Beyond the Propaganda: The Real Reason Why The U.S. and Israel Do Not Want a Nuclear IranBrandon Turbeville For instance, in an article published on October 2 in the Guardian entitled, The true reason US fears Iranian nukes: they can deter US attacks, Glenn Greenwald points out the fact that the main concern is not necessarily that Iran may be able to attack the United States or its allies (meaning Israel) with a nuclear bomb, but simply the fact that if Iran were to obtain such a weapon, it would be able to resist U.S. dominance and aggression more effectively. Although clearly not the sole reason for a Western attack on Iran, Greenwald is correct to point out that destroying the ability of Iran to resist American assault is indeed part of the overarching agenda. Thus, soon after introducing the thesis of the article, Greenwald asks an important question. He goes on to answer this question by writing, Iranian nuclear weapons would prevent the US from attacking Iran at will, and that is what is intolerable. Ironically, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whom Greenwald accurately refers to as one of the USs most reliable and bloodthirsty warmongers, seems to agree with Greenwalds thesis. In response and, after heaping praise on Obama for continuing the head-on charge toward WW3, Graham stated that the Iranian people should be willing to suffer now for a better future. He then went on to compare Iranian nuclear capacity with the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s a tale that is often told when war proponents are backing up their case for wholesale slaughter of innocent people in third world countries or developing nations for the benefit of Wall Street, corporations, and other interested parties. Of course, what is so ironic about the analogy is the fact that, in 2012, it is not Iran that the world should fear appeasing it is the United States and its associates in NATO. Indeed, it is the United States who most resembles the Nazi regime as it steamrolls across the Middle East and Africa with reckless abandon waging war, destabilizations, and political and financial intimidation. Regardless, Graham stated: Unwittingly, Graham only confirms the suggestions made by Greenwald in his article i.e. the true threat of nuclear proliferation is that it can deter American aggression. As Greenwald comments, In other words, we cannot let Iran acquire nuclear weapons because if they get them, we can no longer attack them when we want to and can no longer bully them in their own region. This thesis is by no means the monopoly of Greenwald, however. Pre-eminent scholars such as Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor and dispeller of the 9/11 myth, as well as prominent Neo-Cons and war proponents have all forwarded the concept of nuclear weapon prevention as an act of establishing full spectrum dominance and the prevention of nuclear deterrence. For instance, Neo-Con Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute and the now infamous Project for the New American Century has stated previously (in regards to Iranian nuclear capability) in his 2004 strategy paper entitled, Strategy For A Nuclear Iran: Most notably, Donnelly echoes the same sentiment in the Project for a New American Centurys most famous document,Rebuilding Americas Defenses, a paper that has been eerily prophetic ever since its publication. Keep in mind, this was the very same paper that called for a new pearl harbor shortly before the new pearl harbor of the 21st Century happened on September 11, 2001. In that document, Donnelly wrote, As David Ray Griffin comments in The New Pearl Harbor, This statement further suggests that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were later determined by President Bush to deserve the title of axis of evil because of their perverse wish to develop the capacity to deter the United States from projecting military force against them.[1] Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld echoed the same sentiment in 2001 when he stated that, Several of these [small enemy nations] are intensely hostile to the United States and are arming to deter us from bringing our conventional or nuclear power to bear in a regional crisis. Rumsfeld also writes, These universally available [centrifugal] technologies can be used to create asymmetric responses that cannot defeat our forces, but can deny access to critical areas in Europe, the Middle East, and Asiaasymmetric; approaches can limit our ability to apply military power. According to Greenwald, Philip Zelikow, former Bush administration State Department official, Condoleeza Rice co-author, and Executive Director of the shameful 9/11 commission cover-up, stated in regards to Iraq and the dire possibility of allowing it to keep its non-existent WMDs, they now can deter us from attacking them, because they really can retaliate against us. Furthermore, in 2008 in an op-ed for the Washington Post, Senators Chuck Robb and Dan Coates wrote: Thus, Greenwald concludes, The No 1 concern of American national security planners appears to be that countries may be able to prevent the US from attacking them at will, whether to change their regimes or achieve other objectives. In other words, Iranian nuclear weapons could be used to prevent wars ones started by the US and that, above all, is what we must fear. Yet, the debate over the purpose of Irans nuclear weapon is one that is built entirely upon a false foundation. The fact is there is a startling lack of evidence to show that Iran is, in fact, even attempting to gain a nuclear weapon. While the warmongers in government positions like Lindsey Graham as well as the mainstream media and other commentators continue to beat their chests with the claims of Iranian commitment to nuclear weapons, the reality is quite different. Numerous individuals close to the scene in Iran have stated on as many occasions that Iran does not possess nor is it seeking to possess a nuclear weapon. Consider briefly the statement by Israeli Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, who stated, Even Defense Minister Ehud Barak has clearly stated that, [Iran has] not yet decided to manufacture atomic weapons. In addition, warmonger Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense who has been browbeating the need to strike Iran for the better part of a year, has stated that the Iranians do not have a nuclear weapon nor are they attempting to build one. Nevertheless Panetta continues to promote the coming attack if the Iranians take the next step, however that step may be defined. This is most ironic considering his February 2012 remarks on Face The Nation, where he stated, Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that theyre trying to develop a nuclear capability. And thats what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is do not develop a nuclear weapon. Thats a red line for us. Yet Panetta cannot be accused of misspeaking on the national news show. Indeed, he has restated his position as quoted by The Raw Story by saying, I think [Iran is] developing a nuclear capability [but] our intelligence makes clear that they havent made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, consider the comments made by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: Similarly, US General Martin Dempsey: As Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball of Reuters wrote in regards to the ongoing pro-war propaganda circling the globe, The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Irans nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead. Yet, even if Iran were seeking a nuclear weapon, building one, or attained the bomb, the fact is that, as Greenwald and others have pointed out, the weapon would only serve as a deterrent to aggressive attacks not as an asset to wage Iranian imperialist wars. Not only that, but one must logically ask exactly what threat would one nuclear weapon pose to states such as Israel and the United States who are known nuclear powers, with one being the only nation in the region currently possessing the weapons and the other existing as a powerhouse in terms of nuclear weaponry. As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated before the UN, Lets even imagine that we have an atomic weapon, a nuclear weapon. What would we do with it? What intelligent person would fight 5,000 American bombs with one bomb? Ahmadinejad has hit the nail on the head with this statement. Indeed, assuming the unlikely event of a successful attack via a nuclear weapon, such a move would be complete suicide on the part of Iran, bringing down the wrath of the victim nation, the United States, NATO, and the entire international community. Considering the constant sabre-rattling of the United States, Israel, and a gaggle of European countries regarding the impending war of aggression against the nation of Iran which, in recent time has significantly reduced its isolation, the country would almost be foolhardy not to pursue a nuclear weapon. One thing that is for certain, however, is that the United States, Israel, and NATO have already played their hand. If the constant political, financial, and military harassment efforts aimed at Iran by much of the Western world do not descend into a conflagration of global scale which itself ends in the use of nuclear weapons, then they will have certainly accomplished the task of providing the motivation for Iran to develop one. [1] Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor. 2004. Interlink Publishing Group. P.54 RELATED ACTIVIST POST ARTICLE: Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here. Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelors Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutionsand Dispatches From a Dissident.Turbeville has published over one hundred articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost (at) gmail.com. 