Our Mission Statement

• U.S. HANDS OFF IRAN!
• NO WAR ON IRAN!
• NO SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN!

On October 25th 2008, the US escalated its drive for war and invasion against the people of Iran with the announcement of new sanctions attacking the Iranian Defence Ministry, Revolutionary Guards, and major Iranian banks. The US state and treasury departments also labeled the Revolutionary Guard Corps "proliferators of weapons of mass destruction" and "a supporter of terrorism".
Since October 2006, the US has been carrying out a massive military buildup in the Persian Gulf. The new sanctions and condemnation by the US government are a continuation of this build up through political and economic attack. The US government has taken this campaign even further with designating an internal and official army of another country, Iran, as a ‘terrorist’ force.
Already, major banks in several European countries have joined the US attempt to hold Iranian people hostage by withdrawing from any financial transactions and business with the Iranian banks. The sanctions seek to cripple the Iranian economy, armed forces and defences in order to weaken the country in preparation for the attack against Iran that the US desires. All evidence indicates that the US is marching to war for broad military aggression against the people of Iran.
This war drive is part of a bloodthirsty effort to consolidate this new era of war and occupation and to re-establish US hegemony over the Middle East. The US has been trying to recover from the huge blow they suffered during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when their puppet regime of the Shah was ousted by the Iranian people. Any foreign attack against Iran will bring a huge loss of life, destruction and terror for the people of Iran –the same disaster and chaos brought to Afghanistan and Iraq- and must be opposed by all peace-loving people around the world! The self-determination of the Iranian people must be defended under any circumstance.

• We are Iranians in Vancouver, Canada, who oppose war, occupation and sanctions by imperialist countries in this new era of war and occupation. Our goal is to educate, organize and mobilize the public, particularly the Iranian community outside of Iran, on the issues of war, occupation and sanctions. As well, we are currently campaigning on the ever increasing United States sanctions and military aggression against the people of Iran.

>> IRAN & the MIDDLE EAST

* CLICK PICTURES TO SEE THEM BIGGER *

                                                                              
    














  

IRAN

US flags indicate US army presence

 

>>> U.S. MEDIA TAKES THE LEAD ON IRAN

 U.S. Media Takes the Leads on Iran
Glenn Greenwald
February 14, 2012
Solan.com

Many have compared the coordinated propaganda campaign now being disseminated about The Iranian Threat to that which preceded the Iraq War, but there is one notable difference. Whereas the American media in 2002 followed the lead of the U.S. government in beating the war drums against Saddam, they now seem even more eager for war against Iran than the U.S. government itself, which actually appears somewhat reluctant. Consider this highly illustrative, one-minute report yesterday from the nightly broadcast of NBC News with Brian Williams, by the network’s Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim “Mik” Miklaszewski, which packs multiple misleading narratives into one short package:
We’re told that if the U.S. ends up in a war with Iran, then “the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet would be the world’s first line of defense“: because Iran is threatening the entire world, and the U.S. would be defending “the world” from this grave Persian menace. Then there’s the ominous claim that “Iranian leaders have threatened all-out war”: but that’s “if Israel launches air strikes against Iran’s nuclear program,” which would already itself be “all-out war.” The NBC story — which begins with video shots of Iranians in lab coats lurking around complex, James-Bond-villain-like nuclear-ish machines — ends with twenty seconds of scary video footage of Iranian missiles being launched, accompanied with this narration: “U.S. officials warn that Iran’s massive stockpile of ballistic missiles is the more serious threat”; after all, “within just the past few days, Iranian leaders [cue video of a scary, ranting Ahmedinijad] have threatened that if attacked, they would launch those missiles at U.S. targets.”

It’s just remarkable to watch the American media depict Iran as the threatening, aggressive party here. Literally on a daily basis, political and media figures in both the U.S. and Israel openly threaten to attack Iran and debate how the attack should happen with a casualness that most people use to contemplate what to have for lunch. The U.S. has orchestrated devastating and always-escalating sanctions which, by design, are wrecking the Iranian economy, collapsing its currency, and generating serious hardship for its 75 million citizens. The U.S. military has that country almost completely encircled. The U.S. military behemoth, and Israel’s massive nuclear stockpile and sophisticated weaponry, make the Iranian military by comparison look almost as laughable as Saddam’s. Iran’s scientists have been serially murdered on its own soil, their facilities bombarded with sophisticated cyber attacks, and dissident groups devoted to the overthrow of their government (ones even the U.S. designates as Terrorists) have been armed, trained and funded by Israel while leading American politicians openly shill for them in exchange for substantial payments.
Yet the Manichean narrative driving this NBC report is par for the media course: Iran’s aggression must be contained, and it is leaving the U.S. and Israel with no choice but to pre-emptively attack it. Most telling is how Iran is continuously depicted as though they are the ones issuing threats of aggression even though all of their threats are retaliatory: if you attack us, we will attack back. Here, for instance, was how The Washington Post – under the headline “Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds” — described the recent warnings about The Iranian Danger from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:

That plot “shows that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime,” Clapper said in the testimony, which was submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee in advance of a threat assessment hearing Tuesday. “We are also concerned about Iranian plotting against U.S. or allied interests overseas.”

As this blogger correctly observed:

What I like about the latest Iranian hijinks is that everyone is so forthright about the fact that any increase in Iranian bellicosity–ahem, “real or perceived”–is the direct result of American sword-rattling. There’s not even a stutter in the direction of circumlocution. It’s all straight up: “Senator, we are concerned that the Iranians may respond if we go to war with them.” It may necessitate a war! 

The propaganda at play here is intense indeed. For several years, the U.S. and Israel threaten on an almost daily basis to aggressively attack a country, all while engaging in multiple acts of war against them, and then when their leaders suggest they may not acquiesce to such an attack with passivity and gratitude, those vows of defensive retaliation are used to depict them as the threat-issuing aggressors. And the American media, as always, eagerly implants the propaganda. Thus, if such a war breaks out, NBC News‘ Mik announces, “the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet would be the world’s first line of defense,” though those crazed Persian leaders have threatened to use “Iran’s massive stockpile of ballistic missiles” and to “launch those missiles at U.S. targets.”

I used to find somewhat baffling this bizarre aspect of American public opinion: time and again, Americans support whatever new war of aggression their government proposes, then come to regret that support and decide the war was a “mistake,” only to demonstrate that they learned no lessons from their “mistake” by eagerly supporting whatever the next proposed war is. Thus did the widespread belief that Vietnam was a “mistake” have no impact on their support for the attack on Iraq, and now — with some polls showing Americans, before their government even proposes it, preliminarily willing to cheer on an attack on Iran — it is clear they have learned nothing from their acknowledged “mistake” in supporting the attack on Iraq. Most Americans continue with this strange mindset: we realize we were wrong to support those past wars you gave us, but we stand ready and eager to support this next one!
But when you look at reports such as this one from NBC last night — and it was nothing unusual: I just happened to stumble into it by accident — it’s not hard to see why this happens. When continuously bombarded with authoritative voices uncritically warning them of the Grave Threat posed by the New Hitlers, and with powerful images of menacing missiles and unhinged leaders accompanying those warnings, even rational populations will become sufficiently scared into succumbing to the next act of aggression. The only thing unusual here is that, with Iran, the American media actually seems out in front of the U.S. Government in the propaganda effort rather than in their normal position of submissively marching behind.

