And the Loser is Iran
If normal and honest relations between nations guide treaty accords, then a sovereign nation has little to gain and much to lose by engaging in accords that violate its national sovereignty. If relations are abnormal and dishonest; if a nation is being attacked by economic warfare and cannot properly defend itself and if it agrees to not do things it already is not doing, then a compromise to its national feelings may be worth the effort. Iran found itself in that abnormal position, and by signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more familiarly known as the Nuclear Accords, the Islamic Republic was willing to compromise its pride in order to prevent an economic collapse. Whatever Iran agreed to, the western nations gained and Iran lost. Sovereign nations do not have to sign deals of this nature.
Understanding the accords and determining their worth is like wading through a fog with a butter knife. Carefully reading an evaluation from an objective, erudite and unemotional source is a preferred method for comprehension and decision. Those who cannot provide a legitimate analysis but eschew the JCPOA and base their negative stance on emotional pleas, obvious deceit, exaggerations and falsehoods, signal the opposite of their position. By shouting, screaming, pulling, twisting, trying to make the world believe that this nuclear deal will endanger everyone's survival, the antagonists reveal their true purpose - they do not want any accord; they want Iran, similar to Iraq, to be demolished and they want U.S. citizens to shed their blood to satisfy a revived neocon purpose.
Why do these protectors of the realm want Iran destroyed - not for defense but so they can perpetrate their own offense -- they fear Iran may act as a deterrent to their own future aggression. Honest judgments and objective rebuttals are welcome. But when a group attempts to deceive and gain support for their own diabolical interests, they warrant exposure. Examine the record.
Iran cannot win a war with a nuclear weapon; it can only posture and threaten use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Its principal antagonists, Israel, United States and Saudi Arabia have elements that shield themselves from a nuclear attack by Iran.
Israel's small size makes it likely that the fallout from a nuclear weapon will endanger the entire region, especially Iran's allies. A strike on Israel will be countered with a torrent of nuclear missiles that will completely wipe large Iran off the map and without fallout causing harm to neighboring nations or Israel's lone ally or any nation considering a reprisal to the Israeli attack. With little to gain and everything to lose, why would Iran engage in a nuclear aggression?
Saudi Arabia contains the holy sites of the Muslim religion. The Mullahs are not prepared to disturb those sites or its guardians. Saudi princes know they need not fear a nuclear attack from Iran.
Before any missile reached U.S. shores, the Islamic Republic would be demolished by Tomahawk missiles on aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. Why are the Tomahawks there, if not as a deterrent?
Why do Iran's aggressive antagonists want sanctions to continue?
Is it for what they claim or is it to make the Iranians destitute and their nation go bankrupt?
Presidential candidate Senator Cruz has said he is against relieving the sanctions because he believes Iran will not use the income to build roads, educational institutions and feed its people. Cruz insists the treacherous government will use the windfall resulting from not being penniless to increase its ballistic capability, prop up Hezbollah and Syria, arm terrorists throughout the world and strengthen the Revolutionary Guard.
That's odd. Iran has good roads, excellent education institutions, a well educated and well fed public, weak military with no real air force or powerful naval force. Why when the Mullahs had funds did they not do what Senator Cruz claim they will now do? As for, assisting Hezbollah and Assad's Syria, how much documented and not guesswork assistance is there, probably minuscule compared to U.S. billions of dollars in military assistance each year to Israel and sales of billions of dollars of military hardware to Saudi Arabia? Neither Hezbollah nor Syria has exhibited possession of sophisticated hardware. Rockets are not guided missiles. Why do Israel and Saudi Arabia need all this junk; are they really threatened by Iran's old tanks, dilapidated airplanes and PT boats?
Foreign Policy at http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/10/the-myth-of-the-iranian-military-giant/ describes the disparity:
In 2014, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), more than 25 percent of Saudi government spending was devoted to beefing up its military assets - expenditures that totaled more than $80 billion. Along with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which spent nearly $23 billion. During 2014, Iran's military spending was about $15 billion,
For the Gulf Arab countries, this includes some of the most modern American military hardware, such as the latest fighter jets from Boeing and Lockheed Martin, Predator drones, Apache attack helicopters, Patriot air-defense systems, and stockpiles of the latest missiles, bombs, and other weapons.
