I understand some may feel that I am whipping a horse that will not run, but someone has to tell the sane side of this situation for there is already enough misinformation being reported about the Vienna nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
When the news is not about GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and his latest senseless provocation or the irrational uttering from some politician looking for visibility, then the American media lets the diatribes loose about the upcoming vote of the Iranian nuclear deal, an extraordinary agreement reached by teams of diplomats of the P5+1 countries (the People’s Republic of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany) plus the European Union with the Iranian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
At the time the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was officially announced on July 14, the country was thrilled that after decades of animosities there could finally be some sanity returning to the world of international relations. However, the lobbying machine straightaway went into full swing (mostly financed by Israel, ayatollahs’ sworn enemy) to find a way to reject any draft agreement but one that would be extremely humiliating for Tehran (and therefore implausible to be ever accepted). Jerusalem has pulled out all stops, especially from the Senators and Congressmen it has a strong influence on, like U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs also keeps repeating the same warning that it has been pushing since the 1980’s, namely that Persia will have a nuclear bomb within a very brief time frame unleashing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The American agent of the Israeli government, the Robert Cohen-led AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is using all its lobbying ‘influence’ to get politicians inline, challenge President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz up to the hilt.
It seems to me most of the media has been in Israel’s corner for a long time and even they, the fair and balanced, are helping spread some lies that Israel cooks up in a physiological game of diplomacy. The latest one reminded me (and many others) of the lie of the yellowcake uranium powder supposedly bought by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2002. Unfortunately, the Associated Press, the world’s largest news agency, has been spreading the above-mentioned lie like peanut butter for several days. This is what Jason Ditz, news editor at Antiwar.com, wrote about it:
The Associated Press track record on Iran is getting worse and worse. After Tuesday’s debacle with a litany of false claims from George Jahn, the AP attempted to save face Wednesday by publishing a transcript of the agreement between Iran and the IAEA on which the allegations were based. Canadian who serves as director of the Arms Control program for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, offered an annotated version of the AP’s putative transcript, pointing out among other things that in the second paragraph the transcript actually got Iran’s name wrong, incorrectly labeling them the “Islamic State of Iran.” That’s more than a minor typo from the Iranian perspective, as the nation refers to itself as the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” and in later cases when they are simply called “Iran,” the preferred shortened version in official documents would be the Islamic Republic.
What Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet are up in arms about, in case you have been away both physically and mentally for the holidays, is that the deal in question would allow the heirs of the millennial Persian Empire to “self inspect”.
The AP alleged on Wednesday that the Iran deal would allow Iran to “inspect itself,” though the initial article was later heavily edited, and ended up almost entirely reaction from US hawks. After the IAEA confirmed this story was untrue, they released the transcript on Thursday, apparently in an effort to vindicate themselves. The revelation that the transcript itself is a forgery just adds to the scandal surrounding the AP’s haphazard reporting on the Iran deal.
All this should sound like a mere lie to all judicious people. I know this is not what part of the American public wants to hear but the truth, at least according to an objective conception of the latter, hurts. Now all thousands of people wait for is the media retracting the validity of this story. How much longer are we supposed to wait?
Here is a thought for all the naysayers and those that are still angry about the 1979 hostage crisis. Let’s assume Israel convinces policymakers and the agreement is axed, so that the neocons get their way and a military attack on Iran is arranged. What will that mean, simple and straightforward?
U.S. citizens need to realize that an overwhelming majority of the world community is in favor of the agreement signed by diplomats in the Palais Coburg Hotel of the Austrian capital, primarily for economic reasons (indeed, several European governments have already sent high-level delegations to have agreements signed in view of the impending opening of Iranian markets to a number of enticed Western companies). This basically means that if action is decided, the United States will be fighting it alone.
Rejection means the U.S. is alone. No one else, not even Britain, will follow us. We will be acting entirely unilaterally, without friends or allies (with the exception of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu). And those who claim that we can simply return to sanctions are hopelessly blind to reality. No one will be with us – absolutely no one. The sanctions will be unilateral and even more feckless than they were before diplomacy achieved comprehensive participation in them. We will be the isolated state. Such an invasion and occupation will require half a million to a million troops, two to three trillion taxpayer dollars, and probably five years to a decade to accomplish even moderate success in subduing all opposition (think Iraq and think a return to conscription). Iran is four and a half times the size of Iraq, with more than twice as many people, and with a national cohesion unlike any other country in the region. In the event of a U.S. invasion, neither the number of troops in Iran’s military nor the size of its military budget would matter. Fifty million or more Iranians would unite to oppose our invading forces. Asymmetric warfare – a fancy name for unconventional warfare such as the U.S. fought in Vietnam – would likely kill 50,000 to 60,000 Americans, wound over 100,000 and make the U.S. decade in Vietnam pale in comparison. Plus, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan would be boiling, Russia and China would have significant interests at stake and would likely fund and fuel proxies, and the entire region would be in flames. Turkey’s remaining in NATO could well be at stake and NATO in general would shudder at its erstwhile leader’s strategic recklessness and unreliability. (US News and World Report)
Can politicians be so vindictive that they would even squander American lives and resources?
It would be such a virtuous practice to ask every voter before they believe anything that is likely to lead to war and death to spend a little time deciding if it is really worth it. For this purpose, I would strongly suggest you read this simplified synopsis by Vox.
Once again the American people could be asked to face yet another conflict predicated on what is, to put it frankly, a diplomatic lie aimed at maintaining an unsustainable status quo. A lie that could have catastrophic consequences for the role and credibility of Washington D.C. in the uncertain future of international relations. The question is: is it really worth taking such an unnecessary risk?