A propagandist-in-chief's war on intellectual imperialism and pursuit of a resistance episteme

Posts Tagged: nuclear program


Many are concerned that Iran’s nuclear deal in Geneva will lead to a wider regional agreement whereby Iran will be forced to relinquish the Palestinian cause and support for Hizbullah’s resistance. There is no room here for a response that refers to political identity, ideology and historical precedents, nor to the implications of the deal on Iran’s foes and allies, which I will leave for another time. For now I just want to highlight one fact: had it not been for Iran’s resistance-driven foreign policy and its regional alliances—in short, Iran’s supposed liabilities—the US would not have been compelled to recognize Iran as a nuclear power, and more importantly, as THE leading  regional power. Only an irrational and suicidal state would relinquish the very forces and alignments which were responsible for its ascendance on the world stage. If anything, the Geneva agreement has proven that the path of dependency and Arab “moderation” will earn its members little more than a regional spoiler role. This deal only confirms the logic of  independence and resistance as the soundest path to national security and power.  


All those naysayers out there can go suck it. If Netanyahu’s “historic mistake” outcry wasn’t enough, other Zionist officials have been waxing lyrical about this historic breakthrough: “Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said “there is no achievement in this agreement. This is the biggest diplomatic victory Iran has known in recent years – since the Khameini regime (came to power).” When asked if the deal contains any positive aspect, Lieberman replied “no, there is no such thing.” The tone was echoed by a government spokesperson who said “This is a bad deal. It gives Iran exactly what it wanted – a significant reduction of sanctions while preserving the most significant part of its nuclear program,” a official from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni addressed the deal during a special Ynet broadcast: “This is a terrible deal that will threaten not only us, but the entire world….”

Full story here


That’s right, two-thirds of the Iranian people are willing to brave western sanctions and lend support to their government’s pursuit of its nuclear program, as reported by the Washington Post here. Moreover, a more detailed analysis of the findings on the Gallup website  reveals that although 85% believe the sanctions have hurt Iranians generally while 83% say they have been hurt  personally  by them, they still want Iran to pursue nuclear power. RESPECT. 

Findings like these only underline how detached from reality the US’ and Europe’s Realist-driven foreign policy is. The reality is that some nations are not motivated solely by economic interests nor do they cow in the face of military threats. Imperialism has helped forge a nationalist, resistant and justice-seeking political identity and culture among the peoples it oppresses as a matter of foreign policy. And where this political identity is weakened, as in religiously diverse Syria, it is only on account of Empire’s divide-and-rule tactics to sow sectarian strife. 
Excerpts from the WaPo article:

But, judging from a new Gallup poll, the sanctions do not seem to be successful at two major, secondary goals: turning Iranian public opinion against the nuclear program and against national leaders for behaving in a way that has invited sanctions. Last year, The Washington Post’s Karen DeYoung and Scott Wilson reported that the Obama administration sees public discontent as an intended effect of the sanctions. But an overwhelming majority of Iranians told Gallup that Iran should continue its nuclear program, even when the question was specifically phrased to remind them that economic sanctions are a direct result of that program.

Gallup asked, “Given the scale of the sanctions against Iran, do you think Iran should continue to develop its nuclear power capabilities, or not?” Almost two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent, said yes. Only 17 percent said no; 19 percent said they didn’t know or refused to answer.

The poll also found that Iranians are almost five times as likely to blame the United States for sanctions as they are to blame their own government. Even fewer blame Europe or the United Nations, though both are instrumental in the crippling economic sanctions. Pollsters asked, “Which of the following groups do you hold most responsible for sanctions against Iran?” Out of the seven choices, the most popular by far was the United States, with 47 percent. Only 10 percent blamed the Iranian government; 9 percent said Israel; 7 percent each named “Western European countries” and the United Nations. Three percent said “someone else,” zero said “no one,” and 17 percent declined to answer.

Sanctions do not, based on this poll, seem to be rallying Iranians against their leaders or the nuclear program, but rather reinforcing popular antagonism toward the United States. To the extent that Iranian leaders are worried about popular support, this poll suggests that nuclear development and defiant foreign policy will continue to be winners.



Really funny. Mainstream media headlines are screaming: Iran allegedly planning nuclear weapon stronger than bomb used on Hiroshima. 

Excerpts from AP read:

"The diagram was leaked by officials of a country critical of Iran’s atomic program to bolster their arguments that Iran’s nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon. They provided the diagram only on condition that they and their country were not named." 

Hmmm, wonder which country that could be. 

And then this gem:

"A senior diplomat who is considered neutral on the issue confirmed that the graph obtained by the AP was indeed one of those cited by the IAEA in that report. He spoke only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue."

Right, because the concept of a “neutral” diplomat is hardly an oxymoron. The “international community” is just filled with neutral diplomats weighing in on policy.

In sum this huge story that is now all over mainstream media, is essentially based on a slightly fancier version of Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb with technical terms in Farsi thrown in, coupled with an anonymous nation and a diplomat who refuse to be named. I am sure AP would have leaked such a diagram had it been submitted by anti-imperialist nations and diplomats who insisted on their anonymity with the aim of exposing Israel’s nuclear capacity. Right.

Full story here


My old classmate in university, Diran Mardirian, with whom I used to compete for As, wrote this brilliant and witty (he always did have the most caustic sense of humour) response to this lame piece below on Iran. I copy here Diran’s published response/comment:

"Thanks for the history lesson, Mr. Hesse, but what you missed in your analysis is just as crippling to your article as your nuanced choice of terms.

- You fail to mention that the Iranian nuclear program was established when “their” (the USA’s) bastard (the Shah) was in power.

- Furthermore, wasn’t it the USA who unleashed “their” other bastard (Saddam) on Iran for no reason besides Great Game playing?
- What was the NSE’s verdict on Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program? And who says Iran isn’t complying with the rules of the non-proliferation treaty?

"This is not to say that Iran is entitled to create nuclear weapons, or that Iran does not have to answer for past transgressions and secrecy in its nuclear efforts. As signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran has responsibilities that it is not living up to, and needs to be held accountable." 
This is highly debatable, Mr. Hesse, but let me ask you this: The police want to search your home for something they think is amiss. Would you let them harass you? Are there lines that should be drawn?

While you do mention imperialism, you go on, almost in the same breath, to say this: “In the minds of Iranians, oil and its benefits belonged to them.”
If you went ahead and wrote this, then I’m afraid the obvious should be pointed out: The oil belonging to the Iranians is common sense, logic, and an inalienable right! Not a whim or crazy idea that is “in the minds of Iranians.”
Which brings us to this: “The nationalization of AIOC and the consequent CIA and British intelligence overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh cemented the image of Iranian martyrdom at the hands of foreign powers.”
Is this supposed to be a clever play on Shiite ideology? Is it pertinent to bury this image into the mind of Joe Average reading this article? Is this supposed to portray Iranian outrage at the coup in terms of “ooh these crazy chest beating Iranians and their ideas of what constitutes martyrdom!” No Mr. Hesse, the Iranians know - clear-headedly - that they were viciously wronged with NO subsequent redress.

"We (who are you, pray tell) must make a concerted effort to deal with this problem in an appropriate way, one that recognizes not only our own history and identity, but the history and the identity of those we seek to influence."

Aah, the grand Lulu of a finale to this gem of an article. 
Mr. Hesse, some nations, like people, demand to be dealt with on an equal footing, not ‘influenced.’
That is an inalienable right, wouldn’t you say? And a smarter recipe for healthy relations - Cyrus and Xerxes et al notwithstanding.

An unfortunate page on the otherwise top notch Asia Times.”