International terrorism, the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and the mass murder of dissidents by the Syrian regime all belong in the category of "a false international crisis," each of which was deliberately engineered by the the shadow governments in the United States, England, and Israel for their own political and strategic goals in the Middle East.
These conceited and arrogant governments are themselves guilty of international terrorism and mass murder of innocent civilians, and possess weapons of mass destruction in the thousands.
Add to the above list of false international crises the "Iranian nuclear crisis." Let's first get two essential facts out of the way about this politically manufactured crisis.
1) Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and it does not pose a military threat to the United States and Israel. Even if it builds a nuclear weapon, it will not turn into a military threat. As Phyllis Bennis, the director of New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of the 2009 book 'Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer (2009)' said in October 2008:
"In 2007, according to the CIA, Iran spent about $5.1 billion on its military – about 2.5 percent of its GDP. The U.S., on the other hand, spent $626 billion on the military that same year, amounting to 4.5 percent of its GDP of $13.7 trillion. More relevant, perhaps, the U.S. spent almost half of the total of global arms spending – about 46 percent. So Iran does not represent a strategic military threat to the United States or to Americans."2) The bankster occupied U.S. empire and Israel are not interested in making a deal with Iran about it's nuclear program. They are interested in war. Tom O'Donnell, a nuclear physicist at the University of Michigan, said in an article in Z magazine in June 2006 called "The Political Economy of the U.S.-Iran Crisis," that "the true reason for the U.S. push against Iran's nuclear program and for "regime change" is about maintaining U.S. hegemony in the oil-rich Persian Gulf region."
Iran made a nuclear deal with Turkey and Brazil at the behest of President Obama in May 2010, which Obama and the White House later rejected in a dishonest and dishonorable fashion. Read what Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett had to say about Obama's historic failure to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, which Turkey and Brazil had served up on an international platter. All Obama had to do was sign off on it and there would be peace, instead, he raised the bar for a nuclear agreement once more and told Iran to jump higher next time to get its treat.
That wasn't the first time that the U.S. empire turned down a nuclear/peace deal with Iran. In 2003, the Bush administration rejected the "grand bargain" that Iran offered, which was a proposal by the Iranian mullahs in which they basically betrayed the core principles of the Islamic revolution and made peace with the Great Satan in return for riches and favors. They found out to their dissatisfaction that the Great Satan desires war, not peace.
O'Donnell expanded on the details of the "grand bargain" by the Iranian regime in his article that's highlighted above. Here is an important passage:
"Given the devastating effects of the U.S. sanctions, the most fundamental aim of the mullah's regime, their bottom line in the present confrontation, is removal of the U.S. sanctions on FDI in oil and natural gas and U.S. security guarantees (i.e., that the U.S. will not attack or pursue regime change). Of course, the standard press story is that the Iranian government, at present under President Ahmadinijad, has been dogmatically inflexible, especially when it comes to its nuclear program, its dedication to Islamic revolution and support for terror groups. This is not the case. The facts show that the mullahs' regime is now quite desperate to stay in power, even if it means surrender of its supposed sacred principles. The most striking proof is that, in 2003, it offered a "grand bargain" to the United States. According to Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior director on Middle East Affairs, and others, the Iranian government offered to end its support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine and to transform Hezbollah into a social-political organization. In return, it wanted an end to the sanctions; it wanted security guarantees and U.S. assistance in joining the WTO. It also was willing to meet with U.S. ambassador Khalilzad-then in Afghanistan-to hold negotiations, and to reveal the names of Al-Qaeda leaders it had detained in Iran, in exchange for the names of members of the MEK (Mujahadeen-e-Khalq) that the U.S. had restricted to a base in Iraq. Needless to say, these are stunning concessions for the Iranian leadership whose entire self-identity is bound up with being the center of the Islamic, and especially Shi'ia, fundamentalist struggle against the U.S. and Israel. But the U.S. refused this "grand bargain," and reprimanded its ambassador in Vienna for passing along the offer from the Iranian government (Gareth Porter in "Necon Cabal Blocked 2003 nuclear talks," Asia Times, March 30, 2006).If the "grand bargain" had become the "grand deal" in 2003, hostilities between America and Iran would have evaporated. Also, it would have substantially reduced apocalyptic fears about the security and stability of the region.
What more could the U.S. want? The answer is that Washington, and the neocons in particular, will accept nothing short of the complete removal of the clerical regime, and to reduce Iran to the status of a U.S. protectorate alongside other oil-producing states of the Persian Gulf region."
Nine years later, we are still talking about the prospect of a U.S.-led attack on Iran and the very real possibility of world war three.
But why must the so-called "Iranian nuclear crisis" come to war?
Malou Innocent, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, raised a very important question in her article "Getting Tough with Iran": "Do the risks of provoking or attacking Iran today outweigh the costs of dealing with a nuclear Iran tomorrow?" This is a suppressed question because the answer is not one that policy makers in Washington and Tel Aviv want the international community to hear.
The answer that is the risks of attacking Iran is the worst possible solution to the manufactured nuclear crisis and outweighs the costs of a nuclear Iran. The truth is that the world can live with a nuclear Iran, including the United States and Israel. In fact, the region and the world will be better for it.
Obviously, the war hawks who serve the bankster-occupied U.S. empire and the arrogant Zionists will not like a nuclear Iran one bit, because then they won't be able to bully its government and people, which they are currently doing in order to impose U.S. hegemony in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. But better sour relations than the sweet sounds of war. A nuclear stalemate between the United States and Iran is more preferable than attacking Iran and triggering a catastrophic world war throughout the region.
Maybe in the near future the U.S. and Iran will restore diplomatic relations with each other based on trust and respect, and resume trade ties after three decades of political insanity. This is not a utopian dream, but an opportunity that shouldn't be wasted.
Dr. Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi pointed out in November 2010 in their article, 'Want to Defuse the Iran Crisis?' that the Iranian people are a "crucial strategic asset," for the United States of America because of their "respect and admiration for American achievements, values, and culture." Sadly, the Iranian people are a political asset that the U.S. empire is willing to sacrifice to fulfill its stupid hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East and Central Asia.
But there is a way out of this orchestrated madness. Who says long-time enemies can't become the best of friends? As the Earl of Chesterfield Philip Stanhope said: "There is not a more prudent maxim than to live with one's enemies as if they may one day become one's friends; as it commonly happens, sooner or later, in the vicissitudes of political affairs."
