Tag Archives: Nuclear Negotiations

Don’t Be a Media Dupe About Iran, by Jim Babka

From Jim Babka at antiwar.org:

6 things the propaganda machine won’t tell you

We (the co-founders of Downsize DC) made bold predictions prior to the Iraq war in 2003. You can still see them at TruthAboutWar.org. We got things right, when nearly everyone else was wrong. We even predicted in advance that Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

How did we do that? Well, we knew politicians lie. We knew too that “War is the health of The State” and good for ratings. We also looked past the politicians and the media, and consulted history instead.

Now I want to do the same thing with the Iran treaty. Here are six things you should know to avoid being a media dupe…

1. U.S. and Israeli intelligence agree Iran is nowhere near having a nuclear weapon.

You wouldn’t know this from following the news, but it’s true.

Neo-conservatives (militarists), like Dick Cheney and Benjamin Netanyahu, have constantly made headlines with their repeated warnings that Iran is only six months away from having a nuclear weapon. But they’ve been crying wolf since 2006! How many times can you be six months away from the same event before you decide the claim is false?

Advice: Remember the false claims about Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Learn from that history. Prefer the less sensational intelligence reports over warmongering politicians.

2. It’s wrong to believe that Iran’s government is willing to commit suicide.

Many people think Iran’s leaders seek religious martyrdom through nuclear conflagration. They assert that Iran is eager to nuke Israel to bring this about. They support this claim by quoting anti-Israeli comments made by the Ayatollah Khomeini. But Khomeini has been dead for 26 years. Meanwhile…

Ali Khamenei has been the Supreme Leader for the last quarter century. He’s repeatedly said that it’s immoral to have nuclear weapons, let alone use them. He even issued a Fatwa against nuclear bombs. He says Iran merely wants nuclear power plants, which they’re permitted to have by treaty. So why should the words of a dead leader be more believed than the words of the current leader?

Still others quote former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been out of office since 2013. But an Iranian “President” has about as much power as our Interior Secretary. Can you even name the current Interior Secretary? An Iranian “president” doesn’t even control the military.

Advice: Drop the idea that Iran is suicidal. It’s nonsense.

3. Iran’s leaders have better reasons to distrust us, than we do to distrust them.

Most Americans don’t know this, but our CIA overthrew Iran’s democracy in 1953 and installed the dictatorial Shah. This CIA coup was run from the American Embassy in Tehran. These events were the cause of Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979. They also explain why the revolutionaries captured and held the US embassy that year.

But it gets worse. In the 1980s, Saddam Hussein waged a war against Iran that our politicians supported with money and arms. Now…

Imagine how Americans would feel if Iran had overthrown our government and installed a dictator, or if Iran had supported an invasion of the United States.

You see, Iran’s hatred and distrust of the US wasn’t unprovoked. It’s not the byproduct of religious radicalism. Our politicians EARNED this hatred.

Advice: Be suspicious of all politicians, both in Iran and America. More importantly, recognize that American politicians are a much greater threat to your security than Iran could ever be.

To continue reading: Don’t Be a Media Dupe About Iran


Can the GOP Deal With Iran? by Patrick J. Buchanan

From Pat Buchanan, at buchanan.org:

Ten weeks before the first U.S.-Soviet summit ever held in Moscow, in May 1972, North Vietnam, with Soviet-supplied armor and artillery, crossed the DMZ in an all-out offensive to overrun the South.

President Nixon responded with air and naval strikes on the North.

Yet Nixon went to Moscow and signed the first strategic arms agreement of the Cold War. He did not let Soviet-backed aggression against an ally prevent him from signing a SALT agreement he believed was in the vital interests of the United States.

Three months earlier, Nixon had gone to Peking to toast Mao Zedong, whose regime was also aiding Hanoi, and which, two decades before, had been killing GIs in the thousands in Korea.

The state is a cold monster, said Gen. De Gaulle.

Which brings us to Iran. Should we accept a deal, with a regime as abhorrent as the Ayatollah’s, that would deny that regime a nuclear weapon for 10 to 15 years?

For many of the moral arguments against such a deal also applied to the Soviet Union and Mao’s China in the Nixon-Kissinger era.

