The View From Iran: Two Suns In The Sunset

You have just learned that the "Shaytan Bozorg" wants to go nuclear on you. What do you do? Do you run into the streets screaming "Marg bar Amrika!"? Do you run and hide in the basement? Do you head for the hils? Do you check the newspapers first?

I am not sure I know the answers to any of those questions so I thought that I would check the Iranian (English language) newspapers to try to get a pulse on the Iranian reaction to our nuclear gambit. What I found was an interesting mix of news stories and opinion ranging from defiance to indifference. Here’s the rundown:

Iran News Daily, published from Tehran, quotes an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman as saying that the threatened strikes are "psychological warfare":

"We regard that (planning for air strikes) as psychological warfare stemming from America’s anger and helplessness," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

"The Americans are not seeking a solution for the Iranian nuclear file and are seeking to make crisis. They do not want us to reach an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Europeans," Asefi said.

The spokesman warned that Iran "will not give up its nuclear rights," adding that "activities of research on uranium enrichment are continuing normally" in Natanz.

"Sending our file to the UN Security Council will not make us retreat. During the past 27 years, we underwent economic sanctions and in spite of that we made economic, technical and scientific progress," he added.

The same article also reports on British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s dismissal of the nuclear strike idea as "completely nuts".

The official Government news outlet, Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), notably buries the news about the possible U.S. attack deep inside a story about Iran-U.S. talks about Iraq entitled "Asefi: Iran doubts US good intention in talks on Iraq". The headline story is entitled "Iran does not need nuclear weapons: Ambassador" and argues that Iran has sufficient conventional deterrent:

Iran’s Ambassador to Ankara Firouz Dowlatabadi said here Sunday that the Great Prophet (PBUH) military exercise conducted in the Persian Gulf waters last week proved that Iran does not need any nuclear weapons.

In an exclusive interview with IRNA, he said, "Recent military exercise was a response to futile allegations made by the US and Zionist regime that Iran wants to manufacture nuclear weapons." "The military exercise proved that Iran does not need nuclear weapons and Iranian nuclear program has noting to do with military aspect," he said.

"Successful test fire of missiles in the military exercise showed that they can meet Iran’s defensive requirement in modern wars," he said.

In perhaps an ominous sign, the Iranian exercise was codenamed "Great Prophet" while the planned test detonation (story via Polimom) of the largest conventional bomb by the U.S. has been codenamed "Divine Strake".

IRNA also carries an article entitled "Israel nuke depots biggest threat to int’l security: envoy". The article makes the argument we are likely to hear more of as the standoff heats up that Israel’s nuclear arsenal is a bigger concern for the region than Iran’s nuclear program:

Syrian Ambassador to Tehran Hamed Hassan here Sunday said nuclear depots of Israel, composed of 200 nuclear warheads, is the biggest danger and threat to regional and international security and stability.

Hassan made the remark while speaking to IRNA in an exclusive interview on the threshold of an international conference in support of Palestinian rights.

He said Israel’s nuclear plan was very important for the United States and the West, referring to Western media reports that Britain delivered thousands of tons of uranium to Israel last year and that the regime’s nuclear facilities have been constructed in cooperation with France.

The US and West have turned a blind eye to Israel’s nuclear arsenals and its weapons of mass destruction, he stated and urged Muslims to adopt an effective stand in international organizations to disclose the dual policies of the West and the US.

He called on Muslims to strive to restore the right of the Islamic and Arab states and all Third World countries to access nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. 

This argument always has been and continues to be a problem for the United States as it tries to rally worldwide support against Iran.

Tehran Times also carries the Foreign Ministry’s dismissal of the U.S. nuclear threat, although once again buried inside a news story about U.S.-Iran talks on Iraq. The paper also carries an analysis of the U.S. Administration’s unilateralist tendencies:

They essentially believed that the U.S. could regain unassailable power and dominance over the world through the unilateral use of its great military power.

The article demonstrates an understanding of American political forces and also offers a fascinating critique of the closed political systems in other Middle Eastern countries:

Meanwhile, due to their closed political systems, most Middle Eastern countries have many discontents. Thus, they have been unable to effectively meet the challenge of the Western powers and have adopted a passive attitude toward U.S. actions, encouraging U.S. officials to pursue their policies in the region.

Unfortunately, the militarist attitude of U.S. officials and the lack of a powerful political channel in the Middle East through which public opinion could be manifested have paved the way for U.S. warmongers to pursue their policies in the Middle East with no concern for world public opinion.

Yet, the dawn is breaking at last, since the masses of the Middle East are finally beginning to realize that there is no real difference between the dictators of the Arab World, the U.S. imperialists, and the powers behind the throne.

This is a critique that resonates well with the Arab street and the larger Muslim masses. It also highlights the complex challenge of bringing democracy to the Middle East. It is not clear who the real winners will be if and when the United States succeeds in bringing democracy to the Middle East. In the case of Iraq at least, it appears that the real winner is Iran and this article clearly understands this point well.

The Iranian North American expatriate website iranian.com meets the U.S. attack story head on with an article entitled "Pre-emptive Genocide?". If the Administration is harboring fantasies of Iranians dancing in the streets when their country is nuked, this article should put those rosy scenarios to bed:

The foxy neo-cons, with fangs out for a kill, have outwitted the world.  After 27 years of violating the bi-lateral Algiers Agreement, finding itself in a quagmire in Iraq, the United States decided to bring on board other countries to attack Iran, or at the very least, have their blessings.  Falsely accusing Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program and using the NPT, it succeeded.

Clearly, the aim of this administration is regime change.  However, its propaganda, the continuous revelations about the audacious lies that led it to illegally invade Iraq and cause the death of over 100,000 human beings, including thousands of Americans, has left us inert and emotionally inept to extract the neo-cons’ fangs and put a stop to their incessant demise of nations.   This is exactly what they count on – this allows them to persist. 

Their next heinous plan – nuking Iran, will morally bankrupt humanity and be the next chapter of genocide in our history books.  But in their shrewdness, they have even planned the murder of an entire civilization based on a preemptive genocide!

If I had to place a wager, I would guess that when your country is attacked, most reasonable people put aside their political differences with their Government and rally together against the attacker. I think it is long past time to put the "cakewalk" neo-cons out with the garbage.

In my previous post on the subject, I argued that if Seymour Hersh’s sources are accurate war with Iran is inevitable. I hope I turn out to be very wrong. However, unless there is a dramatic development in Congress or perhaps within the Military (as Mr. Hersh suggested might be possible) I think this train has already pulled out of the station.

All that remains is for the facts and intelligence to be fixed around the decision to go to war.

[Author’s Note: The title of this post comes from the Pink Floyd song "Two Suns In The Sunset" from The Final Cut album]

This entry was posted in Foreign Policy, Iran, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.