The Neocons Go Nuclear

The neocons are testing their remaining strength in Official Washington by firing off rhetorical bombs against President Obama and his interim agreement with Iran to constrain its nuclear program, including absurd comparisons to Hitler and Munich, writes Lawrence Davidson.

By Lawrence Davidson

By now most readers know that the five permanent member nations of the UN Security Council – the United States, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom – plus Germany,  (referred to as the P5+1) have reached a six-month interim diplomatic settlement with the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding its nuclear program.

Within this six-month period the P5+1 powers and Iran will seek to conclude a permanent and comprehensive agreement. Readers may also know what Iran has to do according to the agreement, because most of the Western media have repeatedly listed those terms. Either skimmed over or skipped altogether are those things the P5+1 have to do for Iran. Here is a brief synopsis of the agreement:

Daniel Pipes, Neoconservative writer. (Photo from Daniel Pipes' Web site)

Daniel Pipes, Neoconservative writer. (Photo from Daniel Pipes’ Web site)

For the next six months Iran has undertaken to:

- Limit its uranium enrichment program to the 5 percent level – the level suitable for nuclear power plant fuel – while diluting its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium to below the 5 percent level. The 20 percent enriched uranium was used by Iran for medical treatment and research, but the paranoia of the Western powers in particular caused it to be seen as fuel for nuclear weapons, if further refined to about 90 percent.

- Hold to present levels the size of its low-enriched (5 percent) stockpile.

- Halt efforts to produce plutonium (a particularly efficient nuclear weapons material).

- Limit its use of present centrifuges and not construct future ones. The centrifuges are the devices that take “uranium gas” and concentrate it into nuclear fuel. It is the through calibration of the centrifuges that the percentage of enrichment is determined.

- Allow daily inspections of its nuclear facilities.

There are other obligations as well, but those are the principal ones. All of these demands are a reflection of the obsessive conviction of influential and noisy elements in the West, and particularly on the part of the Zionist-influenced U.S. Congress, that Iran is determined to produce nuclear weapons despite Iran’s denials to the contrary.

This obsessive fear about the possibility of an Iranian bomb has persisted even though Western intelligence agencies repeatedly testified that there was and is no evidence for this assertion. Essentially, this entire affair is the product of unsubstantiated right-wing Zionist anxiety, which in turn has infected pro-Zionist elements in the West.

The fact that this suspicion of Iran has been built up around a fantasy made it easier for Islamic Republic to agree to the present deal. They never did plan to build a bomb, so giving up the imaginary program was giving up nothing. On the other hand, what Iran is worried about are matters of principle.

For instance, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has a legal right to enrich uranium. It wants that right recognized. Accepting an enrichment process to the 5 percent level appears sufficiently face-saving for Tehran to agree to the interim settlement.

So what did Iran get in return?  For the next six months the P5+1powers and particularly the United States have undertaken to:

- Impose no new sanctions on Iran.

- Suspend present sanctions on (a) gold and precious metals; (b) Iran’s auto sector; and (c) Iran’s petrochemical exports. This should give Iran up to $1.5 billion in revenue.

- Cease interference with Iranian oil exports at their present levels.

- Allow for safety-related repairs and inspections for Iranian airlines.

- Release frozen Iranian funds earmarked to pay the tuition of Iranian students attending colleges in third countries.

- Facilitate humanitarian transactions (such as Iran’s importation of medicine), which, even though not covered in the sanctions, had been periodically made difficult by U.S. government bureaucrats.

It is a sign of just how malicious the West can be that it is willing to make difficult for Iran such things as airline safety, education and medicine.

Managed Reporting of the Deal   

One of the remarkable things about the Western reporting of this very significant diplomatic achievement – after all the U.S. and Iran have had no formal relations for some 33 years – is that it largely ignores Western obligations under the agreement. Even al-Jazeera America’s coverage was scanty in this regard. Why would this be so?

One can only assume that having harped on Iran as a danger to the West for 33 years, and created the an irrational fear of a nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program, the U.S. government and its media partners had to frame the agreement in a way that put the onus on Iran. The Obama administration is stuck with the consequences of those 33 years.

Iran has long been the centerpiece in a near-hysterical campaign by Zionists and neoconservatives who portray the Muslim world as the successor to the old Soviet Union. Communism has been replaced by Islam, and now that the U.S. is supposedly the only real superpower in the world, the message of this campaign is that the United States should act in a preemptive way and use its military and economic power to stamp out real and potential threats.

This was the doctrine of the George W. Bush administration, and it led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq. This is the doctrine of the American Zionists who are interested in destroying any Muslim power that may someday challenge Israel.

President Obama’s failure to follow this doctrine, at least in the case of Iran, has made him a target for these warmongers. Reporting the interim agreement with Iran in way that emphasizes Iranian obligations while playing down those of the United States and the West is a tactic to counter the hysteria on the Right.

And hysteria is the operative word here. It betrays itself in ridiculous historical comparisons and vicious name-calling. Take for example the hyperbole of Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum and publisher of the Middle East Quarterly, both sounding boards for the Zionist worldview.

In an article appearing in the right-wing National Review Pipes writes, “This wretched deal offers one of those rare occasions when comparison with Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938 is valid.” This is utter nonsense.

In 1938, the populations of Britain and France wanted peace (due to their still-fresh memories of the carnage from World War I) and their politicians were willing to allow Hitler to act in warlike fashion toward a third party, Czechoslovakia, in order to get what they thought was “peace in our time.”