Global firepower at http://www.globalfirepower.com/ shows Iran having 119 attack aircraft, same as Singapore. Iran has 397 ships, but no destroyers or aircraft carriers and 111 of these boats are coastal defense craft. Iran has advanced ballistic capability, only because its military has no other advanced capability. The military rating outfit lists Iran's military potential below that of Brazil.
Those who repeat the constantly repeated falsehood that relieving Iran of sanctions allows the Mullahs to sponsor global terrorism never bother to provide proof for their assertion.
Aiding Israel to demolish Gaza and Lebanon is considered a normal activity. Aiding Hamas and Hezbollah to defend themselves against Israel's onslaughts is considered terrorism. All proven attacks attributed to Iranians have been directed against officials of one nation, Israel, and were undoubtedly tit-for-tat operations, revenge for killing of Iranian nationals, and carried a warning -- harm our nationals and we will harm your nationals. The killings of several Iranians nationals by Israel's Mossad do not appear in the State Department reports on terrorism.
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns that Iran is trying to "conquer the entire Middle East and wants to wipe Israel off the map."
Although Iran has not sent a single soldier cross its borders to invade another nation and has insufficient military power to contest a United States' reprisal, Iran is accused of trying to conquer the entire Middle East. Because rebellions from oppressed Shi'a factions are occurring in Bahrain and Yemen, to which Iran's support has been shown to be minuscule, if not zero, Iran is accused of using surrogates to extend their power -- guilt by association. Because Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah have extended friendship (who does not want to have friends), Iran, who cannot even sell its pistachio nuts to these nations, is accused of controlling them.
Israel is considered the 4th strongest military power in the world. The latest version of its Jericho system has an estimated range of 5,000 kilometers. For some unknown reason, Germany has delivered five submarines to Israel, each capable of being equipped with nuclear-armed cruise missiles. And Iran is accused of starting an arms race.
Israel's Intelligence Minister, Yuval Steinitz, has told his citizens that "if we have no choice we have no choice the military option is on the table." Iran, rated the 23rd strongest military power, a far 23rd, has its former, long former, President Ahmadinejad repeatedly quoted with purposeful distortions of his remark, "We will wipe Israel off the map." We are led to believe that a few twisted words are sufficient to propel Israeli pilots to scramble for their Lockheed F-35 jets but Iran need not be frightened by Israel's bellicose statements and overwhelming military power.
The following paragraph from an article in Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-scham/lets-make-good-use-of-thi_b_7911564.html, continues the charade of linking a purposely distorted remark by the infamous Ahmadinejad to having a militarily weak Iran ready to destroy Israel by the wet noodle of a few words and making it seem as if it is taken for granted.
First, Israel's genuine fears, even if exaggerated, have to be recognized. Prime Minister Netanyahu's rejection of the agreement is shared by many Israelis, including the overly cautious Labor opposition. Former Iranian President Ahmadinajad and other Iranian spokesmen succeeded all too well in convincing Israelis that the Iranian regime constitutes an existential threat, and current President Rouhani's moderation has not yet dispelled that fear.
The opening sentence should read: "Israel's disingenuous fears should not be recognized." A later sentence should read: "Israel succeeded all too well in convincing others that distorted remarks from former Iranian President Ahmadinajad and other Iranian spokesmen constitute an existential threat."
And of course, Iran cannot be trusted, its leaders lie.
And that may be true, but not nearly as significant as when President Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction or when Israel's Prime Ministers lied to U.S. authorities during development of their nuclear bomb and during their expansions of West Bank settlements.
Israel apologists and its propaganda machinery try to convince the world that Iran has always lied and will continue to lie. However, the world knows exactly the nature of Iran's nuclear developments and nothing concrete of Israel's nuclear developments, which have been hidden by lies, tricks, and duplicity since U.S. inspectors visited Dimona in the 1960's.
After the United States discovered the Dimona reactor in 1960, U.S. nuclear specialists inspected Dimona every year from 1965 through 1969, looking for signs of nuclear weapon production. It is not clear what they found, but in 1968 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reported to President Lyndon Johnson its conclusion that Israel had already made an atomic bomb. In 1969, Israel limited inspection visits by U.S. scientists to such an extent that the Americans complained in writing. Without explanation, the Nixon administration ended the visits the following year." [
Israel's Nuclear Weapon Capability: An Overview, The Risk Report, Volume 2 Number 4 (July-August 1996)
To rally the United States against Iran, the propagandists circulate the far fetched assertion that "Iran has been responsible for killing more Americans than any other terrorist nation, except al-Qaeda."
