 
Target Iran:

Drawing Red Lines in the Sand

by

William John Cox

Mindkind Publications

Smashwords Edition

Copyright 2012

William John Cox

Based in part on an article originally published as

War Without Win: A White Paper on Iran

March 2007

With Permission

Cover Image Credit

License: Rights Managed

Space Image of Western Asia Centered On Iran

Image Copyright 2012 Photo Researchers, Inc.

ISBN 978-0-9857850-5-5

All Rights Reserved

No part of this publication can be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means,

electronic or mechanical,

without permission in writing from

Mindkind Publications

Contents

Introduction

A Brief But Essential History

The Pahlavi Dynasty

The Islamic Revolution

The Iran−Iraq War

The Clinton Administration

The Bush Administration

The Obama Administration

U.S. Oil Security Interests in the Middle East

The Separate Security Interests of the United States and Israel

Israel Prepares for War

The Israeli Plan for War

Ensnaring the United States

They Sow the Wind and Reap the Whirlwind

A Time for Peace

A Comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Policy

Earning the Prize for Peace

Sources

About the Author

Contact the Author

Other Titles by the Author

"Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing: Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him. Let him go up.'"

2 Chronicles 36:22 (Revised Standard Version)

Introduction

Iran, the last remnant of the ancient Persian Empire, is presently threatened by the greatest superpower in history − the United States of America.

Rather than attack, or allow Israel to attack, the United States should immediately reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran, negotiate unconditionally and ensure the protection of Iran from armed attack by Israel or any other nation.

The U.S. should adopt a comprehensive policy that seeks to avoid the expansion of nuclear weapons to Iran and all other nations. The ultimate goal of the policy should be the elimination of all nuclear weapons by every nation, including Israel, within ten years.

Resolution of the existing crisis requires a clear understanding of the history of the Iranian people and the steps and missteps that have led to the crisis.

[Return to Contents]

A Brief But Essential History

The ancient Greek name for Iran was Persis, which was usually spoken with fear – for good reason. At the beginning of the Fifth Century BC, the Persian Empire under Darius the Great was the most threatening force on Earth and was poised to conquer the democratic city states of Greece and, perhaps, the embryonic Roman republic beyond.

Darius was a cousin of Cyrus the Great, who had earlier, in 539 BC, freed the Tribes of Israel from captivity in Babylon and paid for the rebuilding of their Second Temple in Jerusalem.

But for a series of unfortunate events (for the Persians), modern study of the classics would be concentrated on the Persian language, history and literature, rather than upon Greek and Latin.

In 499 BC, the Persian Empire extended from India in the east to Asia Minor and Egypt in the west (including the area of present-day Israel). After Athens aided some of the Greek Ionian cities to revolt, Darius crushed the rebellion and became determined to subject all of the Greek city states to his rule.

Darius dispatched 600 ships across the Hellespont in 492 BC; however half were destroyed in a sudden storm. Two years later, he landed on the plain of Marathon near Athens. In a brilliant maneuver, the outnumbered Athenians fell back in the center allowing their stronger wings to tightly surround the Persians, depriving them of the use of their bows and arrows. 6,400 Persians fell to the long Greek spears, while only 192 Greeks died.

Following the assassination of Darius in 480 BC, his son King Xerxes attacked the Greeks, and he sacked Athens and burned the Acropolis. It appeared that the war was won, since Xerxes' navy outnumbered the Athenian ships three to one and had them contained between the island of Salamis and the coast of Attica. In yet another brilliant maneuver, the Persians were lured into the narrow straits by a false report that the Greeks were retreating. The lighter Greek ships rammed the heavier and clumsy Persian ships, sinking more than 200 and capturing others.

The power of the Persian Empire was broken. It was ultimately conquered by Alexander the Great in a series of battles commencing in 334 BC ushering in the Hellenistic Age, followed in time by the Christian Byzantine Empire. Remnants of Persian power continued under the Susanids, who lost a series of battles with Byzantine in the early Seventh Century AD.

Islam. Following the death of Muhammad on June 8, 632, a dispute over succession left the Caliphs (deputies of the Prophet) in control of the political and military authority of Islam. They were opposed by those who believed in the tribal tradition known as Ridda in which the contract of allegiance was terminated by the death of Muhammad.

Following consolidation under the Caliphs, the Arab armies defeated the Byzantines in July 636. The Persian army was defeated the following year, and the entire area of Iraq was occupied; however, resistance continued on the Persian plateau of Iran for many years.

The dispute over succession continued. In 656, the Caliph Uthman was murdered by Egyptian mutineers in Medina, and for the first time a descendant of Muhammad, Ali, was appointed Caliph. An internal war within Islam ensued; however, Ali was betrayed and assassinated by a supporter, and a non-descendant again became Caliph.

Ali's son, Hussein and 72 believers were slaughtered in 680 at Karbala (in modern Iraq) to prevent his challenging the caliphate; however, Hussein's son, Ali, survived. Followers continue to commemorate the killing of Imam Hussein each year in March by a period of mourning and pilgrimages to Karbala.

The traditional, or Sunni, branch became the dominate force in Islam; however, the majority of Muslims in southern Iraq remained true to Ali and established the Shiite branch of Islam. They expect the imminent return of the "Mahdi," the "hidden" or "twelfth" imam, who will save the world in the end of days.

Mongols. With the invasion of Genghis Khan's Mongolian army in 1219, all that remained of ancient Persia was destroyed, along with its irrigation works. There was a brief economic revival in the later part of the century; however, it wasn't until the rule of Tamerlane in 1381 that Persia was united into the area of modern Iran.

Tamerlane sponsored poetry and architecture and included Iranians in his administration. His empire disintegrated following his death and the area was ruled by various Mongol tribes including the Uzbeks and Tukomans.

Safavids. Commencing in 1501, the Safavid dynasty established the first native Iranian rule in almost 1,000 years. Tracing their descent from one of Shia Islam's Imams, the Safavids established Iran as a geographic entity under the leadership of a "Shah." They declared Shiite Islam as the state religion and used force and proselytization to convert most Muslims in Iran to their beliefs. Iran became a theocracy in which the Shah exercised both religious and governing authority.

The Safavids were confronted with border challenges from the Uzbeks in the north and in the west from invasion by the Sunni Ottomans, who had secured control over southern Iraq. In the early 17th Century, Iran managed to defeat the Uzbeks and the Ottomans, extending its borders to include Iraq, Georgia and Bahrain.

Although there were some reverses, the Safavid Empire ultimately included Armenia, the Iranian coast on the Caspian Sea and control over Afghanistan. In 1739, a military campaign against India resulted in the pillage of Delhi. The Safavids established commercial ties with English, Dutch and other Western traders to export fine silks, carpets, porcelain and other artistic products.

In the early 19th Century, Iran lost two wars with Russia and had to give up much of its Caucasus and Central Asia territory. Iran turned to England for protection against Russia and paid the price by having to surrender its claim to Afghanistan.

Although England pushed Iran into making some economic concessions and government reforms, corruption and disorder ultimately resulted in the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in 1906, with an elected parliament.

After an attempt to bomb the parliament and arrest the deputies, the Shah went into exile, and England and Russia divided Iran into spheres of influence in 1907. Thereafter, England and Russia prevented Iran from developing basic industry and technology, such as railroads, in order to protect their expanding frontiers.

[Return to Contents]

The Pahlavi Dynasty

Iran sought to avoid involvement in World War I by declaring its neutrality; however, it quickly became a battleground for German, English, Russian and Turkish interests.

Following the end of the war and the Russian revolution, England attempted to impose a de facto protectorate over Iran with the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919. The Iranian parliament, however, refused to ratify the agreement.

In 1921, Reza Shah Pahlavi (born Reza Khan), a Russian-trained Iranian military officer, seized power in Tehran, Fearing a Russian Bolshevik takeover, England assisted in the coup. Reza Shah Pahlavi was crowned as the new Shah in 1925.

The new Shah took effective control of the country by relying on young European-trained administrators and military officers. He instituted the draft, created a modern army, and brought the independent tribes under government authority.

Reza Shah established an extensive system of public schools and universities, expanded the economy, and corralled the power of the Shiite imams by establishing secular law and courts. He opened schools and employment to women and abolished the veil.

To accomplish these goals, he reduced the role of parliament and increased the power of the bureaucracy. Taxes were increased, the Shah became wealthy, and the poor suffered.

Reza Shah ended the economic favoritism of England, including its oil concession, and increasingly viewed the Soviet Union with suspicion. German commercial enterprise was encouraged, and Germany became Iran's largest trading partner.

Iran again declared its neutrality in World War II; however England and the Soviet Union simultaneously invaded on August 26, 1941 and each carved out spheres of interest. The two countries agreed to remove their troops within six months of the War's end.

The Shah abdicated in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who signed an agreement with England and the Soviet Union to provide nonmilitary assistance and to allow the shipment of war supplies across its borders.

Iran declared war on Germany in 1943 and became a founding member of the United Nations.

At the end of the war, the Soviet Union carved out two autonomous republics in northern Iran. Soviet troops remained in Iran and prevented government forces from restoring control, even as English and American troops evacuated as agreed.

As a result of American and English pressure, the Soviet Union finally evacuated, and in 1947, the United States and Iran signed military agreements. The parties agreed to a "Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement" on May 23, 1950, which agreement is still in effect according to the list of "Treaties in Force" maintained by the U.S. State Department.

Following the war, Iran began to develop its agriculture and manufacturing resources and increasingly looked to the sale of its oil reserves for finance. In 1951, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry and England imposed an embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil in retaliation.

The United States and Iran signed a Treaty of "Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights" on August 15, 1955, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate and promulgated by President Eisenhower in 1957. The treaty proclaims: "There shall be firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship between the United State of America and Iran."

Friction arose between the Shah and his popular and nationalistic prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq, who demanded more control over the government. Urged on by British intelligence, the CIA arranged strategic bombings and political harassments of religious leaders leading to the overthrow of Mossadeq.

The Shah's plans for internal development paid for by oil revenues resulted in economic inflation and widespread discontent; however, a series of prime ministers and renewed development plans failed to satisfy the needs of the people.

In 1963, a national referendum approved the Shah's "White Revolution," which nationalized forests and pastures, imposed profit sharing in private enterprise, the establishment of a Literacy Corps, women voting, and increased political opposition.

Clerical leaders, however, including Ayatollah Khomeini, opposed land reform and female suffrage, and his arrest sparked violent riots. Protests to the passage of a law granting diplomatic immunity to U.S. military personnel, and their staff and families, resulted in the exile of Khomeini. The prime minister was assassinated by members of a radical Islamic group associated with Khomeini.

The Shah appointed Amir Hoveyda as prime minister, who presided over a 12-year period of economic growth and political stability. He revised the tax law, created a new civil service code and appointed highly qualified civil administrators. Hoveyda created a new Ministry of Higher Education and greatly increased the number of colleges and universities.

The Shah improved relations with the Soviet Union and the surrounding countries. With the support of the Nixon Administration, the Shah used oil revenues to vastly improve his military in order to police the Persian Gulf. President Nixon allowed Iran to purchase any conventional weapon in the United States arsenal.

Commencing in 1957, Iran signed a series of agreements with the United States to provide uranium and technical assistance in the development of an Iranian nuclear power program, and in 1967 Iran received both weapons grade uranium and plutonium.

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty on the first day it was opened for signature on July 1, 1968. Scientists were trained in the United States, and Iranians developed the ability to extract plutonium from spent uranium fuel using chemicals.

In 1975, the United States and Iran signed an agreement in which the U.S. was to build eight nuclear power plants and to provide the fuel. It was subsequently agreed that Iran would be permitted to reprocess the spent fuels into plutonium and to invest in the U.S. enrichment facilities. Iran also signed contracts with France and Germany for the construction of nuclear power plants, as the Shah was planning to construct as many as 23 plants by 1994.

Although political parties had been allowed to develop, the Shah relied upon his secret police, SAVAK, to dampen political opposition. The secular Iran Freedom Movement joined with moderate clerics in using Islam for political mobilization.

Ayatollah Khomeini went further in writing that a monarchy was abhorrent to Islam. He proposed a theocracy in which the leadership belonged to the Islamic jurists. More and more younger Iranians joined underground groups committed to violent revolution.

The military buildup and ambitious development programs began to cause severe economic and social disruption, and by the mid-to-late 70s there was growing public disorder. In an attempt to quell dissent, the government nationalized private schools and committed to providing free secondary education and health care.

The presence of large numbers of foreigners, primarily Americans involved in military training and advice, combined with the Westernization of society led many to believe that the Shah's programs were threatening Islam and causing a deterioration in Iranian cultural values.

After the Shah established a one-party state in 1975, concern over the suppression of basic freedoms attracted international attention, including that of the Carter Administration, which brought pressure.

The Shah began to release political prisoners and appointed a new prime minister, who quickly became unpopular, as he attempted to slow down the economy. After the government planted a newspaper article accusing Khomeini of being an English spy, widespread riots swept the country led by religious leaders.

The Shah replaced the prime minister and attempted to conciliate the clerics; however the riots continued to grow until the Shah imposed martial law in Tehran and other cities in 1978, and Khomeini was exiled to France. The strikes and riots continued and Khomeini called for the removal of the Shah and the establishment of a democratic and Islamic government.

The Shah again replaced the prime minister, this time with the commander of the Imperial Guard. He promised to correct past mistakes, released political prisoners and arrested many former leaders and government officers.

[Return to Contents]

The Islamic Revolution

Strikes continued across the country virtually shutting down the government, and the leader of the National Front, Shapour Bakhtiar, agreed to form a new government if the Shah left the country.

On January 16, 1979, the Shah left on a "holiday" from which he never returned. Bakhtiar released political prisoners, moved to disband SAVAK, lifted press restrictions and promised free elections; however, Ayatollah Khomeini denounced Bakhtiar's administration as being illegal and strikes continued.

Khomeini returned to Iran on January 26, 1979 and established an alternative provisional government with power shared between revolutionary committees and religious authorities.

With the encouragement of the United States, the military ceased all movement against the revolution and pledged its support.

Ayatollah Khomeini became the "Supreme Leader" of Iran; however, there was no central government. Semi-independent revolutionary committees were formed in the towns and cities and various religious clerics formed competing political parties. Revolutionary courts condemned hundreds to death, including Hoveyda who had presided over 12 years of progress.

The interim government failed, a cleric was appointed to head the Revolutionary Council which supervised the various revolutionary committees, and Khomeini authorized formation of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard force.

