[wvns] Iranian President Addresses UN

Ahmedinejad speaking tour

What was the role of US media during Ahmadinegad's visit to the US?
Did they ask him political or economic questions? Did they ask him
about the crisis between the US and Iran.. or the Middle East crisis.
Not really. US media was busy grovelling to the Jewish lobby and
Israel by asking pathetic questions about the holocaust, Israel and
homosexuals. This says a great deal about US media. Brian Williams
shames himself and shames the US with his servitude to the Israel lobby.

Watch video

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3803

===

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used his speech to the United
Nations General Assembly on Tuesday to unveil a vision of a world
without Israel, in which America and Europe would be freed of what he
said was Zionist oppression.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during the 62nd session
of the United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters.

Culminating a concerted assault on what he described as the injustices
and oppressions practiced by the "big powers" since World War II, he
said that the ungodly era of lewdness and violence was coming to a
close and that "the age of monotheism has commenced."

The world was "nearing the sunset of the time of empires," he said,
and urged the dominant world powers to eschew their "obedience to
Satan" and "submit to the will of god." If they did so, "they will be
saved." If not, "calamities will befall them."

But whether or not these powers chose to reform themselves, he said,
the day was fast approaching when "occupied lands will be freed.
Palestine and Iraq will be liberated from the domination of the
occupiers." And the people of America and Europe would be liberated
from Zionist oppression. "This is the promise of god," he said.
"Therefore it will be fulfilled."

Earlier in his address, the Iranian president insisted again that his
country's nuclear program was peaceful and transparent, and repeated
and elaborated on the charges he had levelled at Columbia University
on Monday against Israel - which he did not mention by name, but
rather called "the illegal Zionist regime."

He told the assembled world leaders that the people of Palestine had
been punished for 60 years for what had happened in Europe. They had
been held "under occupation of the illegal Zionist regime," he said.
"The Palestinian people have been displaced," he went on,
"incarcerated under abhorrent conditions." They were being deprived of
water and medicine "for the sin of asking for freedom."

Ahmadinejad accused Israel of terrorism and castigated "the brutal
Zionists" for carrying out targeted assassinations.

He also described immigration to Israel as the gathering "of Jews from
around the world" with false promises, and their enforced settlement
"in the occupied territories" where there were induced "to malevolence
against the Palestinian people."

He spoke of a range of global injustices being rooted in the
domination by the victors of World War II over the vanquished, and
being perpetuated by the skewed composition of the permanent
membership of the UN Security Council. The big powers, he said, had
"put themselves in the position of god" and lost "their respect for
the dignity of humans."

As a remedy, he proposed the formation of "a coalition for peace,"
guided by "monotheism, justice and compassion for humans," and the
reforming of the Security Council based on justice and democracy.

On the nuclear issue, he said Iran's activities were "completely
peaceful and transparent" and castigated the "illegal" sanctions
initiatives against his country. But "the nuclear issue of Iran is now
closed," he said, however, indicting that Iran had prevailed, thanks
to the "resistance of the Iranian people."

===

Iranians decry host's rudeness: `Bully' treatment during leader's U.S.
visit could bolster image at home
September 26, 2007
Nasser Karimi
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/260641

TEHRAN–Iranians expressed dismay yesterday at the tough reception
given to their president in New York, saying his host was rude and
only fuelled the image of the United States as a bully.

The scenes at Monday's question-and-answer session at Columbia
University and the outpouring of venom toward President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad by protesters during his U.S. visit could bolster the
hard-line leader at a time of high tensions with Washington.

Columbia president Lee Bollinger's statement – including telling
Ahmadinejad that he resembles a "petty and cruel dictator" – offended
Iranians on many levels, not least that of simple hospitality. In
traditions of the region, a host should be polite to a guest, no
matter what he thinks of him.

Ahmadinejad's popularity has been suffering, with many Iranians
blaming him for failing to fix the faltering economy and for
heightening the confrontation with the West with his inflammatory
rhetoric.

But in the eyes of many Iranian critics and supporters alike,
Ahmadinejad looked like the victim.

He complained about Bollinger's "insults" and "unfriendly treatment"
but kept a measured tone throughout the discussion.

"Our president appeared as a gentleman. He remained polite against
those who could not remain polite," said Ahmad Masoudi, a customer at
a grocery store who had watched state TV's version of the event.
Others thought Bollinger's words were unseemly for an academic. Tehran
nurse Mahmoud Rouhi said the leader was treated "like a suspect."

The chancellors of seven Iranian universities issued a letter to
Bollinger saying his "insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the
president of a country with ... a recorded history of 7,000 years of
civilization and culture is deeply shameful."

They invited Bollinger to Iran, adding, "You can be assured that
Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests."

Ahmadinejad, visiting New York to speak at the UN General Assembly,
has been greeted by thousands of protesters, many from pro-Israeli
groups angered by comments calling for the end of Israel and casting
doubt on the Holocaust.

At the Columbia speech, Ahmadinejad fell into similar rhetoric,
questioning the official version of the Sept. 11 attacks and defending
the right to doubt the Holocaust.

Columbia University faced criticism for hosting Ahmadinejad, and
Bollinger fended off calls to cancel by promising to take a tough line
with the Iranian president.

Some critics of Ahmadinejad in Iran warn that U.S. demonizing of the
Iranian president has only strengthened his hand and boosted his
falling political fortunes.

===

The lessons of Ahmadinejad at Columbia
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
Sep 26, 2007
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2462.shtml

As I walked up Broadway towards Columbia University, a dozen blocks
from my apartment, I was amazed to see crowds of students cramming
into the campus, protesting outside the gates, and ample numbers of
New York's finest, who already had locked down the campus to anyone
who didn't have a student ID card. Eureka, it almost felt like the
Columbia protests (riots) of 1968.

But then students were battling a military-oriented think tank from
the Rand Corporation, starting in 1967. Discovery of the Institute for
Defense Analyses' presence in '67 and '68 lit the firecracker for
SDS's (Students for a Democratic Society) anti Vietnam War campaign.
Also, too many armed forces' recruiters on campus fanned the BOOM to come.

Linked to that mistake was Columbia's plan to build a gymnasium in
city-owned Morningside Park, on land to be used for low-cost housing
in neighboring Harlem. The front door would open towards Columbia, the
back door to Harlem. What can I say: BOOM.

Mark Rudd and his SDS protestors ended up occupying several buildings
and notably the president's office in Low Library. The cops came in
the early morning hours of April 30, 1968, and violently squashed the
demonstrations. One hundred-fifty students were hurt and headed to
hospitals. Seven hundred protestors were arrested. And the president
of Columbia resigned. Those were the days, my dear, as Lotte Lenya
would sing. Those were the days.

Ah, but today such a different song was being sung. The crowds were
mainly pro-Israel groups from Columbia and bussed in from neighboring
colleges. They were out for blood. They didn't want the "holocaust
denier" to speak in the first place. He was a sponsor of "terror,"
unlike, of course, the United States and its 160,000 troops plus
mercenaries in Iraq. Also, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an "anti-Semite"
because he did not approve of the state of Israel, which had inhaled
Palestine, as the Nazis had the ghettos of Lodz, Krakow and Warsaw,
not to mention most of Europe.

Worst of all, Ahmadinejad was pursuing what he said to be a program
for nuclear power, but the protestors knew with absolute assurance it
was for weaponry. Not unlike the 200 to 300 nuclear missiles Israel
had built since the '80s at their Dimona facility. It contained an
underground plutonium separation plant that operated in complete
secrecy. That is, until Israeli whistleblower Mordecai Vanunu, who
worked at Dimona from 1976-85, spilled the beans on October 5, 1986 in
the Sunday Times of London. Read all about it my article, Israel's
nuclear double standard is no standard at all. It's an eye-opener.

It also details the fact that while Israel was amassing nuclear
warheads in 1981, the US had successfully managed to convince its
then-boy, Saddam Hussein, to attack Iran, beginning an eight-year war
that yielded a million dead and 2 million displaced. This was also
around the time Israel's Menachim Begin decided to bomb a French-built
nuclear plant near Baghdad, which was supposedly building nuclear
weapons to destroy Israel. This was also the world's first air strike
against a nuclear plant.

But then there were "an undisclosed number of American built F-15
interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers to help destroy the Osirak
reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad" on Begin's order. And the
Israeli/American planes all returned safely. Yet the 70-megawattt
uranium-powered reactor wasn't even finished nor "had it been stocked
with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of a leak, according to
sources in the French atomic industry." Again, the reactor was to
create energy for living not for death.

It is strange, too, that the US took part in this violent Israeli
exercise, and stranger, as Ahmadinejad pointed out later, that "if you
have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and tested them
already, what position are you [the US] in to question the peaceful
purposes of others who want nuclear power? We don't believe in nuclear
weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity." He
added that politicians interested in nuclear weapons "are backward,
retarded." So for all the sanctimonious Mahmoud-haters who came to
Columbia for an Oxbow-type hanging, sorry. if the shoes fits wear it.

In answer to what would it take for Iran to engage in talks with the
United States, Ahmadinejad said, "If the US government recognizes the
rights of the Iranian people, respects all nations and extends a hand
of friendship to all Iranians, they will see that Iranians will be
among their best friends." I would say that is a very generous
response from the president of a nation who had its democratically
elected President Mossadeq taken down by a violent coup in 1953. Why?
Because he wanted to nationalize Iran's oil and spread the wealth
among his people.

As Iran stood then, 4 percent of its population controlled the
majority of its wealth. Of course, Mossadeq was politically neutered
by no less than Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA, so that the young Shah
and his royal court could resume power and inhale the wealth and
America could continue to get its oil. It was the oppression, the
torture squads, the murders of the Shah's retinue that led to his
deposing in 1979, his statue pulled down by protestors as Saddam
Hussein's was by US soldiers.

In that year, the US-backed Shah and family flew the coop and exiled
cleric Ayatollah Khomeini returned to establish the Islamic Republic
of Iran. Does that sound so cruel and unreasonable? I don't think so.
The revolutionaries also stormed the American Embassy in Tehran and
took the staff as hostages. As the standing president, Jimmy Carter
was negotiating for their freedom, the would-be president, Ronald
Reagan, and his running mate, George H.W. Bush, were negotiating a
better deal for arms, ammunition, spare parts, and cash with the
Iranians, so long as they would not release the hostages until after
the election. Of course, the deal was taken. Carter lost. Reagan/Bush
won. And the whole dirty (and treasonous) affair was later exposed in
the Iran-Contra scandal.

Am I the only one with a history book or a memory? Or am I missing
something. Don't these loons shouting for Ahmadinejad to go home know
anything? Or is it the self-inflicted amnesia it takes to be a
died-in-the-wool supporter of Israeli occupation? The Balfour
Declaration, which we all know opened the door by British invitation
for Jewish people to settle in Palestine (and bring your wealth with
you; there are all kinds of bargains).

The League of Nations ratified the Palestine Mandate in 1920, after
World War I, due in part to the help of the Jewish chemist Cheim
Weizman. In 1922, under pressure from the Arabs, the Brits and League
of Nations subtracted Jordan. In 1947, the UN offered the Partition
Plan, but the Arabs rejected it. When the UN recognized Israel as a
nation on May 14, 1948, the Arabs declared war on Israel. The rest is
an unrelenting brutal history of Palestinian domination. It is also
ironic that the truly anti-Semitic British also created the Edict of
Expulsion, given by Edward I of England in 1290 that exiled the Jews
of England for 350 years. That's right, 350 years.

So, was the Balfour Declaration the British Day of Atonement, or
simply the theft of a land via Jewish occupation that they had always,
along with the French, had their greedy eyes on? But these questions
perhaps are better discussed at a Columbia seminar on Middle Eastern
history. Nevertheless, they affected all Arabs and Muslims, including
Mr. Ahmadinejad. Perhaps his not recognizing Israel is as he said is
more "because it is based on ethnic discrimination, occupation and
usurpation and it consistently threatens its neighbors."

Perhaps that's why he answered the second question of the day, denying
that his country sponsors terrorism, by saying, "We need to address
the root causes of terrorism and eradicate those root causes," adding
that in the Middle East, "It's clear what powers incite terrorists,
support them, fund them." To whom do you think he was referring?

What's more his stance on holocaust research and investigation was
softened somewhat as well. Not that all such horrendous crimes
shouldn't be reinvestigated and verified over and over to keep the
knowledge alive. Nevertheless, in response to holocaust issues, he
said " . . . We need to still question whether the Palestinian people
should be paying for it [the holocaust] or not. After all it happened
in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role in it. Why is it that
the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had
nothing to do with?

"They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the
Jewish and Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't
have any problems. Today, too, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in
brotherhood in many parts of the world. Why is it that Palestinians
should pay a price -- innocent Palestinians -- for 5 million people to
remain displaced and refugees abroad for 60 years? Why should an
academic like myself face insults for asking questions like this."

Interestingly, Ahmadinejad, in addition to being president of Iran,
still considers his main job as a university instructor. He said, "I
still continue teaching graduate and Ph.D.-level courses on a weekly
basis. My students are working with me in scientific fields. I believe
that I am an academic myself, so I speak to you from an academic point
of view. And I raise two questions. But instead of a response, I got a
wave of insults and allegations against me. And regretfully, they came
mostly from groups who claimed most to believe in the freedom of
speech and information."

Could he have been referring to Lee C. Bollinger, the university's
president, who on one hand invited Ahmadinejad's presence, on the
other claimed his guest called for the destruction of Israel and
termed the holocaust a myth? In addressing the Iranian president,
Bollinger said, "You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel
dictator," garnering a round of crowd-pleasing applause.

Bollinger, in an attempted critique of Ahmadinejad's holocaust
positions, called him "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly
uneducated," among other things, once more playing to the crowd, which
spread from the Roone Arledge auditorium to the quad, where all
comments could be heard on loudspeakers. All must have heard
Ahmadinejad invite Columbia faculty to speak in his country as well
and ask the questions they wished to ask.