This is a prime example of how a propaganda agency originates simple remarks without furnishing proof, and repeatedly circulates the speculation as fact for decades. All of the reports contain the words, "it is believed," "no question about the connection," "we have concluded," and other similar ambiguous statements. Sure, Iran wants to help those who are its allies; sure Iran felt that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was resulting in control and oppression of Iraq and favored furnishing arms to balance the situation; sure Iran has no liking to Israel or U.S. military and is expected to counter its enemies where it can. But Iran has not been shown to deliberately kill U.S. personnel, as Israel did in its attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, killing 34 U. S. sailors and wounding 171, or to shoot down a U.S. civilian airliner, as the USS Vincennes did to Iran flight 655. Americans are told daily of the imprisonment of a few Americans by Iranian authorities but never have there been any killings and wounding of U.S. citizens. They do not learn of the many Americans that Israel has killed, beaten, shot, and wounded. These reports never make the U.S. press. The Electronic Intifada, https://electronicintifada.net/content/why-wont-us-investigate-israeli-violence-against-us-citizens/13577 mentions several incidents.
The depth to which the antagonists of the JCPOA are willing to sink in order to further their interests by deception is shown in an article in the Weekly Standard, a magazine identified with neocon Bill Krstol.
Iran Is Working with al Qaeda
So why are we working with Iran? Aug 3, 2015, by Thomas Joscelyn
The Treasury Department explained that a deal requires al Qaeda's men to report to the regime. "Under the terms of the agreement between al Qaeda and Iran, al Qaeda must refrain from conducting any operations within Iranian territory and recruiting operatives inside Iran while keeping Iranian authorities informed of their activities." Al Qaeda benefits from this relationship. "In return" for accepting Iran's terms, Treasury continued, "the Government of Iran gave the Iran-based al Qaeda network freedom of operation and uninhibited ability to travel for extremists and their families." Iranian authorities enforce these terms, which were negotiated "with the knowledge" of Osama bin Laden's right-hand man, by detaining al Qaeda members who do not comply.
The Weekly Standard also accused the Obama administration of hiding information on Iran's contacts with al Qaeda by failing to reveal Osama bin Laden's letters.
The absurdity of this article demonstrates the absurdity of the extremists who contest the accord with Iran:
(1) Why would Iran, whose nation and allied Shi'a populations are a principal target of al Qaeda operatives, cooperate with al Qaeda?
(2) The referenced "agreement" occurred 13 years ago, and only involved individuals whom the Iranian government determined to be suspicious.
(3) By the Weekly Standard logic, Germany that housed the 9/11 conspirators for years and the Bush administration that offered them flying lessons should be placed on trial for aiding and abetting al Qaeda.
(4) The so called letters of Osama bin Laden apparently say what the Weekly Standard already says. Not only is the information 13 years old but is not being hidden; it had already been known years ago.
Purposeful lies and deceit by the revived neocons cannot be ignored; they have serious implications.
Those fervently against the JCPOA are recommending belligerent action against Iran. This will not be a conventional war, but missile and air attacks to which Iran will be incapable of responding. The Iranian people will suffer greatly. Iran's only possible response will be wholesale terror attacks against Americans worldwide and for generations; probable but not definite. Except for rockets from Lebanon, Israelis will be shielded behind their walls and closed borders. Assuredly, Israel will be well prepared for the unguided rockets, respond viciously, and use the battle as an opportunity to silence Hezbollah for a long time.
Netanyahu's scenario follows a pattern of using American lives and clout to further Israel's interests and decimate its adversaries. Survey the record -- destruction of Iraq, destruction of Sudan, destruction of Libya, destruction of Egypt, destruction of Syria and now Iran. Only Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries will be left standing, remaining in that position as long as they show no threat to Israel.
It will also mean that Iran, the one nation that can greatly assist the United States in its war against ISIS, will be weakened. ISIS will become a greater adversary, more entrenched, more offensive, and a more advanced killing machine.
HOME PAGE MAIN PAGE firstname.lastname@example.org