THE INVASION OF IRAN
Tobiah Booth-Remmers

This work will look into the rhetoric of the Whitehouse and mainstream media which is preparing the general public for the imminent invasion of Iran. It will also address issues such as the credibility of the claim that Iran has nuclear weapons and that it is withholding information about its nuclear program. More plausible motives behind a US invasion of Iran will also be discussed.


MEDIA COMPLACENCY

In order to attack Iran, the US and Israel have to set up a psychological foundation that ensures popular opinion supports a ‘preemptive’ strike against the country. This foundation is established through the channels of complacent media corporations. It can be seen in almost any article that you read on Iran. There is an endless and disturbing collection of articles that demonize Iran and its nuclear program. There are a number of reoccurring features within these articles that act to make the reader believe a military strike against Iran is justified. I will discuss them here.

1) Articles demonize Iran: In order to attack a country it is vital that it is considered an ‘enemy’ by the public. To achieve this the media often makes false accusations and draws outlandish connections to make the public believe that the country is a threat. A recent article by Ami Isseroff, entitled “The Real Threat of Iran”, is a stunning example of how far the media will go to achieve this. Within the article Isseroff makes such statements as: “Iran is not just, or primarily, dangerous because it might develop nuclear weapons. Iran is dangerous because it is trying to undermine the United States and the west, and allies of the United States, including but not limited to Israel.” and “The threat posed by Iranian terror activities and propaganda is underestimated. The nuclear program is only a means to an end, the end being domination of the Middle East.” Isseroff goes on to claim that “Since…1979…Iran has pursued its goals of combating the West, Israel and moderate Islam with singular persistence…” Isseroff then asks us to imagine a world in which “…Iran controls the price of oil and decides who gets it, and installs radical Shi'a regimes in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other countries.” To top if off he leaves us with this message: “Iran already controls Syria and Lebanon, and they bid fair to control the Palestinian authority as well as Iraq. Who is next?”
Such blatant demonizing of Iran and its government is not uncommon and many more articles can be found that follow this same theme. Such rhetoric reaches deep within the subconscious and is hard to approach with an open mind. It immediately directs the reader to believe that Iran is in fact a radical Islamic state that is calling for the destruction of America and Israel, and is seeking domination of the Middle East. This of course leads the reader to view Iran as an ‘enemy’, which is what the US needs.

2) Articles claim Iranian non-cooperation: Iranian non-cooperation with the IAEA has been a central feature of many articles on Iran during the past few months, in connection with the IAEA’s continuing inspection of Iran’s nuclear program. Articles that discuss this matter inevitably claim that Iran is not ‘cooperating fully’ with the IAEA. This non-cooperation apparently points to Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, because they are not providing the required information to conclude that their program is for civilian purposes only. As is discussed in a separate section below, such claims are almost totally baseless.

Despite this though, The New York Times claims that “Iranian officials…balk at answering critical questions, providing essential documents or access to related sites, leaving the world no choice but to suspect the worst.”
The Australian follows a similar theme: “The report said Iran was hiding information about alleged studies that suggested Tehran might have been trying to develop a nuclear warhead.”
CNN, on the other hand, provides us with conflicting views, first saying that “Iran is still withholding critical information that could determine whether it is trying to make nuclear weapons…”, and then going on to say, later in the same article, that the “…report said Iran had clarified many of the outstanding issues regarding its nuclear program…”

Articles that follow in this vein act to place a layer of distrust on Iran. As a reader you get an impression that Iran is being uncooperative because it has something to hide, and that what it has to hide must be a nuclear weapons program. This distrust means that any claims made by Iran that its program is entirely peaceful can then be ignored as propaganda. A reader will not pursue the issue further, when, in fact, the truth is that Iran has been cooperating with the IAEA on an enormous amount of issues, and has continued to prove that its program is entirely peaceful.

3) Articles draw baseless conclusions: In an effort to demonize and portray a false image of Iran, many media corporations draw baseless conclusions based on scant or fabricated evidence. The major conclusion that is inevitably drawn is that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. This view is reiterated again and again throughout articles concerning Iran. However, at the moment this assumption is based on very little evidence, as will be discussed in a later section. Unfortunately, despite evidence to the contrary, the US is utilising Iran’s supposed weapons program as an excuse to launch another war for resources in the Middle East.

