By Iqbal Jassat

As the first month of 2012 ebbed away, a question dominating many conversations was whether war was still likely to break out in the Persian Gulf anytime soon. While tensions have been heating up as “war talk” between regional players adds greater anxiety, it remains unclear whether the regime of President Barack Obama is willing to risk more American lives in pursuit of an Israeli agenda.

Unlike former president George W. Bush who seemed hell-bent on settling personal scores with Saddam Hussain of Iraq and was greatly assisted by a largely pliant media to “sell” America’s war on Iraq, Obama is not too certain of gaining similar levels of support from a war weary American public that has been further buffeted by an economic meltdown.

The most obvious challenge Obama has failed to face thus far is to obtain consensus among America’s allies. France and Britain may be on board, but for a US president who staked a great deal on forging multilateral consensus on sticky foreign policy issues, he needs more than these two European nuclear powers for support.

Obama also has to contend with dynamic changes in Arabia and North Africa that in the last year have dramatically altered America’s leverage following the ousting of two key despotic allies in Tunisia and Egypt. What ought to be clear for his regime is that these rapid revolutionary changes rested in large part on widespread anti-imperial sentiments. They paved the way for popularly elected governments whose political formations were outlawed as “terrorist” and whose members were subjected to brutal repression, including detention without trial and torture — all courtesy of successive American governments.

In addition, failure to obtain a UN Security Council resolution that would confer “legitimacy” for a premeditated war on Iran is largely due to the reluctance of Russia and China to allow the US any new military adventures in a region they covet for their own national interests. In fact disclosures about the Pentagon’s new strategic guidance, “Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defence” places China squarely at the centre of American war planning.

Some analysts have argued that unless America curbs the Israeli appetite for military attack against Iran, the US will be unable to prevent the rise of China as a potential strategic rival. The driving force for this US confrontation with China is the relative economic decline of American imperialism. It signifies a continuation of a global order dominated by the US in which the Pacific Ocean has been considered “an American lake” for more than a century, hemming China in by a network of US military alliances, and Beijing’s economic and strategic interests are subordinate to Washington’s.

And if news reports on the Israeli population’s mood for war are to be believed, signs of disapproval seem to be dominant. Some of these signals emanate from the Zionist State’s inability to reconcile with the reality of having suffered defeat at the hands of Hizbullah in Lebanon when it unleashed a war in July–August 2006, and more recently in Gaza (December 2008–January 2009) at the hands of Hamas by failing to dislodge the resistance movement from power in the tiny enclave.

Last month, reflecting on why the heavily armed Israeli troops failed so miserably against the lightly armed Hizbullah fighters in the 2006 war, Interior Minister Eli Yishai said that it was because its soldiers did not have faith! Though he has since apologized for these remarks, parents of soldiers who died in the war are demanding that Yishai, who is also head of the Sephardic Orthodox Shas Party, be removed from Netanyahu’s coalition cabinet.

So whether it is a question of “disinterest” in a war carrying huge risks for the Zionist regime or simply a lack of “faith/belief”, Israeli preparedness hinges on the message Obama’s high profile military envoy Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, took to his Zionist hosts on a visit that was so uncharacteristically short that it immediately evoked intense speculation. Comments by Israeli officials clearly indicated that Dempsey had told the Zionists in no uncertain terms that any military adventure against Iran would be ruinous. 

In this context postponing their largest-ever, joint military exercises, American and Israeli officials explained that the major reason for the delay was due to tensions with Iran. And to cap it all were the remarks by Defense Minister Ehud Barak during an interview with Israel’s Army Radio a day before Dempsey’s arrival. An Israeli attack on Iran is “very far off” he said, adding that no decision had been made to do so.

As tensions mount, so does the uncertainty of war that in all likelihood will engulf the entire region. Recent revelations of a secret visit to Israel by the Qatari Emir Shaikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani and support by the Saudi monarchy for any war effort by Israel and America against Iran have raised the stakes much higher. Yet despite complaints by Israel accusing Obama of procrastinating and conflicting statements by members of his administration, the “unknowns” retain elements of surprise!

