All Articles All Articles


The Threats Against Iran

The Threats Against Iran

By Ashley Michel (9/24/12)

The U.S. protects its industries and secures economic dominance over foreign markets and investments, without which it would no longer be an imperialist country, let alone the imperialist superpower in the world today. The removal or minimizing of barriers erected by other countries seeking to protect their national markets, resources, labor, industries, and economic and political independence thus becomes the U.S.’s main objective. This all goes on under the false heading of the U.S. “spreading democracy” and being a force for “liberty” in the world.

The U.S.’s closest ally in the Middle East is Israel, having lost its previous gendarme in the region in the Shah of Iran, who was put in power in 1953 by a CIA coup, overthrowing the popularly elected nationalist Mossadegh. The Shah, known for his naked brutality, was finally overthrown by the 1979 Iranian Revolution, sending shockwaves back to the U.S.

As we speak, Israel is openly debating whether to launch a massive pre-emptive strike upon Iranian nuclear facilities and an undeniably threatening assembly of troops, ships, and war material are being massed on Iran’s doorstep.

The Obama administration openly supports military action against Iran, but being Democrats, they prefer to use sanctions first before they launch the missiles. This is how they differ from the Republicans, who insist that talk is useless and we ought to commence firing now! The union of the U.S. and Israel allows for the use of illegitimate force and persuasion to attempt to force Iran into submission. Although Iran has not threatened and does not threaten U.S. security in any way, it has been deemed a danger to Israel’s and U.S. national security. This is because Iran is a threat and/or barrier to the U.S.’s and Israel's control and expansion.

The U.S. and Israel have frankly provoked this crisis in the Middle East and brinkmanship against Iran to justify the use of military force to fight and support their respective state objectives.

Iran and Syria have shared certain common goals, which together have provided political leverage and military resources to hold their position and combat outside opponents, making them regional powers in the Middle East. As such they have obstructed demands for change from the U.S. and Israeli governments.

The ongoing political conflict in Syria - the Syrian uprising - has pitted the nation against itself in an all-out civil war. Iran’s once strongest ally has found itself in a compromising position. The conflict has given the U.S. the opportunity to undermine and separate Syria from Iran. U.S. assistance to the rebels seeks an overthrow of Assad rather than a peaceful resolution. The Islamic Republic has suggested different methods for stopping the violence in Syria. However the Obama administration has refused to work with the Islamic Republic. This open opposition or possible proxy war destabilizes Iran, which naturally provokes a potentially violent response from Iran.

The U.S. and the European Union have imposed economic, trade, scientific, and military sanctions against Iran with the stated goal to reduce uranium enrichment. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, however, sets no limits on enrichment purity. It bars nations from turning its enrichment into military purposes. Iranian officials have insisted that the uranium is for peaceful purposes and indicated that they would never surrender their “nuclear rights.” On these bases, Iran has not broken any laws. However, the sanctions are meant to prevent Iran from obtaining the materials that can possibly be used for nuclear weaponry. However, the sanctions are not accomplishing what their stated purpose. Instead they are being used to strong-arm and criminalize an entire nation. Sanctions aimed at controlling the economy of Iran have created discontent toward Western nations, endangered human lives, threatened human rights, and could provoke a negative and possibly violent action towards the western states and their allies.

As of July 1, 2012 all members of the European Union are prohibited from buying oil from Iran and insurance for ships that carry Iranian oil. In response to these sanctions Iran threatened to close off the Strait of Hormuz, the world's largest oil shipping lane. Iran has also threatened action if U.S. carriers move into the Gulf. The Obama administration has warned that such action would constitute a “red line” that would provoke a response. The possibility of a clash between the U.S. and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz has provided the U.S. a reason to move military reinforcements into the Persian Gulf. However, the presence of the military creates a larger risk for violence from Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Although the sanctions are supposedly meant to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program, it has in fact escalated the situation. The EU embargo combined with the U.S. measures that prohibit the world's banks from completing oil transactions with Iranian banks has a significant impact on the Iranian economy.