Resistance against the revolutionary government came from the Khuzestan, Turkoman and Kurdish indigenous tribal areas, and Khomeini deployed the army in putting down the resistance.

The religious clerics began to deploy armed groups of Hezbollah (partisans of the party of God) against moderate and secular political opponents.

The Revolutionary Council nationalized and appropriated much of the private sector, including insurance companies, major industries, banks and urban land.

A national referendum approved a new government in which the only choice was an Islamic Republic, which was established on April 1, 1979.

A new constitution replaced the monarchy with a president; however, it ensured religious control of the government. The constitution was approved by another national referendum.

Khomeini's appointed prime minister met with President Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in November; however with the admission of the seriously ill Shah into the United States for medical treatment, all hope of restoring friendly relations with the United States dissolved.

On November 4, 1979, as thousands marched in Tehran demanding the Shah's extradition, students occupied the United States embassy and detained the diplomats and employees.

President Carter authorized Brzezinski to use Jordan's King Hussein as an intermediary to encourage Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in response to a purported call for assistance from rebelling officers of the Iranian army; however Khomeini was informed of the conspiracy by the Russians and the officers were arrested.

Authorized by the United States, Saddam invaded Iran on September 22, 1980, claiming that Iran had attempted to assassinate his foreign minister.

Carter's failure to end the student occupation contributed to his defeat by Ronald Reagan during the 1980 election. However, acting behind Carter's back, vice presidential candidate George H. W. Bush secretly agreed with Iranian agents to delay the release of the hostages until after the election when Bush and Reagan were sworn into office. In return, Reagan agreed to pay $52 million, unfroze Iranian bank accounts and allowed Iran to secretly obtain U.S. military supplies through Israel.

Ayatollah Khomeini brought a new vision to his concept of a radical Islamist government, in that the vitality of the Iranian revolution was to be exported beyond the borders of Iran as an extension of God's plan. Therein were the seeds for growing problems Iran was to have with its neighbors and other nations, including Western Europe and the United States, that came to be characterized as the Great Satan.

Looking to the west, Iran saw the majority Shia population of Iraq as a fertile field for planting its version of radical Islamism and began to diligently till the soil using the tools of subversion and propaganda.

[Return to Contents]

The Iran−Iraq War

Fears of a Shia insurgency, a long-simmering border dispute and a desire to replace Iran as the dominate nation in the Persian Gulf influenced Saddam Hussein to launch his invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980.

Saddam started the war believing the Sunnis of Iran would join with his forces; however, in a display of nationalistic fervor, most of the Iranian Sunnis fought against Iraq.

Although Iraq possessed superior military equipment, Iran sent thousands of volunteers to the front to stop the invasion and ultimately to push the Iraqi army back across the border.

By 1982, the war had been won by Iran; however, it formally dragged on for six more years due to Iran's insistence upon the elimination of Saddam and the destruction of his Baathist government, and by Khomeini's desire to consolidate the Iranian Islamic revolution.

Iraq repeatedly bombed Iranian cities and attacked civilian passenger trains and aircraft. Iran retaliated by launching missiles against Baghdad. Iraq deployed chemical weapons, some of which had been supplied by the United States, against Iranian forces, and in 1987 against the city of Sardacht. Despite these violations of the Geneva Protocol, the Reagan administration provided intelligence used by Iraq to calibrate its attacks.

More than 100,000 Iranians died as a result of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States also secretly allowed other countries to transfer United States heavy weapons to Iraq in violation of the Arms Export Control Act, and in December 1983, Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein to reassure him of U.S. friendship and materials support.

Both Iran and Iraq began to attack oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, including those of neutral nations. More than 500 commercial vessels were damaged in what became known as the "Tanker War," with Iran directing most of the attacks against Kuwaiti vessels. Many of these tankers were reflagged as American ships, including those calling on Iraqi ports, and the U.S. Navy began to provide protection.

In 1982, Reagan made a finding that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war" and that he would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent the loss.

All sales of weapons and any other assistance to Iran was prohibited in 1984, and the U.S. opposed the making of any loans to Iran. In 1987, President Reagan prohibited by executive order the importation or exportation of any goods or services to or from Iran.

After one of its frigates was damaged by an Iranian mine and a tanker was stuck by an Iranian Silkworm missile, the U.S. retaliated by destroying two Iranian ships and by attacking Iranian oil platforms.

On July 3, 1988, the U.S. Navy shot down a civilian Iranian airliner killing all 290 people on board, including 66 children.

Iran finally agreed to a ceasefire on August 20, 1988. More than 500,000 soldiers and civilians on both sides died in the conflict and untold thousands suffered grievous injuries.

Shortly after the ceasefire, Khomeini ordered the secret execution of at least 5,000 and as many as 30,000 political prisoners being held in Iranian jails.

Khomeini died in 1989 and was replaced by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had served as the president of Iraq.

The de facto Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian military, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was elected president in 1989 and served until 1997. A pragmatist, Rafsanjani sought to achieve a regional security agreement by which the Persian Gulf would be stabilized and protected by the nations that surrounded it.

Rafsanjani worked for greater economic and security cooperation and tempered the Islamic revolutionary rhetoric. Iran continued to use terror in support of its foreign policy, however, such as the overseas assassination of dissidents. This policy interfered with the ability of Iran to improve its relations with other nations, and most European nations withdrew their envoys from Iran.

[Return to Contents]

The Clinton Administration

In early 1996, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich publicly demanded the overthrow of the Iranian government, and the CIA established an $18 million program to accomplish that objective.

After Iran responded with its own intelligence effort and likely arranged for the bombing which killed 19 American Air Force personnel in Khobar, Saudi Arabia in June 1996, the Clinton administration considered bombing Iran; however, the Pentagon concluded there were no successful options. Instead, President Clinton secretly warned Iran and took effective covert action against its intelligence operatives.

The Iranian intelligence offensive ended, and a moderate president, Mohammad Khatami was elected in 1997. He wanted to make the Islamic leadership more accountable to the people, and his election created tensions between his reform government and the conservative clergy.

Khatami wanted to end the isolation of Iran and to reintegrate it into the society of nations. He ended the use of overseas terror against dissidents and ceased supporting opposition forces in other Persian Gulf nations.

Khatami was reelected in 2001; however, his reforms were blocked by the religious authorities. Liberal candidates were disqualified for election and newspapers were banned. An ultraconservative veteran who had fought in the Iran−Iraq War, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was elected president in 2005.

As president, Ahmadinejad has very limited powers. The government places the "Supreme Leader of the Revolution in control of foreign policy, and a "Council of Guardians," consisting of six clerics and six judges has a veto over any secular law that violates Islamic Law.

A 31-member "Expediency Council" advises the Leader on national policy and mediates disputes between the Guardians and the elected Parliament, which has the freedom to debate government policy.

The president's influence was reduced even further in the December 2006 local elections in which voters overwhelmingly chose reform candidates over those supported by Ahmadinejad.

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1968, Iran is entitled to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes; however, it renounced its right to develop nuclear weapons and agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Iran began to operate a nuclear research reactor provided by the United States in 1967, and in 1974, the Shah stated that Iran had "no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, but if small states [such as Israel] began building them, then Iran might have to reconsider its policy."

Construction also went forward on two nuclear power stations by a German company and both were more than half completed in 1979 when, following the revolution, a decision was made to terminate the nuclear power program. During the war, Iraq bombed both locations repeatedly destroying the core areas.

Following the war, Iran decided to complete the reactors; however, under pressure from the United States, Germany refused to complete the project or even to ship the equipment that had been paid for. Subsequently, a consortium of companies from Argentina, Germany and Spain proposed to complete one of the reactors; however, the United States once again blocked the agreement.

In 1990 and 1995, Russia signed agreements to complete the reactor and to construct two additional nuclear power stations. Russia also agreed to discuss construction of a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility in Iran, and China began to provide uranium hexafluoride gas which is used for enriching uranium. All of this was done under IAEA safeguards.

The Clinton administration tried to convince Russia to back out of the agreement, and when it refused, fears were raised that the plutonium residue could be used for nuclear weapons. Iran and Russia were, however, also negotiating for the storage of the nuclear waste in Siberia. Nonetheless, under pressure from Israel, the U.S. began to allege that, even if the nuclear power plants could not be used for the production of nuclear materials, they would result in trained engineers and scientists who could help develop nuclear weapons in the future.

Parallel to these efforts, which were done openly, Iran also began a secret program in 1985 to enrich uranium, relying upon plans for the construction of centrifuges obtained on the black market from Dr. Abdul Khan, the developer of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The program was exposed in 2002 when it was revealed that Iran was converting yellowcake to uranium gas at a facility in Isfahan and was constructing an uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.

[Return to Contents]

The Bush Administration

Threats. Commencing in October 2003, Iran allowed inspectors from IAEA to inspect the enrichment project, including Natanz and dozens of other atomic sites. Inspectors were even allowed to visit military sites and to take environmental samples.

No unusual activities were observed and the detection of traces of highly enriched uranium contamination were satisfactorily explained to the IAEA, which concluded they were of foreign origin. Moreover, the IAEA could find no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

In February 2006, following threats of sanctions and pressure from the United States and Europe to curtail its program, Iran drastically reduced access of inspectors to Natanz and dozens of other atomic sites to the minimum required by its agreements and refused to answer questions.

Pressured by the United States, the United Nations Security Council voted in December 2006 that Iran should suspend "all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development; and work on all heavy-water related projects, including the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water."

The Security Council decided that "all States should prevent the supply, sale or transfer for the use by or benefit of Iran, of related equipment and technology." In addition, certain funds associated with or providing support for Iran's proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems" were ordered frozen.

Iran made repeated proposals to resolve the issues including: allowing intrusive inspections; allowing continuous on-site presence of inspectors at conversion and enrichment facilities; introducing legislation to permanently ban the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons; refraining from reprocessing or producing plutonium; limiting enrichment below weapons grade; immediately converting all enriched uranium into fuel rods and limiting production to actual needs; and accepting foreign partners in its enrichment program.

Iran was believed to be operating approximately 362 centrifuges and had as many as 1,000 ready to run. Iran planned for a total of 54,000 centrifuges.

Iran acknowledged to having achieved an enrichment level of 3.6 percent, which is all that is needed to generate electricity. However, thousands of centrifuges are required to enrich enough uranium to the 90 percent purity necessary for nuclear weapons, and the construction of a workable warhead is an entirely different matter.

A National Intelligence Estimate issued in 2005 concluded that Iran would not be able to produce enough highly enriched nuclear material to produce a nuclear weapon until "early to mid-next decade," conveying a consensus that 2015 would probably be the earliest.

On February 2, 2006, John Negroponte, then Director of National Intelligence, testified that Iran probably did not have a nuclear weapon nor the necessary fissile material for a weapon. He stated that if Iran continued on its current path it "will likely have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon within the next decade."

In May 2006, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of IAEA stated, "Our assessment is that there is no immediate threat," He went on to say, "We should not jump the gun. We should be very careful about assessing the information available to us." He believes that a majority of the Iranian leadership was still interested in a negotiated solution and normal relations with the world.

On September 30, 2006, President Bush signed the Iran Freedom Support Act which imposed sanctions against any country aiding Iran's nuclear programs, including those to which Iran is legally entitled under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The act openly proclaims the goal of effecting regime change and directs Bush to spend $10 million in support of groups opposed to the Iranian government.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and Iran has repeatedly offered to reinstate full inspections, if the United Nations will drop the sanctions and return the matter to the IAEA. Moreover, Khamenei's chief foreign policy advisor stated that suspending uranium enrichment is not a "red line" and that the religious leaders might be ready to agree to some kind of suspension.

President Bush had Iran in his sights ever since January 2002, when he included it as one of the "Axis of Evil" during his State of the Union speech. By the time he failed in his mission in Afghanistan by allowing Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members to escape and as he was withdrawing troops to support his illegal attack on Iraq, plans were already being made to engineer a regime change in Iran.

As early as February 2003, the Pentagon was circulating a draft of a top secret Presidential Directive regarding Iran, calling it "a house of cards ready to be pushed over the precipice." The plan called for "using all available points of pressure on the Iranian regime, including backing armed Iranian dissidents and employing the services of the Mujahideen-e Kalq," a terrorist gang operating out of Iraq against Iran.

The Army began to conduct an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran called TIRANNT (theater Iran near term), and the U.S. joined with British planners to conduct war games in the Caspian Sea.

In November 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signed off on CONPLAN 8022-02 approving a preemptive strike strategy against Iran, and a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" was issued in 2004 establishing the military's readiness to attack Iran using aircraft and missiles.

In May 2004, Bush also issued National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 authorizing the deployment of nuclear weapons.

In January 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney said that Iran was at the top of the administrations trouble spots and that Israel "might well decide to act first" by attacking Iran, letting "the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward."

The State Department was spending $66 million to encourage regime change in Iran, and in March 2006, the Bush administration declared that Iran was the number one security threat to the United States.

Bush's decision to "surge" the military in Iraq by at least 22,000 troops in 2007 was intended to increase pressure on Iran as much as to stabilize Baghdad. Bush stated that the United States would not sit down with Iran until after the U.S. had gained "leverage."

America began to deploy "force protection" military teams into Iran to gather targeting data and to establish contact with local anti-government groups. It began to arm and supply the Mujahideen-e-Khalq terrorists and Kurdish resistance groups, such as the Party For Free Life in Kurdistan, to conduct clandestine operations within Iran.

Iran's defense minister accused the U.S. of having electronically jamming an Iranian plane causing it to crash inside Iran in 2005, with a number of senior military leaders aboard.

The United States began to secretly fly surveillance drones over Iran, including one shot down in 2007.

The Iranian Minister of Interior believed the U.S., Britain, and Israel were "seeking to destabilize Iran through a coordinated plan."

In fact, President Bush did establish the highly secret Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group to coordinate efforts to "contain" Iran and to project strength, rather than to seek compromise or dialogue.

Led by deputy national security advisor Elliott Abrams and assisted by the Vice President's daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, the Group's mission included demonizing and isolating Iran, providing funds to groups seeking the overthrow of its government, and transferring military hardware to surrounding countries, including advanced missile defense systems.

Bush's own National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf affairs from 2001 to 2004, Hillary Mann Leverett, accused Bush of "trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict" with Iran as a pretext to justify "limited strikes" against its nuclear and military infrastructures, rather than "an all-out invasion like what happened in Iraq."

The Bush Administration's war plan was not limited to a "surgical strike" against Iran's 18 to 30 nuclear facilities. The plan developed by the Pentagon envisioned a sustained bombing campaign to humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government. Hundreds of targets were listed, including 99 percent having nothing to do with nuclear proliferation.

