<html>
<body>
<font size=4><b>US 'inciting conflict to trigger war'<br><br>
</b></font><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=129968§ionid=3510302" eudora="autourl">
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=129968§ionid=3510302<br>
</a>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:48:58 GMT<br><br>
<br>
Mike Gravel, a former Democratic United States Senator from Alaska.<br>
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. <br><br>
“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.
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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". <br><br>
Below is the transcript of the interview: <br><br>
<br>
<b>Press TV</b> 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." <br><br>
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? <br><br>
<b>Mike Gravel</b> 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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
<b>Press TV</b> 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." <br><br>
But when that happened, they fell back, so how do we explain the
contradiction? Why the letter then? <br><br>
<b>Mike Gravel</b> 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. <br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
<b>Press TV</b> 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. <br><br>
<b>Mike Gravel</b> 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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
<b>Press TV</b> 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. <br><br>
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? <br><br>
<b>Mike Gravel</b> 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.
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
<b>Press TV</b> Are we reading too much into it or is there more to it
than the nuclear issue? Why are people worried about Iran? <br><br>
<b>Mike Gravel</b> 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?
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
RBK/MSA<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>