FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

An Interview with Sasan Fayazmanesh

by KIA KOJOURI

Kojouri: Despite the fact that Iran has been clearly cooperating with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the US has continuously accused Iran of violating Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Why is that?

Fayazmanesh: I personally do not know the extent to which Iran has cooperated with IAEA. The Iranian authorities have, of course, repeatedly asserted that they are cooperating fully. But whether Iran is, or is not, cooperating is not the issue when it comes to the US accusation of the Iranian non-compliance. As I have indicated in a number of places, the main motivation behind this accusation is an Israeli policy which is now being pursued zealously by the neoconservatives in the US. I have written extensively on the history of this policy (see, for example, “The Politics of the US Economic Sanctions against Iran, in The Review of Radical Political Economy, Volume 35, Number 3, 2003). In a nutshell, the policy tries to protect Israel and its military-nuclear monopoly in the Middle East by accusing Iran of a number of things, including support for “international terrorism,” opposition to the “peace process” in the Middle East and pursuit of “weapons of mass destruction.” This policy has been formulated and implemented in the US by such Israeli lobby groups as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its affiliate “think tank,” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. These lobbies are quite powerful and have influential members in the current Administration. For example, the infamous neoconservatives, Wolfowitz and Perle, have long been on the Board of Advisors of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Perle is also on the advisory board of another powerful lobby, The Jewish Institute For National Security Affairs (JINSA). The Israeli lobbies also have great influence over the US Congress. For example, on May 6, 2003, the US House of Representatives passed, by a vote of 376-3, a resolution sponsored by the Israeli lobby groups. Among other things, the resolution calls for all parties to the NPT, including the United States, “to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” Speaking against this resolution, Congressman Ron Paul, who cast one of only three dissenting votes, stated: “Let’s not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing ‘regime change’ in Iraq back in 1998.” This is indeed what the Israeli lobbies want; and as long as these lobbies are underwriting the US foreign policy in the Middle East the pressure on Iran will continue, regardless of whether Iran does or does not cooperate fully with IAEA.

Kojouri: In the last meeting of governing council, as you know, ElBaradei’s report on Iran’s nuclear activities was positive, but the US continued its accusations against Iran. Now we see the same accusations before the upcoming meeting. What do you think about these controversies?

Fayazmanesh: As I have watched this saga unfold, each time the initial IAEA report appears to be favorable to Iran, the US and Israel (USrael) step in and exert considerable pressure on the head of the IAEA, Dr. ElBaradei, and its other members to change the report drastically. This time will be no exception. John Bolton, the Undersecretary of State and the Administration’s senior non-proliferation official has been very busy lately traveling to Russia to end its atomic energy cooperation with Iran. While in Russia, on May 20, 2004, he told the ITAR-TASS news, that the “United States plans to focus on issues of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and all issues linked to this.” Bolton, of course, is a well-known neoconservative. He has served on the board of advisers of JINSA and is also a former senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), another neoconservative think tank. I suspect that he, as well as numerous other neoconservatives, will play a very active role in the upcoming IAEA hearing on Iran’s nuclear activities.

Kojouri: Why is it that such accusations are not made against countries like Israel, India and Pakistan which have atomic bombs?

Fayazmanesh: Again, accusing a country of pursuing weapons of mass destruction or punishing it for having actually developed such weapons has, unfortunately, become very much politicized. For example, because of the close relation that the US has developed with President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan has become completely immune from any retribution even after admitting that at least one of its scientists has engaged in proliferation of nuclear technology. Similarly, Israel, which did not sign NPT, not only has not been reprimanded for its nuclear research and development, but it is not even scrutinized for having hundreds of nuclear warheads or installing such warheads on submarines.

Kojouri: How real is Israel’s threat to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities?

Fayazmanesh: That is hard to say. As an international outlaw protected by the US, Israel is, of course, capable of waging an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, even though such an attack is technically difficult. In that case, there is very little that Iran or, for that matter, any other country or the UN could do. But it appears that most of the Israeli threats so far have come from secondary sources affiliated with Israel. It might well be that this is part of Israel’s usual psychological warfare and terrorizing tactics. It may also be that Israel’s threat is a component of the USraeli plan designed to put intense pressure on the IAEA to state in its next report that Iran is in violation of NPT. This could then start a scenario similar to the case of Iraq in early the 1990s. That is, if the case goes to the United Nations, Iran might face severe economic sanctions. Such sanctions, as we saw in the case of Iraq, could be devastating, both economically and militarily. Moreover, after the imposition of such sanctions, USrael would have a better justification for military attacks against the Iranian nuclear facilities. We just have to wait and see what the next IAEA report states, how much pressure would be exerted on it by USrael to make the report harsh, and how the situation unfolds afterward.

This interview originally appeared in Farsnews.

Sasan Fayazmanesh may be reached at: sasanf@csufresno.edu

Sasan Fayazmanesh is Professor Emeritus of Economics at California State University, Fresno, and is the author of Containing Iran: Obama’s Policy of “Tough Diplomacy.” He can be reached at: sasan.fayazmanesh@gmail.com.

More articles by:
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and Henry the First: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail