Fact Sheet Iran US Stand Off CASMII Jul10 by Supereagle69

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 4

									           N
                 u CASMII Fact Sheet on the U.S./Iran Stand-off
                        June 2010
                 c www.CampaignIran.org
                 l
1 – Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
                 e
Iran was one of the first of 190 countries to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, the principle U.N
                 a
agreement intended to stop the spread of nuclear weapons (1). The NPT clearly states that all parties to the treaty have an
“inalienable right” to develop, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (2).
                 r
Further, the treaty states that, where possible, countries signing the treaty should help other parties develop nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes, especially states that do not possess nuclear weapons, and states in developing areas (3).

2 - There is no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons

                  w
Despite the insistence by successive U.S. administrations that Iran's nuclear energy program is a cover for developing
nuclear weapons, there is absolutely no proof to back up this charge (4). Thousands of hours of U.N. inspections have not
                  e
produced one shred of evidence of a nuclear weapons program considered credible by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watch-dog agency (5).

Western leaders a quote IAEA stating it has not confirmed the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear materials (6). This
                   often
is the same statement IAEA routinely makes for dozens of NPT countries that have not ratified the voluntary Additional
                  p
Protocol. The U.S. and its allies are demanding that only Iran must prove it is not developing nuclear weapons (7), but
that's a logical impossibility, similar to when the U.S demanded Iraq prove it was not developing weapons of mass
                  o
destruction. Nothing Iraq said or did could stop the 2003 bloody invasion of that country – after which the U.S. had to
admit that its charges were false. Iraq, like Iran today, was guilty without possibility of being proven innocent.

                  n
Further, if Iran intended to develop nuclear weapons, it could have withdrawn from the NPT, as it is entitled to, and thus
would no longer be subject to IAEA inspections. But it has so far not done so, despite receiving very little of the benefits to
                  s
which it is entitled under the NPT. The continuous barrage of false accusations and demonization by Western and Israeli
leaders, amplified by Western media, serves to prepare the public for more sanctions and a possible military confrontation.
The same blueprint was followed with respect to Iraq in the years leading up to the most recent U.S.-led invasion.

3 - Iran’s need for energy is real
                 u
Iran has oil, but not the infrastructure needed to meet its domestic demand for refined products (8). Its dependency on

                 n
Western-dominated global markets, as well as the refining and importation of petroleum products make Iran vulnerable to
foreign economic warfare. Iran has the largest fleet of oil tankers in the Middle East (8), but these ships are easy targets for
attack or sabotage. It is in Iran’s security interest to develop alternatives to oil for internal energy use. With global oil
                 h
supplies shrinking while increasing in price, it is in Iran’s economic interest to reduce its own domestic dependency on oil
and so free up more for export.
                 o
While it actually spends more money on developing wind and solar power, Iran has significant deposits of uranium and is
working to develop nuclear power plants. Ironically, it was the administration of President Gerald Ford, in the 1970s, that
                 l
convinced Iran to pursue nuclear energy as a sustainable alternative to hydrocarbon based production (9). It has been the
three decades of U.S.-imposed sanctions that have been partly responsible for Iran's reaching its present level of uranium
enrichment.      y
                 ,
4 - Iran is not a threat to the U.S. or Israel

In order to justify depriving Iran of its right to develop nuclear energy, many U.S. and Israeli political figures portray the
Iranian leadership as a bunch of irrational fanatics hell-bent on using nuclear weapons as soon as they can develop them.

The truth is that Iran hasn't attacked another country in more than 200 years. The clerical leadership has repeatedly
denounced the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction as un-Islamic, because they kill the innocent
(10). During its 8-year war with Western-backed Saddam Hussein, Iran itself was the victim of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction (11), but Iranians take great pride in not having retaliated in kind.

In order to show good will concerning its nuclear energy program, Iran’s previous reformist government temporarily
suspended its entire nuclear enrichment program and, in December 2003, signed and implemented the IAEA's voluntary
Additional Protocol that provides for more intrusive inspections than those required under the NPT (12). However, Iran
received no similar gestures in return and has since resumed its enrichment program and dropped its Additional Protocol
cooperation.

It's no secret that Iran is opposed to Israeli policies, but, despite constant references to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
supposedly calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” no Iranian leader has ever called for the physical destruction of the
Israeli state (13). On the other hand, both the U.S. and Israel have vastly superior military capabilities, including massive
nuclear arsenals that could instantly annihilate all of Iran. The U.S. has military bases in most countries bordering Iran and
has Naval forces constantly patrolling in the Persian Gulf.

5 - Iran is under constant threat of foreign intervention

All leading U.S. politicians, including President Obama, have stated that, in dealing with Iran, “all options are on the
table,” which means everything up to and including a nuclear attack (14). U.S. and Israeli officials have threatened to
conduct a military attack on Iran, targeting its nuclear facilities (15).

The U.S. has funded anti-government terrorist groups both in and outside Iran (16) and has itself engaged in kidnapping
and sabotage operations inside Iran in direct violation of that country's sovereignty (17).