Plans included the destruction of the Iranian Air Force, more than 14 air bases, Kilo submarines, fast torpedo boats, anti-ship missiles, the newly deployed Russian TOR-M1 anti-missile defense systems, command and control centers, and any ballistic missile capability. As many as 2,300 high-value targets were identified.

Consideration was given to the use of "bunker-buster" tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's underground nuclear sites, and F-16s capable of carrying these B61-11 atomic mini-bombs were redeployed to the Incirlik American Air Force base in Turkey. The United States also brought new Air Force bases in Bulgaria and Romania on line to serve as refueling stations for Stealth and B-2 bombers.

Bush's top military officers were strongly opposed to an attack on Iran; however, as their "Commander in Chief," Bush believed he could order an attack on a moment's notice, including the use of nuclear weapons, without any declaration of war or any other Congressional approval.

Bush established a special group in the Joint Chiefs of Staff that could implement a bombing campaign within 48 hours of his command. Using the justification that Iran was responsible for the violence and civil war in Iraq, Bush planned to rely upon Congress's September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (against the war on terrorism) to attack Iran. Or, he believed he could simply attack and rely upon the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which gives a president up to 90 days to commit forces to combat without the consent of Congress.

Negotiations. Even though the United States had done everything in its power to isolate Iran after breaking diplomatic relations in 1979, the Iranians immediately rallied to the support of America following the al Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001.

Iran was already supporting Afghan guerrillas who were fighting against the Taliban in western Afghanistan, and the Iranians were critically important to the stabilization of Afghanistan after the Taliban were defeated.

As one of the 18 coalition countries, Iran participated in the talks in Bonn which planned the interim Afghan government. The role of the Iranian representative, Javad Zarif, a graduate of the University of Denver, was pivotal in obtaining the agreement of the Northern Alliance to allow Hamid Karzai, a southern Pashtun tribal leader, to head the new government.

In December 2001, Iran pledged $500 million toward the reconstruction of Afghanistan, which at the time was twice that being offered by the United States.

For all of these efforts on behalf of the United States, Iran was rewarded one month later by being labeled as a member of the "Axis of Evil" by Bush during his State of the Union address.

In early 2003, as the United States prepared to invade Iraq, it again sought the assistance of Iran should pilots from damaged U.S. aircraft end up in Iran and to help with the anticipated flood of refugees who would cross the border.

After the invasion, the Iranians suggested trading some of the al Qaeda operatives it had in custody for some of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) terrorists detained by the U.S. in Iraq. The United States declined the bilateral extradition, partially because the terrorists might be useful against Iran in the future.

At about the same time, the Iranians transmitted a two-page proposal for negotiations with the United States through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran who represented the U.S. interests there. The proposal, which had been cleared at the highest levels of the Iranian government, was sent by fax to the State Department and another copy was directly delivered to Karl Rove at the White House.

The Iranians offered to negotiate compromises on its nuclear program, to suspend its support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, to convert Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization, and to support a Palestinian peace agreement with Israel − all part of a comprehensive resolution of its relations with the United States.

Official consideration of the proposal was blocked by administration neocons led by Cheney, with the blessing of Bush. Former Secretary of State Powell says, "My position ... was that we ought to find ways to restart talks with Iran, but there was a reluctance on the part of the president to do so." Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied having ever seen the proposal, even though she was Bush's National Security Advisor at the time.

In November 2005, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani visited Iran with a proposal for the United States to participate in bilateral talks about Iraq. Iran agreed to talk on the conditions that the discussions be private and that they involve all outstanding issues between the two countries.

Iran conducted a quiet diplomatic campaign to communicate its readiness to negotiate with the United States on broad security issues, and in April 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad publically offered to negotiate.

In May 2006, Ahmadinejad sent a public letter to Bush in which he proposed "new solutions for getting out of international problems and the current fragile situation of the world." He asked, "How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction – hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?"

U.S. intelligence analysts decided that the letter was an important diplomatic opening; however the Bush administration dismissed it.

Iran followed the letter with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program made through a number of intermediaries, including Mohamed ElBaradei, Indonesia, Kuwait, and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Administration neocons continued to reject talks; however, other government experts thought that America should at least respond.

The United States refused requests from other powers to give explicit security guarantees to Iran that it would not intervene politically or militarily in its internal affairs, and it refused to rule out military action.

In June 2006, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany (P5+1), proposed: to allow Iran to upgrade its civilian air fleet through purchases from Boeing; to waive trade sanctions; to allow Iran to join the World Trade Organization; and to commit to the building of light-water reactors through joint projects with other countries, if Iran returned to a freeze on its enrichment of nuclear fuel.

The Iranians sought clarification over terms, timing and duration of the suspension; however, the offering countries placed a three-week deadline on a decision and demanded that Iran immediately suspend its uranium-enrichment activities before formal negotiations began. Ahmadinejad stated, "My colleagues are carefully considering the package of proposals of the six countries, and in due time they will give a response."

On May 14, 2006, Bush dismissed calls for direct talks with Iran, saying the United Nations was the better forum. Secretary-General Annan urged the United States to enter into direct talks with Iran. Ahmadinejad said he was ready to talk to any country, except Israel, but not under the threat of force.

Bush continued to harden his position by revoking instructions to his ambassador in Baghdad to talk with Iran, just as the other five nations were meeting again to discuss a new offer. A national security council spokesman stated, "We will assess the situation and see when talks with the Iranians about the situation might be useful." Bush began to push for sanctions instead of negotiations.

Under pressure from its allies and many past and present officials in its own government, the United States agreed at the end of May 2006 to conduct direct talks with Iran if it first agreed to suspend its programs to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel. Asked if Bush was willing to forego the military option temporarily if Iran accepted negotiations, Rice answered, "The president is not going to take any of his options off the table, temporarily or otherwise."

Not unforeseeably, Iran dismissed Bush's offer saying it would not bow to pressure, and limited sanctions were imposed by the United Nations Security Council in December 2006. Differences quickly developed between European governments and the United States, which demanded quick action curtailing exports to Iran and freezing its assets.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the winner of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for having been right about the nonexistence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, called for the resumption of negotiations: "My priority is to keep Iran inside the system. ... My worry right now is that each side is sticking to its guns. The international community is saying 'sanctions or bust.' Iran is saying 'nuclear enrichment capacity or bust' and we need somebody to reach out and be able to find a solution."

In 2007, a National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran's intentions regarding nuclear weapons concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapon design and weaponization work in 2003. In an apparent attempt to stop President Bush and the Israelis from attacking Iran, a non-classified abstract of the Estimate was published for public consumption.

Three high ranking retired military officers, Army Lt. General Robert Gard, Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar, and Navy Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, issued a public statement in 2007 urging President Bush to open talks with the Iranian government "without preconditions" in a bid to find a diplomatic solution. They warned that an attack on Iran "would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions."

[Return to Contents]

The Obama Administration

The Essential Issues of the Current Crisis. As a charter member of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. Iran has steadfastly maintained that its enrichment of nuclear materials is only intended for the generation of energy and medical research; however, the United Nations Security Council expressed concerns in 2006 about Iran's peaceful intentions and demanded that Iran halt its uranium enrichment program.

Uranium in a gaseous form is "enriched" by using centrifuges to increase the percentage of the "235" isotope to increasingly higher levels. Nuclear power is generated by fuel having a concentration of 3.5 percent, while medical research requires a level of approximately 20 percent, and nuclear weapons require a purity of at least 90 percent.

A primary issue is that once uranium is enriched to 20 percent, it can be more quickly enriched to the levels required for nuclear weapons. Thus, the quantity of stock on hand of 20 percent uranium is of great concern to those who fear that Iran is secretly intending to quickly develop nuclear weapons in a "breakout."

Iran currently has more than 9,000 centrifuges producing 148 kilograms of 3.5 percent enriched uranium per month and has 3,345 kilograms on hand. It currently has approximately 143 kilograms of 20 percent uranium, which is not enough to produce a single nuclear weapon. That stockpile has been recently reduced from 189.4 kilograms, as Iran has used some to produce "fuel plates," which are used in its medical research reactor. Once converted to fuel plates, the material cannot be easily reconverted for further enrichment to weapons grade.

Initial Policies. Upon taking office, President Obama stated his official policy regarding Iran was to obtain a relationship based on "mutual interests and mutual respect." He went on to say, "We do not interfere in Iran's internal affairs. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran's international right to peaceful nuclear power."

The President challenged Iran to choose the kind of future it wants and to "decide whether it wants to focus on the past, or whether it will make the choices that will open the door to greater opportunity, prosperity, and justice for its people."

Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 2009, President Obama stated, "I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach−and condemnation without discussion−can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door."

Following his election, the incoming president Obama was briefed by the outgoing president Bush regarding two secret programs. One was the use of hunter-killer drones to strike at targets in Pakistan and the other was a program code-named Olympic Games intended to introduce computer viruses into Iran's nuclear plants. Obama approved and expanded both programs.

Drones. President Obama came to "love" drones and has presided over the expansion of the nation's drone fleet to more than 19,000. Obama used drones 268 times during his first three years in office to kill more than 3,000 people, which was five times more than were used during the entire Bush administration. As many as 800 of the dead were civilians, including at least four American citizens (who had not been convicted of any crimes) and at least 174 children under the age of 18.

Obama also continued the use of drones to spy on Iran, including the latest stealth aircraft. The Sentinel avoids radar detection and can hide in the sky 50,000 feet over its surveillance target.

On December 4, 2011, Iran's cyber warfare unit took control of a CIA Sentinel in its airspace and safely landed it. The U.S. falsely stated it had lost control of the drone during a routine mission over Western Afghanistan.

The United States requested return of the drone; however, Iran filed a formal complaint in the United Nations Security Council stating the drone flight was a "blatant and unprovoked air violation by the United States government [and] is tantamount to an act of hostility ... in clear contravention of international law...."

Special Forces. Although President Obama originally condemned terrorists attacks against Iran and promised to not interfere in its internal affairs, he has continued and expanded other Bush programs involving acts of aggression classically defined as warfare against the nation of Iran and its people.

First established in 1987, the U.S. Special Operations Command is composed of specialized units of all of the service branches, and its most elite and super-secret component is the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Operating outside the normal military chain-of-command, the JSOC is personally accountable to the president as the Commander-in-Chief (CIC) and is responsible for executing individuals on the president's "hit list," which includes U.S. citizens.

As the CIC, the president does not have to issue "findings" or to have the approval of Congress to deploy his special forces. In his sole discretion, the president can authorize his "private army" to maintain secret prisons, engage in assassination programs and conduct covert wars.

Just as it has been said that Obama "loves" drones, he is infatuated with Special Operations. He has increased funding every year. Obama used the money to deploy military forces to help overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, without Congressional approval, and he ordered his private army to assassinate Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Up from 60 at the end of the Bush administration, SOCOM is now operating in at least 75 countries with an annual budget of $10.5 billion and 66,000 personnel. It conducts an average of 70 secret missions every day.

Beginning in the Bush administration, U.S. special forces and CIA personnel began to regularly cross into Iran to "destabilize" the country's religious leadership, to seize members of the Revolutionary Guard for interrogation and to "prepare the battle space" for invasion.

Support of Terrorists. The U.S. has also provided financial and material support to groups in Iraq that were dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Iranian "regime." These groups included the Baloch, Iranian People's Resistance Movement, Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, and the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK.)

The Iranian media began to report increased terrorist attacks, including explosions at industrial and gas transportation sites. Rather than undermining the religious leadership, however, the attacks may have resulted in increased public support for the regime in its defense against the "Great Satan."

The MEK, a Marxist-Islamist group, has been engaged in a violent internal war with Iran's religious leadership for more than 30 years. Its violence earned it a place on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations in 1997.

Even so, beginning in the Bush administration, the U.S. actively trained members of the organization at a secret Department of Energy site in Nevada. The six-month training course by JSOC instructors consisted of small-unit tactics, weaponry and communications. It is, of course, a felony offense to provide material assistance to any organization on the list of terrorist organizations.

Murder of Scientists. Although there is no evidence that the Obama administration continued the secret training, it is generally understood that the MEK has made good use of its training to intercept Iranian communications and has continued to share the information with U.S. intelligence officers.

It is more certain that Israel used MEK terrorist assets directly against scientists associated with Iran's nuclear program. Four nuclear scientists have been murdered since 2007.

The Obama administration denies direct involvement in the murders; however, it is very likely the murderers made use of U.S. intelligence. Two administration officials have confirmed the attacks were financed and trained by the Israeli Mossad.

Following the killing of a scientist by a car bomb, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the murder was "not what the United States does." He did acknowledge having some idea of who might have been involved; however, he did not condemn the crimes.

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorium probably expressed the opinion of many U.S. government officials, "On occasion, scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that's a wonderful thing, candidly."

Cyber Attacks. The Bush administration operated a CIA sabotage program in Iran which substituted defective parts and designs causing systems to break down or explode. Not entirely successful, the sabotage program provided the genesis of a new and improved plan to destroy Iranian nuclear production facilities using a computer virus. Initially, a virus known as a "beacon" examined the system and reported it capabilities to controllers.

Upon taking office, President Obama ordered an expansion and acceleration of the "Olympic Games" program in a series of cyber attacks that ultimately destroyed a fifth of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran was operating.

Created in cooperation with Israel, the virus was only discovered when it escaped onto the Internet and began to recreate itself in computers around the world. Even so, Obama, who was personally involved in every decision involving the virus, ordered the attacks to continue.

Another cyber weapon known as "Flame" infiltrated the computers of Iranian officials allowing its controllers to listen in to conversations and steal data from bluetooth-enabled cell phones. Technicians at the Iranian Ministry of Oil had to cut Internet connections to defeat the complicated virus as it was gathering and reporting data on Iran's oil production. Iranian computer experts identified two computer "IPs" in the United States as the source of the hacking.

President Obama was aware of the risks of introducing cyber warfare, but believed it was necessary until economic sanctions sufficiently reduced Iran's oil revenues to compel the country to cease processing nuclear materials.

Negotiations and Sanctions. Although the imposition of economic sanctions against a nation can be devastating to its people, it is not considered to be an "act of war" under current international law.

First ordered by President Carter in 1979, every subsequent U.S. president has supported and imposed increasingly harsh economic sanctions against Iran. Sanctions include prohibiting both imports and exports from and to Iran and freezing the assets of Iranian companies and individuals in other countries.

During a televised debate during the presidential campaign, Obama was asked if he would meet with the "leaders" of Iran "without precondition" during his first year as president. Obama said, "I would, and the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them ... is ridiculous."

