Sorting Out the Facts About Iran
On the issue of Iran’s “nuclear ambitions” you hear one thing on Monday, a different thing on Tuesday. “It’s a puzzlement!” to quote Yul Brynner’s famous line in The King and I. But in this case, the confusion is hardly insignificant.
In a speech on March 4 to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), President Barack Obama drew a new red line, saying that if diplomacy and sanctions fail, he would use military force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
So it’s important to try to separate fact from opinion, taking our cue from the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who famously said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
On May 26, the editors of The Washington Post claimed that Iran has “no right” under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to process uranium. In a letter to the editor published by the Post on June 2, Alireza Miryousefi of Iran’s mission to the UN wrote that the Post was simply wrong on that key point.
The Iranian diplomat seemed to be quoting from the NPT in saying that it unambiguously recognized “the inalienable right of all of the parties to the treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” It turns out that it is word-for-word from the treaty text.
“Peaceful purposes” would include fueling nuclear power plants to generate electricity. But why, some ask, would Iran need those when it has so much oil and natural gas? President Gerald Ford asked that same question in 1976, before he was persuaded to approve a deal with the shah of Iran, under which Westinghouse and General Electric were to make billions of dollars by supplying essentially the same full nuclear-fuel-cycle capability to Iran that Tehran now claims the right to create on its own.
Ford’s principal aides, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, reminded the president that Iran’s demand for electrical power would inevitably increase and that its oil and gas resources would be depleted one day. In the interim, they explained, Iran coveted the hard currency it earns from selling its gas and oil on the international market.
The deal fell apart when the shah fell from power. That this history is not widely known has made it easier for some U.S. and Israeli officials and pundits to argue that that the primary aim of Iran’s nuclear development program must be to build nuclear weapons. For those hoping to stir up a crisis with Iran, it’s helpful to shove down the memory hole that Rumsfeld and Cheney once advocated Iran having a nuclear program.
Part of the problem (not to mention the confusion) lies in the fact that the uranium enrichment technology used for power plants can also be used to create a nuclear weapon, assuming it is refined to a much higher purity. And the prospect of a nuclear-weapon-capable Iran is widely considered a frightening prospect in view of Iran’s supposed threat to “wipe Israel off the map.” President Obama himself alluded to this in his March 4 address before AIPAC.
But a fact-checking problem is that no senior Iranian official has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, Dan Meridor, who is also Israel’s minister of intelligence and atomic energy, reluctantly conceded the point during an interview with Al Jazeera on April 14. Meridor agreed that Iranian leaders “didn’t say, ‘We’ll wipe Israel out.’”
But, still, “everyone knows” that Iran is secretly working on a nuclear weapon. The trouble there is that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated definitively on Jan. 8 that Iran is not doing that; and 10 days later his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Barak, agreed.
According to the official U.S. government translation of Barak’s interview on Jan. 18 with Razi Barkay of Israeli Army Radio, Barak stated that Iran “is evidently not trying to procure nuclear weapons.”
Barkay: How long will it take from the moment Iran decides to turn it [Iran’s nuclear program] into effective weapons until it has nuclear warheads?
Barak: … It doesn’t really matter. To do that, Iran will have to … announce its departure from the control regime [U.N. inspections], to stop responding to IAEA’s criticism, and so forth. They haven’t done that. Why? Because then it is clear to everyone that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons.…
Today, I’ll be speaking at Random Row Books in Charlottesville, Va., where we can further try to sort this confusion out.
Originally published by ConsortiumNews.com.
Read more by Ray McGovern
- Boston Suspect’s Writing on the Wall – May 17th, 2013
- The Deepening Shame of Guantanamo – May 13th, 2013
- John Brennan’s Heavy Baggage – March 11th, 2013
- Eyes Wide Shut on the Iraq War – February 24th, 2013
- Brennan’s Loose Talk on Iran Nukes – February 22nd, 2013





Nathan
June 6th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
The article repeats the facts that are well known to those who follow the news. However, the act of repeating may help make more people aware of the truth.
Watson
June 7th, 2012 at 5:53 am
I find the Non-Proliferation Treaty is very clearly written and quick to read and doesn't require a legal staff to interpret it.
Treaty is here: http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm
Signatories are here: http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm
After being named as part of Bush's "Axis of Evil," North Korea unsuprisingly withdrew from the treaty in 2003 and went back to its nuclear weapons program.
Watson
June 7th, 2012 at 5:53 am
I find the Non-Proliferation Treaty is very clearly written and quick to read and doesn't require a legal staff to interpret it.
