Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi says normalization of relations with a number of regional Arab countries will not bring security to the Zionist regime of the “Israeli” entity.
Raisi made the remarks in a joint presser with the visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in Tehran on Sunday.
“During this meeting, we discussed trade and political and economic relations [between the two countries], and decided to boost economic ties. We discussed the rail connection between Shalamcheh [in Iran] and [Iraq’s] Basra [port], which can play a great role in facilitating trade between the two countries. We also discussed facilitation of monetary and banking relations between Iran and Iraq,” he said.
Reflecting on the efforts made by the Zionist regime’s official during past years to normalize relations with some Arab states in the region, Iran’s chief executive said, “The efforts made by the Zionist regime to normalize relations with regional countries will by no means bring security to this regime.
“We and Iraq believe that peace and tranquility in the region depends on all regional officials doing their parts, and normalization [of relations] with the [Zionist] regime and the presence of foreigners in the region will solve none of the regional people’s problems,” Raisi said.
Highlighting the importance of relations between Iran and Iraq and the role played by the two countries in regional developments, Raisi said, “We stood by people of Iraq when the country was going through dire straits and will continue to stick together. This friendship and relations will never go cold and will further develop on a daily basis. There is no doubt that the visit by Mr. Kadhimi and his accompanying delegation can be a turning point in development of relations between the two countries.
He said that during his meeting with Kadhimi they discussed the existing relations among regional countries, adding, “We believe that dialog among regional countries can solve regional problems, [but] the presence of foreigners in the region only creates more problems and does not help solve those problems.”
Back in 2020, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed United States-brokered agreements with the entity to normalize their ties with the regime. Some other regional states, namely Sudan and Morocco, followed suit soon afterward.
Spearheaded by the UAE, the move has sparked widespread condemnations from the Palestinians as well as nations and human rights advocates across the globe, especially within the Muslim world.
Other regional countries have also been fraternizing with the entity, including Saudi Arabia, which received a visit by the regime’s former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2020.
Earlier this month, Leader of the Islamic Revolution His Eminence Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei said the Arab governments that chose to normalize relations with the “Israeli” entity against the will of their people will end up being exploited by the occupying regime.
Elsewhere in the presser, the Iranian president said the two sides have underlined the need for establishing a durable ceasefire in Yemen, lifting the economic blockade, and facilitating intra-Yemeni talks as the solutions to the existing problem in the impoverished country.
“Undoubtedly, we consider the continuation of this [Saudi-led] war fruitless and believe that this war has no outcome but the suffering of the people,” Raisi said, emphasizing that ceasefire can be a “step towards resolving issues in Yemen.”
Saudi Arabia launched the devastating war on Yemen in March 2015 in collaboration with its Arab allies and with arms and logistics support from the US and other Western states.
The objective was to reinstall the Riyadh-friendly regime of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi and crush the Ansarullah resistance movement, which has been running state affairs in the absence of a functional government in Yemen.
While the Saudi-led coalition has failed to meet any of its objectives, the war has killed hundreds of thousands of Yemenis and spawned the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
Kadhimi, for his part, said that during his talks with Iranian officials, the two sides discussed bilateral historical, cultural, and religious relations.
The Iraqi premier added that Baghdad attaches great importance to its relations with Tehran on the basis of common interests.
He noted that Iran and Iraq agreed to make further efforts to serve their nations’ interests and boost trade ties.
Kadhimi said Iran and Iraq also agreed to set a timetable to facilitate the huge annual Arbaeen procession.
He added that while Iranian pilgrims have already been able to receive visas at Iraqi airports, it is now possible for a specific number of Arbaeen pilgrims to obtain visas through border crossings.
The Iraqi prime minister said, “We also discussed major regional challenges and agreed to make a joint effort to help establish stability and calm in the region. We also talked about fateful issues facing the regional nations. We decided to support the Yemen ceasefire and agreed to support dialogue in Yemen in order to put an end to a war that has brought a lot of suffering to Yemeni people.”
The leader of Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq says that, while Tehran has remained a close ally, the decisions made by the resistance groups are completely independent
During an interview with BBC Farsi, Iraqi resistance leader Qais al-Khazali spoke at length about the political crisis gripping Iraq, and highlighted that the recent re-election of Mohammed al-Halbousi as Speaker of Parliament served as “proof” of resistance groups’ independence from Iran.
“The fact that the Iranian parliament speaker congratulated the speaker of the Iraqi parliament has not affected our positions and [we continue] to reject the election results, and whether or not the Iranian parliament speaker congratulates us has no effect on our positions, and this is proof of our independence,” Khazali told the interviewer.
He went on to add that, in the event of a disagreement in the formation of a government by Muqtada al-Sadr, the Coordination Framework is considering its options of whether to boycott the political process or join the opposition.
Khazali, the leader of resistance faction Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, also spoke at length about the ongoing presence of US troops in Iraqi soil, despite the announcement last year by US President Joe Biden and Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Khadimi that all combat troops would leave the nation by 31 December.
In this regard, he said that “as long as the occupying forces are present, there [will be a] resistance,” but also pointed out that “whether we have tension with them or reduce the level of tension is a tactic based on the interests of the resistance groups.”
“I reiterate that our decision is independent of Iran’s decision, the Iranians are allies… and because of our good relations, the Iranians have the right to comment and advise, but the final decision [lies] with us, even about the resistance,” Khazali said before adding: “I say frankly that even if the Vienna talks are concluded, the Iraqi resistance operation will not stop.”
He also pointed out that, over recent months, resistance groups in Iraq and Yemen have reached a stage where they can produce their own heavy weapons, especially drones.
During the interview, Khazali went on to reveal he had information about foreign plans to drag Iraq into a “Shia-Shia war” by taking advantage of the post-election crisis, and that some media outlets were fueling this fire.
The resistance leader expressed confidence that the existence of a supreme Shia authority in Iraq would likely prevent such a conflict. Nonetheless, Khazali believes that, due to all of these tensions, the future government “is unlikely to succeed.”
Since last October, Iraq has been mired in a political crisis over the results of parliamentary elections which saw a majority of Shia parties allied with the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) end up with a meager representation in parliament.
Most recently, the leader of the winning coalition, Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has been meeting with all political actors in the country as he attempts to form what he has described as a “national majority government.”
The prospective Iraqi government is vacillating between the options of the majority and the opposition
Hezbollah condemns the attack that targeted Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi and urged the prevention of sedition and preserving Iraq’s security.
Hezbollah issued the following statement:
Hezbollah condemns in the strongest terms the treacherous attack that targeted the house of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi and felicitates him on his well-being and the well-being of those with him, calling for a thorough and decisive investigation to uncover the circumstances of this attack, those behind it and its sinister goals.
Furthermore, Hezbollah urges that sincere efforts be made to prevent sedition, maintain security and stability, and address political differences with wisdom, dialogue, patience, communication and firm determination to find peaceful solutions and block the way in front of whoever wants to bring down Iraq from within in order to serve the projects of the enemies. God protect the great Iraq and its people.
في الكثير من وجوه الشبه بين لبنان والعراق، يتداخل الكثير من الترابط بين ما تشهده كل من الساحتين، حيث لا يحتاج المراقب للكثير من الذكاء ليكتشف التشابه والتزامن بين حراكي تشرين 2019 في البلدين والدعوات للانتخابات المبكرة في كليهما، أو ليكتشف أن سلاح المقاومة والمسار الجغرافي لترابط قواها من إيران إلى العراق إلى سورية فلبنان، يشكل عنصر الفك والتركيب للكثير من مشاهد السياسة والأمن في البلدين، وفي خلفيتها كل التعقيدات الدولية والإقليمية، التي أرخت بظلالها على المنطقة منذ الاحتلال الأميركي للعراق عام 2003، بعدما قسمتها إلى محورين، واحد داعم للاحتلال ويراهن عليه، وآخر يراهن على نهاية هذا الاحتلال بورطة أميركية تخلق موازين قوى جديدة، ومن غير الموضوعية والواقعية إنكار أن دول الخليج وعلاقتها بسورية واستطراداً بالمقاومة في لبنان قد بدأ اهتزازها منذ تلك اللحظة، وأن ما شهده لبنان من أحداث كبرى منذ ذلك التاريخ كان يجري على إيقاع هذا الانقسام، مع اغتيال الرئيس رفيق الحريري، وحرب تموز 2006، وصولاً للحرب على سورية، وانتهاء بالانتخابات العراقية والأزمة السعودية- اللبنانية.
–
بحصيلة عقدين من الحروب والأزمات، حقيقة رئيسية ترسمها صورة الانسحاب الأميركي من أفغانستان، وحقائق فرعية تتحرك في ظلالها تحت عنوان مصير توازنات المنطقة وفي قلبها أوزان حلفاء أميركا، وفي طليعتهم «إسرائيل» والسعودية، في مرحلة ما بعد الانسحاب الأميركي المقبل حتماً، من المنطقة، وفي محاكاة هذه الحقائق الفرعية ترتسم تطورات وتعقيدات ما يشهده لبنان والعراق، ومثلما في لبنان كل شيء يدور حول كيفية تحجيم المقاومة وإضعافها طلباً لأمن أكثر اطمئناناً لكيان الاحتلال، في العراق كل شيء يدور حول تحجيم وإضعاف وحصار قوى المقاومة، منعاً لاتصال الجغرافيا السورية والجغرافيا العراقية، وهو ما يصرح الأميركي علناً بأنه أحد الأثمان التي يطلبها الأميركي لانسحابه من العراق، بمثل ما يصرح بأن انسحاب حزب الله من سورية يمثل الثمن الذي يطلبه للانسحاب من سورية.
–
كان الرهان على الانتخابات العراقية تمويلاً وترتيباً سياسياً للقوى و‘دارة للعملية الانتخابية، أن ينتج سياقاً ينتهي بمجلس نيابي وحكومة، يقفان على ضفة مقابلة للمقاومة وقواها، ما يفرض عليها معادلات جديدة، لكن العملية لم تكتمل لتحقق المراد حيث تعثرت في عنقي زجاجة، الأول هو العجز عن إنجاز فرز نهائي وإعلان نتائج نهائية للانتخابات على رغم مضي شهر على إجرائها، والثاني هو تعقيدات تشكيل غالبية نيابية كافية لتشكيل حكومة من القوى التي كان مفترضاً أن يبنى على تحالفها تشكيل هذه الغالبية، فسقف ما استطاع تجميعه تحالف التيار الصدري والحزب الديمقراطي الكردستاني ورئيس مجلس النواب السابق محمد الحلبوسي، 140 مقعداً من أصل 165 مقعداً لازمة لتشكيل الكتلة الأكبر التي تسمي رئيس الحكومة، وحتى داخل هذا التحالف تعثرت فرص التفاهم لأسباب تتصل بخصوصية تكوين التيار الصدري وصعوبة ملاقاتها من الآخرين، من جهة، ووجود سقف عال للحزب الديمقراطي الكردستاني لتشكيل تحالف وصعوبة قبولها من شريكيه المفترضين في التحالف، وجاءت التظاهرات الاحتجاجية الداعمة لطعون قانونية قدمتها قوى المقاومة التي استشعرت باستهدافها من العملية الانتخابية، لتحرج وتظهر مأزق الذين بنوا حساباتهم على الانتخابات، ووقعت المجزرة بحق المتظاهرين في هذا السياق.
–
ما تعرض له منزل رئيس الحكومة العراقية مصطفى الكاظمي من أحداث أمنية، وصفت بمحاولة الاغتيال، توزعت مقاربته بين ثلاثة فرضيات، الأولى هي التشكيك بصدقية وجود محاولة اغتيال انطلاقاً من السياق العملياتي الذي ترويه الوقائع، والثانية هي كون العملية رسالة مدروسة بالنار، والثالثة هي مشروع حقيقي لاغتيال الكاظمي فشل في تحقيق الهدف، لكن الفرضيات الثلاثة تلتقي عند تحقيق ثلاثة أهداف، الأول هو التغطية على المجزرة التي تعرض لها المتظاهرون، والثاني هو توجيه اصابع الاتهام لقوى المقاومة من باب الحديث عن سلاح المسيرات، الذي لا يتحدث أحد عن امتلاك أميركا وإسرائيل لمخزون هائل ونوعي منها، بينما يجري الانطلاق من امتلاك قوى المقاومة لبعضها لاتهامها بالعملية، والهدف هو شيطنة السلاح تمهيداً لحصاره، تماماً كما في لبنان في العراق، والثالث رفع منسوب الاحتقان الداخلي في العراق في ظل فراغ حكومي مع حكومة منتهية الولاية وفراغ نيابي مع مجلس نيابي منتهي الولاية أيضاً، ومثلهما فراغ رئاسي مع نهاية ولاية رئيس الجمهورية، الذي يفترض بالمجلس النيابي الجديد انتخاب خلف له، فيصعد إلى السطح مفهوم الأمن الذاتي وتنتشر حمى التسلح الطائفي، وصولاً لحجب قضية الانسحاب الأميركي عن جدول الأعمال العراقي، وفرض أمر واقع أمني طائفي على المحافظات العراقية الواقعة على الحدود السورية- العراقية، تحقيقاً لهدف فصل الجغرافيا التي فشلت الضغوط العسكرية والسياسية في تحقيقها.