Iran President Ahmadinejad sent an open letter to President-elect Obama shortly after the election congratulating him and seeking "actions based on justice, respect for the rights of human beings and nations, friendship and non-intervention in the affairs of others." President-elect Obama "studied" the letter; however, he never responded to it directly.

In March 2009, President Obama sent a videotaped Persian New Year message to the leaders and people of Iran in which he repeatedly referred to the "Islamic Republic of Iran." The intent of the message was a recognition of the government and to reassure Iran that he was not seeking a regime change.

President Obama followed with a letter to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in May 2009. The response was not encouraging, and Obama sent a second letter in June. The contents of the letters have not been revealed except that President Obama requested dialogue and engagement between the two countries.

The letters arrived in the midst of Iranian elections which were accompanied by widespread street protests. The Iranian government made thousands of arrests and at least 30 people were killed.

President Obama did not congratulate President Ahmadinejad on his reelection; however, Obama did strongly condemn "these unjust actions" stating that "the United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days."

Ayatollah Khamenei did not respond to the second letter; however, during a sermon in June 2009, he stated, "The U.S. president said we were waiting for a day like this to see people on the street....Some people attributed these remarks to Obama, and then they write letters to say we're ready to have ties, that we respect the Islamic Republic, and on the other hand, they make such comments. Which one should we believe?"

Like two ships passing in the night, the two nations failed to achieve a dialogue and their leaders continued to speak past each other. In reality, rather than passing by each other, the two nations are on a collision course.

In September 2009, Obama revealed that Iran was building a secret underground plant to enrich uranium. The next month in October, direct talks involving the U.S. and its allies took place in Geneva. On the condition that Iran would ship its enriched fuel out of the country for refinement, the U.S. and its allies offered to provide Iran with the processed fuel it needed for its reactors.

In February 2010, Iran announced it was beginning to enrich nuclear material to 20 percent for medical purposes.

In April 2010, President Ahmadinejad turned up the heat by formally requesting the United Nations to investigate the events of September 11, 2001 which were "carried out as the main pretext to attack the Middle East."

Following a meeting in May with Iran's President Ahmadinejad in Tehran, Brazil's President Lula and Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan announced a nuclear fuel exchange agreement with Iran designed to alleviate the nuclear enrichment crisis. In a joint declaration, Iran agreed to immediately ship half of its enriched uranium to Turkey in a demonstration of good faith in an effort to restart negotiations.

Although the agreement was similar to the one proposed to Iran in Geneva in 2009, the U.S. blasted the agreement. In doing so, it insulted and belittled the efforts of two of its allies and it derailed diplomacy in favor of increased sanctions.

Following the adoption of Resolution 1929 by the UN Security Council in June 2010, which prevents countries from providing financial services to Iran, President Obama signed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010. CISADA imposed significant barriers on foreign access to the U.S. financial system if they engage in restricted transactions with Iran.

Obama banned imports of Iranian carpets and foods and threatened to interfere with the importation of gasoline into Iran, which can only refine two-thirds of its domestic needs. Venezuela's national oil company was sanctioned in May 2011 for trading with Iran.

In June 2011, new sanctions against Iran's Revolutionary Guard and law enforcement agencies were announced.

In October 2011, the U.S. arrested an Iranian American used-car salesman and charged him and an Iranian national with attempting to hire an undercover DEA informant posing as a member of a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. The Iranian national was alleged to be a member of the Revolutionary Guard's secret Quds Force. The indictment of Manssor Arbasiar has yet to be tried, as he is "cooperating" with the U.S. government. Iran has denied any involvement.

A defense funding bill in December 2011 empowers new sanctions against financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank. These sanctions were scheduled for the first part of 2012, unless waived by President Obama.

Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi, responding to European Union threats to boycott Iranian crude, stated that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz in reprisal for any Western sanctions on the country's oil exports.

The commander of Iran's navy said that closing the passage would be "easier than drinking a glass of water" and commenced a naval exercise to demonstrate how he would do it by using swarms of rocket-mounted speedboats and anti-ship missiles.

In January 2012, the White House posted the following statement on its official website: "Barack Obama supports tough and direct diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."

President Obama followed up with a third secret letter to Ayatollah Khamenei, warning that closing the Strait of Hormuz was a "red line," the crossing of which the U.S. would not tolerate. Khamenei's military advisor responded, "If Iran is endangered," it would use "political and other means" to defend itself."

Khamenei took a softer line, "The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons....Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan personally carried a message from Obama to Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad in April 2012 signaling that an Iranian nuclear program might be acceptable to the U.S., if there was evidence that Khamenei meant what he said. The messages also stressed that "there is great urgency" for serious negotiations.

Having sent that signal, however, the U.S. hardened its position in a new round of talks between Iran and the P5+1 group.

Negotiating more with its allies to obtain their concurrence than with Iran, the U.S. demanded the immediate closing and ultimate dismantling of Iran's underground nuclear enrichment facility at Fordo, a halt to the enrichment of 20 percent uranium and the shipment of all such material out of the country.

These conditions were presented to Iran during P5+1 talks in Baghdad in May, which were continued until June in Moscow. The P5+1 side refused to allow Iran to participate in expert-level preparatory meetings before the Moscow talks. Iran warned that foot-dragging by P5+1 was undermining the negotiations and the two days of talks in Moscow failed to produce an agreement.

Iran stated that it presented "legal, constructive, fair and friendly proposals on ways to resolve issues" at the talks, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon praised Iran's significant role in regional and international developments.

President Ahmadinejad reinforced the earlier commitment by Ayatollah Khamenei saying, "All Iran's nuclear energy activities have so far been based on international regulations" and that Iran has never sought to build nuclear weapons.

On July 1, 2012, the European Union imposed an embargo on oil exports by Iran, slowing and stopping the flow of oil through member nation oil companies. In addition, since the EU nations are the primary insurers of Iran's oil shipments, it also imposes a significant increase in the cost of insurance for all other nations.

By the end of July, President Obama followed the EU's lead by imposing additional sanctions on Iranian oil sales and financial transactions. He stated, "With these actions, we are once again reaffirming our commitment to hold the Iranian government accountable for its actions." Obama warned, "We will expose any financial institution, no matter where they are located, that allows the increasingly desperate Iranian regime to retain access to the international financial system."

It is questionable whether the inability of Iran to process international banking transactions will cause its government to do or not do anything; however, it is certain that the extreme economic sanctions will fall hardest on vulnerable middle-class private business owners.

It was the middle class which led the opposition to the disputed 2009 elections and which felt the heavy blow of government repression. The sanctions will likely increase inflation and joblessness in Iran and may very well be the death knell of the reform movement. The government will be empowered, rather than weakened by the sanctions.

There is no doubt that Iran has offered to stop enriching uranium at 20 percent and that it has indicated it is amenable to shipping its stock of 20 percent uranium out of the country. It appears Iran is prepared to negotiate these conditions; however, it cannot concede the product of negotiations in order to commence negotiations. Everyone who ever negotiated a contract, bargained for a better price, or played poker should be able to understand Iran's position.

[Return to Contents]

U.S. Oil Security Interests in the Middle East

Historically, the United States did not play a major political role in the Middle East, except for supporting the activities of its oil companies which operated there. As we have seen earlier, the primary foreign powers were France, England, Germany and, to a certain extent, Russia.

Following World War II, the United States began to exhibit a greater interest in the region, and President Truman was the first head of government to recognize Israel on May 14, 1948, the same date it proclaimed its independence as the State of Israel.

In 1950, President Truman wrote to King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia saying, "the United States is interested in the preservation of the independence and territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia. No threat to your Kingdom could occur which would not be a matter of immediate concern to the United States."

In response to the invasion of Egypt by Israel, France and England in 1956, President Eisenhower established the "Eisenhower Doctrine," which responded to requests for American economic and/or military assistance from any nation threatened by armed aggression from another state. Eisenhower feared that the region, which contained a large percentage of the world's oil reserves, could fall to communism. For the first time, the "Doctrine" made U.S. oil security a justification for economic and military action.

The Doctrine was expanded by President Carter in 1980 in response to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The "Carter Doctrine" stated "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

These "Doctrines," combined with the history of involvement by every subsequent president as outlined in the above chapters, clearly demonstrate that the United States was and continues to be prepared to use military force to ensure the flow of oil from the Middle East, which it considers to be essential to its economy.

Whether the preservation of oil security justified the various military and economic actions taken by the United States is questionable, and history will be the ultimate judge. For now, oil security is the policy and it is the justification for the punitive actions being taken by the United States against the sovereign nation of Iran and the threats it is making for even more dire consequences.

The question is whether Iran's possession of refined uranium sufficiently threatens the flow of oil, or whether the United States is acting primarily on behalf of another nation, which feels more directly threatened by Iran's nuclear capability.

[Return to Contents]

The Separate Security Interests of the United States and Israel

A balanced analysis of the security interests of the United States vis-a-vis Israel requires a careful review of their security interests and the history of their interaction.

That analysis demonstrates that Israel will always put its interest before any other nation, including the United States, if its leadership believes Israel's existence is at risk. One should not expect anything different, given the experience of the Jewish people in Europe during World War II; however, that experience does not give Israel the right to dictate the foreign policy of United States, whose interest may diverge from Israel when all risks are evaluated.

The people of the United States, and those who make international policy on their behalf, must be mindful that the interests of the two countries have not always coincided. Several examples from the history of the past 60 years are instructive.

Baghdad and Egypt Bombings. Following independence, the Israeli government encouraged the immigration of Jews from other countries to quickly increase its population. This was known as making Aliyah (Hebrew: ascent).

In 1948, more than 140,000 Jews lived in Iraq, making up one-sixth of Baghdad's population. These were the descendants of the Jews who chose to remain in 536 B.C., when the Tribes of Israel were freed from their captivity by Cyrus the Great.

Israeli Zionists encouraged the Iraqi-Jewish population to leave Iraq; however, the Iraqi government declared Zionism to be a capital offense, required registration, a renouncing of citizenship and a forfeiture of property to leave. Many Iraqi-Jews were able to escape through Iran to Israel; however, many were afraid or unwilling to disturb the status quo.

Commencing in March 1950, a series of bombings occurred in Baghdad at the American Cultural Center and Library, the U.S. legation's information office, and other locations where Jews gathered. The Jewish population was seized with panic, and ultimately all but a few thousand left the country.

The Mossad denied it was involved in the bombings; however, the acts served to sour American-Iraqi relations and the rapid emigration of the population did in fact take place. The British embassy in Baghdad concluded that the bombings were done by Zionists, and a former CIA senior officer wrote that they were done by Zionists to "portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews."

The Mossad also recruited a group of Zionist Egyptian Jews in 1954 to plant bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and other American targets in Cairo and Alexandria. The Mossad intended to blame the Muslim Brotherhood for the attacks; however, the plot failed and the conspirators were arrested and convicted.

The conspiracy was code named "Operation Susannah," and the failed attempt became known as the "Lavon Affair" after Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon, who was forced to resign as a result. After denying complicity for 50 years, the surviving agents were provided with a certificate of appreciation by Israeli President Moshe Katzav in 2005.

All of these acts of terrorism were denied by Israel, and historians are divided as to responsibility; however, the adage Cui bono (Latin: to whose benefit?) often correctly identifies the party that had the most to gain or the least to lose.

Suez Crisis. In 1956, acting in conspiracy with England and France, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula without warning. The purpose of the invasion was for England and France to regain control of the Suez Canal, which had been nationalized, and to remove President Gamal Abdel Nasser from power in Egypt.

Israel considered Nasser to be a genocidal maniac, who was intent upon exterminating the Israeli people. Israel also viewed with alarm the large amounts of Soviet weapons being accumulated by Egypt and Nasser's denial of Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal.

France and England began to bomb Cairo and northern Egypt, and Israel seized the Gaza Strip and large portions of the Sinai. English and French commandos attacked Port Said and Port Fouad at the Canal entrance; however, Nasser effectively blocked it to all shipping by sinking 40 ships that were in transit when the invasion started.

Failing to obtain a Security Council resolution due to vetoes by France and England, the United Nations General Assembly acted under the 1950 "United for Peace" resolution to recommend appropriate steps to end the fighting.

The General Assembly resolution was proposed by the United States. President Eisenhower believed that U.S. support of the invasion would cause a backlash in the Middle East, which would allow the USSR greater influence in the region.

President Eisenhower received Congressional authorization to use military force to stop aggression in the Middle East, if requested by any nation (The Eisenhower Doctrine). He also supported economic sanctions against Israel, including all private support, until it withdrew from Egyptian territory.

Under threats to be ejected from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, England and France withdrew their troops within a week; however, Israel threatened to annex the portions of the Sinai Peninsula it had captured. Succumbing to international pressure, Israel withdrew to its borders in 1957; however, there was no peace settlement with Egypt.

Attack on USS Liberty. In 1967, following earlier reprisal raids into the Jordanian occupied West Bank, which were condemned by the United Nations, Israel launched a surprise air and armor invasion of the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Fearing an Egyptian military buildup, the preemptive war by Israel lasted six days and resulted in the defeat of Egypt.

On June 8, 1967, the third day of the war, the USS Liberty, a United States spy ship, was on duty in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula monitoring the electronic communications of the warring parties. The Liberty was attacked, without warning, by Israeli Air Force fighter planes and Israeli Navy torpedo boats. Thirty-four Americans were killed, 170 were wounded and the ship was severely damaged.

Officially, both governments labeled the attack a mistake due to confusion about the ship's identity; however, all of the ship survivors and the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, Dean Rusk, have always maintained the attack was deliberate. Israel subsequently paid compensation for the deaths, injuries and damage to the ship.

Secretary Rusk stated: "At the time of the attack, the USS Liberty was flying the American flag and its identification was clearly indicated in large white letters and numerals on its hull.... Experience demonstrates that both the flag and the identification number of the vessel were readily visible from the air.... Accordingly, there is every reason to believe that the USS Liberty was identified, or at least her nationality determined, by Israeli aircraft approximately one hour before the attack.... The subsequent attack by the torpedo boats, substantially after the vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces, manifests the same reckless disregard for human life."

Spying on the United States. Israel is not included in the "Five Eyes," a designation that allows the U.S., Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand to share top secret information. It is understood that the Five Eyes do not spy on each other.

Israel is a member of "Friends on Friends," which is supposed to mean that friends don't spy on their friends. That supposition is not supported by the facts in the case of Israel, dating back to the beginning of the relationship.

Israel was able to jumpstart its nuclear program in the 1960s by establishing an undercover company in the United States to penetrate another company that provided weapons-grade uranium to the Department of Defense. Israeli agents were able to misappropriate 200 pounds of high-grade uranium for its secret atomic bomb program.

After being denied access by the U.S. government, Israel secretly obtained high-speed krytron switches used to trigger nuclear explosions by going through another intermediary company in California. Fifteen shipments of 800 krytrons were delivered to the Israeli Ministry of Defense between 1979 and 1984. The owner of the company was indicted, and he and his wife fled to Israel. They were captured in Spain in 2001, extradited to the U.S., where the owner pled guilty to violating the Arms Export Control Act. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison, but was released after four years.

Commencing in 1984, Jonathan Pollard, who was born in the United States, began to serve as a spy for Israel while working for U.S. Naval Intelligence. Pollard received $10,000 cash, a diamond ring and $1,500 a month for passing highly-classified intelligence to his Israeli controller, including nuclear targeting information for the Soviet Union and detailed information about the U.S. global electronic surveillance network.

Pollard's activities were discovered and reported by a coworker. His wife and his Israeli controller fled to Israel. Pollard was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1987. Israel refused to turn over most of the documents that Pollard had stolen and treated the investigation with hostility. It refused to allow the controller to be interviewed and promoted him to the command of an Air Force base.

Israel granted citizenship to Pollard in 1995 and has acknowledged that he spied for the country. He was visited by Benjamin Netanyahu in prison in 2002. Pollard's request for presidential clemency is presently being considered by the Obama administration.

Following Pollard's conviction, Israel swore to the U.S. that it would cease its espionage activities against the United States. Since then, the spying has continued unabated, as has been the flow of U.S. assistance in the amount of $60 billion, mostly in military hardware.

Stewart Nozette, a former White House National Space Council planetary scientist, pled guilty to attempted espionage against the United States in 2011, after attempting to sell missile defense and nuclear secrets to an undercover FBI agent pretending to be a Mossad agent. Nozette bragged that the material he had for sale had cost the United States between $200 million and $1 billion to develop."

Nozette later admitted he had already received $225,000 in "consulting fees" between 1998 and 2008 from (state-owned) Israel Aerospace Industries for obtaining and turning over secret "technical data." Nozette was sentenced to 13 years in prison; however, the Israeli government and its company were shielded from the investigation.

An employee of the U.S. Department of Defense pled guilty in 2005 to passing classified documents to two officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In the plea negotiation, he stated he handed over classified information because he thought U.S. policy was not sufficiently pro-Israel.

The two AIPAC employees were indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel. After almost five years of court proceedings, the case against the two was dismissed as a result of "graymail" in which the defense would require the disclosure of classified information and because of doubts the government would be able to prevail at trial.

A CIA report confirms that U.S. officials in Israel assume that all of their political conversations are monitored. The report stated that in addition to political espionage, Israel targets "a considerable portion of their covert operations to obtaining scientific and technical intelligence."

Since 9-11, the U.S. National Security Agency sweeps up massive amounts of electronic communications within the United States, including email messages, Internet activity and telephone conversations. The telecommunication companies Verizon and AT&T handle 90 percent of U.S. electronic communications.

Inasmuch as they are required by law to allow access to the government, these companies have formed business relationships with Israeli companies, such as Narius Inc. and Verint, to filter and organize the communications. These connections provide Israeli with a real-time mirror of all such communications.

Verint is a subsidiary of Comverse Technology, which is an extension of the Israeli Ministry of Industry and Trade, which provides 50 percent of its research and development costs. Both Comverse and Narius have close connections with Israeli intelligence agencies. These connections allow Israel to have direct, or "trojan horse" access to most U.S. communications, and U.S. companies are too dependent upon the technology to deny access.

Today, the CIA considers Israel to be the primary counterintelligence threat to its operations in the Middle East. In other words, U.S. secrets are more vulnerable to Israeli spying, than any other government in the area, including Iran.

In its annual report to Congress on "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage," Israel shares top billing with China as maintaining "an active program to gather proprietary information in the United States."

A ranking of foreign intelligence agencies by the CIA during the Bush administration, placed Israel below Libya in its willingness to help the United States to fight terrorism.

Celebrating 9-11. The most recent and disturbing example of policy differences between the United States and Israel took place during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

There is a convincing body of circumstantial evidence that Israel was aware of the impending attacks and allowed them to go forth in order to achieve solidarity with the United States.

Shortly before the 9-11 attacks, then former, and present, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was secretly videotaped while making "candid" observations about United States' support of and world opinion about Israel's policies. Speaking about the "war of terror," he says that Israel should hit the "Arabs": "Not just one hit, so many painful hits that the price will be too heavy to be borne." A woman said, "but then the world will say, 'how come you're conquering again?'" Netanyahu responds, "The world won't say a thing. The world will say we're defending." The woman asks if he is afraid of the world, and Netanyahu replies, "Especially today with America. I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right correction....They won't get in our way."

During the same conversation, Netanyahu brags about having deceived President Clinton into believing he was supporting the Oslo accords, when in fact he boasts that he destroyed the Oslo process.

On the day of the attack, Netanyahu responded to the question about what the attacks portended for relations between the two countries, "It's very good....Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)." He predicted it would "strengthen the bond between our two peoples...."

An Israeli Mossad surveillance team was present and excitedly videotaped the World Trade Center attacks while dancing in celebration. An FBI report documents that "the Israelis are visibly happy on nearly all of the photographs" and "all of the males appeared to be jovial. The[y] smiled, they hugged each other and they appeared to 'high five' one another."

Five of the cheering Israelis were arrested by East Rutherford, New Jersey police officers while driving a van that tested positive for the presence of explosives.

The Israeli owner of the moving company that owned the van fled the country for Israel. The Mossad agents were held in custody for 71 days before being released and the investigation was closed. One later appeared on Israeli television and stated their purpose there was to "document the event."

Current Crisis. In the current "crisis" regarding the enrichment of uranium by Iran, the Israeli government's position is that Iran should be prevented from even "mastering the technology of enrichment." That "red line" was crossed six years ago by Iran and, even if destroyed, the technology cannot be unlearned.

The current "red line" drawn by the Israelis is a "zone of immunity" in which the Iranian program becomes nearly invulnerable to attack. The bottom line is that Israel will not tolerate any refinement of nuclear materials at a location that is invulnerable to Israeli attack.

Israel believes that Iran is delaying negotiations until it has accumulated a sufficient quantity of highly-enriched uranium to quickly produce a bomb.

Since a single atomic blast could virtually destroy the entire nation of Israel, which occupies only 8,000 square miles, the one-sided threat of Israel's nuclear arsenal of 200 weapons would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated by the reality of "mutually assured destruction."

Just as Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak in 1981 and the Syrian reactor at al-Kibar in 2007, it is prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the continuing enrichment of uranium by Iran.

The Obama administration believes there is still "time and space for diplomacy." For Obama, the "red line" is the "weaponization of nuclear material." In other words, if Iran kicks out the UN inspectors and begins to enrich uranium beyond 20 percent, there would be clear evidence of an intent to create nuclear weapons.

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapon design and weaponization work in 2003. A more recent and unpublished Estimate has concluded that Iran's advancements in its gas centrifuge uranium enrichment program has improved its capacity to "restart" its weapons program and to quickly produce highly-enriched uranium.

Ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden who supervised production of the 2007 Estimate states, "That estimate was based not on the absence of evidence that such work was ongoing but rather on evidence that it was not. And despite some suspicious and troubling Iranian activity since then, the estimate has survived largely intact, under three subsequent heads of national intelligence and of the CIA."

Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to force President Obama to draw yet another "red line" defining exactly what it would take for him to take military action against Iran. Obama is trying to avoid being bullied by Netanyahu. At the same time Obama states that he does not "bluff" when he says "all options are on the table" and that "when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

Obama's Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta has stated that if the United States receives "intelligence that they're proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it."

Recently, the Obama administration has used several formal and informal channels to issue a series of warnings to Israel regarding its threats to go it alone in attacking Iran. Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel stated, "The U.S. has done everything it could to reassure Israel and doesn't have anything more in its quiver, no other arrow to shoot to reassure them. So, it thinks [when it hears talk of an Israeli strike on Iran], 'Here we go again. There's nothing else we can do. We'll learn to live with it.'"

More explicitly, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey recently stated that an Israeli attack on Iran would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear program." Specifically, he warned, "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it." He conceded the policy differences between the U.S. and Israel, "They are living with an existential concern that we are not living with."

In the first week of September, General Hayden shared with an Israeli newspaper his belief that Israel is incapable of successfully carrying out military action against Iran without U.S. support. He stated: "I do not underestimate the Israeli talent, but geometry and physics tell us that Iran's nuclear program would pose a difficult challenge to any military....There is no absolute certainty that all targets are known." Hayden believes that an Israeli strike "will only set the Iranians back some time and actually push them to do that which it is supposed to prevent, getting nuclear weapons."

There is little doubt that Israel would prefer to deal with a President Romney over the next four years. Romney and Netanyahu are old friends, and Romney has stated that he would never agree to allow Iran to enrich uranium at any level. He has called Israel "one of our fondest friends" and he called out President Obama for his "shabby treatment" of Israel.

Israel is not allowed to directly participate in U.S. electoral politics; however, its policies provide a powerful direction for the political activity of its supporters in the United States. Israel's influence is demonstrated by a recent 30-second anti-Obama television advertisement by the Emergency Committee for Israel. Misleadingly, the ad states that, "Iran has enough fuel for five nuclear bombs."

AIPAC is the most powerful supporter of Israel in the United States. With more than 100,000 members and 300 paid staffers, its ability to harness the power of the U.S. government was demonstrated in June 2012 by a letter it drafted, which was signed by 44 of the 60 U.S. senators. It urged Obama "to reevaluate the utility of further talks at this time and instead focus on significantly increasing the pressure on the Iranian government through sanctions and making clear that a credible military option exists."

Without further negotiations and with the most extreme sanctions already in place, what does the future hold for the relationships between the United States, Israel and Iran?

[Return to Contents]

Israel Prepares for War

Established by terrorism, planted in the homeland of the Palestinians, an indigenous people proven by DNA testing to be more directly descended, genetically, from the ancient Tribes of Israel, maintained with apartheid rule and martial law, and sustained by tactics of terror learned from those who once sought their elimination, the Zionists who established the nation of Israel have repeatedly demonstrated that they will "never again be led like sheep to the slaughter."

Just as Islamic law provides that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy," the motto of the Israeli Mossad is: "By way of deception, thou shall do war."

In addition to official deceit, the Israeli government has adopted a policy of targeted killings, or "focused foiling" (Hebrew: sikul memukad), which allows the elimination of any individual determined to be a danger or obstacle to the regime.

The Israeli government undoubtedly feels justified in its murder of the four Iranian scientists and the "mysterious explosion" at an Iranian surface-to-surface rocket facility in November 2011 that killed the head of the Iranian ICBM program. An Israeli official stated, "Don't believe the Iranians that it was an accident."

Israel is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and from having the ability to successfully deliver them to Israel. Its policy is based in part on threatening statements made by Iranian leaders.

In 2000, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei preached, "Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon. We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." As an alternative to violence, Khamenei suggested that "Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves...."

In 2009, Iranian President Ahmadinejad stated, "The Zionist regime wants to establish its base upon the ruins of the civilizations of the region...The uniform shout of the Iranian nation is forever 'Death to Israel.'..."

The nation of Israel is approximately the same size as the greater Los Angeles County area in California and has a population of approximately six million Jewish citizens and two million Arab citizens, which is substantially less than LA County.

To ensure their survival, the Israelis have fought a number of wars against their neighboring states and the Palestinian people, whose land they occupy. In doing so, and primarily with the generous assistance of the United States and other nations, including England, France and Germany, it has built one of the most powerful military forces in the world.

Israel constructed its nuclear reactor by pretending that it was to be used to desalinate a billion cubic feet of seawater annually, which was to turn the Negev Desert into an "agricultural paradise." Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion announced in 1960 that Israel was building a 24-megawatt reactor "which will serve the needs of industry, agriculture, health, and science" and that it was intended "exclusively for peaceful purposes."

Nuclear materials were obtained from England, Norway and Italy by deception and from the United States by theft. A reprocessing plant was built to convert fuel rods from the "peaceful nuclear reactor into weapons grade plutonium.

The secret nuclear weapon program was revealed in 1986 by Mordechai Vanunu, a former nuclear technician. He was later kidnapped by the Mossad and returned to Israel, where he served 18 years in prison for treason and espionage. He remains under house arrest.

Israel has never officially confirmed its possession of nuclear weapons, stating only that it "would not be the first country in the Middle East to formally introduce nuclear weapons into the region."

Jane's Defense Weekly reports that Israel has between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads. It is believed that 50 are re-entry vehicles for delivery by ballistic missiles and that as many as 100 are two-stage thermonuclear devices capable of being delivered by missile, fighter-bombers or submarine-launched cruise missiles.

In addition to deeply buried ICBMs, Israel has a number of Jericho III road-mobile ICBMs which can deliver nuclear warheads. These have a range of 2,982 to 7,180 miles.

The Jericho provides Israel with the capability of launching a low-apogee missile equipped with an Electronic Magnetic Pulse (EMP) nuclear weapon. An EMP could be detonated at the appropriate altitude to effectively destroy Iran's industry, computers, telecommunications, and other computer-based systems, including transportation, electrical generating, oil production and the processing of nuclear materials. It would also destroy the means of survival for millions of Iranians.

Israel has four German diesel-powered Dolphin-class submarines, which are capable of transiting around Africa from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Oman. Two of these were gifts of the German government in reparation for the Nazi Holocaust.

The submarines were modified to launch U.S. supplied Harpoon and/or Israeli manufactured submarine-launched cruise missiles, all capable of delivering nuclear warheads. They are reported to be patrolling well within the range of Iranian targets.

The United States also supplied Israel with a squadron of 25 F-15I Strike Eagle fighter bombers, which are based in the Negev Desert near Beersheba. Planes of the squadron, known as the "Hammers," have the capacity to carry four 2,000 pound smart bombs and nuclear warheads. They have the longest range of Israel's attack aircraft.

In addition, Israel has a full-sized drone known as the "Eitan," which is capable of overflying Iran and has the capacity to deliver an atomic warhead.

Given all of this military might, there is no question that Israel has the wherewithal to inflict a tremendous amount of damage on the nation of Iran and its people. The only questions are whether it will decide to do so and if so, when will it do it, and what will be the consequences?

