By: Matthias Chang
The mystery of how the flight MH370 went missing and its tragic end have given rise to numerous conspiracy theory, from very convincing ones to the outlandish.
Amidst all this, Malaysia suffered “bad media” especially from the Western press and specifically the CNN and these criticisms, from good journalistic practices to malicious and agenda driven, furhter give rise to more conspiracy theories especially when the likes of CNN is involved.
The Mole is reproducing an article below written by Matthias Chang, a lawyer by profession, a social activist, a writer and political analyst.
He reveals how the MH370 is multi-dimensional and why the Zionist Israel hands should not be ignored.
Even though it is a bit lengthy, a read is worth every word printed:
“Before proceeding with the exposé of the dastardly and insidious Zionist Israel’s propaganda on the disappearance of MH 370, let me take this opportunity to convey my personal and that of my family’s condolences to the families whose loved ones have perished in this tragedy and we wish them strength to overcome the pain of their loss.
I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud the efforts of the Malaysian government in the SAR Mission involving 26 nations which is unprecedented. Unfair and unfounded allegations against the Malaysian government were made by many in the social media who have no clue and or expertise to comment on the operation of such scale.
It is an understatement to say that all the relevant personnel went beyond the call of duty to recover the plane and its passengers. The dedication of the personnel involved in the SAR is beyond reproach and we trust they will weather the unfounded criticisms with dignity and prove their critics wrong.
I am sure many Malaysians are aware of several foreign news media lambasting the efficacy of the government’s efforts (which is to be expected) but I am certain that only a handful are aware of the insidious and dangerous propaganda by Zionist Israel’s news media.
This is to be expected of the Zionist war criminals who never cease to use such opportunities to further their global agenda generally and their anti-Muslims campaign in particular.
While I have no intention to give any reasons for the disappearance of MH 370, the insidious propaganda by the Zionist news media have aroused my interest as to how Israel intends to exploit MH 370 from an Intelligence / Black Ops angle.
Let me explain.
Times of Israel alleged without any evidence whatsoever that Iran was behind the disappearance of MH 370. We quote at length from the newspaper:
Former security chief for El Al said that the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 points directly to Iran.
Isaac Yeffet, who served as head of global security for Israel’s national carrier in the 1980s and now works as an aviation security consultant in New Jersey, said,
“What happened to this aircraft, nobody knows. My guess is based upon the stolen passports, and I believe Iran was involved,” he said. “They hijacked the aircraft and they landed it in a place that nobody can see or find it.”
The entire allegation is based on his belief and the propaganda against Iran should be accepted on account that this Zionist is a security expert. In any Court of Law, his assertions would be thrown out as it is not supported by any credible evidence.
Typical of Zionists, they cannot resist trumpeting the alleged “might” and “efficacy” of the Israelis. He went on to boast,
“This would never have happened on an Israeli plane. An El Al aircraft was hijacked for the first and last time in 1968. Since then, there has not been a single flight where security did not check every single name.”
From a personal experience, if the Israeli intelligence were so good and mighty, how was it that the Malaysian ship in 2011, MV Finch carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza penetrated the infamous security zone surrounding the Gaza port and reached approximately four hundred meters from the shores of Gaza before the Israeli navy and commandos detected our presence and attacked our ship.
None of their so-called sophisticated radar and other surveillance equipment (air and sea) detected our presence until we almost reached the shores of Gaza.
“From the United States to China to Japan, everybody is searching for this aircraft or piece of it. And there is no sign. So in my opinion, the aircraft was hijacked. And it was an excellent plan from the terrorists, to land in a place where they can hide the plane and no one can find it.”
Once again, there are no evidence to support his assertions. But, it is only his opinion that terrorists are involved. But, Israelis are the biggest terrorists. It has been documented and exposed that post 9/11, Israelis were caught masquerading as Al Qaeda terrorists before they could complete their dastardly acts of terrorism.
Just Google and you will find this despicable episode. Israel is a terrorist state and it was by terrorism against the Palestinians that they were able to establish the racist state with the aid of Britain and the US.