Perhaps the most corrupted connection that is being drawn by the media is that between Iran, its leadership and fanaticism and hatred of the West. Shahram Akbarzadeh, writing for The Australian, proclaims that “Ahmadinejad (the Iranian president) represents an ideological mix of hardliner and conservative characterised by missionary zeal and a deep suspicion of international organisations. In this worldview, the UN and the IAEA are little more than instruments of domination for the “Great Satan” (America).”
Army Gen. David Petraeus, on the other hand, attempts to connect Iran with other hotspots in the Middle East, saying that “Iran's activities have been particularly harmful in Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan. In each location, Tehran has, to varying degrees, fueled proxy wars in an effort to increase its influence and pursue its regional ambitions.”
I am curious as to where the evidence for these ‘proxy wars’ is. Clarification on what ‘varying degrees’ and ‘regional ambitions’ means would also help, but there is none given of course. The reader is instead lead to the impression that Iran is a powerful Middle Eastern country that is seeking regional hegemony by fuelling wars that have been started by the USA. The fact is, Iran hasn’t attacked another nation in over 200 years and with Israel’s missiles and aircraft within striking distance, why would it?

The third notable conclusion that has been drawn, as illustrated by Petraeus above, is that Iran has been supporting rebel forces in Iraq. This conclusion is arrived upon because shells have been found within Iraq that are apparently traceable to Iran. Furthermore, Robert Burns of the Associated Press tells us that “…Iran is training Iraqi Shiite militiamen and providing them with rockets, mortars and technology for a particularly deadly type of roadside bomb.”
This theory falls short though, when we consider the fact that if America has the technology to make shells, then it has the technology to make Iranian shells, or shells that belong to the weapons Iranians’ use. All America needs is the designs and then they can fabricate shells originating from any country. In regard to training of militiamen, I have not found any evidence cited, only claims made.
Another point to note on this claim, is that America had no right, according to the UN Charter, to attack Iraq. Therefore, Iran can’t be considered to be interfering, since the US is already embedded in what should be an illegal war.

Another prime example of the media promoting false or untraceable claims comes from YNetnews.com, and is contained in the following quote:

US intelligence analysts have several theories as to why al-Qaeda and Tehran have recently renewed contact. According to one theory, Iran initiated the talks as a threat to the United States; so that if the US takes hostile action against Iran, these captives could be released, and set free to plot attacks against the West.

This quote is so obviously drawing conclusions on fabricated or scant evidence that it’s almost laughable. Just the idea that captives would be released to ‘plot attacks’ against the West is so outlandish that it’s not even worth comment. It seems the media will go to any extent to frame Iran.

Much in the same vein as the above example, one of the more amusing conclusions drawn, because of its sheer irrelevance, is attributed to President Bush, who, according to Matt Spetalnick writing for Reuters, has “…decried his critics' calls for negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as comparable to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler before World War Two.”
Well, let’s just have a brief look at that claim. Before the beginning of World War Two, Hitler’s Germany had done the following:
1) Occupied the Rhineland with military forces in March 1936.
2) Sent military resources to Franco’s forces in Spain.
3) Annexed Austria in 1938 and proclaimed its union with Germany.
4) Claimed the Sudetenland, a region of Czechoslovakia. This was given in the understanding that it would be Hitler’s last territorial demand.
5) Invaded Czechoslovakia in March 1939 without ramifications.
6) Demanded that the City of Danzig be given access to Germany.
In all of these instances Germany was acting in violation of the League of Nations and international treaties. On the other hand, Iran is being offered economic incentives to halt uranium enrichment, a practice which is well within the bounds of international law according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In light of this the above claim is ridiculous, there is just no comparison. What is actually intended by this claim is to connect Iran and Ahmadinejad with pre-war Germany and Hitler. Thus the reader connects Iran with Hitler’s Nazi Germany, and all that it represented. This is a subtle but effective way of demonizing Iran.
4) Articles hint at military action: This aspect of the articles concerning Iran is of particular importance to the US. By gently telling us that military action may be needed to deal with Iran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’, the media is preparing public opinion for the actual invasion of Iran. If we are used to the idea of Iran as a powerful and ambitious nation with nuclear capabilities; a nation that can only be contained by military action, then when war is actually declared public alarm will be minimal because we won’t be surprised. Thus, articles that include this sort of rhetoric are preparing us for the invasion of Iran.
I’ll briefly list a few examples of this kind of rhetoric. The first time I came across the mention of renewed military action in the Middle East was in an article by Martin Chulov writing for The Weekend Australian. That was in May 2008, and since then I began following developments on Iran in close detail. Chulov ended the article with this passage:
Also likelier is that it (Lebanon) will soon be an arena for another round of conflict, which is at a serious risk of drawing in the heavy guns of the puppet-masters. The cold war of the Middle East is getting rapidly hotter. And, given the intransigent positions of foreign parties, a military confrontation of some sort seems likelier than not.
The mere suggestion of another military conflict in the Middle East disturbed me greatly, since it is completely the wrong solution for problems that are largely fabricated. Unfortunately, as I began to follow the topic, I found more and more examples of this rhetoric.
For instance, Patrick Casey, writing for American Thinker, tells us that “…an attack is the only option left.” This seems to be President Bush’s opinion also, who is reported to have “…told Israeli leaders he intends to launch a military strike against Iran before he leaves office.” Mr. Bush goes on though, telling us that “…the disease must be treated—not the symptoms.” In other words, Iran needs to be attacked, rather than fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Peter Symonds observes that “The visit by US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen to Israel yesterday is one more indication that the two countries are actively discussing a military strike on Iran.” According to Symonds, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz told an Israeli newspaper on June 13 that “…if Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it”. All of this rhetoric does not bode well for Iran, but it only gets worse. Shabtai Shavit says that “We should do whatever’s necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don't work. What's left is a military action.”
According to Seymour Hersh writing for The New Yorker magazine, John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the UN, takes it one step further still, claiming that “… the Arab world would actually be "pleased" by an Israeli strike.” Bolton seems to think that their reaction would be “…positive privately…” while “…there'll be public denunciations but no action.” Robert Burns writing for the Associated Press, adds that “…Iran and the United States are edging closer to open conflict.” On a milder tone Aijaz Zaka Syed observes that “…one often wonders what would happen if the US and Israel indeed went ahead and attacked the Islamic republic, as they appear all set to do now.”
One does indeed wonder. Will there be an international response in protest, or will this renewed attempt at US imperialism be allowed to go ahead without concern. I believe that we, as a society and international community, will not stand for needless violence and war mongering, and that public outrage will give our leaders cause to think twice. But we must remain vigilant, especially when reading articles on Iran, because the majority of them are laden with subtle rhetoric designed to make you view Iran as an enemy and a potential threat. This view is of course absurd if you understand the whole situation. Therefore, in the following two sections I shall try to bring some light to the overall conditions in Iran, and hopefully this will give you a more understandable picture of what is unfolding in this region.