UPDATE: The latest episode being used to fuel the flames of war are two attacks yesterday on Israeli diplomats: one in India and one in Georgia. The headline in The Washington Post tells you all you need to know about how these attacks are being used: “Israel blames Iran for India and Georgia bombing attempts; Tehran denies role.” As Juan Cole points out, Indian investigators do not believe Iran was responsible, though he writes that “American media just parrot” the accusations against Iran by Israeli officials. We’ll likely never know who was actually responsible, though what is clear is that the attacks are being instantly exploited by Israel-devoted neocons to further depict Iran as a Grave Menace (Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post: if Iran is responsible, it’s “one more piece of data that Iran is growing ever bolder and more aggressive”), all without noting the glaring irony that the mode of attack in India is virtually identical to the one used to kill numerous Iranian scientists (“a magnetic bomb was slapped onto [the] car by a passing motorcyclist”). One thing is crystal clear, as macgupta put it in the comment section: “In any case, no matter who the perpetrators are, these attacks are a sign that we are moving closer to a war with Iran.”

UPDATE II: Speaking of mindless media recitations designed to fuel war, we find this today at The New York Times – Ground Zero for such behavior — from Ethan Bronner, whose son, until very recently, was in the Israeli Defense Forces:

If actually carried out by Iran, the attacks would be another indication that the leadership in Tehran was willing to reach beyond its borders against its enemies and expand its attacks to civilians. The United States has charged that Iran was behind a plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador on American soil, and Israel has said that Iran has planned to attack its citizens in various countries, but that those plots were stopped.

There is absolutely no evidence beyond the assertions of the U.S. and Israeli governments that Iran has done any such thing — indeed, the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador was so facially incredible that it provoked widespread mockery even among the types of Foreign Policy Experts who reflexively endorse whatever the U.S. Government says and does — but Bronner simply assumes those claims are true and thus says that if Iran is behind these latest attacks, then it is “another indication that the leadership in Tehran was willing to reach beyond its borders against its enemies and expand its attacks to civilians.” He also then quotes an anonymous Israeli official about the India bombing this way: “Iran’s fingerprints are all over this,” but Bronner ignores — simply does not mention — the substantial evidence to the contrary. The whole article is written so blindly from the Israeli perspective that it is what would have been produced had Bronner asked his son’s former comrades to write it for him, but this is absolutely the norm: anything the Americans and Israelis want to highlight as proof of Iranian evil and aggression will be regurgitated by most American journalists writing about this conflict.

UPDATE III: In The Wall Street Journal today, Mitchell Silber — identified as the director of intelligence analysis for the New York City Police Department — warns today that Iran may very well attack New York. I’m not joking:

The NYPD must assume that New York City could be targeted by Iran or Hezbollah. . . .  Iran’s U.N. mission allows officials from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence to live and operate in New York with official diplomatic cover. . . . Iran also has a presence in New York via the Alavi Foundation, a nonprofit ostensibly devoted to charity works and promoting Islamic culture. . . .  the NYPD must remain vigilant in attempting to detect and disrupt any attack by Iran or its proxies. Anything less would be abdicating our duty to protect New York City and its residents.

The whole fear-mongering screed is equally inane. Also, in that aforementioned NYT article by Bronner, he writes: “Some American Jewish leaders have expressed concern that synagogues and American Jewish centers could be targets in the increased tensions.” Identically, also in the Wall Street Journal today, Alan Dershowitz warns that Iran may attack American synagogues and demands that the U.S. treat any such attack as an attack on the U.S. and respond accordingly (“The Iranian government has now made crystal clear that it is at war not only with Israel and Zionism but with Jewish communities throughout the world”). Look at the coordinated, hysterical frenzy they’ve worked themselves and others into (and oh: Iran helped Al Qaeda with the 1998 embassy bombings and, needless to say, did 9/11; here’s a billboard that recently appeared in NYC). How soon until will we hear that laboratory tests on the anthrax sent to Tom Daschle detected the presence of a chemical used only by Persians?

UPDATE IV: This nicely summarizes the state of American neocon foreign policy discourse at the moment:

I actually consider the discussion there mildly more elevated and sober than that Wall Street Journal Op-Ed from the NYPD official today warning of an Iranian attack on New York City.

UPDATE V: Regarding the current attempt to depict Iran as monstrous aggressors because they dare suggest they may retaliate if attacked, see this short 2003 Onion article, published 9 days before the U.S. attacked Iraq.

UPDATE VI: I was on Cenk Uygur’s CurrentTV program tonight discussion media coverage of Iran, as well as the report documenting U.S. tactics of drone attacks aimed at rescuers and funerals attendees:

We've Seen the Threats Against Iran Before

February 17, 2012
 By Phyllis Bennis · Originally published in Al Jazeera

Here we go again with the Iran hysteria. It is tempting to think this time will be just like previous periods of sabre rattling against Iran. But there are significant new dangers. The Arab Spring, Israel's position, changes in the regional and global balance of forces, and national election campaigns, all point to this round of anti-Iranian hysteria posing potentially graver risks than five or six years ago.
We have seen all this before. The US ratchets up its rhetoric, Israel threatens a military attack, escalating sanctions bite harder on the Iranian people, Iran refuses to back down on uranium enrichment. But at the same time, top US military and intelligence officials actually admit Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, is not building a nuclear weapon, and has not decided whether to even begin a building process.

There is certainly a big dose of déjà vu. In 2004 Israel's prime minister denounced the international community for not doing enough to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon. In 2005 the Israeli military was reported to "be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran". In 2006 the House Armed Services Committee issued a report drafted by one congressional staffer (an aide to hard-line pro-war John Bolton, then US ambassador to the UN), claiming that Iran was enriching uranium to weapons-grade 90 per cent. That same year a different Israeli prime minister publicly threatened a military strike against Iran. In 2008, George W Bush visited Israel to reassure them that "all options" remained on the table.

Would the US back an Israeli attack on Iran? The earlier crisis saw a very similar gap between the demonisation, sanctions, threats of military strikes against Iran, and the seemingly contradictory recognition by US, Israeli, United Nations and other military and intelligence officials that Iran actually did not possess nuclear weapons, a nuclear weapons programme, or even a decision to try to develop nuclear weapons.

