When the Bush-Cheney team took power in Washington, it was determined to launch a military attack on Iran and take control of its energy resources. In a reference work of the Project for A New American Century, Present Dangers [1], it had already detailed its arguments to “sell” such war to those who finance the electoral campaign and, later, to the public opinion.

Five slogans were mentioned then:
– Iran supports international terrorism.
– Iran supports Islamic armies around the world.
– Iran rejects the peace process and the existence of Israel.
– Iran violates Human Rights, especially those of the baha’is and the Jews.
– Finally, Iran is trying to make the atomic bomb.

As you will see, three of the above slogans no longer work.
– In the melodramatic series of the American television, the producers sometimes decide to replace the actor who is playing certain character. An “off” voice then announces that the role of X will be played by Y. In the same way, Libya was accused for years of being the cause of all evils, till suddenly, and with no explanation, such responsibility was attributed to Iran, and later, to the invisible al-Qaeda. This was the way in which the attacks against the Khobar towers (in Saudi Arabia) were primarily explained, without leaving no room for doubt, to Iran. But later, by the end of 2001, it was said without the slightest explanation that al-Qaeda would then play the culprit’s role.
– The accusation that Iran secretly funded all radical Muslim movements around the world was discarded when they decided to attribute such a responsibility to the Saudi royal family and tried to overthrow the regent Abdallah. But such an accusation was forgotten when the objective was to divide and oppose the Sunnis and Shiah in Iraq.
– Finally, the accusation against Iran for violation of religious rights of baha’is and the Jews did not stand for a long time. In fact, while it is true that those peoples are actually being marginalized and rejected in Iran, it is also true that both of them practice their cult and enjoy political representation.
There is still the anti-Zionism and the nuclear threat.

President Bush, in his Speech of 2002 on the State of the Union, announced his military priorities to blame Iran, Iraq and North Korea for having made a nuclear agreement to destroy the United States. It is about the famous formula of the “Axis of Evil”, in which the references to the fascist Axis during the 30’s and the Empire of Evil of the Cold War are mixed.

Three years later, no one believed that those States had reached such an agreement. On one hand, because the regimes of Iran and Iraq had not re-established peace yet after a long and bloody war, and on the other hand, because there never was the slightest evidence about the existence of such a plot.

Washington no longer uses neither arguments nor analysis for justification, but its appetite has not been satisfied. Having already taken control of the Afghan circulation corridor and Iraqi oil reserves, the U.S. strategists are focusing on Iran. The preparatory propaganda campaign has been redirected, therefore, towards the nuclear issue, with a bit of understanding about some secret responsibility of Tehran in the failure of the Coalition in Iraq.

Based upon the principle that all current techniques are dual, that is, they could be used with civil or military purposes, the U.S. has accused Iran of working secretly to manufacture a nuclear bomb. Several clues, thoroughly studied by the experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), could have led to raise the question sometime, but it has now been shown that they were misinterpreted. It does not matter anyway. For Washington, the lack of evidence does not mean that Iran is innocent. Therefore, a preventive attack has to be launched against that country.

On the other hand, without worrying about the Eastern subtleties, the neoconservatives were able to impose a simple explanation about the Iranian public life. In their opinion, the paralysis of the country was an indication of contradictions between the people and the “Mullah regime”. The latter is being locally undermined by a binary opposition between the “conservatives”, described as fanatics and misogynists, and “progressives”, open to the West and modernity.

In order to take control of Iran, such opposition has to be strengthened, so that it would rely on the people’s frustrations, overthrow the bad guys and get the country at the side of Good. Through radio and TV transmissions, and by spending millions of dollars, Washington had no doubt of the results of the presidential elections in June 2005. The Ayatollah Rafsanyani, a smart politician, would be the winner, maybe without even going to a second round. The Western media would applaud this possibility, except the Israeli press that denounced a simple change of image.

However, as we have seen for years, this analysis is based on imaginary factors. The paralysis of the country was not because the people rejected the regime, but due to the presence of three forces in power, not two. The first one had its legitimacy in the Islamic revolution. It has a social image in terms of economy and severity regarding the habits (obviously it is about the conservatives). The second one is focused on the international business world, and obviously, brings about the easing of tensions with Washington (“the reformists”). The third force is made up of old combatants of the Iraq-Iran war and has a social and nationalist basis. The latter received a widespread support by the constituents to break the triangle. Regarding the nuclear issue, it is subjected to a national consensus, which has nothing to do with the above-mentioned trends.

Since the Supreme Leader of the Revolution condemned the atomic bomb as being incompatible with Islam long ago, it is not possible to imagine that major secret military programs would be developed in Iran. This does not prevent Tehran from letting the question be raised as its bellicose neighbor, Israel, does have the nuclear weapon. At present the economic development of the country involves the production of atomic energy and as the Iranians feel proud of themselves and their scientists, it is very unlikely that they give up their future.

The election of Mahmud Ahmadineyad as president of the Islamic Republic has been widely described as a “surprise” by the same people who were wrong. In view of the early hesitation of the Western media and the non-mobilization against Iran, Israel quickly embarked upon a press campaign against the winner of the elections. More providential than credible witnesses accused him of being involved in the holding of hostages at the U.S. embassy, the tortures against civilians and even the killing of a Kurdish dissident in Vienna. Later on, manipulative organizations such as the AIPAC described him as a pathological misogynist that the “tough guys” from government use as a puppet.
A probe into the issue revealed that as a proof of his hatred against women, as the mayor of the capital city he had ordered the construction of a huge park where men were not allowed. After that, such a poor argument gave way to the outrageous term “Islamic-populist”. Le Figaro, for example, then accused the new Iranian president of having bought the constituents of the capital by developing social services in it.

However, in terms of propaganda, the fact that these arguments have been rejected one after the other for four years is irrelevant because they have been used successively, so that Iran always appears in the position of culprit. This is how the proverb goes “there is no smoke without fire”, and Tehran has to be blamed for something.

Meanwhile, the Iranian power did not remain idle. Instead, it has enhanced its relations with Russia, a country that supervises its civil nuclear industry and supplies strategic missiles, while the Iranian engineers build a port on the Russian Caspian Sea; it has established an economic alliance with China, so it does not fear possible economic sanctions by the United States; and finally, it moved its pawns in Iraq in such a way that it even controls a sector of the government established by the Coalition.

The main players are now waging a real speed race. Firstly, Dick Cheney’s cabinet entrusted General Ralph Ed. Eberhart to come up with plans for nuclear attacks against Iran. Secondly, the Pentagon lets the details of a global political-economic-military plan against Iran leaked to its allies. Thirdly, the MI6 and CIA financed the development of separatist groups based in London and the terrorist group of the Mujahedins of the People, based in Washington. The Iranians, for their part, have blocked all the channels so that an attack by the Coalition would bring about its own destruction due to the interruption of most of the oil supplies, which would be provoked by such an aggression. Of course, a war seems to be unlikely now, since it would be catastrophic for the attackers themselves; however arrogance has sometimes made empires test themselves on too strong preys.

Thierry Meyssan

[1] Present Dangers, Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy, a collective work done under the leadership of Robert Kagan and William Kristol (Encounter Books, 2000), its title referred to the Committee of Present Danger that revived in its times the spirit of the Cold War in the United States.