|
By William John Cox
The ancient Greek name for Iran was Persis, which was usually spoken with
fear - for good reason. At the beginning of the Fifth Century BC, the
Persian Empire under Darius the Great was the most threatening force on
Earth and was poised to conquer the democratic city states of Greece and,
perhaps, the embryonic Roman republic beyond. But for a series of
unfortunate events (for the Persians) modern study of the classics would
be concentrated on the Persian language, history and literature, rather
than upon Greek and Latin.  Iran,
the last remnant of the Persian Empire, is presently threatened by the
greatest super power in history - the Unites States of America. The
conclusion of this article is that, rather than attack, the United States
should immediately reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran, negotiate
unconditionally, and ensure its protection from armed attack by Israel or
any other nation under a comprehensive policy that seeks to avoid the
expansion of nuclear weapons to Iran and all other nations and to disarm
all nations within ten years. To arrive at this solution, we and those who
purport to lead us must appreciate the history of the Iranian people and
have a clear understanding of the facts leading to this crisis.
A BRIEF BUT ESSENTIAL HISTORY
In 499 BC, the Persian Empire extended from India in the east to Asia
Minor and Egypt in the west. After Athens aided some of the Greek Ionian
cities to revolt, Darius crushed the rebellion and became determined to
subject all of the Greek city states to his rule. He dispatched 600 ships
across the Hellespont in 492 BC; however half were destroyed in a sudden
storm. Two years later, Darius landed on the plain of Marathon near
Athens. In a brilliant maneuver, the outnumbered Athenians fell back in
the center allowing their stronger wings to tightly surround the Persians,
depriving them of the use of their bows and arrows. 6,400 Persians fell to
the long Greek spears, while only 192 Greeks died.  Following
the assassination of Darius in 480 BC, his son King Xerxes attacked the
Greeks, and he sacked Athens and burned the Acropolis. It appeared that
the war was won since Xerxes' navy outnumbered the Athenian ships three to
one and had them contained between the island of Salamis and the coast of
Attica. In yet another brilliant maneuver, the Persians were lured into
the narrow straits by a false report that the Greeks were retreating. The
lighter Greek ships rammed the heavier and clumsy Persian ships, sinking
more than 200 and capturing others.
The power of the Persian Empire was broken. It was ultimately conquered by
Alexander the Great in a series of battles commencing in 334 BC ushering
in the Hellenistic Age, followed in time by the Christian Byzantine
Empire. Remnants of Persian power continued under the Susanids, who lost a
series of battles with Byzantine in the early Seventh Century AD.
Following the death of Muhammad on June 8, 632, a dispute over succession
left the Caliphs (deputies of the Prophet) in control of the political and
military authority of Islam. They were opposed by those who believed in
the tribal tradition known as Ridda in which the contract of allegiance
was terminated by the death of Muhammad. Following consolidation under the
Caliphs, the Arab armies defeated the Byzantines in July 636. The Persian
army was defeated the following year, and the entire area of Iraq was
occupied; however, resistance continued on the Persian plateau of Iran for
many years.
 The
dispute over succession continued. In 656, the Caliph Uthman was murdered
by Egyptian mutineers in Medina, and for the first time a descendant of
Muhammad, Ali, was appointed Caliph. An internal war within Islam ensued;
however, Ali was betrayed and assassinated by a supporter, and a
non-descendant again became Caliph. Ali's son, Hussein and 72 believers
were slaughtered in 680 at Karbala (in modern Iraq) to prevent his
challenging the caliphate; however, Hussein's son, Ali, survived.
Followers continue to commemorate the killing of Imam Hussein each year in
March by a period of mourning and pilgrimages to Karbala.
The traditional, or Sunni, branch became the dominate force in Islam;
however, the majority of Muslims in southern Iraq remained true to Ali and
established the Shiite branch of Islam. They expect the imminent return of
the "Mahdi," the hidden imam, who will save the world in the end
of days.
 With
the invasion of Genghis Khan's Mongolian army in 1219, all that remained
of Persia was destroyed, along with its irrigation works. There was a
brief economic revival in the later part of the century; however, it
wasn't until the rule of Tamerlane in 1381 that Persia was united into the
area of modern Iran. Tamerlane sponsored poetry and architecture and
included Iranians in his administration. His empire disintegrated
following his death and the area was ruled by various Mongol tribes
including the Uzbeks and Tukomans.
Commencing in 1501, the Safavid dynasty established the first native
Iranian rule in almost 1,000 years. Tracing their descent from one of Shia
Islam's Imams, the Safavids established Iran as a geographic entity under
the leadership of a "Shah," and they declared Shiite Islam as
the state religion and used force and proselytization to convert most
Muslims in Iran to their sect. Iran became a theocracy in which the Shah
exercised both religious and governing authority.
 The
Safavids were confronted with border challenges from the Uzbeks in the
north and from invasion by the Sunni Ottomans in the west, who had secured
control over southern Iraq. In the early 17th Century, Iran managed to
defeat the Uzbeks and the Ottomans, extending its borders to include Iraq,
Georgia and Bahrain. Although there were some reverses, the Safavid Empire
ultimately included Armenia, the Iranian coast on the Caspian Sea and
control over Afghanistan. In 1739, a military campaign against India
resulted in the pillage of Delhi. The Safavids established commercial ties
with English, Dutch and other Western traders to export fine silks,
carpets, porcelain and other artistic products.
In the early 19th Century, Iran lost two wars with Russia and had to give
up much of its Caucasus and Central Asia territory. Iran turned to England
for protection against Russia and paid the price by having to surrender
its claim to Afghanistan. Although England pushed Iran into making some
economic concessions and government reforms, corruption and disorder
ultimately resulted in the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in
1906 with an elected parliament. After an attempt to bomb the parliament
and arrest the deputies, the Shah went into exile, and England and Russia
divided Iran into spheres of influence in 1907. Thereafter, England and
Russia prevented Iran from developing basic industry and technology, such
as railroads, in order to protect their expanding frontiers.
THE PAHLAVI DYNASTY
Iran sought to avoid involvement in World War I by declaring its
neutrality; however, it quickly became a battleground for German, English,
Russian and Turkish interests. Following the end of the war and the
Russian revolution, England attempted to impose a defacto protectorate
over Iran with the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919. However, the Iranian
parliament refused to ratify the agreement and in 1921, Reza Khan, an
Iranian military officer, seized power in Tehran, In 1926 he was crowned
as the new Shah.  Reza
Shah Pahlavi took effective control of the country by relying on young
European-trained administrators and military officers. He instituted the
draft, created a modern army, and brought the independent tribes under
government authority. Reza Shah established an extensive system of public
schools and universities, expanded the economy, and corralled the power of
the Shiite Imams by establishing secular law and courts. He opened schools
and employment to women and abolished the veil. To accomplish these goals,
he reduced the role of parliament and increased the power of the
bureaucracy. Taxes were increased, the Shah became wealthy, and the poor
suffered. Reza Shah ended the economic favoritism of England, including
its oil concession, and increasingly viewed the Soviet Union with
suspicion. German commercial enterprise was encouraged, and Germany became
Iran's largest trading partner.
