DOCSLIB.ORG

Informational Materials

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Informational Materials Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 11/16/2020 6:29:08 PM Unmasking Media Myths: The U.S., Democracy, Human Rights, Iran and Islam By Yuram Abdullah Weiler 2013-04-10 “Iran’s wholly militarized nuclear program poses the gravest threat to the world in the new millennium.” — Alireza Jafarzadeh, former media director for the National Council of Resistance of Iran,1 a political front for the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) terrorist organization founded by Massoud Rajavi. Brainwashed by a barrage of media hype, malevolent misinformation and persuasive propaganda such as the above quote from the FOX News foreign affairs analyst and self-proclaimed representative of the “Iranian parliament in exile,”3 Americans cling tenaciously to carefully crafted myths about their country, democracy, freedom, human rights, Iran and Islam. And the U.S. media, perhaps more than any other factor, is responsible for perpetuating these farcical fantasies, which assert that the United States is a democracy that stands for human rights and supports others in their struggles for freedom. Americans are taught that “moderate” Islam might be OK but nevertheless, Muslims everywhere must be carefully watched since, as the media has intimated, radical Islam is guilty of fostering terrorism. And Iran, a Shiite Muslim nation, is threatening the stability of the “international community” with their nuclear program. Myth 1: The U.S. is a democracy with a government accountable to its citizens4 The United States has what I like to refer to as “decorative democracy.” In fact, the so-called “Founding Fathers” were extremely fearful of the chaos and instability that could result from pure democracy. James Madison wrote that “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”5 Hence, Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a “Republican Form of Government” to the states; the word democracy does not even appear in the document.6 Americans don’t even have the right to directly elect their own president. Article 2 Section 1 prescribes that the President shall be elected by state-appointed electors while Article 1 Section 3 states that the Senators were to be “chosen by the Legislature” of each state. Only representatives were to be directly elected by those people specified in Article 1 Section 2. By contrast, the president of Iran is elected by popular direct vote, and over the history of the Islamic Republic, up to 10 candidates have run for the office in a single election. While Iranian law requires the president to have a doctoral degree, only one U.S. president had a Ph.D. — Woodrow Wilson.7 Myth 2: The U.S. supports democracy and freedom in the Middle East* In the forefront of “democratic” countries supported by the U.S. in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, perhaps one of the most repressive regimes on earth9 yet a close U.S. ally and a Page 1 of7 Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 11/16/2020 6:29:08 PM Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 11/16/2020 6:29:08 PM platinum-rated customer of the U.S. war industry.10 Saudi Arabia has an abysmal human rights record, not to mention a dictatorial monarchy that openly supports a virulent form of extremist Islam known as Wahhabism, which openly condemns Shi'a Muslims as heretics. And with U.S.-backed, Saudi-inspired Salafists13 trying to break into the Iranian charge d’affair’s office in Cairo while shouting “don’t normalize relations with Iran,”14 it would also appear that the U.S.- Saudi axis is busy stirring up anti-Iranian sentiment in Egypt.15 While claiming to have brought democracy to Iraq, the U.S. also brought Iraqis Saddam in the first place. The CIA assisted Saddam and the Ba'ath regime in their 1963 coup by providing lists of suspected communists to Ba'athists to aid their bloody purges that killed thousands of Iraqis.16 To make matters worse, at the end of the Persian Gulf war, the U.S. allowed Saddam to unleash his predominantly Sunni Republican Guards upon the Shi’ites crushing a budding rebellion and killing tens of thousands of them; over 70,000 fled to Iran.17 Throughout the Middle East, the people themselves have risen up against U.S.-supported dictators in what has been dubbed the “Arab Spring” starting in Tunisia and spreading to Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. As aresult, U.S. “damage control” efforts to suppress democracy in the Middle East went into overdrive. • First, the U.S. allowed its Saudi “allies” to invade Bahrain, home of the U.S. Fifth fleet,18 to crush peaceful democratic protests against the dictatorial ruler, Hamid bin Aissa A1 Khalifa. In exchange, the Saudis manipulated the Arab League into supporting a NATO (read the Pentagon’s European military wing) invasion of Libya.19 • Next, the U.S. acted to contain the democratic revolution in Egypt. While the brutal dictator Hosni Mubarak was toppled, the new “Islamist” president of Egypt, Muhammad Morsi, appears to have sold out to the West judging by Washington’s gift of F-16 fighter jets and support as long as he remains “committed to the democratic process.”20 • Then, fearing that the democratic revolutions would spread, the U.S. cut a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh for the transfer of power from Ali Abdullah Saleh, the corrupt ruler of Yemen who had given the U.S. free reign for drone strikes, to his deputy, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. 23 • Finally, Syrian President Bashar al-Asad was placed on the U.S. hit list since he is perceived as an ally of Iran and Hezbollah,24 and because of his ardent anti-Zionist stand. Since the U.S. and its Zionist ally could not crush the Lebanese Shi’a resistance movement in 2006, U.S.-Saudi Wahhabi proxy forces from Qatar armed by the West were called in to create a “civil” war with the main victims being the Syrian people. The Arab League has even had the audacity to hand Syria’s seat over to the “opposition”26 that is, U.S.-approved puppet regime “in exile,” which recently opened an embassy in Qatar. Like the Blacks and Native people in the U.S. at the time of the constitution, Syrians are being denied a voice in their own future. So while claiming to support democracy, the United States is clearly laboring hard to squelch democratic movements both at home and abroad. As Glenn Greenwald writes, “Indeed, there is virtually an inverse relationship between how democratic a country is in the Muslim world and how closely allied the US is to it.” By Greenwald’s criterion, Iran is the most democratic country in the region! Page 2 of 7 Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 11/16/2020 6:29:08 PM Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 11/16/2020 6:29:08 PM Myth 3: The United States stands up for human rights, justice, and the dignity of all people29 Article 1 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “All human beings are bom free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”30 In contrast, Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is very specific in regards to who will be represented in government: free Persons (read white landowners); Blacks count as 3/5 of a person and Native Peoples are excluded. Concerning human rights, justice and the dignity of people, the United States: • was established on the blood of some 10 million (up to 18 million according to some scholars) Native human beings;31 • has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with young Black males six times more likely to be in prison than young white males, and non-whites comprising 65% of inmates;33 • has repeatedly used torture, water boarding, sleep deprivation, humiliation, stripping, hooding, and other cmel, inhuman and degrading tactics34 in its Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib,35 Bagram36 and other prison camps elsewhere; • has an economy that has caused at least 10 recessions since WWII, some 50 million Americans to subsist on Food Stamps, at least 3.5 million homeless people, a shrinking middle class, and the widest income disparity among the so-called Western Democracies;39 • has some 50 million Americans without any medical coverage whatsoever,40 has no universal health care plan for its citizens, who spend twice as much per capita on medical care as do citizens of other Western nations with national health plans;41 • spends some $700 billion a year on war, almost as much as the military spending of the rest of the world combined,42 while politicians insist universal health care is too costly; • affords corporations legal personhood,4 giving them much greater influence in elections and with members of Congress than ordinary citizens;44 • and, has the most heavily armed society in the world with 90 guns per 100 citizens, and buys over half the world’s annual output of small arms. India is a far distant second with 4 guns per 100 citizens.45 By the above facts, it should be clear that the U.S. is not concerned with human rights, justice and the dignity of people within its borders, much less elsewhere. Myth 4: A nuclear Iran threatens the entire international community46 Iran is a peaceful nation that has not attacked any country since 1738 when Nader Shah invaded India,47 while the United States, like its Zionist ally, has been at war almost continuously since its inception.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An International Armed Conflict of Low Intensity
