from TruthDig Website
The war between the United States and Iran is on.
American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation’s sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions that took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood.
Many Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in their name.
AP photo / Brennan Linsley
guard a road leading to the group’s main training camp,
watched over by a U.S. Army Abrams tank in background, near Baqubah in north-central Iraq.
Many of those who are cognizant of these
activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided sentiment which
holds Iran accountable for a list of grievances used by the U.S. government
to justify the ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just
a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state sponsor of
terror in the world today.
The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran.
The recent spate of explosions in Iran,
including a particularly devastating “accident” involving a military convoy
transporting ammunition in downtown Tehran, appears to be linked to an MEK
operation; its agents working inside munitions manufacturing plants
deliberately are committing acts of sabotage which lead to such explosions.
If CIA money and planning support are behind these actions, the agency’s
backing constitutes nothing less than an act of war on the part of the
United States against Iran.
The MEK membership also became adept at gaining
access to positions of sensitivity and authority. When the Shah was
overthrown in 1978, the MEK played a major role and for a while worked hand
in glove with the Islamic Revolution in crafting a post-Shah Iran. In 1979
the MEK had a central role in orchestrating the seizure of the U.S. Embassy
in Tehran, and holding 55 Americans hostage for 444 days.
In the end, massive acts of arbitrary arrest,
torture and executions were required to break the back of mainstream MEK
activity in Iran, although even the Revolutionary Guard today admits the MEK
remains active and is virtually impossible to completely eradicate.
As such, the group has taken to exaggerating and fabricating reports to serve its own political agenda. In this way, there is little to differentiate the MEK from another Middle Eastern expatriate opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, which infamously supplied inaccurate intelligence to the United States and other governments and helped influence the U.S. decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Today, the MEK sees itself in a similar role,
providing sole-sourced intelligence to the United States and Israel in an
effort to facilitate American military operations against Iran and,
eventually, to overthrow the Islamic regime in Tehran.
The organization represents no state and can be
found on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, yet
since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK has been under the
protection of the U.S. military. Its fighters are even given “protected
status” under the Geneva Conventions. The MEK says its members in Iraq are
refugees, not terrorists. And yet one would be hard-pressed to find why the
1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees should confer refugee status on an active
paramilitary organization that uses “refugee camps” inside Iraq as its
Much has been made about this computer and its contents. The United States has led the charge against Iran within international diplomatic circles, citing the laptop information as the primary source proving Iran’s ongoing involvement in clandestine nuclear weapons activity. Of course, the information on the computer, being derived from questionable sources (i.e., the MEK and the CIA, both sworn enemies of Iran) is controversial and its veracity is questioned by many, including me.
Now, I have a simple solution to the issue of the laptop computer:
Then, with this complex usage template
constructed, overlay the various themes which have been derived from the
computer’s contents, pertaining to projects, studies and other activities of
interest. One should be able to rapidly ascertain whether or not the
computer is truly a key piece of intelligence pertaining to Iran’s nuclear
If the evidence is as strong as the prosecutor maintains, it is usually bad news for the defendant.
However, if the defendant is able to demonstrate inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the data being presented, then the prosecution is the one in trouble. And if the defense is able to demonstrate that the entire case is built upon fabricated evidence, the case is generally thrown out. This, in short, is what should be done with the IAEA’s ongoing probe into allegations that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons. The evidence used by the IAEA is unable to withstand even the most rudimentary cross-examination. It is speculative at best, and most probably fabricated.
Iran has done the right thing in refusing to
legitimize this illegitimate source of information.
Moreover, why is such an official given free rein to discuss such sensitive data with the press, or with politically motivated outside agencies, in a manner that results in questionable allegations appearing in the public arena as unquestioned fact? Under normal circumstances, leaks of the sort that have occurred regarding the ongoing investigation into Iran’s alleged past studies on nuclear weapons would be subjected to a thorough investigation to determine the source and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to end them.
And yet, in Vienna, Heinonen’s repeated
transgressions are treated as a giant “non-event,” the 800-pound gorilla in
the room that everyone pretends isn’t really there.
Mysteriously, leaks from undisclosed sources occur.