Iran again declared its neutrality in World War II; however England and
the Soviet Union simultaneously invaded on August 26, 1941 and each carved
out spheres of interest. The Shah abdicated in favor of his son, Mohammad
Reza Shah Pahlavi, who signed an agreement with England and the Soviet
Union to provide nonmilitary assistance and to allow the shipment of war
supplies across its borders. The two countries agreed to remove their
troops within six months of the War's end.
Iran declared war on Germany in 1943 and became a founding member of the
United Nations. At the end of the war, the Soviet Union carved out two
autonomous republics in northern Iran. Soviet troops remained in Iran and
prevented government forces from restoring control, even as English and
American troops evacuated as agreed. As a result of American and English
pressure, the Soviet Union finally evacuated, and in 1947, the United
States and Iran signed military agreements.
 Following
the war, Iran began to develop its agriculture and manufacturing resources
and increasingly looked to the sale of its oil reserves for finance. In
1951, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry and
England imposed an embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil in retaliation.
Friction arose between the Shah and his popular and nationalistic prime
minister, Mohammed Mossadeq, who demanded more control over the
government. Urged on by British intelligence, the CIA arranged strategic
bombings and political harassments of religious leaders leading to the
overthrow of Mossadeq. A new oil agreement was concluded in 1953, followed
by mutual defense agreements between the U.S. and Iran.
 The
Shah's plans for internal development paid for by oil revenues resulted in
economic inflation and widespread discontent; however, a series of prime
ministers and renewed development plans failed to satisfy the needs of the
people. In 1963, a national referendum approved the Shah's "White
Revolution," which nationalized forests and pastures, imposed profit
sharing in private enterprise, the establishment of a Literacy Corps,
women voting, and increased political opposition. However, clerical
leaders, including Ayatollah Khomeini, opposed land reform and female
suffrage, and his arrest sparked violent riots. Protests to the passage of
a law granting diplomatic immunity to U.S. miliary personnel, and their
staff and families, resulted in the exile of Khomeini. The prime minister
was assassinated by members of a radical Islamic group associated with
Khomeini.
The
Shah appointed Amir Hoveyda as prime minister, who presided over a 12-year
period of economic growth and political stability. He revised the tax law,
created a new civil service code and appointed highly qualified civil
administrators. Hoveyda created a new Ministry of Higher Education and
greatly increased the number of colleges and universities. The Shah
improved relations with the Soviet Union and the surrounding countries.
With the support of the Nixon Administration, the Shah used oil revenues
to vastly improve his military in order to police the Persian Gulf.
President Nixon allowed Iran to purchase any conventional weapon in the
United States arsenal.
Commencing in 1957, Iran signed a series of agreements with the United
States to provide uranium and technical assistance in the development of
an Iranian nuclear power program, and in 1967 Iran received both weapons
grade uranium and plutonium. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty on the first day it was opened for signature on July 1, 1968.
Scientists were trained in the United States, and Iranians developed the
ability to extract plutonium from spent uranium fuel using chemicals.
In 1975, the United States and Iran signed an agreement in which the U.S.
was to build eight nuclear power plants and to provide the fuel. It was
subsequently agreed that Iran would be permitted to reprocess the spent
fuels into plutonium and to invest in the U.S. enrichment facilities. Iran
also signed contracts with France and Germany for the construction of
nuclear power plants, as the Shah was planning to construct as many as 23
plants by 1994.  Although
political parties had been allowed to develop, the Shah relied upon his
secret police, SAVAK, to dampen political opposition. The secular Iran
Freedom Movement joined with moderate clerics in using Islam for political
mobilization. Ayatollah Khomeini went further in writing that a monarchy
was abhorrent to Islam in proposing a theocracy in which the leadership
belonged to the Islamic jurists. More and more younger Iranians joined
underground groups committed to violent revolution.
The military buildup and ambitious development programs began to cause
severe economic and social disruption, and by the mid-to-late 70s there
was growing public disorder. In an attempt to quell dissent, the
government nationalized private schools and committed to providing free
secondary education and health care. However, the presence of large
numbers of foreigners, primarily Americans involved in military training
and advice, combined with the Westernization of society led many to
believe that the Shah's programs were threatening Islam and causing a
deterioration in Iranian cultural values.
After the Shah established a one-party state in 1975, concern over the
suppression of basic freedoms attracted international attention, including
that of the Carter Administration, which brought pressure. The Shah began
to release political prisoners and appointed a new prime minister, who
quickly became unpopular as he attempted to slow down the economy. After
the government planted a newspaper article accusing Khomeini of being an
English spy, widespread riots swept the country led by religious leaders.
The Shah replaced the prime minister and attempted to conciliate the
clerics; however the riots continued to grow until the Shah imposed
marital law in Tehran and other cities in 1978, and Khomeini was exiled to
France. The strikes and riots continued and Khomeini called for the
removal of the Shah and the establishment of a democratic and Islamic
government. The Shah again replaced the prime minister, this time with the
commander of the Imperial Guard. He promised to correct past mistakes,
released political prisoners and arrested many former leaders and
government officers.
THE
ISLAMIC REVOLUTION
 Strikes
continued across the country virtually shutting down the government, and
the leader of the National Front, Shapour Bakhtiar, agreed to form a new
government if the Shah left the country. On January 16, 1979, the Shah
left on a "holiday" from which he never returned. Bakhtiar
released political prisoners, moved to disband SAVAK, lifted press
restrictions and promised free elections; however, Ayatollah Khomeini
denounced Bakhtiar's administration as being illegal and strikes
continued.  Khomeini
returned to Iran on January 26, 1979 and established an alternative
provisional government with power shared between revolutionary committees
and religious authorities. With the encouragement of the United States,
the military ceased all movement against the revolution and pledged its
support.
 Khomeini
became the "supreme leader" of Iran; however, there was no
central government. Semi-independent revolutionary committees were formed
in the towns and cities and various religious clerics formed competing
political parties. Revolutionary courts condemned hundreds to death,
including Hoveyda who had presided over 12 years of progress. The interim
government failed, a cleric was appointed to head the Revolutionary
Council which supervised the various revolutionary committees, and
Khomeini authorized formation of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard force.
