Unnecessary Force

"The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they will carry on doing it unless they are met with the requisite determination and, if necessary, force."

These words were spoken: about Iran, by ex UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in his closing statement to the Iraq inquiry. Now most thought that the purpose of the inquiry: chaired by Sir John Chilcot, was to determine whether or not Blair had lied about Saddam's non-existent weapons of mass destruction - and his equally fictitious connections with Al Qaeda - in order to justify launching the invasion in 2003. This was not, however, the case. The inquiry had been set up, in Sir John's own words, to: 'Identify the lessons that should be learned from the UK’s involvement in Iraq to help future governments who may face similar situations.' So whether or not Blair knowingly lied about Saddam Hussein's military capabilities and connections, or was misled and simply made a mistake, we shall probably never know. What we must not forget here, though, is that this mistake still cost the lives of tens of thousands of people.

Ok then, let's be charitable and say that Blair was just plain wrong in his assessment of Iraq's hidden military hardware. This still leaves us with an extremely serious question. Blair was at best, wrong on Iraq; yet here he is: at the Iraq inquiry, telling us that we have to be prepared to use force against Iran. So the inescapable question becomes: why on earth should we believe Blair the second time around?

The seriousness of this issue must not be underestimated. For we are, indeed, looking at a long and bloody conflict with Iran here. War will come because Blair: who is now playing the elder statesman role, is not the only prominent politician making accusations about the Iranian government's alleged criminal actions and intentions. There are, too, other poweful interest groups and individuals saying pretty much the same thing. Furthermore, the arguments for war that these people are citing: their justifications for why the blood of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of people should be shed, are – when examined closely - entirely spurious.

Therefore – what I want to do now – is identify some of these people, examine what they are saying, and determine whether or not any of this blatant warmongering can be justified.

Lets stick with Blair for the moment. Since stepping down from his position as the UK's Prime Minister Blair has landed several lucrative advisorships with both governments and private institutions. These include working as a consultant for: Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, the Swiss insurance giant Zurich and J P Morgan Chase. It has been estimated that Blair has earned around 20 million dollars from these appointments. Having been Her Majesty's First Minister has – obviously - helped Blair enormously here. But then so has his appointment as a Peace Envoy to the Middle East Peace Process. This unpaid position allows Blair to carry on strutting his stuff - and go around glad-handing the high-and-mighty - on the world stage. Now if all that Blair was doing here was abusing this position to tout for a few more, 'Nice little earners,' there wouldn't be a problem. But what we should all object to is Blair exploiting his Peace Envoy status to promote what could become the bloodiest conflict in human history.

Let's have a look at what else he had to say at the Chilcot inquiry. 'I see the impact and influence of Iran everywhere. It is negative, destabilising and it is supportive of terrorist groups.' All pretty vague stuff. There isn't much that you could pin Blair down on here although - if you asked him to be more specific about the phrase 'terrorist groups' - he would probably cite Hezbollah in the Lebanon and Hamas: who he refuses to meet with, in the Gaza Strip. This is because he knows that trying to connect Iran to Al-Qaeda would stretch his credibility a little bit too far. Afterall, he doesn't want his audience thinking: 'Hang on, haven't we heard that one before?' So he keeps it vague and lets people make their own inferences.

Iran is also: according to Blair, 'Doing everything it can to impede progress in the Middle East peace process.' Again he is being more than a little disingenuous with this. What he actually means is that Iran supports the Palestinian position to the exclusion of all others. A hardline stance that is unacceptable to Israel. He ignores – completely – the stealing of Palestinian land: in direct contravention of UN directives, a criminal act that effectively kills the peace process in its tracks.

Our envoy to the process also compounds his crimes by presenting himself as an 'honest broker'. He wants us to think that he is completely impartial in his approach. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Blair was an active member in the 'Friends of Israel' group within the parliamentary Labour Party: a group that – along with its Conservative counterpart – virtually dictates British policy toward Israel and the Peace Process.

Then there is his statement that: 'When it comes to security, I am one hundred percent on Israel's side,' made in the aftermath of the Israeli commando assault on the Marvi Marmara. So was this ship: which carried only medical aid and activists, a threat to the security of Israel? He then went on to defend Israel's right to conduct an internal investigation into the incident: which saw nine Turkish nationals killed, at a time when the rest of the world was calling for Israel's impeachment before the Court of Human Rights.

Furthermore, it could be argued that: because of Israel's refusal to halt the building of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, there isn't a peace process. Israel is not trying to negotiate a deal here. It 's just stalling. It is trying to extend its occupation of the West Bank by stealth – as far as it can - before it is forced to adopt more aggressive measures to drive the Palestians out of the West Bank altogether. So Blair is actually a Peace Envoy to a non-existent peace process. His real job, I would argue, is to serve two basic functions. The first of these is to delude western taxpayers and voters into thinking that our governments are trying to do something constructive in the Middle East. The second is to act as a propagandist: a mouth-piece, for the merchants of death who want total control over the all the world's oil reserves and the global economy. These are the real reasons why Blair presents Iran as a: 'Looming and coming challenge?'

