FOLLY OF ATTACKING IRAN "Together, we can push our elected leaders to support real talks with Iran without pre-conditions – and to oppose a military attack."
On the foreign stage, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a reputation on combative rhetoric. At home...his reputation hinges on...tomatoes?
Produced by: Kouross Esmaeli Duration: 00:05:32 Location: Tehran, Iran
BBC Documentary on Iran: RAGEH IN IRAN
Current mood: grateful
Rageh Omaar embarks on a unique journey inside what he describes as one of the most misunderstood countries in the world, looking at the country through the eyes of people rarely heard - ordinary Iranians. [video runs about 90 minutes]
Professional background: Akbar Ganji is considered Iran's leading investigative journalist. He is also the author of the best-selling book Dungeon of Ghosts, a collection of Ganji's newspaper articles published in early 2000, in which he implicated the former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and other leading conservative figures in the "serial murders" of five writers and intellectuals in 1998. The book is said to have seriously damaged the reputation of Rafsanjani, and is thought to have been a major factor in the conservative defeat in the parliamentary elections of February 2000.
Washington's escalation of threats against Iran is driven by a determination to secure control of the region's energy resources.
In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington's basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important. As was the norm during the cold war, resort to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the malign influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest of pretexts. Unsurprisingly, as Bush sends more troops to Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq - a country otherwise free from any foreign interference - on the tacit assumption that Washington rules the world.
In the cold war-like mentality in Washington, Tehran is portrayed as the pinnacle in the so-called Shia crescent that stretches from Iran to Hizbullah in Lebanon, through Shia southern Iraq and Syria. And again unsurprisingly, the "surge" in Iraq and escalation of threats and accusations against Iran is accompanied by grudging willingness to attend a conference of regional powers, with the agenda limited to Iraq.
Presumably this minimal gesture toward diplomacy is intended to allay the growing fears and anger elicited by Washington's heightened aggressiveness. These concerns are given new substance in a detailed study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism experts Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, revealing that the Iraq war "has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide". An "Iran effect" could be even more severe.
For the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance. Iranian influence in the "crescent" challenges US control. By an accident of geography, the world's major oil resources are in largely Shia areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington's worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US.
Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy Security Grid based in China. Iran could be a lynchpin. If the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously undermined the US position of power in the world.
To Washington, Tehran's principal offence has been its defiance, going back to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the hostage crisis at the US embassy. In retribution, Washington turned to support Saddam Hussein's aggression against Iran, which left hundreds of thousands dead. Then came murderous sanctions and, under Bush, rejection of Iranian diplomatic efforts.
Last July, Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion since 1978. As before, US support was a critical factor, the pretexts quickly collapse on inspection, and the consequences for the people of Lebanon are severe. Among the reasons for the US-Israel invasion is that Hizbullah's rockets could be a deterrent to a US-Israeli attack on Iran. Despite the sabre-rattling it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran. Public opinion in the US and around the world is overwhelmingly opposed. It appears that the US military and intelligence community is also opposed. Iran cannot defend itself against US attack, but it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting even more havoc in Iraq. Some issue warnings that are far more grave, among them the British military historian Corelli Barnett, who writes that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch world war three".
Then again, a predator becomes even more dangerous, and less predictable, when wounded. In desperation to salvage something, the administration might risk even greater disasters. The Bush administration has created an unimaginable catastrophe in Iraq. It has been unable to establish a reliable client state within, and cannot withdraw without facing the possible loss of control of the Middle East's energy resources.
Meanwhile Washington may be seeking to destabilise Iran from within. The ethnic mix in Iran is complex; much of the population isn't Persian. There are secessionist tendencies and it is likely that Washington is trying to stir them up - in Khuzestan on the Gulf, for example, where Iran's oil is concentrated, a region that is largely Arab, not Persian.
Threat escalation also serves to pressure others to join US efforts to strangle Iran economically, with predictable success in Europe. Another predictable consequence, presumably intended, is to induce the Iranian leadership to be as repressive as possible, fomenting disorder while undermining reformers.
It is also necessary to demonise the leadership. In the west, any wild statement by President Ahmadinejad is circulated in headlines, dubiously translated. But Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US media tend to ignore Khamenei's statements, especially if they are conciliatory. It's widely reported when Ahmadinejad says Israel shouldn't exist - but there is silence when Khamenei says that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, calling for normalisation of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a two-state settlement.
The US invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. The message was that the US attacks at will, as long as the target is defenceless. Now Iran is ringed by US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf, and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to US support.
In 2003, Iran offered negotiations on all outstanding issues, including nuclear policies and Israel-Palestine relations. Washington's response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer. The following year, the EU and Iran reached an agreement that Iran would suspend enriching uranium; in return the EU would provide "firm guarantees on security issues" - code for US-Israeli threats to bomb Iran.
Apparently under US pressure, Europe did not live up to the bargain. Iran then resumed uranium enrichment. A genuine interest in preventing the development of nuclear weapons in Iran would lead Washington to implement the EU bargain, agree to meaningful negotiations and join with others to move toward integrating Iran into the international economic system.
--------
Noam Chomsky is co-author, with Gilbert Achcar, of Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy.
US initially provided Iran nuclear know-how
Current mood: curious
Category: News and Politics
Some may also wonder how Iran managed to get the ability to develop nuclear facilities in the first place. It would be sensible to perhaps assume that after the fall of the Soviet Union nuclear technology may have been more easily available and that how Iran got it.
However, ironically perhaps, it was the US that gave Iran the nuclear know-how in the 1960s and 1970s when the Shah dictator was installed by the CIA, and was seen as an ally for the US in the region (until the Shah was overthrown by an Islamic Revolution, when the USA supported Saddam Hussein against Iran).
Stephen Zunes, in the same above-mentioned article also notes the US's role in helping Iran in the past:
Lost in Bush's current obsession with Iran's nuclear intentions is the fact that the United States—from the Eisenhower administration through the Carter years—played a major role in the development of Iran's nuclear program. In 1957, Washington and Tehran signed their first civil nuclear cooperation agreement. Over the next two decades, the United States provided Iran not only with technical assistance but with its first experimental nuclear reactor, complete with enriched uranium and plutonium with fissile isotopes. Despite the refusal of the shah to rule out the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons, the Ford administration approved the sale to Iran of up to eight nuclear reactors (with fuel) and later cleared the sale of lasers believed to be capable of enriching uranium. Surpassing any danger from the mullahs now in power, the shah's megalomania led arms control advocates to fear a diversion of the technology for military purposes.
The "Washington Post" reported that an initially hesitant President Ford was assured by his advisers that Iran was only interested in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy despite the country's enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. Ironically, Ford's secretary of defense was Donald Rumsfeld, his chief of staff was Dick Cheney, and his head of nonproliferation efforts at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was Paul Wolfowitz, all of whom—as officials in the current administration—have insisted that Iran's nuclear program must be assumed to have military applications.
Renowned Iranian investigative journalist and dissident Akbar Ganji discusses why he recently declined an invitation to the meet with President Bush in the White House. Recently released from prison, Ganji discusses human rights abuses in Iran, the nuclear issue and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rise to power. [includes rush transcript]
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has issued a new challenge to President Bush - a televised debate. On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad said he would like to debate Bush about "world affairs" and the ways to solve them. Ahmadinejad's comments come ahead of the UN's deadline Thursday for Iran to suspend nuclear enrichment.
The White House dismissed the idea of a debate, describing it as a diversion from concerns over Iran's nuclear program. Well, as Bush refused the Iranian president's invitation to a debate, today we turn to an Iranian dissident who refused Bush's invitation to the White House. Akbar Ganji is a renowned Iranian activist and investigative journalist. He recently visited Democracy Now!'s firehouse studio in the midst of his month-long world tour to raise awareness about human rights violations in Iran. His visit came just months following his release from an Iranian jail where he was imprisoned for nearly six years.