The 2005 US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) determined that even if Iran decided it wanted to make a nuclear weapon, it was unlikely before five to ten years, and that producing enough fissile material would be impossible even in five years unless Iran achieved "more rapid and successful progress" than it had so far. By 2007, a new NIE had pulled back even further, asserting "with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme ... Tehran had not started its nuclear weapons programme as of mid-2007". The NIE even admitted "we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons". That made the dire threats against Iran sound pretty lame. So maybe it wasn't surprising that Newsweek magazine described how, "in private conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week, the president all but disowned the document".
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA - the UN's nuclear watchdog) issued report after report indicating it could find no evidence that Iran had diverted enriched uranium to a weapons programme. The UN inspection agency harshly rejected the House committee report, calling some of its claims about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons activities incorrect, and others "outrageous and dishonest". And outside of the Bush White House, which was spearheading much of the hysteria, members of Congress, the neo-con think tanks, hysterical talk show hosts, and much of the mainstream media went ballistic.

Then and now
All of that sounds very familiar right now. Military and intelligence leaders in Israel and the US once again admit that Iran does not have nukes. (Israel of course does, but no one talks about that.) Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta asked and answered his own Iran question: "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No." Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr. admitted the US does not even know "if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons". The latest 2011 NIE makes clear there is no new evidence to challenge the 2007 conclusions; Iran still does not have a nuclear weapons programme in operation. According to the Independent, "almost the entire senior hierarchy of Israel's military and security establishment is worried about a premature attack on Iran and apprehensive about the possible repercussions." Former head of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said "it is quite clear that much if not all of the IDF leadership do not support military action at this point." But despite all the military and intelligence experts, the threat of war still looms.

Netanyahu's government is leading Israel down the same path it went five years ago. Photo by AFP.

Republican candidates pound the lecterns promising that "when I'm president..." Iran will accept international inspectors - as if the IAEA had not maintained an inspection team inside Iran for the last many years. We hear overheated rumours of Iranian clerics promising nuclear weapons to their people - as if Iran's leaders had not actually issued fatwas against nuclear weapons, something that would be very difficult to reverse.

Some strategic issues are indeed at stake, but the current anti-Iran mobilisation is primarily political. It doesn't reflect actual US or Israeli military or intelligence threat assessments, but rather political conditions pushing politicians, here and in Israel, to escalate the fear factor about Iranian weapons [however non-existent] and the urgency for attacking Iran [however illegal]. And the danger, of course, is that this kind of rhetoric can box leaders in, making them believe they cannot back down from their belligerent words.

Israel at the center
One of the main differences from the propaganda run-up to the Iraq war is the consistent centrality of Israel and its supporters, particularly AIPAC in the US, in this push for war against Iran. Israel certainly jumped aboard the attack-Iraq bandwagon when it was clear that war was indeed inevitable, but US strategic concerns regarding oil and the expansion of US military power were first and primary. Even back then,Israel recognised Iran as a far greater threat than Iraq. And now, Israelis using that alleged threat to pressure US policymakers and shape US policy - in dangerous ways. During this campaign cycle, Obama is under the greatest pressure he has ever faced, and likely ever will face, to defend the Israeli position unequivocally, and to pledge US military support for any Israeli action, however illegal, dangerous, and threatening to US interests.

Iran simply is not, as former CIA analyst and presidential adviser Bruce Reidel makes clear, "an existential threat" to Israel. Even a theoretical future nuclear-armed Iran, if it ever chose that trajectory, would not be a threat to the existence of Israel, but would be a threat to Israel's longstanding nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. That is the real threat motivating Israel's attack-Iran-now campaign. Further, as long as top US political officials, from the White House to Congress, are competing to see who can be more supportive of Israel in its stand-off with Iran, no one in Washington will even consider pressure on Israel to end its violations of international law and human rights regarding its occupation and apartheid policies towards Palestinians. Israel gets a pass.

Israel is more isolated in the region than ever before. The US-backed neighbouring dictatorships Israel once counted on as allies are being challenged by the uprisings of the Arab Spring. Egypt's Mubarak was overthrown, the king of Jordan faces growing pressure at home, and the threats to Syria's regime mean that Israel could face massive instability on its northern border - something Bashar al-Assad and his father largely staved off since Israel occupied the Syrian Golan Heights in 1967.

Syria moves to the centre - two struggles in one
The calamity underway in Syria is also directly linked to the Iran crisis. There are two struggles going on in Syria - and unfortunately one may destroy the potential of the other. First was Syria's home-grown popular uprising against a brutal government, inspired by and organically tied to the other risings of the Arab Spring, and like them calling first for massive reform and soon for the overthrow of the regime. Syria is a relatively wealthy and diverse country, in which a large middle class, especially in Damascus and Aleppo, had prospered under the regime, despite its political repression. As a result, unlike some other regional uprisings,Syria's opposition was challenging a regime which still held some public support and legitimacy. The regime's drastic military assault on largely non-violent protests led some sectors of the opposition to take up arms, in tandem with growing numbers of military defectors, which of course meant waging their democratic struggle in the terrain in which the regime remains strongest: military force. The government's security forces killed thousands, injuring and arresting thousands more, and in recent weeks even the longstanding support for Assad in Damascus and Aleppo began to waver. Simultaneously, attacks against government forces increased, and the internal struggle has taken on more and more the character of a civil war.

The further complication in Syria, and its link to Iran, is that it has simultaneously become a regional and global struggle. Syria is Iran's most significant partner in the Middle East, so key countries that support Israel's anti-Iran mobilisation have turned against Syria, looking to weaken Iran by undermining its closest ally. (Perhaps because the Assad regimes have kept the occupied Golan Heights and the Israeli-Syrian border relatively quiet, Israel itself has not been the major public face in the regionalisation of the Syrian crisis.) But clearly Saudi Arabia is fighting with Iran in Syria for influence in the region. The Arab League, whose Syria decision-making remains dominated by the Saudis and their allied Gulf petro-states (such as Qatar and the UAE), is using the Syria crisis to challenge Iran's rising influence in Arab countries from Iraq to Lebanon. And of course the US, France and other Western powers have jumped on the very real human rights crisis in Syria to try to further weaken the regime there - in the interest again of undermining Iran's key ally far more than out of concern for the Syrian people.

Diminishing US power
Facing economic crisis, military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the loss or weakening of key client states in the Arab world, the US is weaker and less influential in the Middle East. But maintaining control of oil markets and US strategic capacity are still key regional goals for the US, which means that military power remains central. The nature of that military engagement is changing - away from large-scale deployments of ground troops in favour of rapidly expanding fleets of armed drones, Special Forces, and growing reliance on naval forces, navy bases and sea-based weapons. Thus the US backs Saudi intervention in Bahrain to insure the US Fifth Fleet maintains its Bahraini base; Washington's escalating sanctions give the West greater leverage in control of oil markets; the Iranian rhetorical threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (only in desperation since it would prevent Iran from exporting its own oil) is used to justify expansion of the US naval presence in the region. Along with the possibility of losing Syria as a major military purchaser and regional ally, concerns about those US strategic moves played a large part of Russia's veto of the UN resolution on Syria.