The Israelis cannot even be consistent as the following statement by Lt. Col. (Res.) Eran Ramot, a former IAF fighter pilot and the head of aviation research at Israel’s Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies reveals:
“We don’t know any better yet,” he said. “One of my theories is that the airplane landed in Bangladesh. It could reach there, it’s very close to Afghanistan. It could have landed on airstrip there, and everybody on board is still alive. It could be done.”
Wow, it is a mere theory!
But, what is revealing is the final sentence, “It could be done.”
What this means is that as a matter of theory, the plane could have landed in Bangladesh. But, it is a stupid theory because the government of Bangladesh would have known had the plane landed there. And there are not many airstrips that a Boeing 777 can land in Bangladesh. How convenient, Bangladesh is also a Muslim country.
The assertion “that it could be done” is an indication that Israelis may have conducted such operations as part of a future “Black Ops” and knew precisely how to execute such an operation. Has the Lt Col. inadvertently let the cat out of the bag?
Like Yeffet, he could not resist boasting about Israeli intelligence capabilities. I can only conclude that this parting shot is a message for the intended target audience.
I will now quote again from Lt. Col. (Res.) Eran Ramot who was asked what would happen if the plane was in Israeli occupied Palestine airspace:
“It would not go unnoticed, that’s for sure. Action would have been carried out, the least of which would have been an interception to escort it.
“It’s a matter of atmosphere. Here, every blip on the screen is suspicious because that’s the way we live. That’s our daily program. I can’t imagine they pay as much attention, but if a blip runs wide or runs strange, I would expect them to notice.”
Pini Schiff, one of Israel’s top aviation security experts has another take on MH 370. This is what he said:
“… there’s a good possibility that it has been brought down, intact, on a hidden runway in some far-flung corner of the world.
“It will be found. It may take a month or a year, but eventually, it will be found,” he said. “This aircraft didn’t vanish. It exists somewhere in the world, and it will be found, probably in one piece.”
Source: Ex-El Al expert: Iran likely involved in MH 370 | The Times of Israelhttp://www.timesofisrael.com/ex-el-al-expert-iran-likely-involved-in-mh-370/#ixzz2x6uGbpUO
The Zionists not contented with these three experts to spew nonsense against Iran has even obtained the services of a multi-billionaire in the person of Rupert Murdoch who twitted as follows:
Obama should call Chinese President following today’s incident and say “we both have the problem of Muslim terrorism. Can we work together?”
3:50 AM – 2 Mar 2014
777 crash confirms jihadists turning to make trouble for China. Chance for US to make common cause, befriend China while Russia bullies.
4:15 PM – 9 Mar 2014
World seems transfixed by 777 disappearance. Maybe no crash but stolen, effectively hidden, perhaps in Northern Pakistan, like Bin Laden.
2:23 AM – 15 Mar 2014
777. Still think this a reminder that US and China should be working more closely on Muslim extremist threat.
2:26 AM – 15 Mar 2014
Does it surprise anyone that Murdoch, a rabid Zionist Israel supporter would do Israel’s bidding and spew similar propaganda?
Before I proceed further, I want you to examine all the quotations from the three Israeli security experts. What is the common thread that runs through all of their observations?
It is staring straight at your face!
THE PLANE HAS LANDED SOMEWHERE AND IT IS INTACT!
This is a most unusual observation and one that have been asserted with confidence by all three.
It is linked to the Israeli allegations against Iran being responsible for the disappearance of the plane.
It is an open secret that Israel has always wanted to destroy Iran and to use the US as the Bully Boy to do the dirty work. Netanyahu has declared his intentions in every international forum in which he has appeared most notably the U.N. and in AIPAC annual conference in the United States
But this is not the first time that Israel has fabricated evidence against Iran so that a war can be launched against Iran. Before the Geneva Talks between Iran and US on the nuclear issue, Israel made every effort to persuade the US to attack Iran and when that failed, they concocted evidence that Iran was embarking on a nuclear weapons program and therefore must be destroyed as Iran is a threat to world peace.
It has now been exposed that the dossier prepared by Israel for IAEA was a pack of lies similar to the dossier on Iraq that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Please see Appendix 1 & 2 for more details.
In the event the plane is not found, what would be the likely future scenario?
Since these Israelis have offered opinions, beliefs, possibilities and theories to support their propaganda, I am entitled to offer my own opinions, beliefs, possibilities and theories as Counter Propaganda to Israel’s disinformation.
The Counter-Propaganda Premise
If Iran can be accused of causing the disappearance of MH 370, it is equally reasonable to accuse Israel of doing the same.
We have a stronger case against Israel, because Israel has a long history of using terrorism to achieve its geo-political agenda ever since the establishment of Israel. Every Israeli Prime Minister has been connected directly or indirectly with Israeli sponsored terrorist organisations, the most notorious being the Irgun Zvai Leumi.and the Stern Gang also called Stern Group or Lehi, formally Loḥamei Ḥerut Yisraʾel (Hebrew: “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) both responsible for mass scale massacre of Palestinians – men, women and children.
If the MH 370 has landed in an undisclosed place, it can be weaponised and used in a subsequent False Flag operations against the US and subsequently lay the blame on Iran, with the two Iranian passengers as patsies, replicating a 9-11 scenario. This is much too risky for the Israelis. There is a better alternative.
The more likely scenario is Israel playing the pivotal role. This scenario entails the total destruction of MH 370 with all the passengers in such a way that no trace of the air plane can be found in some ocean where the possibility of recovery is close to zero.
The non-recovery is critical to the modus operandi which has been set in motion in 2013. Bear this in mind when reading the below analysis.
In the weeks following any announcement that the SAR mission has ended, an intense propaganda campaign (following the same lines as asserted by the three Israeli experts) would be launched that the only logical conclusion would be that some terrorist organisation (e.g. Al Qaeda) has stolen the plane.
Israel would conduct military exercises to pre-empt an aerial attack on Israel. In fact, following the disappearance of MH 370, this was what the Israelis have done.
As reported by FoxNews.com (owned by Rupert Murdoch),
Missing jet, Iranian threats, prompt Israel to tighten air security
By Paul Alster, March 17, 2014
HAIFA, Israel – Top Israeli defense officials have hurriedly put in place a confidential list of secret security measures in light of the baffling disappearance of a Malaysia Airlines jumbo jet that experts fear could become a weapon of mass destruction if in the wrong hands.
Then, if there is in fact an aerial attack on Israel, the Zionists would declare that the weaponised plane must be that of the missing MH 370!
You would definitely scream, “Are you mad Matthias? Your theory cannot be right because there is no air plane as it has been destroyed by the Israelis. Where can they get another Boeing 777 similar to MH 370?”
Do you know that Israel has a Boeing 777 just like MH 370?
It will surprise you further that Israel has acquired such a Boeing 777 from Malaysia in 2013. The details are as follows:
A Malaysian Airlines sister airplane Boeing 777-200 was sold to GA Telesis and was then re-registered and sent to Tel Aviv on 4/11/13 where it was stored.
Malaysian Boeing 777 manufacturer serial number 28416 registered as 9M-MRI was sold to GA Telesis in 2013 and now registered as N105GT.
It is now stored at Tel Aviv.
Construction Number (MSN)
2x RR Trent 892
Leased from ALAFCO
std at LDE 04-10-2013
2x RR Trent 892
std at TLV 04-11-2013
GA Telesis has its headquarters in Ft.Lauderdale/Florida.
Given the above details, am I not entitled to conduct a counter-propaganda campaign against Israel?
To avoid any misunderstanding, I am not stating as a matter of fact that the above scenario is the modus operandi of the Israelis.
I repeat, that I am merely conducting a counter-propaganda warfare against Israel and those who support the Zionists in the like manner as the three Zionist security experts and Murdoch are propagating against Iran.
It is my fervent hope that if any “sealed evidence” are presented to the Malaysian government whether emanating from the US, UK, France or Australia which is based on Israeli intelligence sources, the same should be vetted and shared with China as most of the victims on MH 370 are passengers from China.
It is also clear from the tweets of Murdoch referred to above, there are insidious attempts to drive a wedge between China and Muslim countries.
Malaysia must be vigilant and not allow herself unwittingly to be a pawn in the geo-political chessboard and be the cannon fodder of the Neo-cons in their global war agenda.