    THE WAR REPORT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: AN INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT OF LOW INTENSITY Aeria view of the Persian Gulf, © NASA DECEMBER 2019 I MILOŠ HRNJAZ THE GENEVA ACADEMY A JOINT CENTER OF Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, pushed CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONFLICT for nationalization of the oil fields and the Shah signed The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of this decision. The response of the British was harsh as they Iran were engaged in an international armed conflict (IAC) saw oil from Iran as a strategic interest. Both Iranians and in June 2019 by virtue of Iran’s shooting down a US military the British expected the support of the US. The Americans drone and the alleged counter cyber-attack by the US. pushed Britain to cancel plans for a military invasion, so the British decided to look for alternative ways to overthrow Mosaddeq. The new US administration wasn’t impressed HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT with Mosaddeq either (especially his flirting with the USSR and the communist Tudeh Party of Iran), so it decided to BACKGROUND actively participate in his overthrow and arrest. This was It has been more than 160 years since the first Treaty perceived by Iranians as the ultimate betrayal by America of Friendship and Commerce was signed between Iran and the event played an important role in the development and the US, exactly 140 years since the first US warship of Iranian political identity and anti-Americanism since entered the Persian Gulf and almost 140 years since Iran then.5 Mosadeqq became the brave figure who represented (Persia) and the US established diplomatic relations.1 Since the fight for independent Iran, free from the influence of then, their relationship has oscillated between cooperation the West.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iranian Revolution in 1979
    Demonstrations of the Iranian People’s Mujahideens (Warriors) during the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Dr. Ali Shariati, an Iranian leftist on the left. Ayatollah Khomeini on the right. The Iranian Revolution Gelvin, ch. 17 & 18 & other sources, notes by Denis Bašić The Pahlavi Dynasty • could hardly be called a “dynasty,” for it had only two rulers - Reza Shah Pahlavi (ruled 1926-1941) and his son Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (ruled 1941-1979). • The son came to power after his father was deposed by the Allies (the Russian and British forces) due to his alliance with the Nazi Germany. • The Allies reestablished the majlis and allowed the organization of trade unions and political parties in order to limit the power of the new shah and to prevent him from following his father’s independence course. • Much to the chagrin of the British and Americans, the most popular party proved to be Tudeh - the communist party with more than 100,000 members. • The second Shah’s power was further eroded when in 1951 Muhammad Mossadegh was elected the prime minister on a platform that advocated nationalizing the oil industry and restricting the shah’s power. • Iranian Prime Minister 1951–3. A prominent parliamentarian. He was twice Muhammad appointed to that office by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, after a Mossadegh positive vote of inclination by the 1882-1967 parliament. Mossadegh was a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. He was also the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control through the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), today known as British Petroleum (BP).
    [Show full text]
  • Iran's Nuclear Ambitions From
    IDENTITY AND LEGITIMACY: IRAN’S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS FROM NON- TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVES Pupak Mohebali Doctor of Philosophy University of York Politics June 2017 Abstract This thesis examines the impact of Iranian elites’ conceptions of national identity on decisions affecting Iran's nuclear programme and the P5+1 nuclear negotiations. “Why has the development of an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle been portrayed as a unifying symbol of national identity in Iran, especially since 2002 following the revelation of clandestine nuclear activities”? This is the key research question that explores the Iranian political elites’ perspectives on nuclear policy actions. My main empirical data is elite interviews. Another valuable source of empirical data is a discourse analysis of Iranian leaders’ statements on various aspects of the nuclear programme. The major focus of the thesis is how the discourses of Iranian national identity have been influential in nuclear decision-making among the national elites. In this thesis, I examine Iranian national identity components, including Persian nationalism, Shia Islamic identity, Islamic Revolutionary ideology, and modernity and technological advancement. Traditional rationalist IR approaches, such as realism fail to explain how effective national identity is in the context of foreign policy decision-making. I thus discuss the connection between national identity, prestige and bargaining leverage using a social constructivist approach. According to constructivism, states’ cultures and identities are not established realities, but the outcomes of historical and social processes. The Iranian nuclear programme has a symbolic nature that mingles with socially constructed values. There is the need to look at Iran’s nuclear intentions not necessarily through the lens of a nuclear weapons programme, but rather through the regime’s overall nuclear aspirations.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Statement
    Received bv NSD/FARA Registration Unit 12/30/2019 11:55:09 AM OMB NO. 1124-0002; Expires February 28, 2014 U.S. Department of Justice Supplemental Statement Washington, dc 20530 Pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended For Six Month Period Ending Nov 30, 2019 (Insert date) I - REGISTRANT 1. (a) Name of Registrant (b) Registration No. National Council of Resistance of iran-US Rep Offi 6171 (c) Business Address(es) of Registrant 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 1125 Washington, DC 20006 2. Has there been a change in the information previously furnished in connection with the following? (a) If an individual: (1) Residence address(es) Yes □ No H (2) Citizenship Yes □ No 53 (3) Occupation Yes □ No IS (b) If an organization: (1) Name Yes □ No E3 (2) Ownership or control Yes □ No H (3) Branch offices Yes □ No ® (c) Explain fully all changes, if any, indicated in Items (a) and (b) above. IF THE REGISTRANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, OMIT RESPONSE TO ITEMS 3,4, AND 5(a). 3. If you have previously filed Exhibit C1, state whether any changes therein have occurred during this 6 month reporting period. Yes □ No 0 If yes, have you filed an amendment to the Exhibit C? Yes □ No □ If no, please attach the required amendment. 1 The Exhibit C, for which no printed form is provided, consists of a true copy of the charter, articles of incorporation, association, and by laws of a registrant that is an organization. (A waiver of the requirement to file an Exhibit C may be obtained for good cause upon written application to the Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Shooting Down Civilian Aircraft: Is There an International Law Brian E
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 72 | Issue 3 Article 10 2007 Shooting down Civilian Aircraft: Is There an International Law Brian E. Foont Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Brian E. Foont, Shooting down Civilian Aircraft: sI There an International Law, 72 J. Air L. & Com. 695 (2007) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol72/iss3/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. SHOOTING DOWN CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT: IS THERE AN INTERNATIONAL LAW? BRIAN E. FOONT* TABLE OF CONTENTS PRO LO G U E .............................................. 696 INTRODUCTION ......................................... 697 I. BACKGROUND .................................... 698 A. PRESIDENT TITO'S LETTER ...................... 700 II. SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ............ 701 III. POST-WORLD WAR II INCIDENTS ............... 704 A. SOVIET UNION-SHOOT DOWN OF FRENCH COMMERCIAL AIRLINER .......................... 704 B. CHINA-SHOOT DowN OF CATHAY PACIFIC FLIGHT ......................................... 705 C. BULGARIA-SHOOT DowN OF ISRAELI EL AL PASSENGER JET .................................. 705 D. ISRAEL-SHOOT DowN OF LIBYAN AIRLINES PASSENGER JET .................................. 706 E. SOVIET UNION-SHOOT DowN OF KOREAN AIRLINES PASSENGER JET (FLIGHT 902) .......... 707 F. SOVIET UNION-SHOOT DowN OF KOREAN AIRLINES PASSENGER JET (FLIGHT 007) AND ARTICLE 3 BIS TO THE CHICAGO CONVENTION .. 707 G. UNITED STATES-SHOOT DOWN OF IRANIAN AIRLINES PASSENGER JET (FLIGHT 655) .......... 711 * The Law Offices of Brian E. Foont, PLLC; LL.M., Georgetown University Law Center; J.D., American University Washington College of Law; B.A., University of Rochester.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Chapter 1
    Notes Introduction 1. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1970). 2. Ralph Pettman, Human Behavior and World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975); Giandomenico Majone, Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 275– 76. 3. Bernard Lewis, “The Return of Islam,” Commentary, January 1976; Ofira Seliktar, The Politics of Intelligence and American Wars with Iraq (New York: Palgrave Mac- millan, 2008), 4. 4. Martin Kramer, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in Amer- ica (Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2000). 5. Bernard Lewis, “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” Atlantic Monthly, September, 1990; Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations,” Foreign Affairs 72 (1993): 24– 49; Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996). Chapter 1 1. Quoted in Joshua Muravchik, The Uncertain Crusade: Jimmy Carter and the Dilemma of Human Rights (Lanham, MD: Hamilton Press, 1986), 11– 12, 114– 15, 133, 138– 39; Hedley Donovan, Roosevelt to Reagan: A Reporter’s Encounter with Nine Presidents (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 165. 2. Charles D. Ameringer, U.S. Foreign Intelligence: The Secret Side of American History (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990), 357; Peter Meyer, James Earl Carter: The Man and the Myth (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978), 18; Michael A. Turner, “Issues in Evaluating U.S. Intelligence,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 5 (1991): 275– 86. 3. Abram Shulsky, Silent Warfare: Understanding the World’s Intelligence (Washington, DC: Brassey’s [US], 1993), 169; Robert M.
