Pakistan News Service

Wednesday Oct 18, 2017, Muharram 27, 1439 Hijri
Logo Logo
LATEST :

Iran ; Off the Hook or On the Hook?

10 December, 2007

By Anwaar Hussain


If Israel is not happy with the NIE, it does not matter who else is.

The bolt from the blue called the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, which was released on Monday the 3rd of December, reported “with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program ‘because of international pressure’.”

The NIE, in reality, is a final acknowledgement, and a sort of culmination, of a long trail of track-2 diplomacy and intel gathering that the US State department and intelligence agencies have been conducting, and misconducting, with their Iranian counterparts for some time now.

The report is almost a complete U-turn of the community’s 2005 judgment that Iran was “determined to develop nuclear weapons”. Apart from being a supposed damper on the war lust of the Neocons, the report is a grudging acknowledgement by the West’s intelligence agencies of the rationality of the mad Mullahs.

Now that it is proven that the mad Mullahs were not so mad after all, is Iran off the hook? To answer this question let us go back in time to the immediate post 9/11 period.

In a very recent article written by John H. Richardson in the Esquire magazine, two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush administration have, in some startling disclosures, enumerated several Iranian overtures to resolve their issues with the United States and the Americans’ arrogant rejection of the same.

In this revealing Esquire report, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, who worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council, disclosed that whatever little overt U.S.-Iran engagement the world did see was ‘never serious and designed to fail’. They cite, as an example, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker’s much-publicized meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad. Crocker didn’t even have permission from the White House to schedule a second meeting.

Earlier too, according to the duo, the Iranians had been offering to provide many significant concessions in the war against the Taliban. They agreed to provide assistance if any American was shot down near their territory, consented to let the U.S. send food in through their border, and even agreed to restrain some “really bad Afghans,” like an extremely anti-American warlord named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, by quietly putting him under house arrest in Tehran. But the most important thing, according to Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, was that the Iranians agreed to talk unconditionally. Mann says, “They specifically told me time and again that they were doing this because they understood the impact of this attack on the U.S., and they thought that if they helped us unconditionally, that would be the way to change the dynamic for the first time in twenty-five years.”

The American response came in President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address. In that speech Bush linked Iran to Iraq and North Korea in a portentous phrase, “the axis of evil”. By then the Iranians had been trying to engage American government in high-level diplomacy for more than a year. The shock for them was profound.

Despite the rude ‘axis of evil’ jolt, according to the illuminating Esquire article, the Iranians continued to walk the extra mile in their efforts to normalize their relations with United States. In a fax to the State Department from the Swiss ambassador to Iran, who represented American interests in that country, the ambassador reported to have met with Sadeq Kharrazi, a well-connected Iranian who was the nephew of the then foreign minister and son-in-law to the supreme leader. Kharazzi presented to the Swiss ambassador a stunning proposal for peace in the Middle East, approved at the highest levels in Tehran. In the two-page summary of the proposal, the Iranians gave some spectacular allowances to the United States. Among other things, they promised to take “decisive action” against all terrorists in Iran, an end of support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, a promise to cease its nuclear program and, above all, also an agreement to recognize Israel.

The White House not only ignored the offer, it lodged a formal complaint with the Swiss government about their ambassador’s meddling. What’s more, a little while later, America sent a second carrier group to the Persian Gulf, its troops began to arrest Iranians living in Baghdad, blaming them for meddling in Iraq and openly started accusing Iran of “providing material support” for attacks on U.S. forces, with undertones of a legal justification for a preemptive attack.

According to the op-ed, the situation, in fact, became so alarming that Colin Powell had to warn, “You can’t negotiate when you tell the other side, ‘Give us what a negotiation would produce before the negotiations start’.” Even Henry Kissinger, the chief author of the Cambodian Bombing campaign, urged the need to “exhaust every possibility to come to an understanding with Iran.”