Treaty is here: http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm
Signatories are here: http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm
After being named as part of Bush's "Axis of Evil," North Korea unsuprisingly withdrew from the treaty in 2003 and went back to its nuclear weapons program.
fereydoun
June 7th, 2012 at 7:48 am
This is an interesting article.When I follow and try to trace the nature and structure of US and US-led sanctions against Iran from early 1980's to present,I firmly get the impression that the United States' embargo against Iran is of regime change type.Its not a behaviour change sanction like the one which is imposed on North Korea for several decades.In fact Washington likes to keep North Lorea right where it is in order to justify its presence in that part of the world.In fact when North Korea moves towards more behaviour changes,United States move in to divert that country's intentions towards more behavioural changes.With Iran the sanction is for regime change and no amount of change in behaviour helps resove Iran's relationship with the west.
Sam
June 7th, 2012 at 11:16 am
It should also be pointed out that in terms of energy consumption Iran ranks 13th in the world. Energy consumption has even doubled since 1990. Given that Tehrans pollution is world famous with numerous articles in the "western" media that acknowledge this. Googling the words "Tehran smog" shows even Fox news reported this along with the BBC, USAtoday, the LA Times, the NY Times etc….
In the 80s even though the population was only 40 million, power outages in Tehran was a daily occurrence. Iran increased it electricity output to the point that despite the population increased to over 70 million, and per capita usage increased with the advent of laptops, cell phones etc power outages are now rare.
Iran now even exports electricty to many neighors such as Armenia, Azerbajan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Iraq, afghanistan (Virtually every neighbor that it shares borders with). It even planned before the syria crisis to export to Lebanon and Syria which is now on hold.
Thus adding Nuclear power plants makes a lot of economic sense as 1) oil can be used for export and petrochemicals instead of wasting it to make electricity. 2) it will relieve smog in Tehran and thus decrease smog and the resultant pulmonary illness, missed days at work, school. 3) Iran can increase electricity exports which will help the economy and help relieve unemployment as these plants need employees to work in them.
Sam
June 7th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Others argue well why dont they use hydroelectric, wind and solar to increase the electricity output.
Iran already has wind power feilds at manjil, Rudbar, binalood, and the Iran-Armenia wind farm. Iran is curently the only country in the region that produces wind turbines and ranks 30th in the world in wind power.
Solar power is still in its early stages in Iran with just 2 plants one in Shiraz and one in Mashad around 2009.
As of 2010, Iran has constructed 588 dams (big and small), with 137 more under construction and 546 planned.
Thus the whole "you dont need nuclear energy cause you can burn oil for electricity, and therefore you must be doing this for weapons" argument is really just a political excuse. Especially since the politicians in the US making that argument were the same ones who urged Iran to go nuclear in the first place. The US even gave Iran its first nuclear reactor back in the 70s
Watson
June 7th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Nuclear energy ad from the 1970s featuring the Shah of Iran. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiganatoo/731056598/…
Johnny_Warbucks
June 7th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Forget Iran…for now. Today, I learned that Egypt is working on its own reactor. I've been LMAO all day over that one.
Johnny_Warbucks
June 7th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Forget Iran…for now. Today, I learned that Egypt is working on its own reactor. I've been LMAO all day over that one. This show is getting interesting.
"3,000 Bedouins attack Egyptian reactor site"
The Egyptian government, amid opposition by Bedouins and environmentalists, has reaffirmed its nuclear energy program.
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/advocacy/82700
Sorting Out the Facts About Iran « Stop Making Sense
June 8th, 2012 at 8:00 am
[...] RAY MCGOVERN Share this:TwitterFacebookRedditDiggStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Categories: Iran, Israel, Middle East & North Africa, Nuclear Iran Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback [...]
Julian Assange’s Artful Dodge « The Free
June 20th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
[...] Sorting Out the Facts About Iran – June 6th, 2012 [...]
Paul Sorenson
July 8th, 2012 at 11:24 am
I believe Iran may be attacked over this NUCLEAR NONSENSE. What IRAN NEEDS TO DO is what Universal Studios in CA is famous for. You go into an exhibit and see fires, smoke and chaos. All rigged up by professionals, Really scary. All OBVIOUS TARGETS FOR DESTRUCTION should be rigged up with a ring of slightly hidden oil barrels containing crude oil. Blue, Black, Grey, White, Red, & Yellow SMOKE should be ready to pump out at the same time along with simulated Gas Fires surging into the air 50 or more feet high. As soon as IRAN perceives a strike is coming, the order must be given to lite them all up. EVERYTHING (all targets) is a Universal Studios Masterpiece. RESULT..maybe the attacks will be called off quickly with those in command thinking we've done it…when maybe they have not. RESULT #2 Hopefully this may SAVE LIVES on both sides of the conflict. I believe the Middle East is not worth the loss of one American life. I hope some compasionate Iranian General reads this. Ray is a hero that's for sure. GBY.
Today in Palestine!
February 20th, 2013 at 12:07 pm
[...] Sorting Out the Facts About Iran, Ray McGovern On the issue of Iran’s “nuclear ambitions” you hear one thing on Monday, a different thing on Tuesday. “It’s a puzzlement!” to quote Yul Brynner’s famous line in The King and I. But in this case, the confusion is hardly insignificant.link to original.antiwar.com [...]