Akbar also used his time in the United States to speak out against human rights abuses in Iran. He took part in a three-day hunger strike outside of the UN aimed at forcing the Iranian government to release political prisoners. But he also carried a message for the Bush administration. Ganji declined a personal invitation to the White House to meet with top U.S officials overseeing Iran policy. I began by asking Akbar Ganji why he declined the offer. The conversation was translated by Hossein Kamaly.
Akbar Ganji, Iranian dissident and investigative journalist. (translated by Hossein Kamaly)
AMY GOODMAN: Today, we turn to an Iranian dissident who refused Bush's invitation to the White House. Akbar Ganji is a renowned Iranian activist and investigative journalist, recently visited Democracy Now!?s Firehouse studio in the midst of this month-long world tour to raise awareness about human rights violations in Iran. His visit came just months following his release from an Iranian jail where he was imprisoned for nearly six years, imprisoned and tortured.
Akbar also used his time in the U.S. to speak out against human rights abuses in Iran. He took part in a three-day hunger strike outside of the UN, aimed at forcing the Iranian government to release political prisoners. But he also carried a message for the Bush administration. Yes, he declined that personal invitation to the White House to meet with top U.S. officials overseeing Iran policy.
This is part two of our interview with Akbar Ganji. I asked him why he declined the White House offer. Our conversation was translated by Hossein Kamaly.
AKBAR GANJI: [translated] As I mentioned before, Amy, I don't think this can help in any way our democratic movement. Our first demand and our first concern is to make sure that there is not going be a military invasion against our country. We do not want war. I say these things, and I appreciate your making it available and broadcasting it. They hear what I say, and if they are really interested in peace, they will not invade. Always in a negotiation, there's a give and take. And I have nothing to offer to the President. I?m an intellectual. What can I offer him? If there are negotiations, it must take place between the government of Iran and the government of the United States, and it must be a transparent negotiation.
AMY GOODMAN: Are you concerned if Iran develops nuclear weapons?
AKBAR GANJI: [translated] More than that, I?m concerned about the possibility of a disaster like what happened in Chernobyl. What Iran has acquired has been through black market. And we don't know anything about the security and the safety of this project. Should there be an explosion, should there be a catastrophe, the environment, the ecosystem and the people will be destroyed.
It's not the West that is confronted with the possibility of a nuclear Iran, an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon, but it's the people of Iran faced with a potential disaster like a Chernobyl. And also I should say that the policies of the West, in this regard, are fundamentally -- it?s fundamentally a dual standard. They disregard the atomic weapons, atomic bombs, available to Israel, Pakistan and India, but Iran is said not to have the right to enrich uranium.
Of course, I find the policies of the Islamic Republic fundamentally unwise. We should strive to disarm internationally, for an international disarmament. We have to fight the militarization of the world.
AMY GOODMAN: Is there a country, Akbar Ganji, that you think is dealing with Iran correctly, in a constructive way?
AKBAR GANJI: [translated] Well, that's another issue to talk about: the government of Iran vis-a-vis Western governments. Both sides are at fault in this issue. The Iranian regime, by adopting, through adopting wrong policies has created a consensus against itself. You know that there was a disagreement, fundamental chasm between Europe and the United States over the question of Iraq. But in Iran, because of the unwise positions taken by our government, there is an international consensus against us.
On the other hand, the fear, the concern, is there with the Iranian people that the West is just looking for a false reason to invade Iran anyway, regardless of what they do. The best way we can think of to stop this is to promote and to call for a direct negotiation and transparent negotiation between the two sides, negotiations about peace. Our concern is about the violation of human rights and the establishment of democracy.
AMY GOODMAN: You were arrested in Iran. You had exposed during the Khamenei regime the killings of many dissidents. You were held for six years. Were you tortured in prison, just recently released?
AKBAR GANJI: [translated] I was gravely mistreated. But it's not only me. It's a matter of dozens, scores of prisoners who are treated in the worst conceivable way. I have always tried to be their voice. I was lucky enough to be well known in the world. However, there are numerous people in prison in Iran, but their names are unknown, even to the people in Iran, within Iran. They are kept in solitary confinement on no grounds. No access to books, newspapers or telephone. No attorney present, no legal representation. And they are deprived of meeting with their families. And they are under pressure to confess to charges of espionage. They bring them in front of camera in the same way Stalin used to do and make them confess. And they will convict them to prison, sentence them, give them sentences based on those television shows. We object to this process.
AMY GOODMAN: Do they broadcast these so-called confessions on television in Iran?
AKBAR GANJI: [translated] Yes, they do. Yes, they beat them up in prison and then bring them in front of camera, and they confess to crimes they have never committed.
AMY GOODMAN: Akbar Ganji, were you beaten up?
AKBAR GANJI: [translated] I had similar problems.
AMY GOODMAN: Did they broadcast your so-called confession?
AKBAR GANJI: [translated] I never went to any show. I never withdrew my position, from what I put forward. My positions that I advocated from prison were far more radical from what I had said before going to prison. The harsher they treated me, I became more radicalized. But I have no personal problems with anyone, and I have no personal complaints. Our problem is democracy. Our concern is democracy, human rights and freedom in the country.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you, Akbar Ganji, give us the landscape of the pro-democracy movement in Iran? Who makes it up?
AKBAR GANJI: [translated] First of all, we have a strong class of intellectuals. And our intellectuals, this strong class, demands democracy. Secondly, we have a large younger generation, and the structure of the population in Iran has a large youth population, and that part of the population, that segment of the population, wants democracy. Half of the population, composed by women, also advocates and demands freedom and equality, legal equality with men, with the other half. Ethnic and linguistic minorities are deprived of their rights, and they demand equality with other groups. Religious minorities are deprived of their rights, and they demand equality. The foundation of democracy, of course is equality. We have several different currents and movements in Iran that all agree on the demand for democracy.
AMY GOODMAN: Are there also those, for example, who are calling for the return of the Shah or, you know, like the son of the Shah, who would be opposed to this government?
AKBAR GANJI: [translated] This group mostly is based outside Iran and mostly in the United States, and they have been away from Iran for too long, way too long, and they don't keep in touch with what is going on in Iran. Over the past 27 years, so many people have been imprisoned and suffered, but none of this group.
Of course, we demand equality, and we oppose any form of discrimination and special privileges. The current regime says it is the prerogative and the privilege of the clerics to rule. And the monarchists advocate the right of a single family to rule. This is in violation of democracy.
AMY GOODMAN: How did Ahmadinejad get elected?
AKBAR GANJI: [translated] At least there are eight reasons, eight causes for this. First was that many people, including myself, banned participation in the election. Therefore, by doing this, we withdrew millions of people who would have otherwise voted for the reformists.
AMY GOODMAN: Why were you banned?
AKBAR GANJI: [translated] Because participation in the elections is collaborating. It's a form of collaboration with the regime and legitimizing the activities of the regime. And even if we were to succeed in the elections, that would be futile, just as we saw in the eight years of the reform movement.
The second reason for the election of Ahmadinejad is the poor performance of the reformists over the eight years of their tenure. In the best case, the people say the reformists were incompetent; in the worst case, they say they were traitors and they betrayed us.
The third reason the reformists were defeated was that they could not agree on one candidate to run. And the fourth problem, the fourth reason, was that the people at large are highly suspicious of Hashemi Rafsanjani.
AMY GOODMAN: Just an excerpt of our conversation with Akbar Ganji, renowned Iranian activist and investigative journalist, imprisoned by Iran for six years and tortured, says US military action against Iran would only strengthen Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president?s hand. Tomorrow, Iran faces a UN deadline to suspend nuclear enrichment.
thankful
grateful
curious
