|
||||||||||
|
|
Iran Is Not The Belligerent Party
By Linda S. Heard, Special to Gulf News 01/07/08 "Gulf News"
-- - In recent years Iran has become the target of a belligerent campaign
against it, orchestrated by usual suspects the US, Israel and Britain. This
aggressive nuclear-armed trio has badgered other nations to back anti-Iranian
sanctions without even the flimsiest evidence that Tehran is pursuing nuclear
weapons. Since 2006, Iran has been subjected to three rounds of ever-tightening UN
sanctions while the European Union (EU) is preparing to freeze funds and assets
of Bank Melli, Iran's largest bank. And what heinous crime has Tehran
perpetrated to warrant this treatment? In truth, Iran hasn't done anything wrong. Under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which it is a signatory, it has an
"inalienable right" to develop, research, produce and use nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes, which includes the right to enrich uranium. But because Washington harbours old grievances against the Iranian
government and Israel is determined to eliminate potential powerful rivals
within the region Iran is being squeezed to relinquish its rights. The stance of the US and its allies is not only based on an unfounded and
unfair premise, it reeks of hypocrisy when nuclear-armed Israel has a green
light to continue its ridiculous policy of nuclear ambiguity and is not being
pressed to sign-up to the NPT. On the rare occasions that Western leaders are asked about this
inconsistency, they deftly change the subject, terminate the interview, or
launch into a tirade, which usually includes Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" statement, knowing full well
that his words were mistranslated. They cannot debate the issue because it
defies logic. When it comes to demonising Iran, the US, Israel and Britain have a unified
message and a compliant media, which has learned nothing from its mistakes
during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and seems happy to continue to act
as a government propaganda arm in some cases. Thanks to the dutiful corporate mouthpieces, most Americans and Britons have
no idea that Tehran is acting within its rights under the NPT. They don't know that in December, a US intelligence estimate stated
categorically that Iran is not currently developing nukes or that the nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which monitors Iranian
facilities, has no proof it seeks to do so. The West's propaganda campaign is so effective that the majority of
Westerners believe that Iran is the belligerent even though the facts support
the contrary argument. For instance, the US President George W. Bush has rarely missed an opportunity
to insult, condemn and threaten Iran throughout his two terms in office
beginning with his puerile "Axis of Evil". The Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, made his
feelings known in his "bomb, bomb Iran" ditty. And even his Democratic
opponent, Barack Obama, has vowed to eliminate the threat posed by Iran
whatever it takes. Israeli leaders have gone a step further. Earlier this month, Israel's
Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said an attack on Iran appeared
"unavoidable". Interestingly, every time the rhetoric is ratcheted up
so is the price of oil, which is good news for Tehran's coffers. Worse, Israel recently launched a military air exercise over the eastern
Mediterranean involving over 100 fighter jets and helicopters, which, according
to US officials was a prelude to a possible strike on Iran's enrichment plant
at Natanz. An Israeli spokesperson told the Times that Iran should "read the
writing on the wall" as this was a "dress rehearsal" and
Iranians should "read the script before they continue with their
programme" else Israel "will take military steps to halt Tehran's
production of bomb-grade uranium." In this case, shouldn't this dry run constitute an act of war? It is
certainly a provocative act and should be taken seriously in light of Israel's
recent incursion into Syrian airspace to bomb a military facility and its 1981
attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor. When Egypt amassed over 200,000 troops in the Sinai in early June 1967,
Israel struck first, blamed Egypt for initiating hostilities and claiming it
had acted out of self-defence. Surely, Israel's self-confessed rehearsal is
similarly provocative and in the extremely unlikely event Iran struck first, it
could also argue self-defence. Sabre-rattling Whether Israel is merely sabre-rattling in an attempt to persuade Iran to
agree to the latest EU package of inducements or whether it is deadly serious
is the subject of debate. IAEA Chief Mohammad Al Baradei seems to be taking it seriously and if Iran
is attacked he says he will resign. "I don't believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and
urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time,
it would make me unable to continue my work," he said, warning that such
an attack would turn the region into "a fireball". Iran is taking it seriously too. Last Sunday, its Defence Minister Mustafa
Mohammad Najjar told the nation that if attacked Iran would use "all means
available" to come up with a devastating response. Those of us who live in
the neighbourhood can only pray that cooler heads put an end to this madness
before it's too late. Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be
contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20212.htm |
|||||||||