What are Iran’s crimes against America?

Tehran held 52 U.S. hostages for the last 444 days of the Carter presidency. Iran’s allies in Lebanon were behind the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut where 241 Americans perished. Iran is said to have been behind the terror attack on Khobar Towers in Riyadh in 1996 that killed 19 Americans. Iran provided IEDs to Shiite militias who killed hundreds of Americans in the Iraq war and wounded and maimed many more.

From their side, Iranians say the CIA overthrew a democratic government in Tehran in 1953, and imposed upon them the dictatorship of the Shah for a quarter century. Moreover, the U.S., in the Iran-Iraq war in the Reagan era, helped Iraq’s army target Iranian forces, not only with conventional weapons but poison gas.

There is good cause for bad blood between us.

Yet, compared to Mao’s nuclear-armed China in the madness of the Cultural Revolution in 1972, and Leonid Brezhnev’s USSR, Iran, as a strategic threat to the United States, is not even a 97-pound weakling.

To continue reading: Can the GOP Deal With Iran?

The Magician’s Apprentice, by Uri Avnery

From Uri Avnery at antiwar.com:

One has to choose: Binyamin Netanyahu is either incredibly shrewd or incredibly foolish.

Take his Iran policy. Actually, there is little to choose from. Netanyahu has no other policy to speak off.

According to him, Iran constitutes a mortal danger to Israel. If it obtains a nuclear weapon, God forbid, it will use it to annihilate Israel. It must be stopped by any means, preferably by American armed intervention.

This may be quite wrong (as I believe). But it makes sense.

So what did Netanyahu do?

For years, he alarmed the world. Every day the cry went out: Save Israel! Prevent the destruction of the Jewish State! Prevent a Second Holocaust! Prevent Iran from producing The Bomb!

The world did not take any notice. It was busy with many other matters. There are crises galore everywhere, all the time. Economic depressions. Plagues. The warming of the earth.

But Netanyahu did not let off. He used every rostrum, from the Knesset to the United States Congress, to shout his message.

At long last, a weary world paid heed. OK, the Jews warn of the Iranian bomb? So let’s do something to prevent it. Not just something. No. Let’s get all the great powers of the world together to compel Iran to end this nonsense.

And they did. The USA, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – practically the whole world – commanded Iran to start negotiations.

There was only one single issue: preventing Iran from getting The Bomb. Nothing else mattered. Compared to this giant issue, everything else was insignificant.

And then something unexpected happened. Iran’s political system replaced their loudmouth president with a very different one: a soft-spoken, eminently reasonable politician. Negotiations started, and Iran sent an even more soft-spoken, eminently reasonable diplomat to conduct them. The foreign ministers of the world were enchanted.

After playing a little hard-to-get, Iran accepted an agreement. The World got, more or less, everything it wanted. No bomb for a long time. Very intrusive inspection procedures. (They were not really needed. Up-to-date espionage techniques can quickly detect any movements toward a bomb.)

Everybody was happy. Everybody, that is, except Netanyahu. He was furious.

To continue reading: The Magician’s Apprentice

Rogue States and Nuclear Dangers, by Noam Chomsky and Nick Turse

Noam Chomsky meticulously examines US policy  and the real threats to peace in the Middle East. From Nick Turse and Noam Chomsky at TomDispatch, via antiwar.org:

The first prime-time Republican primary debate of 2015 was an eye-opener of sorts when it came to the Middle East. After forcefully advocating for the termination of the pending nuclear deal with Iran, for example, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker unleashed an almost indecipherable torrent of words. “This is not just bad with Iran,” he insisted, “this is bad with ISIS. It is tied together, and, once and for all, we need a leader who’s gonna stand up and do something about it.” That prescription, as vague as it was incoherent, was par for the course.

When asked how he would respond to reports that Iranian Qods Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani had recently traveled to Russia in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution, GOP billionaire frontrunner Donald Trump responded, “I would be so different from what you have right now. Like, the polar opposite.” He then meandered into a screed about trading Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl for “five of the big, great killers leaders” of Afghanistan’s Taliban, but never offered the slightest hint that he had a clue who General Soleimani was or what he would actually do that would be “so different.” Questioned about the legacy of American soldiers killed in his brother’s war in Iraq, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush replied in a similarly incoherent fashion: “To honor the people that died, we need to – we need to stop the Iran agreement,” and then pledged to annihilate ISIS as well. Senator Ted Cruz seemed to believe that merely intoning the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” opened a surefire path to rapidly defeating ISIS – that, and his proposed Expatriate Terrorist Act that would stop Americans who join ISIS from using their “passport to come back and wage jihad on Americans.” Game, set, match, ISIS.

Of the 10 candidates on that stage, only Senator Rand Paul departed from faith-based reality by observing that “ISIS rides around in a billion dollars’ worth of U.S. Humvees.” He continued, “It’s a disgrace. We’ve got to stop – we shouldn’t fund our enemies, for goodness sakes.” On a stage filled by Republicans in a lather about nonexistent weaponry in the Middle East – namely, an Iranian A-bomb – only Paul drew attention to weaponry that does exist, much of it American. Though no viewer would know it from that night’s debate, all across the region – from Yemen to Syria to Iraq – U.S. arms are fueling conflicts and turning the living into the dead. Military spending in the Middle East reached almost $200 billion in 2014, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms sales. That represents a jump of 57% since 2005. Some of the largest increases have been among U.S. allies buying big-ticket items from American weapons makers. That includes Iraq and Saudi Arabia ($90 billion in U.S. weapons deals from October 2010 to October 2014), which, by the way, haven’t fared so well against smaller, less well-armed opponents. Those countries have seen increases in their arms purchases of 286% and 112%, respectively, since 2005.

With the United States feeding the fires of war and many in its political class frothing about nonexistent nukes, leave it to the indomitable Noam Chomsky, a TomDispatch regular and institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to cut to the quick when it comes to Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, the regional balance of power, and arms (real or imagined). He wades through the spin and speechifying to offer a frank assessment of threats in the Middle East that you’re unlikely to hear about in any U.S. presidential debate between now and the end of time. Nick Turse

“The Iranian Threat”
Who Is the Gravest Danger to World Peace?
By Noam Chomsky

Throughout the world there is great relief and optimism about the nuclear deal reached in Vienna between Iran and the P5+1 nations, the five veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany. Most of the world apparently shares the assessment of the U.S. Arms Control Association that “the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action establishes a strong and effective formula for blocking all of the pathways by which Iran could acquire material for nuclear weapons for more than a generation and a verification system to promptly detect and deter possible efforts by Iran to covertly pursue nuclear weapons that will last indefinitely.”

There are, however, striking exceptions to the general enthusiasm: the United States and its closest regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. One consequence of this is that U.S. corporations, much to their chagrin, are prevented from flocking to Tehran along with their European counterparts. Prominent sectors of U.S. power and opinion share the stand of the two regional allies and so are in a state of virtual hysteria over “the Iranian threat.” Sober commentary in the United States, pretty much across the spectrum, declares that country to be “the gravest threat to world peace.” Even supporters of the agreement here are wary, given the exceptional gravity of that threat. After all, how can we trust the Iranians with their terrible record of aggression, violence, disruption, and deceit?

To continue reading: Rogue States and Nuclear Dangers

The Nuclear Deal: Be Careful What You Wish For, by Robert Gore

The ratification of the Iran nuclear agreement is set up mirror-opposite to what was specified for passage of a treaty in the Constitution. Instead of the two-thirds vote by the Senate in favor of the agreement envisioned for ratification by Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress will be required to kill the agreement, by overriding a certain presidential veto of a bill that would prevent the lifting of US sanctions. Even with this high hurdle to defeat, it is not a sure thing that the agreement will be approved. The lobbying by Israel and many of its friends in the US against it has been intense. There has been all sorts of speculation and either dire warnings or optimistic predictions about what will happen if the agreement is approved. Far less has been said about what will happen if it is not.

There have been criticisms of perceived flaws in the agreement: its inspection regime; the 24-day waiting period for outside inspectors to access suspicious facilities if Iran objects; the lifting of sanctions and the difficulty of reimposing them if Iran violates the agreement; the failure to compel full transparency on Iran’s past nuclear activity; the risk that Iran could build nuclear weapons after ten years. Many of the opponents of the deal, including Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have argued that they are not against an agreement in principle, just this “flawed” deal, and rejection will pave the way for a better deal that addresses the flaws.

If the agreement is not approved, what is lost? The opponents’ implicit assumption is that after negotiating for over two years, the US’s fellow G5+1 nations—Great Britain, France, China, Russia, plus Germany—will return to the negotiating table to craft an agreement more to the critics’ liking. The assumption is absurd. Iran has said that if the deal is rejected it will not return to the table and redouble its commitment to its nuclear program. Why would the US’s negotiating partners try to negotiate a “better” agreement with no assurance that it too would not be rejected by Israel and its friends in the US? New negotiations simply would not happen; it’s this deal or no deal.

Flawed as the agreement may be, if there is no deal, it’s benefits will be lost, and its flaws will be amplified. With no deal, assuming no new negotiations, there is not be a flawed inspection regime; there will be no inspections at all. The opponents of the deal cite every “Death to America” chant in Iran, from mullahs down to the man on the Tehran street, as proof positive that Iran means to destroy America. If we must take those Iranians at their words then is it also not logical to take the leadership at its word, particularly its threat to redouble its commitment to the nuclear program?

Consider the perspective of those Iranian hardliners who are opposed to the agreement. Like certain American hardliners, they may have been opposed to the whole idea of negotiations. With some justification they might have noted that: the US and Great Britain deposed Iran’s democratically elected leader in 1953 and installed a loathed puppet; the US made Iran a pariah state after the 1979 revolution, ostensibly because of the student hostage crisis, but actually because of Iran’s refusal to stay in the US orbit; a US Navy vessel in Iranian waters, the Vincennes, shot down civilian Iran Air Flight 655 over the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 aboard, and the US never formally apologized; the US supported the aggressor, Saddam Hussein, in Iraq’s war on Iran. Why, the hardliners might ask, should Iran trust the US?

The hardliners could justifiably argue that sanctions aside, Iran has done pretty well for itself being a US enemy. The US took down the hated Saddam Hussein and has made Iraq a virtual Iranian satellite, cleared the Taliban, an Iranian enemy, out of next door Afghanistan, and through its blundering in the Middle East created massive blowback and fomented anti-American sentiment that has increased anti-America Iran’s stature in the region. With enemies like the US, who needs friends?

And what happens to the US’s so-called friends in the Middle East, or even those who were not friends but who nevertheless have toed the US line? Saddam Hussein was once a friend of the US. So was Hosni Mubarak. Bashar Assad was hailed in the US as the face of Syrian progressivism and reform. Muammar Gaddafi abandoned his nuclear aspirations, apologized for the Lockerbie tragedy and made restitution, curtailed his support for terrorism, and tried to make nice-nice with the West. Look what’s happened to those guys. Who would argue with the hardliners’ assertion that Iran’s better off as an enemy?

There’s one last point the hardliners can make. If the agreement were to go through, it would open doors in Iran to the US. That might prompt the meddling US government, through it’s nongovernmental organizations (a misnomer if there ever was one) and intelligence agencies, to monkey around in Iranian politics, perhaps fomenting an “Iranian spring” and one of its trademark color revolutions. Any of you guys, the hardliners might ask, want to be the next Victor Yanukovych, that poor slob in Ukraine?

If the agreement is rejected, the hardliners will have all the ammunition they need: we told you so, the US can’t be trusted. They can’t help but have noticed that there’s one group of nations the US shies away from either militarily confronting or messing with their internal politics—nuclear-armed nations. Even the corrupt crazies in North Korea and Pakistan get a pass. So kick out the present corps of inspectors, pull down the veil of secrecy, and full speed ahead on an Iranian nuclear bomb. Instead of the 6,000 legacy-technology centrifuges specified in the agreement, fire up all 20,000, and make sure they’re state of the art. Forget eliminating 98 percent of the uranium stockpile and forget that 3.67 purity ceiling; start enriching the full stockpile to the 90 percent purity necessary for a bomb. And forget dismantling the core of the heavy water reactor at Arak; the plutonium will be used in the bombs.