INCENTIVES FOR AN INVASION
The first factor that needs to be considered is why is America interested in launching a military strike against Iran? The answer to this question may seem obvious if you’ve been keeping up with the story the media has been presenting: Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and therefore this needs to be destroyed because it is a threat to the ‘international community.’ The truth however, is more complicated than that.
The assumption that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program is severely compromised by its record of transparent cooperation with the IAEA, despite what the media says. This will be discussed later on in the work. So, if Iran is not in fact pursuing a nuclear weapons program, then why would America have any reason to launch a ‘preemptive’ military strike against it? The answer to that question lies, I believe, in resources.
In order to maintain control over as much of the world as possible, a country must have a massive economy, it must also have control over the worlds resources. By gaining control of as much resources as possible a country can regulate who has access to them, and at what price. Oil is currently one of the most valuable resources, since world reserves are rapidly reducing as we consume at a massive rate. It is therefore essential that a country who pursues power, must control as much of this resource as possible, both to ensure its own longevity, and to ensure that it regulates the longevity of other countries.
Unfortunately for Iran, it controls the third largest oil reserves in the world, with Saudi Arabia controlling the most, and Canada the second most. Saudi Arabia and Canada, however, are on trading terms with America; I doubt Iran is. America used to enjoy access to over 40% of these oil resources due to a CIA backed coup that reinstalled the Iranian Shah in 1953. However, in 1979, when the revolution overthrew the shah, American access to this oil would have been severely restricted. Therefore, America considers Iran to control resources that should rightfully be under American control.
To add to this Iran is the second largest oil producing nation involved in OPEC. OPEC as a whole, and especially Venezuela, are creating unacceptable competition for other oil producers, particularly America, because of their reasonable prices and low taxing on oil. Also Iran is involved in the Euroasia energy grid that is being formed. This energy grid could develop the ability to rid itself of dependence on American trade in energy, and would therefore be a huge blow to America’s economy and its control over the region. Iran would be a major player in this energy grid, and has already taken steps to establishing energy alliances with other countries in the region. This has taken on the form of negotiations with Pakistan and India on the construction of a natural gas pipeline that would supply both of these countries. These negotiations have lead to further talks on issues surrounding conflict resolution in Afghanistan, and further cooperation between Pakistan and India, who have traditionally had a tense political relationship. This formation of regional cooperation in energy is seen as a threat to America.
Apart from natural gas, the oil that Iran controls would contribute immensely to the energy grid also, providing countries such as China with the energy it needs to continue developing. If economic growth in areas such as Europe, China, India and Japan is not halted or hindered in someway, then America will have other world powers to deal with, an eventuality it can not allow to happen. This is why controlling Iran, and its resources, is so essential. Iran is in a position to allow unprecedented growth in economies that America won’t be able to contend with, particularly China and Japan, who are currently Iran’s main trading partners.
Iran also has geographical significance, because of its access to the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. The Persian Gulf is the only maritime access to Iraq, which is now under American control. Therefore, any oil that is now transported from Iraq through the gulf is under threat from Iran. This is a risk that America is obviously not willing to take. Iran has already recognised the significance of its influence over this area. In the case of a military strike from either America or Israel, Major-General Mohammad Ali Jafari has said that “Iran will definitely act to impose control on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.” 17 million barrels of oil currently pass through this area every day, and thus closing it off would result in massive international pressure on America to resolve the issue. However, if America controls Iran as well, then it has no need for concern about a threat to oil being transported through this region.
And finally, Iran is not a country welcome to foreign investment. It is well known that the majority of American corporations rely on free trade areas in poorer countries to produce their products. This is termed ‘foreign investment’ by America and basically consists of utilizing wage slavery amongst a poor work force who have no other way of sustaining themselves. China and Indonesia are prime examples of this practice. Iran however, has a mainly state controlled economy, meaning that companies are under the control of the nation and responsible to the government. Major corporations are often not privately owned. This means that there is no opportunity for growth of foreign investment within Iran. However, America would prefer to be able to install, for example, privately owned oil companies that relay profits back to America rather than keeping them in Iran. The US insists that this foreign investment is vital to a growing countries economy, but the truth is, it widens the gap between the poor and the rich and generally wreaks havoc on the economy and living standards of the majority of the population.

IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

America however, can not utilise any of the above incentives to invade Iran. There would be no way that the international community would allow this to happen. Therefore, an excuse must be formed. Something similar to what allowed the invasion of Iraq, something that is within the ability of America to fabricate and something that also holds considerable real concern so that the international community will listen to America’s lies. This excuse has come in the form of Iran’s nuclear program.
The US and its faithful media are currently producing article after article that condemn Iran’s nuclear program and state that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, which is perceived as a threat to the ‘international community’ and world security as a whole. Such a claim must come under scrutiny however, since Iran continues to insist that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, and indeed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory, under Article IV, states that “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…”

It is therefore within Iran’s ‘inalienable right’ to develop a peaceful nuclear program aimed at producing electricity for its increasing population. The United States however insists; that contrary to Iran’s claims, Iran is aiming to produce a nuclear weapon which could be used to target Israel. It is currently unclear where the evidence for such a claim rests though, since the IAEA (nuclear watchdog), has as yet found no indications that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, a matter I will address shortly.

First however, let me give a brief account of Iran’s nuclear history. A nuclear reactor being built by Siemens at Bushehr was nearing completion in 1979. However work on the reactor halted when the 1979 revolution overthrew the shah.
During the invasion of Iran by Iraq (1980 – 1988), which was backed by virtually every Western country and the USSR, Iran’s nuclear capabilities were damaged. After the war Iran contracted Russia to install another reactor to replace the Siemens one that had been destroyed in the fighting. Iran then began an enrichment and research program aimed at developing a nuclear program. In 2003, under intense international pressure, Iran suspended its nuclear enrichment program and allowed for thorough IAEA inspections. In 2006 Iran resumed its nuclear research and successfully enriched uranium in April of that year. IAEA inspections of Iran’s conduct have continued, and in December 2007 a National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the 16 US intelligence agencies, was released, stating with ‘high confidence’ that Iran had frozen its nuclear weapons ambitions in 2003. In light of the report, which didn’t help the Bush administration’s plans on a ‘preemptive’ strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Bush had this to say:

“Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. What’s to say they couldn’t start another covert nuclear weapons program?”