In addition, the U.S. government annually spends millions in public funds in anti-government propaganda operations
directed at Iranians (17)(19). All these are violations of the U.N Charter, which calls for respect of national sovereignty
and forbids member countries from threatening or using force against other countries (18).

6 - The 2009 Iranian presidential election and its aftermath are being exploited by pro-war forces

Many Western commentators point to the disputed 2009 Iranian elections and claim that, since there is a domestic
opposition to the Iranian government, Iranians would support foreign intervention or regime change effort. This is false
and disingenuous. No significant opposition figure has ever asked for any kind of war, sanctions or even monetary help
from outside the country.

While the idea of “targeted” sanctions has some currency among a minority of exile-based Iranians, it is by no means
supported by Iranians in general. There were reports of similar “support” for pressure and for “smart” sanctions against
Iraq by exiles like Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, reports that were cynically cultivated by the
neoconservatives in order to justify their drive toward war.

7 - The Obama administration has backtracked on its own engagement policy and now actively opposes peaceful
solutions

Barack Obama's presidential campaign included promises to move U.S. policy away from confrontation with Iran and
toward “direct and unconditional negotiations”. Disappointingly, the Obama White House has backed away from that
earlier position. Its current policy is virtually the same as that of the Bush/Cheney administration: before there can be any
negotiations, Iran must first give up its nuclear enrichment program.
For example, before the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran received U.S. assistance under the Atoms for Peace program to
build a nuclear research reactor in Tehran (20). For more than 30 years the TRR has produced medical isotopes for the
treatment of some 800,000 cancer patients. That research reactor is now running out of fuel.

In the fall of 2009, the U.S. proposed that Iran swap, in a third country, 1,200 kilograms (2,646 pounds) of its low-enriched
uranium (LED) for the higher-enriched uranium needed to fuel the TRR. Iran accepted this offer, in principle, but
demanded guarantees to ensure it would actually receive the needed fuel. The Obama administration walked away from the
table, adopting a “take it or leave it” position (21).

On May 17, 2010, Turkey, Brazil and Iran signed a third-country swap agreement that was the same deal earlier offered by
the U.S., except for a clause that provided for the return of Iran’s LED in the event the enriched fuel was not delivered
within a year. Even though evidence has surfaced that President Obama himself encouraged the Brazil/Turkey efforts, (22)
he has now rejected this agreement, reprimanding both allied countries and pushing for new sanctions.

8 - The sanctions policy is deeply flawed, as well as counter-productive

The stated goal of what are now three separate sets of U.N.-imposed sanctions, as well as more than 30 years of unilateral
sanctions imposed by the U.S., is to pressure Iran's government to abandon its uranium enrichment program. In reality, the
sanctions are meant to promote “regime change” by creating popular discontent in the hope that the Iranian people will rise
up and topple their government.

Consistent with this policy, sanctions are meant to have a direct and painful impact on the population. U.S. and Israeli
hawks often claim that sanctions are directed only at the “regime,” but, as numerous analysts have shown, the effects are
primarily felt by ordinary Iranians (23).

This policy is not only criminal, but also flawed. People rarely engage in anti-government activity when their countries are
threatened, as shown by the examples of both Cuba and Iraq, as well as the 1.5 million Palestinians living in the Gaza
Strip. With Iraq in particular, sanctions resulted in a genocidal level of civilian casualties, but still did not produce the
intended results (24).

No matter how devastating a new sanctions might look on paper, they cannot possibly match the severity of the 1980s
Western-backed Iraq war and economic sanctions that Iranians endured without risk to the political establishment.

9 - Sanctions are a gateway to war

Sanctions are not only a form of warfare, they can lead to actual war. The only way to make sanctions viable would be to
impose a total military blockade of all Iranian trade and forcefully intercept Iranian shipping. By any definition, that would
be a declaration of war.

In retrospect, many Iraqis now see the sanctions of the 1990s not simply as “pressure” designed to force Iraq to end its
non-existent WMD program, but as a cynical ploy to physically disrupt and weaken Iraq for an eventual military action.
Those sanctions did succeed – costing of the lives of 1.5 million civilians, including at least a half-million children (25).

It is unlikely that U.S. and Israeli advocates of sanctions are not aware of the clear and direct risk of war. Indeed, some of
the most vocal advocates for sanctions are the same ones who promoted the Iraq War.

10 - A military strike on Iran would be illegal, with dire consequences

A U.S. or Israeli military strike on Iran would be a direct violation of the U.N. Charter, which forbids an unprovoked
attack on another country.

Further, the Iranian government has vowed to respond to any attack with full force. Many analysts warn of a quick chain-
reaction that could lead to a devastating regional war, from Afghanistan to Gaza, as Iran and its regional allies retaliate
against the U.S., Israel and allied governments, requiring a U.S. commitment of significant resources and military
engagement for decades to come.
### Notes

   (1)    U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs - http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml
   (2)    NPT Article IV, Section 1 - http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/pdf/NPTEnglish_Text.pdf
   (3)    NPT Article IV, Section 2 - http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/pdf/NPTEnglish_Text.pdf
   (4)    IAEA chief El Baradei, quoted "I don't think Iran is developing, or we have new information that Iran is developing, a nuclear weapon
          today," BBC, April 9, 2010 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8611864.stm
   (5)    IAEA chief El Baradei, “'No credible evidence' of Iranian nuclear weapons, says UN inspector”, Guardian September 30, 2009 -
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/30/iranian-nuclear-weapons-mohamed-elbaradei
   (6)    The May 31, 2010 IAEA report on Iran says: "While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran,
          Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."
          [parag. 46] - http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2010/gov2010-10.pdf

          Regarding the phrase “lran has not provided the necessary cooperation”, IAEA is referring to “Alleged Studies” documents received
          from Western intelligence agencies purporting to show studies of nuclear weapon systems. But the authenticity of many of these
          documents has been challenged and the documents themselves are not provided to Iran for review and response. Even the IAEA does
          not possess them, as it stated in its 2008 report:

          "Concerning the documents purporting to show administrative interconnections between the alleged green salt project and a project to
          modify the Shahab-3 missile to carry a nuclear warhead, Iran stated that, since some of the documents were not shown to it by the
          Agency, it could not make an assessment of them. Although the Agency had been shown the documents that led it to these conclusions,
          it was not in possession of the documents and was therefore unfortunately unable to make them available to Iran." [IAEA, June 5, 2008,
          parag. 21] - http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-15.pdf
          See also - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KJ08Ak05.html

   (7)    White House: Iran must prove it is not developing nukes”, Haaretz, September 29, 2009 - http://www.haaretz.com/news/white-house-
          iran-must-prove-it-is-not-developing-nukes-1.7033
   (8)    US Energy information administration, January 2010 - http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iran/Oil.html
   (9)    “Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy” - Washington Post, March 27, 2005 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
          dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
   (10)   “Nuclear weapons unholy, Iran says; Islam forbids use, clerics proclaim” - San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 31, 2003 -
          http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/31/MNGHJ2NFRE1.DTL&hw=Khamenei+fatwa&sn=001&sc=1000
          Statement issued by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Aug. 9, 2005 - http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=302258
   (11)   “Chemical Warfare In The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988” - SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) Fact Sheet, May 1984
   (12)   International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) News Center, Oct. 21, 2003 -
          http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/statement_iran21102003.shtml
   (13)   Informed Comment, by Juan Cole – translation of Ahmadinejad's remarks - http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-
          hitchens.html
          “Iran denies wanting to 'wipe Israel off the map'" – Reuters, 2/21/06 - http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-
          02/21/content_522405.htm
   (14)   President George W. Bush – Aug. 12, 2005 - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-13-bush-iran-nuclear_x.htm
          Vice-President Dick Cheney, Feb. 24, 2007 - http://www.craig-barnes.com/speeches/2007/03012008.html
          Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, Aug. 14, 2005 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165666,00.html
          Presidential candidate Barack Obama, February 2007 –
          http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/11/60minutes/main2458530_page3.shtml
          Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, February, 2007 –
          http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-praises-bloombergs-focus-on-environmental/53960
          Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, Jan. 22, 2007 –
          http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223
   (15)   “New U.S. Nuclear Policy Sends 'Strong Message' To Iran, North Korea, Officials Say” - ABC World News, April 6, 2010 -
          http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/us-nuclear-policy-sends-strong-message-iran-north/story?id=10298475
          “Israel threatens to attack Iran unless enrichment stops: minister” – Reuters, June 6, 2008 -
          http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL0625195820080606
   (16)   “Preparing the battlefield” - The New Yorker, July 7, 2008 - http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
          “US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran” - Telegraph, Feb. 25, 2007 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798/US-
          funds-terror-groups-to-sow-chaos-in-Iran.html
   (17)   “The Coming Wars” - The New Yorker, Jan. 24, 2005 - http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/24/050124fa_fact
   (18)   U.N. Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2.4 - http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
   (19)   “Bush plans huge propaganda campaign in Iran” - Guardian, Feb. 16, 2006 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/16/usnews.iran
   (20)   “It was Uncle Sam who first gave Iran nuclear equipment” - Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 2, 2009 -
          http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2009/1002/p04s01-usfp.html
   (21)   “Iran rejects sending uranium abroad” - Reuters, Nov. 18, 2009 - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AH2H820091118
   (22)   “U.S., Brazilian officials at odds over letter on Iranian uranium” - Washington Post, May 28, 2010 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
          dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052705151.html
   (23)   “U.N. Sanctions will hurt ordinary Iranians, says Mousavi” - Telegraph, May 23, 2010 -
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7756576/UN-sanctions-will-hurt-ordinary-Iranians-says-Mousavi.html
   (24)   “The debate over U.N. sanctions” - Frontline (PBS), November, 2002 - http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html
   (25)   Discussing the Iraq sanctions on May 12, 1996 on the CBS program “60 Minutes,” interviewer Lesley Stahl asked U.S. Secretary of
          State Madeleine Albright, “We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima.
          And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it.”

								
To top