And as I said earlier; he isn't alone in this. William Hague: the UK's current Minister for Foriegn Affairs, has repeatedly attacked Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program. Hague – in his own words – argues that: 'Tehran’s actions risk a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and the fatal undermining of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty...' Here he is actually parroting Hilary Clinton: who has - on several occasions - said the same thing. Now these statements constitute downright disinformation. First of all the case for Iran actually possessing a nuclear weapons program has not been proven. Secondly both Clinton and Hague deliberately ignore the fact that a nuclear arms race began in the region in the mid to late 1950s with the inception of Israel's clandestine program to build nuclear warheads. Some estimate that this program has, so far, produced up to 400 atomic bombs and missile payloads.

This next statement from Hague simply beggars belief when put into context against the situation on the ground in the Middle East. 'Iran may hope that the unprecedented changes of the Arab spring will distract the world from its nuclear programme. We are determined that it shall not.' Wow! Hasn't this guy heard that the government and people of Iran are cock-a-hoop about the popular uprisings across the region? Why? Because the tyrannical autocracies that might well be swept from power by these mass movements are those same regimes that have called upon America to launch military strikes against Iran. This was revealed with the release of US diplomatic cables by Wikileaks in November last year. The regimes include: Egypt (while still governed by the muderer Murbarak), Saudi Arabia (that has deployed troops to Bahrain to beat up schoolgirls as young as twelve years of age), Bahrain itself (that is engaged in murdering its own citizens to put down a popular uprising) and Jordan (whose king is also under pressure from a mass democratic movement calling for reform). So this pronouncement is just another snide attempt to hide the true situation. Having said that, the events unfolding across the Middle East are, indeed, 'unprecedented'. This is because they are spontaneous. They are not being stage managed - in the usual manner - by the Western Powers. Things are spiralling out of control and people like Hague are now being forced to welcome a phenomenon that – in reality - actually terrifies them.

At this point I could go on introducing other leaders of the Western World: all of them reiterating the anti Iranian sentiments that we have heard so far. But all we would end up with is a long list of names accompanied by quotations saying the same thing. So lets just move on and ask: what makes all of these politicians believe that we, their target audience, are going to accept what they are saying without question? The answer here, is saturation. Their message is going to be repeated over and over again in every branch of the media. We will be reading it in the newspapers: where it will appear masqeurading as both reportage and informed opinion in the leader columns. We will also hear it in broadcast news reports on television and radio. Indeed, an evil conspiracy: involving nuclear weapons and terrorist entanglements - plotted by a shadowy cabal of Iranian Islamic extremists hell bent on dominating the World - might well become the subject matter of TV documentaries and the odd Hollywood film. Now how can I be sure about this? I can be sure because the rich and powerful people who own the politicians, the oil companies, central banking systems and supra-national corporations also own: and therefore control, about 99.9% of the World's media. And this is - ultimately - their message.

Indeed, recent news coverage of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report: released on 2 September, dealing with Iran's nuclear facilities is a case in point. Virtually all of this coverage only addresses a single subsection of the document. This subsection - which consists of only two paragraphs under the header: 'Possible Military Dimensions' - can be found on page 7 of the 9 page report. Please note, this document can be obtained (as a pdf download) from the IAEA website. (So go verify.)

So lets have a look at some of this coverage. This is a 2 September headline from the UK's Telegraph newpaper: 'The UN nuclear agency (IAEA) is "increasingly concerned" that Iran is still secretly developing a nuclear payload for a missile.' The article goes on to say: '..."many member states" have provided "extensive" intelligence that appears to show the Islamic Republic is still harbouring secret ambitions to develop nuclear weapons.'

(Please note: bolded words/phrases between double quotation marks appear in both the news coverage and the IAEA report.)

This is fairly typical. The New York Times' take, for instance, contains the following: '..."possible military dimensions"... suspected work on a "nuclear payload for a missile, about which the agency continues to receive new information." It did not specify what that information was...'

It was the same story in the tabloids; this is from the UK's Daily Mirror (3 September): ' ...Iran is continuing to work secretly on nuclear missiles... it (the IAEA) is 'increasingly concerned' after receiving extensive intelligence about the weapons program.'

Please pay careful attention to this next extract; it comes from Haaretz.com: Haaretz is an Israeli newspaper, the article is dated 6 September. '...It (the IAEA report) strongly suggested that intelligence supplied by the U.S., Israel and other IAEA member states on Iran's attempts to use the cover of a civilian nuclear program to move toward a weapons program was compelling.' This is the only instance, that I have come across, wherein the source countries for the unspecified 'intelligence' contained in the report are actually named. We need to take a harder look at this information.

I'll begin with Israel. First of all – contrary to the impression given by the extract: that Israel is a member country of the International Atomic Energy Agency – Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and it has never allowed inspection of its nuclear facilities. Israel has, in fact, maintained a policy of neither acknowleging nor denying that it possesses nuclear weapons; even though such possession was leaked to the World by a guy called Mordechai Vanunu: who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his pains, in 1986.

There was however, such a proposal: that Israel should join the IAEA, come clean about its stockpile of warheads and open up its nuclear facilities for inspection, tabled by a number of Arab states at the IAEA's annual conference held in September 2010. The proposal was defeated by a narrow margin in a majority vote led by the US. Curiously the American delegation argued that: if the motion were to carry it would undermine a conference – to be held in 2012 – to establish a Nuclear-Free-Zone in the Middle East. The Israelis had – meanwhile – aready issued a statement: prior to the vote being taken, that the proposal would derail peace negotiations between the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. All of this was reported by the BBC on 24 September 2010.

What these – seemingly nonsensical – arguments illustrate is that Israel has no intention of ever joining the International Atomic Energy Agency or allowing its nuclear facilities to be inspected. What is more, it appears that the Americans are colluding with the Israelis in this by trying to deflect any criticism directed toward the Jewish state for adopting this position. This leaves us with yet another question. Can we place any trust in Israeli intelligence submissions to the IAEA when we know that Israel does not – and never will - recognize the organization's authority?

Furthermore, there is something else to be considered. We are, here, talking about intelligence gathered by an intelligence agency. In Israel's case this can only mean Mossad. As with any intelligence agency Mossad practices deception: it plants disinformation wherever it can to sow confusion and mislead its enemies. Israel's 'evidence': submitted to the IAEA, constitutes such disinformation and should – therefore – be ruled inadmissible and thrown out of court.

To digress for a moment. The real purpose behind the staging of a conference to establish a nuclear-free-zone in the Middle East is probably to further isolate – and demonize – Iran in the eye's of the international community. It will pan out something like this. A succession of spokespersons – representing America's autocratic allies in the region: such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar etc – will take to the podium calling for the zone's establishment; and denouncing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons as an insurmountable obstacle to achieving their worthy ambitions. Israel's nuclear weapons – on the other hand – will either be ignored altogether or, if mentioned, severely under-reported in the mainstream media. Now in my estimation, if the IAEA - in any way - provides these proceedings with a semblance of credibility then it will have totally destroyed its own credibility in the process.

Let's turn now to America's evidence. First of all – it has to be said – that any intelligence emanating from America: especially when there is even the slightest hint of any political spin involved, must be treated with the utmost circumspection. Furthermore, when the evidence in question is destined for public consumption, then that circumspection should be replaced with out and out – alarm bells ringing in your head – suspicion. Afterall, these people do not: under normal circumstances, like us to know what is really going on. This is why we need organizations like Wikileaks and why people like Hilary Clinton hate organizations like Wikileaks.

We cannot, either, ignore the track record: their propensity to tell us lies, of American politicians and public figures. (I am not, here, saying that Americans hold a monopoly over such a propensity.) So lets have look at a few instances where we already know that deception was employed.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident (which led to the Vietnam War): it never happened, it was a lie.

Saddam's weapons of mass destruction: also a lie.

Saddam's links with Al Qaeda: a lie.

Saddam's attempts to buy 500 tons of yellow cake (low grade uranium oxide) from Niger: a lie.

Saddam's attempts to buy high grade metal tubing to build centrifuges for uranium enrichment: a lie.

We invaded Iraq to get rid of a tyrant: a lie, we invaded to force the Iraqis to stop selling their oil for Euros and switch (back) to the US dollar instead.

We invaded Afghanistan to arrest Osama bin Laden and his cohorts: a lie – the Taleban offered to hand over all Al Qaeda suspects on several occasions before 9/11 – our soldiers are really in Afghanistan to secure a land route for oil and gas pipelines between Turkmenistan (a dictatorship with a dire human rights record) and the sea.

(Please note: this is not an exhaustive list.)

Now anyone that takes the time and trouble to actually read the IAEA report of 2 September will discover that – nowhere in this document – does it categorically state that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. But that isn't going to stop all the negative hype that began way back in 1979 when the oil companies were – for the second time - kicked out of the country.

In fact, Yukiya Amano: current Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, went on record stating, ' We are not saying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. We have concerns and we want to clarify the matter,' when asked by Reuters about the organization's relationship with Tehran earlier in March this year. (Why didn't this lead to retractions/corrections in the press?)

So the IAEA is not – itself – saying that Iran is seeking to develop the bomb. IAEA reports are, however, being deliberately misintepreted in the media to indicate otherwise. What is more they are using references to unspecified intelligence - from highly dubious sources - to create the impression that Iran constitutes a serious threat to World Peace.

It is now time for you: the reader of this article, to ask yourself a question. From whom does the real threat to World Peace emanate? Make your mind up now. Are we going to let them start a war that will prove more lethal than any in human history? Or do we tell them to shove it?

One last question. When it comes to proliferation: who is the worst offender? Answer: America. Unbelievable as it may seem, America has actually 'loaned out' nuclear weapons to some of its allies including: Belgium, Holland and Germany. The number 180 has been associated with these devices. Go figure.