of a crisis that can be used as the pretext for an attack and possibly produce turmoil and political change in Iran. It also helps us understand the continual U.S. refusal to negotiate with Iran and/or to offer a security guarantee in exchange for possible Iranian concessions on its nuclear plans. The same process occurred in the run-up to the Iraq invasion-the United States inflated the threat, created a crisis, refused to negotiate with Iraq, and would not allow inspectors to complete their search for WMD allegedly because of the dire threat, but more plausibly because of a longstanding U.S. determination to engineer a regime change.

As noted, the mainstream media have followed the party line on the Iran "crisis" and failed almost without exception to note the problems and deal with matters raised in the alternative frames. Remarkably, despite their acknowledged massive failures as news organizations and de facto propaganda service for the Bush administration in the lead up to the Iraq invasion,24 with the administration refocusing on the new dire threat from Iran it took the mainstream media no time whatsoever to fall into party-line formation-from which they have not deviated. Thus, they never go into the U.S. violations of its NPT obligations, never discuss international law and its possible application to U.S. pre-invasion aggression and threats of open attack, just as they ignored the subject in reference to the Iraq invasion.25 They never challenge the threat-inflation or consider any possible Iranian right of self-defense. (We may recall that the Free Press was able to make an almost completely disarmed Guatemala a frightening threat back in 1954, as well as the badly weakened Iraq in 2002-3.) The media never suggest that the United States may be abusing the inspections process-never harking back to its abuses and outright lying as regard the Iraq inspections effort-and they never suggest ulterior motives for the aggressor.

In treating EU, UN and IAEA responses, the media never suggest that the real problem is containing the United States. In the comical version offered and hardly contested in the media, it is often suggested that there is a threat of "appeasement" of Iran, and that if the world is "to avoid another Munich," and the "Security Council fails to confront the Iranian threat," it is up to the United States to "form an international coalition to disarm the regime."26 But there is never a hint that the problem might be appeasement of the United States. Or that the applicable Munich analogy might not apply to the Iranian nuclear program at all, as the 1938 Pact among the European powers that impelled Czechoslovakia to accept the cession of the Sudetenland to the Nazis is analogous to the ongoing UN and EU role in facilitating the designs the United States is pursuing toward Iranian territory.27
Pravda could not have done a better job for any planned Soviet venture abroad than the Free Press is once again doing for the Bush administration.

Conclusion

It is clear that when it comes to actions that the superpower (or its leading client states) chooses to take, international law is completely inoperative, and that this has become institutionalized and accepted by the "international community" (which doesn't include the global underlying population). In the case of Iran, it is as if the lessons of the recent past, and even of the ongoing present in Iraq, simply disappear, and similar imaginary "threats" and misuse of supposedly neutral international bodies like the IAEA and its "inspections" can be re-run in a miasma of hypocrisy. In fact, as we have noted, the situation has deteriorated, with the UN and EU now playing an active aggression-supportive role, following the U.S. lead in denying Iran its "inalienable" rights under the NPT and making its pursuit of those rights into a criminalized "threat to peace," setting the stage for a more direct U.S. attack.

Our conclusion is twofold. First, given the U.S. and Israeli possession of nuclear weapons, their threat to possibly use them in attacking Iran, and the record of both countries in major law violations such as the U.S. violation of the UN Charter prohibition of aggression and the Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention on obligations of an occupying power, and given the fact that the Washington regime is already in the early phases of aggression against Iran, the UN and Security Council should be urgently focusing on the U.S. aggression instead of some minor inspection delinquencies on the part of Iran (and it goes without saying, instead of giving positive aid to the aggressor's program).

Second, if there is a concern over violations of the NPT, far more important than Iran's deficiencies are the U.S. failure to undertake any measures to eliminate nuclear weapons and its protection of Israel as the sole nuclear power in the Middle East, and remaining outside IAEA jurisdiction. In fact, the United States is improving its nuclear arsenal with the express intention of making nuclear strikes more "practicable." As these threaten Iran as well as many other countries, common sense dictates that this violation of the NPT is vastly more important than any attributable to Iran-real or imaginary.
In a decent and sane world, bringing the U.S. violations of the NPT and its nuclear improvement actions before the UN and Security Council ought to have a very high priority, second only to stopping the U.S. aggression already underway against Iran and which threatens an enlargement of the conflagration begun by its prior and still raging "supreme international crime" in Iraq.


Edward S. Herman is Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and has written extensively on economics, political economy and the media. Among his books are The Real Terror Network, Triumph of the Market, and Manufacturing Consent (with Noam Chomsky).

David Peterson is is an independent journalist and researcher.

Endnotes

1. "To initiate a war of aggressionis not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." See "The Common Plan or Conspiracy and Aggressive War," in Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals, part of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials website maintained by the Avalon Project at Yale Law School.

2. Seymour Hersh, "The Iran Plans," New Yorker, April 17, 2006.

3. See "Foreign Terrorist Organizations," Ch. 8 of Country Reports on Terrorism 2005, U.S. Department of State, April, 2006, pp. 30/212 31/213. On the U.S. Government's decision in July 2004 to grant "protected" status to the MEK members semi-permanently encamped at Ashraf in eastern Iraq, see "Daily Press Briefing," Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, July 26, 2004. As the spokesman for Tehran's Foreign Ministry noted in reaction, "The United States is using its fight against terrorism as a tool, and we knew from the beginning that this fight is void and they are not serious. Using the Geneva Convention to protect this terrorist group is naive and unacceptable." "U.S. war on terror is a sham, says Iran," Daily Times (Pakistan), July 28, 2004.

4. See Matthew Rycroft, "The secret Downing Street memo," July 23, 2002 (as posted to the Times Online, May 1, 2005); also Michael Smith, "The war before the war," New Statesman, May 30, 2005; Michael Smith, "General admits to secret air war," Sunday Times, June 26, 2005; David Peterson, "'Spikes of Activity'," ZNet, July, 2005; and David Peterson, "British Records on the Prewar Bombing of Iraq," ZNet, July, 2005.

5. Jonathan Steele and Dahr Jamail, "This is our Guernica," The Guardian, April 27, 2005; Mike Marqusee, "A name that lives in infamy," The Guardian, November 10, 2005.

6. See, e.g., Gretchen Borchelt et al., Break Them Down: Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by U.S. Forces, Physicians for Human Rights, May, 2005; Leila Zerrougui et al., Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay (E/CN.4/2006/120), UN Commission on Human Rights, February 15, 2006; and By the Numbers: Findings of the Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project, Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Human Rights First, and Human Rights Watch, February, 2006.

7. At a symposium in 1994 titled "Global Structures: A Convocation: Human Rights, Global Governance and Strengthening the UN," the current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton stated: "The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants it to work, and that is exactly the way it should be, because the only question -- the only question -- for the United States is what's in our national interest? And if you don't like that, I'm sorry. But that is the fact." See Nomination of John R. Bolton, Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, April 11, 2005.

8. The blood spilled during the criminal U.S. and U.K. military seizure of Iraq had yet to dry before the UN Security Council placed its stamp upon the occupation with a litany of scramble-for-Iraq resolutions, beginning with Resolution 1483 (May 22, 2003), lifting economic sanctions that dated all the way back to Resolution 661 (August 6, 1990).

9. See "The Iran 'Crisis'," Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, ColdType, November, 2005.

10. On demonization, see David Peterson, "The Language of Force," ZNet, January 16, 2006.

11. For some recent opinion surveys of American beliefs and attitudes, all of which, in the manufactured crisis of the moment, find Iran and Muslims to be grave threats to Americans, see Jeffrey M. Jones, "Americans Rate Iran Most Negatively of 22 Countries," Gallup, February 23, 2006; Joseph Carroll, "Americans Say Iran Is Their Greatest Enemy," Gallup, February 23, 2006; Claudia Deane and Darryl Fears, "Negative Perception Of Islam Increasing," Washington Post, March 9, 2006; and "States of Insecurity," Atlantic Monthly, April, 2006.

12. On the American Democratic Party not only "not differ[ing] significantly from the administration," but " trying to outflank the administration by being even more hardline," see Anatol Lieven, "There is menace in America's policy of prevention," Financial Times, March 20, 2006 (as posted to the website of the New American Foundation). The lunatic (though still counterfactual) scenario laid out by Timothy Garton Ash in "The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009" (The Guardian, April 20, 2006), is imaginable in the first place only because in the democratically crippled American political system, what are marketed as alternatives remain captive of the reigning de facto consensus.

13. Here quoting Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (effective March 5, 1970).

14. See the copy of the agreement between the E3/EU and Iran signed in Paris on November 15, 2004, as reproduced in INFCIRC 637, IAEA, November 26, 2004, pp. 3-4.

15. Quoted in "No uranium enrichment 'permissible' for Iran-US envoy," Agence France Presse, March 6, 2006. Note that we can find no entry for Bolton's remarks on the website of the United States Mission to the United Nations, e.g., under Press Releases, January - March, 2006. Also see David Peterson, "Overthrowing the NPT the American Way," ZNet, March 7, 2006..

16. For the actual text of the draft resolution as it existed on May 3, see "TEXT-UN council gets draft text on Iran nuclear program," Reuters-AlertNet, May 3. And for reporting on the May 3 draft, see, e.g., Elaine Sciolino, "U.S., Britain and France Draft U.N. Resolution on Iran's Nuclear Ambitions," New York Times, May 3; "UN Security Council considers action on Iran's nuclear programme," UN News Center, May 3; John Ward Anderson and Colum Lynch, "U.S. Crafts Response on Iran," Washington Post, May 3; Maggie Farley, "Security Council Gets Iran Nuclear Resolution," Los Angeles Times, May 4; Warren Hoge, "Britain and France Press U.N. to Oppose Iran Nuclear Efforts," New York Times, May 4; Column Lynch, "Security Council Is Given Iran Resolution," Washington Post, May 4; Edward Alden and Caroline Daniel, "US pushes for Iran financial sanctions," Financial Times, May 8. Also see Marjorie Cohn's "Bush Setting up Attack on Iran," Truthout, May 8.

17. To quote the latest installment in the IAEA's series of reports to its Board of Governors (at least the 17th overall), "the Agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran." Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran (GOV/2006/27), April 28, 2006, par. 33, p. 7. IAEA-channeled allegations about the Iranian nuclear program have been formulated in this manner since the very beginning.

18. For a current assessment of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, see Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, "U.S. nuclear forces," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January/February, 2006; and for Israel's, see Robert S. Norris et al., "Israel nuclear forces, 2002," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October, 2002.


19. For a history of Israel's development its nuclear weapons, entirely outside the NPT and international controls, see Avner Cohen and William Burr, "Israel crosses the threshold," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June, 2006; and "Israel Crosses the Nuclear Threshold," National Security Archive Update, April 28, 2006.

20. See Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, International Court of Justice, July 8, 1996, pars. 98 103, and Opinion F. Although an "advisory opinion," and thus not legally binding on states, to date this counts as the most authoritative legal decision to have been produced on issues stemming from the existence of nuclear weapons and states' obligations under the NPT.

21. On U.S. plans to upgrade its already peerless nuclear stockpile and the means of delivering it, see James Sterngold, "Upgrades planned for U.S. nuclear stockpile," San Francisco Chronicle, January 15; Walter Pincus, "U.S. Plans to Modernize Nuclear Arsenal," Washington Post, March 4.

22. On the potential U.S. threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran-a case in which even so much as a hint or a whisper of threat is deafening, and leaked warnings about such threats even louder-see Hersh, "The Iran Plans," New Yorker, April 17, 2006; Sarah Baxter, "Gunning for Iran," Sunday Times, April 9, 2006; and Peter Baker et al., "U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran," Washington Post, April 9, 2006. Also see the material reported under the "Divine Strake" entry on the Weapons of Mass Destruction webpage of GlobalSecurity.org.

23. Martin van Creveld, "Sharon on the warpath: Is Israel planning to attack Iran?" International Herald Tribune, August 21, 2004. However, it should be pointed out that neither the United States, IAEA, nor the European powers have given any evidence that Iran's claim that it is only seeking the peaceful use of atomic energy is not valid.

24. The classic case having been "The Times and Iraq," New York Times, May 26, 2004; and the accompanying webpage The Times devotes to this topic, "The Times and Iraq: A Sample of the Coverage," May, 2004. Though we add the caveat that the documents contained herein, and the conclusions affirmed by The Times about the role that it played during the build-up for the invasion, grossly understate The Times's real culpability.

25. Howard Friel and Richard Falk, The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy (London: Verso, 2004). In 70 editorials on Iraq between September 11, 2001 and March 21, 2003, The Times editors never once mentioned international law. See chapter 1.

26. Nile Gardiner and Joseph Loconte, "The Gathering Storm Over Iran," Boston Globe, May 3. Conversely, usage of the false Munich analogy and the charge of "appeasement" abounds. See, e.g., "Iran's Nuclear Challenge," Editorial, Washington Post, January 12; William Kristol, "And Now Iran; We can't rule out the use of military force," Weekly Standard, January 23; and Kim Willsher, "'Only a fraction of Teheran's brutality has come to light'," Daily Telegraph, March 19. This last example was particularly revealing. In it, Maryam Rajavi, described as the "leader of the largest exiled Iranian opposition group," the National Council for Resistance for Iran, reportedly "says Western governments must end their 'dangerous appeasement' of Iran's regime and recognise the worth of her group." Unmentioned is the fact that the U.S. Government (officially, anyway) includes her group along with the Mujahedin-e- Khalq on its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. See note 3, above.

27. The Iran gambit could be a cover for a partial invasion-occupation of the geographic region of Iran where in the words of the U.S. Department of Energy the "vast majority of Iran's crude oil reserves are located," that is, "in giant onshore fields in the southwestern Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border." Contrary to popular myth, this would not entail going "all the way to Tehran," as a saying attributed to the Neoconservatives has it, but only as far as the greatest concentration of Iran's proven oil reserves extend, where southeastern Iraq borders Khuzestan. See "Iran," U.S. Energy Information Administration, January, 2006, p. 2. As this same report adds, "in September 2005, several bombs were detonated near oil wells in Khuzestan, raising concerns about unrest amongst ethnic Arabs in the region" (p. 2).
 

Shug

TRIBE Member
What I find interesting is the "Cult of Personality" that the western media is fostering for Ahmadinejad.

Prior to a few months ago, you'd be hard pressed to find a pic of the Iranian President in the accompanying stories regarding Iran - even if the article or story took direct quotes or had direct involvement with him. And this was even as the initial stages of the enrichment shit was going down.

Now, every article that has anything to do with Iran in any way has a full-on face pic, or face forward waist-up pic of him pointing, shouting, or something else having equally forceful body language. I mean, doesn't this guy ever, like, iono... sit down and read a book, or shake hands and smile with someone?

It's almost as if the media is telling me, "THIS is the man you should hate. LOOK. He's eeeeevvvvil. Here he is... He hates you. Doesn't his close-together eyes and scruffy beard make him look both evil and inbred? LOOK! He's pointing and shouting! He's SO EVIL! Hate him! Don't you hate him yet? Look at him try to wear suits like he likes democracy or something! He's so scary, he must be a crazy man!"
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
Shug said:
What I find interesting is the "Cult of Personality" that the western media is fostering for Ahmadinejad.

Prior to a few months ago, you'd be hard pressed to find a pic of the Iranian President in the accompanying stories regarding Iran - even if the article or story took direct quotes or had direct involvement with him. And this was even as the initial stages of the enrichment shit was going down.

Now, every article that has anything to do with Iran in any way has a full-on face pic, or face forward waist-up pic of him pointing, shouting, or something else having equally forceful body language. I mean, doesn't this guy ever, like, iono... sit down and read a book, or shake hands and smile with someone?

It's almost as if the media is telling me, "THIS is the man you should hate. LOOK. He's eeeeevvvvil. Here he is... He hates you. Doesn't his close-together eyes and scruffy beard make him look both evil and inbred? LOOK! He's pointing and shouting! He's SO EVIL! Hate him! Don't you hate him yet? Look at him try to wear suits like he likes democracy or something! He's so scary, he must be a crazy man!"
i have to disagree with you.

though i follow the news pretty closely, mabey from a general obeservation you just noticed it but the PM's face has been featured for some time since his election.

there was widespread speculation about what he woud do once in office and repeated declarations intending to catch headlines have ensued.

i think he is nothing more than a pawn anyway.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories
Top