https://theintercept.com/2015/04/07/10-things-didnt-know-weve-done-iran/
http://www.antiwar.com/rep/utley9.html
Seven things you didn't know the U.S. and it's allies did to Iran:
1. The founder of Reuters purchased Iran in 1872;
Nasir al-Din Shah, Shah of Iran from 1848-1896, sold Baron Julius de Reuter the right to operate all of Iran's railroads and canals, most of the mines, all of the government's forests, and all future industries. The famous British statesman Lord Curzon called it "the most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that has probably ever been dreamed of." Iranians were so infuriated that the Shah had to rescind
the sale the next year.
2. The BBC lent a hand to the CIA's 1953 overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. If the Reuters thing weren't enough to give Iranians a grudge against the
Western media, the BBC transmitted a secret code to help Kermit Roosevelt (Teddy's grandson) lay the groundwork for an American and British coup against Mosaddegh. (BBC Persian also assisted by broadcasting pro-coup propaganda on the orders of the British government.) Soon enough the U.S. was training the regime's secret police in how to interrogate Iranians with methods a CIA analyst said were "based on German torture techniques from World War II."
3. We had extensive plans to use nuclear weapons in Iran In 1980 the U.S. military was terrified the Soviet Union would take advantage of the Iranian Revolution to invade Iran and seize the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. So the Pentagon came up with a plan : If the Soviets began massing their troops, we would use small nuclear weapons to destroy the mountain passes in northern Iran the Soviets needed to move their troops into the country. So we wouldn't be using nukes on Iran, just in Iran. As Pentagon historian David Crist put it, "No one reflected on how the
Iranians might view such a scenario." But they probably would have been fine with it, just as we'd be fine with Iran nuking Minnesota to prevent Canada from gaining control of the Gulf of Mexico. "No problem," we'd say. "Nuestra casa es su casa."
4. We were cool with Saudi Arabia giving Saddam $5 billion to build nukes during the Iran-Iraq war. You probably know that, after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, Iraq went all out (with our help) trying to make biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and actually used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers. What you probably don't know is that Saudi Arabia was funding
Saddam's nuclear program with billions of dollars, and the Reagan administration knew all about it and didn't care . To understand how this looks to Iran, remember that at least 0.75% of
Iran's total population died during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, the per capita equivalent today of 2.4 million Americans. For comparison's sake, we still constantly talk about World War II - in which 400,000 Americans died, then 0.3% of our population - 70 years later.
5. U.S. leaders have repeatedly threatened to outright destroy Iran. It's not just John McCain singing "bomb bomb bomb Iran." Admiral William Fallon, who retired as head of CENTCOM in 2008, said about Iran: "These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."
Admiral James Lyons Jr., commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in the 1980s, has said we were prepared to "drill them back to the fourth century." Richard Armitage, then assistant secretary of defense, explained that we considered whether to "completely obliterate Iran." Billionaire and GOP kingmaker Sheldon Adelson advocates an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran - "in the middle of the desert" at first, then possibly moving on to places with more people. Most seriously, the Obama administration's 2010 Nuclear Posture Review declared that we will not use nuclear weapons "against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations." There's
only one non-nuclear country that's plausibly not in this category. So we were saying we will never use nuclear weapons against any country that doesn't have them already - with a single
exception, Iran. Understandably, Iran found having a nuclear target painted on it pretty upsetting .
6. We (USA) shot down a civilian Iranian airliner - killing 290 people, including 66 children.
0n July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes , patrolling in the Persian Gulf, blew Iran Air Flight 655 out of the sky. The New York Times had editorialized about "Murder in the Air" in 1983 when the Soviet Union mistakenly shot down a South Korean civilian airliner in its airspace, declaring, "there is no conceivable excuse for any nation shooting down a harmless airliner." After the Vincennes missile strike, a Times editorial announced that what happened to Flight 655 "raises stern questions for Iran." That's right - for Iran . Two years later the U.S. Navy gave the Vincennes 's commander the highly prestigious Legion of Merit commendation .
