Fermer X Les cookies sont necessaires au bon fonctionnement de 24hGold.com. En poursuivant votre navigation sur notre site, vous acceptez leur utilisation.
Pour en savoir plus sur les cookies...
Cours Or & Argent

Iran Agreement Boosts Peace, Defeats Neocons

IMG Auteur
Publié le 20 juillet 2015
603 mots - Temps de lecture : 1 - 2 minutes
( 7 votes, 3,7/5 ) , 4 commentaires
Imprimer l'article
  Article Commentaires Commenter Notation Tous les Articles  
0
envoyer
4
commenter
Notre Newsletter...
SUIVRE : Cia Cuba Iran
Rubrique : Article du Jour

Last week's successfully concluded Iran agreement is one of the two most important achievements of an otherwise pretty dismal Obama presidency. Along with the ongoing process of normalizing relations with Cuba, this move shows that diplomacy can produce peaceful, positive changes. It also shows that sometimes taking a principled position means facing down overwhelming opposition from all sides and not backing down. The president should be commended for both of these achievements.

The agreement has reduced the chance of a US attack on Iran, which is a great development. But the interventionists will not give up so easily. Already they are organizing media and lobbying efforts to defeat the agreement in Congress. Will they have enough votes to over-ride a presidential veto of their rejection of the deal? It is unlikely, but at this point if the neocons can force the US out of the deal it may not make much difference. Which of our allies, who are now facing the prospect of mutually-beneficial trade with Iran, will be enthusiastic about going back to the days of a trade embargo? Which will support an attack on an Iran that has proven to be an important trading partner and has also proven reasonable in allowing intrusive inspections of its nuclear energy program?

However, what is most important about this agreement is not that US government officials have conducted talks with Iranian government officials. It is that the elimination of sanctions, which are an act of war, will open up opportunities for trade with Iran. Government-to-government relations are one thing, but real diplomacy is people-to-people: business ventures, tourism, and student exchanges.

I was so impressed when travel personality Rick Steves traveled to Iran in 2009 to show that the US media and government demonization of Iranians was a lie, and that travel and human contact can help defeat the warmongers because it humanizes those who are supposed to be dehumanized.

As I write in my new book, Swords into Plowshares:

Our unwise policy with Iran is a perfect example of what the interventionists have given us -- 60 years of needless conflict and fear for no justifiable reason. This obsession with Iran is bewildering. If the people knew the truth, they would strongly favor a different way to interact with Iran.

Let's not forget that the Iran crisis started not 31 years ago when the Iran Sanctions Act was signed into law, not 35 years ago when Iranians overthrew the US-installed Shah, but rather 52 years ago when the US CIA overthrew the democratically-elected Iranian leader Mossadegh and put a brutal dictator into power. Our relations with the Iranians are marked by nearly six decades of blowback.

When the Cold War was winding down and the military-industrial complex needed a new enemy to justify enormous military spending, it was decided that Iran should be the latest "threat" to the US. That's when sanctions really picked up steam. But as we know from our own CIA National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, the stories about Iran building a nuclear weapon were all lies. Though those lies continue to be repeated to this day.

It is unfortunate that Iran was forced to give up some of its sovereignty to allow restrictions on a nuclear energy program that was never found to be in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But if the net result is the end of sanctions and at least a temporary reprieve from the constant neocon demands for attack, there is much to cheer in the agreement. Peace and prosperity arise from friendly relations and trade - and especially when governments get out of the way.

Données et statistiques pour les pays mentionnés : Cuba | Iran | Tous
Cours de l'or et de l'argent pour les pays mentionnés : Cuba | Iran | Tous
<< Article précedent
Evaluer : Note moyenne :3,7 (7 votes)
>> Article suivant
Publication de commentaires terminée
  Tous Favoris Mieux Notés  
Doesn't anyone remember the Iran hostage crisis, when Iran held 52 American diplomats and citizens hostage for 444 days in 1979-1981. How about 1983, when the United States Marine Barracks in Beirut was attacked by suicide bombers. The attack killed 241 American servicemen, mostly Marines. The orders were believed to come from Iran. In 2004, the Iranian government erected a monument in Tehran to commemorate the 1983 bombings and its "martyrs" (i.e. the suicide bombers.). A spokesman said "The bombing was a great achievement of Muslims in their fight against America".

