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:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
February 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Pierre M. Sprey - Franklin “Chuck” Spinney
Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Ajamu Baraka
Malcolm X and Human Rights in the Time of Trumpism: Transcending the Master’s Tools
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Exxon’s End Game Theory
John Laforge
Did Obama Pave the Way for More Torture?
Mike Whitney
McMaster Takes Charge: Trump Relinquishes Control of Foreign Policy 
Paul Street
Liberal Hypocrisy, “Late-Shaming,” and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Decline of US and UK Power
Louisa Willcox
The Endangered Species Act: a Critical Safety Net Now Threatened by Congress and Trump
Vijay Prashad
A Foreign Policy of Cruel Populism
John Chuckman
Israel’s Terrible Problem: Two States or One?
Matthew Stevenson
The Parallax View of Donald Trump
Norman Pollack
Drumbeat of Fascism: Find, Arrest, Deport
Stan Cox
Can the Climate Survive Electoral Democracy? Maybe. Can It Survive Capitalism? No.
Ramzy Baroud
The Trump-Netanyahu Circus: Now, No One Can Save Israel from Itself
Edward Hunt
The United States of Permanent War
David Morgan
Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?
Pete Dolack
The Bait and Switch of Public-Private Partnerships
Mike Miller
What Kind of Movement Moment Are We In? 
Elliot Sperber
Why Resistance is Insufficient
Brian Cloughley
What are You Going to Do About Afghanistan, President Trump?
Binoy Kampmark
Warring in the Oncology Ward
Yves Engler
Remembering the Coup in Ghana
Jeremy Brecher
“Climate Kids” v. Trump: Trial of the Century Pits Trump Climate Denialism Against Right to a Climate System Capable of Sustaining Human Life”
Jonathan Taylor
Hate Trump? You Should Have Voted for Ron Paul
Franklin Lamb
Another Small Step for Syrian Refugee Children in Beirut’s “Aleppo Park”
Ron Jacobs
The Realist: Irreverence Was Their Only Sacred Cow
Andre Vltchek
Lock up England in Jail or an Insane Asylum!
Rev. William Alberts
Grandiose Marketing of Spirituality
Paul DeRienzo
Three Years Since the Kitty Litter Disaster at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Eric Sommer
Organize Workers Immigrant Defense Committees!
Steve Cooper
A Progressive Agenda
David Swanson
100 Years of Using War to Try to End All War
Andrew Stewart
The 4CHAN Presidency: A Media Critique of the Alt-Right
Edward Leer
Tripping USA: The Chair
Randy Shields
Tom Regan: The Life of the Animal Rights Party
Nyla Ali Khan
One Certain Effect of Instability in Kashmir is the Erosion of Freedom of Expression and Regional Integration
Rob Hager
The Only Fake News That Probably Threw the Election to Trump was not Russian 
Mike Garrity
Why Should We Pay Billionaires to Destroy Our Public Lands? 
Mark Dickman
The Prophet: Deutscher’s Trotsky
Christopher Brauchli
The Politics of the Toilet Police
Ezra Kronfeld
Joe Manchin: a Senate Republicrat to Dispute and Challenge
Clancy Sigal
The Nazis Called It a “Rafle”
Louis Proyect
Socialism Betrayed? Inside the Ukrainian Holodomor
Charles R. Larson
Review: Timothy B. Tyson’s “The Blood of Emmett Till”
David Yearsley
Founding Father of American Song
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail