Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Israel v. the World on Iran Nuclear Deal

Israel v. the World on Iran Nuclear Deal

by Stephen Lendman

The entire free world supports the Iran nuclear deal - a tension reducing agreement lessening (not eliminating) the chance for greater regional war.

Israel’s opposition makes it more of a pariah state than already. It’s posture has nothing to do with a so-called Iranian threat. None whatever exists.

Tehran is committed to regional peace and stability. It urges a nuclear free world. Israel and America and America are the greatest threats to global peace - nuclear armed and dangerous with intent to use their most lethal weapons at their discretion - a reckless policy risking mass annihilation.

Bipartisan US neocons and their Israeli counterparts are going all-out to undermine a deal the entire free world wants. They’re losing credibility in the process.

On August 15, CNN gave Israel’s US ambassador/close Netanyahu advisor plenty of air time to denounce what demands support.

On the one hand, he said “(t)here’s no question that this is the most important relationship in the world, and we are not eager in any way to have to be at odds on the most important policy priority of the president of the United States. That’s a big deal.”

On the other, he flat-out lied claiming “we believe this deal threatens the survival of Israel.” It potentially curbs its regional hegemonic aims. It does nothing to compromise its security.

Dermer appeared on CNN to lie - to scare viewers about a nonexistent threat. Repeated enough times gets most people to believe it - because hard truths  get no media coverage on all vital issues.

For decades, Iran has been wrongfully portrayed as a regional menace. People aren’t told its agenda is entirely peaceful. It hasn’t attacked another country in centuries. It threatens none now.

Its nuclear program has no military component or intention to have one. Cold, hard facts prove it.

In one of his rare honest assessments, Obama was right calling Israel’s attempt to undermine an international deal signed by seven major countries, supported by most others, “unprecedented.”

Relations between both nations remain strong - despite Obama’s clear displeasure about dealing with an Israeli prime minister he dislikes for good reason. 

Whether they’ll meet when he travels to America to address the UN General Assembly on October 1 remains to be seen. 

No White House invitation was forthcoming when he addressed a joint congressional session ahead of Israel’s March elections - denouncing the Iranian deal Washington, other P5 countries and Germany spent years crafting.

Last week, three dozen retired US generals and admirals wrote an open letter endorsing the Iran nuclear deal. It states in full:

“The Iran Deal Benefits US National Security

An Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals

On July 14, 2015, after two years of intense international
negotiations, an agreement was announced by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia to contain Iran’s nuclear program. 

We, the undersigned retired military officers, support the agreement as the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons (even though Tehran has no intention to develop them).

The international deal blocks (Iran’s nonexistent) pathways to a nuclear bomb, provides for intrusive verification, and strengthens American national security.

America and our allies, in the Middle East and around the world, will be safer when this agreement is fully implemented. It is not based on trust; the deal requires verification and tough sanctions for failure to comply. There is no better option to prevent (a nonexistent plan for an) Iranian nuclear weapon.

Military action would be less effective than the deal, assuming it is fully implemented. If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and US military options remain on the table.

And if the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark. We agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who said on July 29, 2015, ‘(r)elieving the risk of a nuclear conflict with Iran diplomatically is superior than trying to do that militarily.’ “

Fact: No Iranian nuclear weapons program exists.

Fact: No evidence suggests Tehran intends developing one.

Fact: Plenty shows it abhors these weapons. It wants them all eliminated regionally and worldwide to prevent potential armageddon. 

If Iran wanted nuclear weapons, why haven’t their scientists built an arsenal in the last 36 years with technology available to do it?

Obvious points aren’t discussed. Nor real US/Israeli objectives in dealing with Tehran.

Debate over its privately acknowledged peaceful nuclear program is red herring cover for long-planned regime change - by color revolution or war, replacing its sovereignty with subservient puppet governance.

Agreement in Vienna changed nothing. America’s quest for global dominance intends eliminating all independent governments. The dawn of a new era in US-Iranian relations hasn’t arrived.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.


It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.