    [Show full text]
  • Uss "Vincennes"
    S. Hao, 100-1085 INVESTIGATION IfTO THE DOWNING OF AN IRANIAN AIRLINER BY THE U.S.S. "VINCENNES" HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1988 Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 90-853 WASHINGTON : 1989 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 03o -" COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES SAM NUNN, Georgia, Chairman JOHN C. STENNIS, Mississippi JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska STROM THURMOND, South Carolina CARL LEVIN, Michigan GORDON J. HUMPHREY, New Hampshire P)WARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico DAN QUAYLE, Indiana ALAN J. DIXON, Illinois PETE WILSON, California JOHN GLENN, Ohio PHIL GRAMM, Texas ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee STEVEN D. SYMMS, Idaho TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado JOHN McCAIN, Arizona RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama ARNOLD L. PuNARO, Staff Director CAu M. SMrm, Staff Director for the Minority CHRISTINS COWART DAUTH, Chief Clerk (II) CONTENTS CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES Page Fogarty, Rear Adm. William M., USN, Director of Policy and Plans, U.S. Central Command, and Head of the Investigation Team accompanied by Capt. George N. Gee, USN, Director, Surface Combat Systems Division, ice of the Chief of Naval Operations and Capt. Richard D. DeBobes, Legal Adviser and Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of S taff . .......................................................................................................................... 4 Kelly, Rear Adm. Robert J., USN, Vice Director for Operations, Joint Staff ..... 17 (III) INVESTIGATION INTO THE DOWNING OF AN IRANIAN AIRLINER BY THE U.S.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Khamenei Uses Iraq War Anniversary to Reinforce Iranian Steadfastness by Omer Carmi
    MENU Policy Analysis / Policy Alert Khamenei Uses Iraq War Anniversary to Reinforce Iranian Steadfastness by Omer Carmi Sep 22, 2020 Also available in Arabic ABOUT THE AUTHORS Omer Carmi Omer Carmi was a 2017 military fellow at The Washington Institute. Brief Analysis Rather than explicitly addressing Washington’s reactivation of sanctions, the Supreme Leader sought to convince domestic listeners that Iran can ‘resist’ external pressures and the latest COVID-19 wave on its own. upreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s speech at the annual Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leadership S gathering tends to be closely analyzed by Iran watchers for good reason. As with his yearly Nowruz speeches, he often uses the event to signal domestic and foreign audiences about his approach to international affairs. Most famously, the emphasis on “heroic flexibility” in his 2013 speech foreshadowed Tehran’s signing of an interim nuclear agreement with the P5+1 a few weeks later and the adoption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015. Last year’s speech took a different tone—Khamenei expressed confidence that the regime could cope with U.S. pressure and warned that Washington’s goal was to eliminate the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary character and force it to conform with the American global order. In doing so, he essentially previewed months of Iranian defiance on regional and nuclear issues. This year, the setting changed once again. Iran is in the midst of a third wave of coronavirus with thousands of infections per day, and the renewed outbreak apparently convinced the regime to cancel Khamenei’s in-person speech before a large IRGC gathering.
    [Show full text]
  • Overwhelmed by Technology: How Did User Interface Failures on Board the USS Vincennes Lead to 290 Dead?
    Overwhelmed by Technology: How did user interface failures on board the USS Vincennes lead to 290 dead? Luke Swartz Background On July 3, 1988, the 290 passengers and crew of Iran Air Flight 655 were seemingly distant from the bitter and prolonged Iran-Iraq war. Many of the passengers were ultimately bound for Mecca, making their sacred pilgrimage as prescribed in the Koran. However, at 10:24 AM, seven minutes after the Airbus took off from Bandar Abbas Airport for Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, the United States Navy guided missile cruiser Vincennes fired two missiles at the plane, destroying the hapless target and its civilian occupants with horrific precision. What Went Wrong? Immediately after the tragedy, the US quickly blamed Iran for letting the plane fly over the combat situation below; then-Vice President Bush explained to the UN Security Council that the Vincennes “acted in self-defense,” thinking that Flight 655, after failing to respond to seven warnings, was “an Iranian military aircraft…approaching with hostile intentions.” Iran’s foreign minister charged the US with intentionally downing the plane, adding, “This was a premeditated act of aggression against the integrity of Tehran…a massacre.” While few objective observers think that the Vincennes’ action was intentional, and fewer still believe that its shooting down the civilian airliner was correct, numerous experts have debated what went wrong that fateful day. Many theories deal with aspects of the situation and the key players both on the Vincennes and in the cockpit of Flight 655. Failure to Respond? We may never know why Flight 655 failed to respond to the Vincennes’ repeated warnings, as its “black box” flight recorder could not be recovered.
    [Show full text]
  • Ship Covers Relating to the Iran/Iraq Tanker War
    THE IRAN/IRAQ TANKER WAR AND RENAMED TANKERS ~ Lawrence Brennan, (US Navy Ret.) SHIP COVERS RELATING TO THE IRAN/IRAQ TANKER WAR & REFLAGGED KUWAITI TANKERS, 1987-881 “The Kuwaiti fleet reads like a road map of southern New Jersey” By Captain Lawrence B. Brennan, U.S. Navy Retired2 Thirty years ago there was a New Jersey connection to the long-lasting Iran-Iraq War. That eight years of conflict was one of the longest international two-state wars of the 20th century, beginning in September 1980 and effectively concluding in a truce in August 1988. The primary and bloody land war between Iran and Iraq began during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The Shah had left Iran and that year the USSR invaded Afghanistan. The conflict expanded to sea and involved many neutral nations whose shipping came under attack by the combatants. The parties’ intent was to damage their opponents’ oil exports and revenues and decrease world supplies. Some suggested that Iran and Iraq wanted to draw other states into the conflict. An Iranian source explained the origin of the conflict at sea. The tanker war seemed likely to precipitate a major international incident for two reasons. First, some 70 percent of Japanese, 50 percent of West European, and 7 percent of American oil imports came from the Persian Gulf in the early 1980s. Second, the assault on tankers involved neutral shipping as well as ships of the belligerent states.3 The relatively obscure first phase began in 1981, and the well-publicized second phase began in 1984. New Jersey, half a world away from the Persian (Arabian) gulf, became involved when the United States agreed to escort Kuwait tankers in an effort to support a friendly nation and keep the international waters open.
    [Show full text]
  • US-Iranian Relations Gleaves Whitney Grand Valley State University
    Grand Valley State University ScholarWorks@GVSU Ask Gleaves Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies 2-22-2010 A Road Over Rough Terrain: US-Iranian Relations Gleaves Whitney Grand Valley State University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ask_gleaves Recommended Citation Whitney, Gleaves, "A Road Over Rough Terrain: US-Iranian Relations" (2010). Ask Gleaves. Paper 5. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ask_gleaves/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ask Gleaves by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ask Gleaves: A Road Over Rough Terrain: US-Iranian Relations - The Hauenstein Center... Page 1 of 1 A Road Over Rough Terrain: US-Iranian Relations It seems as if U.S.-Iranian relations have been getting heated the past six months. Has the United States always suffered a rocky relationship with Iran? By Gleaves Whitney or anyone following the news, the Islamic Republic of Iran is no stranger. Starting with President F Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, the U.S. has attempted to mend a half-century of sour relations between the West and the Persian Gulf. Under the auspices of “a new beginning,” Obama announced in Cairo last spring that the U.S. was prepared to move forward with Iran. “The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.” Unfortunately, the current administration’s attempt to mend relations with Tehran has not gone according to plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Inc. He Is Also a FOX News Channel Foreign Affairs Analyst
    SSSPPPCCC SSSTTTRRRAAATTTEEEGGGIIICCC PPPOOOLLLIIICCCYYY CCCOOONNNSSSUUULLLTTTIIINNNGGG,,, IIINNNCCC... 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20004; Tel: 202-756-2288; Fax: 202-318-8382; www.spconsulting.us ALIREZA JAFARZADEH BIOGRAPHY Alireza Jafarzadeh is the president of Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc. He is also a FOX News Channel foreign affairs analyst. Alireza Jafarzadeh is a well-known authority in issues relating to terrorism, and Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East; Iran’s nuclear weapons program; and its internal political developments, including the anti- government demonstrations, the student movement, and human rights. The international concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapons program has largely arisen from Jafarzadeh’s stunning revelations about 7 major previously secret nuclear sites, including the sites in Natanz, Arak, Karaj, Ab-Ali, and Tehran. Jafarzadeh revealed the existence of Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and Arak's heavy water facility in August 2002, Ab-Ali centrifuge testing facility near Tehran in February 2003, two additional nuclear sites near Karaj in May 2003, and two other new nuclear sites in Kolahdouz military complex in Tehran, and Ardekan in July 2003. He unveiled the details of Iran’s development of bio-weapons in May 2003, and had previously provided valuable information about the Shahab-3 medium range missile. On April 27, 2004, Jafarzadeh revealed information that Iran, using some 400 nuclear experts, is now running a secret nuclear weapons program supervised by the military and the Supreme Leader parallel to their overt nuclear energy program. Jafarzadeh had previously unveiled in March, a secret meeting held earlier by Iran’s senior officials where they decided to speed up their nuclear weapons program, while faking cooperation with the IAEA.
    [Show full text]