Perhaps you’ve been wondering how this passage about Iran crept into President Bush’s 2005 State of the Union Address (SOTU):
"Today, Iran remains the world’s primary sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terrorism. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
Well, maybe one of Bush’s speechwriters anticipated that "The Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2004" (S 2681) was soon to become law.
After "finding" that
The United States intelligence community believes the Government of Iran is pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
and that
The United States Government believes that the Government of Iran supports terrorists and extremist religious leaders in Iraq with the clear intention of subverting coalition efforts to bring peace and democracy to Iraq.
the bill "declares" that
It is the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support regime change for the Islamic Republic of Iran and to promote the transition to a democratic government to replace that regime.
and to that end
The President is authorized to provide assistance to foreign and domestic pro-democracy groups opposed to the non-democratic Government of Iran, including the award of grants to qualified pro-democracy radio and television broadcasting organizations.
Doesn’t that constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, a violation of international law? So what? It worked in Ukraine.
A succession of US Presidents and Congresses have attempted to effect "regime change" in Iran.
But during Clinton’s first term – with no sign that the Mullahs were about to shuffle off stage – Iran signed contracts (a) with both Russia and China to construct nuclear power plants, (b) with Russia to supply a turn-key gas-centrifuge uranium enrichment plant and (c) with China to supply a turn-key uranium conversion facility. Even though all these facilities were to be subject to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Clinton had a cow.
In 1995, by Executive Order, President Clinton banned U.S. investment in Iran’s energy sector, and banned U.S. trade with and investment in Iran.
In 1996 Congress passed The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act which provides for penalties to be imposed on any foreign company that invested more than $20 million in one year in Iran’s energy sector.
Under ILSA, such a company can be subject to – among other sanctions — denial of Export-Import Bank loans, a ban on U.S. government procurement, and restrictions on its imports into the United States.
The ILSA threat indirectly resulted in China being forced to cancel its contracts and Russia canceling the uranium-enrichment plant contract.
Under current law, US firms are not allowed to do business with Iran, but the law does not specifically bar their foreign subsidiaries from such business.
Nevertheless, General Electric has just announced it will stop accepting any new orders for business in Iran. Through a foreign subsidiary, GE has been providing hydroelectric equipment, medical equipment, and oil and gas equipment to Iran.
Halliburton and other US-based firms are following suit.
Hossein Mousavian, Secretary of the Foreign Policy Committee of the Supreme National Security Council in Iran said he was not surprised by these strong-arm attempts by the US to get Iran to completely give up its uranium-enrichment program.
According to the Paris agreement [with the Europeans], Iran has the right to thoroughly enjoy peaceful nuclear technology within the NPT and without any discrimination.
Europeans might need to take along the Americans in their efforts to reach an agreement with Iran to have comprehensive industrial, political, security and nuclear technology co-operation. This is possible. But the US is not involved in the talks.
It is the Europeans’ responsibility to get support from other countries like the US, China, Russia, Japan, Canada or other countries. We have only one talking partner in the talks and that is the Europeans.
Virtually all non-US observers agree on one thing. In the unlikely event that the US can effect regime change in Iran, the new regime is likely to be just as insistent as the current regime upon its "right to thoroughly enjoy peaceful nuclear technology, within the NPT, and without any discrimination," irrespective of whether America stands with them or not.
