<html>
<body>
<h2><font size=1><b>Sunday, December 27,
2009</b></font></h2><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2009/12/new-york-crimes-all-lies-that-fit-to.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2009/12/new-york-crimes-all-lies-that-fit-to.html<br>
<br>
</a></font><h3><b>
<a href="http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2009/12/new-york-crimes-all-lies-that-fit-to.html">
The New York Crimes:
</a>
<a href="http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2009/12/new-york-crimes-all-lies-that-fit-to.html">
All The Lies That Fit to Print</a></i>
</u></b></h3><font size=3>"Two things are infinite: the universe and
human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
<dir>
<dir>
- Albert Einstein
</dir>
</dir>"The age of military attacks is over, now we've reached the
time for dialogue and understanding. Weapons and threats are a thing of
the past...even for mentally challenged people."
<dl>
<dd>- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6646115/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-US-and-Israel-dont-have-the-courage-to-attack-Iran.html">
11/23/2009</a></i>
</dl>The American political, academic, and media establishment has long
been
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1676826,00.html">
beating</a> the
<a href="http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/28/analysis-iran-debate-pretty-much-over/">
drums</a> of
<a href="http://original.antiwar.com/roberts/2009/09/28/another-war-in-the-works/">
war</a> with Iran and, as the author of New York Times</i>' latest
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kuperman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all">
OpEd</a> encouraging the US bombing of that country, University of Texas
professor Alan J. Kuperman has now emerged as the Keith Moon of
sensational jingoism and, considering his concept of reality, morality,
and legality, is probably twice as crazy.<br><br>
<a href="http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/alan-kuperman/">Mr.
Kuperman</a>, in a piece published on December 23rd and titled
"There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran", stridently advocates for
an immediate, unilateral, unprovoked and devastating aerial assault on
Iran's nuclear facilities. He writes, <br>
<dl>
<dd>"Since peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work [with Iran], and
an invasion would be foolhardy, the United States faces a stark choice:
military air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities or acquiescence to
Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons."<br><br>
</dl>Apparently, Mr. Kuperman's "one way" is a premeditated act
of war, a preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that has not threatened
nor invaded any country in over two and half centuries. The
"stark" choices that Mr. Kuperman proposes do not include the
obvious legal answer: for US policy to abide by international law and
ratified treaties guaranteeing the right of Iran to a peaceful nuclear
energy program and therefore cease threatening Iran with homicidal
military action.<br><br>
Though Mr. Kuperman claims to believe that "negotiation to prevent
nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action," he
immediately turns around to state, "We have reached the point where
air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing
Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons." He concludes with the dire
warning that "Postponing military action merely provides Iran a
window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against
attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the
better."<br><br>
Mr. Kuperman even believes that "Iran's atomic sites might need to
be bombed more than once to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of
nuclear weapons." His suggestions not only defy all basic logic and
reason, but, more perversely, demonstrate his utter contempt for global
jurisprudence, basic facts, and human life.<br><br>
Despite being a highly educated scholar, Mr. Kuperman, who has a Ph.D. in
political science from MIT, reveals a stunning lack of historical
knowledge, a general disinterest in providing any sort of supporting
evidence or documentation for his baffling assumptions, and a bewildering
inability to discern truth from propaganda, all of which, unfortunately,
inform his outrageous conclusions. In fact, there are so many
unsubstantiated claims and outright lies packed into the relatively short
article, it's an absolute wonder that The New York Times</i> chose to
print it. Has the
<a href="http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/11/iran-iaea-repor.html">
Grey Lady</a> laid off all its fact-checkers?<br><br>
Then again, it should probably come as no surprise that the
"newspaper of record" has no qualms about printing
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org%2Fcockburn08182003.html&ei=hm45S4rXKJPmlAfE_Z2aBw&usg=AFQjCNEWOQq5agZKAZR9maRvUk3gPF4LHw&sig2=OlhWeOpdsglcHG6sUyuXlw">
fiction masked as truth</a>, as seen with the
<a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2362/">relentless
build-up</a> to the invasion and occupation of Iraq just seven years
ago.<br><br>
First of all, Kuperman's constant
<a href="http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/11/politics-of-reporting-on-iaea-reports.html">
mischaracterizations</a> of Iran's wholly legal energy program as an
<a href="http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/files/IAEA_Iran_Report_May2008.pdf">
illicit</a>, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6qmtzj">covert</a> effort to
<a href="http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2009/05/new-york-times-lies-about-irans-nuclear-program-yes-again.html">
build</a> a
<a href="http://mondoweiss.net/2009/05/is-david-sanger-judy-miller-deja-vu-without-the-neocon-fixins-.html">
nuclear bomb</a> stands in stark contrast to all available information
provided and accepted by both the International Atomic Energy Agency</i>
(IAEA), which monitors Iran's nuclear program, and the intelligence
community of the United States, which spies on Iran's nuclear program.