It stands to reason then, that we should consider most Western countries, primarily the United States, Britain and Israel, ‘dangerous’ as well. Perhaps we should impose sanctions against them, or insist on IAEA inspections of their nuclear capabilities, especially since the United States and Britain are signatories to the NPT, which, under Article VI, calls for the “cessation of the nuclear arms race” and “complete disarmament”. It is valuable to note here that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, and has a massive stockpile of over 150 nuclear warheads.

What soon becomes clear from America’s war mongering is that disarmament or cessation of nuclear weapons development is not the goal of the United States. Rather fabricating a reason to invade Iran is the US’s primary motive. This conclusion is not hard to reach: Claiming that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program just doesn’t hold enough credibility in light of the facts.
Iran has been cooperating with the IAEA to the whole of its ability, something that the Western media, and Washington, has a hard time swallowing. We are continuously being bombarded by articles that reiterate Iran’s unwillingness to cooperate with IAEA officials. Such articles go on to say that the IAEA is ‘frustrated’ with this lack of cooperation and that it indicates that Iran is hiding something. This is just not true though.

Inevitably we are again faced with two possibilities, as seems to reoccur whenever the United States has issues with a foreign entity. We can either believe what the American media is telling us; essentially that Iran is not cooperating fully with the IAEA, and that they are developing a nuclear weapon, or we can take into account Iran’s assertion that it is indeed cooperating with the IAEA and that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Unfortunately for the first option, there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest the second.

The evidence that I am about to refer to comes from the two most recent reports conducted by the IAEA on Iran’s nuclear program. The first report was derestricted on the 5th of March 2008, and the second was derestricted on the 5th of June 2008, and is the same nine-page report that most recent articles on Iran have referred to. Both of these reports are currently available on the IAEA website, and I recommend reading them, as well as the information circulars, for the full story.

One of the first points to note is that Iran has always maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. The 5th of March report states that “During the discussions, the Iranian leadership stated that the country’s nuclear programme had always been exclusively for peaceful purposes and that there had never been a nuclear weapons development programme.” This claim would likely be sufficient to allay the ‘international community’s’ fears of nuclear proliferation if it was stated by the United States. However, it is not acceptable for Iran to make such a claim.

The report derestricted on the 5th of March addresses a number of issues to do with Iran’s nuclear program. The report maintains that many of the questions raised are “…no longer outstanding at this stage.” For the IAEA to come to this conclusion it is evident that Iran must have cooperated fully with them on these questions.
There are some other issues that Iran has not addressed as yet, or has claimed that the evidence presented in relation to them is fabricated or baseless. Although this claim sounds like an avoidance of the question, which the media claims it is, it should be noted that this evidence is provided by ‘Member States’ who are not named. It is of course entirely possible that the material has indeed been fabricated to try and frame Iran. Some questions that the IAEA has raised against Iran have been based on documents which the IAEA is unable to show Iran without authorization. This justifiably produces skepticism over the legitimacy of such documents, or whether they indeed exist. When presented with issues that it can address however, Iran has cooperated as much as possible, as the report testifies:

The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities. Iran has also responded to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on the issues raised in the context of the work plan, with the exception of the alleged studies. Iran has provided access to individuals in response to the Agency’s requests. Although direct access has not been provided to individuals said to be associated with the alleged studies, responses have been provided in writing to some of the Agency’s questions.

The report goes onto state: “With the exception of the issue of the alleged studies, which remains outstanding, the Agency has no concrete information about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.”