If the agreement is rejected by the US, Iran will have every incentive to redirect its nuclear program (allowed to it as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel and Pakistan are not), to the development of nuclear weapons. Opponents of the agreement argue that current sanctions can be maintained and tightened. The US has sanctioned Iran since 1979, but sanctions only started to bite when multilateral sanctions were imposed. How willing will the rest of the G5+1, especially Russia and China, be to maintain these multilateral sanctions if the US rejects the agreement? Russia and China regard Iran as an ally and an important part of their Euro-Asian economic development and political cooperation plans. They will nix sanctions, and it would surprise no one if they sold Iran defensive radar and missile systems and more nuclear technology. Europe’s companies are anxious for access to Iran’s oil and its consumer market. Great Britain, France, and Germany’s businesses and governments will be resentful of US rejection and also unenthusiastic about maintaining sanctions.

There is little possibility, if the US rejects the agreement, that sanctions will be maintained by the other members of the G5+1, and no possibility they’ll be tightened. What then will the US and Israel have to prevent Iran’s development of nuclear weapons? With no ability inside Iran to monitor its activities, other than whatever penetration their intelligence agencies can manage, won’t they be susceptible to false or doctored intelligence and claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, even if it is not? If US policymakers believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons, what option will they have to stop them, other than war? The dominant wing of the Republican party has pressed for a US reordering of the Middle East since before 9/11. Taking out the fundamentalist regime in Iran has been a central goal. By rejecting the agreement, they may get the war with Iran they’ve so long desired.

If the US is not already all in on the Middle East, after it launches a war against Iran, it will be. US forays in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya leave no room for optimism about the outcome. The military obstacles to eliminating an Iranian nuclear bomb program would be formidable, especially if Russia and China provided either direct military support or weaponry and defensive systems. The costs would be monumental and coupled with a probable jolt to oil prices, almost certainly disastrous for US financial assets and its economy. The blowback to a US and Israel attack on Iran would make previous blowback look like a summer breeze. It is not just that the attack would come from the two most hated nations in the region, but that it would be directed against the marquee Shiite nation, presumably with at least the tacit acquiescence and probably the active encouragement of the region’s Sunni nations—Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. An attack against Iran would add explosive fuel to the ongoing conflagration, a jihadist’s dream, and would spread far beyond the Middle East.

Which may be exactly what Iran wants, if you believe the worst that is being said about its leaders. Those apocalyptic Iranians would have their jihad and apocalypse, at the end of which—they’re hoping—America would be in ruins and a global caliphate would emerge supreme, the supposed goal of their grand plan. This may also be exactly what President Obama wants, too, if you believe the charge that he is a Muslim or a fellow traveler and wants to bring down America. So if one wants to believe the very worst about Iran’s leaders and Obama, they both may be secretly hoping that the agreement is rejected, perhaps even surreptitiously maneuvering to ensure that outcome. If it is rejected, Iran will say that they tried, but America wanted war. And if that war comes about and it’s another disaster, the American people will know exactly whom to blame. It won’t be the man who said the alternative to his agreement is war.






Obama v. Bibi — Fight to the Finish, by Patrick J. Buchanan

Patrick Buchanan tells Obama to man up. From Buchanan at buchanan.org:

In his desperation to sink the Iran nuclear deal, Bibi Netanyahu is taking a hellish gamble.

Israel depends upon the United States for $3 billion a year in military aid and diplomatic cover in forums where she is often treated like a pariah state. Israel has also been the beneficiary of almost all the U.S. vetoes in the Security Council.

America is indispensable to Israel. The reverse is not true.

Yet, without telling the White House, Bibi had his U.S. ambassador arrange for him to address a joint session of Congress in March — to rip up the president’s Iran nuclear deal before it was even completed.

The day the deal was signed, using what The Washington Post calls “stark apocalyptic language,” Bibi accused John Kerry of giving the mullahs a “sure path to a nuclear weapon” and a “cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars … to pursue its aggression and terror.”

