by R. W. Emerson II

June 19, 2012

from ProjectNSearch Website




The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), representing the U.S. Establishment, is shifting its position on Iran.

The forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs has a cover article by Columbia University’s Kenneth Waltz called “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.”


Published by the Council on Foreign Relations, the most important establishment think tank, Foreign Affairs is the most influential foreign-policy periodical in print. Leading up to the Iraq War, the journal published essays almost exclusively in support of the invasion. Given its reach, Foreign Affairs’ one-sided perspective on Iraq before 2003 must be counted as a significant editorial failure.

By commissioning a piece by Waltz, however, the journal seems to be trying to avoid making the same mistakes.


The journal has already published widely discussed articles on both sides of the Iran issue, giving at least a more balanced view than it did with Iraq. Waltz is among the most influential international relations theorists in the world (tied for second, according to one survey), but he rarely writes for anything but academic journals.


His new essay, the feature in the forthcoming issue, argues that the world would be better off if Iran gets the bomb.


That argument may seem radical, but it is in keeping with Waltz’s long-standing arguments on the stability of nuclear weapons (arguments echoed by John Mearsheimer, among others).
- Jordan Michael Smith, "We can’t crush Iran", Salon, 15 Jun 2012

Kenneth Waltz has now been allowed to make his argument in favor of Iranian nukes in USA Today:

Israel's regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for more than four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist.


It is Israel's nuclear arsenal, not Iran's desire for one, that has contributed most to the crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced.

The danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated due to fundamental misunderstandings of how states generally behave in the international system.

One prominent concern is that the Iranian regime is inherently irrational. Portraying Iran that way has allowed U.S. and Israeli officials to argue that the logic of nuclear deterrence does not apply. If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, they warn, it would not hesitate to launch a first strike against Israel, though it would risk an overwhelming response destroying everything the Islamic Republic holds dear.

Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of enhancing its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities.


Iran could be intransigent when negotiating and defiant in the face of sanctions, but it still acts to secure its own preservation.
- Kenneth Waltz, "Column: Iranian nukes? No worries", USA Today, 17 Jun 2012

Iran has actually repudiated nuclear weapons and has long supported the creation of a nuke-free zone in the Middle East. It has addressed nuclear weapon concerns with numerous conciliatory proposals, most of which have been instantly dismissed by the Ziosphere.

Ahmadinejad has argued that nukes are useless:

If thousands did not save the Soviet Union and if hundreds did not help Israel to crush Lebanon in 2006, then how will one or two nukes help Iran?

Khamenei has issued a fatwa against nukes, and calls their possession a sin against Islam. Our masked media have done a very poor job of conveying this information to the American people.


Just the opposite, they have gone along with the "Iranian Nuke" charade, just as they want along with the "Iraqi WMD" charade in 2003.

What is so breathtaking is that the apparent consensus on Iran, like the case against Iraq, is a fraud.
- "They Found Nothing. Nothing.’ // The IAEA, Iran And ‘Fantasy Land", Media Lens, 24 Nov 2011

Perhaps the Establishment fears that the Iranian opposition to nuclear weapons would lead to Americans questioning the U.S./Israeli infatuation with nukes. The new Kenneth Waltz approach allows the Establishment to avoid a catastrophic conflict with Iran while maintaining the legitimacy of its own nukes.

That aggression against Iran would indeed be catastrophic is addressed by the Salon article, above.

The turning tide against a military strike is underscored by three new reports on the problems of an attack.


Taken together, they suggest that significant parts of the U.S. establishment are pushing back against the notion that, in senior Romney adviser John Bolton’s words, “There is no doubt that Washington could shatter Iran’s nuclear program,” and that “Iran’s real options, post-attack,” would be “limited.”

First on the table is a monograph from the staunchly pro-Israel think tank the Washington Institute on Near East Policy. The report is called “Beyond Worst-Case Analysis,” suggesting that it intends to avoid what it calls “apocalyptic” conclusions about an attack on Iran.


And yet, as former CIA analyst Paul Pillar notes, the paper’s ideas suggest that the “consequences would be very bad indeed”...

Following closely on the heels of the WINEP report is one from the Center for a New American Security, famous for its support for counterinsurgency campaigns.


The authors state definitively that a,

“preventive military strike against Iran’s nuclear program by either the United States or Israel at this time is not the best option, and rushing to war would risk making the threat worse.”

- Jordan Michael Smith, "We can’t crush Iran", Salon, 15 Jun 2012

These are not just words.


There is evidence that Obama has blocked an Israeli strike that was to come from Azerbaijan,

Foreign Policy - a global magazine on economics and politics - published on the same day that “Azerbaijan granted Israel access to air bases on Iran border.”


Mark Perry reports there that a senior U.S. administration official told him “The Israelis have bought an airfield, and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.”


This is not new (see Azerbaijan-Israel: A Shia - Jewish Alliance), but the same sources added factual data. The Azeri military has four abandoned, Soviet-era airfields that could be available to Israel, and four air bases for their own aircraft.


One of them is close to Tehran.

“If Israeli jets want to land in Azerbaijan after an attack, they’d probably be allowed to do so. Israel is deeply embedded in Azerbaijan, and has been for the last two decades,” the same source added.

The article goes on to explain that U.S. officials believe Israel has been granted access to these air bases through a “series of quiet political and military understandings.”


Again, this is not new, I described the Israeli-Azeri alliance in detail; however, this now being official, has slammed the door on Israel’s attack.
- A. True Ott, PhD., "War With Iran Averted - At Least Until After the November Elections", 30 May 2012

See also NSearch: "Obama averts Israeli attack on Iran"

Early signs of a change in U.S. Establishment thinking came back in January, when the American Enterprise Institute, the primary neo-con think tank,

Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation.


After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them.


Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.
- MJ Rosenberg, "American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not" - Political Correction, 02 Dec 2011

But the Netanyahu faction in Israel has not yet gotten the message:

On the eve of the third round of talks between Iran and the world powers expected to begin Monday in Moscow, Israeli officials urged the international community to better impress upon Tehran that they will face military action if their nuclear march is not stopped...

In recent weeks differences between Israel and the US administration over the world powers’ negotiating strategy with Iran have come out into the open, with the group of nations negotiating with Iran known as the P5+1 - the US, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany - focused on getting the Iranians to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, while Israel maintains Iran must stop all uranium enrichment at any level.

In addition to ending all uranium enrichment, Israel is also calling for Iran to transfer all of the already enriched uranium in its possession out of the country, and to close down the underground nuclear facility at Qom.
- Herb Keinon, "Israel: Make military threats against Iran more real", Jerusalem Post, 18 Jun 2012

Others in Israel, notably the Mossad chief, Tamir Pardo, a former Mossad chief, Efraim Halevy, and a former military chief of staff, Dan Halutz all oppose Israeli aggression against Iran.


The former head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, has called the planned attack on Iran,

"the stupidest thing I've ever heard".

However, the destruction of Iran has long been an Israeli goal.

ISRAEL'S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete.
- "Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel", Stephen Farrell, Robert Thomson and Danielle Haas, London Sunday Times, 05 Nov 2002

So we Americans have been lied to yet again:

  • 1964 - Gulf of Tonkin tale

  • 1991 - Doctored satellite photos; incubator story

  • 1999 - Poor Kosovars

  • 2001 - Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

  • 2003 - Iraqi WMDs and false story about Saddam-Atta Link

  • 2011 - Protecting Poor Libyans

  • 2012 - Protecting Poor Protesters in Syria

  • 2012 - Iranian Nukes

Ahmadinejad has been vindicated:

Why are you ruining the prestige of the [UN nuclear] agency for absurd US claims? The Iranian nation is wise. It won't build two bombs against 20,000 [nuclear] bombs you have.


But it builds something you can't respond to: Ethics, decency, monotheism and justice.
- Ahmadinejad, speaking in the central Iranian town of Shahr-e Kord, Nov 2011, quoted by Scott Peterson, "Iran nuclear report: Why it may not be a game-changer after all", Christian Science Monitor, 09 Nov 2011


Iran is ready to help creation of dialogue atmosphere between governments and nations.
- Ahmadinejad


The era of military force is over, today is the era of nations, logic and worshippers of God.
- Ahmadinejad