In Iran, the pressure is high and the sanctions are really starting to bite, with much greater impact felt by the Iranian population, rather than the regime in Tehran. The assassination of Iranian nuclear experts, particularly the most recent murder of a young scientist which was greeted by Israeli officials with undisguised glee and barely-disguised triumph, are more likely aimed at provoking an Iranian response than actually undermining Iran's nuclear capacity. So far, Iran has resisted the bait. But if Israel makes good on its threat of a military strike - despite the virtually unanimous opposition of its own military and intelligence leadership - there is little reason to imagine that Iran would respond only with words. The US and Israel are not the only countries whose national leaders face looming contests; Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and its president face huge political challenges as well.

The day after
The consequences of a strike against Iran would be grave - from attacks on Israeli and/or US military targets, to going after US forces in Iran's neighbours Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait, to attacks on the Pentagon's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, to mining the Strait of Hormuz ... and beyond. An attack by the US, a nuclear weapons state, on a non-nuclear weapons state such as Iran, would be a direct violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran might kick out the UN nuclear inspectors. The hardest of Iran's hard-line leaders would almost certainly consolidate ever greater power - both at home and in the Arab countries, and the calls to move towards greater nuclearisation, perhaps even to build a nuclear weapon, would rise inside Iran. Indeed, the Arab Spring's secular, citizenship-based mobilisations would likely lose further influence to Iran - threatening to turn that movement into something closer to an "Islamic Spring".

Negotiations and a nuclear weapons-free zone
At the end of the day the crisis can only be solved through negotiations, not threats and force. Immediately, that means demanding that the White House engage in serious, not deliberately time-constrained negotiations to end the current crisis - perhaps based on the successful Turkish-Brazilian initiative that the US scuttled last year. That means that Congress must reverse its current position to allow the White House to use diplomacy - rather than continuing to pass laws that strip the executive branch of its ability to put the carrot of ending sanctions on the table in any negotiations. And it means an Iran policy based on the real conclusions of US intelligence and military officials, that Iran does not have and is not building a nuclear weapon, rather than relying on lies about non-existent nuclear weapons, like the WMD lies that drove the US to war in Iraq.

In the medium and longer term, we must put the urgent need for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East back on the table and on top of our agenda. Such a multi-country move would insure Iran would never build a nuclear weapon, that Israel would give up its existing 200 to 300 high-density nuclear bombs and the submarine-based nuclear weapons in its arsenal, and that the US would keep its nuclear weapons out of its Middle East bases and off its ships in the region's seas. Otherwise, we face the possibility of the current predicament repeating itself in an endless loop of Groundhog Day-style nuclear crises - each one more threatening than the last.

>>> Demonstrations in Over 80 Cities and 6 Countries

Picket-rally organized by Mobilization Against War and Occupation (MAWO) and 

Iranian Community Against War (ICAW) on February 4th 2012 International Day of Action

 

 Vancouver, BC, Canada

Vancouver, BC, Canada

 Vancouver, Canada, Picket-Rally on February 4, 2012

Demonstrations in over 80 cities and 6 countries say: NO WAR, NO SANCTIONS, NO INTERVENTION, NO ASSASSINATIONS ON IRAN!

Source: IAC

http://www.iacenter.org/

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Anti-war organizations from across the United States and 6 other countries came together on Saturday, Feb. 4, to protest the rising crescendo of threats against Iran.

In more than 30 states and 80 cities, large and small, groups joined forces to raise four key demands. "No war, no sanctions, no intervention, no assassinations!" was the slogan on the lead banner of the New York demonstration, which was sponsored by an ad hoc committee of several groups.

Many placards and hand-made signs also pointed to Wall Street and the banks as the real danger, not Iran. The corporate media have been reporting for weeks that the Israeli regime is weighing an attack on Iran aimed at dismantling its nuclear program. Yet even former U.S. intelligence officers point out that Iran's nuclear development is entirely peaceful; it is not building any nuclear weapons. (See "Divining the Truth About Iran" by Ray McGovern, published by commondreams.org.)

Yet totally unsubstantiated claims to the contrary form the basis on which Israel, which itself has a large nuclear arsenal and has been armed and financed by the U.S., is now publicly claiming its right to launch a military attack on Iran.

The process has already begun in the major corporate media to give credibility to Israel's charges and soften up public opinion to accept such a criminal act, which would unleash yet another devastating war in this oil-rich region so coveted by imperialism.

A large crowd marched in New York from Times Square to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and then to the Israeli Consulate.

The French press agency AFP estimated the protest at 500. Groups participating included the International Action Center, No War on Iran, SI Solidarity Iran, StopWarOnIran.org Campaign, American Iranian Friendship Committee, United National Anti-War Coalition, Answer and World Can't Wait.

An Iranian explained that the most important issue was the thousands of assassinations that have taken place of Iranian scientists, state representatives and even parliament ministers, for which the Iranian people blame Israel and the U.S. This has united the Iranian people, he said, against foreign intervention and war. The war has already started because sanctions are an act of war.

Even many of those who have opposed the Iranian government are now seeing that their main enemy is U.S. imperialism, he added. In Los Angeles, some 200 rallied at the city's busiest intersection by the Wiltshire Federal Bldg. Speakers included representatives from the Union of Progressive Iranians, CISPES (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador), BAYAN-USA, ALBA-USA, Bail Out the People Movement, Workers World Party, Southern California Immigration Coalition and the International Action Center. Some people who had been at an Answer event several blocks away later joined the main rally.

In Boston, over 300 rallied and marched through downtown and rallied at the beginning, the end and at the Israeli Consulate. It was initiated by the Occupy Boston Action for Peace Working Group and had participation and speakers from Boston UNAC, Vets for Peace, the International Action Center, the Boston School Bus union, the Women's Figthback Network, United for Justice with Peace, Dorcester Peace Action, and many others.

Other major cities with protests included Albany, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Tampa, Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, Tucson, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle and Honolulu. The demonstrations were pulled together on only two weeks' notice, but they also inspired similar protests in Vancouver and Calgary, Canada, as well as in Bangladesh, India, Britain, Ireland and Norway.

>>> SNAPSHOT HOW TO ENGAGE IRAN

February 9, 2012

Snapshot How to Engage Iran

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/134361

What Went Wrong Last Time — And How to Fix It

Hossein Mousavian
HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN is an associate research scholar at Princeton University and former spokesman for Iran's nuclear file. 
 


Members of the Iranian air force re-enact Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's arrival to Iran in 1979. (Courtesy Reuters)

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, two major schools of thought have influenced Iran's foreign policy toward the United States. The first maintains that Iran and the United States can reach a compromise based on mutual respect, noninterference in domestic affairs, and the advancement of shared interests. Those who hold this view acknowledge the animosity and historical grievances between the two countries but argue that it is possible to normalize their relations. The second school is more pessimistic. It deeply distrusts the United States and believes that Washington is neither ready nor committed to solving the disputes between the two countries.

Having worked within the Iranian government for nearly 30 years, and having sat on the secretariat of Iran's Supreme National Security Council for much of the decade before 2005, I was involved in discussions about both of these two approaches. My first personal experience in these matters dates to the late 1980s, when the critical issue facing the United States and Europe was the release of Western hostages in Lebanon. During that period, Iran received dozens of messages from Washington proposing that each side, echoing U.S. President George H. W. Bush's 1989 inaugural address, show "goodwill for goodwill."