Heinonen’s Finnish nationality serves as a
flimsy cover for neutrality that long ago disappeared. He is no longer
serving in the role as unbiased inspector, but rather a front for the active
pursuit of an American - and Israeli - inspired disinformation campaign
designed to keep alive the flimsy allegations of a nonexistent Iranian
nuclear weapons program in order to justify the continued warlike stance
taken by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.
Calling the Iranian possession of the aforementioned document “alarming,” Heinonen (and the media) skipped past the history of the document, which, of course, has been well explained by Iran previously as something the Pakistani nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan inserted on his own volition to a delivery of documentation pertaining to centrifuges.
Far from being a “top-secret” document protected by Iran’s security services, it was discarded in a file of old material that Iran provided to the IAEA inspectors. When the IAEA found the document, Iran allowed it to be fully examined by the inspectors, and answered every question posed by the IAEA about how the document came to be in Iran.
For Heinonen to call the document “alarming,” at
this late stage in the game, is not only irresponsible but factually
inaccurate, given the definition of the word. The Iranian document in
question is neither a cause for alarm, seeing as it is not a source for any
“sudden fear brought on by the sense of danger,” nor does it provide any
“warning of existing or approaching danger,” unless one is speaking of the
danger of military action on the part of the United States derived from
Heinonen’s unfortunate actions and choice of words.
Shortly after Heinonen’s alarmist briefing in March 2008, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, emerged to announce,
Heinonen’s briefing provided nothing of the sort, being derived from an irrelevant document and a laptop computer of questionable provenance. But that did not matter to Schulte, who noted that “Iran has refused to explain or even acknowledge past work on weaponization.”
Schulte did not bother to note that it would be difficult for Iran to explain or acknowledge that which it has not done.
Why is this so troubling?
Because, as Schulte noted,
This, of course, is the crux of the issue: Iran’s ongoing enrichment program. Not because it is illegal; Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Not again because Iran’s centrifuge program is operating in an undeclared, unmonitored fashion; the IAEA had stated it has a full understanding of the scope and work of the Iranian centrifuge enrichment program and that all associated nuclear material is accounted for and safeguarded. The problem has never been, and will never be, Iran’s enrichment program.
The problem is American policy objectives of
regime change in Iran, pushed by a combination of American desires for
global hegemony and an activist Israeli agenda which seeks regional
security, in perpetuity, through military and economic supremacy. The
specter of nuclear enrichment is simply a vehicle for facilitating the
larger policy objectives. Olli Heinonen, and those who support and
sustain his work, must be aware of the larger geopolitical context of his
actions, which makes them all the more puzzling and contemptible.
The most recent fairy tale was one of
“diplomacy,” on the part of one William Burns, the No. 3 diplomat in
the State Department.
The transcripts of the diplomacy conducted
between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho to bring an end to the
Vietnam conflict is likewise a study in the give and take required to
achieve the status of real diplomacy.
The decision to send him there was hailed as a “significant concession” on the part of the Bush administration, a step away from war and an indication of a new desire within the White House to resolve the Iranian impasse through diplomacy. How this was going to happen with a diplomat hobbled and muzzled to the degree Burns was apparently skipped the attention of these writers and their bosses.
Diplomacy, America was told, was the new policy
option of choice for the Bush administration.
Iran, predictably, refused to suspend its
enrichment program, and rejected the Heinonen-led investigation into nuclear
weaponization, refusing to cooperate further with the IAEA on that matter,
noting that it fell outside the scope of the IAEA’s mandate in Iran.
Having played the diplomacy card, Rice moved on with the real agenda:
The issue of unilateral U.S. sanctions is most worrisome.
Both the House of Representatives, through HR 362, and the Senate, through SR 580, are preparing legislation that would call for an air, ground and sea blockade of Iran. Back in October 1962, President John F. Kennedy, when considering the imposition of a naval blockade against Cuba in response to the presence of Soviet missiles in that nation, opined that “a blockade is a major military operation, too. It’s an act of war.” Which, of course, it is.
The false diplomacy waged by the White House in
Geneva simply pre-empted any congressional call for a diplomatic outreach.
Now the president can move on with the mission of facilitating a larger
war with Iran by legitimizing yet another act of aggression.
The answer is simple: We all let it happen.
We are at war with Iran right now. We just don’t
have the moral courage to admit it.