During a speech last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated that the Islamic Republic of Iran "constitute[d] a growing threat that may lead to a preventive attack against Iranian sites". In response, Iran has sent a formal complaint to the United Nations, claiming that Sarkozy's remarks were "inflammatory" and "baseless". Iran's UN ambassador reiterated that Ahmadinejad's government has "no intention to attack any other nations". However, with western powers seemingly determined to spread the fictitious tale of Iran's pending threat, what chance does Iran and its people have? Have we not already witnessed such lies to justify the invasion of foreign lands? We all remember the supposed threat the Iraqis posed - by the way, did we ever find those weapons of mass destruction? We all remember the looming 'danger' that Gaddafi's Libya offered. Perhaps now the time has come for western citizens to take a stand and say, quite fervently, 'enough is enough'.
As early as 2001, shortly following the 9/11 attacks, mainstream media was peddling the myth that Iraq was training terrorists and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. All, of course, total nonsense. Most now accept that Iraq offered us no threat whatsoever. This sentiment should now be extended to Iran - before it is too late. From as far back as I can remember, Iran has been incessantly accused of possessing (or, at least, trying to possess) nuclear weapons. The main spreader of such lies is the United States. In a speech in 2009, President Obama proclaimed that "President Bush was right that Iran's ballistic missile programme poses a significant threat". But as renowned journalist John Pilger points out, "That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous". The so-called "threat" is nonexistent. Fabricated. Completely fallacious. What we are seeing is nothing more than American - and, by extension, western - hegemonic desires.
As ever, Israel's security remains the common validation. Any why not? Every time Iran's fanatical leader comes out with unacceptable comments - such as, "[Israel] has reached the end like a dead rat" and "[Israel] is on its way to annihilation" - he merely stokes the fires of conflict and plays into the hands of his adversaries. He is helping to fuel America's propaganda operation. Following each and every outlandish remark, the West immediately condemns Iran; repeating the assertion that they need to be dealt with promptly. Regrettably, the Iranian people are the ones who will suffer most. They are vilified. Treated as though they thoroughly condone Ahmadinejad's postures - despite the fact that they protested ardently following his re-election in 2009.
Worst of all - and most sickeningly of all - America's 'Israel security' justification is merely utilised to conceal a deeper motive. An agenda - a bitterness - that dates right back to the '50s. In the 1950's, Iran's economy was thriving. The people decided (rightly) that Iran's profits should be spent on its people. Naturally, this did not fit into the West's grand scheme of things and sure enough, they toppled the democracy and installed a brutal dictator - you know, the kind we apparently detest. The Shah ruled from 1953 to 1979; ensuring a continued flow of oil to the western leaders who had placed him in his position of power. Following 26 years of repression, the Iranian people rose up again, overthrowing the Shah and reclaiming independence. Their reward for rising up? America encouraged and backed the invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. According to Terry Bryant's brilliant History's Greatest War, over 100,000 Iranian's died as a result of the illegal use of chemical weapons.
So, is it any wonder some sections of the Iranian population yearn nuclear weapons? Is it any wonder they feel the need to protect themselves following the atrocities of the past? Yet, despite all this rationale, Iran remains (with regards to nuclear might) a weaponless nation. A peaceful nation. A nation that has consistently advocated a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Iran was one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has neither invaded nor attacked other nations for decades. Even Vice President Joe Biden, when asked about Iran's menace, said, quite definitely, "They have no potential...they have no capacity to launch a missile". But still we accuse. Sarkozy is the latest in a long line of western leaders to take a provocative stance on Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in 2009, "You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs"; triggering the detrimental - although entirely justified - argument over whether Israel ought to have nuclear weapons. And this is where the problem starts.
Unfortunately, the Iranian nuclear issue has been driven towards a damaging argument concerning Iran and its relationship with Israel. Any suggestion that Iran has the right to possess nuclear weapons on account of the fact that Israel does ignites a rapid response of hate; anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, anti-American jibes and accusations fly your way. But this should not be about Israel. Instead, this should be about our western civilisation learning from the hard lessons of Iraq and proving that we are a stronger, more diplomatic society. We must show that we no longer fall for cheap propaganda. We can think for ourselves. Despite Sarkozy's warnings - and the warnings of countless other western leaders' for that matter - Iran does not pose a stark threat. The only real danger they pose is to American supremacy, which, undeniably, is what all of this is about.
Whilst Iran's desire for nuclear weapons can be justified, it goes without saying, it must never materialise. Equally, Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is wrong and ought to be addressed - you cannot preach to Iran whilst defending Israel. However, do not be fooled into thinking that the West's denouncements of Iran are completely about securing the State of Israel. They are not. Iran is the only major Middle Eastern power that America - and its western allies - has no control over. Furthermore, Iran is gaining in influence; just look at the recent surge of Shia militias. This worries America greatly as they seek to dictate Middle Eastern policy exclusively. Whether an attack on Iran is imminent remains to be seen, but one thing shall never vanish; America's determination to regulate and manipulate the policies of distant regions. For that is what these recent myths concerning Iran have been about.