Resistance against the revolutionary government came from the Khuzestan,
Turkoman and Kurdish indigenous tribal areas, and Khomeini deployed the
army in putting down the resistance. The religious clerics began to deploy
armed groups of hezbollahis (partisans of the party of God) against
moderate and secular political opponents. The Revolutionary Council
nationalized and appropriated much of the private sector, including
insurance companies, major industries, banks and urban land.
A
national referendum approved a new government in which the only choice was
an Islamic Republic, which was established on April 1, 1979. A new
constitution replaced the monarchy with a president; however, it ensured
religious control of the government and was approved by another national
referendum. Khomeini's appointed prime minister met with President
Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in November;
however with the admission of the seriously ill Shah into the United
States for medical treatment, all hope of restoring friendly relations
with the United States dissolved.
On November 4, 1979, as thousands marched in Tehran demanding the Shah's
extradition, and students occupied the United States embassy and detained
the diplomats and employees. Carter authorized Brzezinski to use Jordan's
King Hussein as an intermediary to encourage Saddam Hussein to invade Iran
in response to a purported call for assistance from rebelling officers of
the Iranian army; however Khomeini was informed of the conspiracy by the
Russians and the officers were arrested. Authorized by the United States,
Saddam invaded Iran on September 22, 1980, claiming that Iran had
attempted to assassinate his foreign minister.
Carter's failure to end the student occupation contributed to his defeat
by Ronald Reagan during the 1980 election. However, acting behind Carter's
back, vice presidential candidate George H. W. Bush secretly agreed with
Iranian agents to delay the release of the hostages until after the
election when Bush and Reagan were sworn into office. In return, Reagan
agreed to pay $52 million, unfroze Iranian bank accounts and allowed Iran
to secretly obtain U.S. military supplies through Israel. THE IRAQ - IRAN WAR
Saddam started the war believing that the Sunnis of Iran would join with
his forces; however, in a display of nationalistic fervor, most of the
Iranian Sunnis fought against Iraq. Although Iraq possessed superior
military equipment, Iran sent thousands of volunteers to the front to stop
the invasion and ultimately to push the Iraqi army back across the border.
By 1982, the war had been won by Iran; however, it formally dragged on for
six more years due to Iran's insistence upon the elimination of Saddam and
the destruction of his Baathist government.
Iraq repeatedly bombed Iranian cities and attacked civilian passenger
trains and aircraft. Iran retaliated by launching missiles against
Baghdad. Iraq deployed chemical weapons, some of which had been supplied
by the United States, against Iranian forces, and in 1987 against the city
of Sardacht. Unconcerned by these violations of the Geneva Protocol, the
Reagan administration provided intelligence used by Iraq to calibrate its
attacks. More than 100,000 Iranians died as a result of Iraq's use of
chemical weapons. The United States also secretly allowed other countries
to transfer United States heavy weapons to Iraq in violation of the Arms
Export Control Act, and in December 1983, Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam
Hussein to reassure him of U.S. friendship and materials support.  Both
Iran and Iraq began to attack oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, including
those of neutral nations. More than 500 commercial vessels were damaged in
what became known as the "Tanker War," with Iran directing most
of the attacks against Kuwaiti vessels. Many of these tankers were
reflagged as American ships, including those calling on Iraqi ports, and
the U.S. Navy began to provide protection.
In 1982, Reagan made a finding that the United States "could not
afford to allow Iraq to lose the war" and that he would do
"whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent the loss. After
one of its frigates was damaged by an Iranian mine and a tanker was stuck
by an Iranian Silkworm missile, the U.S. retaliated by destroying two
Iranian ships and by attacking Iranian oil platforms. On July 3, 1988, the
U.S. Navy shot down a civilian Iranian airliner killing all 290 people on
board, including 66 children.
Iran finally agreed to a ceasefire on August 20, 1988, having suffered
more than 1,000,000 casualties.
THE CURRENT CRISIS
Khomeini died in 1989 and was replaced by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had
served as the president of Iraq.
 In
early 1996, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich
publicly demanded the overthrow of the Iranian government, and the C.I.A.
established an $18 million program to accomplish that objective. After
Iran responded with its own intelligence effort and likely arranged for
the bombing which killed 19 American Air Force personnel in Khobar, Saudi
Arabia in June 1996, the Clinton administration considered bombing Iran;
however, the Pentagon concluded there were no successful options. Instead,
President Clinton secretly warned Iran and took effective covert action
against its intelligence operatives.
The Iranian intelligence offensive ended, and a moderate president,
Mohammad Khatami was elected in 1997. His election created tensions
between his reform government and the conservative clergy resulting in
massive protests in 1999. Khatami was reelected in 2001; however, his
reforms were blocked by the religious authorities. Liberal candidates were
disqualified for election and newspapers were banned. An ultraconservative
who fought in the Iran-Iraq War, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was elected in 2005.
As president, Ahmadinejad has very limited powers. The government places
the "Supreme Leader of the Revolution in control of foreign policy,
and a "Council of Guardians," consisting of six clerics and six
judges has a veto over any secular law that violates Islamic Law. A
31-member "Expediency Council" advises the Leader on national
policy and mediates disputes between the Guardians and the elected
Parliament, which has the freedom to debate government policy. The
president's influence was reduced even further in the December 2006 local
elections in which voters overwhelmingly chose reform candidates over
those supported by Ahmadinejad.
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1968, Iran is
entitled to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes; however, it
renounced its right to develop nuclear weapons and agreed to inspections
by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Iran began to operate a nuclear research reactor provided by the United
States in 1967, and in 1974, the Shah stated that Iran had "no
intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, but if small states began building
them, then Iran might have to reconsider its policy."
Construction also went forward on two nuclear power stations by a German
company and both were more than half completed in 1979 when, following the
revolution, a decision was made to terminate the nuclear power program.
During the war, Iraq bombed both locations repeatedly destroying the core
areas. Following the war, Iran decided to complete the reactors; however,
under pressure from the United States, Germany refused to complete the
project or even to ship the equipment that had been paid for.
Subsequently, a consortium of companies from Argentina, Germany and Spain
proposed to complete one of the reactors; however, the United States again
blocked the agreement.
In 1990 and 1995, Russia signed agreements to complete the reactor and to
construct two additional nuclear power stations. Russia also agreed to
discuss construction of a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility in
Iran, and China began to provide uranium hexafluoride gas which is used
for enriching uranium. All of this was done under IAEA safeguards.
The Clinton administration tried to convince Russia to back out of the
agreement, and when it refused, fears were raised that the plutonium
residue could be used for nuclear weapons. However, Iran and Russia were
also negotiating for the storage of the nuclear waste in Siberia.
Nonetheless, under pressure from Israel, the U.S. began to allege that,
even if the nuclear power plants could not be used for the production of
nuclear materials, they would result in trained engineers and scientists
who could help develop nuclear weapons in the future.