In order to remove these sanctions, the U.S. and other major powers say Iran will have to prove it is not building a weapon. This humble request will prove to be an impossible task, especially coming from a country which has already initialed war based on fabrications. In 2002 the U.S. alleged that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world. Although several Inspections, such as the AMORIM’s findings, found no evidence of WMD, the Bush administration preached that there was not enough information to support the claims. On March 18, 2003 President George Bush stated “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” The allegations were unfounded but they were never challenged by anyone in the corridors of power. The Bush administration used this mindset to violate the UN charter and unlawfully declared and launched aggressive war.

Similarly, several inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities disclosed that although there appears to be no decrease in uranium production, there is no credible evidence that uranium is being used for weaponry. However, according to officials, Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation for an accurate result. Officials have publically declared these allegations as true without evidence. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated “no reason to trust them with nuclear material."

Currently, Israel is openly debating whether to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran has indicated that such actions will result in military retaliation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is publicly pressing the U.S. to “get tougher” on Iran. Although there is no evidence, Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that Iran is getting dangerously close to acquiring a nuclear bomb. Regardless of who acts first, the U.S. is headed straight into a total war that like the attack upon Iraq under Bush, would constitute a war of aggression and violate the spirit and the letter of the UN Charter.

As Dennis Loo wrote at this website on June 8, 2012:

As Gareth Porter revealed on June 5, 2012 (“U.S. Rejected 2005 Iranian Offer Ensuring No Nuclear Weapons”), Iran offered to guarantee that their nuclear enrichment could not be converted into weapons, a promise backed up by snap inspections, an offer that would have averted the sword rattling and worse against Iran by the US that have occurred since. That, the US, did not want. The British negotiator told Iran that the French and German governments were willing, but the offer had been nixed by the US:

Iranian negotiators submitted a proposal that included a “policy declaration to convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods” and “committed to getting the Additional Protocol”, which would allow the IAEA to make snap inspections on undeclared facilities, ratified by its parliament.

Conversion of low enriched uranium (LEU) to fuel rods only usable for power plants could have provided a guarantee against using the enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Iran did not have the capability to fabricate fuel rods, so the implication was that the LEU would have to be shipped to another country for conversion or would have to be done under international auspices within Iran.

Once the fuel rods were fabricated, it would be practically impossible for Iran to reconvert them for military purposes.

Peter Jenkins, then the British permanent representative to the IAEA and a member of the British delegation to the Paris meeting with Iran, recalled in an interview with IPS, “All of us were impressed by the proposal.”

While the US complains bitterly that Iran might use – or is using – its nuclear program to create nuclear weapons and might subsequently use them against Israel and others, including the US, the US has been in fact creating the conditions that necessitate their engaging in attacks on Iran by refusing to allow this issue to be settled diplomatically and dismissing out of hand Iran’s offer to guarantee that their nuclear energy program would and could never be used to produce nuclear weapons.

As tension grows in the Middle East the U.S. and Israel increasingly participates in unproductive behavior. The purpose of such actions comes into question. Historically, the US government not only relies on but hopes for multi-faceted coalitions, terrorism, and warfare. A military reaction from Iran will provide proper foundation for U.S. action. Not too long ago, the U.S. provided the means for a terrorist attack to occur on September 11 by ignoring numerous warnings of attacks involving airports. The Bush administration did nothing to alert North American Aerospace Defense Command, nor did they step up security at the airports. Later, 9/11 was used as a central reason to initiate war in Iraq.

Counterproductive techniques have endangered national security and are provoking a military response. The unfolding of a long planned effort to increase military presence and control in the Middle East has resulted in regulations that are designed to produce and hasten confrontation. Bank and oil embargos are intended to destabilize the country and force it to surrender power, rights, and dignity. Iran can allow itself to be oppressed or fight back with unlimited effort. Halting Iran’s nuclear program disarms the country and limits options which produce a regulated predictable outcome. Although the government is aware of past events, current situations, and possible devastating outcomes, the government has refused to act in ways which will bring peace.

Add comment

We welcome and encourage discussion and debate. We find truth via contention.

Security code