Policy of aggression, and this time it’s Iran [Archives:2005/872/Viewpoint]

August 29 2005

When El Baradei, the chief of the UN's watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency; the most respected nuclear investigative agency in the world today told the Bush administration years ago that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq he was ignored. Or rather it seemed so because the American went ahead with their plans to attack Iraq regardless of the results of the nuclear investigations.

One would think that the American administration has learnt from its mistake and would pull off a better plan in tackling unwanted regimes. However it takes someone else to remind USA of yet another law of nature as the Russian Foreign Ministry told the Bush administration “We consider that it would be counter-productive and dangerous to use force, the serious consequences of which would be barely predictable” regarding prospective plans to attack Iran.

Even though the Bush administration admits that no information was with held from El Baradei team the perception was already fixed from the beginning. And now that Iran is coming forward with a new proposition regarding the Iranian nuclear program, the US intelligence is awaiting any excuse to rearrange their case and launch what could be the World War Three.

The Bush Administration has never backed away from its original goal of “regime change” in Iran. And the most likely method to doing so would evidently be through force, which the US doesn't mind using in the so-called civilized world of today. It is in fact quite ironic when reviewing the Iranian history and realizing that it is one of the very few countries in the middle east with a relatively large democratic margin. The latest elections according to national and international observers could be seen as a mile stone in the Iranian politics, a fact that could not be denied by the Bush administration to the extent that had them digging in the history of the man elected after not being able to comment on the election process itself.

Then again, the matter of nuclear weapons in Israel could not be ignored when talking about security in the Middle East. Why is it so right for this country to enjoy advanced nuclear technology and not Iran, or Iraq before that. In fact, while Israel throughout its life as a country did not respect any of the international laws or conventions while Iran has violated none of its agreements under the current NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty) so, there is no reason for the IAEA to refer the case to the UN Security Council and not that of the Israeli nation?