Community | January 25, 2012 | 22 comments

Robert Fisk: We've been here before – and it suits Israel that we never forget 'Nuclear Iran'

source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-weve-been-here-before--an...

Image
Vierotchka
The Ayatollah ordered the entire nuclear project to be closed down because it was the work of the devil

Turning round a story is one of the most difficult tasks in journalism – and rarely more so than in the case of Iran. Iran, the dark revolutionary Islamist menace. Shia Iran, protector and manipulator of World Terror, of Syria and Lebanon and Hamas and Hezbollah. Ahmadinejad, the Mad Caliph. And, of course, Nuclear Iran, preparing to destroy Israel in a mushroom cloud of anti-Semitic hatred, ready to close the Strait of Hormuz – the moment the West's (or Israel's) forces attack.

Given the nature of the theocratic regime, the repulsive suppression of its post-election opponents in 2009, not to mention its massive pools of oil, every attempt to inject common sense into the story also has to carry a medical health warning: no, of course Iran is not a nice place. But ...

Let's take the Israeli version which, despite constant proof that Israel's intelligence services are about as efficient as Syria's, goes on being trumpeted by its friends in the West, none more subservient than Western journalists. The Israeli President warns us now that Iran is on the cusp of producing a nuclear weapon. Heaven preserve us. Yet we reporters do not mention that Shimon Peres, as Israeli Prime Minister, said exactly the same thing in 1996. That was 16 years ago. And we do not recall that the current Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in 1992 that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 1999. That would be 13 years ago. Same old story.

In fact, we don't know that Iran really is building a nuclear weapon. And after Iraq, it's amazing that the old weapons of mass destruction details are popping with the same frequency as all the poppycock about Saddam's titanic arsenal. Not to mention the date problem. When did all this start? The Shah. The old boy wanted nuclear power. He even said he wanted a bomb because "the US and the Soviet Union had nuclear bombs" and no one objected. Europeans rushed to supply the dictator's wish. Siemens – not Russia – built the Bushehr nuclear facility.

And when Ayatollah Khomeini, Scourge of the West, Apostle of Shia Revolution, etc, took over Iran in 1979, he ordered the entire nuclear project to be closed down because it was "the work of the Devil". Only when Saddam invaded Iran – with our Western encouragement – and started using poison gas against the Iranians (chemical components arriving from the West, of course) was Khomeini persuaded to reopen it.

(click on the link for the complete article)
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   World News,   KB723's Den of Iniquities
  2. tags:
    War,  Israel,  Iran,  Opinion,  4 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

22 comments // Robert Fisk: We've been here before – and it suits Israel that we never forget 'Nuclear Iran'

  • Radical_Centrist
  • warman1138
  • Steamed_N_More
  • FoosMaster
  • maasanova
    • +2
      maasanova  

    • A great comment on Iran from Mike Rivero at WRH:

      "Obama uses State of the Union speech to warn Iran to 'change its course' on nuclear ambitions as Europe sends battleships to Gulf"

      Iran is building a nuclear power station, and the IAEA confirms there is no evidence that Iran is building weapons. Under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is allowed to have nuclear power, medical isotopes, and other industrial uses of nuclear material.

      Indeed, under Article IV of the NNPT, the United States is obligated to assist Iran in building their power stations, and were the US in compliance with its own treaty obligations, there would be no question that Iran's power station is indeed nothing more than just a power station. The United States is in violation of its international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty first by refusing to honor Article IV and second by using the threat of force to coerce Iran to surrender their rights under the NNPT. The United States is legally in the wrong here.

      Accusations that Iran is building nuclear weapons are coming from Israel, which in 1981 bombed the Iraq nuclear power station at Osirak under the same claim; that Iraq was building nuclear weapons in a hidden laboratory under the power station. Following the invasion of Iraq, experts from the IAIA carried out a full inspection of the runs of the power station and found no evidence of clandestine weapons facilities in the wreckage.

      To date, the only known weapons manufacturing plant hidden under a power station is the not-as-clandestine-as-they-hoped weapons lab hidden underneath Israel's own Dimona. In short, Israel is batting zero at correctly identifying weapons labs in other nations and we should not be taking their lead today with regard to Iran.

      Finally, we were all tricked into war with Iraq on this very same claim of a threat of nuclear weapons. After smashing that nation and hanging Saddam, no nuclear weapons were ever found. Fool me once ...

    • 4 months ago
  • maasanova
  • freecrack
  • maasanova
    • 0
      maasanova  
    • freecrack:

      Medical isotopes, and other industrial uses of nuclear material, not some some secret underground nuclear bunker like Israeli's Dimona, weapons of mass distruction facility.

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • maasanova:

      oh obviously being as iran is always so interested in medical advancements and industrial infrastructure.so when was it that iran offered any medical care what so ever from the government as to invest in that?

      9 nuclear facilities are required for this, that are located all near one another and not any place close to the civilian populations they are supposed to serve?

      wierd if how their deal is so above board that they would hide 8 out of the 9 facilities.

      im sure that is all just a coincidence cuz i ran wouldnt be trying to provoke anyone.like calling 9/11 the american governments plan, or theatening cutting off oil.it isnt like the support hizbollah and hamas destabilizing what ever places they can.i mean if thse things were the case it would be a whole other deductive reasoning process.but they dont do these things so they must be above board

    • 4 months ago
  • maasanova
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • maasanova:

      actualy i just laid out a shit ton of evidence, but by all means ignore the total real world situation in favor of your narrow view based on a disproportionate interest in jews.cuz you arent being antisemtic or nothing, as an iranian nuclear bomb would only kill jews.all others are not subject to fallout just jews.
      how has that idea worked out in regards to muslims fundamentalism?they stick with just killing jews?
      fucking genius really

    • 4 months ago
  • maasanova
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • maasanova:

      and i am sorry you cherry pick the info you want o believe while counter info exists to the same end.it must be terrible to not have your own individual positions like that, and to only agree with those who hate who you hate.

    • 4 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
  • maasanova
    • 0
      maasanova  
    • freecrack:

      Who else is pushing for war with Iran other than Israel and their bought and paid for politicians like Newt Gingrich funded by bilionaire Zionist Sheldon Adelson?

      Are African-America political action groups pushing for war with Iran? Nope. Are the Hispanic activist groups pushing for war with Iran? Nope. Are the Mormon or Catholic communities pushing for war with Iran? Nope.

      So who is pushing for war?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcHwn1KoSTw

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • maasanova:

      actualy no one other than fellow religious wackos who have no influence over shit are pushing for war.everyone is pushing for a resolution to the problem that is a nuclear iran, with war, as well as any and all other options also being viable.
      this is the position of us,canada,the brits,france,basicaly the eu.but of course they are all run by the secret zionist something or other right?

      so you want to segregate the politics of all americans who are of african american descent by asking what the political action groups predicated on them are pushing for?as if that is their agenda and not americas, and americas agenda is not theirs.
      we are all americans, making our agenda a shared one.im sorry it makes sense to break it down by race, but as always i cant relate,as i dont go racist as easily as you do.i just cant fathom it.

      btw of the few groups of people who do want an actual war with iran,nukes or not, the latter bunch you mentioned are a part of that.unless you dont suppose some catholic intentions meet up with evangelic or some mormon intentions politicaly speaking?

    • 4 months ago
  • ObamaCares
  • freecrack
  • Obamadinejad
  • Vierotchka
  • Vierotchka
more from Community:
from the community

top videos