The IAEA has repeatedly
<a href="http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/files/IAEA_Iran_Report_May2008.pdf">
found</a>, through intensive, round-the-clock monitoring and inspection
of Iran's nuclear facilities - including numerous surprise visits to
Iranian enrichment plants - that all of Iran's centrifuges operate under
IAEA safeguards and "continue to be operated as
declared."<br><br>
In an
<a href="http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf">
IAEA report</a> from as far back as November 2003, the agency states that
"to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared
nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a
nuclear weapons programme." Then, after extensive inspections of
Iran's nuclear facilities, the IAEA again concluded in its
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-83.pdf&ei=OWo2S-WBPIvDlAfVxZyiBw&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAkQzgQoAA&usg=AFQjCNFijLDy6vYvuTkZRzQ5xJwivOZwwg">
November 2004 report</a> that "all the declared nuclear material in
Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted
to prohibited activities."<br><br>
In May 2008, the IAEA reported that it had found "no
indication" that Iran has or ever did have</i> a nuclear weapons
program and affirmed that "The Agency has been able to continue to
verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material [to weaponization]
in Iran." Earlier this year, IAEA spokesperson Melissa Fleming even
issued a statement clarifying the IAEA's position regarding the
<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/20/world/fg-iran-nuclear20">
flurry</a> of
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/world/middleeast/20nuke.html">
deliberately</a>
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455024,00.html">
misleading</a>
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/4731092/Iran-has-enough-uranium-to-build-a-nuclear-bomb.html">
articles</a> in the US and European press
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1150804/Iran-fuel-build-nuclear-bomb.html">
claiming</a> that Iran had enriched enough uranium "to build a
nuclear bomb." The
<a href="http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/7517">
statement</a>, among other things, declared that "No nuclear
material could have been removed from the [Nantanz] facility without the
Agency's knowledge since the facility is subject to video surveillance
and the nuclear material has been kept under seal."<br><br>
This assessment was reaffirmed as recently as September 2009, in response
to various media reports over the past few years claiming that Iran's
intent to build a nuclear bomb can be proven by information provided from
a
<a href="http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2009/06/03/report-ties-dubious-iran-nuclear-docs-to-israel/">
mysterious stolen laptop</a> and a dubious, undated - and most likely
<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121538870">
forged</a> -
<a href="http://www.isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/new-document-reopens-question-on-whether-irans-nuclear-weaponization-work-c/">
two-page document</a>. The IAEA
<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpiOh8HRiFE6Sa_idQiCow5EBu1A">
stated</a>, "With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA
reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a
nuclear weapon programme in Iran."<br><br>
Both the out-going and in-coming Director-Generals of the IAEA,
<a href="http://payvand.com/news/07/oct/1291.html">Mohamed ElBaradei</a>
and <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL312024420090703">Yukiya
Amano</a>, respectively, have stated that there is absolutely
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/30/iranian-nuclear-weapons-mohamed-elbaradei">
no evidence</a> of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.<br><br>
Even the United States' National Intelligence Estimate</i> (NIE), which
aggregates classified information from 16 American intelligence and
security agencies,
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf">
concluded</a> in a formal evaluation of Iran's "Nuclear Intentions
and Capabilities" in November 2007 that Iran had no active nuclear
weapons program. A recent Newsweek</i>
<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529">report</a>, from September
16, 2009, indicates that, despite what is constantly repeated by
administration officials and warmongers like Mr. Kuperman, the NIE stands
by its 2007 assessment and that "U.S. intelligence agencies have
informed policymakers at the White House and other agencies that the
status of Iranian work on development and production of a nuclear bomb
has not changed."<br><br>
Jeremy R. Hammond of Foreign Policy Journal</i> accurately
<a href="http://blog.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/12/17/the-bottom-line-on-irans-nuclear-program/">
points out</a> the "important difference between the U.S.
intelligence community’s and the IAEA’s assessments," continuing,
"According to the 2007 NIE, Iran had a nuclear weapons program until
2003. According to the IAEA - the international nuclear watchdog agency
actively monitoring Iran’s program and conducting inspections in the
country - there is no proof Iran ever had a nuclear weapons
program."<br><br>
Nevertheless, in a mere 1492 words, Mr. Kuperman refers to, what he
terms, Iran's "bomb program" eight times and makes ten
additional references to Iran's so-called pursuit of a nuclear weapon
arsenal, nuclear weapons techniques, weapons-grade enrichment, and
weapons trafficking. One can only assume, then, that he has information
that neither the IAEA inspectors nor the United States government has yet
to uncover and examine.<br><br>
Perhaps, devoid of any actual evidence, Kuperman simply takes as a matter
of faith that the Iranian government is intent on and committed to
acquiring nuclear weapons. Maybe he's just worried about supposed
apocalyptic ideologies of modern governments which blend theocracy and
republicanism and agrees with
<a href="http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11699">war</a>
<a href="http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/10">criminal</a>
Benjamin Netanyahu, who warned during his September 24
<a href="http://www.nowpublic.com/world/benjamin-netanyahu-un-speech-full-text-transcript-sep-24-2009">
speech</a> at the UN, in what may have been the single most ironic and
self-unaware statement since "Let them eat cake", that
"the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between
religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction." This
amazing statement came from the designated (not elected) Prime Minister
of a self-described "Jewish State" which currently has
<a href="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/">upwards of 400
nuclear warheads</a> yet has never signed the NPT and is therefore not
subject to inspection and monitoring.<br><br>
But if faith really is a consideration, due to the fact that Iran is a
deeply religious society and a constitutionally mandated Islamic
Republic, perhaps Mr. Kuperman should be aware that, on August 10, 2005,
Iranian nuclear negotiator Sirus Naseri informed an emergency meeting of
the IAEA Board of Governors that a religious decree unconditionally
prohibiting the acquisition of nuclear weapons was in effect. He
<a href="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/mehr080905.html">
stated</a>, <br>
<dl>
<dd>"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling, and use
of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic
Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address
reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and
will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain.<br><br>
<dd>The leadership of Iran has pledged at the highest level that Iran
will remain a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT and has placed
the entire scope of its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards and
Additional Protocol, in addition to undertaking voluntary transparency
measures with the agency that have even gone beyond the requirements of
the agency's safeguard system."<br><br>
</dl>Furthermore, Congressional foreign policy advisor Gregory
Aftandilian, speaking at a Center for National Policy</i> event titled “A
Nuclear Middle East” in October 2008,
<a href="http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1247&Itemid=2">
stated</a> rationally that Iran is "not stupid" and "has a
long history, thousands of years, of statecraft…Tehran is not
suicidal."<br><br>
Even more to the point, the government and military of Iran has a strict
"<a href="http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/khamenei-no-nuclear-weapon-program-no.html">
no first strike</a>" policy, something that countries like the
United States and Israel obviously don't have. Iranian government and
military officials have
<a href="http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2008/06/trick-or-threat-us-and-israels-visions.html">
long stated</a> that they will act in self-defense only if</i> their
country is attacked and have never issued threats about initiating
aggression against another nation. As General Hoseyn Salami, commander of
the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Air Force,
<a href="http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/irgc-air-force-commander-missile-tests.html">
remarked</a> on an Iranian news program on September 28, 2009, "As
long as our enemies act within a political domain, our behavior will be
completely political. However, if they want to leave the domain of
political action and enter the domain of military threat, then our action
will be exactly and completely military."<br><br>
Whereas Iran operates legally with defensive consideration for its own
security in the face of constant
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574418813806271306.html">
bellicose rhetoric</a> and
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6715412.ece">
aggressive posturing</a> from both
<a href="http://news.antiwar.com/2009/05/22/obama-orders-update-to-iran-attack-plan/">
Washington</a> and
<a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255547721120&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull">
Tel Aviv</a>, Mr. Kuperman's advice to the US government directly
contravenes international law. In fact, even the threat of attack is
prohibited by the
<a href="http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml">Charter of
the United Nations</a>, which states, "All Members shall refrain in
their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
(Article 2, paragraph 4)<br><br>
In July 1946, Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor at Nuremburg after
World War II, stated in his
<a href="http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/speeches/speeches-by-robert-h-jackson/closing-address-before-the-international-military-tribunal/">
Closing Argument</a> of the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the
International Military Tribunal that of all Nazi war crimes, including
invasion, occupation, mass displacement, concentration and extermination
camps, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, "the central crime in this
pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together, is the plot
for aggressive wars."<br><br>
When the <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp">judgment of
the IMT</a> was delivered a few months later, it maintained that "To
initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is
the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in
that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the
whole."<br><br>
The Nuremburg judgment had a profound influence on subsequent
international law; its findings and conclusions served as the framework
for UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide</i> (1948), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights</i>
(1948), The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War</i> (1949)
and its additional protocols (1977), The Nuremberg Principles</i> (1950),
The Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War
Crimes and Crimes against Humanity</i> (1968), and the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court</i> (1998).<br><br>
Considering Mr. Kuperman has a Masters degree in international relations
and international economics from the Bologna-based Johns Hopkins
University School of Advanced International Studies, one might assume he
would have a strong grasp on these governing principles of international
law. Alas, as his policy suggestions seem based upon myriad
misunderstandings of simple information and are tantamount to the supreme
war crime of aggression, it appears that his higher education is not the
only thing about Kuperman that's bologna based.<br><br>
Kuperman begins his OpEd by declaring that the recent draft agreement
proposed by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security
Council (all of them nuclear weapons states) and Germany (which engages
in "<a href="http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf">nuclear
sharing</a>" with the United States,
<a href="http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2000nuclearsharing1.htm">
widely</a>
<a href="http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/statements/npt02malaysia.pdf">
seen</a> as a
<a href="http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom08/ngostatements/NuclearSharing.pdf">
major</a>
<a href="http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/1998criticismnato.htm">
breach</a> of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty itself) was defective
from the outset and would have aided Iran on, as Kuperman would have us
believe, its nefarious quest to build nuclear bombs. He
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kuperman.html">
claims</a> that the proposal, which called for roughly 70% of Iran's
accumulated low-enriched uranium to be sent to Russia and France for
further processing before it was returned (sometime in the future) for
use in a medical reactor core in Tehran, would have "rewarded [Iran]
with much-coveted reactor fuel despite violating international law"
and "fostered proliferation" because "the vast surplus of
higher-enriched fuel Iran was to get under the deal would have permitted
some to be diverted to its bomb program."<br><br>
The Western proposal was met with considerable and understandable
skepticism from all segments of Iranian establishment who see the offer
as being a way to permanently stop Iran's enrichment capabilities, which
are legally guaranteed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which
Iran has been a
<a href="http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm">signatory</a>
for over 40 years. Iran's Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani
<a href="http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=109516§ionid=351020104">
warned</a> on October 24 that "Westerners are insisting to go in a
direction that suggests cheating." Iran's head-of-state Grand
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, speaking on November 4, also cautioned against
the deal,
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110301397.html?sub=AR">
stating</a>, "When we carefully look at the situation, we notice
that [the United States and its allies] are hiding a dagger behind their
back."<br><br>
Even Mir Hossein Mousavi, presidential challenger and leader of the
current opposition movement, criticized the proposal in late October when
he declared, "If the promises given [to the West] are realized, then
the hard work of thousands of scientists would be ruined." Mehdi
Karroubi, another opposition leader and presidential hopeful,
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091108/wl_nm/us_iran_karoubi">
accused</a> Ahmadinejad's administration of
<a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/24/waiting_for_tehran">
abandoning national interests</a> by negotiating with the IAEA.<br><br>
Nevertheless, Time</i> reported that "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
<a href="http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/10/29/worldupdates/2009-10-29T144319Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-435242-3&sec=Worldupdates">
insisted</a> on October 29 that 'conditions have been prepared for
international cooperation in the nuclear field' and his administration is
'ready to cooperate.'" Furthermore, Iran's nuclear negotiator
<a href="http://televisionwashington.com/floater_article1.aspx?lang=en&t=1&id=15483">
Saeed Jalili</a>, Armed Forces chief of staff
<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gKiooKb-o9ruNXNJEjjNtTtn6E-g">
General Hassan Firouzabadi</a>, and Iran's representative to the IAEA,
<a href="http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=208519">Ali
Asghar Soltanieh</a> all expressed a desire to use diplomatic efforts to
find a reasonable and suitable solution to the current standoff.<br><br>
In early December, Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html?_r=1">
stated</a> that Iran was "willing to exchange most of its uranium
for processed nuclear fuel from abroad" in a phased transfer of
material with
<a href="http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1006503">full
guarantees</a> that the West "will not backtrack an exchange
deal." Mr. Mottaki proposed that Iran would agree to initially hand
over 25% of its uranium in a simultaneous exchange for an equivalent
amount of enriched material in order to fuel the medical research
reactor. The remainder of the uranium would be traded over "several
years."<br><br>
In response, The New York Times</i>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html?_r=1">
reported</a> that this proposed timetable was immediately rejected by
Western powers. The US government-sponsored Voice of America</i>
<a href="http://www.payvand.com/news/09/dec/1131.html%20">quoted</a> an
unidentified senior US official as claiming that the Iranian
counter-proposal inconsistent with the "fair and balanced"
draft agreement. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has
<a href="http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWgSBd8knYlaq-D0zQjSHKiT2nAQ">
previously threatened</a> to "totally obliterate" Iran,
<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1109/Clinton_says_Iran_should_accept_nuclear_deal_as_is_.html">
urged</a> Iran to "accept the agreement as proposed because we are
not altering it."<br><br>
Apparently, the US government is unaware of what a "draft
agreement" is. By definition, it is a proposal - a "draft"
- not a final, binding accord. It is a primary piece of negotiation that
can and should be revised by all parties until a mutually beneficial
agreement is reached. The West appears to only accept its own offers and
dismisses any other suggestions. This is not diplomacy, this is no
"outstretched hand." This is, quite simply, an illegal and
imperial ultimatum dictated to the sovereign nation of Iran by
historically aggressive, colonial powers.<br><br>
As The New York Times</i>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html?_r=1">
reported</a>, <br>
<dl>
<dd>"Mr. Mottaki also suggested that the Western news media had
helped torpedo the October agreement by framing it in hostile terms that
confirmed Iran’s fears of losing its nuclear supplies.<br><br>
<dd>'We said we are in agreement on the principles of the proposal, but
suddenly the Western media announced that 1,200 kilograms of uranium
would be leaving Iran to delay the construction of a nuclear bomb,' Mr.