The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad received on Monday Faleh al-Fayyad, Head of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq.
Al-Fayyad delivered a letter to President al-Assad from Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi regarding the Neighboring Countries Conference to be held late this month in Baghdad, and the importance of Syrian-Iraqi coordination on this conference and the topics on its agenda.
Talks during the meeting also tackled the measures taken to enhance joint bilateral cooperation in all fields, especially with regard to combating terrorism and controlling border security, which is an important factor not only at the security level, but also contributes to the continuation of the trade movement between the two countries, which benefits the two brotherly peoples and achieves their interests.
On September 27 afternoon, two convoys transporting equipment and weapons for the U.S.-led coalition were attacked in Iraq.
The first convoy was targeted with an improved explosive device in the district of Batha in the southern province of Dhi Qar. The second convoy was attacked in a similar fashion as it was passing on the Hilla highway in the central province of Bablyon.
A truck carrying an armored vehicle of the U.S.-led coalition was damaged as a result of the attack in Batha. Sabereen News shared a photo of the truck.
The new attacks came following a Washington Post report that revealed a recent threat from the U.S. to the Iraqi Government. According to the report, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo informed Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi that the U.S. will close its embassy in Baghdad if the attacks continues.
Iraqi Shiite group Saryat Qasim al-Jabbarin, which claimed responsibility for Batha attack, responded to Pompeo’s threat by vowing once again to expel U.S. troops from Iraq.
“We say to Pompeo, we swore to expel your rats dead, their vehicles burned and their hideouts destroyed, from our country,” the group said in a statement.
These recent attacks on U.S. troops are a response to the assassination of Iranian Quds Force Commander, Qassim Soleimani, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Deputy-Commander of the Popular Mobilization Units, earlier this year.
This is Part 3 of the series “Follow the Trail of Blood and Oil”.
Part 1 is a historical overview of Iran’s long struggle with Britain’s control over Iranian oil and the SIS-CIA overthrow of Iran’s Nationalist leader Mosaddegh in 1953.
Part 2 covers the period of the Shah’s battle with the Seven Sisters, the 1979 Revolution and the Carter Administration’s reaction, which was to have immense economic consequences internationally, as a response to the hostage crisis.
In this article it will be discussed why, contrary to what we are being told, Iran’s fight for the right to develop nuclear energy will create stability and prosperity in the Middle East rather than an “arc of crisis” scenario.
From Arc of Crisis to Corridors of Development
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani became President of Iran on August 16th 1989 and served two terms (1989-1997). Rafsanjani, who is considered one of the Founding Fathers of the Islamic Republic, began the effort to rebuild the country’s basic infrastructure, after the ravages of the Iran-Iraq War and launched a series of infrastructure projects not only domestically but in cooperation with neighbouring countries. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Rafsanjani moved to establish diplomatic relations with the newly independent Central Asian Republics, forging economic cooperation agreements based on building transportation infrastructure.
The major breakthrough in establishing this network came in May 1996 (after a 4 year construction) with the opening of the Mashhad-Sarakhs-Tajan railway, which provided the missing link in a network connecting landlocked Central Asian Republics to world markets, through Iran’s Persian Gulf ports.