7. We worry about Iranian nukes because they would deter our own military strikes
Our rhetoric on Iran seems nonsensical: Do U.S. leaders actually believe Iran would engage in a first nuclear strike on Israel or the U.S., given that would lead to a quick and devastating retaliation from those well-armed nuclear powers? Even conservative U.S. foreign policy experts know that's incredibly unlikely. They're not worried that we can't deter a nuclear-armed Iran - they're worried that a nuclear-armed Iran could deter us . As Thomas Donnelly, a top Iran analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, put it in 2004 , "the prospect of a nuclear Iran is a nightmare ... because of the constraining effect it threatens to impose upon U.S. strategy for the
greater Middle East. ... The surest deterrent to American action is a functioning nuclear arsenal."
This perspective - that we must prevent other countries from being able to deter us from waging war - is a bedrock belief of the U.S. establishment, and in fact was touted as a major reason to invade Iraq.
Funeral for victims of downing of Flight 655. (AP). On July 3, 1988, USS Vincennes
Eight Washington Lies About Iraq:
1. IRAQ WAS INVOLVED IN THE 9/11 ATTACK ON AMERICA OR IS CLOSE TO OBTAINING
NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
ANSWER: The War Party in Washington has mounted a vast campaign in conservative media to attack Iraq again. See Georgie Anne Geyer column on lobby in Anti-Arab Advocates Risk U.S. Interests. Saddam is an enemy of Islamic Fundamentalists. Iraqi women are among the most emancipated in the Moslem world. You never see Saddam wearing a robe and shouting about Holy War. Iraq has not been a supporter of "global terrorism," although it does support Palestinian terrorists against Israel's UN declared illegal settlements on the West Bank. There is no evidence of Iraqi nuclear ability, nor that it ever provided chemical weapons to other nations or terrorists.
2. IF WE DON'T BOMB IRAQ, SADDAM WILL USE HIS WMD AGAINST US OR HIS
NEIGHBORS OR ISRAEL.
ANSWER: Saddam is rational. He had these weapons during the First Gulf War and didn't use them because he feared our threats of worse consequences even when his nation was being decimated. Israel has some 200 atomic bombs and its own active biological and chemical weapons program. It can well defend itself. Meanwhile Washington arms all Iraq's neighbors (except Iran), and Turkey bombs and invades Iraq at will. Yet the pressure now in Congress to attack Iraq is based upon its unreal threat to Israel. Also, Iraq's neighbors oppose an American attack. If Iraq was such a threat, why do they not fear it?
3.IRAQ WOULDN'T LET THE UN--US MONITORS INSPECT POSSIBLE WMD PRODUCTION OR STORAGE SITES. THAT'S WHY AMERICA STARTED BOMBING.
ANSWER: Untrue - Iraq did allow them from 1991 until 1998, but Washington still wouldn't take off the trade blockade, under which thousands of children were dying every week without
clean water, electricity, etc. Scott Ritter, the former UNSCOM inspector, told CNN on 2/18/01"In terms of large-scale weapons of mass destruction programs, these had been fundamentally destroyed or dismantled by the weapons inspectors as early as 1996." Yet Madeleine Albright declared in 1997: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted." Clinton went one step further when he said, "sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he lasts." THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT REPUDIATED THESE STATEMENTS.Then in 1998 Washington made new demands, access to all government personnel files, the basis of its power structure. UN weapons inspectors were still roaming Iraq and the country had been found "clean" for 7 years. Iraq saw that U.S. demands were just always escalated with no hope of sanctions being lifted. The Iraqis also complained that most of the UN inspectors were British and American intelligence agents, who were trying to overthrow their government (Scott Ritter
on CNN 1/5/02 said he had been working with Israeli intelligence from 1995-98). Clinton then launched a new bombing campaign using information from the "spy UN inspectors" for bombing targets. Iraq now fears, justifiably, that this would happen again.
4. IT'S SADDAM'S FAULT THAT HALF A MILLION CHILDREN DIED SINCE THE ECONOMIC BLOCKADE, SADDAM COULD FEED HIS PEOPLE IF HE CARED INSTEAD OF USING HIS MONEY TO BUY WEAPONS - " More than one million Iraqis have died - 500,000 of them children - as a direct consequence of economic sanctions... As many as 12% of the children
surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28% stunted and 29% underweight." - UN FAO, December 1995. For details see Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children 1990-98.
ANSWER: Nearly all oil sales money has been controlled through United Nations officials, subject to over 35% reduction for reparations (Iraq is forbidden to contest any claim) and UN expenses, and subject to Washington's veto and foot dragging. Washington allowed food and medicine imports, but almost nothing else for economic reconstruction. For nearly ten years it blockaded chlorine to sanitize the water and any equipment to rebuild the electricity grid, sanitation and irrigation facilities. Even pencils for school children were prohibited. (A NY Times editorial 2/11/01
reports, "currently American diplomats are holding up billions of dollars of imports needed for civilian transportation, electric power generation...and even medical treatment"). Finally the Europeans rebelled at the cruelty and shamed Washington into allowing such imports, ( NY Times 12/6/00) . However, as of 12/2/01 about $1 billion of electric and other machinery has been held up for a year by Washington. Until oil prices increased in 2000, sales ran about $4 billion yearly minus about 35% withheld by UN left 2.6 billion divided by 20 million population = $130 per year per person = 36 cents per day per person for food, medicine. Iraq is now also getting substantial monies through sales of smuggled oil, especially since the price of oil went up and the rest of
the world tires of the American blockade. No doubt some of this goes for weapons purchases.
5. IF IRAQ ALLOWED INSPECTIONS FOR WMD (WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION), WASHINGTON WOULD REMOVE THE BLOCKADE. IRAQ MUST PROVE THAT IT HAS NO WMD AND THAT IT WON'T MANUFACTURE ANY IN THE FUTURE.
ANSWER: There's No Connection Between Inspections and Sanctions on Iraq. Equally no Nation can "prove" a negative, that it's not doing something. Biological and chemical weapons can be made, "in a large closet which is all the space you need to mix deadly chemical weapons... Chemical and biological weapons are the great equalizers against our atomic weapons." ( Time "Everyman a Superpower", 11/24/97). Re inspections, Reuters reported, 12/13/99, "The (European) aim was to prevent the United States and Britain from imposing arms requirements that Iraq could not meet and thus keeping the sanctions in place for years to come." And Agence
France Presse 12/13/99, "French diplomats retorted that by insisting on full cooperation, the council would give the United States an excuse to refuse to suspend sanctions on the flimsiest grounds." Scott Ritter, former head of the U.N. arms inspection team in Iraq, on the NBC Today Show, 12/17/98, explained, "Washington perverted the U.N. weapons process by using it as a tool to justify military actions... The U.S. was using the inspection process as a trigger for war." For details on how Iraq complied, e.g. 700 inspections by UN/US officials, and grew to realize that Washington would prevent the sanctions from ever being lifted see Le Monde-Diplomatique
. Note also that Iraq did not expel the inspectors. The U.N. withdrew them in anticipation of the extensive American bombing attacks.
6. IT'S IRAQ'S FAULT THAT THE BLOCKADE CONTINUES. AMERICA HAS NOTHING
AGAINST IRAQ'S PEOPLE, ONLY AGAINST ITS GOVERNMENT.
ANSWER: Britain and Washington have introduced a "peace plan"demanding that Iraq must allow inspections, but would still be under the trade blockade indefinitely.
Russia and France have introduced a plan (vetoed by Washington) allowing for immediate lifting of sanctions in return for continued, ongoing WMD inspections and blockade of military supplies.