That year, Bush offered then Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani a deal: If Iran assisted in securing the release of U.S. and Western hostages in Lebanon, the United States would respond with a gesture of its own. In response, Tehran emphasized its expectation that the United States would unfreeze and return billions of dollars in Iranian assets that were being held in the United States. The Iranian leadership also came away from discussions believing that Israel would reciprocate by releasing some Lebanese hostages, specifically Sheikh Abdul Karim Obeid, the leader of Hezbollah.
Then the two schools of thought came into play. Rafsanjani believed that this deal could be a confidence-building measure that would lead to rapprochement with the United States. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned against trusting the United States and thought it naive to expect Washington to repay Tehran's efforts in kind. Then, as now, he believes that the United States is after nothing less in Iran than regime change. Ultimately, Iran decided to play a key role in securing the release of all Western hostages in Lebanon. But the United States neither released Iranian assets nor facilitated the release of Lebanese hostages.

Despite the affront, in subsequent years, Ayatollah Khamenei did not prevent Rafsanjani or, later, President Muhammad Khatami, from making more overtures to the West. In 1997, for example, Iran ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, an agreement to decommission all chemical weapons by 2012. The same year, it also joined the Biological Weapons Convention. After 2001, Iran helped the United States oust the Taliban from much of Afghanistan, and for 20 consecutive months, between 2003 and 2005, it cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency. As the IAEA requested, the government opened various military facilities to inspections, suspended its enrichment activities, and implemented the Additional Protocol.

Although Iran expected that these gestures would open the way for it to continue a nuclear program (which it is authorized to do as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), the United States and the West simply developed a new set of complaints against Iran. These included questions about Iran's nuclear-related program, its intentions toward Israel, and its hostility toward the U.S. military role in the region, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather than reward Iran for cooperation, the United States implemented new sanctions and worked to increase international pressure on Tehran.

Ayatollah Khamenei was not surprised by Washington's behavior. Throughout this time, he routinely rejected direct talks with the United States aimed at a rapprochement. He argued that the United States wanted to negotiate from a position of strength; accordingly, it employed intimidation, pressure, and sanctions to bully Iran into submission. The West's increasingly hostile reactions to what Iran's leaders believed were moderate policies eventually gave the radicals the upper hand in domestic policies. And that ultimately led to the rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Looking back, it is difficult to list all of the steps that each side might have taken to reverse the downward spiral in relations that followed. Certainly, the West, the United States in particular, missed great opportunities during the moderate presidencies of Rafsanjani and Khatami. More certainly, both sides would have needed a stronger commitment to changing the direction of U.S.-Iran relations.
U.S. President Barack Obama's inauguration offered an opportunity for a new beginning. And once in office, he immediately signaled his willingness to enter into a dialogue with the Islamic Republic on a wide range of issues, aiming to remove 30 years of hostilities and create "constructive ties" between the two countries. In my view, even though the Iranian leadership was still skeptical about Obama's ability to break many long-standing U.S. policies, it believed in his personal intentions. For that reason, Iran's leaders decided to test the possibility of a breakthrough by granting a freer hand to Ahmadinejad in managing the relationship with Washington.
To be sure, much of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric about the relationship was harsh. But Iran made some unprecedented overtures as well. As Mohamed El Baradei, the former director of the IAEA, revealed in his memoir, Ahmadinejad sent a message in 2009 through him offering Obama a grand bargain. According to El Baradei, the Iranian president expressed a desire for direct talks with the United States, which would lead to bilateral negotiations, without preconditions. The talks would be held on the basis of mutual respect, and Iran would agree to help the United States in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Obama did not respond.

Almost all Westerners blame Tehran for the decline in relations since. They point to the failure of an initiative to swap Iran's highly enriched uranium for less-enriched fuel rods, which Russia and the United States proposed in Geneva in October 2009. A short time after that meeting, the Iranian government told El Baradei that Tehran would be willing to make the deal directly with the United States. Washington rejected the offer. Iran subsequently signed a similar agreement with Brazil and Turkey. That could have been an important confidence-building measure, but the United States rejected it, too.

In December 2010, the United States demonstrated for the first time a readiness to recognize Iran's legitimate right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. In an interview [1] with the BBC, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that Iran could enrich uranium once it demonstrated that it could do so in a responsible manner in accordance with its international obligations. In response, Iran made new overtures toward the United States. A reliable source told me that, during a February 2011 conference in Sweden, Iran's deputy foreign minister extended an official invitation to Marc Grossman, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, to visit Iran for talks on cooperation in Afghanistan. Washington dismissed the offer.

Then, in October 2011, Iran invited an IAEA team, led by Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts, to visit the research-and- development sections of its heavy-water and centrifuge facilities. A contact told me that during the visit, Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, offered a blank check to the IAEA, granting full transparency, openness to inspections, and cooperation with the IAEA. He also informed [2] Nackaerts of Iran's receptiveness to putting the country's nuclear program under "full IAEA supervision," including implementing the Additional Protocol for five years, provided that sanctions against Iran were lifted.

Trying to make Iran's good intentions clearer, during a trip to New York in September 2011, Ahmadinejad announced that two American hikers who were being held in Iranian custody would be released. He signaled Iran's readiness to stop uranium enrichment to 20 percent if the United States gave the country fuel rods for the Tehran Research Reactor in return. This was an immensely important move to satisfy some of the West's demands and demonstrate that Iran is not seeking highly enriched uranium.

But the United States responded negatively again. Washington accused Tehran of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. It also influenced [3] the substance and tone of the IAEA's November report on Iran by adding accusations of possible military dimensions to the country's nuclear program. Last month, Washington sanctioned the Central Bank of Iran; in effect, placed an oil embargo on the country; sponsored a UN resolution against Iran on terrorism; and orchestrated a UN resolution condemning Iran on human rights.

Explaining his Iran policy in New York in January, Obama proudly announced that he had mobilized the world and built an "unprecedented" sanctions regime targeting Iran. Obama said U.S.-led sanctions had reduced Iran's economy to "shambles [4]." Three short years after the Obama administration introduced an engagement policy, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta named Iran a "pariah state," reminding many of the previous administration's branding of Iran as part of the "axis of evil." Panetta noted [5] that he hoped Obama's new policy would weaken the regime so that "they have to make a decision about whether they continue to be a pariah or whether they decide to join the international community."
These statements are clear evidence that Obama's engagement policy has failed. In fact, they support Ayatollah Khamenei's assessment that the core goal of U.S. policy is regime change. The door to rapprochement is closing. To keep it from slamming shut, the United States should declare, without condition, that it does not seek regime change in Tehran. Beyond that, the recognition of several principles is essential to bettering U.S.-Iranian relations after more than 30 bad years. For starters, both governments should practice patience and try to show mutual goodwill.