Perhaps because of the experience of European Jews during the Nazi Holocaust, the Israeli government operates with a sense of entitlement when it comes to getting what it wants, irrespective of what it takes. Israel's Doctrine of Accountability is that is should never be held to answer for anything it does anywhere, including the United States, if its acts are done for reasons of national security.

Israel believes that it alone has the right to judge its own behavior, and if Israel decides to launch an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities, there is nothing the United States can do to stop it.

Unlike the United States president who, as commander-in-chief of all military forces, has the power to independently launch an attack on Iran before notifying Congress, the process in Israel requires a concurrence of 12 to 13 members of the Prime Minister's 14-member security cabinet.

Prime Minister Netanyahu recently cancelled a meeting of his security cabinet because of leaks which he believes can and will undermine his desire to present a united front on the subject of war with Iran. He has considered ordering lie detector examinations to determine who has revealed confidential deliberations.

An unidentified participant has been quoted as saying, "The information that was presented was very troubling but still not frightening." Reportedly, three or four members are against the attack and as many as six are in favor. The differences between the two groups has more to do with how to involve the United States and whether to attack now or later, rather than whether or not to attack.

Undoubtedly, an Israeli decision to attack depends on which way the political winds are blowing in the United States. If Israel believes Obama will be reelected and will be less sympathetic to Israel during his second term, it may decide to strike before the election. Netanyahu will then count on bullying Obama into proving he is a better supporter of Israel than Romney. If it appears Romney will be elected, Israel may decide to wait and to push the new president into launching his own attack.

Or, Netanyahu might decide to create enough of an incident with Iran to drive up the price of oil (and gasoline in the United States) to reduce public support for Obama and his chance of being reelected.

With two months left before the election, the situation is very volatile and, given the history of Israeli "false flag" operations, there is a danger that some unforeseen and unimaginable incident, a casus belli, will fan the flickering flames of war into a roaring inferno.

[Return to Contents]

The Israeli Plan for War

Richard Silverstein, an unusually well informed and connected American author of Tikun Olam, a blog dedicated to resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, recently came into possession of a synopsis of Israel's secret war plan. The "Shock and Awe Plan" is former furniture salesman Netanyahu's effort to sell the war to the undecided members of his security council. Here's his pitch:

● "The Israeli attack will open with a coordinated strike, including an unprecedented cyberattack which will totally paralyze the Iranian regime and its ability to know what is happening within its borders. The Internet, telephones, radio and television, communications satellites, and fiber optic cables leading to and from critical installations — including underground missile bases at Khorramabad and Isfahan — will be taken out of action. The electrical grid throughout Iran will be paralyzed, and transformer stations will absorb severe damage from carbon fiber munitions which are finer than a human hair, causing electrical short circuits whose repair requires their complete removal. This would be a Sisyphean task in light of cluster munitions which would be dropped, some time-delayed and some remote-activated through the use of a satellite signal.

● "A barrage of tens of ballistic missiles would be launched from Israel toward Iran. 300-km ballistic missiles would be launched from Israeli submarines in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf. The missiles would not be armed with unconventional warheads [WMDs], but rather with high-explosive ordnance equipped with reinforced tips designed specially to penetrate hardened targets.

● "The missiles will strike their targets — some exploding above ground like those striking the nuclear reactor at Arak, which is intended to produce plutonium and tritium — and the nearby heavy-water production facility; the nuclear fuel production facilities at Isfahan and facilities for enriching uranium-hexafluoride. Others would explode underground, as at the Fordow facility.

● "A barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles will pound command-and-control systems, research and development facilities, and the residences of senior personnel in the nuclear and missile development apparatus. Intelligence gathered over years will be utilized to completely decapitate Iran's professional and command ranks in these fields.

● "After the first wave of attacks, which will be timed to the second, the "Blue and White" radar satellite, whose systems enable us to perform an evaluation of the level of damage done to the various targets, will pass over Iran. Only after rapidly decrypting the satellite's data will the information be transferred directly to warplanes making their way covertly toward Iran. These IAF planes will be armed with electronic warfare gear previously unknown to the wider public, not even revealed to our U.S. ally. This equipment will render Israeli aircraft invisible. Those Israeli war planes which participate in the attack will damage a short list of targets which require further assault.

● "Among the targets approved for attack: Shahab 3 and Sejil ballistic missile silos, storage tanks for chemical components of rocket fuel, industrial facilities for producing missile control systems, centrifuge production plants, and more."

As impressive as this plan may appear on the surface, there is a good chance the Iranians will less shocked and awed than Bibi Netanyahu may have hoped for. Iran is a nation of 80 million well-educated and resilient people who have fought and decisively won a major eight-year war under its existing leadership. They know war and they have had years to prepare for war.

Even though the Israelis have also fought and won wars, they have not suffered the massive invasion and chemical warfare attacks endured by the Iranian people. Equipped with the best military equipment the United States could provide, the Israelis quickly achieved military superiority in their quick and dirty wars. They are not prepared for the wave after wave of unconventional attacks that will be launched against them in retaliation or for a drawn out war of attrition.

Most likely, an attack on Iran would produce results similar to the same kind of attack launched against the Hezbollah in 2006.

Although Israeli propaganda holds that it "won" the Second Lebanon War, the reality is that even though Israel killed 1,300 Lebanese, displaced more than a million Lebanese and destroyed much of the country's infrastructure, it failed to stop the Hezbollah from firing thousands of rockets into Israel or to disarm it. Hezbollah continues to have thousands of rockets and an intact military capacity.

Prime Minister Olmert admitted to mistakes during the conflict and the Israeli Chief of Staff admitted to failings. Calling for a state commission of inquiry, former defense minister Moshe Arens talked about "the defeat of Israel." He said Israel lost "to a very small group of people, 5,000 Hezbollah fighters."

The Israeli Winograd Commission found that "Israel initiated a long war, which ended without a defined military victory." The U.S. Congressional Research Service found that Hezbollah's leaders have been able to claim a level of 'victory' simply by virtue of not having decisively lost.'"

Israel can no more expect to destroy the ability of Iran to fight back with a blitzkrieg attack, than it could against the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iran's army has 345,000 soldiers, a reserve of 350,000, and a Revolutionary Guard force of 120,000. Iran has a military draft, and there are almost 900,000 eligible males coming of age every year.

Not only will Israel have to content with Hezbollah should it attack Iran, it will have to confront the unconventional warfare potential of Iran's Quds Forces. These consist of thousands of religious warriors who have been specifically trained to export the Islamic revolution.

The Quds Force is like al Qaeda on steroids. Its fighters are indoctrinated and prepared to attack around the world in an attempt to create the environment for the reappearance of Mahdi, the twelfth imam, who will bring Islam to the entire world.

Most dangerously for the rest of the world, if Israel finds itself in the position where its conventional arms cannot secure its borders or protect its civilian population, it's policy is to unleash its nuclear weapons. Should it do so, it may destroy Lebanon, Syria and Iran, but it may destroy itself in the process. Even under its unique Doctrine of Accountability, Israel might find it difficult to have any legitimacy as a free and democratic government in the face of universal condemnation.

[Return to Contents]

Ensnaring the United States

Seeking to coerce the United States into supporting his war plans, Prime Minister Netanyahu says, "Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel....If Iran knows that there is no red line, if Iran knows that there's no deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it's doing. It's continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability. And, from there, nuclear bombs."

Netanyahu also thinks that the United States "might not like [an Israeli attack on Iran] but they will accept it the next day."

The people of the United States may be less confident that they will support an Israeli sneak attack on Iran. The more realistic and pertinent question is what will the United States do when Iran responds to an Israeli attack by retaliating against the country that supplied the military equipment that facilitated the attack and which has itself been engaging in blatant acts of war?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned, "U.S. policy makers and analysts know that the Iranian nation would not let an invasion go without a response. Enemies of the Islamic system fabricated various rumors about death and health to demoralize the Iranian nation, but they did not know that they are not dealing with only one person in Iran. They are facing a nation."

Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, believes the Iranian leaders will drag the United States into the war if they are attacked by Israel, "The response will not just be inside the Israeli entity. American bases in the whole region could be Iranian targets. If Israel targets Iran, America bears responsibility."

The United States conducted a simulated war game earlier this year to assess the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran. The conclusion was that the invasion could lead to a regional war involving the United States. The commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East, General James N. Mattis believes an Israeli attack would likely have "dire consequences across the region and for United States forces there." In the game scenario, an Iranian missile hits a U.S. warship killing 200 American sailors and the U.S. retaliates by attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities.

The war game demonstrated the inability to predict what will occur if Israel attacks Iran, but what will happen if the United States gets suckered into the fight?

[Return to Contents]

They Sow the Wind and Reap the Whirlwind

In the fog of war it is never possible to predict what will happen from day to day or even moment to moment, and it has been said that no plan lasts longer than the first encounter with the enemy; however, it strongly behooves commanders to attempt to the greatest extent possible to envision the logical consequences of tactical and strategic decisions

Undoubtedly, a bombing attack by Israel and/or the U.S. will be resisted by all available means. Unlike Iraq, where anti-aircraft sites had been systematically destroyed during the Gulf War and by subsequent "No Fly" raids, Iran's defenses are intact, and attack planes will be shot down and their air crews and pilots will be killed and captured.

A naval attack will be opposed by anti-ship missiles, fast missile craft and suicide bombers in small boats. Thousands and thousands of Iranian youths died a martyrs death resisting Saddam's invasion; can we expect any less of a commitment to an attack by the "Great Satan?" In a replay of the Battle of Salamis, the American Battle Groups could be sitting ducks in the narrow Persian Gulf.

How secure will the remaining Americans be in the "Green Zone" in Baghdad when the Iraqi army and police forces, primarily composed of Shiites, turn on the remaining occupiers? Thus far, the majority of suicide bombers have been Sunnis from other countries, but what if the millions of Shiites are suddenly motivated to become martyrs and their targets are Americans?

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran have the first, second, and third largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world, and every day 40 percent of the world production passes through the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

The "Tanker War" demonstrated how vulnerable shipping is in this area. Imagine the result if Iran was attacked? Although the U.S. Navy has increased its deployment of minesweepers in the Gulf, the oil supply is vulnerable to more than floating mines.

What if Shiite zealots attacked production sites in Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries, and Iran turned off its own production and quickly shut down the flow of Iraqi oil? Or, what if Iran's oil production is destroyed?

America's strategic oil reserves would be depleted in 60 days, the price of crude oil could quickly exceed $150-200 a barrel, and the U.S. could not depend upon alternative suppliers, such as Venezuela. Are Americans ready to pay $10 a gallon for gasoline in order to support a belligerent and uncontrollable Israel?

Iran could do more than organize increased attacks on Americans in Iraq. U.S. troops in Afghanistan are vulnerable to an Iranian alliance with warlords in western Afghanistan, where Iranian support could empower the Taliban resistance and endanger U.S. troops.

America supplied and encouraged Kurdish resistance in northern and western Iran, and allowed the Iraqi Kurds to establish their own independence in northern Iraq. What will happen when these Kurds increase their support of Turkish Kurds, and Turkey, which has 290,000 troops on the border, cracks down? Will the U.S. stand by and allow Turkey to occupy northern Iraq?

Through Hezbollah and the Quds Force, Iran has the global ability to strike back, including soft targets within the United States. As was just seen during the failed Israeli attempt to destroy it in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a far superior fighting force than al Qaeda.

Hezbollah is more than a political organization, it has an ideological base that can motivate its martyrs to strike at Americans anywhere in the world.

There is a substantial risk that another attack on an Islamic country will act as a rallying cry for all Muslims, both Sunnis and Shiites, and engender even greater hatred of America.

Since the United States invaded Iraq, terrorist attacks have increased sevenfold worldwide. Given the successful al Qaeda attacks in Spain and England, it is highly unlikely that the United States will escape devastating retaliation.

Even if the war is not brought to its homeland, it is certain that the United States will suffer severe and bloody losses, and the U.S. will probably respond with intensified bombing to degrade the will of the Iranian people to fight. Civilian infrastructure targets, such as electricity, water and sanitation, could be wiped out, along with bridges, roads and government buildings.

An attack against Iran could morph into a regional geopolitical confrontation that could spin out of control.

Iran has been invited to full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) consisting of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The organization denied observer status to the United States and rejected its democratization agenda in calling for a reduction of its military presence in Central Asia. SCO has hinted it would consider a concerted effort to reduce the geopolitical presence of the U.S. in Central Asia.

Iran has substantially increased its commercial ties with these potential allies. It signed a $100 billion deal with China to develop the huge Yadavaran oilfield and will sell 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas to China over the next 25 years. Iran is also working on delivering natural gas through a pipeline to Pakistan and India.

Russia and China might not just veto any Security Council military action against Iran, they might consider uniting in its defense. Or, what if these nations agreed to abandon the dollar and to create a euro-denominated exchange in oil, as has been proposed by Iran? Such an exchange could quickly dry up the demand for dollars and create havoc in the U.S. economy. What if China began to dump its billions of reserve dollars?

What would it take to start another world war? What will it take to achieve peace in the Middle East?

[Return to Contents]

A Time for Peace

The United States refuses to negotiate with Iran until it suspends its nuclear fuel enrichment and reprocessing programs and surrenders possession of its refined material, and Iran is unwilling to give up the only bargaining chip it has without some showing of reciprocity.

Rebuffed in its repeated attempt to resolve all outstanding issues, the Iranian government decided that it needed some leverage, and one was to increase its negotiating strength by going forward with its nuclear program.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stated, "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."

At the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Tehran in the last week of August 2012, Khamenei called for a nuclear-free Middle East, "Iran considers the use of nuclear, chemical and similar weapons as a great and unforgivable sin. We proposed the idea of [a] 'Middle East free of nuclear weapons' and we are committed to it." He proclaimed, "Our motto is nuclear energy for all and nuclear weapons for none."

Representing two-thirds of the UN membership and more than half of the world's population, the Non-Aligned Movement issued a final communiqué which supported Iran's right to pursue the enrichment of uranium for energy. It rejected the boycotts and sanctions imposed on Iran and warned that any attack on nuclear facilities would be illegal under international law and a violation of basic human rights.

The continual threats made by Israel and the United States to attack Iran is a violation of the United Nations Charter.

There is an urgent need to negotiate, but even more important, it is essential that the United States formulates a broad-based policy that is designed to succeed, one that resolves the global problem of nuclear weapons and not just its immediate concerns about Iran's nuclear enrichment program.

[Return to Contents]

A Comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Policy

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was opened for signature on July 1, 1968 and entered into force on March 5, 1970, after ratification by the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States and 40 other signatory states, including Iran. The treaty has now been ratified by 188 sovereign states, including the other two Security Council members, China and France.

Three nations which currently possess nuclear weapons, India, Pakistan, and Israel, have never signed the treaty, and one nation, North Korea, has withdrawn from the treaty and developed nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan developed the ability to enrich uranium to weapons grade; however, Israel and North Korea have apparently relied upon the refinement of energy-grade uranium into plutonium for their weapons.

According to the treaty, only the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the U.S., Russia, England, France, and China, are permitted to own nuclear weapons. These nations pledge themselves to not transfer nuclear weapons or the technology to other states, and they have agreed to pursue plans to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles in pursuance of a treaty "on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

The non-nuclear nations pledge that they will not seek or develop nuclear weapons. All states have the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which allows them to either refine nuclear fuel for use in nuclear reactors for energy generation or to purchase it on the international market.

The treaty has been supplemented by the IAEA Statute, which includes a NPT Safeguards agreement requiring signatories to disclose civilian uranium enrichment programs and to accept IAEA inspections.

All signatory nations are guaranteed the right to withdraw from the treaty after giving three-months notice of good cause, if they feel that "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country."

The NPT prohibits the nuclear weapons powers from using nuclear weapons on nations which do not have them; however, the United States, England and France have all publicly indicated that they would use nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty to respond to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states." In addition, the United States has designed and deployed nuclear "bunker busting" bombs for use on non-nuclear states such as Iran.

Although the United States and the former Soviet Union signed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties in 1991 and 1993, and the United States signed the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty with Russia in 2002, there has been little progress by the five nuclear weapons powers to implement that portion of the NPT which called for a treaty "on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

In 2002, contrary to treaty obligations, President Bush called for a "revitalized nuclear weapons complex ... to design, develop, manufacture, and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground testing."

The U.S. spent (in today's dollars) an average of $4.2 billion per year for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The U.S. budget for 2008 included $6.4 billion for nuclear weapons, including the "design concept testing" of two new nuclear warhead designs for deployment on submarine-launched ICBMs.

Also in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the treaty, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration has articulated an "infrastructure planning scenario for a nuclear weapons complex able to meet the threats of the 21st century," which is estimated to cost a minimum of $150 billion.

In 2003, Iran was found to have violated the NPT Safeguards agreement by having failed to disclose its civilian uranium enrichment program. Iran's claim that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons continues to be met with some skepticism, because of its secret activities and its increasing ability to refine energy-grade fuel into weapons-grade material.

The latest "unattributed" report is that the International Atomic Energy Agency "has obtained more information" that Iran continues to secretly engage in "computer-run modeling" to calculate nuclear explosion yields, which contradicts its public statements that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

One has to wonder, however, if Iran would be justified in lawfully withdrawing from the non-proliferation treaty and openly developing nuclear weapons. Are there "extraordinary events" which have "jeopardized" its "supreme interests?"

Iran is surrounded by the three nuclear weapons states (India, Pakistan, and Israel) which have refused to sign the NPT. In addition, the United States is currently targeting hundreds of ship-based nuclear missiles on Iran and has seriously considered using tactical nuclear weapons in a "surgical strike" to destroy a program that Iran is currently entitled to pursue.

If we have an appreciation of the history and culture of the people of Iran, if we truly accept and respect the rights and obligations of all parties to the dispute, and if we recognize the threat to the safety of all nations and their citizens, what can the United States do to avert a human tragedy of catastrophic proportions?

Reaffirm Commitment to Nuclear Disarmament. The United States must accept that the possession of nuclear weapons by any nation, including itself, poses a threat to all other nations and to humanity in general. Unilaterally, it should immediately discontinue its programs to upgrade and increase its own nuclear arsenal.

The United States should vigorously and relentlessly encourage all nuclear weapon nations to sign the NPT and to agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons in pro rata steps within a decade. All nuclear weapons should be outlawed after a certain date.

Commit to The Defense of All Nations Which Agree to Not Develop and Deploy Nuclear Weapons. Mohamed ElBaradei once stated that 40 countries could develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to. Moreover, given the huge number of loosely-controlled tactical nuclear weapons left over in the former Soviet Union, any nation feeling sufficiently threatened could probably obtain such weapons on the black market and withdraw from the treaty. The greatest problem today is to reduce the anxiety of non-nuclear weapon nations by guaranteeing their protection.

The United States should negotiate with all nuclear weapon nations to amend the NPT to provide for the common defense of any non-nuclear nation which suffers a nuclear attack. Even without the agreement of other nuclear states, the United States could unilaterally commit itself to the defense of any non-nuclear nation, specifically including Iran, attacked by nuclear weapons by any nation, specifically including Israel.

Reaffirm Rights of Other Nations to Use Nuclear Energy. The United States should negotiate with all signatories to amend the NPT as follows: The production of nuclear energy fuel could be concentrated under the auspices of an international non-profit NPT corporation directed by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, subject to inspections by the IAEA. The corporation should be allowed to operate only within the five member nations desiring to process and enrich uranium.

All signatories should agree to avoid reprocessing of fuel rods and to outlaw plutonium. The NPT corporation should accept responsibility for the return and safe disposal of fuel rods from the signatories they supply. Solutions to disposal could include reusing the rods to produce electricity by non-reactor means or by designing and constructing simple, ultra-safe rockets to shoot the spent materials into the sun.

All members should agree to the development of safe, standard designs for nuclear reactors and to make the plans and technology available to all member nations.

Strike A "Grand Bargain" With Iran. Although it may not agree with the manner in which Iran's government is organized, the United States must accept that Iran is a functioning democracy. The United States must stop ignoring Iran's attempts to negotiate, and it must recognize that President Ahmadinejad is not the voice of Iran's foreign policy.

Ayatollah Khamenei has not only issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, he has also indirectly told Ahmadinejad to stay out of all nuclear matters. Moreover, the United States and Israel must listen when Ayatollah Khamenei states that Iran endorses the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, which supports normal relations with Israel, if it accepts a two-state settlement.

Like every nation, Iran wants respect. The United States should immediately agree to negotiate with Iran without conditions on the basis of Iran's 2003 proposal. Negotiations should lead to a grand bargain in which the United States recognizes Iran, pledges to defend it against nuclear attack from any source, including any and all of its neighbors, and in return Iran agrees to discontinue the enrichment of uranium beyond energy grade and any reprocessing that leads to the production of plutonium.

In any case, there is plenty of time for the United States to engage in a long-term policy of patient engagement with Iran. There are many in Iran who retain a favorable opinion of the United States and who are opposed to the theocratic regime. We must give them time and encouragement – not threats of imminent death and destruction.

[Return to Contents]

Earning the Prize for Peace

The United States and Iran agreed in 1955 to a "firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship." Although that agreement has been put to the test in subsequent years, it is still the law that binds the two nations. The U.S. State Department also continues to list the "Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement" of 1950 between the U.S. and Iran as being "in force." According to Article Six of the United States Constitution, these treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land."

President Obama has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He should think long and hard about the legality and morality of aiding and abetting Israel in attacking Iran.

In 2009, President Obama announced a strategic decision to move towards a "nuclear free world" through bilateral and multilateral disarmament. He set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons and committed to taking steps on the "long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons."

A Comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Policy could become the "Obama Doctrine," a true legacy deserving of his Nobel Peace Prize.

Drawing red lines in the sand and daring someone to cross is a child's game. It is far too dangerous when the dare involves nuclear weapons, and it is much too unbecoming for those who have accepted the mantle of leadership.

Someone has to be the adult in the room, and President Obama will not be doing anyone any favors if he allows himself to be bullied into taking action which is not in the best interests of the people of the United States, Iran, Israel, or the rest of the world.

War is not inevitable. Peace is still possible, but time is short and the moment for courage and wisdom is now.

[Return to Contents]

Sources

Afrasiabi, Kaveh L., "Another letter from America for Iran," Asia Times, January 24, 2012, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA21Ak01.html.

"Ahmadinejad letter to Obama 'sincere,' spokesman says," Monsters and Critics, April 20, 2010, http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1549547.php/Ahmadinejad-letter-to-Obama-sincere-spokesman-says; See also "Translation of Ahmadinejad's Letter," The Washington Post, November 6, 2008, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F11%2F06%2FAR2008110603030.html&ei=FM5NUNaEKbSGiQKb64HYAw&usg=AFQjCNHQMpcq8y5h67DkqElw_B943lIc9w&sig2=wHV_WjW3L5CMFI-G_BRu2Q&cad=rjt.

Albright, David and Brannan, Paul, "The New National Intelligence Estimate on Iran: A Step in the Right Direction," Institute for Science and International Security, March 22, 2012, http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/the-new-national-intelligence-estimate-on-iran-a-step-in-the-right-directio/.

Alimagham, Pouya, "Revisiting the Flawed Policy of Sanctioning Iran: How Sanctions Hurt the Reformers, The Huffington Post, August 28, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pouya-alimagham/revisiting-the-flawed-pol_b_1837506.html.

"AP Exclusive: Diplomats say UN agency has new intelligence Iran worked on nuclear arms," September 11, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/ap-exclusive-diplomats-say-un-agency-has-new-intelligence-iran-worked-on-nuclear-arms/2012/09/11/9c8565d0-fbf5-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html.

Athanasiadis, Iason, "Obama sent second letter to Khamenei," The Washington Times, September 3, 2009, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/03/obama-sent-second-letter-to-irans-khamenei/?page=all.

Bennet, James, "A DAY OF TERROR: THE ISRAELIS; Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That Draws 2 Nations Closer," The New York Times, September 12, 2001, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/us/day-terror-israelis-spilled-blood-seen-bond-that-draws-2-nations-closer.html.

Bennett, Brian, "U.S. accuses Iran of plot to kill Saudi ambassador," Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/11/news/la-pn-iran-terror-plot-20111011.

Blomfield, Adrian, "Iran 'will attack US bases in the Persian Gulf if Israel bombs its nuclear facilities'", The Telegraph, September 4, 2012.

Borger, Julian, "Barack Obama: Administration willing to talk to Iran 'without preconditions'", The Guardian, January 21, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/barack-obama-iran-negotiations.

Borger, Julian, "Joint Declaration by Iran, Turkey and Brazil," The Guardian, May 17, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/may/17/iran-brazil-turkey-nuclear.

Burleigh, Marc (AFP), "UN ups pressure on Iran over nuclear activities," Your Middle East, August 31, 2012, http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/news/un-ups-pressure-on-iran-over-nuclear-activities_9169.

Capaccio, Tony, "Iran's Ballistic Missiles Improving, Pentagon Finds," Bloomberg Businessweek, July 10, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-10/iran-improves-ballistics-missiles-to-target-ships.html.

Chomsky, Noam, "War Drums Beat Ever More Loudly Over Iran," Truthout, September 4, 2012, http://truth-out.org/news/item/11309-when-travesty-borders-on-tragedy.

Chossudovsky, Michel, "Israel's War Plans to Attack Iran 'Before the US Elections'", Global Research, August 21, 2012, http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-s-war-plans-to-attack-iran-before-the-us-elections/.

Cole, Juan, "A Rebuke to the American-Israeli Economic War on Iran," truthdig, September 9, 2012, http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_rebuke_to_the_american-israeli_economic_war_on_iran_20120909/.

Conway, Lawrence, "Obama ordered cyber-attacks on Iran's nuclear programme but created a super-virus that is now 'out of control'", The Daily Mail, June 1, 2012, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153308/Cyberattacks-Iran-ordered-Obama-created-virus-creating-havoc-internet.html.

Cook, Jonathan, "Netanyahu: America Won't Get in Our Way," Monthly Review, July 19, 2010, http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/cook190710.html.

Dareini, Ali Akbar, "Source: Iran tested ICBM," The Inquirer, November 20, 2011, http://articles.philly.com/2011-11-20/news/30422139_1_long-range-missile-icbm-fars.

Davidovich, Joshua, "Former ambassador Indyk says US sees Israeli saber rattling as 'crying wolf'", The Times of Israel, August 23, 2012, http://www.timesofisrael.com/former-ambassador-indyk-says-us-sees-sabre-rattling-as-israel-crying-wolf/.

"Der Spiegel claims Israel arming German submarines with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles," The Extinction Protocol, June 4, 2012, http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/der-spiegel-claims-israel-arming-german-submarines-with-nuclear-tipped-cruise-missiles/.

"Destroyed Iranian Site Worked on ICBMs: Israel," National Journal \- Global Security Newswire, February 3, 2012, http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/destroyed-iranian-site-pursued-icbms-israel/.

Dicolo, Jerry A., "EU Embargo on Iran Oil Takes Effect," The Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303649504577496463851879258.html.

Dreyfuss, Robert, "US Slams Turkey, Brazil Over Iran," The Nation, May 28, 2010, http://www.thenation.com/blog/us-slams-turkey-brazil-over-iran.

Dreyfuss, Robert, "Is AIPAC Still the Chosen One?", Mother Jones, September/October 2009, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/aipac-still-chosen-one.

Dunnigan, James, "The Germans Are Shocked, Shocked...," Strategy Page, June 19, 2012, http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/The-Germans-Are-Shocked,-Shocked.-.-.--6-19-2012.asp.

Editorial Board, "Bridging the U.S.-Israeli gap on Iran," The Washington Post, September 7, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bridging-the-us-israeli-gap-on-iran/2012/09/07/c679e128-f90b-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_story.html.

Erdbrink, Thomas, "Iran unlikely to block oil shipments through Strait of Hormuz, analysts say," The Washington Post, December 28, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/despite-threats-iran-unlikely-to-block-oil-shipments-through-strait-of-hormuz/2011/12/28/gIQAVSOSMP_story.html.

Erdbrink, Thomas and Warrick, Joby, "Iranian scientist involved in nuclear program killed in Tehran bomb attack," The Washington Post, January 11, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iranian-scientist-killed-in-tehran-bomb-attack/2012/01/11/gIQAT1V7pP_story.html.

Erdbrink, Thomas, "Nonaligned Nations Back Iran's Nuclear Bid, but Not Syria," The New York Times, August 31, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/world/middleeast/iran-criticizes-egypts-mohamed-morsi-over-syria-comments.html.

Fathi, Nazila, "Iran's Top Leader Dashes Hopes for a Compromise," The New York Times, June 20, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/world/middleeast/20iran.html.

Feffer, John, "Dumb and Dumber: Obama's 'Smart Power' Foreign Policy Not Smart at All," Tom Dispatch, September 6, 2012, http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175589/tomgram%3A_john_feffer%2C_the_dumbing_down_of_american_foreign_policy/.