I agree with Ron Paul on a wide variety of issues such as sound money, gold, and less government. But he is clearly wrong on the idea that we can come to some kind of accommodation with Iran.Only 3 days after the agreement with Iran, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gave a speech vowing
that his country’s policy against the “arrogant” United States would not change. Their "revolutionary" government is clearly alive and well - now perhaps even better. Iran openly supports Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iran provided support to the government of Assad in Syria, even as we supported forces to defeat it. Iran supports the Shia Houthis in Yemen, even as the U.S. and Saudi Arabia support the Sunni government of President Hadi. Yet in Iraq, the U.S. has worked WITH Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces against ISIS. In this case, the intent of Iran is clearly to gain influence with the Shia government of Iraq and to take over when the U.S. and coalition forces leave.

In short, Iran has a clear and unchanging agenda in opposition to U.S. interests.

Once sanctions are removed, it will not open up business with the US, but with every country other than the U.S. And once sanctions are removed, they will be impossible to reinstate in the event Iran is not compliant with the treaty.
Evaluer :   0  2Note :   -2
EmailPermalink
How about the US invading Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003 ... leading to the current unrest in the middle east while supporting the 'Saudi's' ...

Iran has as much right to look after it own interests as the US .... which does not make either right from a moral standpoint: I mention - before you start accusing me of being an Iranian troll.
You have a point. The 2003 Iraq invasion is mostly now considered an ill-advised and unjustified destabilization, with regional & political consequences and (for the U.S.) huge financial costs. However, few civilized countries would disagree with our 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Our rationale was very clear and unambiguous. We had the sympathy and support of the world community. In 1991, our military intervention saved Kuwait from the invasion & attempted takeover by Iraq.
The real question, though, is the potential that Iraq has for terrorism, destabilization , and the possible development and even use of nuclear weapons. The United States is a strong, stable, and democratic government that is seen as a positive force in the world. We are usually the first to respond to international catastrophies, to assist other peaceful countries, and to promote democracy. No one worries about our responsible possession of nuclear weapons. Also, the sanctions imposed on Iran began with UN resolutions, not unilateral U.S. actions.
Iran, on the other hand, has a history of terrorist rhetoric and support, and radical intervention in other countries, with the intent of imposing their views and undemocratic style of government on others.
Regardless of political antecedents, i.e. the Shah of Iran, we have to look at the situation as it is now. Will the removal of sanctions result in an Iran with a better and more moderate policy toward its neighbors. Does anyone in the Middle East want an Iran with Nuclear Weapons?
A US Naval vessel shot down an Iranian Passenger Jet with 300 passengers, over the Persian Gulf on the 3rd July 1988, they mistook it for a Fighter Plane. Any spotter can mistake an Airbus for a Fighter jet - see below!
A year ago most certainly a military jet out of Kiev shot down MH17 out of Amsterdam with 300 passengers over Western Ukraine, to date the Black Box details are still withheld by the western allies. This 'error' enabled the US to demand sanctions on Russia and in consequence the crash is not worthy of detailed investigation with no one showing one jot of interest. I can only assume the 300 families of the dead passengers have been financially rewarded in exchange for their silence.
As a footnote the Black Boxes were returned to the UK over a year ago - they most probably have been 'lost in the post'
Dernier commentaire publié pour cet article
A US Naval vessel shot down an Iranian Passenger Jet with 300 passengers, over the Persian Gulf on the 3rd July 1988, they mistook it for a Fighter Plane. Any spotter can mistake an Airbus for a Fighter jet - see below! A year ago most certainly a milita  Lire la suite
Artboard - 29/07/2015 à 19:40 GMT
Top articles
Flux d'Actualités
TOUS
OR
ARGENT
PGM & DIAMANTS
PÉTROLE & GAZ
AUTRES MÉTAUX
Profitez de la hausse des actions aurifères
  • Inscrivez-vous à notre market briefing minier
    hebdomadaire
  • Recevez nos rapports sur les sociétés qui nous semblent
    présenter les meilleurs potentiels
  • Abonnement GRATUIT, aucune sollicitation
  • Offre limitée, inscrivez-vous maintenant !
Accédez directement au site.