Mottaki said, according to Iran’s semiofficial Mehr news agency. 'Is this
the answer to Iran’s confidence-building?<br><br>
</dl>Still, Mr. Kuperman mischaracterizes Iran's supposed
acceptance-then-rejection of the absurd Western proposition.
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad initially embraced the deal because
he realized it aided Iran's bomb program," he writes, and then
claims that "under such domestic pressure, Mr. Ahmadinejad
reneged."<br><br>
Mr. Kuperman declares that "Tehran’s rejection of the deal was
likewise propelled by domestic politics - including last June's
fraudulent elections and longstanding fears of Western
manipulation." Not only does this statement simply assume that the
reelection of President Ahmadinejad was stolen and illegitimate
(<a href="http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2009/06/in-fraud-we-trust_23.html">
a tired narrative devoid of any substantiated evidence</a>), he dismisses
<a href="http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2009/06/ajax-redux-us-heavy-meddle-in-iran.html">
foreign involvement</a> - namely that of the US - in Iranian affairs by
employing the word "fears" rather than
"facts."<br><br>
Perhaps Mr. Kuperman is unaware that in 2007, ABC News</i>
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3206417">reported</a>
that George W. Bush had signed a secret "Presidential finding"
authorizing the CIA to "mount a covert 'black' operation to
destabilize the Iranian government." These operations, according to
current and former intelligence officials, included "a coordinated
campaign of propaganda broadcasts, placement of negative newspaper
articles, and the manipulation of Iran's currency and international
banking transactions." The Sunday Telegraph</i> corroborated this
information when it
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798/US-funds-terror-groups-to-sow-chaos-in-Iran.html">
stated</a>, "Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA
plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to
destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the
mullahs."<br><br>
It is also well-known that, a year later, the Bush administration was
granted $400 million with which to further destabilize Iran via, as the
Washington Post</i>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901881_pf.html">
reported</a> at the time "activities ranging from spying on Iran’s
nuclear program to supporting rebel groups opposed to the country’s
ruling clerics…" The
<a href="http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/5551">rebel
groups supported</a> by such funding and training include, according to
both
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew05022008.html">Counterpunch</a>
</i>'s Andrew Cockburn and the
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh">
New Yorker</a></i>'s Seymour Hersh, the militant Sunni group
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/10/jundallah.html">
Jundullah</a>, or "army of god," and the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK
or PMOI), which maintains an "enduring position on the State
Department's list of terrorist groups."<br><br>
Although Washington officially denies involvement, the Sunday
Telegraph</i>
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798/US-funds-terror-groups-to-sow-chaos-in-Iran.html">
reports</a> that funding for Jundallah's "separatist causes comes
directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now 'no great secret',
according to one former high-ranking CIA official," whose claims
were confirmed by former US State Department counter-terrorism agent Fred
Barton, who said that Jundallah's
<a href="http://news.antiwar.com/2009/05/28/at-least-30-killed-in-mosque-bombing-in-iranian-balochistan/">
terrorist</a> activities "inside Iran fall in line with US efforts
to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian
regime." Among the bombings and violent attacks for which Jundallah
has claimed
<a href="http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=108982§ionid=351020101">
responsibility</a> are the killings of nine Iranian security guards in
2005, another 11 in a 2007 bombing, at least 16 Iranian police officers
in a 2008 attack, and, most recently, the deadly bombing of a security
gathering in southeast Iran on October 18, 2009 which killed 35 people
including several top regional security officials and provincial
commanders of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).<br><br>
Further, ABC News</i> has
<a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html#">
reported</a> that, according to Pakistani and U.S. intelligence
officials, Jundallah is "responsible for a series of deadly
guerrilla raids inside Iran" and "has been secretly encouraged
and advised by American officials since 2005." The report continued,
<br>
<dl>
<dd>"U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S.
provides no funding to the group, which would require an official
presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional
oversight. The money for Jundullah was funneled to its leader, Abdelmalek
Rigi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf
states."<br><br>
</dl>These connected Iranian exiles are members of the MEK, the Iranian
opposition network that, in 1981, assassinated about 70 high ranking
Iranian officials including cabinet members, elected parliamentarians,
and the new Chief Justice when it bombed state headquarters. After the
Iranian Revolution, the group moved its headquarters to Iraq and was
supported by Saddam Hussein during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War that
claimed the lives of over a million people. The MEK also claims
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/">
responsibility</a> for informing the United States and its allies about
Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program, for which no verifiable evidence
has ever been found.<br><br>
On December 15, 2009, Texas Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee
<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r111:2:./temp/%7Er111d53nsq::">
addressed</a> Congress regarding that fate of MEK exiles currently living
in <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08212009.html">Camp Ashraf
in Iraq</a>. The Congresswoman pleaded for the Obama administration to
"save" the "Iranian dissidents [who] are now huddled [at
Camp Ashraf], fearful for their lives." She claimed that the
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/opinion/22sat3.html?_r=1">
Iraqi government</a>, which is now tasked with guarding the camp after US
forces recently handed over control, had put the exiles "at risk of
arbitrary arrest, torture or other forms of ill treatment and unlawful
killing," and described the MEK - which, again, is designated as a
terrorist group by the US State Department - as "dissidents who
simply want to live in peace and alone." Apparently, Ms. Jackson-Lee
saw nothing wrong with begging the United States to support terrorists,
as long as those terrorists have the goal of toppling the Iranian
government.<br><br>
Plus, just last week, Iranian Intelligence Ministry
<a href="http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=114774§ionid=351020101">
announced</a> that a number of MEK members have been arrested for violent
activity and destruction of public and private property at recent
anti-government protests in Tehran.<br><br>
American involvement, both overt and covert, in Iranian affairs is beyond
doubt, thereby making Mr. Kuperman's blow-off of Iran's "fears of
Western manipulation" completely absurd.<br><br>
In a June 24, 2009
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr2SALuISyk">interview</a> on Al
Jazeera</i> reporter Josh Rushing asked former National Security Advisor
Brent Scowcroft if the US has "intelligence operatives on the ground
in Iran," to which Scowcroft simply replies, "Of course we
do."<br><br>
The very next day, USA Today</i>
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-25-iran-money_N.htm">
reported</a> that "the Obama administration is moving forward with
plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents" via the US
Agency for International Development</i> (USAID) program which has long
been known as a cover for the US government to fund regime change
operations in various parts of the world.<br><br>
A few days later, during a June 28 CNN</i>
<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0906/28/fzgps.01.html">
interview</a> with Robert Baer, Fareed Zakaria asked the retired 21 year
CIA veteran and former Middle East undercover operative, "Isn’t it
true that we do [try to destabilize the regime]? Don’t we fund various
groups inside and outside Iran that do try to destabilize the
government?" Baer answered, "Oh absolutely," adding,
"There is a covert action program against Iran where the [U.S.]