 Parallel
to these efforts which were done openly, Iran also began a secret program
in 1985 to enrich uranium, relying upon plans for the construction of
centrifuges obtained on the black market from Dr. Abdul Khan, the
developer of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. However, the program was exposed
in 2002 when it was revealed that Iran was converting yellowcake to
uranium gas at a facility in Isfahan and was constructing an uranium
enrichment plant at Natanz.
Commencing in October 2003, Iran allowed inspectors from IAEA to inspect
the enrichment project, including Natanz and dozens of other atomic sites.
Inspectors were even allowed to visit military sites and to take
environmental samples. No unusual activities were observed and the
detection of traces of highly enriched uranium contamination were
satisfactorily explained to the IAEA, which concluded they were of foreign
origin. Moreover, the IAEA could find no evidence of an Iranian nuclear
weapons program.
In
February 2006, following threats of sanctions and pressure from the United
States and Europe to curtail its program, Iran drastically reduced access
of inspectors to Natanz and dozens of other atomic sites to the minimum
required by its agreements and refused to answer questions.
 Pressured
by the United States, the United Nations Security Council voted in
December 2006 that Iran should suspend "all enrichment-related and
reprocessing activities, including research and development; and work on
all heavy-water related projects, including the construction of a research
reactor moderated by heavy water." The Council decided that "all
States should prevent the supply, sale or transfer for the use by or
benefit of Iran, of related equipment and technology." In addition,
certain funds associated with or providing support for Iran's
proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear
weapon delivery systems" were ordered frozen. The Security Council is
presently working on a draft resolution imposing additional sanctions,
including travel bans, inasmuch as Iran has not suspended its enrichment
processing.
Iran has made repeated proposals to resolve the issues including: allowing
intrusive inspections; allowing continuous on-site presence of inspectors
at conversion and enrichment facilities; introducing legislation to
permanently ban the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons;
refraining from reprocessing or producing plutonium; limiting enrichment
below weapons grade; immediately converting all enriched uranium into fuel
rods and limiting production to actual needs; and accepting foreign
partners in its enrichment program.
Iran is believed to be currently operating approximately 362 centrifuges
and may have as many as 1,000 ready to run. Iran proposes to have 3,000
machines operating by May 2007, of a planned total of 54,000. Iran
acknowledges having achieved an enrichment level of 3.6 percent, which is
all that is needed to make electricity. However, thousands of centrifuges
are required to enrich enough uranium to the 80-90 percent purity
necessary for nuclear weapons, and the construction of a workable warhead
is an entirely different matter.
The National Intelligence Estimate issued in 2005 concluded that Iran
would not be able to produce enough highly enriched nuclear material to
produce a nuclear weapon until "early to mid-next decade,"
conveying a consensus that 2015 would probably be the earliest.
On February 2, 2006, John Negroponte, then Director of National
Intelligence, testified that Iran probably does not have a nuclear weapon
nor the necessary fissile material for a weapon. He stated that if Iran
continued on its current path it "will likely have the capability to
produce a nuclear weapon within the next decade."
In May 2006, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of IAEA stated, "Our
assessment is that there is no immediate threat," He went on to say,
"We should not jump the gun. We should be very careful about
assessing the information available to us." He believes that a
majority of the Iranian leadership was still interested in a negotiated
solution and normal relations with the world.
On September 30, 2006, President Bush signed the Iran Freedom Support Act
which imposed sanctions against any country aiding Iran's nuclear
programs, including those to which Iran is legally entitled under the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The act openly proclaims the goal of
effecting regime change and directs Bush to spend $10 million in support
of groups opposed to the Iranian government.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa forbidding the production,
stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and Iran has repeatedly offered to
reinstate full inspections, if the United Nations will drop the sanctions
and return the matter to the IAEA. Moreover, Khamenei's chief foreign
policy advisor recently stated that suspending uranium enrichment is not a
"red line" and that the religious leaders might be ready to
agree to some kind of suspension.
There are indications that Bush's recent decision to "surge" the
military in Iraq by at least 22,000 troops is intended to increase
pressure on Iran as much as to stabilize Baghdad. The deployment is also
planned to improve the U.S.'s ability to respond to retaliatory Shiite
attacks on its troops following a military strike against Iran. Bush has
stated that the United States will not sit down with Iran until after the
U.S. had gained "leverage."
THE THREAT OF WAR
 Bush
has had Iran in his sights since at least January 2002 when he included it
as one of the "Axis of Evil" during his State of the Union
speech. By the time he failed in his mission in Afghanistan by allowing
Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members to escape and as he was
withdrawing troops to support his illegal attack on Iraq, plans were
already being made to engineer a regime change in Iran.
As early as February 2003, the Pentagon was circulating a draft of a top
secret Presidential Directive regarding Iran, calling it "a house of
cards ready to be pushed over the precipice." The plan called for
"using all available points of presssure on the Iranian regime,
including backing armed Iranian dissidents and employing the services of
the Mujahideen-e Kalq," a terrorist gang operating out of Iraq
against Iran. The Army began to conduct an analysis for a full-scale war
with Iran called TIRANNT (theater Iran near term), and the U.S. joined
with British planners to conduct war games in the Caspian Sea.
In November 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signed off on
CONPLAN 8022-02 approving a preemptive strike strategy against Iran, and a
top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" was issued in
2004 establishing the military's readiness to attack Iran using aircraft
and missiles. In May 2004, Bush also issued National Security Presidential
Directive NSPD 35 authorizing the deployment of nuclear weapons.
In January 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney said that Iran was at the top
of the administrations trouble spots and that Israel "might well
decide to act first" by attacking Iran, letting "the rest of the
world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward."
The State Department is presently spending $66 million to encourage regime
change in Iran, and in March 2006, the Bush administration declared that
Iran was the number one security threat to the United States.  America
has already deployed "force protection" military teams into Iran
to gather targeting data and to establish contact with local
anti-government groups. It is also arming and supplying the Mujahideen-e
Khalq terrorists and Kurdish resistance groups, such as the Party For Free
Life in Kurdistan, to conduct clandestine operations within Iran.
It appears that the United States has been secretly flying surveillance
drones over Iran for years and Iran probably shot one down last year.
Moreover, Iran's defense minister accused the U.S. of having
electronically jamming an Iranian plane causing it to crash inside Iran
with a number of senior military leaders aboard. The Iranian Minister of
Interior believes that the U.S., Britain, and Israel are "seeking to
destabilize Iran through a coordinated plan."
In fact, Bush did establish the highly secret Iran Syria Policy and
Operations Group last year to coordinate efforts to "contain"
Iran and to project strength, rather than to seek compromise or dialogue.
