In Iran's nuclear project, America has found a pretext and the leverage to justify a new war in order to complete its control over all of the oil fields of the Middle East and Asia, from Turkmenistan to Iraq, and from Iraq to Iran (The oil of the Gulf is already safely in America's pocket). And yet, Iran's nuclear project is nothing new, since it is just a revival of the project that began at the time of the Shah. Back then, America saw no reason to challenge it, nor did any of the Gulf countries, because the Shah was hostile toward liberation movements as well as towards communism and the Soviet Union.
Making policy as though Iran didn't lie along a fault line for political earthquakes, no one in Washington thought about that nation's social climate, believing only that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Iran, in contrast to Israel, is signatory to and is bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So why doesn't America threaten Israel? And why aren't Arabs frightened by Israeli bombs and from the potential environmental dangers? Or is this the same old enemy of my enemy is my friend once again?
The hypocrisy of America and its Arab mouthpieces is obvious and transparent. Added to their intentional exaggerations, they spread fear and dread toward Iran rather than toward America and Israel.
Iran's nuclear program is still in its infancy since it has yet to enrich uranium to the level at which it might be converted into a bomb, and this will only be possible after many long years. Up to now, the technology needed to accomplish this remained unavailable, and if it were, Russia would be hesitant to conduct nuclear cooperation with Iran.
So why didn't anyone oppose Islamic Pakistan's acquisition of the bomb? The Arabic and Islamic countries supported it and so did America, once Pakistan promised not to use it against Israel and said that it would for defensive purposes only! And for threatening India only! For India was once a friend of the Soviet Union and was one of the staunchest supporters of the Arabs and a founder of the Non-Aligned Movement. And for that reason, America opposed Indian nuclear cooperation with Russia and didn't oppose Islamic Pakistan's bomb, which was and still is directed against friends of the Arabs [India], and not at their enemies [Israel].
I harbor no affection for the present of the Islamic regime in Iran. In fact, I hope for its early demise so that the Iranian people can enjoy human civilization just as others do, but not by America's hand, which has converted Iraq into a slaughterhouse that kills her sons every day. One should not weigh with two scales.*
Israel is the primary enemy for all our aspirations, modest though they may be. We also learn that, for well know sectarian reasons and for economic ones, Iran has ambitious designs on Iraq and some of the Gulf countries. The most important reason for this is that Iran's oil reserves will dry up by the year 2016, according to estimates from international organizations that study this issue. Therefore, Iran seeks a nuclear alternative.
As to why America occupied Iraq, it is because the U.S. is nearing the end of its domestic oil reserves, and China is transforming into a great economic giant with India not far behind. The ever-increasing oil needs of China and India therefore threaten American economic hegemony.
I find it strange to witness the rush of some of the more progressive writers to attack the right of Iran, or any other country, to possess any kind of energy or any type of weapon. We believe in the future, that Iran's totalitarian system is headed toward dissolution, and that its acquisition of nuclear weapons may actually hasten that process. The Iranian people have received nothing from the Revolution of the Oppressed but war and the stockpiling of weapons. The coming democratic system will relinquish its nuclear arsenal, just as Ukraine and South Africa did after the fall of its Apartheid regime.
And let's not forget that Iran is ruled by turban-wearing bazaar traders, and that they are clever in the politics of blackmail and underhanded maneuvers. The Tehran regime has learned from the North Korean experience, and have taken up Saddam's tactics of insults, stubbornness and allegation making with the objective of executing blackmail and imposing conditions.
Those [the Americans] who seek to protect the world and the region from the catastrophic danger posed by Iran, should not at the same time threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, as they did with Japan and with their use of depleted uranium in Iraq.
Or is American nuclear radiation immune from error, like their smart bombs which strike homes, schools, hospitals, orphanages and Bedouin tents???
*The appropriate English term is "not have double standards"
<p>Edited by Louis Standish</p>