At the historical launching of the railway, Rafsanjani was quoted as saying the expansion of communications, roads and railway networks, and hence access to world markets can “enhance amity, confidence and trust among governments and lead to mutual understanding and greater solidarity…The recent global developments demonstrate the world is moving toward greater regional cooperation, and regionally coordinated economic growth and development will consolidate peace and stability and pave the way for enhancement of international relations.”
In addition, at the end of Dec 1997, a 125 mile pipeline between Turkmenistan and northeast Iran was opened, gaining access to one of the largest untapped energy reserves in the world, the Caspian Sea Basin, designed to carry 12 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year.
Rafsanjani was fully aware of the Arc of Crisis prophecy that the U.S. was trying to convince the international community of, that basically, the Middle East was full of savages and would become a hot-bed for Soviet terrorism if left alone. It was also understood that Iran’s geographic location was the linchpin in determining not only Middle East geopolitics, but Eurasian relations.
To counteract this “prophecy”, which was in fact a “vision” for the Middle East, Rafsanjani understood that economic development and cooperation with Iran’s neighbours was key to avoiding such chaos.
In 1996, Rafsanjani founded the Executives of Construction of Iran Party, along with 16 members of cabinet, dedicated to Iran’s increasing participation in world markets and industrialization with emphasis on progress and development. The party’s view is that economic freedom is linked to cultural and political freedom.
Rafsanjani publicly supported Khatami as the next president- a highly influential and significant move.
Khatami’s Call for a “Dialogue Amongst Civilizations”
Mohammad Khatami became President of Iran on the 3rd August 1997 and served two terms (1997-2005). He was elected by an overwhelming majority (69% in 1997 and 77.9% in 2001) with a record voter turnout and was extremely popular amongst women and young voters. There was much optimism that Khatami’s presidency would not only bring further economic advances for Iran, but also that Iran’s international relations could begin to mend with the West and end Iran’s economic isolation.
It was Khatami who would first propose the beautiful concept “Dialogue Amongst Civilizations” and delivered this proposal at the UN General Assembly in September 1998 with the challenge that the first year of the millennium be dedicated to this great theme. It was endorsed by the UN.
You may be inclined to think such a concept fanciful, but Khatami was actually proposing a policy that was in direct opposition to the “crisis of Islam” and “clash of civilizations” geopolitical theories of Bernard Lewis and Samuel P. Huntington. Khatemi understood that to counteract the attempt to destabilise relations between nations, one would have to focus on the common principles among different civilizations, i.e. to identify a nation’s greatest historical and cultural achievements and build upon these shared heritages.
This is the backbone to what China has adopted as their diplomatic philosophy, which they call win-win cooperation and which has led to the creation of the BRI infrastructure projects, which are based on the recognition that only through economic development can nations attain sustainable peace. Italy would be the first in Europe to sign onto the BRI.
In 1999 Khatami would be the first Iranian president, since the 1979 Revolution, to make an official visit to Europe. Italy was the first stop, where Khatami had a long meeting with Pope John Paul II and gave an inspiringly optimistic address to students at the University of Florence.
Khatami stated his reason for choosing to visit Italy first was that they shared in common renaissance heritages (the Italian and Islamic Renaissances). Since the two nations had made significant contributions to contemporary civilization, an immense potential existed for a strategic relationship. It was also significant that Italy had never had a colonial presence in the Middle East. During his visit, Khatami had suggested that Italy could function as the “bridge between Islam and Christianity”.
Khatami further elaborated on the concept of a “bridge between Islam and Christianity” in an interview published by La Republica:
“To delve into past history without looking at the future can only be an academic diversion. To help human societies and improve the condition of the world, it is necessary to consider the present state of relations between Asian, in particular Muslim, countries, and Europe…Why do we say, in particular, Muslim? Because Islam is Europe’s next door neighbor; unlike individuals, nations are not free to choose or change neighbors. Therefore, apart from moral, cultural, and human reasons, out of historical and geographical necessity, Islam and Europe have no choice but to gain a better and more accurate understanding of each other, and thus proceed to improve their political, economic, and cultural relations. Our future cannot be separated from each other, because it is impossible to separate our past.”
In June 2000, Khatami made a state visit to China with a 170 member delegation. In a lecture delivered at Beijing University Khatami stated:
“Even if one were to rely solely on historical documents we can still demonstrate the existence of uninterrupted historical links between China and Iran as early as the third century BC. [The historic Silk Road was the vehicle of cultural exchange where] we can observe a striking spectrum of cultural and spiritual interchanges involving religions, customs, thoughts, literature and ethics, which on the whole, added to the vitality and vivacity of eastern culture and thought…[and that] the Chinese outlook has been instrumental in opening up the way to the fruitful and constructive historical discourses throughout the ages, due to its emphasis on the intellectual over the political, in an attempt to epitomize wisdom, temperance and parsimony…Emphasis on our long standing close historical ties and dialogue among the great Asian civilizations, is a valuable instrument for the regenerating of thought, culture, language, and learning…in Asian civilizations, culture has always been the core of the economic and political process…[and] therefore, we are compelled to give a more serious thought to the revival of our cultures…”
Khatami concluded with “The future belongs to the cultured, wise, courageous and industrious nations.”
Dr. Strangelove and the “Islamic Bomb”
The U.S. was not always so antagonistic to Iran’s right to sovereignty. In 1943, President Roosevelt created the Iran Declaration which was signed by both Stalin and Churchill at the Tehran Conference, effectively ending Iran’s occupation by foreign powers.
In 1957, following Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” initiative, the U.S. and Iran signed the “Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Atoms” which led to the 1959 creation of the Tehran Nuclear Research Center. And in 1960, first generation Iranian scientists were trained at MIT. In 1967, the U.S. supplied Iran with a 5 megawatt research reactor and enriched uranium fuel!
The reason why the relationship went sour, as Washington incessantly repeats, is that Iran is no longer trustworthy after the hostage crisis debacle shortly after the 1979 Revolution. The U.S., confident on their high horse, has felt justified ever since to dictate to Iran how they should run their nation.
Funny that it is hardly ever mentioned in the same breath that the U.S. was directly involved in the illegal removal of Iran’s Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953 who had successfully nationalised Iran’s oil and purged the nation of its British imperialist infestation.
Iran had proceeded in accordance with international law and won the case for nationalising Iran’s oil at The Hague and UN Security Council, against the British who were claiming their company “rights” to Iran’s resources. When Britain humiliatingly lost both high profile cases, Britain and the U.S. proceeded to implement TPAJAX and illegally overthrew the constitutional government of Iran, removing Mosaddegh as Prime Minister and installing an abiding puppet in his place.
Despite this, the U.S. acts as if it were justified in its incredibly hostile 40 year foreign policy towards Iran, largely over a hostage crisis (to which all hostages were safely returned home), and which was likely purposefully provoked by the U.S. as a pretext to sabotaging the European Monetary System (see my paper on this).
If Iran can forgive what the U.S. did to throw their country into disarray and keep their beloved leader Mosaddegh locked away as a political prisoner for the rest of his life, who was even refused a proper burial (1), then the U.S. government is in no position to harbour such distrust and hatred over the distant past.
Although Iran is also incessantly accused of alleged terrorist activity, there is not one international court case to date that has actually provided evidence to follow through with such charges. What is standing in the way of this occurring if Iran’s crimes are apparently so immense and far reaching and are a matter of international security, as the U.S. government frequently protests?
These alleged terrorist accusations seem to be based in the same form of “reasoning” behind the incessant accusations that Iran is planning on building an “Islamic Bomb”. In 2007, under the fanatical neoconservative Dick Cheney (via operation Clean Break), the U.S. came very close to invading Iran on the pretext that Iran was actively working towards such a goal.
These threats occurred despite the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ElBaradei, insisting that Iran was cooperating with the IAEA demands in accordance with NPT standards and that there was no evidence to support that Iran was working on nuclear weapons. In fact, ElBaradei was so upset over Washington’s threats of war that he took to the press daily to emphasise that Iran was cooperating fully and there was no evidence to justify an invasion.
However, it wouldn’t be until the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Dec 3, 2007 that Cheney’s fantasy was finally dashed against the rocks. Within the NIE report, which was produced by American intelligence agencies, it was made crystal clear that Iran in fact had no military nuclear program since at least 2003 but possibly even further back. It was also no secret that the only reason why the report was made public was because members of the American intelligence community made it known that they were willing to go to the press about it, even if it meant ending up in prison.
