Iran and the West Dilemma !!!
January 27th, 2010Who followed the MEY posts over the last two weeks, would notice that most of the posts were against Iran and its right to develop nuclear energy. I just wonder WHY? Why an Iranian would denounce his own country and help the West to enslave his people under the false American propaganda of “Human rights” and “democracy”. Are we blind enough not to see how the western governments are blind to human rights when it comes to Arabs and muslims? Cant we see how the west are backing the Nuclear zionest entity while depriving the arabs from any opportunity to develop in any area of science? Why the West backed the racist South Africa with the Nuclear weapons but dispowered it when it became democratic?
How come America back the nuclear, racist and occupying regime of the zionist entity while fighting the Islamic Iran? Why the WEST is so hypocrite regarding human rights? Why “democracy” and “human rights” are used against muslims but the zionists are allowed to do all the crimes against the indigenous Palestinians? Why some of us, specially some mislead Iranians are working against the development and the power of their own country?
Here, is an interview ( by Kourosh Ziabari) with the great American intellectual Prof. Naom Chomsky that would shed some light on the hypocrisy of the West. I just chose it to show the other side of the coin, out and way from the hypocritical discourse of the American canned “human rights” and “democracy” !!!
…………………………………
In this interview I talked to Prof. Chomsky about Iran, nuclear issue, Washington-Tehran relations and the global impact of Zionist lobbies. An excerpt of this conversation was first published by the Iran’s leading English language daily Tehran Times.
Q: Prof. Chomsky; You have reiterated several times that the majority of world countries, including the members of Non-Alignment Movement, support the nuclear dossier of Iran, yet the American neo-cons are still trumpeting their hawkish mottos. Why?
A: Not only the non-aligned movement, but also the large majority of Americans believe that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy. But almost no one in the U.S. is aware of this. That includes those who are polled, and probably think they are the only ones who hold these beliefs. Nothing is ever published about it. What appears in the media, constantly, is that the “international community” demands that Iran stop uranium enrichment. Almost nowhere is it brought out that the term “international community” is used conventionally to refer to Washington and whoever happens to go along with it, not just on this issue, but quite generally.
Q: Most of the analysts of international affairs cannot still digest the nuclear double standards of the U.S. government. While supporting the atomic arsenal of Israel, U.S. continuously pressures Iran to halt its civilian nuclear programs. What are the reasons? Does the IAEA have the authority to probe into the cases of Israel’s atomic weaponry?
chomskyA: The basic point was explained very candidly by Henry Kissinger. He was asked by the Washington Post why he now claims that Iran does not need nuclear energy so it must be working on building a bomb, while in the 1970s he insisted forcefully that Iran needs nuclear energy and the U.S. must provide the Shah with the means to develop it. His answer was pure Kissinger: “They were an allied country” so they needed nuclear energy. Now they are not an ally, so they do not need nuclear energy. As for Israel, it is an ally, more accurately a client state. So they inherit from the master the right to do as they please.
The IAEA has the authority, but the US would never permit them to exercise it. The new U.S. administration has given no indication that it is any different.
Q: There are 4 sovereign states which have not yet ratified the NPT and freely pursue atomic weapons. Will Iran be extricated from the frequent pressures; should it halt its ratification and withdraw from the treaty?
A: No, that would simply escalate the pressures. Apart from North Korea, all of these countries receive extensive U.S. support. The Reagan administration pretended it did not know that its ally Pakistan was developing nuclear weapons, so that the dictatorship could receive massive U.S. aid. The U.S. has agreed to assist India in developing its nuclear facilities, and Israel is a special case.
Q: What probable factors may hamper the establishment of direct talks between Iran and the U.S.? Is the influence of Israeli lobby over the corporate regime of America a major one?
A: The Israeli lobby has some influence, but it is limited. That was demonstrated in the case of Iran, once again, last summer, during the presidential campaign, the time when the influence of lobbies is at its peak. The Israeli Lobby wanted Congress to pass legislation that came close to calling for a blockade of Iran, an act of war. The measure gained considerable support, but then suddenly disappeared, probably because the White House made it clear, quietly, that it was opposed.
As for the actual factors, we do not yet have adequate internal records, so it is necessary to speculate. We do know that a large majority of Americans want to have normal relations with Iran, but public opinion rarely influences policy. Major US corporations, including the powerful energy corporations, would like to be able to exploit Iran’s petroleum resources. But the state insists otherwise. I presume that the main reason is that Iran is just too independent and disobedient. Great powers do not tolerate that in what they take to be their domains, and the world’s major energy-producing regions have long been considered the domain of the Anglo-American alliance, now with Britain reduced to junior partner.
Q: Will there be a tactical or systematical transformation in the approach of American mainstream media toward Iran during the tenure of Mr. Obama? Should we expect a cut-off in the mass of anti-Iranian black propaganda?
A: The media generally adhere fairly closely to the general framework of state policy, though policies are sometimes criticized on tactical grounds. A lot, therefore, depends on the stand that the Obama administration will take.
Q: And finally, do you believe that the U.S. President should follow the Iranian proposal and apologize for its historical crimes against Iran?
A: I think that the powerful should always concede their crimes and apologize to the victims, in fact go much farther and provide reparations. Unfortunately, the world is largely governed by the maxim of Thucydides: the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must. Slowly, over time, the world is becoming more civilized, in general. But there is a long way to go.