military is running; a covert action against Iran from Iraq and
Afghanistan."<br><br>
One month later, on July 26, Mr. Zakaria interviewed
<a href="http://inaes.ut.ac.ir/Static/American/Marandi.htm">Seyyed
Mohammad Marandi</a>, a North America studies professor and political
analyst at the University of Tehran. Mr. Marandi
<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/26/fzgps.01.html">
revealed</a> that "Right now you have almost 40 television channels
in Persian being broadcast into Iran from the United States and Europe -
basically funded by the American government and European governments, or
in some cases owned - which have played a very negative role over the
past few weeks, turning people against one another... in many cases, they
call for riots, and they call for violence." Mr. Zakaria, for
unknown reasons, took it upon himself to deny these
<a href="http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=32997">
widely-accepted</a> and
<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/bias-found-in-voa-broadcasts-to-iran/">
well</a>
-<a href="http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/anti-iranian-ahwaz-tv-back-on-satellite">
evidenced</a>
<a href="http://www.payvand.com/news/09/feb/1080.html">allegations</a>
.<br><br>
The veracity of such claims was confirmed a couple of weeks later, on
August 9, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hcI2cEI2R_30663RxlsVetrBx_dg">
declared</a> "Now, behind the scenes, we were doing a lot,"
Clinton said. "We were doing a lot to really empower the protesters
without getting in the way. And we're continuing to speak out and support
the opposition."<br><br>
Even John Limbert, embassy
<a href="http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/me090413a.htm">
hostage</a> turned
<a href="http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/wilayto111109.html">Deputy
Assistant Secretary for the Near East at the US State Department</a>,
chimed in during a December 10, 2009 interview with CNN</i>'s Christiane
Amanpour. He
<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/10/ampr.01.html">
stated</a> that the United States government "will not sit
silently" and "will not ignore what happens on the streets of
Tehran," continuing that, "we believe, as we have always
believed, that the Iranian people deserve decent treatment from their
government."<br><br>
This is a truly amazing thing for a US official to say, especially one
who worked in Tehran during the
<a href="http://www.pri.org/theworld/?q=node/3567">Iranian Revolution</a>
thirty years ago. At that time, the United States government supported,
both vocally and materially, the brutal dictatorship of the Shah of Iran,
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_hostage.html">
referred to</a> as "an island of stability" by President Carter
in 1977. Under the Shah's tyrannical rule, a
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923854,00.html">
Time</a></i>
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923854,00.html">
article</a> from January 7, 1980, tells us, "Dissent was ruthlessly
suppressed, in part by the use of torture in the dungeons of
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912364,00.htm">
SAVAK</a>, the
[<a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/index.html">US and
Israeli-trained</a>] secret police."<br><br>
Furthermore, the Time</i>
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923854,00.html">
article</a> continues, <br>
<dl>
<dd>"The depth of its commitment to the Shah apparently blinded
Washington to the growing discontent. U.S. policymakers wanted to believe
that their investment was buying stability and friendship; they trusted
what they heard from the monarch, who dismissed all opposition as 'the
blah-blahs of armchair critics.' Even after the revolution began, U.S.
officials were convinced that
'<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,916526-2,00.html">
there is no alternative to the Shah</a>.'</i></b> Carter took time out
from the Camp David summit in September 1978 to phone the Iranian monarch
and assure him of Washington's continued support." [emphasis
mine]<br><br>
</dl>Limbert, of all people, should know better than to claim that the US
government cares about the rights and desires of the Iranian people. What
it really cares about, and has always cared about, is fueling protests of
anti-imperial governments and bolstering opposition to administrations
that repel American hegemony, hubris, and dominance.<br><br>
It may also be interesting to note that, whereas the
<a href="http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2009/06/14/dod_training_manual_protests_are_low-level_terrorism">
US Department of Defense</a> considers "protests" to be a type
of
"<a href="http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2009/06/22/dod_deletes_protest_terrorism_problems_remain">
low-level terrorist activity</a>," according to one of its
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file89_39820.pdf">
2009 training manuals</a>, State Department official Limbert takes great
pride in
<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/10/ampr.01.html">
saluting</a> the "brave people of Iran...who are going out on the
street and demonstrating." One wonders if he also salutes
<a href="http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=Protest-What-Protest-Ame-by-Dave-Lindorff-091214-754.html">
anti-war protesters</a> here in the United States.<br><br>
But this is all just the tip of Mr. Kuperman's iceberg of deliberate
disinformation.<br><br>
Insisting multiple times during his piece that Iran is "violating
international law" by not responding to UN Security Council
resolutions calling for an immediate halt to its enrichment program, Mr.
Kuperman again demonstrates his own lack of awareness of the fundamental
principles of jus cogens</i>, or peremptory norm</i>, as it applies to
the authority of UNSC resolutions and the NPT agreement. Again, this is
surprising due to Mr. Kuperman's current role as director of the Nuclear
Proliferation Prevention Program</i> at the University of Texas at Austin
and his former stint as Senior Policy Analyst for the nongovernmental
Nuclear Control Institute</i>.<br><br>
Mr. Kuperman might want to review the tenets of the
<a href="http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf">
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty</a></i> first. Article IV of the treaty
states: <br>
<dl>
<dd>1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the
inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop, research,
production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without
discrimination</i></b> and in conformity with Articles I and II of this
Treaty [which prohibit the transfer or acquisition of nuclear
weapons].<br><br>
<dd>2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have
the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment,
materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy</i></b>. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do
so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other
States or international organizations to the further development of the
applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the
territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due
consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world</i></b>.
[emphasis mine]<br><br>
</dl>As neither the IAEA nor the US intelligence community has found any
evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, Iran not only has the
legal right to develop and produce peaceful nuclear energy on its own
soil, but it has the inalienable right</i></b> to do so, under the terms
of the NPT. Under these terms, no one and nothing - government, agency,
council, resolution, draft agreement - can infringe upon Iran's right to
operate power plants and enrich uranium for a civilian nuclear
program.<br><br>
Therefore, any resolutions calling for Iran's inalienable right to be
relinquished are, in and of themselves, wholly illegal. Paranoid
suspicions, demonizing propaganda, and allegations without evidence are
totally insufficient to demonstrate
<a href="http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2008/01/iran-did-not-vi.html">
any violations</a> of the NPT by the Iran government.<br><br>
Cyrus Safardi of IranAffairs</i>, in addition to supplying supporting
documentation from the UN's own
<a href="http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G06/610/77/PDF/G0661077.pdf?OpenElement">
International Law Commission</a></i> and the British Institute of
International and Comparative Law</i>,
<a href="http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/08/i-have-received.html">
explains</a>," <br>
<dl>
<dd>Article 103 of the UN Charter says that UNSC resolutions trump
obligations under international treaties such as the NPT. However,
Article 103 does not apply to sovereign rights and jus cogens. It is a
general and well-recognized principle of international law that UNSC
resolutions that are contrary to jus cogens are ultra vires and NOT
binding."<br><br>
</dl>With this in mind, it is clear that all UNSC resolutions that
"<a href="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm">
demand</a>" Iran suspend enrichment and close its intrusively
monitored and meticulously inspected nuclear facilities - UNSC
resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), and 1803 (2008) - are
contradictory, illegal and consequently non-binding.<br><br>
Furthermore, Safardi
<a href="http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/08/the-legality-of.html">
writes</a> that "Iran's safeguard agreement with the IAEA, and the
IAEA statutes, only permit a referral to the UNSC when there has been a
diversion of fissile material for non-peaceful use." Since the IAEA
had previously confirmed that there had been no such diversion and
without any evidence of a nuclear weapons program, its referral of the
Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council was, as
<a href="http://www.campaigniran.org/">CASMII</a></i> founder Abbas
Edalat points out,
"<a href="http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/1753/print">
politically motivated and illegitimate</a>." Edalat continues, <br>
<dl>
<dd>"On February 15th [2007], Stephen Rademaker, the former US
Assistant Secretary for International Security and Non-proliferation
confessed that the two crucial votes by India against Iran in the
Governors’ Board of the IAEA which led to Iran’s referral to the Security
Council were indeed the result of US coercion. Incidentally India, like
the other US allies Pakistan and Israel, is not a signatory to the NPT
and has developed nuclear bombs which is tolerated and supported by the
US.<br><br>
</dl>Because the IAEA's referral of Iran's file to the UNSC was
<a href="http://www.payvand.com/news/07/dec/1044.html">unwarranted</a>
and because the UNSC resolutions are themselves
<a href="http://foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/04/08/irans-outlawed-nuclear-program/">
illegal</a>, Iran has no reason to abide by them and is therefore under
no obligation to halt its nuclear program, as Mr. Kuperman keeps
insisting.<br><br>
In fact, the United States is currently in
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d29-Irans-Nuclear-Program-Iran-in-treaty-compliance-USIsrael-lying-and-out-of-compliance">
violation</a> of the NPT itself, insofar as "the US has refused to
negotiate for complete disarmament and verification per treaty terms and
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner%7Ey2009m12d9-Official-US-policy-Nuke-Iran-because-nuclear-program-might-wipe-Israel-off-map">
actively plans to use nuclear weapons</a>, including first-strike use
against 'enemies' who may only become threats in the future,"
according to Carl Herman of the
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner%7Ey2009m12d11-WMD-treaty-violations-and-inspection-refusal-for-biological-nuclear-chemical-weapons-Iran-No-US">
Examiner</a></i>.<br><br>
Even though Mr. Kuperman deems violations of international law cause
enough to justify military campaigns, he doesn't seem to mind Israel's
constant trespasses and consistent ignoring of
<a href="http://www.mediamonitors.net/michaelsladah&suleimaniajlouni1.html">
numerous</a>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=ogxeTxD_kZ4">
Security Council</a>
<a href="http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html">resolutions</a> since
1967.<br><br>
Continuing, Mr. Kuperman declares that "while Iran permits
international inspections at its declared enrichment plant at Natanz, it
ignores United Nations demands that it close the plant, where it gains
the expertise needed to produce weapons-grade uranium at other secret
facilities like the nascent one recently uncovered near
Qom."<br><br>
Isn't everything "secret" until it's announced? What Mr.
Kuperman probably knows, but refuses to say since it would weaken his
argument for illegally bombing another country and willfully murdering
innocent people, is that the new Fordo nuclear facility was actually
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58O1N420090925">announced
to the IAEA by Iran itself</a>, in advance of the panicky press
conference held on September 25 by President Obama, UK Prime Minister
Gordon Brown of Britain and French President Nicholas Sarkozy. "I
can confirm that on 21 September, Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that
a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the
country," IAEA spokesman Marc Vidricaire
<a href="http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107088§ionid=351020104">
said</a>.<br><br>
Under its current
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/09/has-iran-violated-its-nuclear-safeguards-obligations.html">
safeguards agreement</a> with the Agency, Iran is not obligated to inform
the IAEA of any new facilities until six months before the introduction
of nuclear material to the site. Since the Fordo enrichment plant is not
yet operational, and won't be for another 18 months, Iran has broken no
rules. In fact, the site was announced a full year before it needed to
be. As Ali-Akbar Salehi, Iran's nuclear chief, remarked, "This
installation is not a secret one, which is why we announced its existence
to the IAEA."<br><br>
Ahmadinejad even pointed out that the agreements and guidelines between
Iran and the IAEA do not require approval by the United States. "We
have no secrecy, we work within the framework of the IAEA," he
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6850325.ece">
said</a>. "This does not mean we must inform Mr Obama’s
Administration of every facility that we have."<br><br>
That Mr. Kuperman would claim the Fordo site near Qom was
"secret" is unsurprising, considering the same constant refrain
in media outlets like the New York Times</i>. What is interesting is his
allegation that the facility allows Iran to acquire knowledge about
producing nuclear weapons is especially bizarre considering that, after
inspectors surveyed the new plant, IAEA Director-General ElBaradei
<a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126198.html">declared</a>
that the agency's monitors found "nothing to be worried about,"
continuing, "It's a hole in a mountain."<br><br>
"The idea was to use it as a bunker under the mountain to protect
things," ElBaradei said. Due to the constant threats by the US and
Israel to bomb Iran, especially by arm-chair warriors like Mr. Kuperman,
it should come as no surprise that the Iranian government might be
interested in
<a href="http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23200">defending</a> their
scientific facilities and technological progress from such attacks. In
fact, not doing so would be irresponsible.<br><br>
Without providing even a shred of evidence, Mr. Kuperman states that
"Iran supplies Islamist terrorist groups in violation of
international embargoes." He is obviously referring to Hamas and
Hezbollah, two democratically-elected resistance groups, which are
consistently demonized in the Western press for being opposed to Israeli
settler-colonialism, illegal and oppressive occupation, and American
military imperialism. What is left out, of course, is that the
US-supported Israeli siege of Gaza is itself "illegal" and
displays "profound inhumanity," according to
<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/un-official-says-israels-siege-of-gaza-breeds-extremism-and-human-suffering-760096.html">
John Ging</a>, Gaza's director of operations for the refugee agency
UNRWA. Furthermore, according to the Policy Declaration</i> of the new
Government of the Republic of Lebanon, issued on November 26, 2009, <br>
<dl>
<dd>“It is the right of the Lebanese people, Army and the [Hezbollah
led-]Resistance to liberate the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shuba Hills and
the northern part of the village of Ghajar as well as to defend Lebanon
and its territorial waters in the face of any enemy by all available and
legal means.”<br><br>
</dl>As a result, Lebanon expert Franklin Lamb
<a href="http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/11/27/lebanon-accepts-hezbollah-s-weapons-and-">
explains</a>, "Legally, constitutionally, and politically, Lebanon’s
new National Unity Government policy legitimizes, embraces, and
incorporates by reference, according to some Pentagon and State
Department analysts, the National Lebanese Resistance," and affirms
that Hezbollah and the State of Lebanon are "inseparable and
indivisible with respect to defending this country from foreign
interference and occupation. It affixes the Governmental imprimatur for
liberating Lebanese lands still occupied by Israeli forces." Lamb
continues, <br>
<dl>
<dd>"According to some international lawyers, it also fulfills UN
Security Council Resolution 1559 regarding disarming militias because
Lebanon has in effect declared that the arms of the Hezbollah led
Resistance are part of the defense of Lebanon itself and not a particular
movement or political party. This Policy statement satisfies UNSCR 1701
for the same reason."<br><br>
</dl>Mr. Kuperman also does not address how American funding of the
Israeli occupation and
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10303.shtml">military
support</a> for its frequent invasions,
<a href="http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2009/01/gazacre-new-years-neo-nakba.html">
massacres</a>, and
<a href="http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2009/11/goldstonewalled-us-congress-endorses.html">
war crimes</a> violate numerous
<a href="http://www.endtheoccupation.org/downloads/arms_transfers_11_09.ppt">
US statutes</a> including the Arms Export Control Act</i> (P.L.80-829)
which states that exported weaponry must be relegated to "internal
security” and “legitimate self-defense” only, the Foreign Assistance
Act</i> (P.L.97-195) which holds that “No assistance may be provided…to
the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of
gross violations of internationally recognized human rights,” and the
Foreign Ops Appropriations Act</i>'s "Leahy Law" which demands
that no aid be provided to "any unit of the security forces of a
foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that such
unit has committed gross violations of human rights." One look at
the UN
<a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm">
Goldstone Report</a> proves that the United States has consistently
violated its own legislation with regard to Israel, as well as numerous
international laws. For example, the US is violating the
<a href="http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/">
Chemical Weapons Convention</a> (CWC), which the US claims it will
<a href="http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i04/8504disposal.html">not
fulfill until 2023</a>, even though the convention requires the
elimination of these weapons by 2012 (already an extension from 2007).
Also, Obama has
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B82DG20091209?type=politicsNews">
rejected inspection protocol</a> for
<a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9685">
US biological weapons</a> despite his stated dedication to strengthen the
<a href="http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/%28httpPages%29/04FBBDD6315AC720C1257180004B1B2F?OpenDocument">
Biological Weapons Convention</a> (BWC) and has
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/26/obama-landmine-ban-treaty">
refused to ratify</a> the international antipersonnel landmine ban,
despite being lauded by the Nobel Peace Prize committee for his
commitment to "disarmament and arms control
negotiations."<br><br>
In his New York Times</i> piece, Mr. Kuperman warns that "If Iran
acquired a nuclear arsenal, the risks would simply be too great that it
could become a neighborhood bully." Clearly, the argument assumes,
only the United States and Israel should be allowed to bully Middle
Eastern countries with their own nuclear arsenals, invasions,
occupations, and international impunity.<br><br>
He then goes on to state that "history suggests that military
strikes could work," claiming that "Israel's 1981 attack on the
nearly finished Osirak reactor prevented Iraq's rapid acquisition of a
plutonium-based nuclear weapon and compelled it to pursue a more gradual,
uranium-based bomb program."<br><br>
This is a dubious conclusion to draw based on the fact that the Iraqi
nuclear program before 1981 was
<a href="http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1242">
peaceful</a>, under intensive safeguards and monitoring, and that the
Osirak reactor was, as Harvard physics professor Richard Wilson has