Washington's policy (also followed in Serbia) is to tell local dictators to get themselves killed or thrown out of power (and then tried for "war crimes") or otherwise have their citizenry starve while their country's devastated economy is kept in ruins. The policy was denounced by former Pres. Jimmy Carter . (For detailed discussion of UN resolutions see CASI from Cambridge and IAC
detailed analysis of UN Resolution)
Most nations in the world want trade sanctions lifted for non-military goods. It is the U.S. veto that prevents lifting of sanctions (United Press, 11/1/00). Imposed in 1990 many nations argue
that they were never intended to last for years and are one of the most brutal sanction regimes in modern history. The crippling trade embargo is incompatible with the UN charter as well as UN conventions on human rights and the rights of the child (BBC News Online, 9/30/00).
7. SADDAM GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE
ANSWER: Atrocities are often the key substance of propaganda to get Americans to go to war. Didn't our government also do that at Waco? The C2 gas used by the FBI killed children who couldn't fit into gas masks and then created an explosive mixture which triggered fire
and immolation, (see super documentary, Waco, nominated for an Academy Award).
To see how good natured Americans are lied to by our own government see, How Hill and Knowlton Public Relations "sold" the Iraq War). For the First World War, it was stories that German soldiers ate Belgian babies. For the Iraq war it was lies about babies being thrown out of incubators, "testified" to a Congressional Committee, with massive media coverage, by a "mystery" witness who later turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti sheik's ruling family
who is Ambassador in Washington. It was all lies. Then we were told there were aerial hotographs of the Iraqi Army massed on Saudi Arabia's border ready to attack. They were never
released; they apparently were lies too. How do we know we
weren't also lied to about the gassing? See Jude Wanniski
Report on gassing for questions about it.
8. WAR WOULD BE QUICK AND EASY TO WIN. IRAQIS WOULD WELCOME AMERICANS
TO OVERTHROW THEIR CRUEL DICTATOR. AMERICA WOULD THEN SET UP A
FRIENDLY REGIME, EASILY OCCUPY THE COUNTRY AND RID IT OF WEAPONS
OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
ANSWER: To assume that after massive new bombing (what we always do) and killing tens of thousands more Arabs, that America would be welcome is unreal. Also Washington is now considered in the Arab world as an instrument of Israeli policies. More likely would be continuing
guerrilla warfare against occupying Americans, possible break up of the nation, economic chaos in Jordan and Turkey which trade with Iraq, and/or the rise of a new dictator. War, once started,
has its own momentum. Arnaud de Borchgrave draws a possible scenario of a worldwide oil crisis, overthrow of pro-U.S. Moslem regimes, and chaos for American interests. Also millions more Moslems would be seeking vengeance against America. There would be little support in Congress for a prolonged occupation and "Democracy building."
CONCLUSION
Look at the above and think how America is now hated. No wonder many Arabs engage in suicide missions. American soldiers are so unpopular in Saudi Arabia that the government hides our Airmen away in desert bases to keep them out of sight from its citizenry. How the world sees us was reported by the Wall Street Journal 's European edition editor (2/24/98): "What came up most were charges of American hypocrisy. The US wants to bomb Iraq over its violations of UN directives, but won't take any action against the Israelis for theirs (e.g. occupation of and settlements in Palestine)." Washington Times columnist Bruce Fein (10/9/01) put it another way, "Other nations and peoples are more resentful of our pious hypocrisy
than of Realpolitik bluntness."
Out of the billion plus Moslem world others would finally find new ways, perhaps biological, to hit us back. And meanwhile we would live in constant fear of that day. If, instead, Washington showed justice and fairness in its policies, then it would not be creating sworn and desperate enemies who, in former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick's words, "define themselves as being Enemies of America." The best security for Americans is not to make so many enemies (see
Joseph Sobran column, How Many Enemies Do We Want?)
↧