The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
Why Obama Wants to Lift Sanctions on Iran
In Search for an Alternative Source of Gas
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“It is essential to recognize that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapons program, nor does it possess a nuclear weapon. On February 26, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Ayatollah Khomenei, the supreme leader of Iran, ended his country’s nuclear weapons program in 2003 and “as far as we know, he’s not made the decision to go for a nuclear weapon.” This repeats the “high-confidence” judgement of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) that was first made in November 2007.”

-Micah Zenko, Putting Iran’s Nuclear Program in Context,Council on Foreign Relations

It always helps to start with the truth, and in Iran’s case, the truth is quite simple. Iran has no nuclear weapons, it has no nuclear weapons program, and it’s never been caught diverting nuclear fuel for other purposes. Iran has pursued nuclear technology for peaceful purposes alone.

These are the facts. They may not jibe with the lies propagated in the western media, but they are the facts all the same. Iran is not guilty of anything. It’s merely a victim of Washington’s power-crazy attempt to control vital resources in the Middle East and enhance Israel’s regional hegemony. That’s what’s really going on. It’s all geopolitics. It has nothing to do with nukes.

Media coverage of the so called nuclear negotiations in Laussanne and now in Vienna has focused maniacally on the number of centrifuges, IAEA monitoring programs, uranium enrichment capability, and myriad other arcane topics that are meant to divert attention from the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and no interest in developing one. By poring over the details of these issues in excruciating detail, the reader is left feeling that Iran must be hiding something and therefore must pose a real threat to US national security. But of course that’s precisely what the authors of these articles hope to achieve, they want to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and get people to believe something that is transparently false.. The fact is, Iran is not doing anything underhanded or illegal. They are merely demanding that their right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the terms of the NPT be respected. Iran will not allow itself to be bullied by the US or treated like a second class citizen. Iran has behaved honorably from the beginning, which is a helluva a lot more than can be said of the US.

The media doesn’t want to discuss the “additional protocols” that Iran accepted in order to build confidence among members on the United Nations, because then people would realize that Iran has gone the extra mile many times in the past only to be slapped with more spurious accusations of noncompliance or foul play. But where’s the evidence of noncompliance or foul play? There isn’t any. It’s all just fear-mongering speculation and vitriolic BS spewed by the dissembling media. There’s not a word of truth to any of it.

The media’s latest scam centers on the term “breakout time”, which refers to the amount of time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear weapon if it was so inclined, which it isn’t.

“Breakout time” is the new propaganda buzzword reiterated thousands of times in the media suggesting that Tehran is just hours away from building an atomic weapon that it will immediately use to annihilate Israel. It’s a ridiculous fairy tale that assumes that–since the US is a rouge-homicidal state that goes around bombing the bejesus out of anything that moves–that other states are bound to behave the same if given half a chance. This is wrong on many levels. First of all, Iran doesn’t want nukes and, secondly, leaders in other countries are not power-mad megalomaniacs whose only joy in life is reducing broad swathes of the planet to smoldering rubble. That behavior is particular to US leaders alone. Others don’t suffer from the same sociopathic disorder.

The nuclear issue has nothing to do Iran’s fictitious nuclear weapons program. That’s just a smokescreen. The real problem is that Iran is a sovereign country with an independent foreign policy. Washington doesn’t like independent nations. Washington likes nations that shut up and do what they’re told. Nations that refuse to take orders are Washington’s enemies, they’re placed on a hit list. And that’s where the sanctions come into play. Sanctions are the way that Washington weakens its enemies before bombing them to kingdom come. They’re the stick the US uses to beat its rivals into submission.

If you’ve been following the news lately, you know that something very strange is going on. The US has done an about-face and changed its policy towards Iran. It’s a shocking development. The US has maintained the same savage policy towards Cuba for 60 years without changing a thing. Whether the policy works or not, has never mattered; what matters is inflicting maximum pain on the people Washington’s doesn’t like. So why the sudden change with Iran? Why is Obama trying to reach an agreement with a country that US elites openly despise?

And, keep in mind, that what Obama’s doing is extremely unpopular with many powerful groups; the congress, the media, Israel and even high ranking officials in his own State Department. Could it be that the powerbrokers who pull Obama’s strings and tell him what to do have suddenly seen the light and want to open a new era of reconciliation and friendship with Iran?

Of course not. No one believes that. The only reason Obama would strike a deal with Iran is because the US wants something in return. And the US does want something in return. The US wants a substitute for Russian gas flowing to the Europe so it can destroy Russia economically and implement its strategic plan to spread US power across Asia so US mega-corporations can maintain their dominant position in the global economy. Obama is playing nice with Iran so he can pivot to Asia as easily as possible.

So how plausible is it for Iran to replace Russian gas in the lucrative EU market?

Check out this clip from an article written in 2014 that anticipated the very scenario we see developing today, that is, the US trying to prevent an integrated EU-Russian free trade zone that would dwarf the US GDP and leave the exceptional nation to face years of precipitous decline. The article is titled “EU turns to Iran as alternative to Russian gas”:

The European Union is quietly increasing the urgency of a plan to import natural gas from Iran, as relations with Tehran thaw, while those with top gas supplier Russia grow colder…

“Iran is far towards the top of our priorities for mid-term measures that will help reduce our reliance on Russian gas supplies,” the source said. “Iran’s gas could come to Europe quite easily and politically there is a clear rapprochement between Tehran and the West.”….

While sanctioned itself, Iran has the world’s second largest gas reserves after Russia and is a potential alternative given talks between Tehran and the West to reach a deal over the Islamic Republic’s disputed nuclear programme.

“High potential for gas production, domestic energy sector reforms that are underway, and ongoing normalization of its relationship with the West make Iran a credible alternative to Russia,” said a paper prepared for the European parliament…

“Given Russia’s current strategy politically, which is one of confrontation with Europe, I see the EU having little choice but to find alternative gas supplies,” he added…

“Iran’s interest to deliver gas to Europe is very big. Parts of Iran’s economical and political elite as well as Western companies are preparing for an end of the sanctions,” said Frank Umbach, energy research director at King’s College in London…

Iran has long lobbied to build a designated pipeline that would connect its huge South Pars gas field with European customers – the so-called Persian Pipeline.

“It’s an extremely ambitious project,” Handjani said. “Even if half of it gets built it would be major accomplishment for both Europe and Iran.”…

Independent feasibility studies show that if sanctions were to be eased and investments started soon, Iran could supply 10-20 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas a year to Turkey and Europe by the early 2020s.
(EU turns to Iran as alternative to Russian gas,

This is why Obama wants to ease sanctions; it’s because he needs to find an alternate source of gas for Europe while he prosecutes his war on Russia. Defeating Russia has become Washington’s top strategic priority. The United States is willing to risk everything –even nuclear war– to maintain its stranglehold on global power and to extend its hegemony into the next century.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

(Republished from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Iran, Russia 
Hide 6 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The real problem is that Iran is a sovereign country with an independent foreign policy. Washington doesn’t like independent nations. Washington likes nations that shut up and do what they’re told

    That particular nugget of truth (and the proposed motivation for letting go of Iran) is no substitute for the hubris of the rest of the article, noting Western intelligence didn’t even know about Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility until 2009 and the UN gained access only after the Iranians declared it. 2003 (the date Whitney gives for Iran scrapping its nuclear weapons program) through 2008, only the Iranians know what went on there.

    The arrogance of certainty is deadly to accurate intelligence. The fact the Iranians were able to keep Fordo concealed for years, points to the more certain fact we actually don’t know what’s up with any Iranian weapons program Whitney acknowledges existed at least to 2003.

    Whitney’s biggest miscalculation is to place faith in the USA’s intelligence apparatus, for two reasons; 1) they have a proven record of incompetence and 2) if it is the USA’s intelligence role at present to cover the ‘pivot to the east’, the declarations of no Iranian weapons program (including research, that would be nearly impossible to determine) are going to be disinformation as regards any case of ongoing research by Iran’s nuclear physicists. The truth is, Iran had headed down the nuclear weapons road and at present the best assessment could only be ‘we don’t know’ where they’re at in the process or whether the weapons program had been discontinued or even whether a second ‘fordo’ site exists.

    ^ Whitney should better pay attention the USA’s intelligence bunglers in relation to Iran

  2. KA says:

    Technical details of the kind put out by the media are to create certain tendencies to plausibility and the probability that the suckers known as Americsn citizen would buy and bury in their minds . That template will be their automatic subliminal reference points in evoking emotion about Iran : Iran is guilty not honest,cheating,why it needs program so on and on, .

    Recently I came across an old article on http://www.commondreams by Ewen MacAskill – Target Iran : US Able to Strike in the Spring ( 2/10/2007)
    quotes Josh Muravchik ” I don’t think anyone in US is talking about invasion. We have been chastened by the experience of Iraq,even a hawk like myself.” But an air strike is different .” I don’t believe there will be anyway to stop this ( nuclear Iran] from happening other than physical force ”
    He thinks physical force s not an invasion. He thinks like his organization AEI thinks that air strike isn’t war . ( how did the hijackers demolish the twin tower? Was it an act of war? What was it? . To many it wasn’t. To AEI and Bush Cheney it was )
    He also in the process softens the addled brains of the same suckers who got lost in the details and prepares them for some kind of beningn kinetic gymnastics purely intended for visual amusement .
    This is the way Iraq war was built,
    Libya an war was and in 2007 Muravchik was earnestly hoping Bush would do. But the ideas didn’t die . It has a long shelf life and is stored in the neocon’s front store.

  3. KA says:

    Does it mean that Iran would be next after Russia? Nothing but the patade of the goats to the slaughter house but being moderated by the logistics of the transporting!
    But man proposes God disposes .
    Be careful America .Hands don’t move straight under the table .

  4. tom says:

    The idea that the US Empire can’t have two simultaneous enemies is ridiculous.

    The US does not have to compromise gas supplies to Europe by choosing either by Russia or Iran. There are other sources of energy available to Europe across the globe.
    If Iran is a short to mid-term subjugation target of the Empire, then why strengthen it’s gas supplies position ? increasing their strength which makes it harder to attack them later. The US Empire is far smarter and heinous than that.
    And the fact that Iran is next on the hit list much more so than Russia due to Russias size then why the hell strengthen Iran in the short term ? That makes no sense. Increasing the hege-money is the ultimate US goal, and helping Iran is the opposite of that

    Whitney, who usually does a good job, try to set up a binary position in this case, but reality complexity disproves his desperate Theory.

    • Replies: @KA
  5. KA says:

    Qatar wanted to send through Syria to S Europe . Syria balked and chose Iranian plan. This brought ” oil ” war ,actually first oil war after the last one waged by Chirchill .
    So the options for Europe is limited until pipelines / tankers from W Africa and from E Africa could be built for the supplies.

  6. Ivy says:

    Iranian citizens have been begging the Ayatollah to get the sanctions lifted. There are various signs of rapprochement including the fatwa re nukes and the cooperation re ISIL.

    Iran represents a safety valve in the event at Saudi tanks. The current Saudi regime is less stable and is restive due to Iran and Yemen and other Shia pressures in the ‘hood.

    If Obama pulls off better relations with Iran, with oil and gas to the West, while somewhat neutralizing Russia, then that would be extraordinary. I’m not banking on it, as much as I’d love to see more stability in that region. Iran represents a prize in the U.S.-Sino long term jockeying for control of the role of Central Asia in the 21st century and beyond.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS