|Anthony Freda Art
June 3, 2015
Considering the years of propaganda surrounding Iran and its nuclear program, it was clear to any informed observer that the recent US-Iran nuclear deal was nothing more than theatre. After all, the US/NATO imperialist machine has made its desire to wage war on the Persian nation explicit for some time. The only question is just how long this theatre will last before that goal is finally realized.
While the Western press and corporate media outlets have taken to presenting the Iran nuclear deal as either a tragic capitulation to the deadly warmongering Iranians or a brilliant lunge for peace with the deadly warmongering Iranians, the premise of their presentations are exactly the same – that Iran is dangerous, wants war, and is doing whatever it can to acquire a nuclear weapon.
This is, of course, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran is attempting to gain a nuclear weapon or has any aggressive intent in the region. In fact, the US and Israeli intelligence organizations have both determined that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon nor is it attempting to acquire one. Indeed, it has been admitted by military industrial complex firm, The RAND Corporation, that Iran’s military capabilities were largely defensive, not offensive. Even further, not only was Iran well within its rights to do everything it was doing in regards to nuclear energy and technology, the agreement signed with the West was an extraordinary act of conciliation and cooperation. Indeed, Iran bent over backwards to appease the West in its imperialists aims.
That being said, I have argued from the very beginning of the US-Iran nuclear talks that the diplomacy taking place was nothing more than theatre to be used later in the rush to war as evidence that the US did “everything in its power” to avoid confrontation. While the future is impossible to predict, one might reasonably believe that the US will soon sabotage the nuclear deal whose final touches and signatures are due at the end of June 2015.
Already the ripples of sabotage are able to be seen from NATO quarters. For instance, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius stated that, if Iran does not agree to inspections of military facilities, the deal will be off. “France will not accept a deal if it is not clear that inspections can be done at all Iranian installations, including military sites,” he said.
America’s fanatics are also threatening to push for the abandonment of the deal based on Iran’s possible refusal to allow the snap inspections of military facilities and the “interviewing” of nuclear scientists. For example, Lindsey Graham recently stated that there is not a “snowball’s chance in hell” that the deal will be agreed to by the US Congress. “I’m saying if there’s a final deal that doesn’t require anytime, anywhere inspections, that the Senate will not go along with that,” he said. He also stated that “I’ll wait and see how it looks on paper, but if you don’t have any time, anywhere inspections, forget about it. I just don’t think any Democrat or Republican is going to agree to allow that to become binding.”
These outlandish demands, of course, are already seen as a sticking point with the Iranians. As Thomas Erdbink and David Sanger reported for the New York Times,
Iran’s supreme leader on Wednesday ruled out allowing international inspectors to interview Iranian nuclear scientists as part of any potential deal on its nuclear program, and reiterated that the country would not allow the inspection of military sites.
In a graduation speech at the Imam Hussein Military University in Tehran, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, widely believed to have the final say on whether Iran accepts a deal if one is reached next month, denounced what he said were escalating demands by the United States and five other world powers as they accelerate the pace of the negotiations with Iran.
“They say new things in the negotiations,” Ayatollah Khamenei told the military graduates. “Regarding inspections, we have said that we will not let foreigners inspect any military center.”Iran’s concern is entirely legitimate. The inspection of military sites would amount to intelligence gathering operations sanctioned and enforced by the UN and the perception of international consensus. Likewise, the “interviews” of Iranian nuclear scientists could be seen as intelligence gathering operations or, just as likely, intimidation sessions. This is especially relevant after a number of Iranian nuclear personnel have been assassinated over the last few years, acts which were clearly committed by Israel.
So already we begin to see the rift between the Iranians and the Western powers who have long been intent on invading and/or destabilizing the Persian nation. Already we are seeing the rumblings of what may become a major sticking point and deal-breaking demand of the West, assuring that not only is the nuclear deal scrapped and sanctions continued, but that NATO, the US, or Israel will use Iran’s “non-compliance” and “insistence upon attempts to build a nuclear bomb” as justification for a military attack on the country.
The plan for a Western or a Western/Israeli attack on Iran, along with the theatre of alleged US-Israeli tensions leading up to a strike and outright war, has been in the works for some time. For instance, in 2009, the Brookings Institution, a major banking, corporate, and military-industrial firm, released a report entitled “Which Path To Persia? Options For A New American Strategy For Iran,” in which the authors mapped out a plan which leaves no doubt as to the ultimate desire from the Western financier, corporate, and governing classes.
The plan involves the description of a number of ways the Western oligarchy would be able to destroy Iran including outright military invasion and occupation. However, the report attempts to outline a number of methods that might possibly be implemented before direct military invasion would be necessary. The plan included attempting to foment destabilization inside Iran via the color revolution apparatus, violent unrest, proxy terrorism, and “limited airstrikes” conducted by the US, Israel or both.
Interestingly enough, the report states that any action taken against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran has rejected a fair and generous offer by the West has been disseminated throughout the general public. The report reads,
...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.Ironically, it is admitted by the authors of the report that the Iranians are not governed by lunatics intent on nuking the world but by entirely rational players. Still, they move forward with a number of options for attacking Iran. It should thus be obvious to anyone reading this report that the US, NATO, and Israel are uninterested in peace with Iran and are entirely focused on war and Iranian destruction.
The report continues to discuss the citations that could be used for an attack on Iran, clearly stating its intentions to create a plan to goad a non-threatening nation into war. It states,
The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)The question of the Israeli role in the possible attack against Iran is also mentioned by Brookings. In fact, in the chapter entitled, “Allowing or Encouraging An Israeli Military Strike,” Brookings not only outlines a potential strategy but essentially admits that the US-Israeli tension being hyped in the Western media is nothing more than a farce. It says,
..the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives).For those who believe that the Obama administration is hostile to the Israelis and their agenda, one need only look toward the decimated cities of Syria and the wasteland that is Libya in order to see that the opposite is the case. The Obama administration, like the previous administration, has been marching in lock step with the Israelis since the very beginning and nothing has changed. The only difference is that the current administration is that of a Democratic President, thus the perception that Obama is “weak on his support for Israel” must be played up as a narrative. That narrative, however, is just that – a narrative. It has no basis in reality whatsoever.
The tentative agreement between the US and Iran regarding the latter’s nuclear program, with Israel wailing in the background, can easily be seen as a playout of the plan described by the Brookings Institution where an attack on Iran will come after it is perceived that Iran has rejected a “superb offer.”
The Israelis are not dissatisfied with the United States nor is the United States dissatisfied with Israel. Both parties are merely playing a role in a carefully scripted act that ultimately involves more war against the enemies of Anglo-American imperialism and the world oligarchy.
Do not be fooled by propaganda. While the Iranians are busy negotiating, the Americans and the Israelis are busy gearing up for war.
Recently from Brandon Turbeville:
- Huge Explosion In Latakia Reveals US HRW Hypocrisy
- Brandon Turbeville Interviewed About Middle East Politics on FOX Affiliate "Kate Dalley Show"
- It's Ok, Everyone, Nusra Says Nusra Won't Hurt Us