Bibi has since inspired and led the campaign to get Congress to kill the deal, the altarpiece of the Obama presidency.

Israel Ambassador Ron Dermer, a former Republican operative now cast in the role of “Citizen Genet,” has intensively lobbied the Hill to get Congress to pass a resolution of rejection.

If that resolution passes, as it appears it will, Obama will veto it.

Then Israel, the Israeli lobby AIPAC, and all its allies and auxiliaries in the think tanks and on op-ed pages will conduct a full-court press to have Congress override the Obama veto and kill his nuclear deal.

Has Bibi, have the Israelis, considered what would happen should they succeed? Certainly, there would be rejoicing in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and Bibi would be crowned King of Capitol Hill.

But they will have humiliated an American president by crushing him by two-to-one in his own legislature. Such a defeat could break the Obama presidency and force the resignation of John Kerry, who would have become a laughing stock in international forums.

The message would go out to the world. In any clash between the United States and Israel over U.S. policy in the Middle East, bet on Bibi. Bet on Israel. America is Israel’s poodle now.

To continue reading: Obama v. Bibi—Fight to the Finish

Where Did We the People Go? by Peter Casey

From Peter Casey at antiwar.org:

The “P5+1” agreement with Iran basically mothballs the latter’s nuclear power activities for at least ten years. Israel and its American loyalists, however, have ordered Congress to wreck the deal.

Congress must obey Israel’s orders. It’s right there in the Constitution – or, at least, in the version AIPAC must be handing out to newly elected Congressmen: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the State of Israel…..do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Before Congress destroys the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” the reality-based community among “the People” should consider the following points.

First, the deal does not eliminate an existential threat to the US. It does not even eliminate a non-existential threat.

So isn’t it a bad deal? Not at all. Why? Because there isn’t any threat. There never was. Not to Israel. Not to the US. Not to anybody. Except Iran. The Jewish and Democratic State has used the nonexistent existential threat to threaten Iran with Armageddon on a routine basis for the past decade.

The Iranian “nuclear weapons program” has been a hoax from day one. The Islamic Republic never had a nuclear bomb program.

Remember how the story started. In 2002, an outlaw cult of dissident Iranian crazies, the MEK, then listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organization, announced that Iran was constructing two nuclear fuel processing facilities. Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, had every right to build them and no obligation to report them at such an early stage. US intelligence, moreover, had known all about them. At that time, however, the Bush/Cheney neocons were in full reality-creating mode. On their days off from cooking up bogus Iraqi WMD “intelligence,” they pushed the fraud that Iran’s “deception” meant it must be hiding a nuclear weapons program.

By relentless pounding, the Iraniphobes hammered the Big Lie of an Iranian nuclear weapons program into generally accepted “fact.”

The Western world has since spent thirteen years obsessed with a chimera, every now and then nearly exploding into World War III. To this day, Americans by an overwhelming majority tell pollsters that they believe “that the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a critical threat to the vital interests of the US.”

Here, truly, is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury.

Second, it does not matter whether Zionist mob boss Ben Netanyahu and America’s Israeli fifth column are right about the agreement – that the restrictions on Iran are porous as a sieve. There’s nothing to catch. Besides, it wouldn’t matter what Iran agreed to do. Iran could agree to let a million IAEA inspectors crawl all over the country day and night, able to go anywhere at any time without notice. Israel and its fluffers in Congress would still reject it. Short of restoring the Peacock Throne, no “deal” could ever be good enough.

The Zionists do not want a deal. They want war on Iran, financed and fought by the US.

Third, just as there has never been any Iranian bomb program, the US government’s hostility toward Iran has not done Americans any good. On the contrary, that enmity has not only brought the US dangerously close to a catastrophic war based on a mirage, but has poisoned the prospects for the obvious economic, cultural, and geopolitical benefits from restoring full relations with Iran. From the beginning, however, US policy makers used the bomb program hoax to promote an Israeli agenda, in treasonous degradation of the “common defense” and “general Welfare” of “the People.”

To continue reading: Where Did We the People Go?