Iran sanctions

I am disappointed that The Australian has chosen to publish superficial and biased letters against Iran. There is no association between the events of 9/11 and Iran. And Hilary Sage's claim that Iran wants to "exterminate" Jews would come as some surprise to all those Jews living safely in Iran. Her further claim about "world domination" is baseless.

The UN has issued limited sanctions against Iran at the behest of the US who have made it clear that military attacks upon Iran for non-compliance are a possibility. In this context it is simply inappropriate for The Australian to uncritically report superficial falsehoods about Iran.

Iran's human rights abuses, while objectionable, are in no way different from many countries, including China. They should not be used as an argument for war.

Iranian leaders have called for the "end to Israel" but only as a state having a legal identity under challenge. That ought to be distinguished from calls for killings. There are expert translations on the Internet vigorously disputing claims that speeches by Ahmadinejad support a modern day Holocaust against the Jews. His speeches are marked by particular features of cultural and legal rhetoric.

Iran is not associated with al-Qaeda and harbours no global jihadist ambitions.

Iranians were deeply sympathetic to the US following 9/11. It is also a lie that Iran hates the West. Following 9/11, Iran gave the US extensive intelligence against al Qaeda; they offered to provide training, uniforms, equipment, and barracks for as many as 20,000 new recruits for the nascent Afghan military, all under US supervision; and they assisted in the Bonn discussions. All this as gestures of goodwill to the West. In response, the US State Department recommended a more formal agreement with Iran, but they were rebuffed by President Bush who, just two months later, described Iran as part of the "axis of evil".

The US has consistently refused to provide Iran with any security-guarantees against unsolicited US attacks and many US leaders seek regime change in Iran regardless of nuclear issues.

In 2003, just after the invasion of Baghdad, the Iranians faxed the US with an open-ended offer for full discussions - including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. But the Bush administration, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. So much for missed opportunities!

Even Robert Gates, the new US Defense Secretary has recently admitted to Congress that the only reason Iran might want nuclear weapons is that they are surrounded by powers with such weapons. That is, defensive intentions only.

The US has been using a terrorist organization the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) in Iran as part of its active program to bring down the Iran regime.

In March 2006 the MEK assassinated 22 Iranian officials, including a governor. Bombings and other destabilizing activities have taken place continuously, all with US support. In this respect, Iran has every right to regard the US as a sponsor of terrorism.

The politics of Iran should not be seen as homogeneous and there is far from universal support for the current leadership.

Israel has legitimate security concerns and is right to call for an Iran free from nuclear weapons.

Israeli agents within Iran have found no evidence of any weapons program. Nor has the IAEA. But to safeguard itself Israel wants to deny even a civil program to Iran. The NPT, however, is designed to allow countries to develop such programs. By all assesments, Iran is doing exactly this. That is why the current UN sanctions against Iran, while understandable, have no legal merit. Claims that Iran is in breech of the NPT are without foundation.

The US has been misrepresenting Iran's nuclear program for some time now.

In September this year the IAEA complained publicly about a US Intelligence Committe report falsely claiming Iranian production of weapons grade uranium at 90% enrichment, while IAEA monitoring showed only 3%. Iran's civil nuclear facilities are video monitored around the clock and show no weapons grade enrichment.

And the Washington Post reported in August 2005 that the latest consensus among US intelligence agencies is that "Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years."

The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.

The US administration has shifted the public debate to require that Iran demonstrate that it does not have such a program. This echoes the previous demand on Iraq that it "prove" it had no WMDs. It is impossible to prove a negative and Iran is placed in an impossible position here. The public demonisation of Iran in this regard ought to be seen for what it is: a US propaganda program to legitimise any future military attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities.

China and Russia have provided highly qualified support for the recent UN sanctions against Iran for complex reasons.

But both countries have a defence pact with Iran and it is simply not credible that either China or India -with their natural gas contracts and energy needs - will accept any extended US or Israeli attack upon Iran.

We cannot afford a repeat of the lies used to invade Iraq.

This is especially so where a number of senior US military officers have reported that the Bush administration is insisting that nuclear weapons can be used in attacks upon Iran. The immediate consequences of any attack upon Iran would be oil at $200 a barrel and a nose-diving global economy. With that background I call upon The Australian to insist on an informed public debate about Iran free from inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric.