Iran Talking Points

We need to have our facts lined up when talking to people about why we think it would be an atrocity to invade Iran. Most people educated by the mainstream news are seriously misinformed about Iran. here are some little known facts about Iran with links to primary sources. <!--break--> <p><img width="250" height="191" align="left" src="http://www.papillonweb.net/images/bunkerbuster2.png" alt="" />Here are the points I made earlier with regard to the perverse absurdity of attacking Iran, with links to sources that validate them. The links are useful because so many people find the truth difficult to accept, perhaps because most people are continuously bombarded with distortions of fact and outright falsehoods about Iran and the rest of the Middle East by the mainstream press.</p > <p>Regardless of Iran's worthiness for our tolerance and respect (which I think is considerable) I suppose that it is enough that to attack an innocent people who have been through great suffering already in the last few decades, in part due to western meddling , and who present no immediate threat to us, would be a terrible crime. Taking a more pragmatic view, the destruction of Iran would cause a severe worldwide economic depression leading, most likely, to a third world war. We don't currently buy oil or gas from Iran, but much of Europe and Russia do, and the Chinese have deals in the works as well. I guess it takes little more than common sense to see that much.</p > <p>However, it is good to have responses to the unending litany of Iran's crimes, to the justifications that might be taken to make such an act seem sane.<br /> So, as I have said before, we must find a way to rein in the hawks and thwart plans to invade Iran. The drumbeat is ascending and the mainstream media is picking up the threads. Call or write your reps in Congress and the Senate. To do this would be a terrible crime against the Iranian people, and a disaster for the world economy.</p > <p>Here are some Iran talking points:</p > <ul> <li>They have not invaded another country in modern times.</li > <li>They are well integrated as a nation going back to antiquity (Persia).</li > <li>Ayatollah Khameini, Khomeini's successor, supports Arab League plan for Palestinian independence. This is a plan that Israel rejects, but it does recognize Israel as a significant entity.[<a title="Chomsky on Khamenei and Ahmadenijad" href="http://twentysixh.wordpress.com/tag/khamenei/">1</a>]</li > <li>Arab League absolutely opposes any attack on Iran. When you are told that the Saudis and UAE would like to see Iran "contained", they don't mean "destroyed". They have said that they will not support a US attack on Iran.[<a title="">2</a>]</li > <li>Iran was not in violation of standard IAEA rules until the Security Council changed the rules on their behalf. Nor did Iran block inspections. It has withdrawn from an agreement made with EU a couple of years ago because US rejected this agreement. Iran also rejects the Security Council demand for total suspension of nuclear activities. Though this is not the normal standard for signers of the Nonproliferation Treaty like Iran, there is an expectation that the IAEA will monitor and enforce the new elevated standard for Iran. This is why they can say that Iran in not in compliance with the IAEA rules.[<a title="Iran and the IAEA" href="http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml">3</a>] *** It is clear that Mohammed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, is uncomfortable with this action. He has repeatedly suggested that there must be incentives as well as sanctions to deal successfully with Iran's situation, that Iran should be treated with respect, and that there is no immediate evidence that Iran is a threat. [<a title="ElBaradei Interview 2-07" href="http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2007/ft190207.html">4</a>]</li > <li>Iran supports the Shiite Government in Iraq and they have consistently done so.[<a title="Iran Urges World Governments to Support Iraq" href="http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/070501/2007050102.html">5</a>][<a title="Iran Supports Iraqi Political Development" href="http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060704/2006070401.html">6</a>]</li > <li>Use of a Nuclear Bunker Buster to take out underground bunkers would be counterproductive and create much bigger problems than it resolves. Below is a picture from the Union of Concerned Scientists website where they attempt to demonstrate the negative potential of a Bunker Buster nuclear attack on an Iranian target.[<a title="Nuclear Bunker Buster Strike in Iran" href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html">7</a>] Their demonstration is pretty impressive, but their contention that conventional warheads would be more effective, i.e. an attack is thinkable, is disturbing.</li > </ul > <p>*** To add a little detail, the timeline is as follows:<br /> As of Nov 24, 2005, Iran was getting favorable reviews based on data from IAEA inspections and it's responsiveness to recommendations of the IAEA. Despite this, on February 4 of 2006, the Board of Governors of the IAEA released a harsh resolution towards Iran based on Iran's previous non-disclosure previous, I assume, to the three years of ongoing IAEA inspections in Iran and compliance by Iran with IAEA recommendations. Following this, on March 6th Mohammed ElBaradei, the Inspector General, gave Iran another very favorable report on it's ongoing compliance with the IAEA program. Following this, the Security Council, led by the US, produced 3 resolutions, 1696, 1737 and 1747, in july 2006, December 2006 and march 2007 requiring Iran to stop all nuclear activities. These resolutions were backed up by progressively more severe threats and sanctions. Following Resolution 1747, Iran finally gave up and withdrew from the process. [<a title="Iran and the IAEA" href="http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml">3</a>] We have only ourselves to blame.</p >

<p>We need to have our facts lined up when talking to people about why we think it would be an atrocity to invade Iran. Most people educated by the mainstream news are seriously misinformed about Iran. here are some little known facts about Iran with links to primary sources.</p> <!--break--><p><img width="250" height="191" align="left" src="http://www.papillonweb.net/images/bunkerbuster2.png" alt="" />Here are the points I made earlier with regard to the perverse absurdity of attacking Iran, with links to sources that validate them. The links are useful because so many people find the truth difficult to accept, perhaps because most people are continuously bombarded with distortions of fact and outright falsehoods about Iran and the rest of the Middle East by the mainstream press.</p> <p>Regardless of Iran's worthiness for our tolerance and respect (which I think is considerable) I suppose that it is enough that to attack an innocent people who have been through great suffering already in the last few decades, in part due to western meddling , and who present no immediate threat to us, would be a terrible crime. Taking a more pragmatic view, the destruction of Iran would cause a severe worldwide economic depression leading, most likely, to a third world war. We don't currently buy oil or gas from Iran, but much of Europe and Russia do, and the Chinese have deals in the works as well. I guess it takes little more than common sense to see that much.</p> <p>However, it is good to have responses to the unending litany of Iran's crimes, to the justifications that might be taken to make such an act seem sane.<br /> So, as I have said before, we must find a way to rein in the hawks and thwart plans to invade Iran. The drumbeat is ascending and the mainstream media is picking up the threads. Call or write your reps in Congress and the Senate. To do this would be a terrible crime against the Iranian people, and a disaster for the world economy.</p> <p>Here are some Iran talking points:</p> <ul> <li>They have not invaded another country in modern times.</li> <li>They are well integrated as a nation going back to antiquity (Persia).</li> <li>Ayatollah Khameini, Khomeini's successor, supports Arab League plan for Palestinian independence. This is a plan that Israel rejects, but it does recognize Israel as a significant entity.[<a title="Chomsky on Khamenei and Ahmadenijad" href="http://twentysixh.wordpress.com/tag/khamenei/">1</a>]</li> <li>Arab League absolutely opposes any attack on Iran. When you are told that the Saudis and UAE would like to see Iran "contained", they don't mean "destroyed". They have said that they will not support a US attack on Iran.[<a title="">2</a>]</li> <li>Iran was not in violation of standard IAEA rules until the Security Council changed the rules on their behalf. Nor did Iran block inspections. It has withdrawn from an agreement made with EU a couple of years ago because US rejected this agreement. Iran also rejects the Security Council demand for total suspension of nuclear activities. Though this is not the normal standard for signers of the Nonproliferation Treaty like Iran, there is an expectation that the IAEA will monitor and enforce the new elevated standard for Iran. This is why they can say that Iran in not in compliance with the IAEA rules.[<a title="Iran and the IAEA" href="http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml">3</a>] *** It is clear that Mohammed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, is uncomfortable with this action. He has repeatedly suggested that there must be incentives as well as sanctions to deal successfully with Iran's situation, that Iran should be treated with respect, and that there is no immediate evidence that Iran is a threat. [<a title="ElBaradei Interview 2-07" href="http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2007/ft190207.html">4</a>]</li> <li>Iran supports the Shiite Government in Iraq and they have consistently done so.[<a title="Iran Urges World Governments to Support Iraq" href="http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/070501/2007050102.html">5</a>][<a title="Iran Supports Iraqi Political Development" href="http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060704/2006070401.html">6</a>]</li> <li>Use of a Nuclear Bunker Buster to take out underground bunkers would be counterproductive and create much bigger problems than it resolves. Below is a picture from the Union of Concerned Scientists website where they attempt to demonstrate the negative potential of a Bunker Buster nuclear attack on an Iranian target.[<a title="Nuclear Bunker Buster Strike in Iran" href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html">7</a>] Their demonstration is pretty impressive, but their contention that conventional warheads would be more effective, i.e. an attack is thinkable, is disturbing.</li> </ul> <p>*** To add a little detail, the timeline is as follows:<br /> As of Nov 24, 2005, Iran was getting favorable reviews based on data from IAEA inspections and it's responsiveness to recommendations of the IAEA. Despite this, on February 4 of 2006, the Board of Governors of the IAEA released a harsh resolution towards Iran based on Iran's previous non-disclosure previous, I assume, to the three years of ongoing IAEA inspections in Iran and compliance by Iran with IAEA recommendations. Following this, on March 6th Mohammed ElBaradei, the Inspector General, gave Iran another very favorable report on it's ongoing compliance with the IAEA program. Following this, the Security Council, led by the US, produced 3 resolutions, 1696, 1737 and 1747, in july 2006, December 2006 and march 2007 requiring Iran to stop all nuclear activities. These resolutions were backed up by progressively more severe threats and sanctions. Following Resolution 1747, Iran finally gave up and withdrew from the process. [<a title="Iran and the IAEA" href="http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml">3</a>] We have only ourselves to blame.</p>