The overtures of the protagonists in the events, from immediately post 9/11 period right up to the 2007 NIE, show pretty unambiguously who had whom fixed in their sights and to what end. So much for the madness of the mad Mullahs.

That was then.

Since the report has been released, in the past few days, the war mongers within the US establishment, and their sympathizers all around, have left no stone unturned in disparaging the NIE to make sure that the US war machine stays on course i.e. on an inexorable path of slamming into Iran.

It has come to light that at the time of his infamous World War-3 statement in the month of October, President George Bush was already aware of the contents of the yet to be released NIE report. Despite the knowledge, he went ahead and proclaimed, “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,”. His administration, resultantly, remains unyielding in its position that policy toward Iran shouldn’t change.

Generally speaking, nearly all the U.S. hardliners on Iran are saying the intelligence document is too ridden with internal political bickerings to be credible. In a Washington Post Op-ed, one John R. Bolton, a fanatical Neocon, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” and currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, observes;

“That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling. While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this “intelligence” torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were.”

Fox News reports Rush Limbaugh, a rabid Neocon mouthpiece, as blasting the testimony in the Conservative talk radio. He called it a “sabotage of the Bush administration,”. The Wall Street Journal editorial, yet another conservative periodical, shreds the credibility of the NIE by proclaiming some of its authors as ‘hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials.’

Above all Israel, the chief beneficiary of America’s foreign policy largesse, doesn’t seem too happy with the NIE. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is said to have observed, “We cannot allow ourselves to rest just because of an intelligence report from the other side of the Earth, even if it is from our greatest friend.” If Israel is not happy with the NIE, it does not matter who else is.

So in conclusion, none of the original members of the war party seem to be much impressed by the NIE. Moreover, little things like a NIE cannot be allowed to stand in the way of ideologies needing solid military muscle for a springboard. Iran, therefore, stays on the hook. The American military juggernaut, for the same reason, stays on course. Only the countdown may be delayed a wee bit.

In an inadvertently honest observation, the NIE categorically states that “Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to weapons irrespective of the political, economic and military costs”. Wish the same could be said of the country in whose service the spy masters have compiled the report.

Copyrights : Anwaar Hussain

http://truthspring.info/2007/12/08/iran-off-the-hook-or-on-the-hook/

Reader Comments:

Iran

IRAN MAY BE OFF THE HOOK FROM MILITARY ATTACK DUE TO TWO REASONS AS SUCH:

1.IRAN STOPPED ANY,EVEN IF IT WAS BABY SCALE OR SMALL SCALE NUKES AMBITIONS FOR THOUGHTS ONLY.AND IT WAS IN 2002-2003.

2.MOST IMPORTANT, IRAN HAS THE WORLD'S LARGEST HYDROCARBON RESERVES(150 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL AND 1000-1200 TRILLION CF OF HIGH QUALITY AND VERY CNG/LPG RICH NATURAL GAS).ANY ATTACK ON IRAN AND ITS GETTING BIG WILL CHOKE OFF THE WORLD ECONOMIES TO GLOBAL SUICIDE OF THE FINANCES.

IN AMERICA IN 1974 AND AFTER PEOPLE WERE SUICIDING AND SHOOTING AT PETROL PUMPS DUE TO EVEN MUCH SOFTER ENERGY CRISIS. ONLY ASSASINATION OF KING FAISAL OF SAUDI ARABIA HELPED THE WEST TO GET OUT OF GROWING ENERGY CRISIS.

THIS TIME OVER IRAN, AMERICA AND EUROPE WILL HAVE ENERGY CRISIS THAT WILL SINK THE WORLD FOR EVER.THE WEST IS IN WEORSE SHAPE THAN EVER IN ENERGY INSECURITY.

