There have been extensive and contradictory reports of foreign intervention in Iran’s post-election turmoil. The majority of Western leaders condemned the crackdowns, having previously expressed their outrage at the results and alleged irregularities. A question arises here, and that is on the reasons for Western leaders’ silence and apathy about the deteriorating process of democracy in the neighboring monarchies and semi-tyrannies; Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. If they really care about democracy, why don’t they take steps to democratize these autocracies?
The charge that the Iranian election was stolen is propagandistic. Iran is under attack because it is one of two remaining independent countries in the region. If Iran also falls under U.S. hegemony, it is the end of Syria’s independence and of Hamas and Hezbollah. The campaign against Iran has nothing to do with the state of Iranian democracy or elections and the campaign has little to do with nuclear energy or weapons. The allegation of an Iranian nuclear weapon is the fear factor equivalent to Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”. What the U.S. cannot tolerate is Iran’s existence as an independent country.
Did the U.S. corporate and mainstream media organize structural and pre-planned efforts to sow the seeds of uncertainty and ambiguity about the results of Iran’s presidential elections during the campaign season and even before the election took place?
The U.S. media’s demonization of Ahmadinejad during his first term created the foundation for the propagandistic charge that Ahmadinejad stole his reelection. Everything that Ahmadinejad did, said, and did not say was used to demonize him in the Western media.
For example, the false charge that Ahmadinejad wants to “wipe Israel off the map” is based on an incorrect translation that many language experts have exposed. Yet, the entire western media continues to report every time Ahmadinejad is mentioned that he wants to wipe Israel off the map.
In the years preceding the recent Iranian election, Ahmadinejad was portrayed as an embarrassment and an oppressor whom Iranians would remove in the next election.
What’s your idea on the prospects for Iran’s relations with the West under the shadows of the current row? Should Iran pursue a confrontational and antagonistic foreign policy in order to avoid becoming a “U.S. puppet” and an “E.U. stooge” in the eyes of global public opinion?
It is not Iran that is pursuing a confrontational foreign policy. It is the U.S. government. The U.S. government is antagonistic to the 30-year old Islamic government in Iran because it overthrew the U.S. puppet government in Iran. The U.S. government hides its antagonism behind moral veils such as “women’s rights”, “democracy”, “human rights”, and so forth, but the real intention is to bring Iran to heel. Whether Iran remains independent might depend on how Russia and China view the American threat to themselves.
Inarguably, one of the main reasons the Western media outlets and political leaders dislike Ahmadinejad is his steadfast stance on the nuclear program. According to the new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief, there hasn’t been any categorical evidence for Iran’s atomic deviation, and U.S. statesmen haven’t shown any proof either. Given the forceful remarks of President Obama, who has expressed his commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons technology, should we expect the continuance of belligerence and hostility between the two governments in the coming years?
The nuclear weapon issue is a pretext for Washington, not a real issue. It is merely a way to paint Iran as a threat. If Iran were to develop a weapon, it could not be used against Israel without destroying the Palestinians as well, and perhaps Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and areas of Syria.
As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran is permitted a nuclear energy program. The IAEA inspections, to which Iran submits, are designed to detect any diversion to a weapons program. The U.S. government should stop making false charges against the Iranian government. If the IAEA finds evidence of a weapons program, then it would be appropriate for the U.S. to lead in imposing sanctions. Instead, the U.S. government has put the cart before the horse, imposing sanctions and threatening military attack prior to any evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
The unanimous NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] report concluded that Iran had abandoned its weapons program 5 years ago. As for Ahmadinejad, he lacks the authority to decide for or against a nuclear program, whether energy or weapons. Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. He is essentially an administrator and a spokesman, a chief operating officer.