Israel Provided IAEA with Fake Documents on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Exclusive Interview with Gareth Porter
By: Kourosh Ziabari – March 18, 2014 “Information Clearing House – “Iran Review”-
What follows is the text of Iran Review’s interview with Mr. Porter.
Q: Your recently published book on the controversy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program is titled “Manufactured Crisis,” and as you may admit, Iran’s nuclear program was set in motion in 1950s by the then U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower as part of the Atoms for Peace project for helping Iran meet its growing energy demands. However, following the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the Americans stopped their nuclear cooperation with Iran, and since early 1990s, began intensively pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear program, while there hasn’t ever been any evidence showing Iran’s diversion to militarization of its nuclear activities. Why do you think the U.S. changed its attitude toward Iran’s nuclear program while they were the ones who started it? Was it a matter of alliance with the United States and compliance with its Middle East policies?
A: I think there are a couple of factors that are combined to influence and shape the U.S. decision-making about the Iranian nuclear program. The first factor is of course that the United States had a foreign policy by 1981-82 to support Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran. It was secretly helping to arm Saddam Hussein and supporting him in various ways.
They clearly had a stake in trying to prevent Iran from prevailing in that war and I was told by the former National Security Council staff and specialists on Iran at that time under the Reagan administration that the policy was largely influenced by the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq.
I think behind that, of course, there is a much more fundamental element and policy on the part of the United States of hostility toward the Islamic Revolution in Iran as a challenge to the U.S. power prestige in the Middle East, and I would also say that importantly, because of a what I would call a dirty war taking place in Lebanon in the mid-1980s where the CIA was carrying out covert operations, and at the same time, that there were Shiite militias working against the U.S. forces and CIA personnel, in particular in the Beirut area, the CIA lost a significant number of personnel in that dirty war; first there were a group killed in the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the others were kidnapped and tortured to death.
That undoubtedly created a very strong desire on the part of the U.S. national security state to get back and take advantage of the war against Iran, so I think that played a role in the U.S. policy in that period.
Q: So, do you also think that the pressures being put on Iran over its nuclear activities is part of a U.S. strategy to prevent Iran from becoming a regional superpower through acquiring a nuclear capability?
A: I’m not exactly sure how you are using the term nuclear capability. I assume you mean becoming a superpower by having a nuclear program. Is that what you mean?
Q: Well, I actually mean acquiring nuclear capability will be a deterrent for Iran and it might dissipate Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Middle East even though we know Iran’s nuclear program is solely aimed at peaceful purposes.
A: That’s a very much complicated problem to disentangle exactly what the strategic calculations are with regards to the relationship between Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s obviously possessing 300 or so nuclear weapons, and how that plays out.
I don’t really think that the United States policy has been based on very finely calculated vision of how things would be in the future. As I point out in the book, the Bush administration’s policy toward Iran was one of a regime change.
They really wanted to overthrow the Islamic regime, just as the previous U.S. administrations had wanted to do, going back to the Reagan administration. They believed that they had to use force, and there was no doubt about it, and I think the initial calculation of the Bush administration, which really began in 2002 and 2003, as I point out in the “Manufactured Crisis” was that the United States would be able to use the accusation of an Iranian covert nuclear weapons program as a basis for justifying a military attack on Iran to change the regime.
That obviously didn’t play out as they expected. For one thing, the Bush policy changed from regime change to pressure through sanctions. But I think that was also one of their miscalculations.
I think the Obama administration policy, when it came to power in 2009 was really that they didn’t have a clear strategy toward Iran but was leaning much more toward sanctions as its primary policy rather than diplomacy as it was publicly claiming, especially at the time of the presidential elections. So, generally I think the U.S. policy has been geared to very broad, and in the case of Bush administration, militaristic objectives rather than a very carefully calculated assessment of the region.
Q: You talked about George W. Bush’s policy on Iran. Do you think that his war threats were really credible and serious as he constantly made statements on all options being on the table? He couldn’t ever realize his war threats. Did he really mean what he said that he intended to attack Iran?
A: Well, I don’t think the problem was so much George W. Bush as it was his group of neo-conservative advisors and high officials, specifically the Vice President Dick Cheney and his senior Middle East advisor David Wurmser, as well as John Bolton, the then under-secretary of state in charge of policy toward Iran and the main administration’s policymaker on Iran as well as weapons of mass destruction; we know that Bolton cooperated with the Israeli government closely.