Incredibly, Bush’s response to the press over this news was “Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will continue to be dangerous…”
Looking past the absurdity of Bush’s statement that Iran is dangerous, only 5 years after the illegal invasion of Iraq, justified by cooked British Intelligence, and the very real attempt to invade Iran in turn over fabricated accusations, the issue is in fact nothing to do with what Washington is claiming is their problem with Iran.
Atoms for Peace or Nuclear Apartheid?
The real “problem” with Iran is that it has become a great thorn in the “arc of crisis” game-plan. Despite Iran once being flooded with MI6, CIA and Israeli Mossad operatives, the Iranians have been largely successful in purging their nation of this infestation. Iran is thus refusing to be the west’s geopolitical linchpin. The more autonomous and prosperous Iran becomes, the greater the thorn.
The assassination of Gen. Maj. Soleimani in Jan 2020, was meant to be nothing less than a blatant provocation, as Bolton giddily tweeted, to cause Iran to take a misstep that would have justified a U.S. invasion and allowed for a reboot of the “arc of crisis”, flooding the country with actual terrorist groups, following the Iraq and Libyan models.
The real “threat” of Iran was expressed clearly when then President Bush Jr. visited the Middle East in Jan 2008 in an attempt to organise Arab states to offer their territory for U.S. military aggression against Iran. What he received as a response whether in Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE or Saudi Arabia was a resounding no.
The Al-Riyadh newspaper, which represents the views of the Saudi government, went so far as to state “We refuse to be used to launch wars or tensions with Iran…If the president [of the U.S.] wants to obtain the solidarity of all the Arabs…he must focus, rationally, on the most important issue which is the question of peace.”
Overlapping Bush’s visit, the Foreign Minister of Iraq joined with the Iranian Foreign Minister at a Tehran press conference to announce: “My country knows who is our friend and who is our enemy, and Iran is our friend.”
It is clear that despite the attempts to bring these nations to each other’s throats, the jig is up, and the tyrannical presence of the U.S. military in the Middle East is only going to unite these countries further. There will be no T.E. Lawrence organising of a Bedouin tribe this time around.
It is understood that if Iran were permitted to enter the world markets unhindered and to develop nuclear energy to sufficiently provide for its people, then Iran would become one of the top countries in the world. And as their Arab neighbours recognise, this would bring not only wealth and prosperity to their nations in turn, but the very much desired peace and security.
Iran as an economic powerhouse would also certainly align itself with Russia and China, as it has already begun, due to their common philosophy oriented in a multipolar governance frame emphasised by a win-win idea of economic cooperation. This alliance would naturally draw India, Japan and notably western Europe into its economic framework like the gravitational pull of a sun, and would result in the termination of the NATO-U.S. military industrial complex by ending the divide between east and west politics.
The fight for nuclear energy has always been about the fight for the right to develop one’s nation. And economic development of regions, such as the Middle East, is key to achieving sustainable peace. The reason why most countries are not “granted” this right to use nuclear power is because they are meant to remain as “serf” countries under a unipolar world order. Additionally, amongst the “privileged” countries who have been given the green light to possess uranium enrichment facilities, they are being told that they now need to shut down these nuclear capabilities under a Green New Deal.
This unipolar outlook was made evident by the Bush Administration’s attempt to assert guidelines that no country should be allowed to enrich uranium even to the low levels required for fuel for nuclear electric power plants, unless it is already in the U.S. dominated “Nuclear Suppliers Group”. All other nations would only be permitted to purchase power plant fuel from these “supplier” countries…with political conditions of course.
Everyone knows that oil revenues are not reliable for financing economic growth and Venezuela is a stark example of this. By limiting countries in the Middle East to oil as the main revenue, an incredibly volatile economic situation for the entire region is created, in addition to a complete subservience to “oil geopolitics”. Every nation has the right to defend itself against economic warfare by diversifying and stabilising its economy, and nuclear energy is absolutely key.
In British-based financial oligarchism, which is what runs the City of London (the financial center of the world for over 400 years to this day), the essential policy outlook which lurks behind the international oil cartels, is that who controls the oil, gas, strategic minerals, and food production will ultimately control the world, after the mass of paper values of a dying financial system have been swept away.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 