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200503/letters">explained</a>,
"explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be
unsuitable for making bombs. That was obvious to me on my 1982
visit."<br><br>
What Mr. Kuperman also omits is that the Israeli attack, code named
Operation Opera</i>, took the lives of ten Iraqi soldiers and one French
civilian researcher and was widely lambasted by the international
community, prompting a UN General Assembly
<a href="http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/8744542.00267792.html">
resolution</a> (36/27) on November 13, 1981 that "strongly
condemn</i>[ed] Israel for its premeditated and unprecedented act of
aggression in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the
norms of international conduct, which constitutes a new and dangerous
escalation of the threat to international peace and
security."<br><br>
The
<a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unga36_27.html">
resolution</a> also reaffirmed Iraq's "inalienable sovereign
right" to "develop technological and nuclear programmes for
peaceful purposes" and stated that, not only was Iraq a party to the
NPT, but had also "satisfactorily applied" the IAEA safeguards
required of it. Conversely, it noted "with concern" that
"Israel has refused to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons, and, in spite of repeated calls, including that of
the Security Council, to place its nuclear facilities under International
Atomic Energy Agency safeguards."<br><br>
In addition to condemning "the misuse by Israel, in committing its
acts of aggression against Arab countries, of aircraft and weapons
supplied by the United States of America," the resolution reiterated
"its call to all States to cease forthwith any provision to Israel
of arms and related material of all types which enable it to commit acts
of aggression against other States" and requested "the Security
Council to investigate Israel's nuclear activities and the collaboration
of other States and parties in those activities" and "institute
effective enforcement action to prevent Israel from further endangering
international peace and security through its acts of aggression and
continued policies of expansion, occupation and
annexation."<br><br>
Furthermore, the General Assembly demanded that "Israel, in view of
its international responsibility for its act of aggression, pay prompt
and adequate compensation for the material damage and loss of life
suffered" due to the illegal and lethal attack.<br><br>
For Mr. Kuperman, this constituted a successful mission (which,
considering that none of the UN's demands have ever been met over the
past 30 years, perhaps it was). Truth be told, this is an unsurprising
conclusion for someone who claims that "the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan have shown that the United States military can oust regimes
in weeks if it wants to." Perhaps Mr. Kuperman doesn't get out
much.<br><br>
That might explain why Mr. Kuperman also claims that "Iran could
retaliate [in response to a US air strike] by aiding America’s opponents
in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does that anyway," without any
evidence to back up that assertion. Is he unaware that Iran is a longtime
enemy of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda and enjoys moderately good
relations with the puppet government in Iraq? Does he not remember that
Iranian intelligence provided valuable
<a href="http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590">
assistance</a> to the US military before the invasion of Afghanistan in
2001? Does he not know that the claims that Iran supplies weapons to
Iraqi militias and resistance fighters have been repeatedly
debunked?<br><br>
Take, for example, the time in 2008 when a cache of thousands of weapons
was seized during raids of Mahdi Army arsenals around Karbala. Military
spokesman Major General Kevin Bergner, when asked in May 2008 about the
proportion of Iranian weapons then in the hands of Iraqi fighters,
<a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE24Ak02.html">
muttered</a> the standard deflection and insinuation that the resistance
groups "could not do what they're doing without the support of
foreign support [sic]" and then broadly defined such
"support" as training, funding, and arming fighters with
weapons. The evidence, eventually handed over to the Iraqi government by
US forces a few months later, was found to provide no solid proof that
the weapons came from Iran and the charges were withdrawn after a meeting
with Iranian officials. The allegations
<a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html">
collapsed</a> once and for all when the weapons were looked at again by
the Americans who, via a military spokesman, "attributed the
confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general
in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin."
The entire embarrassing episode was
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24586408#24586408">
summed up</a> by Keith Olbermann on Countdown</i> at the time: <br>
<dl>
<dd>"Major General Kevin Bergner convened a news conference in
Baghdad last Wednesday to list 20,000 items of ammunition, explosives,
and weapons captured or uncovered by US and Iraqi governmental forces in
the last few weeks of fighting. 45 rocket-propelled grenades, 570
assorted explosive devices, 1800 mortars and artillery rounds. The point?
This was the big day, this was the day, according to the LA Times</i>,
that the American military was to show the media of the world the
conclusive evidence that at least some of the weaponry used by Iraqi
insurgents had been supplied by Iran. The US military spokesman
confirming to that newspaper that that's what the dog-and-pony-show was
to include. They were all ready to show off Iran's tangible
responsibility for some of the haul of the machinery of death, to
establish the link between American fatalities and Iran: trademarks or
company logos or Made in Tehran</i> stickers or something.<br><br>
<dd>When US experts took a second look at all this stuff, they then said
'None of this is from Iran.' 20,000 blowing-up things? Hard count of
those supplied by Iran: zero. Percentage of the whole imported from Iran:
no percent. Amount of tangible evidence linking Iran to anti-American
uprisings in Baghdad: none. You do realize, they are making this up about
Iran!"<br><br>
</dl>And still, despite all the painfully obvious truth of the matter, US
military officials continued to accuse Iran of channeling weaponry to
Shia militias who are opposing the illegal US occupation in Iraq. In late
May 2008, Gareth Porter
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/86280/">reported</a> in IPS
News</i> that the alleged weapons were clearly not of Iranian origin
(they were mostly manufactured in China, Russia, and the former
Yugoslavia) and were obtained by Iraqi militias on the international
black market.<br><br>
With a quick look at some other facts, it can even be argued that the US
military has itself provided lethal weaponry to Iraqi
"insurgents" on a scale that could easily be called negligent
collaboration. In August 2007, the Pentagon
<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-admits-190000-weapons-missing-in-iraq-460551.html">
admitted</a> to losing track of a whole third of the total weapons
distributed to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005. As a result,
<a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20080512&articleId=8957">
states</a> Global Research</i>, "The 190,000 assault rifles and
pistols roam free in Iraqi streets today."<br><br>
As his battle cry draws to an end, Mr. Kuperman suggests that "air
strikes could degrade and deter Iran's bomb program at relatively little
cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try."<br><br>
The costs and risks that Mr. Kuperman so deftly avoids addressing are the
lives and livelihoods of the people of Iran. No type of
"surgical" or "precision" bomb-dropping can avoid the
loss the human life. A country of 70 million living, breathing, working,
walking, talking, laughing, crying, dissenting, protesting,
counter-protesting, praying, not praying, dreaming, wishing, hoping,
loving human beings deserves far more consideration and calculation than
what Mr. Kuperman provides or could ever understand.<br><br>
New York politician Charles Evans Hughes, who, in the early 20th Century,
served as Governor of New York, United States Secretary of State, and
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, once said, "War should be made a
crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as
criminals."<br><br>
With this in mind, let's hope there's a special cell in hell reserved for
lying warmongers like William Kristol, Judith Miller, and now, Alan
Kuperman.<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>