He traveled to Israel frequently; he met in some cases with the Mossad chief in 2003, which were not approved by the State Department, and the circumstantial evidence strongly indicate that the manufactured crisis was really planned by Bolton in conjunction with the Israelis.
They together mapped out a plan that they expected to lay the groundwork for what they believed would be ultimately the military option on Iran. So, I think we are talking about a plan for striking Iran that was planned by the Israelis and their strongest supporters and allies in the Bush administration.
Q: In your recent book, you imply that the IAEA has been somehow deceived by the reports provided to it by the Western governments, which usually came out from Israel, that there has been a military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program prior to 2003. This is while the IAEA inspectors traveled to Iran and investigated the country’s nuclear facilities in the past decade tens of times. Why is it that the IAEA has been influenced by the Israeli claims while it couldn’t present any evidence to substantiate the claims?
A: The answer to the question is that the safeguards department of the IAEA was led by two individuals during that crucial period when the events took place, who were extremely anti-Iran and pro-Israel, worked closely with the Israelis and were happy to take intelligence from the Mossad and were working hand in glove with the Bush administration and Israel.
They were [Pierre] Goldschmidt and [Olli] Heinonen; the two directors of the safeguards department of the IAEA at that period; Goldschmidt from 2003 to 2005 and then Heinonen from 2005 to 2011, and in both cases, it’s clear that they were both much at odds with the view of the Director General of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei and other high officials of the IAEA.
In fact, I recently had an interview with the former senior official of the agency who further elaborated on those differences and pointed out that outside the safeguards department, senior officials were not at all convinced by these documents, including the laptop documents which the IAEA called the alleged studies, and the green salt papers, believing that they were probably fabricated, and they suspected Israel all long as the logical candidate.
So I think that we have to differentiate within the IAEA between the leadership of the safeguards department who were working closely with the United States and Israel on one hand, and the other senior officials of the agency including of course ElBaradei himself, who were extremely skeptical of that document.
I think that the interesting questions is, why ElBaradei thought that he could not prevent particularly since 2008 onward from publishing a series of reports that leaned very strongly toward the U.S.-Israeli position, which other senior IAEA officials including ElBaradei didn’t agree with. I think that the answer is that the IAEA was under very great pressures by the United States and the Europeans, including enormous pressures on ElBaradei to make compromises with regards to their decisions.
Q: Right. I read in Peter Jenkins’ analysis of your book that Israel has fabricated certain documents, including the information said to have been retrieved from a laptop computer in Iran in 2004, as you mentioned earlier, and the fabricated, fake data helped keep Iran’s nuclear controversy alive. Would you please elaborate more on Israel’s involvement in providing the U.S. and the IAEA with the false and groundless data and how they complicated Iran’s nuclear dossier?
A: Well, I think that evidence that Israel was fabricating these documents that the IAEA received in 2005 as well as later documents turned over to the IAEA directly by Israel in 2008 and 2009, according to Mohamed ElBaradei, is very strong, and there are several indicators that it was an Israeli job.
One is that we know the Mujahedin-e-Khalq turned these documents over to German intelligence; that’s where they came from. A former German intelligence official gave me a detailed account of that in an interview I did with him last year for my book. So, that’s the first indication that it was an Israeli job, because the MEK, we know, has been used by Israel to provide the intelligence they didn’t want to be known as coming from Israel on more than one occasion.
And of course the MEK has let its name to testimony to support the Israeli point of view on accusations of Iranian terrorism, specifically in the case of the Buenos Aires bombing of the AMIA community center in 1994. That’s one indicator.
The second indicator is that we know the Israelis had a program in Mossad to influence the foreign governments and news media on Iran and that office sometimes basically claimed that there were documents that come from inside Iran that they would share with the governments and the press. So they had a special office for operations against Iran. So, I’m quite convinced that Israel was behind these documents.
