Washington Opposes Peace
by Stephen Lendman
America's history is blood-drenched. Permanent war is policy. Peace and stability are verboten.
One nation after another is targeted. Aggressive wars follow. Rule of law principles and democratic values are discarded. Wealth, power and unchallengeable dominance alone matter.
Scoundrel supporters glorify what they should condemn. More on them below. Syria is being ravaged and destroyed. Spurious accusations target Iran. Neither country threatens anyone. Malicious lies say otherwise.
Headlines claim Tehran keeps accelerating efforts to produce nuclear weapons. No evidence whatever is cited. On August 25, Reuters headlined "IAEA gets no deal with Iran on bomb research suspicions," saying:
So-called "concerns" about "suspected nuclear weapons research by Tehran" weren't resolved. IAEA chief inspector Herman Nackaerts said important differences remain. Agreement looks unlikely.
The IAEA was established to promote peaceful nuclear energy use. Allegedly an independent autonomous organization, it reports to the Security Council and General Assembly. Under current head Yukiya Amano, it's an imperial tool.
Washington chose him. He serves US interests. His mandate excludes independence, objectivity, and honesty. Despite no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons research and development, he claims otherwise.
Earlier he used forged or otherwise suspect documents. What long ago was discredited became Exhibit A. Old material was recycled to look new. Amano's predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei, didn't play by US rules and got sacked.
What Washington says goes. Chief inspector Nackaerts' mandate is prevent resolution. Otherwise US/Israeli accusations fall flat. Imperial aims are sidetracked until new schemes emerge.
Regime change is policy. War plans are longstanding. Timing alone is unknown. Perhaps 2013 is planned. The fullness of time will tell. A steady drumbeat of inflammatory media reports and commentaries advances the ball for what no one should contemplate or tolerate.
On nuclear issues, no country cooperates more than Iran. It exceeds what most others would tolerate. It want equal, fair treatment. It deserves no less. Its program is peaceful. It complies fully with NPT provisions.
America long ago spurned them. So does Israel. Both countries are nuclear outlaws. Headlines don't accuse them of threatening world peace. IAEA inspectors don't target them. They operate extrajudicially and get away with it.
Only Iran is challenged. False accusations persist. Multiple negotiation rounds got nowhere. Washington prevents resolution. So does Israel. Doing so complicates their agenda.
Following Friday's Vienna meeting, Iran's IAEA representative, Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, commented as follows:
"We had about eight hours of intensive discussions in a constructive environment. We mostly tried to bridge the gaps (relating to) differences in the structure, approach, or modality for resolving the issues."
"We had….progress….but, of course, there are still some points that have to be worked out at a later stage. In the meantime, these are issues regarding allegations which….in many cases proved baseless and with political motivations."
Nackaerts was ordered to assure discussions went nowhere. Follow-up isn't planned. Before talks ended, Netanyahu claimed "additional proof that Iran is continuing accelerated progress towards achieving nuclear weapons and is totally ignoring international demands."
Netanyahu's an inveterate liar. He's also more bark than bite. Israel won't go it alone against Iran. Doing so would be suicidal. Key Israeli past and current military and government officials oppose war. They do so for good reason.
Bluster is part of a politician's portfolio. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak take it to the extreme. Talk is one thing. Destructive policy quite another.
War very likely is planned. Expect it on Washington's timetable, not Israel's. When it comes, America will be the lead belligerent. Israel will ride shotgun. The entire region and beyond will be threatened. Catastrophic consequences may follow.
World peace never was more threatened. It hangs by a thread. Daily articles and commentaries don't feature an issue too grave to ignore. Instead, truth is maliciously inverted.
Enemies are created when none exist. War talk persists. Wrong over right is promoted. Potential catastrophic consequences are ignored. So are body counts, massive human suffering, and what fuels Washington's addiction.
Neoconservative hawk Charles Krauthhammer is a Fox New regular. He's also a Washington Post columnist. He tilts far enough right to be belligerent. His style substitutes hyperbole for facts.
He blames Assad for massacres and other atrocities committed by Western recruited death squads. He backs more aggressive intervention.
He's merciless on Iran. On August 23, he headlined "The Cordesman criteria." He accused Iranian leaders of "increasing menacing annihilationist threats."
He claims Israel faces "the most virulent genocidal threats since Nazi Germany."
"Time is short," he says. "Last-ditch negotiations….failed abjectly. The Iranians are contemptuously playing with the process. The strategy is delay until they get the bomb."
Request "congressional authorization for the use of force if Iran does not negotiate denuclearization." End status quo "drift through kabuki negotiations." The alternative is "liv(ing) under the threat of nuclear blackmail from a regime the State Department (calls) the world's greatest exporter of terror."
Readers believe this stuff. So do Fox News viewers. Never mind what's true or false. Krauthammer, like other neocons, demands surrender. Iran won't play that dirty game. His alternative is war.
Center for Strategic & International Studies analyst Anthony Cordesman was more measured. Nonetheless, he fell woefully short. He headlined an August 1 commentary "Iran: Preventing War by Making it Credible."
The best way perhaps to prevent was is threaten it, he believes. Justifiability was ignored. So were rule of law principles and what drives US and Israeli threats.
Like others representing right-wing military interests, Cordesman accepts the fiction of an Iranian threat. His analysis proceeds accordingly.
He's concerned about Washington and Israel biting off more than they can chew. He wants to head fake Iran into submission.
Instead of explaining Tehran's peace agenda, its longstanding nonbelligerence, its advocacy for a denuclearized Middle East, and desire for friendly relations with all nations, he proposes threatening Iran short of war.
He suggests three actions:
(1) Focus negotiations around "clear US redlines." End ambiguity. "Iran needs to know there are real limits to how long it can talk and stall." Submit to US demands or face war.
Never mind that Tehran negotiates in good faith. Washington obstructs resolution. Like other imperial supporters, Cordesman blames the victim.
(2) "(M)ake it clear to Iran that it has no successful options." Surrender on US terms or else. Imply shock and awe bombing and other belligerent options. (S)peak softly while….carr(ying) a big stick."
(3) Give Iran a face saving way out. Make it appear like "a kind of victory." End sanctions. Offer trade, other economic, and political incentives. Package them with other countries. Make surrender look like victory.
America and Israel don't negotiate. They demand. Promises they make aren't worth the paper they're written on. Many nations learned the hard way.
Iran wants its sovereign rights respected. It deserves that much and more. It's endured decades of US/Israeli isolation and hostility. It's not about to accept unreasonable demands.
Doing so won't end war threats. At best they'll be delayed. Washington wants pro-Western puppets replacing Tehran's leaders. War is the bottom line option of choice.
Cordesman didn't explain. Nor do Western fourth estate pressitutes. They willingly go along with what they should condemn. They make death and destruction possible. They'll get more than they bargain for if Washington and Israel attack Iran. What better reason than that to oppose it.
A Final Comment
Washington has few profiles in courage. On war and peace issues, even fewer. Herd mentality dominates thinking. Politicians march in lockstep. An occasional exception proves the rule.
During last December's Republican presidential debate, Ron Paul opposed war on Iran. His comments bear repeating. He spoke forthrightly and was condemned. Doing the right thing has a price.
He's "running with the American people," he said. Lots of evidence suggests Iran has no nuclear weapons program. "There’s no U.N. evidence of that happening."
"There is no difference from 2003. You know what I really fear about this. It's another Iraq coming. It’s war propaganda coming on….To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president who will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran."
"It would make more sense if we lived through the Cold War, which we did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us. We ought to really sit back and look and think and not jump the gun and think we're going to be attacked. That’s how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq."
"Nuclear weapons are loaded over there. Pakistan, India, Israel has 300 of them. We have our ships over there. We have to keep this in the proper context. We don’t need another war!"
What about Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, he was asked?
"The plans are on the books. All they talk about is when are we, the west, going to bomb Iran? They don't have a nuclear weapon. Why wouldn't they try to send out some information, you know if you come and bomb us, we might shut the straits of Hormuz down."
"We have 12,000 diplomats. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while."
"Obviously I would like to see a lot less nuclear weapons. I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I would like to reduce them because there would be less chance of war."
"But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same? This is dangerous talk. Yeah there are some radicals. They don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous."
"They come here and they explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained this to us. They come here and want to do us harm because we’re bombing them."
"Why were we flying drones over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries? Why do we have 900 bases in (hundreds of) countries and we're totally bankrupt?"
"How are we going to take care of the people? I think this wild goal is to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. The danger is really us overreacting, and we need a strong national defense and only go to war when there's a declaration of war...instead of starting these wars so often…."
Asked about Iran's alleged threat to annihilate Israel, he said:
"There is no UN report that said that. It's totally wrong on what you just said. That is not true. They produced information that led you to believe that. But they have no evidence."
"You cannot solve these problems with war….Get them over with, instead of this endless fighting and this endless attitude that we have enemies all around the world…"
Rarely are these type comments heard on Capitol Hill. US national television almost never airs them. They're unheard of in presidential debates. Media scoundrels promoting war jump all over opponents.
Paul remains anti-war. Imagine if a majority in Congress agreed. Imagine peace instead of endless wars.
If Congress won't do what's right, ordinary people must act. Either we stop wars or they'll destroy us. A threat that real demands action.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Original: Washington Opposes Peace