[News] US 'inciting conflict to trigger war'

[Anti-Imperialist News]

US 'inciting conflict to trigger war'

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=129968&sectionid=3510302
Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:48:58 GMT


Mike Gravel, a former Democratic United States Senator from Alaska.
After voting against the fourth round of 
sanctions on Iran over its nuclear activities, 
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan 
called it a matter of honor for Ankara.

“If we had not said 'no', it would have been 
self-denial... It would have been a lack of 
self-respect,” Erdogan was quoted as saying at a 
Turkey-Arab forum currently being held in Istanbul, AFP reported.

The comment came after Turkey had brokered a deal 
with Iran last month for the exchange of 1,200 
kilogram's of Iranian low enriched uranium with 
highly enriched uranium. The enriched uranium, 
Iran says, is to be used as research reactor to make medical isotopes.

Russia's interests will also go unaffected as the 
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov says the 
country will ensure "absolute protection for all 
significant channels of trade and economic 
cooperation existing between Russia and Iran," 
and that Russian companies would just "adapt" to the new sanctions.

A former US Senator, Mike Gravel spoke to Press 
TV in an interview on Thursday calling the new 
round of sanctions "a terrible mistake" and that 
the US is "inciting conflict" to "push Iran to 
make some silly mistake that could trigger a response".

Below is the transcript of the interview:


Press TV The US ambassador to Brazil has said 
that the new UN sanctions on Iran were "a victory 
for President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton."

But the leaders of Brazil and of course of Turkey 
have both criticized this and said it was a big 
mistake. So, what is your take on this; victory or a mistake?

Mike Gravel A terrible mistake and I cannot 
emphasize that; because, Turkey and Brazil had 
negotiated exactly what President Obama has 
stated in two letters in April that he wanted; 
and then, when they succeeded in that and this 
was blessed by ElBaradei in Egypt, who of course 
was the one who tried to avoid our invasion of 
Iraq. But after all of that was done and they 
succeeded, the United States, within twenty four 
hours, dismissed it out of hand and went back to this game of sanctions.

The sanctions are not going to work, and what is 
embarrassing is that we use all our political 
muscle to get the members of the Security Council 
to go along with sanctions that will not work but 
are also de-stabilizing to our friends and our foes.

Press TV President Obama sent a letter to the 
Brazilian president on April 20 regarding the 
fuel swap that said "the deal with Turkey and 
Brazil would build confidence and reduce regional 
tensions by substantially reducing Iran's LEU 
stock pile
 I would urge Brazil to impress upon 
Iran the opportunity presented by this offer on 
sending its uranium over to Turkey."

But when that happened, they fell back, so how do 
we explain the contradiction? Why the letter then?

Mike Gravel Well, of course there has got to be 
another agenda for it because why in two 
embarrassing situations would the United States 
put forth a position and then after that position 
is acquired, back away from it.

The only logic I can come to is that they want to 
continue to add the threat of possible war with 
Iran, and to cause them to back down.

I would like to point a fact that we should go to 
the fundamentals; what is Iran doing that is 
illegal under world law today? Nothing. Every 
nation under the agreement, the Non Proliferation 
agreement has a right to go out and produce enriched uranium.

Press TV The UN Security Council and definitely 
America, we have heard them so many times say 
that, Iran is violating UN Security Council 
resolutions, and it is making and building covert 
operations at sites inside the country.

Mike Gravel The Security Council is the mouth 
piece of the United States of America and it is 
being misled and it is an embarrassment to what 
they are doing to the United Nations which offer 
so much potential for peace in the world.

So, now, back to the point I am making, why would 
we back away twice from what would be a 
reasonable position. And I cannot think of any 
motivational position than to continue to turn up 
the pressure on Iran hoping they will do 
something stupid that then could trigger us to act in a warlike fashion.

Press TV On the Issue of Israel; of course there 
was a simultaneous activity going on around the 
same time as the UN Security Council which was 
the IAEA who were trying to get Israel discussed 
and that was the first time in 20 years. But the 
EU and the US weren't frankly having it.

They were quite against bringing up this issue; 
they made their criticisms very well known. This 
resolution, a UN Security Council resolution 
talks about the NPT and the NPT being respected. 
Then why, on the other side of that coin aren't 
they pushing Israel towards the NPT. Do you see 
why some people inside Iran and other parts of 
the world will see this as a double standard?

Mike Gravel Article 4 of the NPT; any country who 
is signatory to this has the right to enriched 
uranium and that is all that Iran is doing right 
now; enriching uranium. Now, there is no evidence 
that they are going for a bomb. Nobody has put 
forth any evidence other than irresponsible 
statements by Israel and some American military leaders.

But there is no proof and they say they are not 
going for a bomb, so they are doing no more than 
they have a right to do under Article 4 of the Non Proliferation agreement.

And we are not living up that agreement by 
inciting conflict and by using the UN and the 
Security Council to try to push Iran to make some 
silly mistake that could trigger our response.

This is very serious because in fact I think it 
is irresponsible on the part of the United States 
to go ahead and agree to something and then pull 
away from it when the clenched fist of Iran is 
unclenched and we clench our fist.

Press TV Are we reading too much into it or is 
there more to it than the nuclear issue? Why are people worried about Iran?

Mike Gravel The nuclear is an element of it, but 
you have got to keep in mind, this is part of 
American imperialism and their hegemony of 
economic control. Isn't it ironic that right now 
the scourge of the United States is what British 
Petroleum has done in the Gulf of Mexico?

Well it was British Petroleum that incited the 
overthrow of Mossadegh when we had democracy in 
Iran going forward. Iran is a natural ally of the 
United States because Iran has not gone to war in 
250 years or attacked anybody.

They are not a threat to anybody, they are 
concerned about their own self defense, and they 
should be. For example, what we did in Iraq, with 
out provocation and now with the threats that we 
make with Iran, and now with the sanctions 
manipulating the world community, not all of it, 
but a portion of it, at least in the Security 
Council to go against Iran. Well, Iran may feel a 
bite from the sanctions but let me tell you, this 
is a world of economics involved and there are a 
lot of other sources, particularly China and 
Russia, and regardless of what they said in the 
Security Council, they will continue to trade with Iran.

RBK/MSA




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20100611/2fb3093f/attachment.htm>