Today the Western populations have been brought to a state of high suspicion of Iran with many people convinced that another military confrontation is needed, a sentiment that is just barely countered by others who are sick and tired of war in the Middle East and who believe another conflict is unwarranted and unnecessary. That division in public opinion is one of the reasons the deal is proceeding in steps.

In the agreement, Iran is accepting more intrusive inspections on top of other inspections that already existed, and the bulk of Western economic sanctions remain in force along with constant reminders to Iran that “all options are on the table.” So, there is absolutely no basis for comparing Munich with the deal just made with Iran.

At Munich, Germany was turned loose. In the present deal Iran is not let loose but constrained. After Munich there were no inspectors running around Nazi Germany checking on things. In Iran there are now a small army of inspectors. After Munich no one was telling Hitler that if he didn’t behave, the alternative was war. Yet, that is what Obama’s speeches imply. The present deal is, in these ways, the complete opposite of Munich.

What sort of world does Pipes live in that he can misread the situation so dramatically? It is an Orwellian world warped by Zionist ideology.

Since these ideologues have opened the door to ugly comparisons – and they typically abhor anyone making any kind of comparisons to Adolf Hitler – let’s get something straight here. It is not the case that Barack Obama is like Neville Chamberlain. It is, however, the case that the neocons and their ilk remind one of Hitler, at least when it comes to manufacturing false scenarios for war and then relentlessly selling them to the public.

Then, when they are checked, they display the same exaggerated, temper tantrum-like hysterics as did the fascist leaders of the 1930s. So, if anyone is looking for the real threat to Western or Israeli security (existential or otherwise), it is these ideologically blinkered neoconservatives and Zionists along with their media allies.

The interim deal with Iran is an act of sanity, and the Obama administration, whatever other foreign policy shortcomings it has displayed (and there have been plenty), deserves praise for defying the radical right and pushing it through.

As to the deal’s detractors in and out of Congress, they are the warmongers among us and deserve to be exposed as such. They are a danger to the world and to their own country. Keep in mind the words of James Madison: “if tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.   

Share this Article:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • email

7 comments on “The Neocons Go Nuclear

  1. With their recent successes in “War on Muslims”, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, etc., the so-called “Neocons” (mostly Zionist Jews), are not going to give up on Iran, Syria and Hizbullah so soon. They’re bent on the ‘Tribal Revenge’.

    In fact, the interim deal between the P5+1 and Iran, is a trap set to derail Iran’s emergence as the regional power against Israel.

    “Exposing the duplicity that accompanies Western “efforts” to strike a deal will severely undermine their attempt to then use the deal as leverage to justify military operations against Iran. For Iran and its allies, they must be prepared for war, more so when the West feigns interest in peace. Libya serves as a perfect example of the fate that awaits nations reproached by the West who let down their guard – it literally is a matter of life and death both for leaders, and for nations as a whole,” says Tony Cartalucci.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/11/29/obama-tells-netanyahu-to-stop-whining/

  2. Joe Tedesky on said:

    What the Neocon’s are doing is doing what they do best, promote war. For them war is a cash cow. They believe we must strike while the iron is still hot. The Project for the New American Century mantra speaks to how we must accomplish imposing our will while we still have the strongest military on earth. Their thinking is so arrogant there isn’t even a plan for the day when we aren’t the strongest military on earth.

    Neocon history is another one of their divisive tools. Recently it was brought up of how the Neocon’s compare the 5+p1 Geneva conference to the Munich Agreement of 1938. This is not only mean spirited, it’s just wrong. Hitler was not even close to bargaining from the position of weakness such as we find Iran. Even if Iran were to achieve enriching enough uranium to build a couple of nuclear warheads it would be laughable at best. Israel alone is estimated to have a couple hundred nukes of their own. The U.S. is so well endowed with nuclear weapons we should call ourselves U.S. Nuke Nation. How’s that joke go, “bring a knife to a gun fight”, this is that on steroids.

    Israel and Saudi Arabia should look to the United States of the Cold War years. The U.S. just had to suck it up and learn how to live with a nuclear armed Russia. Why to this day we still negotiate agreements with our rival nuclear nations. We just don’t attack. Who in their right mine even thought of doing this in the first place?

    Neocon’s like scaring people. This works well for them to reach their goals. I just wish for once we the people could be heard instead of being expected just to follow.

  3. Excellent article and analysis. The neocons must think that the rest of us have amnesia. Have we forgotten the very worst foreign policy decision on our history, invading Iraq, and who demanded that? You can see the neocons all over the internet. The talking points are just as outlined above. The deal is too appealing and solves too many problems. It will happen. This may be it for the neocons after they offend nearly everyone in power everywhere.

  4. Hillary on said:

    neocons promote Israel as the dominant power in the Middle East.
    .
    This tiny Israel colonial state of 6,000,000 Jews seeks to further its ruthless domination of the Middle East with a total population of 340,000,000.
    ..
    All this taking place while Jews continue to steal Palestine land.

    American neocons like Mr Pipes have worked ceaselessly to achieve the overwhelming power of Israel with hundreds of Nuclear Weapons ready for the their “ Sampson Option” as they hold the world to
    ransom.

    JFK was desperately trying to prevent Israel “going” nuclear when he was assassinated.
    .

  5. Elizabeth on said:

    Sunday morning, November 30, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee (R) stated that according to the “deal,” the Iranians’ centrifuges will be “spinning in perpetuity for six months.”

    Host John Dickerson, filling in for Bob Schieffer, didn’t eve blink — just went on to his next “question.”

  6. tom@westheimers.net on said:

    The Zionists have also created and paid for ads to show prior to youtube videos that tell incredible distortions! We need peace with Iran – it’s time.
    tom