Returning to Bollinger, he called Columbia a world center of Jewish
studies that since the 1930s has provided a home for Jewish refugees.
He went on to call the holocaust "the most documented event in human
history." I suppose the birth of Christ, Mohammed or the life of Moses
and his gift of the Ten Commandments all took second place. If I
didn't know better, and perhaps I don't, I would say that Bollinger
was blatantly pandering to his Jewish audience, covering his butt
above and beyond serving as self-appointed moral compass for Iran.

Mr. Bollinger also assailed Ahmadinejad for a poor human rights record
and the forced retirement of scholars. Perhaps Mr. Bollinger in his
academic ivory tower hasn't heard of the USAPATRIOT Act, or that our
president considers the Constitution "just a piece of goddamn paper,"
and that Professor Steven Jones, among many, was relieved of his
university tasks for contedning that the World Trade Center Towers
were blown up with the explosive thermate.

Mr. Bollinger may also not be aware of the shameless NSA spying on
telephone calls and email messages of Americans for years now. Perhaps
he hasn't heard of Guantanamo, which denies the rights of the Geneva
Conventions to prisoners of war simply by calling them "enemy
combatants." And then there's the rendition of "suspected terrorists"
to foreign countries specializing in torture. And so on. Mr.
Ahmadinejad did point out the spying to Bollinger.

He also responded to Bollinger's initial slurs thusly: "At the outset,
I want to complain a bit about the person who read this political
statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite
a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the
professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't
think it's necessary before a speech is even given to come with a
series of claims . . ." After a burst of applause, he added: " . . .
and an attempt to provide a vaccination of sorts to our faculty and
students. The text, more than addressing me, was an insult to the
audience here. In a university environment, we must allow people to
speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk, so that the truth is
eventually revealed by all."

Lastly, it is interesting that Columbia University itself is something
of a land-grabber, now contemplating to inhale most of the Upper West
Side property beyond 125th Street for the creation of a new campus.
Bollinger himself was selling the idea hard on NY1News, our local
station, several nights earlier. Of course, this takeover is of land
and property inhabited by Hispanic and African-American New Yorkers,
shadows of the Morningside Gymnasium, only exponentially larger.
Somehow it seemed history was repeating itself listening to Lee's soft
but hard sell to the black interviewer, who kept bringing it back to,
"what's in it for the community?"

The answers were mostly "money, jobs, some scholarships to an
on-campus public school." But the urge to colonize more of the city
was vaguely cloying to me. As was the concurrent urge of New York
University in Greenwich Village. Two of their noted trustees and
graduates included the reprobates Larry Silverstein and Hank
Greenberg, formerly CEO of AIG.

I mention this because I feel the impulse of this admittedly
Jewish-centered educational organization, in fact both of them, a kind
of colonizing of educational agenda, shaping young minds like the real
estate into extensions of a philosophy of exclusionism, not the real
academic, democratic ideal. Columbia, in fact, includes the Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, which abuts its campus. Where is the
Center for Muslim Studies, Buddhist Studies, and so on, which would
represent far greater numbers of people in today's world.

As a vocal minority of 5.5 million of America's 304 million citizens,
I find it strange, even somewhat chilling, that the Jewish people
demand, command, so much political clout. When our forefathers asked
for a separation of church and state, they meant all religious
institutions, synagogues, mosques, et al. Now I see a minority group
exerting an unparalleled influence on politics, education, and
thought, equal at least to the daft Conservative Christians, who make
up the dafter neocon core behind the march for world hegemony with
their Israeli cousins.

I am personally happy that Ahmadinejad spoke back for all of us to
power, including Israel, the US, and dual-Israeli/American citizens,
who it would seem insist on applying their religious-political agendas
worldwide, regardless of history's lessons. Perhaps after all is said
and done, this was Ahmadinejad's lesson to us all. It's a pity we
didn't give him a chance to "show his respect" at Ground Zero. It has
yet to be convincingly proven to myself and millions like me that the
real culprits behind that catastrophe were Muslims. Perhaps a more
open public mind would let some more light in.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York. Reach him at
gvmaz @ verizon.net. All statements from Columbia's meeting were taken
from the NY Times real-time blog and video recording of the event.
Pardon the commercial that precedes it. That's Capitalism.

===

Fact Sheets of Iran-US Standoff:
Twenty Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran
by CASMII
http://www.peacebytruth.com/main.php?Post=281

INTRODUCTION

Four years since the US-UK led illegal invasion of Iraq, which has
brought the ongoing catastrophe for Iraqi people, all peace loving
people and antiwar organizations in the world are appalled by the
current Iran-US standoff that has a shocking resemblance to the run-up
to the invasion of Iraq. The same neo-conservatives and hawks, headed
by Dick Cheney in Washington, who championed the cause of invasion of
Iraq, are now shamelessly calling for a military attack on Iran. The
same Israeli lobby which pushed for the invasion of Iraq, is now
pushing for a military attack on Iran. The same strategy of lies and
distortions which was used to dupe the international community and
soften it up for the invasion of Iraq, is again used to pave the way
for another illegal pre-emptive war of aggression against Iran. As in
the case of Iraq, the UN Security Council Resolutions against Iran,
obtained by massive US pressure and coercion, would provide a veneer
of legitimacy for such an attack.

Contrary to the myth created by the western media, it is not Iran, but
the US and its European allies which are defying the overwhelming
majority of the international community, in that, they have resisted
the call to enter into direct, immediate and comprehensive
negotiations with Iran without any pre-conditions. The US and its
European allies show their lack of good faith in a diplomatic solution
to the standoff by demanding that Iran concede the main point of
negotiations, namely, suspension of enrichment of uranium which is
Iran's legitimate right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, before the
negotiations actually start.

Here, we examine and debunk the common myths and charges against Iran
and provide a list of twenty reasons to oppose sanctions and military
intervention in Iran. The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military
Intervention in Iran (CASMII) calls for immediate and direct
negotiations between the US and Iran without any pre-conditions in
order to avert a new even more horrifying catastrophe in the Middle East.

IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME: FACTS AND LIES

1. There is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme in Iran. The US
and Israel pressure Iran to prove that it is not hiding a nuclear
weapons programme. This demand is logically impossible to satisfy and
only serves to make diplomacy fail in order to force regime change.
Numerous intrusive and snap visits by International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) inspectors, totalling more than 2,700 person-hours of
inspection, have failed to produce any shred of evidence for a weapons
programme in Iran. Traces of highly enriched uranium found at Natanz
in 2004, were determined by IAEA to have come with imported centrifuges.

In June 2005, Bruno Pellaud, former IAEA Deputy Director-General for
safeguards, was asked by Swissinfo if Iran was intent on building a
nuclear bomb. He replied: "My impression is not. My view is based on
the fact that Iran took a major gamble in December 2003 by allowing a
much more intrusive capability to the IAEA. If Iran had had a military
programme they would not have allowed the IAEA to come under this
Additional Protocol. They did not have to." Even the ex-British
Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, admitted on 9/4/2006 that "there is no
smoking gun and therefore no justification for a military attack".
Still, for the US the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2. Iran's need for nuclear power generation is real. Even when Iran's
population was one-third of what it is today, Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, negotiating on behalf of President Gerald
Ford, persuaded the former Shah that Iran needed nuclear power and
over twenty nuclear reactors. [1] Today Iran's electricity output
forecast falls so much short of projected needs that even concerns
over the preservation of historic sites did not impede Tehran's plans
to dam a river near the national heritage ruins near Pasargad. With
Iran's population of 70 million fast growing, and its oil resources
fast depleting, Iran will be a net importer of oil productions in just
over a decade from now. Nuclear energy is thus a realistic and viable
solution for electricity generation in the country.

3. The "crisis" over Iran's nuclear programme lacks the urgency
claimed by Washington. Even if it were to militarize its nuclear
programme, for which there is no evidence at all, Iran would be many
years away from mastering the technology, giving proliferation
concerns ample time to be resolved by negotiation. Weapons grade
uranium must be enriched at least to 85%. A 2005 CIA report determined
that it could take Iran 10 years to achieve this level of enrichment.
Many independent nuclear experts have stated that Iran would face
formidable technical obstacles if it tried to enrich uranium beyond
the 3.5% required for electricity generation. According to Dr Frank
Barnaby of the Oxford Research Group, because of contamination of
Iranian uranium with heavy metals, Iran cannot possibly enrich beyond
even 20% without support from Russia or China [2]. IAEA director, Dr.
Mohammad ElBaradei, too, has declared that there is no imminent threat
and "We need to lower the pitch."

4. Iran has met its obligations under the Nuclear non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). Iran has fully cooperated in the last three years with
the IAEA and had voluntarily accepted and enforced safeguards well
above the Additional Protocol until Iran's nuclear file was reported
under the pressure of the US to the Security Council in February 2006.
(The U.S., by contrast, has neither signed nor implemented the
Additional Protocol, and Israel has refused to sign the NPT.)

Iran's earlier concealment of its nuclear programme took place in the
context of the US-backed invasion of Iran by Saddam; Iraqi chemical
weapons provided to Saddam by the US, German and UK companies with the
approval of their governments which were used against Iranian soldiers
and civilians and Israel's destruction of Iraq's Osirak reactor in
1981 with impunity. Iranian leaders concluded from these gross
injustices that international laws are only "ink on paper" as
Rafsanjani put it.

But the most direct reasons for Iran's concealment were the American
trade embargo on Iran and Washington's organized and persistent
campaign to stop civilian nuclear technology from reaching Iran from
any source. For example, in 1995 Germany offered to let Kraftwerk
Union (a subsidiary of Siemens) finish Iran's Bushehr reactor, but
withdrew its proposal under US pressure [3]. The following year, China
cancelled its contract to build a nuclear enrichment facility in
Isfahan for the same reason [4]. Thus Washington systematically
violated, with impunity, Article IV of the NPT, which allows
signatories to "facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the
fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and
technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy".

Nevertheless, Iran's decision not to declare all of its nuclear
installations did not violate any rules. According to David Albright
and Corey Hinderstein, who first provided satellite imagery and
analysis of the facilities at Natanz and at Arak in December 2002 [5],
under the safeguards agreement in force at the time, "Iran is not
required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six
months before nuclear material is introduced into it."

5. Iran has given unprecedented concessions on its nuclear programme.
Unlike North Korea, Iran has resisted the temptation to withdraw from
the NPT. Besides accepting snap inspections under Additional Protocol
until February 2006, Iran has invited Western companies, including
American companies, to participate in a consortium to develop Iran's
civilian nuclear programme. Such joint ventures combined with Iran's
pledge to ratify the Additional Protocol for intrusive IAEA
inspections, would create the best assurance that the enriched uranium
would not be diverted to a weapons programme. Such concessions are
very rare in the world, but the U.S. and its allies have refused
Iran's offer.

6. Enrichment of uranium for a civilian nuclear programme is Iran's
inalienable right. Every member of the NPT has the inalienable right
to enrich uranium for a civilian nuclear programme and is entitled to
full technical assistance.

But with the US as the back seat driver and in violation of their
assistance obligations, France, Germany, and the UK insisted in three
years of negotiations, that Tehran forfeit its right, in return for
incentives of little value. Some European diplomats admitted to Asia
Times-on-line on 7th September 2005, that the package offered by the
EU-3 was "an empty box of chocolates." But "there is nothing else we
can offer," the diplomats went on to say. "The Americans simply
wouldn't let us."

7. The Western alliance has not tried true diplomacy. Washington has
refused to participate in talks with Iran and instead outsourced the
task to the EU. But negotiators for France, Britain, and Germany were
hamstrung by the Bush Administration, which disapproved any
substantive incentives, including a US guarantee not to attack Iran.
This was the reason Iran ended its two-year voluntary suspension of
uranium enrichment.

WESTERN HYPOCRISY

8. The UN resolutions against Iran in contrast to the treatment of
South Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel smack of double standards.
The UN Security Council sanctions on Iran expose the double standards
of the Western powers, which ignore the NPT violations by Washington's
allies. For example, in the year 2000, South Korea enriched 200
milligrams of uranium to near-weapons grade (up to 77%), but was not
referred to the UN Security Council.

India has refused to sign the NPT or allow inspections and has
developed an atomic arsenal, but receives nuclear assistance from the
US which is a violation of the NPT. More bizarrely, India has a seat
on the governing board of IAEA and, under US pressure, voted to refer
Iran as a violator to the UN Security Council. Another non-signatory,
Pakistan, clandestinely developed nuclear weapons but is supported by
the US as a "war on terror" ally.

Israel is a close ally of Washington, even though it has hundreds of
clandestine nuclear weapons, has dismissed numerous UN resolutions and
has refused to sign the NPT or open any of its nuclear plants to
inspections.

The US itself is the most serious violator of the NPT. The only
country to have ever used nuclear bombs in war has refused to reduce
its nuclear arsenal, in violation of Article VI of NPT. The US is also
in breach of the treaty because it is developing new generations of
nuclear warheads for use against non-nuclear adversaries. Moreover,
the US has deployed hundreds of such tactical nuclear weapons all
around the world in violation of Articles I and II of the NPT.

9. Iran has not threatened Israel or attacked another country. The
track records of the US, Israel, the UK and France are very different.
These so called "democracies" have a bloody history of invading other
countries for resources and domination. On the contrary, Iran's
supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has stated repeatedly that Iran
will not attack or threaten any country. He has also issued a fatwa
against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and
banned nuclear weapons as sacrilegious. Iran has been a consistent
supporter of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and called for
a nuclear weapons free Middle East.

The comments of Iran's President Ahmadinejad against Israel have been
repeated statesmen since 1979 and indicate no practical threat. The
statement attributed to him that "Israel should be wiped off the map"
has been reported by Jonathan Steele in the Guardian and by Professor
Juan Cole, amongst other Farsi language experts, to have been a
mistranslation and these clarifications have been widely disseminated.
What he actually said was "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish
from the page of time". Ahmadinejad has made clear that he envisions
regime change in Israel through internal decay, similar to fashion of
the demise of the Soviet Union. Iranian leaders have said consistently
for two decades that they will accept a two-state solution in
Palestine if a majority of Palestinians favour that option.

This is in sharp contrast to the explicit threats by Israeli and the
US leaders against Iran, including current operations to destabilize
the Islamic Republic as described by Seymour Hersh [6] and plans to
foment ethnic unrest and separatist movements to wipe Iran off the map
[7].

Iran is no match for Israel, whose security and military needs are all
but guaranteed by the US. Iran is surrounded on all sides by the US
Navy and American bases. The Western media try to portray a picture
which is quite opposite to the truth. The threat to security and
stability in the region comes not from Iran but from the US, whose
forces have occupied Afghanistan and Iraq and from Israel which
continues its illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

Iran has not invaded or threatened any country for two and a half
centuries. The only war the Islamic Republic fought was the one
imposed by Saddam's army, which invaded Iran with the backing of the
US and its allies. When Iraq used chemical weapons, supplied by the
West, against Iranian soldiers, Iran did not retaliate in kind. When
the Taliban regime murdered eight Iranian diplomats in 1996 and
remained unapologetic, Iran did not respond militarily.

10. The US "democratization" programme for Iran is a hoax. Although
violations of human rights and democratic freedoms do occur too often
in Iran, the country has the most pluralistic system in a region
dominated by undemocratic client states of the US. It is sheer
hypocrisy for the US, which turns a blind eye to the gross human
rights abuses by its client states, such as Turkmenistan, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, Israel, Libya, and Egypt, to misrepresent its agenda in
Iran as a "democratization" programme. Washington's pretensions ring
especially hollow when one remembers that in 1953 Iran's nascent
democracy under Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq was overthrown by the
CIA, which restored a hated military dictatorship for the benefit of
American oil conglomerates.

UN SECURITY COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED

11. There are no legal bases for Iran's referral to the UN Security
Council. Since there is no evidence that Iran is even contemplating
its nuclear programme, no grounds exist within the NPT to refer Iran
to the UN Security Council.

Michael Spies of the New York-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear
Policy has clarified the issue: "Under the Statute (Art. 12(C)) and
the Safeguards Agreement, the Board may only refer Iran to the
Security Council if it finds that, based on the report from the
Director General, it cannot be assured that Iran has not diverted
nuclear material for non-peaceful purpose. In the past, findings of
`non-assurance' have only come in the face of a history of active and
ongoing non-cooperation with IAEA safeguards. The pursuit of nuclear
activities in itself, which is specifically recognized as a sovereign
right, and which remain safeguarded, could not legally or logically
equate to uncertainty regarding diversion." [8]

Dr ElBradei has consistently confirmed that there has been no
diversion of safeguarded nuclear material in Iran. He has also said,
under pressure from Washington, that he cannot rule out the existence
of undeclared nuclear activities in the country. However, according to
the IAEA's Safeguards Implementation Report for 2005 (issued on 15
June 2006), 45 other countries, including 14 European countries, in
particular Germany, are in this same category as Iran. Moreover,
according to the UK-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, such
findings and a clear bill for any given country will take an average
of six years of inspections and verification by the IAEA. In the case
of Iran, these investigations have been going on for only about four
years now.

Thus, all concerns regarding Iran's nuclear programme must be dealt
with under the auspices of the IAEA. The US and its allies violated
the rules by exerting massive pressure on the IAEA to report Iran
without any legitimacy to the UN Security Council. In fact, David
Mulford, the US Ambassador to India, warned the Government of India in
January 2006 that there would be no US-India nuclear deal if India did
not vote against Iran in the Governors' Board of the IAEA. On February
15th 2007, Stephen Rademaker, the former US Assistant Secretary for
International Security and Non-proliferation, confessed that the US
coerced India to vote against Iran in the two crucial meetings of the
IAEA in 2005 and 2006 which resulted in Iran's file to be reported to
the UN Security Council. This shows clearly that reporting Iran to the
UN Security Council and the subsequent adoption of the Security
Council Resolutions 1696 and 1737 have been carried out with US
coercion and have thus no legitimacy at all [9].

SANCTIONS NOT A GOOD IDEA

12. Dr ElBradei, the head of the IAEA, has said that sanctions are
counterproductive. Economic sanctions on Iran will harm the people of
Iran, as they were devastating to Iraqis, resulting in the death of at
least 500,000 children. Sanctions would not however bring the Islamic
Republic to its knees. Instead, any kind of sanctions, including the
so-called targeted or smart sanctions, are viewed by the Iranian
people as the West's punishment for Iran's scientific progress
(uranium enrichment for reactor fuel). As sanctions tighten,
nationalist fervour will strengthen the resolve of Iranians to defend
the country's civilian nuclear programme.