BUSH OR DICK CHENNY OR BILL GATES MAY TALK OUT OF POLITICAL OR MILITARY THIRST REASONS TO APPEASE THE MASTER ISRAEL, BUT ENGINEERING WISE AND REALITY WISE, IT WILL BE SUICIDAL TO ATTACK IRAN.IT IS NOT 1974 OR 1976, WHEN AMERICA STILL PRODUCED MORE OIL FOR ITS REFINING CAPACITY THAN IT IMPORTED.AMERICA HAD RELATIVELY LESS ENERGY IN-SECURITY AS KHOMEINI WAS NOT IN YET AND SHAH WAS PROVIDING ALL THE OIL THE WEST NEEDED.AND IRAQ AND KUWAIT WERE STILL FRIENDLY SUPPLIERS OF OIL TO THE WEST.
TODAY, THE WEST CONTROLLS ONLY 2 OUT OF 7 OIL RICH COUNTRIES(SAUDI ARABIA AND ABU DHABI) AND IS DEAD LOCKED IN IN-CONCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE TOGETHER STRADDLING OIL FIELDS OF IRAQ AND KUWAIT.IRAN TODAY HAS DISCOVERED TWICE AS MUCH OIL AND GAS THAN IT USED TO HAVE IN 1974 AND IS EVEN AHEAD OF SAUDI ARABIA IN TOTAL HYDROCARBON HEAT AND ENERGY VALUE OF ITS COMBINED HYDROCARBONS OF OIL AND GAS.
AMERICA TODAY IMPORTS 16 MILLION BPD OF OIL FOR ITS TOTAL CAPACITY OF 20 MBPD.EUROPE AND AMERICA CONSUME 60-65 PERCENT OF THE WORLD'S OIL AND CONTROL ONLY 25 PERCENT OF IT THROUGH SAUDI ARABIA AND ABU DHABI AS SURE UNDER CONTROL AND LITTLE BIT OIL RESERVES WITHIN AMERICA AND EUROPE.CANADA'S TAR SANDS, THOUGH THEY ARE LISTED AS SECOND BIGGEST OIL RESERVES AT 175 BB AFTER SAUDI ARABIA,THEY HAVE 20-25 TIMES LESS PRODUCTION OVER RESERVES RATIO. CANADIAN HEAVY,SOUR AND REFINERY KILLER AND UNFRIENDLY TAR SANDS CRUDE OIL IS ONLY ONE MILLION BPD SUPPLIES IN THE GLOBAL PRODUCTION OF 85 MBPD.AND IT TOOK 45-50 YEARS WITH HEAVILY EXPENSIVE EXTRACTION PROJECTS, LONG DELAYS IN ENGINEERING TO GET THERE.CANADIAN AND VENEZUELLAN OIL SANDS OIL AND AMERICA'S SHALE OIL WILL REMAIN DEPRESSED DUE TO THE POOR QUALITY OF THAT OIL AND ITS REFINERY KILLING NATURE.

THE WORLD SIMPLY DOES NOT HAVE THE ENGINEERING TO GO FULL BLAST SCALE ON BAD OILS AND NOR DOES THE WORLD ENGINEERING CAN GET TIMELY SUBSTITUTE OF OIL.THE POLITICIANS AND THE MILITARY BRASS OF AMERICA OR ANY WHERE ELSE CAN BUTTRESS THEIR EQUALLY IGNORANT MASSES WITH ANY PROMISES THEY CAN.FINALLY, IT IS THE WORLD'S ENGINEERING THAT COUNTS FOR WHAT AND HOW MUCH ENERGY YOU CAN HAVE OR CAN'T.BUSH, DICK CHENY OR BILL GATES ARE NOT GOING TO ENGINEER THE REFINERIES OR ENERGY PROCESS PLANTS THAT YOU CANNOT EVEN HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR ENGINEERING AND THEIR FUNCTIONING.AMERICA'S, CANADA'S AND EUROPE'S INTEGRITY ENGINEERING FOR GAS PLANTS, REFINERIES AND PIPE LINES ARE ALREADY SUFFERING BADLY EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE SOFT AND LESS DETRIMENTAL MATERIALS.WAIT TILL YOU HAVE LIMITED AND BAD OIL AND GAS IN THE PROCESS AND PIPELINE TRANSPORT SYSTEMS AND VERY CONFINED AND DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC ENGINEERING THAT THE WHOLE WORLD IS NOW INCREASINGLY GETTING TRAPPED INTO.