Iqbal Jassat is Chairman of the Pretoria, South Africa-based Media Review Network.

By Sefyeddin Kara

The shrill US-Israeli war rhetoric against Iran goes hand in glove with covert operations, such as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, Stuxnet Virus to disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment and also reportedly replacing street signs and bricks in buildings with ones equipped with radiation detectors. There are threats and actions to further isolate Iran by boycotting its oil to increase the economic and political pressure on the Islamic Republic.  Together, all these factors have given rise, however fleeting, to false hopes among Iran’s enemies that there is a possibility to force the Islamic Republic to yield to their demands. 

It seems, however, that they have not learned any lessons in more than three decades of dealing with the Islamic Republic. As long as Iran’s rulers hold firmly to Islamic teachings, there is no way that they would ever bow to US hegemony or the ludicrous demands being made of them. This has been made clear on numerous occasions by the leaders of the Islamic Republic and most recently articulated yet again by the Rahbar, Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei, leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, at a gathering of military college students in Tehran on 11-19-2011. He stressed: “Iran is not a nation to sit still and just observe threats from fragile materialistic powers which are being eaten by worms from the inside. Iran will respond with full force to any aggression or even threats in a way that will demolish the aggressors from within.” 

Imam Sayyed Khamanei is very familiar with the nature of the “arrogant powers.” A few months after his announcement the firm stance of Iran has started to pay off; the tide of events has started to take a different turn. 

The assassination of Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, who served as deputy director of commercial affairs at the Natanz uranium enrichment site proved a breaking point. It brought to the surface a rift between the US and Israel that had hitherto been kept from public view. The assassination carried all the hallmarks of the notorious Israeli spy agency, Mossad, and it has been reported by reliable Western sources that like all previous ones, the assassination of Dr. Roshan was carried out by Mossad using local proxies. 

Although UN human rights bodies and other so-called reputable human rights NGOs have remained silent over the killing of the 32-year-old Iranian scientist, they are quick to condemn any wrongdoing, real or imagined, by Iran. Even the UN secretary general Ban ki Moon, when approached by Iran’s Ambassador to the UN, Dr. Mohammad Khazaee, to condemn the assassination of Iranian scientists, merely said he would “study the request.” Such disregard for human life when it concerns Iranians is revealing. The US, however, took the unprecedented step of “categorically” denying any involvement in the incident. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced: “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran… We believe that there has to be an understanding between Iran, its neighbors and the international community that finds a way forward for [Iran] to end its provocative behavior, end its search for nuclear weapons and rejoin the international community and be a productive member of it.” While Clinton repeated a litany of unproven allegations against Iran, the statement categorically denying involvement in the assassination is unprecedented. 

In the past, the US had never used such vehement language to deny accusations of involvement in the assassination of Iranian scientists or officials. Based on this, numerous analysts speculated that the US statement had far reaching implications. A few days later another announcement made it clear that Clinton’s statement was expressing US disapproval of the Israeli assassination campaign of Iranian scientists. 

Further, the spokesman for the US European Command, Captain John Ross, and Pentagon spokesman John Kirby broke the news to the media on January 15 that the US had decided to postpone joint military exercises codenamed “Austere Challenge 12” with Israel.  It was to have been the largest-ever military exercise between the two countries that would have tested their defence capabilities against Iranian missiles. 

US policy makers are aware of the catastrophic consequences of war with Iran; it would be too risky and extremely costly; hence they have ruled out this option. Yet, they have continued their war rhetoric and negative propaganda to demonize and therefore isolate Iran and prevent it from initiating proactive policies in the region. They always talk about their “red lines” but they have also been careful not to cross Tehran’s red lines to provoke any major military conflagration.

This is precisely why the Obama regime was worried about the reckless Israeli assassination of the Iranian scientist carried out by Mossad agents without US knowledge, resulting in Washington “categorically” denying involvement. What this means is that the US does not want Israel to escalate the situation by provoking harsh retaliation from Iran that would lead to an unwanted war. In order to make its position clear the US took the more drastic step of postponing the war games. Their logic was simple: if Israel could conduct high profile covert operations inside Iran, they may well unilaterally decide to launch an attack on Iran. According to an article published in the Asia Times Online, the Obama regime wanted assurances from Israel that it would not attack Iran without approval from Washington but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to do so. The US postponed the wargames in retaliation.

