>> In Western policy
making circles
and among political commentators
the Iranian threat is considered
to pose the greatest danger
to world order and hence,
must be the primary focus
of US foreign policy;
Europe's trailing along
politely as usual.
This year is called the Year
of Iran, because of the danger
of that enormous threat,
which does raise a question: what
exactly is the Iranian threat?
If you read the public
commentary you don't get much
of an answer, but there actually
is an authoritative answer,
which is ignored.
The authoritative answer is
provided by the regular
reports to Congress
by the Pentagon
and US intelligence
agencies that come every year,
reports on the global
security and of course,
they include a section on Iran;
the most recent was 
almost a year ago.
The reports make it very clear
that whatever the Iranian
threat is, it's not military.
So I'll quote, "Iran's military
spending is relatively low
compared to the rest
of the region."
In fact, it's less than a
quarter of that of Saudi Arabia
and minuscule as compared
with the US, of course.
Iran's military
doctrine is strictly defensive,
designed to slow an invasion
and to force a diplomatic
solution to hostilities.
Iran has only limited capacity
to project force
beyond its borders.
They, of course, bring up the
nuclear option and say that
"Iran's nuclear program
and its willingness
to keep open the possibility
of developing nuclear
weapons is a central part
of its deterrent strategy."
Well, the brutal clerical regime
in Iran is undoubtedly
a major threat
to its own people - hardly
outranks US allies
in that regard - but the threat
lies elsewhere and it's ominous.
The one element of the threat
is Iran's potential deterrent
capacity; notice that that's
an illegitimate exercise
of sovereignty because it might
interfere with US freedom
of action in the region.
And it's, of course, glaringly
obvious why Iran would seek a
deterrent capacity; just take
a look at the disposition
of forces in the region,
including nuclear forces.
Seven years ago one of Israel's
leading military historians,
Martin van Creveld, wrote that,
"The world has witnessed how
the United States attacked Iraq
for, as it turned out,
no reason at all."
Had the Iranians not tried
to build nuclear weapons they
would be crazy, particularly
when they're under
constant threat by--
constant threat of attack
by the United States,
of course in violation
of the UN Charter but,
remember that that doesn't
apply to the United States.
Whether they are, in fact,
developing a nuclear capability
we don't really know but,
perhaps so.
Well, the Iranian threat as
described in the documents
and the reports goes
beyond deterrents.
Iran is also seeking
to expand its influence
in neighbouring countries
and thus
to destabilise the
region, as it's called.
Notice that when the
US invade and
occupies Iran's
neighbours, that's stabilisation.
When Iran tries to
expand its influence,
say commercial relations,
with its neighbours,
that's destabilisation.
That is actually routine usage
in foreign policy commentary
so for-- sometimes it
becomes almost comical.
Here's prominent foreign
policy analyst, James Chase,
former Editor of
Foreign Affairs,
rather on the liberal
side incidentally.
He was properly using the term
stability in its technical sense
when he explained that in order
to achieve stability in Chile,
it was necessary to destabilise
the country [Laughter] namely
by overthrowing the elected
government installing
a vicious dictatorship.
Sounds contradictory,
but it isn't
if you understand the
technical meaning of the terms.
Well, other concerns about Iran
I have no time to go into.
They're interesting
to explore but,
I think they simply show,
underscore what the guiding
doctrines are and 
their continuing status
in imperial culture.
That's very much in accord with
the doctrines that were laid
down by FDR's planners
during the Second World War.
The United States cannot
tolerate any exercise
of sovereignty that interferes
with its global designs.
And the United States and
Europe are of course engaged
in punishing Iran for its
threat to stability and trying
to get it to become a more
civilised country, but
it's useful to recall
how isolated the US
and Europe are.
The non-aligned countries, which
is most of the world, they have
for years been vigorously
supporting Iran's right
to enrich uranium.
Within the region,
as I mentioned,
the irrelevant public even
strongly favours Iranian
nuclear weapons.
The major regional
power, Turkey,
voted against the latest
US sanctions motion
in the Security Council,
along with Brazil,
which is the most
admired country
of the South, as polls show.
Turkey's disobedience led to
sharp censure at that point, but
not for the first time.
Turkey was bitterly
condemned in 2003
when the government
committed a major crime:
it followed the will
of 95%
of the population and
refused to take part
in the US-British
invasion of Iraq
and that demonstrated its
very weak grasp of democracy,
which [Laughter] led to its
sanctions and sharp censure.
It's the same today; after the
2010 Security Council misdeed,
Turkey was warned by Obama's top
diplomat on European affairs,
Philip Gordon, that it
must demonstrate its
commitment to
partnership with the West:
follow orders in other words.
A scholar with the Council
on Foreign Relations asked,
"How do we keep the
Turks in their lane?"
They're departing;
something wrong;
'in their lane' means
following orders
like good democrats,
our style democrats.
Brazil's Lula was admonished
in a New York Times headline.
He was warned that
his effort with Turkey
to provide a solution
to the uranium enrichment
issue outside the framework
of US power is a spot on
the Brazilian leader's legacy.
In brief, do what we say,
that's your function.
There's kind of an interesting
side light to all of this,
which has been effectively
suppressed.
The Iran-Turkey-Brazil deal
had been approved in advance
by President Obama,
presumably on the assumption
that it would fail and that
would provide an ideological
weapon against Iran.
That was revealed by the
British Foreign Office,
which released the
letter of support for it
after Brazil was censured.
When the effort succeeded,
approval quickly turned
to censure and Washington ran
through a Security Council
resolution, which was so weak
that China readily signed and
is now chastised for living
up to the letter
of the resolution,
but not following Washington's
unilateral directives,
which go far beyond it.