13. Sanctions are not better than war; they are a prelude to bombing.
Sanctions are increasing tensions in the region and can soon push the
dispute to the point of no return. Since sanctions do not exert
significant pressure on the Iranian government, they only pave the way
for the illegal use of force against Iran, as they did in Iraq. Thus,
countries which support sanctions against Iran are only falling into
the US trap in aiding the war drive on Iran.

ILLEGALITY OF A MILITARY ATTACK

14. Foreign state interference in Iran violates the UN charter. The US
is reported, for example by Seymour Hersh in the 17th April 2006 issue
of the New Yorker, to be running covert operations in Iran to foment
unrest and ethnic conflict for the purpose of regime change. Unmanned
US drones have also entered into Iranian air space to spy over Iranian
military installations and to map Iranian radar systems. These actions
violate the UN Charter's guarantee of the right of self-determination
for all nations.

The Bush Administration has also confirmed, in the 2006 US National
Security Strategy, its long term policy for pre-emptive military
action against its adversaries. Tony Blair supported this policy in
his 21st March 2006 foreign policy speech. However, unprovoked strikes
are illegal under international law. To remove this obstacle, John
Reid, the British Secretary of Defence, in his speech on 3rd April
2006 to the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security
Studies, proposed a change in international law on pre-emptive
military action.

Reports of nuclear attack scenarios by the US or Israel against Iran
can serve to raise the public's tolerance for an act of aggression
with conventional military means. People of conscience must therefore
not only condemn a possible nuclear attack as the maddest of criminal
insanities by the Bush Administration, but also denounce any
conventional assault.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF AN ATTACK ON IRAN

15. A military attack on Iran could sharply raise the price of oil. A
US or Israeli attack on Iran would, according to Iranian government
leaders, provoke immediate retaliation by Tehran, which may include a
blockade of the Persian Gulf. Such a response could cause a major
disruption in energy markets and double the price of oil, with a
global economic depression to follow.

16. Bombing cannot end Iran's nuclear programme. Since Iran already
has the expertise to enrich uranium up to the 3.5% grade for a fuel
cycle, no degree of bombing will halt Iran's civilian nuclear
programme. On the contrary, the resulting mass casualties and
destruction would strengthen the voices that argue Iran, like North
Korea, should build a nuclear deterrent.

17. A nuclear attack on Iran would fuel a new nuclear arms race and
ruin the NPT. Washington has in recent years blurred the distinction
between conventional and nuclear weapons in its military strategy
declarations, including in the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations,
which now allow the US to employ its nuclear arsenal against
non-nuclear countries if they are not in compliance with the NPT.

Many leaked policy discussions indicate that the US will consider it
"justified" to repeat its act of genocide in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
and use tactical nuclear bombs to destroy hardened Iranian targets.
Ominously, President Bush has characterized these as "wild
speculation" but has not denied them.

18. An attack on Iran will unite Iranians against the US and its
allies. A great majority of the public in Iran support the country's
right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. Therefore, a bombing
campaign will not lead to an uprising by the Iranian people for regime
change as envisaged by the US. Rather, it would ignite nationalist
feelings in the country and unite the population, including most of
the government's critics, against the West.

19. An attack on Iran will lead to a regional catastrophe and expanded
terrorism. Senator McCain, the Republican presidential hopeful, who
has himself advocated the use of force on Iran, has predicted that an
attack against Iran will lead to Armageddon. Hosni Mubarak, the
President of Egypt, has also strongly warned the US against an attack.
American or Israeli aggression on Iran, coming on the heels of the
Iraq disaster, would inflame the passions of Muslims worldwide and
help jihadi extremists with their recruitment campaign. The region
wide conflagration that an Israel/US attack on Iran would create will
dwarf the catastrophe that US-UK led invasion of Iraq has brought up
for the people of Iraq [10].

20. The cause of establishing democracy in Iran will suffer gravely if
the country is attacked. President Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric
severely undermined the reformist movement in Iran at a time when the
country's president promoted Dialogue Among Civilizations. Bush's
hostile posture strengthened the hands of Iranian hardliners and led
to the reformist movement's electoral defeat. That setback would be
dwarfed by the consequences of a military assault on the country.
Iran's burgeoning civil society would be among the first victims of US
or Israeli aggression.

This is precisely why leading reformists and human rights activists in
Iran, such as the popular Nobel Laureate, Shirin Ebadi, have strongly
opposed sanctions and military interventions against Iran. By
contrast, the Mojahedin-e Khalgh (MEK), which has no support in the
country and is listed as a terrorist organization by the EU and the
US, can have a future only if all democratic rights are totally
suppressed in Iran. The CIA and the Pentagon support MEK in covert
operations to destabilize the Islamic Republic [11].

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/