Led by deputy national security advisor Elliott Abrams and assisted by the
Vice President's daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, the Group's mission includes
the demonization and isolation of Iran, providing funds to groups seeking
the overthrow of its government, and transferring military hardware to
surrounding countries, including advance missile defense systems.
Much like a bully with a chip on his shoulder, it appears that Bush is
looking for any excuse to attack Iran, either as a diversion for his
failures in Afghanistan and Iraq or in deference to the wishes of Israel
and Saudi Arabia. Bush's own National Security Council Director for
Iranian and Persian Gulf affairs from 2001 to 2004, Hillary Mann Leverett,
recently accused Bush of "trying to push a provocative, accidental
conflict" with Iran as a pretext to justify "limited
strikes" against its nuclear and military infrastructures, rather
than "an all-out invasion like what happened in Iraq." Rather
than admit his failures in Iraq, Bush is now seeking to blame the Iranians
for the continued rebellion against his occupation, the civil war
engendered by his invasion, and the ineptitude of the government he put in
place in Iraq. Even though the vast majority of the "insurgents"
are Sunni and are supported by the Saudis, Bush is now blaming Shiite Iran
for training attackers and supplying "explosively formed penetrators"
used in roadside attacks.
Although Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates have
stated that the U.S. has proof of Iranian government responsibility for
the supply of such weapons, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Pace stated that he "would not say by what I know that the
Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
Bush has authorized the arrest and killing of Iranians found in Iraq and
has stated, "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the
detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond
firmly." More than 500 Iranians have been arrested in Iraq in recent
months, many of them humanitarian and aid workers, and U.S. soldiers
attacked an Iranian liaison office in Kurdistan and arrested five men
claimed to have diplomatic immunity by Iran.
 The
battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis, including
additional minesweepers, recently joined the USS Eisenhower battle group
on patrol in the Persian Gulf. In addition the large number of submarines
operating in the Gulf has increased the number of accidents involving
civilian ships. Most telling is Bush's recent appointment of Vice Admiral
William J. "Fox" Fallon as the replacement of General John
Abizaid as the head of Central Command. Fallon is a pilot specially
trained in naval and air operations.
The very presence of so many warships in the narrow Persian Gulf is cause
for concern. Senator Jim Webb, who formerly served as the Secretary of the
Navy, worries that the carrier's "turning radius is pretty close, and
... the chance of accidentally bumping into something that would start a
diplomatic situation was pretty high.,,, and with the tensions as high as
they are, I'm very worried that we might accidentally set something off in
there." The simplest provocation would result from a naval vessel
striking an unidentified floating mine, which could then be blamed on Iran
as an aggressive act of war.
It is unlikely that the war against Iran will be limited to a
"surgical strike" against Iran's 18 to 30 nuclear facilities.
The misguided plan developed by the Pentagon envisions a sustained bombing
campaign to humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise
up and overthrow the government. Hundreds of targets will be bombed,
including 99 percent having nothing to do with nuclear proliferation.
Plans include the destruction of the Iranian Air Force, more than 14 air
bases, Kilo submarines, fast torpedo boats, anti-ship missiles, the newly
deployed Russian TOR-M1 anti-missile defense systems, command and control
centers, and any ballistic missile capability. As many as 2,300 high-value
targets have been identified.
 Consideration
has been given to the use of "bunker-buster" tactical nuclear
weapons against Iran's underground nuclear sites, and F-16s capable of
carrying these B61-11 atomic mini-bombs are being redeployed at the
Incirlik American Air Force base in Turkey. The United States is also
bringing its new Air Force bases in Bulgaria and Romania on line to serve
as refueling stations for Stealth and B-2 bombers.
Israel has its own plans to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and is
training two squadrons to use low-yield nuclear
"bunker-busters." The strategy is to use conventional
laser-guided bombs to open tunnels followed by "mini-nukes" to
explode deep underground. The plan is to destroy Natanz with one attack.
Other targets are the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan and a heavy
water reactor at Arak. Israel, which may possess as many as 200 nuclear
weapons, has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons in
Iran.
 Israel
also has two German diesel-powered Dolphin-class submarines that have been
equipped with U.S. supplied Harpoon missiles with nuclear warheads. These
boats, each carrying 24 missiles, are reported to be patrolling in the
Gulf of Oman well within the range of Iranian targets. Most recently,
Israel has been negotiating with the United States for permission to fly
over Iraq en route to attack the Iranian facilities. The plan is for the
United States to provide an "air corridor" should Israel decide
to take unilateral action.
In
preparation for attacks on Iran by either Israel or the United States, or
both, the United States has begun to develop a containment strategy with
its Persian Gulf allies to deploy sophisticated missile defense systems to
protect against anticipated Iranian retaliation. Both Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia already have Patriot antimissile batteries; however, the United
States is encouraging other Gulf countries to deploy them in light of
Iran's ballistic missile capability.
Although Bush's top military officers are strongly opposed to an attack on
Iran, as their "Commander in Chief," Bush believes he can order
an attack on a moment's notice, including the use of nuclear weapons,
without any declaration of war or any other Congressional approval. Bush
has established a special group in the Joint Chiefs of Staff that can
implement a bombing campaign within 48 hours of his command. Using the
justification that Iran is responsible for the violence and civil war in
Iraq, Bush may rely upon Congress's September 2001 Authorization for Use
of Military Force (against the war on terrorism) to attack Iran, although
a resolution is being drafted in Congress to prohibit him from doing so.
Or, he may simply attack and rely upon the War Powers Resolution of 1973,
which gives a president up to 90 days to commit forces to combat without
the consent of Congress. What if he does?
FOR THEY SOW THE WIND, AND THEY REAP THE WHIRLWIND
No matter the severity of the naval and air attack, the U.S. will never be
able to occupy Iran, and no matter Bush's wishful thinking, the people of
Iran will not turn against their elected government and welcome
deliverance by the United States. Not only should Bush have learned this
lesson from his own invasion of Iraq, it appears that Bush be unaware of
Saddam Hussein's experience in his own invasion of Iran.
Even if the United States destroys its military infrastructure, Iran with
70 million people will not surrender. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned,
"U.S. policy makers and analysts know that the Iranian nation would
not let an invasion go without a response. Enemies of the Islamic system
fabricated various rumors about death and health to demoralize the Iranian
nation, but they did not know that they are not dealing with only one
person in Iran. They are facing a nation."
In the fog of war it is never possible to predict what will happen from
day to day or even moment to moment, and it has been said that no plan
lasts longer than the first encounter with the enemy; however, it strongly
behooves commanders to attempt to the greatest extent possible to envision
the logical consequences of tactical and strategic decisions. Bush's top
military leaders oppose an attack against Iran for good reason. Given what
we know about the Iranians, what will they do if Bush orders an attack on
their country by American forces? Will they be "shocked and
awed" into submission?
Undoubtedly, the bombing attack will be resisted by all available means.
Unlike Iraq, where anti-aircraft sites had been systematically destroyed
during the Gulf War and by subsequent "No Fly" raids, Iran's
defenses are intact, and attack planes will be shot down and their air
crews and pilots will be killed and captured. What will we do or say as
our fighters and bombers are being downed by missiles supplied by Russia?
The naval attack will be opposed by anti-ship missiles, fast missile craft
and suicide bombers in small boats. Thousands and thousands of Iranian
youths died a martyrs death resisting Saddam's invasion; can we expect any
less of a commitment to an attack by the "Great Satan?" In a
replay of the Battle of Salamis, the American Battle Groups could be
sitting ducks in the narrow Persian Gulf.
American has little or no strategic reserve in combat troops and there are
no plans to occupy Iran on the ground. What will Bush do when the Iranian
army invades southern Iraq? Iran's army has 345,000 soldiers, a reserve of
350,000, and a Revolutionary Guard force of 120,000. Iran has a military
draft, and there are almost 900,000 eligible males coming of age every
year. The U.S. military does not even have the present reserve capacity to
overcome the ever-strengthening insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.  What
will Bush do when the tiny British garrison at Basra is attacked and
overrun by hoards of Iranian zealots, and land access to Iraq's Persian
Gulf harbors is shut off? Does Bush intend to supply U.S. troops in
Baghdad, Anbar Province and Mosul by air, or will he contract the job out
to Haliburton? What will he do when the Iraqi Shiites join in the
fighting? One retired U.S. general said that "the Iranians could take
Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck."
How secure will the Americans be in the "Green Zone" in Baghdad
when the Iraqi army and police forces, primarily composed of Shiites, turn
on the occupiers? What will the Americans do when the civilian workers at
their military bases become the enemy? Thus far, the majority of suicide
bombers have been Sunnis from other countries, but what if the millions of
Shiites are suddenly motivated to become martyrs and their targets are
Americans?
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran have the first, second, and third largest oil
and natural gas reserves in the world, and every day 40 percent of the
world production passes through the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide
bottleneck at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. We saw during the
"Tanker War" how vulnerable shipping is in this area. Imagine
the result if Iran was attacked? Although the U.S. Navy has increased its
deployment of minesweepers in the Gulf, the oil supply is vulnerable to
more than floating mines. What if a couple of tankers are fortuitously
sunk at the entrance?
Or, what if Shiite zealots attacked production sites in Saudi Arabia and
other oil producing countries, and Iran turned off its own production and
quickly shut down the flow of Iraqi oil? Or, what if our own bombs
accidently destroy Iran's oil production? America's strategic oil reserves
would be depleted in 60 days, the price of crude oil could quickly exceed
$100 a barrel, and the U.S. could not depend upon alternative suppliers,
such as Venezuela. Is America ready for $10 a gallon gasoline?
Iran could do more than organize increased attacks on Americans in Iraq.
Bush's decision to reduce forces in Afghanistan has left the troops there
vulnerable to an Iranian alliance with warlords in western Afghanistan,
where Iranian support could empower the Taliban resistance and endanger
U.S. troops.
America has been supplying and encouraging Kurdish resistance in northern
and western Iran, and has allowed the Iraqi Kurds to establish their own
independence in northern Iraq. What will Bush do when these Kurds increase
their support of Turkish Kurds, and Turkey, which has 290,000 troops on
the border, cracks down? Will the U.S. stand by and allow Turkey to occupy
northern Iraq?
Through Hezbollah, Iran has the global ability to strike back, including
against targets within the United States. As was just seen during the
failed Israeli attempt to destroy it in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a far
superior fighting force than al Qaeda. Hezbollah is more than a political
organization, it has an ideological base that can motivate its martyrs to
strike at Americans anywhere in the world.
There is a substantial risk that another attack on an Islamic country will
act as a rallying cry for all Muslims, both Sunnis and Shiites, and
engender even greater hatred of America. Since the United States invaded
Iraq, terrorist attacks have increased sevenfold worldwide. Given the
successful al Qaeda attacks in Spain and England, it is highly unlikely
that the United States will escape devastating retaliation.
Even if the war is not brought to its homeland, it is certain that the
United States will suffer severe and bloody losses, and Bush will probably
respond with intensified bombing to degrade the will of the Iranian people
to fight. Civilian infrastructure targets, such as electricity, water and
sanitation, could be wiped out, along with bridges, roads and government
buildings.
It is not unforeseeable that Bush would consider the deployment of nuclear
weapons against Iranian cities if the United States was directly attacked.
Thousands and thousands of noncombatants, including women, children, and
the elderly, would die and America would loose all respect and credibility
forever.
Three high ranking retired military officers, Army Lt. General Robert Gard,
Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar, and Navy Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan,
recently issued a public statement urging President Bush to open talks
with the Iranian government "without preconditions" in a bid to
find a diplomatic solution. They warned that an attack on Iran "would
have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces
in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions."
 Bush,
Cheney and the other neocon draft dodgers believe that they can play with
the mighty military power of the United States like a toy in the world
sandbox without having to ever suffer any consequences. As leaders of the
only superpower, they believe they can act alone without any consideration
of world opinion, that they can shock and awe lesser nations into
submission and establish an "American Empire" that controls the
rest of the world. They have no empathy for the hundreds of thousands who
could fall victim to their ambitions, not even including the sons and
daughters of their own countrymen, and certainly not the children of their
"enemy," or anyone else who stands in their way.
An attack against Iran could morph into a regional geopolitical
confrontation that could spin out of control. Iran has been invited to
full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) consisting
of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The
organization denied observer status to the United States and rejected its
democratization agenda in calling for a reduction of its military presence
in Central Asia. SCO has hinted it would consider a concerted effort to
reduce the geopolitical presence of the U.S. in Central Asia.
 In
May 2006, Ahmadinejad sent a public letter to Bush in which he proposed
"new solutions for getting out of international problems and the
current fragile situation of the world." He asked, "How much
longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead
the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect
decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity -
raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - hunt the
people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men,
women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses
destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of
the world? Do you think present policies can continue?" U.S.
intelligence analysts decided that the letter was an important diplomatic
opening; however the Bush administration dismissed it.
Iran followed the letter with explicit requests for direct talks on its
nuclear program made through a number of intermediaries, including Mohamed
ElBaradei, Indonesia, Kuwait, and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Administration neocons continued to reject talks; however, other
government experts thought that America should at least respond. The
United States refused requests from other powers to give explicit security
guarantees to Iran that it would not intervene politically or militarily
in its internal affairs, and it refused to rule out military action.
