U.S.-Iran again

Compare the maturity of these texts:

an open letter

The politics behind this are in part domestic American (Republican Congress sabotaging Democratic president's policies at every opportunity) and in part a desire to bully Iran.

And by "bully" I mean "bomb".

It's noteworthy that Iran has been the victim of a string of U.S. aggressions since 1953 (when a democratically elected government was replaced by an absolutist monarchy with support of the U.S.), with great intensity during the 1980's.
The U.S.S. Vincennes which shot down an Iranian airliner didn't just happen to do a mishap:
The intent to shoot down an Iranian F-14 was nothing short of double murder intent, for a F-14 would have been no threat to a warship - particularly not while flying at high altitude. Moreover, the U.S.S. Vincennes actually violated Iranian territorial waters and shot at Iranian boats; both would be considered a 100% act of war if done by an Iranian vessel along the coast of New Jersey. Yet this was but one episode of the repeated bullying.
The U.S. support for Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran including the breaking of Iran's legitimate naval blockade against Iraqi oil exports weighed even heavier.
The hostage crisis during the Iranian revolution pales by comparison and never was a valid excuse, particularly not after it was resolved.

It's extremely regrettable that Europeans were pushed by propaganda to work along and exert pressure on Iran as well. Now we're looking like bullies as well.

Iran - a country that's a member of the NNPT (Israel isn't) and didn't violate its NNPT obligations so far, whereas the U.S. did. And even if it did violate its obligations, the treaty has actually no enforcement provisions.

Moreover, I looked up the military history of Iran, and it turns out the last war of aggression by Iran (Persia) ended 1828. Ever since, they attacked no country, ever. 186 years of non-aggression.
Switzerland has the moral authority to speak of Iran as a dangerous country; the United States don't.

About the letters; it's megalomaniac to think that "future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time". That works in dictates only. The Iranian foreign minister criticized this correctly. The U.S. government could withdraw from such an agreement, but this would Iran free from all obligations therein.*
The Senate used to be the foreign policy central of Congress, now about half of its members pretend the basics of international law don't exist. THAT is a threat to international peace. Then again, this is no news - we knew this since 2003 at the latest.

It doesn't matter whether this text will be called "anti-American". That would be just as meaningless as being called "Communist!" during the 70's. "Anti-American" a thought-terminating cliché, not a meaningful statement.
What matters are the facts and Europe's foreign policy should be based on facts. Iran isn't the troublemaker. Its tiny support for the Hezbollah militia is marginal compared to how many militias, terror organisations, military coups and oppressive regimes the United States supported and supports. This Western hypocrisy isn't without parallels, and it's undermining an international order devised and enjoyed by the Western World itself. We're not going to sustain a hypocritical corruption of the international order for much longer in a world in which the West's share of demographic, political and economic power is diminishing. As Putin shows, others can play this game as well.
We would be better off to not confront imaginary threats and to not corrupt an international order that plays greatly into our hands even without abuse.

2012-03 Top ten media failures in the Iran war debate


*: Assuming the Iranians aren't stupid enough to accept a treaty layout in which their very same obligations would persist towards a 3rd party until they withdraw themselves. An agreement without ratification branch is a weaker one than a ratified treaty, of course.
About the weight carried by executive agreements: link and another link and yet another from the Congressional Research Service.

P.S.: The letter was factually wrong. It purported to educate about their constitution, but got it wrong itself.

edit: I was factually wrong (with little consequence) as well and fixed it. Last Iranian war of aggression ended 1828. Hat tip to "F.",a commenter at "On Violence".

No comments:

Post a Comment