ENGINEERING WAS THE ONLY REASON THAT FAILED THE WEST TO MOVE INTO ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY.THERE WAS ALL TYPES OF POLITICAL RHETORIC IN AMERICA AND EUROPE TO FREE THEM FROM OIL DEPENDENCY OF MIDDLE EAST AND TO MOVE INTO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.THE POLITICIANS COULD'NT DO A DARN THING AS THE ENGINEERING WAS ONLY NOT THERE, BUT COULD NOT BE EVEN BUILT OVER MORE THAN 3 OR FOUR DECADES.AND WITHOUT ADEQUATE ENGINEERING, YOU SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE THOSE ENERGY OR ENERGY ALTERNATE GOODIES, NO MATTER HOW SMART POLITICIAN YOU ARE.

IRAN OF TODAY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT NATION FOR COMBINED ENERGY RESERVES.AND AMERICA AND EUROPE ARE BURNING OIL AND GAS FASTER THAN EVER. THEY ARE DRIVING CARS ENDLESSLY JUST TO SURVIVE ON EXTENDED WORK HOURS OR WORK RELATED ACTIVITIES. YOU TAKE AWAY 20 PERCENT DRIVING FROM THE PEOPLE HERE AND THEY WILL BE SHOOTING EACH OTHER AND THE WORLD MAY NOT EVEN GET A PIECE OF FINANCIAL PIE AS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, MONEY TRANSFERS, NEWLY TO BE PROSPEROUS IMMIGRANTS AND CITIZENS TO US AND EUROPE AND CANADA AND BECOME GLOBAL INVESTORS AND TRAVELLERS.

IRAN IS OFF THE HOOK DUE TO ENERGY REASONS.THEY HAVE VERY GOOD QUALITY GAS WITH 4 PLUS PERCENT CNG AND LPG COMPARED TO NORTH AMERICA'S 1-1.5 PERCENT.IRAN COULD DO AWAY WITH OIL REFINING TO PETROL BY SIMPLY EXTRACTING CNG/LPG FROM ITS EXPANDED GAS PRODUCTION OF 9 TCF BY 2011.150 MILLION LITERS OF CNG/LPG COLLECTED FROM THAT GAS CAN RUN ALL OF IRAN'S CARS.

Anwar Mahmood, Canada - 13 December, 2007

A correction of me

Sorry, it should be Robert Gates rather than Bill Gates as US defence secretary.

I appologize with the reason that I hardly spend more than 25-30 minute on even the longest letter and I rarely edit myself for corrections.

All my letters to Pak Tribune or any where else are quick shoot out savos type and mistakes are discovered after they get published.

Sorry again.

Anwar Mahmood, Canada - 15 December, 2007

iran must have nukes

iran needs nukes to combat usa israeral natoos crimes against muslims . russia is very nice that it gave iran radio active stuff it can be used to make dirty bombs for jews.

boss, Pakistan - 19 January, 2008

 What do you think about the story ? Leave your comments!

Heading (Optional)
Your Comments: *

Your Name:*
E-mail (Optional):
City (Optional):
Country (Optional):
 
 
Field marked(*) are mandatory.
Note. The PakTribune will publish as many comments as possible but cannot guarantee publication of all. PakTribune keeps its rights reserved to edit the comments for reasons of clarity, brevity and morality. The external links like http:// https:// etc... are not allowed for the time being to be posted inside comments to discourage spammers.

  Speak Out View All
Military Courts
Imran - Qadri long march
 
Candid Corner
Exclusive by
Lt. Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)
Pakistan itself a victim of state-sponsored terrorism: Qamar Bajwa
Should You Try Napping During the Workday?
Suggested Sites