In June 2006, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council,
plus Germany, proposed: to allow Iran to upgrade its civilian air fleet
through purchases from Boeing; to waive trade sanctions; to allow Iran to
join the World Trade Organization; and to commit to the building of
light-water reactors through joint projects with other countries, if Iran
returned to a freeze on its enrichment of nuclear fuel.
The Iranians sought clarification over terms, timing and duration of the
suspension; however, the offering countries placed a three-week deadline
on a decision and demanded that Iran immediately suspend its
uranium-enrichment activities before formal negotiations began.
Ahmadinejad stated, "My colleagues are carefully considering the
package of proposals of the six countries, and in due time they will give
a response."
On May 14, 2006, Bush dismissed calls for direct talks with Iran, saying
the United Nations was the better forum. Secretary-General Annan urged the
United States to enter into direct talks with Iran. Ahmadinejad said he
was ready to talk to any country, except Israel, but not under the threat
of force.
Bush continued to harden his position by revoking instructions to his
ambassador in Baghdad to talk with Iran, just as the other five nations
were meeting again to discuss a new offer. A national security council
spokesman stated, "We will assess the situation and see when talks
with the Iranians about the situation might be useful." Bush began to
push for sanctions instead of negotiations.
Under pressure from its allies and many past and present officials in its
own government, the United States agreed at the end of May 2006 to conduct
direct talks with Iran if it first agreed to suspend its programs to
enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel. Asked if Bush was willing
to forego the military option temporarily if Iran accepted negotiations,
Rice answered, "The president is not going to take any of his options
off the table, temporarily or otherwise."
Not unforeseeably, Iran dismissed Bush's offer saying it would not bow to
pressure, and limited sanctions were imposed by the United Nations
Security Council in December 2006. Differences quickly developed between
European governments and the United States, which is demanding quick
action curtailing exports to Iran and freezing its assets.
Mohamed Elbaradei, the winner of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for having
been right about the nonexistence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
has called for the resumption of negotiations: "My priority is to
keep Iran inside the system. ... My worry right now is that each side is
sticking to its guns. The international community is saying 'sanctions or
bust.' Iran is saying 'nuclear enrichment capacity or bust' and we need
somebody to reach out and be able to find a solution."
Thus, the impasse: The United States refuses to negotiate with Iran until
it suspends its nuclear fuel enrichment and reprocessing programs, and
Iran is unwilling to give up the only bargaining chip it has without some
showing of reciprocity. Rebuffed in its repeated attempt to resolve all
outstanding issues, the Iranian government decided that it needed some
leverage, and one was to increase its negotiating strength by going
forward with its nuclear program.
Unfortunately, the possibility of Iran becoming a regional power,
particularly one with nuclear knowhow, will interfere with the U.S.
neocons' scheme to transform the Middle East and Central Asia into an
outpost of American power, and an empowered Iran sitting at the
geo-political center of things cannot be allowed to exist.
Bush and Cheney have accumulated dictatorial power. They have no sense of
history or the ability to comprehend a global policy which recognizes the
rights and concerns of other people. They have no empathy for the lives or
well being of those they govern or threaten. They are deceiving the people
of the United States into starting a war which cannot be won by the United
States, or by Iran. Every conceivable result is a failure - a disaster for
everyone!
There is an urgent need to negotiate, but even more important, it is
essential that the United States formulates a policy that is designed to
succeed, one that resolves the global problem of nuclear weapons and not
just its immediate concerns about Iran's nuclear enrichment program.
A COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was opened for signature on
July 1, 1968 and entered into force on March 5, 1970, after ratification
by the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States and 40 other
signatory states, including Iran. The treaty has now been ratified by 188
sovereign states, including the other two Security Council members, China
and France.
Three nations which currently possess nuclear weapons, India, Pakistan,
and Israel, have never signed the treaty, and one nation, North Korea, has
withdrawn from the treaty and developed nuclear weapons. India and
Pakistan developed the ability to enrich uranium to weapons grade;
however, Israel and North Korea have apparently relied upon the refinement
of energy-grade uranium into plutonium for their weapons.
South Africa developed nuclear weapons in collaboration with Israel and
then destroyed them, and several of the former nations of the Soviet Union
destroyed or transferred to Russia those nuclear weapons they inherited
upon the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.
Libya was found to be in violation of the NPT in October 2003. It has
since admitted that it possessed an illegal nuclear weapons program and
has committed itself to ending the program and destroying all existing
weapons of mass destruction, subject to verification by unconditional
inspections.
According to the treaty, only the five permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council, currently the U.S., Russia, England, France, and
China, are permitted to own nuclear weapons. These nations pledge
themselves to not transfer nuclear weapons or the technology to other
states, and they have agreed to pursue plans to reduce and liquidate their
stockpiles in pursuance of a treaty "on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective international control."
The non-nuclear nations pledge that they will not seek or develop nuclear
weapons. All states have the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes, which allows them to either refine nuclear fuel for use
in nuclear reactors for energy generation or to purchase it on the
international market.
The treaty has been supplemented by the IAEA Statute, which includes a NPT
Safeguards agreement requiring signatories to disclose civilian uranium
enrichment programs and to accept IAEA inspections.
All signatory nations are guaranteed the right to withdraw from the treaty
after giving three-months notice of good cause, if they feel that
"extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty,
have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country."
Although the NPT prohibits the nuclear weapons powers from using nuclear
weapons on nations which do not have them, the United States, England and
France have all publicly indicated that they would use nuclear weapons in
violation of the treaty to respond to a non-conventional attack by
"rogue states." In addition, the United States has designed and
deployed nuclear "bunker busting" bombs for use on non-nuclear
states such as Iran.
Although the United States and the former Soviet Union signed Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaties in 1991 and 1993, and the United States signed the
Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty with Russia in 2002, there has been
little progress by the five nuclear weapons powers to implement that
portion of the NPT which called for a treaty "on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective international control."
 In
2002, contrary to treaty obligations, Bush called for a "revitalized
nuclear weapons complex ... to design, develop, manufacture, and certify new
warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to
resume underground testing." The U.S. spent (in today's dollars) an average
of $4.2 billion per year for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The proposed
U.S. budget for 2008 requests $6.4 billion for nuclear weapons, including the
"design concept testing" of two new nuclear warhead designs for
deployment on submarine-launched ICBMs.
Also in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the treaty, the National
Nuclear Security Administration has articulated an "infrastructure planning
scenario for a nuclear weapons complex able to meet the threats of the 21st
century," which is estimated to cost a minimum of $150 billion.
In 2003, Iran was found to have violated the NPT Safeguards agreement by having
failed to disclose its civilian uranium enrichment program. Iran's claim that it
has no intention of developing nuclear weapons is met with some skepticism
because of its secret activities and because of the ease of refining
energy-grade fuel into weapons-grade material.
However, one has to wonder if Iran would be justified in lawfully withdrawing
from the treaty and openly developing nuclear weapons. Are there
"extraordinary events" which have "jeopardized" its
"supreme interests?" Iran is surrounded by nuclear weapons states:
India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and Israel. In addition, the United States is
currently targeting hundreds of ship-based nuclear missiles on Iran and is
seriously considering using tactical nuclear weapons in a "surgical
strike" to destroy a program that Iran is currently entitled to pursue.
If we have an appreciation of the history and culture of the people of Iran, if
we accept and respect the rights and obligations of all parties to the dispute,
and if we recognize the threat to the safety of all nations and their citizens,
what can the United States do to avert a human tragedy of catastrophic
proportions?
Reaffirm Commitment to Nuclear Disarmament. The United States must accept that
the possession of nuclear weapons by any nation, including itself, poses a
threat to all other nations and to humanity in general. Unilaterally, it should
immediately discontinue its programs to upgrade and increase its nuclear
arsenal.
The United States should negotiate with all nuclear weapon nations to sign the
NPT and to agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons in pro rata steps within a
decade. All nuclear weapons should be outlawed after a certain date.
Commit to The Defense of All Nations Which Agree to Not Develop and Deploy
Nuclear Weapons. Mohamed ElBaradei has stated that 40 countries could develop
nuclear weapons if they wanted to. Moreover, given the huge number of
loosely-controlled tactical nuclear weapons left over in former Soviet Union,
any nation feeling sufficiently threatened could probably obtain such weapons on
the black market and withdraw from the treaty. The greatest problem today is to
reduce the anxiety of non-nuclear weapon nations by guaranteeing their
protection.
The United States should negotiate with all nuclear weapon nations to amend the
NPT to provide for the common defense of any non-nuclear nation which suffers a
nuclear attack. Even without the agreement of other nuclear states, the United
States could unilaterally commit itself to the defense of any non-nuclear
nation, specifically including Iran, attacked by nuclear weapons by any nation,
including Israel.
Reaffirm Rights of Other Nations to Use Nuclear Energy. The United States should
negotiate with all signatories to amend the NPT as follows: The production of
nuclear energy fuel could be concentrated under the auspices of an international
non-profit NPT corporation directed by the five permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council, subject to inspections by the IAEA. The corporation should be
allowed to operate only within the five member nations desiring to process and
enrich uranium.
All signatories should agree to avoid reprocessing of fuel rods and to outlaw
plutonium. The NPT corporation should accept responsibility for the return and
disposal of fuel rods by the signatories they supply. Solutions to disposal
could include reusing the rods to produce electricity by non-reactor means or by
designing and constructing simple, ultra-safe rockets to shoot the spent
materials into the sun.
All members should agree to the development of safe standard designs for nuclear
reactors and to make the plans and technology available to all member nations.
Strike A "Grand Bargain" With Iran. Although it may not agree with the
manner in which Iran's government is organized, the United States must accept
that Iran is a functioning democracy. The United States must stop ignoring
Iran's attempts to negotiate, and it must recognize that President Ahmadinejad
is not the voice of Iran's foreign policy.
Ayatollah Khamenei has not only issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, he has
also indirectly told Ahmadinejad to stay out of all nuclear matters. Moreover,
the United States and Israel must listen when Ayatollah Khamenei states that
Iran endorses the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, which supports
normal relations with Israel, if it accepts a two-state settlement.
Like every nation, Iran wants respect. The United States should immediately
agree to negotiate with Iran without conditions on the basis of Iran's 2003
proposal. Negotiations should lead to a grand bargain in which the United States
recognizes Iran, pledges to defend it against nuclear attack from any source,
including any and all of its neighbors, and in return Iran agrees to discontinue
the enrichment of uranium and any reprocessing that leads to the production of
plutonium.
The United States is currently meeting in Baghdad with representatives of Iraq's
neighboring states, including Iran, the permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council, the Arab League and the Islamic Conference to discuss ways to control
the violence in Iraq. There is no indication that the U.S. and Iranian delegates
will meet privately; however, participation by the U.S. is seen as an adjustment
in Bush's thinking.
The United States should followup by meeting with these neighboring states and
organizations, and all who are interested in a role in the future of Iraq.
Assuming the peaceful intentions of all participants, it is not difficult to
imagine the immediate replacement of U.S. troops by temporary peacekeepers from
Iraq's neighbors, especially if the United States agrees to pay for the costs.
The monetary savings to Americans would be tremendous. More importantly, the
savings of Iraqi lives, particularly that of their children and other innocents,
would be heartfelt - and might some day lead to forgiveness.
In any case, there is plenty of time for the United States to engage in a
long-term policy of patient engagement with Iran. There are many in Iran who
retain a favorable opinion of the United States and who are opposed to the
theocratic regime. We must give them time and encouragement - not threats of
imminent death and destruction.
CONCLUSION
The soil of Iran is soaked with the blood shed by its people who have defended
their homes and culture for thousands of years. The threats of the American
neocons, who believe that Iran and its oil is theirs for the taking, are
expressions of hypocrisy in the extreme. Iran has repeatedly demonstrated its
desire to obtain and maintain friendly relations with the United States.
The American people, who will pay the price in the future for the failures of
their elected representatives today, must act immediately to prevent mixing the
blood of their children with that of those who will defend Iran to their deaths,
should Bush, Cheney and their cronies unleash the instruments of death and
destruction against the people of Iran.
Blinded by ambition and lacking empathy, these arrogance "leaders" of
the United States will continue to make stupid mistakes and to suffer defeats,
until the scales are lifted from their eyes and they learn to listen. War is not
inevitable. Peace is possible, but time is short and the moment for courage and
wisdom is now.
William John Cox, a graduate of the New Mexico Military Institute, is
currently a supervising prosecutor for the State Bar of California. As a
professional police officer he authored the Policy Manual of the Los Angeles
Police Department and the Role of the Police in America for a National Advisory
Commission during the Nixon administration. Acting as a public interest, pro
bono, attorney, he filed a class action lawsuit in 1979 on behalf of every
citizen of the United States petitioning the Supreme Court to order the other
two branches of the federal government to conduct a National Policy Referendum;
he investigated and successfully sued a group of radical right-wing
organizations in 1981 that denied the Holocaust; and he arranged in 1991 for the
publication of the suppressed Dead Sea Scrolls. His book, You're Not Stupid! Get
the Truth: A Brief on the Bush Presidency is reviewed at http://www.yourenotstupid.com,
and his political writings are collected at http://www.thevoters.org.
Source: www.informationclearinghouse.info
|