For one, both the United States and Iran are eager to understand the other's end game. Together, the two countries should draft a "grand agenda," which would include nuclear and all other bilateral, international, and regional issues to be discussed; outline what the ultimate goal will be; and describe what each side can gain by achieving it.

The United States and Iran should also work together on establishing security and stability in Afghanistan and preventing the Taliban's full return to power; securing and stabilizing Iraq; creating a Persian Gulf body to ensure regional stability; cooperating during accidents and emergencies at sea, ensuring freedom of navigation, and fighting piracy; encouraging development in Central Asia and the Caucasus; establishing a joint working group for combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism; and eliminating weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking in the Middle East. Finally, the two countries could do much good by strengthening the ties between their people through tourism, promoting academic and cultural exchanges, and facilitating visas.

It would be misguided for the United States to count on exploiting possible cleavages within the Iranian leadership. Iran's prominent politicians have their differences -- like those in all countries -- but they will be united against foreign interference and aggression. Both capitals should also progressively reduce threat-making, hostile behavior, and punitive measures during engagement to prove that they seek a healthier relationship. Engagement policy should be accompanied by actual positive actions, not just words.

I know enough about the dangers involved in the current direction of U.S. and Iranian policies to believe that change is essential. There is a peaceful path -- one that will satisfy both Iranian and U.S. objectives while respecting Iran's legitimate nuclear rights. Washington and Tehran must find that right path together, and, despite what passes for debate in the international arena today, I believe they can.

Copyright © 2002-2012 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.

All rights reserved. To request permission to distribute or reprint this article, please fill out and submit a Permissions Request Form. If you plan to use this article in a coursepack or academic website, visit Copyright Clearance Center to clear permission.

---

Return to Article: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137095/hossein-mousavian/how-to-engage-iran

Home > Snapshot > How to Engage Iran

Published on Foreign Affairs (http://www.foreignaffairs.com)
Links:
[1] http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/12/152339.htm
[2] http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2011/11/mousavian-interview-on-irans-nuclear-program.html?cid=6a00d83420523653ef01675f035ecb970b
[3] http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/10/c_122258400.htm
[4] http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gBxDdCgwUv8X2qbVyAQNwWAlP6rg?docId=CNG.88737ace4800efd85d9752c4c64d58bb.f1
[5] http://www.defense.gov/utility/printitem.aspx?print=http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4937

>>> THE THREAT IS VERY REAL

The Threat is Very Real

By Margaret Sarfehjooy   
February 4, 2012

Source: WAMMTODAY
http://wammtoday.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/margaret-sarfehjooy-iran-the-threat-is-very-real/
 

We are in very dangerous times, and we have to do everything we can to prevent another war—this time against Iran.  Almost every day we hear about new sanctions, new threats, new promises that “all options are on the table.” It seems like the general public is complacent about this and do not  understand the severe consequences –possibly World War III.

Before the war on Iraq, there was a huge outcry from the general public. After Obama got elected, the voices of protest have mostly been silent. Is it because people don’t want to criticize Obama?  Did Obama’s election victory divide the progressive community? The war on Iraq was looked on as a Bush/Republican effort. Those in power today are continuing Bush’s war plans stronger than ever.  Where is the outcry?

Iran IS threatened, and the U.S. continues to push the screws even tighter. U.S. policy toward Iran for the last three decades has primarily taken the form of economic sanctions, threats and isolationism.  The U.S. is involved in a covert and proxy war.

The covert dimensions of the war are being fought by Intelligence assets, cyber attacks, computer viruses, secretive military units, spies, assassins, agent provocateurs, and saboteurs. The kidnapping and assassination of Iranian scientists and military commanders, which started several years ago, is a part of this covert war.

The U.S. has been at war with Iran through its proxies for years, including the Kurdish militant nationalist group PJAK─blamed for numerous attacks in Iran─and the Al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni group Jundullah that carries out suicide bombings and other destabilization attacks in Iran.

There is another group, MEK, an Iranian exile group who fought with Saddam Hussein and against Iran during the Iran/Iraq war (when the U.S. provided arms to Iraq).

MEK─ Mujahadeen-e-Khalq─is officially listed by the State Department as a “terrorist organization,” but politicians have been pushing to “de-list” them so MEK can be armed, trained, and sent into Iran, with open, rather than covert American support.

Former U.S. officials taking part in MEK-linked events told the Christian Science Monitor that they received substantial fees, with contracts ranging up to 100,000.00. Rudy Guliani, Howard Dean, Tom Ridge, Wesley Clark, Gen. Peter Pace have all been paid for endorsing MEK.This all smacks of hypocrisy, as our local activists had their homes raided, personal belongings confiscated, were served subpoenas to a Grand Jury, and are being investigated for “material support of terrorism” even though their real “crime” is exposing U.S.-sponsored atrocities in the Middle East and other parts of the world.

Iran has a wide spectrum of reformist and democratic groups that are all against U.S. intervention in Iran’s internal affairs. The Obama administration is having a hard time finding any Iran-based political groups to work with, so it is working with groups in exile, like MEK or Iranian monarchists, who are very unpopular with the people in Iran.

Other threats to Iran

Iran is surrounded:

 

 

The U.S. has more than 30 military bases and facilities including its naval base in Bahrain, U.S. Central command (CENTCOM) headquarters in Qatar, not to mention its military installations in Pakistan, Turkey and Afghanistan. A third aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, is heading towards the Arabian Sea. 

Israel has become a de facto U.S. military outpost. U.S. and Israeli command structures are being integrated, with close consultation between the Pentagon and Israel’s Ministry of Defense.

The Pentagon has dispatched some 15,000 U.S.troops into Kuwait.  The U.S. currently has several military bases on an area of about 40 percent of Kuwait’s land. Kuwaiti residents are not allowed to pass without a permit through these areas

Recently, threats and sanctions against Iran have increased significantly.

On December 14th, the House voted 410-11 in support of a bill that would outlaw any contact between U.S. officials and certain Iranian officials. In a crisis, U.S. diplomats could find themselves unable to talk to their Iranian counterparts to prevent war from erupting.

Senators Lindsey Graham (SC) and Joseph Lieberman (CT) have announced they will soon release legislation that would rule out “containment” with Iran, in a thinly veiled attempt to put Congress on the record in support of a possible military attack on Iran, and to push diplomacy off the table.

After intense pressure by the Obama administration, European Union foreign ministers have formally adopted an unprecedented oil embargo againstIranover its nuclear program, banning all new oil contracts with the country.

How could this expand to the entire region?

Russia and China are fully aware that a war on Iran is a stepping-stone towards a broader war. Both countries are targeted by the U.S. and NATO. Russia is threatened on its border with the European Union, with U.S.-NATO AMD (anti-missile defense) targeted at major Russian cities. With the exception of its Northern frontier, China is surrounded by U.S.military bases, from the Korean peninsula to the South China Sea.

Both China and Russia are perceived by Washington as a “Global Threat.” China has been the target of veiled threats by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In a recent development, Russia newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin has warned Washington and Brussels that “Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,”

Other countries involved

GCC stands for Gulf Cooperation Council, the club of six wealthy Persian Gulf monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates-UAE). GCC was founded in 1981 and in no time became the prime strategic U.S. backyard for the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 and also as the headquarters for “containing”Iran

A new geopolitical monster, NATOGCC, includes the key role of Qatar and the UAE in the NATO invasion─and destruction─of Libya. After the NATOGCC win in Libya, they are on a roll. The GCC strategy of regime change in Syria is the preferred way to weaken Iran.

Iran’s Strategy

I don’t know what Iran is planning to do.

I am sure Iran remembers how the 10 years of sanctions against Iraq, which caused 1.5 million Iraqis to die from malnutrition or inadequate health care and destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure, weakened Iraq, and made it ripe for an attack. Maybe Iran doesn’t want to wait that long, since they know what will be coming in the end.

Iran has two parallel land forces with some integration at the command level: the regular Army and theArmy of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (IRGC). The regular Iranian Amy is estimated to have 465,000 personnel plus around 350,000 reservists.  The IRCG has roughly 125,000 military personnel including ground, aerospace and naval forces. It also controls the paramilitary Basij militia, which has about 90,000 active personnel.

More importantly, a desperate Iran can play havoc with the global economy by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil supply is routed. Just a few missiles or gunboats could bring down vessels and block the channel, hitting the global oil supplies with untold negative consequences for the world.

Then there is the humanitarian suffering of epic proportions that is sure to follow such a dangerous, pointless and unjust war. Obama said that he will not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have a nuclear capability, BUT he was making an exception for “outliers” like Iran and North Korea. The U.S. has advanced bunker-busting weapons in its arsenal, ready to use.

Physicians for Social Responsibility examined the risks of a more advanced buster-bunker weapon, and they tabulated the toll from an attack on the underground facility in Esfahan, Iran.

Three million people would be killed by radiation within two weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation.

Who is really behind this

This plan to dominate the entire Mideast has been carefully choreographed for quite a while.  In order for it to succeed, the general public has to be “on board.” And this effort to sway the American public is working by creating a feeling of fear and distrust, and outright hatred of Muslims—Islamophobia.

I call this “playing to the right-wing” and also “softening the left” by tugging at our heartstrings and making us feel sorry for those poor, suffering people, especially women, who need to be saved by the U.S.  After all, their lives are so bad, wouldn’t they be better off if we rid them of their evil dictators?

One of the major achievements of the neoconservatives over the past two decades has been to integrate the missionary impulses of liberal internationalism with right-wing interventionism.

Who is behind this?  Who is really making foreign policy? The foreign policy of the U.S. is being made by a small clique of neoconservative war-mongers─the neocon think-tank cabal─and supported by billionaire money, funneled through foundations.

The American public is being propagandized and brainwashed into the continual wars, imperialism and colonialism that is de-stabilizing the world. The neoconservative ideology, adopted by the U.S. government, calls for the U.S. to use its superior military and economic position to achieve world dominance.

If you really look at the power structures behind all of these forms of propaganda, you will find the same names over and over again.

Islamophobia

This network of hate is not a new presence in the U.S., and its ability to influence politicians’ talking points and wedge issues for the upcoming 2012 elections has mainstreamed what was once considered fringe, extremist rhetoric.

It all starts with the money flowing from a select group of foundations. A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a group of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam.

For politicians, think-tanks provide access to a pool of researchers capable of reducing a complex policy area to a set of conservative proposals and a sound-bite. For the media, the allure of think-tankers is their accessibility, sound-bite savvy and a level of specialist knowledge greater than that of a reporter. So much the better if they were a former administration official or have an expansive publications list enabling them to be packaged as “experts.”

If you look at the wealthy, influential think tanks and foundations shaping our foreign policy, you will see the same names appear over and over again—foundations like The Bradley Foundation, Smith Richard Foundation, the Clarion Fund and names like Frank Gaffney, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Richard Perle.  Many of these people were original signators to the Project For a New American Century that spawned many others.

It is a very close-knit group, and they are all interconnected. For example: The Foundation for Democracy in Iran is run by a man named Kenneth Timmerman. Timmerman is connected to the godfather of right-wing think-tanks, the American Enterprise Institute.

It was the American Enterprise Institute that spawned the Project for the New American Century, the think-tank that gave us Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, the original propaganda about Iraqi WMD, and the idea that a military takeover of the entire Mideast is a great idea. The same people that terrorized the American people into unnecessary war in Iraq are preparing to do the same with Iran.

Frederick Kagan, one of the top neocon brains and a signatory of the Project of the New American Century, now works for General David Petraeus. Dennis Ross─former chief of AIPAC’s think-tank, the Washington Institute For Near East Policy─was President Obama’s Special Envoy to the Middle East.  It’s not just the Bush administration.

And how can progressives get side-tracked by this propaganda?

I think we also have to be aware of the use and intent of Culture as Propaganda.

After 9/11, native Middle Eastern intellectuals were actively recruited by the neoconservatives to perform a critical function in persuading the U.S. public to sympathize with “those poor repressed people” of their homeland.

This was done to justify U.S. actions while professing to liberate the people from their oppressors. Edward Said called them “native informants.” They have successfully managed to invade the progressive community, at the same time being backed by the same neocons who are pushing towards war.

 For example best-selling author, Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is the darling of Fox News and some progressive feminist groups in denouncing Islam, is also a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute—whose fellow members include Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton and Newt Gingrich.

 Iranian author AzarNafisi, who wrote the best-selling Reading Lolita in Tehran, received huge grants to write this book from the right-wing Bradley and Smith Richardson Foundations.  Nafisi also has close ties to Paul Wolfowitz and sat on the board of Freedom House, another right-wing think-tank that includes some of the same neocons mentioned above.

 Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, cited Reading Lolita in Tehran to bolster his case for a first strike on Iran.

 The neo-conservatives use women’s rights and “democracy” as an excuse to legitimize wars and the U.S. colonial presence. This also feeds into the attitude of western exceptionalism. The message is that the West is progressive and the best place for women, while the Muslim Middle East is backward and  uncivilized. Muslim women are then seen only as victims and not as agents of social transformation.

 We become blind to the ways in which women of the Middle East resist and empower themselves, and we don’t see them as being able to become agents of their own liberation, which they are perfectly capable of doing. Iranian women don’t need or want the U.S. as saviors.  Did we “save” the women of Afghanistan and Iraq?

There is a real threat of World War III.  The Middle East is a powder keg waiting to explode.  With all the advanced weaponry and the eagerness ofI srael and the neocons to attack Iran, this is a very dangerous and real possibility. We must resist all propaganda and focus on one single issue:  No Sanctions, No Threats, No War on Iran.

Albert Einstein said: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

 

Margaret Sarfehjooy is a member of the WAMM Middle East Committee.