Loading ...
Loading...
There is a great blog called IranAffairs.com that covers a lot of details about Iran’s nuclear program that the mainstream media ignore — such as the fact that Iran’s nuclear program started with the assistance and encouragement of the United States, and that it was not ever a “secret”
See http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2006/05/blasts_from_the.html
Thanks Sami for the article. I didnt know about the interview that Koroush had done with Naom Chomsky. Interesting read..
Sami
You have made some very poor observations when you write this post.
You dont seem to notice that it is the Iranian people who want human rights and many of them want democracy too. This is not a surprise when Khamenei and other leaders are raping, torturing and killing them, and when elections are not run fairly. Why do you think human rights are American propaganda rather than an international idea that almost everyone wants? Dont you want human rights?
the great American intellectual Prof. Naom Chomsky
Ehsan…
Do you want the Iranians to enjoy the American “democracy” like the Iraqis are enjoying it very much now? What are the Americans doing in Afghanistan other than killing children in the name of “human rights” ???
Iran got the right for self development and nuclear energy away and out of the American hypocrisy that is devastating the region in the name of their civilization of death !!!
Well its a good thing smai that US forces are not only killing children in the name of human rights. I mean what are the taliban doing in afghanistan other than killing children in the name of “resistance” I mean after all it has been proven that the Taliban are responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan.
Your forgetting that the USA and other European nations are not against Iran developing nuclear energy and only that, there claims is that Iran is also covertly trying to build a nuclear weapons facility. That small facility that was recently revealed was clearly shown to be to small to be used for energy purposes.
Sami,
Do you go on these anti-everything US/Israel rants just for attention, or do you just simply like antagonizing?
The Iranian people have made it clear that they don’t want nor care about nuclear energy. We’ve all made these points clear to you in various Iran posts, yet you continue to spit back with your typical U.S./Israel conspiracy theories.
Secondly, I don’t know you would use an interview with a lefty wannabe pseudo-intellectual like Chomsky.
Chomsky thinks that the U.S. is the only one pushing for Iran to stop its nuclear program, yet countries like Italy, France, Germany, and others have already made it clear that a nuclear Iran is unnaceptable.
I guess I’m going to have to state this again—
1.) The Ahmadinejad government has shown its harsh stance with the West, and has even mentioned ’speeding up’ the end times process to bring forth the 12th imam (can’t do so without creating as much chaos and violence as possible). It is highly unlikely that the nuclear program is just for civilian energy purposes.
2.) The IRI supports terrorism (politically driven attacks on civilians to instill fear on those the perpetrators are in conflict with) i.e. proxies in Iraq, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. Meaning, if Iran were to have a bomb, it is possible that they would supply these groups with one to “Wipe Israel off the map”.
3.) A nuclear Iran would not only be a threat to itself, but those nations around it. It would cause other gulf or middle east nations to follow suit and develop nuclear weapons to protect against the only Shiite power in the region.
I understand your belief that the Iranian people should be self-sufficient, and have a right to develop certain technologies, but not under a fanatical,medieval government like this.
An Iran that uses nuclear power for legitimate means is not a problem.
An Iran that acquires a nuclear arsenal would be a disaster for the for the region, for the people of Iran, and for the world at large.
The Iranian regime does not enjoy the legitimacy of its people, of the nations of the region, and of the international community. Weapons of mass destruction do not belong in the hands of illegitimate regimes which are hell-bent on bringing about chaos.
An Iranian stockpile of nuclear weapons would result in tragic consequences: a regional nuclear arms race, a security blanket for terrorist groups to do as they wish, a further suppression of the Iranian people, a threat to the free flow of oil with its resulting economic doom, and the possibility of nuclear weapons coming into the hand of terrorists. All in all, a good recipe for World War III.
The writing is on the the wall, as it was in World War II. Iran, under the current regime, must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, on the other hand, could be negotiated.
Hamid…
First, I know that the situation in Iran is not perfectand there can never be full freedom, otherwise it will be like the “creative anarchy” that Mr. Ramsfield created in Iraq,,, in addition, it is shame for me to cooperate with the an atrocious and brutal regime (like the American one) against my own country… The Iranian internal problems should be discussed and solved internally and any American or zionist intervention will never bring prosperity nor import “human rights” for the Iranians…
It might take some time to improve in Iran as it is a semi democratic country that have periodic elections … but the real problem lies in the feudal autocratic arab regimes that are backed by the Americans, how can we change in such regimes while they are sooo backward and supported by the Americn police of the world?
It seems that it is hard for me to convince you and my answers fall in a different realm than your discourse and way o thinking, however, Let me ask you some questions that I got tired of giving answers, and I hope your answers would enlighten my dark mintality and open spacious horizon for my primitive way of thinking:
1. Why that USA ad the West empowered the Racist South Africa (with nuclear energy ) when it was racist and “dispowered” it when it became democratic- Te same question can be asked of Iran while the Shah reign and after the Islamic revolution-
2. Do you think that the West and the USA pay any attention to “human rights” in Iran or care for the Iranians, other than using them to occupy the region and control the oil resources?
3. Why the USA regime support green Iranians while supporting feudal, backward and autocratic regimes like the Saudi one and also support, back and finance the zionist occupation that suppress a whole people !!!
notice that I am not talking of conspiracy theory but explicit, clear and open policies that no one can deny or turn a bind eye of !!
Sami