The Israeli view is that the US would not go alone in launching a military attack on Iran so the Zionists have been working hard to provoke a war that the US will be forced to get involved in. In January, Foreign Policy (FP) magazine provided insight into how Mossad was working behind the CIA’s back. FP reported that Mossad agents impersonating CIA agents recruited Jundullah members in London and used them for covert operations inside Iran, including assassinating senior members of the Revolutionary Guards. This evoked a harsh reaction from the Bush regime and brought to an end “intelligence” co-operation on Iran between the CIA and Mossad until Obama’s inauguration as president in January 2009.

This time the US delivered a blunt message via General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the Zionists and asked that they also confirm it as Obama had demanded. On January 18, Defence Minister Ehud Barak told army radio about Israel’s official position regarding an attack on Iran: “We don’t have a decision to go forward with these things. We don’t have a decision or a date for taking such a decision. This whole thing is very far away.” Despite this, the US continues to pursue a policy to isolate Iran by imposing sanctions on financial institutions that do business with it. The principal target is Iranian oil exports that bring in the bulk of its earnings. 

The EU, led by Germany, France and UK, has aggressively supported US sanctions with the ostensible aim of cutting off financial support for Iran’s nuclear program. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said the new sanctions would paralyze Iran’s nuclear program. “Even just the option of nuclear armament by Iran would have far-reaching negative consequences far beyond the Gulf region, so it is not acceptable, so, with new sanctions that we want to approve this month [approved on January 23], we are now targeting the heart of the Iranian nuclear program: its oil and, with that, its sources of financing.”

It is, however, obvious that there is no way to reverse Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and any external action to stop it only increases Iranian determination. Further, a good example of the futility of sanctions is presented by North Korea that unlike Iran has pursued a military nuclear program. While they have a much weaker economy than Iran and are in need of external food aid to feed the people, they have managed to join the nuclear club. Thus, it would not be realistic to expect Iran, endowed with vast natural resources and with far better economic and industrial prospects, to fail to achieve its nuclear objectives. Besides, there are serious doubts in the current climate of deep economic recession in the West about the extent to which the rest of the world would manage without Iranian oil merely to please the US, which is already declining. 

Iran’s largest oil and gas client China has already made clear it will not comply with US sanctions. Although Beijing has made temporary cut backs of Iranian oil imports, the move, according to experts, is aimed at getting further discounted deals from Iran. In addition to importing 20% of total Chinese oil imports from Iran, the two countries have strong trade ties that reached $30 billion in 2010 and are expected to increase to $50 billion by 2015.  Iranian oil is also strategically important for China; it knows that unlike other oil exporting countries, Beijing can depend on Iran in the event of a political or military showdown with the US. 

Japan, the number two buyer of Iranian oil, initially pledged its support but later asked for exemption from sanctions. Japanese Ambassador to Tehran, Kinichi Komano told the Mehr News Agency in an interview published on January 19, that Japan is hesitant to implement the sanctions: “The law ratified in the United States has endangered the situation of Japanese companies, and in the Japanese government’s view, it is very difficult to implement these sanctions.” 

India, another important client of Iranian oil, has already announced that it will not comply with US sanctions. Turkey similarly has no intention of interrupting the flow of Iranian oil. This makes the EU’s sanctions quite insignificant since only 5% of EU combined oil imports come from Iran. Something as valuable and moveable as oil would not be difficult for Iran to sell elsewhere. In fact heightened tensions around the Persian Gulf have inevitably led to a hike in gasoline prices and larger profits for Iran.

By Zafar Bangash

 

Can US leaders — in the executive as well as congressional branches — be considered rational? Almost daily, they threaten to bomb Iran, not to mention the imposed raft of sanctions aimed at undermining the Islamic Republic. The latest round of sanctions was slipped through the inappropriately named National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA). US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA on the last day of 2011 when most people were engrossed in New Year festivities to take much notice. Under the NDAA (passed by Congress on December 14), the US would impose sanctions on any company purchasing Iranian oil or dealing with Iran’s Central Bank. This is a declaration of economic and financial war against Iran, yet American officials think it is legitimate business. The purpose is to force Tehran to stop uranium enrichment and ultimately overthrow the Islamic system.   

Enriching uranium is Iran’s legitimate right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of which it is a signatory. The NPT requires member states to assist rather than hinder Iran in this quest. This is meant to encourage countries to sign the NPT thereby preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons while supporting them in the peaceful use of nuclear material. Instead, the US and its allies deliberately peddle the lie that Iran is surreptitiously trying to make the bomb. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the body tasked with monitoring nuclear proliferation, has found no evidence of any illegal diversion of enriched uranium by Iran but under US pressure, has deliberately issued vague reports to create confusion to facilitate the US agenda. The IAEA has also indulged in outright lies against Iran without providing any proof of wrongdoing.

The US campaign against Iran has now assumed a more vicious form. American officials have gone to the European Union (EU), Turkey, China, Japan and India urging them to halt, or at the very least reduce import of Iranian oil. Since oil is the mainstay of Iran’s economy, it is an attempt at strangulation. This campaign, however, is not getting much traction, not least because countries like China, Japan, India and Turkey do not accept US extraterritoriality in their international dealings. Even some European countries, among them Spain and Italy, have said they cannot go along with US demands because their economies, already suffering financial meltdown, would be dealt further blows. 

On January 23, while the EU announced a new set of restrictions on Iranian oil imports, these will only go into effect in July. Ali Fallahian, an Iranian Member of Parliament, said Tehran should immediately stop oil supply to Europe and let the price rise. This will make them realize that they cannot bully or pressure Iran and that such pressure is not only one way.

While the Europeans may be forced to toe the US line, others are not so keen to roll over. On January 11 when US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner visited Beijing to urge Chinese officials to reduce Iranian oil imports, Chinese Vice President Xi Jingping brushed him off. The Chinese leader, who is soon to become president upon Hu Jintao leaving the post, also dismissed American demands to float the Chinese currency, the yuan, to raise its value vis-à-vis the US dollar. This would result in Chinese exports becoming more expensive, thereby affecting them adversely. On his Middle Eastern tour from January 14 to 18 visiting Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was similarly dismissive of US demands to curtail purchase of Iranian oil. On his last stop Wen held a press conference in Doha, Qatar on January 18 at which he announced that China’s purchase of Iranian oil was part of “normal trade.” He rejected trade being held hostage to diplomatic or political considerations. China has repeatedly stressed that negotiations, not sanctions, were the way to deal with Iran’s nuclear issue.

China’s Vice Foreign Minister for US relations, Cui Tiankai, was even more forthright in rejecting US demands. In his meeting with Geithner in Beijing, he said that China supported global non-proliferation efforts, but trade was separate from the Iranian nuclear program. “The normal trade relations and energy cooperation between China and Iran have nothing to do with the nuclear issue. We should not mix issues of different nature, and China’s legitimate concerns and demands should be respected” (emphasis added). This was a polite way of telling the Americans to get lost. Cui added that Iran had the right to develop peaceful nuclear power. “This issue cannot be resolved by sanctions alone. It must fundamentally be solved through negotiation.” 

Geithner had only marginally more success in Tokyo but this had to do with traditional Japanese politeness rather than any fundamental shift in policy. The Japanese said they would reduce their purchases of Iranian oil but only gradually. Given that 17% of Iranian oil exports go to Japan, second only to China with 20%, the Japanese cannot afford to lose a reliable source of energy to fulfill the political agenda of the US whose power and influence are in any case waning. Other importers of Iranian oil in descending order are: India (16 %), Italy (10 %) and South Korea (9%). A spokesperson for Japan’s Trade Ministry asserted that considering the large volume of oil imported from Iran (comprising 10% of total Japanese imports), Japan’s ability to manage a sharp reduction was highly limited since urging companies to switch from Iranian crude oil had no legal foundation. Thus, the Japanese also made clear that American laws did not apply to them. They are already carrying the burden of 50,000 American occupation troops 67 years after the end of World War II and appear to be getting irritated by the overbearing Americans. 

 Of all the countries, Turkey’s response has been the most interesting. While a member of NATO that eagerly went along with the West’s war on Libya and is currently hosting a number of Syrian opposition groups including the so-called Free Syrian Army as part of the US-Zionist agenda to destabilize the Syrian regime, Turkey has refused to accept US demands vis-à-vis Iran. “Turkey has said it is not bound by new oil sanctions against Iran,” declared Turkey’s Energy Minister Taner Yildiz, as quoted in the Financial Times of London on January 13. He told reporters that his country did not consider itself covered by the latest EU and US sanctions and that “at the moment our imports continue and as of today there is no change in our road map.” 

Less than a week later (January 19), Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, welcoming his Iranian counterpart Dr. Ali Akbar Salehi to Istanbul, said that Iran was ready for talks. “The sides have confirmed their willingness,” he said. “Today is the day for negotiations and a solution.” This was a slap in the face of the Western warmongers and a rejection of American and Israeli threats against Iran. Even the French are opposed to any military strike against Iran fearing the consequences of the blowback would be horrendous but they continue to issue threatening statements against Iran as part of the Western crusader mentality. 

While vowing to defend themselves and to give a fitting response to any aggression, leaders of the Islamic Republic have shown flexibility and a willingness to enter into serious discussions with the Five-Plus-One (five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany). French officials, however, allege that Tehran has not responded to an October letter from the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, offering a resumption of talks, so long as there are no preconditions and Iran is willing to discuss the main issue, which is its nuclear enrichment program. Tehran has insisted that for serious negotiations to take place, the Security Council must first lift all sanctions already in place and recognize Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium under the NPT. 

The West took past Iranian concessions as signs of weakness. For instance, between 2003 and 2005, Iran suspended uranium enrichment and even accepted additional inspection protocols far beyond its NPT obligations, on the understanding that sanctions would be lifted and there would be serious negotiations. For two years, the West refused to hold any serious discussions and when Iran announced that it was resuming enrichment it was immediately presented as Tehran “going back” on its pledges. The Islamic Republic had not pledged to halt uranium enrichment permanently but as part of a comprehensive package. The West, however, refused to fulfill its part of the deal insisting that Iran must comply with their demands.

In 2007 and again in 2010, Iran proposed swapping a large part of its 3.5% enriched uranium in return for fuel rods for a research medical reactor in Tehran but the West was only interested in playing games. It insisted Iran must hand over its entire inventory of enriched uranium and wait until the West had enriched it to 20% before handing it back to Tehran. The Islamic Republic refused to accept such a deal clearly seeing through the West’s duplicity. Western governments have repeatedly violated their pledges. The most glaring example is America’s refusal to allow spare parts to be sent for Iran’s aging Boeing fleet of aircraft used by Iran Air to ferry passengers. This puts the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians at risk yet the US and its allies still insist Iran must trust them!

In their dealings with Iran, Western governments have been completely disingenuous. A number of them — the US and Britain, for instance — have frozen tens of billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets and refuse to honour their international obligations whose rules in any case have been set by the West itself. Under such circumstances and the long record of Western duplicity, Iran refuses to be lulled into accepting Western assurances. It is left with little choice but to safeguard its interests to the best of its ability.

Given the bitter experience of many countries in their dealings with the US and Europe, they are no longer willing to accept Western imperial diktats. Soon after Obama signed the NDAA into law, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran embarked on a highly publicized visit to Latin America. From January 4 to 11, he visited Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador. He not only held detailed discussions with the leaders of these countries but also signed huge investment and financial agreements. This was widely interpreted, even in the Western media, as a slap in the face of Obama. US-European threats do not carry much weight these days and countries in Asia and Latin America are beginning to chalk out their own independent course. Islamic Iran has led the way despite facing mounting pressure and threats.