Sources for this article:

http://www.voltairenet.org/Obama-s-message-to-Tehran-Direct

http://www.infowars.com/the-u-s-is-already-attacking-iran-through-terrorist-proxies/

http://fcnl.org/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=28652

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0808/Iranian-group-s-big-money-push-to-get-off-US-terrorist-list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Guardians_of_the_Islamic_Revolution

http://progressive.org/mag_wx041106

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/Crusade_of_the_Democratic_Globalists_Neocon_Democracy

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/neoconservative_resurgence_in_the_age_of_obama

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID04Ak02.html

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/militarist_monitor/display/the_islamophobic_echo_chamber

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1012b.asp

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/islamophobia.html

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2005Q4/battletanks

http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/dissertations/101/

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/fighting-words

http://www.stjohns.ubc.ca/pdf_files/waronterror.pdf

>>> The Consequences of Sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank

Source: Iran Diplomacy

http://irdiplomacy.ir/en/news/27/bodyView/1897602/The.Consequences.of.Sanctions.on.Iran%E2%80%99s.Central.Bank.html

Saturday February 4, 2012

The Consequences of Sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank

Mohammad-Hossein Adeli, former head of Iran's Central Bank.

IRD: Last Monday, in addition to embargoing Iran’s oil, the EU joined the US on imposing sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank. In a dialogue with IRD, Mohammad Hossein Adeli – the former head of Iran’s Central Bank and former ambassador to the UK – outlines the effects of the sanctions on the Central Bank.

Sanction’s Literature

What is known today as ‘economic sanctions’ was recognized as trade war during the 17th and 18th century, with the purpose of economic supremacy and dominance over others. The last series of trade wars (or sanctions) took place from the beginning of the twentieth century to the middle of the Second World War. Afterwards, the world branded itself as civilized, and countries agreed to avoid trade wars as they would result in global economic weakness. Therefore, with the slogan ‘freedom of trade’, the UNCTAD came to existence. The theory of comparative advantage favors free global trade as it benefits all the economies of the world. Competitive advantage, however, was later on added to this theory that stated each country is superior at producing certain products, which could respectively attract investment.

This however does not mean that countries do not use economic means to address disputes. Today, sanctions are usually used for commercial purposes, to maximize interests as well as economic supremacy. One country could use sanctions to score economic control against its opponent. This issue is referred to in the WTO, as this organization condemns such exploits. In such events, both countries could resolve differences with the help of a WTO committee. Such issues, however, do not resolve easily and a hidden trade war could continue.

There are other types of economic war that have political agendas, aimed to create political change in the behavior of the opponent. In sanctions literature this is known as ‘the use of force short of war’. Herman Kahn – the American strategist - uses the ‘Escalation Ladder theory’ to describe this: imposing tough economic sanctions, one after another, is a process that takes place one stage prior to military action by either country in a dispute. The aim here is to inflict economic wounds to weaken a country to a point that the country’s military suffers and it will not be able to perform optimally. Additionally, this will decrease the military costs of the country with the stronger economy.

Iran’s Central Bank’s Immunity

Central banks were not established as governmental bodies and their purpose was to print money and moderate economic balance. Moreover, a person and not a government created the world’s first central bank. For instance, a person founded the Bank of England, which is the world’s second central bank. Although currently governments control central banks, internationally they are recognized as public organizations that belong to the people. Hence, globally central banks benefit from immunity.

The immunity for central banks during various disputes is public consensus. There are two systems regarding the immunity for central banks. Firstly, ‘Absolute Immunity’ grants these banks total immunity as public organizations. Secondly, ‘Restrictive Immunity’ grants immunity based on the activities of the central bank. Both of these models have been invoked in several cases.

The US has the most powerful set of guidelines regarding central banks’ immunity. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) grants the strongest of immunities to central banks not only in the US, but also worldwide.

Functions of the Central Bank

Central banks normally have four or five functions. Iran’s Central Bank fulfills all five functions whereas most central banks cover the first four.

The first function of Iran’s Central Bank is enforcing monetary policy by printing and releasing the national currency as well as maintaining and protecting its value internationally.

In return for oil, Iran receives foreign currencies that will then be used as a backing for the Iranian Rial. Without sufficient foreign currency backing, the national inflation rate would reach three, or perhaps even four-digit figures.

The second function of Iran’s Central Bank is forming currency policies, which takes place by a process called ‘Open Market Operations’. This is precisely what Iran’s Central Bank has been doing over the past weeks; to interfere in the foreign currency market to regulate the exchange rates inside the country.

In connection with these two functions, all the central banks around the world have come together to create the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is the center of the world’s central banks. Iran’s Central Bank’s share of the global free-market funds in the IMF is 1.66%; therefore a sanction on Iran’s Central Bank would result in a theoretical overall slump in the IMF.

The third function of Iran’s Central Bank is reserves management, which keeps account of all the gold and foreign currency in the country.

The forth function of the central bank is monitoring commercial activities, importing sensitive commodities and opening Letters of Credit (LC’s)

The fifth function of Iran’s Central Bank, which is unique to a few countries, is the allocation of oil revenue. This used to be done directly by the central bank whereas now it is an indirect function.

Functions and Immunity Issues

As previously mentioned, central banks are granted immunity yet if the central bank is involved in commercial activities the immunity is reversible, as commercial activities are not public-related services. Some interpret Iran’s oil revenue as a commercial activity. Iran’s Central Bank’s assets, however, should be immune as public property.

The Objectives and effects of Sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank

The first effect of sanctions was to limit the assets of Iran’s Central Bank. The first country to boycott Iran’s Central Bank was the UK, which also acted on freezing its assets, including deposits in foreign accounts. Furthermore, any organization that is in any way related to Iran’s Central Bank is subject to the same sanctions.

Another effect of the sanctions is the potential interference in the Central Bank’s monetary policy. The bank could act on printing money without having the sufficient backing of foreign currency reserves and gold, but it would be an extremely risky move. Printing money without sufficient backing could have catastrophic consequences for the economy.

The final effect of the sanctions on the Central Bank is the blockage of Iran’s oil revenue-- Iran’s largest source of income. Prior to boycotting Iran’s oil, the West acted on imposing sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank. This would cause less harm to the oil market whereas it would paralyze the sanctioned country. By limiting Iran’s banking activities, the West could barter with Iran over oil prices while ensuring Iranian oil is not totally off the market.

Final Words

It seems that by imposing sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank the West is seeking to limit the trading activities of Iran’s oil industry. The US does not have any direct dealings with Iran; therefore it is seeking transnational sanctions on Iran by effectively boycotting any bank that is in trade with Iran’s oil or banking system. During the 90’s, the US attempted to impose transnational sanctions, which did not receive the support of other nations. Today however, other countries are cooperating with the US on sanctions on Iran.

There are alternative ways to escape the current restrictions on Iran, but at greater costs. Furthermore, these sanctions could lead other countries to join in on the sanctions against Iran; yet this will not be an easy process as Iran’s Central Bank is a public organization and therefore protected from sanctions. Iran’s provocations could encourage other countries to go along with imposed sanctions on Iran. Effective diplomacy should be implemented to prevent other countries from joining in on these sanctions.