The ‘alleged studies’ that the report refers to are those to do with the green salt project (conversion of uranium dioxide into uranium tetraflouride), high explosive testing and design of a missile re-entry vehicle, which could have nuclear dimensions. These issues are still outstanding, and were extensively reported on in the 5th of June report. However, “During a meeting in Tehran on 21–22 April 2008, Iran agreed to address the alleged studies, the procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies, and questions which had been raised in the Agency’s letters of 8 February and 12 February 2008.”
This means that accusations that Iran is not fully cooperating because of the alleged studies can not be made since Iran has not addressed them yet. Iran also maintains that information provided to the IAEA about the alleged studies is baseless and fabricated. A brief explanation is given in the 5th of June report:

Iran stated that the documents “do not show any indication that the Islamic Republic of
Iran has been working on [a] nuclear weapon.” Iran also stated that the documents were not authentic, that they were “forged” or “fabricated”. Iran did not dispute that some of the information contained in the documents was factually accurate, but said the events and activities concerned involved civil or conventional military applications. Iran said the documents contained numerous inconsistencies and many were based on publicly available information. Iran stated that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has not had and shall not have any nuclear weapon program.”

Furthermore, the Agency itself is presenting evidence whose source is questionable. In some cases information has been provided on file, which Iran says could easily have been tampered with, in other cases information has been provided by ‘Member States’, which are not named and therefore could be a wide range of countries, some of whom may have an agenda against Iran. To add to this, on one occasion the Agency “was not in possession of the documents and was therefore unfortunately unable to make them available to Iran.” Such discrepancies in the IAEA’s collection and presentation of evidence is worth noting, and means that a claim such as “Iran has not provided the Agency with all the information, access to documents and access to individuals necessary…” becomes a touch hypocritical.

I think it is clear that although there are a number of questions still unanswered by Iran, especially in connection with the ‘alleged studies’ (which are currently being addressed), the country is still maintaining a high level of transparency in its work, and has “remained open to the IAEA's surveillance and containment of nuclear material…” In fact “Over the past year, IAEA investigators conducted 14 unannounced inspections…”. This strongly suggests that Iran is in fact cooperating significantly with the IAEA, in contrast to what the media is telling us with such lines as “(Iran) persists in its non-transparent pursuit of nuclear technology…” Such a statement is clearly false in light of the above facts.

As a final point, the NPT states, in Article IV, that “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…with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.”
If the United States and the ‘international community’ are so concerned with the nuclear program of Iran, then why don’t they negotiate with Iran to transfer aspects of their own research and equipment so that Iran can have a fully operational nuclear power system. Thus, instead of an international stalemate, Iran would have nuclear power and the ‘international community’ would have peace of mind. Any further nuclear activity conducted by Iran could then come under justifiable scrutiny.




A MATTER OF TIME

I can not say with confidence what will happen in respect to Iran. You inevitably encounter conflicting perspectives on the issue, with each country contributing a different story to the whole. It seems to me however, that it is only a matter of time before some sort of military action is taken against Iran. If America does not strike, then it will be Israel. The rhetoric of Washington and its allies seems to point in this direction whenever it is encountered. I think that the biggest problem America now faces is convincing its own population, and populations of the world, that a strike on Iran is the right thing to do. That is why we are bombarded with articles that are designed to demonize and frame Iran, despite evidence to the contrary, evidence which is ignored and silenced.

According to courant.com, the ‘War Drums are Beating’ and “Israeli hawks are…laying the psychological groundwork for military action.” It must be noted though that it is not only Israeli hawks, but Washington and its complacent media who are also ‘laying the psychological groundwork for military action.’ In an attempt to combat this ‘psychological groundwork’ it is important to be aware of the lies which are constantly being created and regurgitated by the US.

To add to this, time, it seems, is running out. According to John Bolton “…the most likely period (for military action) is after (the American) elections and before the inauguration of the next President.” Israel or America would strike at this time because they would know who is to be inaugurated as president, and whether this would affect the likelihood of a military strike in the future. Also, what’s left of President Bush’s reputation would no longer need to be preserved, since he would be on his way out. That means that time to take action against the coming war is fast running out. If you are in the position to make any difference whatsoever, do so now, without hesitation. We must not allow another war to break out.

Unfortunately however, it could already be too late. It has been reported by Seymour Hersh, amongst others, that “…U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership.”
If we are to believe this then it means that the invasion of Iran has already begun. The military foundations for a visible strike are being put in place while the world ignorantly debates about Iran’s nuclear program. We are being distracted; our energies are being directed towards an issue that is a mere fabrication, a farce to keep us looking the wrong way. If we are to fight against the inevitable, then we must stay alert to the truth, and we must use it to teach others so that meaningful action and protest can be undertaken as soon as possible to prevent the needless invasion of Iran.