Gaser, John, "JSOC: The End of Military Accountability," AntiWar.Blog, February 14, 2012, http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/02/14/jsoc-the-end-of-military-accountability/.

Gerson, Michael, "Obama's Iran options," The Washington Post, February 23, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-iran-options/2012/02/23/gIQATbXZWR_story.html.

Goldman, Adam and Apuzzo, Mali, "US sees Israel, tight Mideast ally, as spy threat," AP - The Big Story, July 28, 2012, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-sees-israel-tight-mideast-ally-spy-threat.

Greenberg, Joel, "Netanyahu: Without ultimatum, U.S. has no 'moral right' to stop Israel from attacking Iran'", The Washington Post, September 11, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/netanyahu-without-ultimatum-us-has-no-moral-right-to-stop-israel-from-attacking-iran/2012/09/11/cb56ac8a-fc12-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_story.html.

Greenwald, Glenn, "Report: U.S. trained terror group," Salon, http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/report_us_trained_terror_group/.

Hasan, Mehdi, "Iran's nuclear scientists are not being assassinated. They are being murdered." The Guardian, January 16, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/16/iran-scientists-state-sponsored-murder.

Hasting, Michael, "The Rise of the Killer Drones: How America Goes to War in Secret," Rolling Stone, April 16, 2012, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rise-of-the-killer-drones-how-america-goes-to-war-in-secret-20120416.

Hayden, Michael V., "Obama's Iran problem and the Bush doctrine," CNN, March 20, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/opinion/hayden-iran-intelligence/index.html.

Hersh, Seymour M., "Preparing the Battlefield," The New Yorker, July 7, 2008, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh.

Hersh, Seymour M., "Our Men in Iran?" The New Yorker, April 6, 2012, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html.

Ignatius, David, "Obama's signal to Iran," The Washington Post, April 5, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-signal-to-iran/2012/04/05/gIQApVLDyS_story.html.

"Iran leader urges destruction of 'cancerous' Israel'", CNN, December 15, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/.

"Iran's Khamenei Calls for 'Nuclear Free Middle East'", Common Dreams, August 30, 2012, http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/30-4.

"Iran's president hopes for understanding in P5+1 negotiations," PressTV, June 21, 2012, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/247251.html.

"Israel ICBM Test Raises Possible EMP Attack on Nuclear Iran," New English Review, November 3, 2011, http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/38837.

"Israel Submarine Capabilities," Nuclear Threat Initiative, August 8, 2012, http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/israel-submarine-capabilities/.

Jackson, David, "Obama places more sanctions on Iran," USA Today, July 31, 2012, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/obama-more-sanctions-on-iran/1.

Jahn, George, "Iran pushes to blunt UN nuke agency powers," ABC News, August 31, 2012, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/iran-pushes-blunt-nuke-agency-powers-17126236.

Joshi, Shashank, "Iran and the Mujahedin e Khalq (MEK)," May 30, 2012, http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/iran-and-the-mujahedin-e-khalq-mek/.

Kahlili, Reza, "Iran Preparing Mahdi's Special Forces," WND, July 30, 2012, http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/iran-preparing-madhis-special-forces/.

Kamiya, Gary, "Obama's Iran charade," Salon, May 30, 2012, http://www.salon.com/2012/05/30/obamas_iran_charade/.

Karon, Tony, "Five Tips for President Obama on Nuclear Negotiations with Iran," TIMEWorld, March 20, 2012, http://world.time.com/2012/03/20/five-tips-for-president-obama-on-nuclear-negotiations-with-iran/.

Keller, Bill, "Nuclear Mullahs," The New York Times, September 9, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/keller-nuclear-mullahs.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120910.

Kershner, Isabel, "Leak Prompts Netanyahu to Cancel Security Cabinet Meeting on Iran Issue," The New York Times, September 5, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/world/middleeast/netanyahu-cancels-security-meeting-after-leak.html.

Ketcham, Christopher, "Breaking the Taboo on Israel's Spying Efforts on the United States," AlterNet, March 9, 2009, http://www.alternet.org/story/130891/breaking_the_taboo_on_israel's_spying_efforts_on_the_united_states.

Klein, Rick, "Obama's Evolving Take on Meeting With Iran," ABC News, May 20, 2008, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4896002&page=1.

Knox, Olivier, "Obama to Iran: It's your move in nuclear talks," ABC News, April 13, 2012, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-iran-move-nuclear-talks/story?id=16135223.

Lobe, Jim and Porter, Gareth, "Obama Impedes Israel's Iran Attack," Consortium News, September 5, 2012, http://consortiumnews.com/2012/09/05/obama-impedes-israels-iran-attack/.

Mackey, Robert, "Ahmadinejad Asks U.N. to Investigate 9/11," The New York Times, April 13, 2010, http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/ahmadinejad-asks-u-n-to-investigate-911/.

Makovsky, Michael and Misztal, Blaise, "Obama's Iran policy shifts to containment," The Washington Post, December 9, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-iran-policy-shifts-to-containment/2011/12/09/gIQAUD8DjO_story.html.

Mazzetti, Mark and Shanker, Thom, "U.S. War Game Sees Perils of Israeli Strike Against Iran," The New York Times, March 19, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/world/middleeast/united-states-war-game-sees-dire-results-of-an-israeli-attack-on-iran.html?pagewanted=all.

McGovern, Ray, "Israel's 'Bomb Iran' Timetable," Consortium News, August 12, 2012, http://consortiumnews.com/2012/08/12/israels-bomb-iran-timetable/.

Milbank, Dana, "AIPAC beats the drums of war," The Washington Post, March 5, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/aipac-beats-the-drums-of-war/2012/03/05/gIQASVMZtR_story.html.

Norton-Taylor, Richard, "Israeli attack on Iran 'would not stop nuclear programme'", The Guardian, August 30, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/israeli-attack-iran-not-stop-nuclear.

"Obama To Iran and Israel: 'I Don't Bluff'", The Huffington Post, March 2, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/obama-iran-israel-bluff_n_1316093.html.

Porter, Gareth, "IAEA Report Shows Iran Reduced Its Breakout Capacity," Truthout, September 3, 2012, http://truth-out.org/news/item/11295-iaea-report-shows-iran-reduced-its-breakout-capacity.

Raimondo, Justin, "The Spies Who Got Away," AntiWar.com, May 3, 2009, http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/05/03/the-spies-who-got-away/.

Ravid, Barak, "Obama gets new U.S. NIE: Iran making surprising progress toward nuclear capability," Haaretz, August 9, 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-gets-new-u-s-nie-iran-making-surprising-progress-toward-nuclear-capability-1.456921.

Reals, Tucker, "Ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden: 'Only the U.S.' can strike Iran nuclear sites effectively'", CBS News, September 4, 2012, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57505379-503543/ex-cia-chief-michael-hayden-only-the-u.s.-can-strike-iran-nuclear-sites-effectively/.

Reid, Marsha, "Covert ops in Iran," Geopolitical Monitor, July 7, 2008, http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/us-escalating-covert-ops-in-iran-878/.

Reid, Tim and Evans, Michael, "Obama Secretly Deploys US Special Forces to 75 Countries Across World," The Times (London), June 5, 2010, http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2010/06/16/obama-secretly-deploys-us-special-forces-to-75-countries-across-world/.

Roberts, Paul Craig, "Is Washington deaf as well as criminal?", Intrepid Report, August 30, 2012, http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/7117.

Rogin, Josh, "Exclusive: New National Intelligence Estimate on Iran complete," Foreign Policy - The Cable, February 15, 2012, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/15/exclusive_new_national_intelligence_estimate_on_iran_complete.

Rudoren, Jodi and Sanger, David E., "Report on Iran Nuclear Work Puts Israel in a Box," The New York Times, August 30, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/world/middleeast/report-on-iran-nuclear-work-puts-israel-in-a-box.html?pagewanted=all.

Saberi, Roxana, "Obama sent letter to Iran leader before election, sources say," CNN Politics, June 24, 2009, http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-24/politics/iran.obama.letter_1_iranian-leader-tehran-university-iranian-government?_s=PM:POLITICS.

Sanger, David E. and Erlanger, Steven, "U.S. Defines Its Demands for New Round of Talks With Iran," The New York Times, April 7, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/world/middleeast/us-defines-its-demands-for-new-round-of-talks-with-iran.html?pagewanted=all.

Sanger, David E., "Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran," The New York Times, June 1, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?pagewanted=all.

Sanger, David E. and Schmitt, Eric, "To Calm Israel, U.S. Offers Ways to Restrain Iran," The New York Times, September 2, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/world/middleeast/us-is-weighing-new-curbs-on-iran-in-nod-to-israel.html?pagewanted=all.

Shirazi, Nima, "Iran-Israel: Who's Threatening Whom?", Consortium News, August 28, 2012, http://consortiumnews.com/2012/08/28/iran-israel-whos-threatening-whom/.

Shunta, Dena and Weiss, Phil, "'The world won't say a thing' - Netanyahu on ongoing Israeli expansion," MondoWeiss.net, July 17, 2010.

Silverstein, Richard, "Exclusive: Israel Tests New Jericho ICBM, Rattling Sabers Against Iran," Tikun Olam, November 2, 2011, http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/11/02/israel-tests-new-jericho-missile-rattling-sabers-against-iran/.

Silverstein, Richard, "Bibi's Secret War Plan," Tikun Olam, August 15, 2012, http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2012/08/15/bibis-secret-war-plan/.

Smith, Grant, "Israel's Nuclear Triggers," AntiWar.com, March 22, 2012, http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2012/03/21/israels-nuclear-triggers/.

Smith, Grant, "Why Obama Will Free Jonathan Pollard," AntiWar.com, June 8, 2012, http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2012/06/08/why-obama-will-free-jonathan-pollard/.

Smith, Grant F., "Stewart Nozette Sentenced to 13 Years For Attempted "Mossad" Espionage," Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June-July 2012, Pages 18-19, http://www.wrmea.org/archives/512-washington-report-archives-2011-2015/june-july-2012/11223-stewart-nozette-sentenced-to-13-years-for-attempted-mossad-espionage.html.

Tait, Robert and MacAskill, Ewen, "Revealed: the letter Obama team hope will heal Iran rift,:" The Guardian, January 28, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/28/barack-obama-letter-to-iran.

Takeyh, Ray, "All the Ayatollah's Men," The National Interest, August 22, 2012, http://nationalinterest.org/article/all-the-ayatollahs-men-7344?page=show.

Tepper, Greg, "Israeli TV report shows air force gearing up for Iran attack, says moment of truth is near," Times of Israel, April 15, 2012, http://www.timesofisrael.com/iaf-plans-for-iran-attack/.

"The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11," What Really Happened, http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html.

"The P5+1, Iran and the Perils of Nuclear Brinkmanship," International Crisis Group, June 15, 2012, http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/media-releases/2012/mena/the-p5-1-iran-and-the-perils-of-nuclear-brinkmanship.aspx.

"Treaties in Force," U.S. Department of State, Office of Legal Adviser, January 1, 2011.

Tulse, Nick, "The US Military's Secret Military Operates in 75 Foreign Countries," Environmentalists Against War, August 16, 2012, http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=12469.

Totten, Michael J., "President Obama's letter to Ayatollah Khamenei," June 24, 2009, http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/06/president-obama.php.

Vick, Karl, "Was Israel Behind a Deadly Explosion at an Iranian Missile Base?", TIMEWorld, November 13, 2011, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099376,00.html.

Wright, Robert, "Obama's Drift Toward War With Iran," The Atlantic, June 14, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/obamas-drift-toward-war-with-iran/258433/.

Yazdanpanah, Mohammad Reza, "Khamenei's Advisors Respond to Obama's Letter," Rooz 1715, January 17, 2012, http://www.roozonline.com/english/news3/newsitem/article/khameneis-advisors-respond-to-obamas-letter.html.

Zakaria, Tabassum and Bohan, Caren, "Obama's olive branch to Iran turned into a sanctions hammer," Reuters, January 13, 2012, http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE80C2ET20120113.

Zirulnick, Ariel, "Iran sanctions 101," The Christian Science Monitor, November 8, 2011, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Iran-sanctions-101/Oil-and-trade.

[Return to Contents]

#

#

# 

# About the Author

For more than 40 years, William John Cox vigorously pursued a career in law enforcement, public policy and the law. As a police officer, he was an early leader in the "New Breed" movement to professionalize law enforcement.

Cox wrote the Policy Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department and the introductory chapters of the Police Task Force Report of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, which continues to define the role of the police in America.

As an attorney, Cox worked for the U.S. Department of Justice to implement national standards and goals, prosecuted cases for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, and operated a public interest law practice primarily dedicated to the defense of young people.

Professionally, Cox volunteered pro bono services in two landmark legal cases. In 1981, representing a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz, he investigated and successfully sued a group of radical right-wing organizations which denied the Holocaust. The case was later the subject of the Turner Network Television motion picture, Never Forget.

Cox later represented a "secret" client and arranged the publication of almost 1,800 photographs of ancient manuscripts that had been kept from the public for more than 40 years. A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls was published in November 1991. His role in that effort is described by historian Neil Asher Silberman in The Hidden Scrolls: Christianity, Judaism, and the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Cox retired as a Supervising Trial Counsel for the State Bar of California, where he led a team of attorneys and investigators who targeted the prosecution of attorneys accused of serious misconduct and criminal gangs engaged in the illegal practice of law.

Over the years, Cox has written extensively on public policy, politics, philosophy and the human condition.

#

# [Return to Contents]

#

#

#

# Contact the Author

Personal Site: http://www.WilliamJohnCox.com

Political Site: http://www.VotersEvolt.com

Voters' Rights Amendment: http://www.USVRA.us

Twitter: http://twitter.com/WilliamJohnCox

Facebook: http://facebook.com/WilliamJohnCox

Email: u2cox@msn.com

[Return to Contents]

#

#

#

# Other Titles by the Author

You're Not Stupid! Get the Truth:

A Brief on the Bush Presidency

(2004) Progressive Press

Hello: We Speak the Truth

(1978) CLS Publishing - Print

(2012) Mindkind Publications -Electronic

Mindkind: Math & Physics for the New Millennium

(2012) Mindkind Publications - Electronic

Time Travel to Ancient Math & Physics

(2012) Mindkind Publications - Electronic

(The companion book to Mindkind)

The Man Who Ate His Fingers:

War & Justice

(2012) Mindkind Publications - Electronic

Mitt Romney and the Mormon Church: Questions

(2012) Mindkind Publications - Electronic

[Return to Contents