Q: Many of the sanctions which were imposed on Iran following the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate reports in 2007 that cleared Iran of all the accusations that it’s intending to produce nuclear weapons were hinged on the basis of allegations made by the Israelis like their claims about Iran’s nuclear tests in the Parchin military site. The Americans and the Europeans were frightened and took action to avert the perceived Iranian threat by imposing new rounds of sanctions again and again. However, it’s now clear that the claims were baseless and unfounded. How is Israel going to be held accountable over the prices it imposed on Iran, the United States and Europe by complicating their relationships?
A: I don’t understand why you would expect Israel to be held accountable. There’s no indication that any of the major powers have any intention to hold Israel accountable. I don’t think that’s an issue. I don’t think that’s going to be a realistic possibility.
Q: Are you trying to impart this message in your book that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. military-industrial complex needed a new threat and enemy to fight against, and that also Israel was in dire need of an existential threat to deflect attention from its felonies in the Occupied Territories and its brutalities against the Palestinian people and keep up with its project of colonial settlements on the Palestinian lands? Has Iran’s nuclear program served as a pretext for the United States and Israel to further their national interests?
A: Yes, that’s one of the themes of my book. Both the United States national security establishment or the national security state and successive governments, both Labor and Likud in Israel, have found citing the alleged threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon as useful both for domestic politics in the case of Israel, and for essentially making sure that the national security organizations, particularly the CIA and Pentagon continue to get adequate funding after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I have documents on both cases, and some links that is one of the reasons I think this crisis ultimately arose and I’m suggesting that this is the only and necessarily the main reason it’s possible that this couldn’t happen even when the Soviet Union existed.
Q: What do you think about the approach taken by IAEA toward Iran following the stepping down of Mohamed El-Baradei and the beginning of Yukiya Amano’s term? Is it true that Amano has been enormously under the influence of the United States and has failed to provide impartial and unbiased reports on Iran’s nuclear activities?
A: Well, Amano clearly is much more willing to cooperate with the United States than ElBaradei was. I think ElBaradei bowed to some significant extent to the U.S. pressure, allowing the safeguards department to have a sway in determining what would be the IAEA reports in 2008 and particularly in 2009, but Amano clearly has an understanding of the basis on which the United States supported Amano to become the successor to ElBaradei in 2009.
This is well-documented in the diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks and we know for sure that Amano has an understanding of the U.S. support strategy when he was about to become the successor to ElBaradei.
Q: What’s your viewpoint regarding the importance of the Geneva interim accord on Iran’s nuclear program and the new round of talks in Vienna for a final, comprehensive agreement between Iran and the six world powers? Do you think that these talks can pave the way for the complete solution of the nuclear standoff and the removal of the unjust economic sanctions?
A: I would be plausibly surprised if that happens. I have to say that I feel overall somehow pessimistic about the possibility for reaching an agreement, but I hope I’m wrong. The reason I’m pessimistic is that I see so many indications that the Obama administration’s senior officials during the course of the negotiations are still very much under the influence of the false narrative that I deconstruct in my book, and I think that is undoubtedly leading the United States toward adopting a much harder line in the negotiations than it would otherwise be the case, and I’m just afraid that there’s not going to be a breakdown in the talks and it’s inevitable.
Q: Having in mind what you just said, do you believe that President Obama is striding on the same path of George W. Bush and following a policy of regime change in Iran under the influence of AIPAC and other Israeli advocacy groups?
A: No, this administration is not the same as the Bush administration with regards to its relationship with Israel and the Israeli lobby. As I said before, under Bush, at least in the early period, there was an overt understanding between Israel and the top policymakers in the Bush administration that they would follow a joint strategy which was aimed at regime change, but that’s not the case with Obama.
His policy is much more ambiguous and less distinct. I think he wants to resolve the issue, but he is still under the pressure from the Israeli lobby which restricts his freedom of action. He and his senior advisors are under the influence of a false narrative for so long that I don’t think they understand what the real options are.
I think they are under the illusion that they don’t have the freedom to reach an agreement with Iran without risking the United States security and I think they are under a false impression over several issues.
Q: I just want to ask you a final question. What do you think about the impact of the economic sanctions imposed against Iran? Do you think that the sanctions have a legal warranty and justifiability?
A: No way, I don’t believe the sanctions are justified. The entire intention of my book is to show that the U.S. policy in accusing Iran is unjustified and this simply misrepresents the actual history of the interaction between the United States and Iran’s nuclear program. So, there’s no justification to the sanctions.
On November 24 last year an agreement was signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries (the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) in Geneva; its official name was the “Joint Plan of Action”.
The agreement was for a short-term freeze of parts of Tehran’s nuclear programme in exchange for reduced economic sanctions on Iran while the countries work towards reaching a long-term agreement. It represented a breakthrough in US-Iran relations, as it was the first formal agreement between the two in 34 years.
It is worth noting that, in its quarterly reports to its board of directors, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified that as of November 2013, Iran’s stock of 20 per cent enriched uranium had been reduced from 431 pounds to 351 pounds, which is significantly less than the 550 pounds required for the production of one nuclear weapon. This sign of good faith on Iran’s part suggests that it is serious about the agreement and is a good omen for the future of the long-term deal.
In his book Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, Gareth Porter investigates the truth behind the Iranian nuclear crisis. Based on meticulous and thorough research, he suggests that the US and Israel fabricated the crisis to serve their political and bureaucratic interests and put pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear programme completely, even though there is no evidence supporting the claim that it is intended to produce nuclear weapons. Porter believes that the Iranian nuclear programme consisted of nothing more than obtaining basic enrichment technology and testing it in 2002-2003.
The author uncovers the truth behind this issue brilliantly, beginning with some background on its origin, and the pressure put on Iran by the US in 1984 to give up the programme, putting Iran in a situation where it had to obtain its own nuclear enrichment technology.
This attempt to end Iran’s humble nuclear programme was not revealed in the latest public discourse on the matter; instead, the public was fed a story about Iran having already aimed for developing nuclear weapons in the 1980s.
Most of the suspicion surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme is down to its clandestine nature. According to Porter, there were good reasons for this and for not reporting the details to the IAEA. He points out that the US and Israel deliberately used the Iranian nuclear threat to their benefit; the US needed to find a substitute for the threat posed by the Soviet Union and its allies, which disappeared in 1990-1991.
Significantly, the Clinton administration wanted to align its policy towards Iran with Israel’s, thus linking the two politically. As for Israel, it used Iran to achieve a number of political-strategic aims that really didn’t have much to do with Iran. Porter gives evidence of the two allies’ knowledge of Iran’s true goals, which they ignored in order to achieve their own objectives.
The media neglected to tell us that Iran did not intend to obtain nuclear weapons but Porter cites the religious reasons. Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei both banned the use of nuclear and chemical weapons on two different occasions, strong evidence that Iran’s nuclear programme did not aim to produce weapons.
Turning to the claims by the Bush administration that Iran posed a “Weapons of Mass Destruction” threat, similar to the allegations against Iraq, Porter demonstrates that both claims have been proven to be false. Nevertheless, the allegations have affected Iran’s image and tightened the sanctions imposed on it.
He reveals Israel’s role in this, suggesting that the government in Tel Aviv fabricated documents to keep the Iranian “nuclear crisis” alive, using the material to manipulate the IAEA to produce reports suggesting that the government in Tehran had a secret nuclear weapons programme. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s supposed willingness to take unilateral military action to end the threat, Porter believes, was merely a plot to influence world policies towards Iran.
It seems that there has been much foul play by the international community as far as Iran is concerned; if the evidence on which the crisis is based is false then something must be done to rectify the damage the allegations have caused.
Many of the measures taken against Iran when the world believed it had a covert nuclear weapons programme and failed to cooperate, which seemed appropriate at the time, now no longer appear to be so, as the country no longer poses a threat to world peace.
The author finished the book before the election of Hassan Rouhani, but he has included an epilogue in which he analyses the changes and shifts resulting from his electoral victory, as well as the temporary nuclear agreement that ensued in Geneva.
Porter’s book is the first of its kind, as it analyses and provides the necessary evidence of the fabrication of the Iran nuclear crisis. He also gives the motives behind such fabrication, which serves the political agenda of the US and Israel. It is a great read at this critical time in history, given the discussions regarding a permanent agreement in this regard, and gives us a full understanding of what has really been going on over the past few decades, something that the media and politicians have failed to do.
Review by Maha Salah