On Nov. 8, the Washington Post published a piece about a report from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence which favored negotiations on the nuclear issue. According to the Post, the report “been republished by various Iranian media outlets.” I just saw it yesterday. Hey, I’ve been busy. Anyway, I went ahead and translated the whole thing, just because whenever I see these second-hand reports I always wonder what the original text actually says. In this case, pretty much as reported with some additional conspiracy blather about all-powerful lobbies.
A couple of technical details: I know it’s not elegant prose. I had kids to watch, ok? The original doesn’t exactly flow effortlessly either. I got tired of typing “Zionist regime” or “occupying tyrants,” etc. and replaced it here and there with [Israel]. It’s not a political statement, just weary fingers.
Enjoy. The money quotes are in the last paragraph.
In the past decade or two, the Zionist regime has adopted an aggressive attitude toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. During this time, their stance has been at times quite mild with a calm tone and at other times, extremely aggressive. In recent years, following the exposure of Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities, this regime [Israel] has expressed itself in the most aggressive way in regards to Iran, to the extent that analysts believe it possible that the Zionists will resort to force. Given this analysis and important prediction, one must ask how such an outcome can be prevented and, of course, what are the important factor that increase the likelihood that force will be used?
In order to determine the probability of a military attack, one must study several factors, including changes in America’s internal politics and foreign policy towards Iran, relations between the Zionist regime and America, Iran’s political and military situation, the conclusions which Zionist leaders have made about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and the internal and regional changes which face Iran.
Differing Positions of the Zionist Regime on Threat and How to Counter It
In recent months, the frequent meetings between senior [Israeli] and American officials to study the nuclear activities of Iran and discover methods of confronting those efforts, along with public protests and public warnings from highly-placed figures both domestic and foreign, in accordance with the idea that [Israel] might resort to force to stop Iran’s nuclear program, has caused researchers and international actors to conclude that the inclination of [Israel] and its allies toward the use of force and selective military action has greatly increased.
But given this, a study of the mutual behavior of the United States and [Israel] reveals a topic which introduces several important conditions to this subject. This topic is the growing and multi-faceted conflict arising between these two countries in regards to Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities and how to deal with it. In the month of Murdad [July/Aug.] the American Defense Secretary, Secretary of State, National Security Adviser and Republican candidate in 2012 Mitt Romney, traveled to occupied Jerusalem to negotiate this pivotal concern. At the same time, the U.S. capital hosted Zionist officials in order to continue negotiations. In any case, it is clear that Iran’s nuclear program has created many problems between these two countries because of their close diplomatic ties and strategic unity. During these bilateral negotiations, the U.S. has tried to explain its position to the Zionists and warn them of the consequences of choosing selective military action against Iran. On one hand, the United States and President Obama would not be inclined toward military action against Iran under any circumstances for fear of losing it as a counter-weight. But on the other hand, in order to insure Israeli leaders that they will not accept a nuclear Iran, they might decide to make to make this regime [Israel] aware of the probability of their own attack against Iranian nuclear facilities and in this way make the Zionist regime decide not to embark on a unilateral attack against Iran. This important responsibility has been placed on the shoulders of Obama’s National Security Adviser, Donilon.
The fundamental difference between the United States and [Israel] over Iran’s peaceful nuclear program concerns the arrival at the point of crisis. In other words, the time that these activities create a condition they consider threatening, referred to as the point of no return. The Zionist regime considers the Islamic Republic its enemy and for this reason, equates Iran’s acquiring nuclear technology and know-how with the direct or indirect use of that technology for the destruction of Israel. Therefore, the Zionist leaders consider the most effective method of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear technology to be the total destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, negating this potential threat and eliminating Iran’s ability to enrich uranium.
The United States of America has a completely different view of Iran’s nuclear activities. From the viewpoint of some experts and researchers in strategic affairs, Iran’s acquiring peaceful nuclear technology could have a pacifying and stabilizing effect on the region. Americans do not even consider this sort of activity on the part of Iran to be a threat. But it must be said that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the regional balance would shift to the detriment of the tyrant regime [Israel] and in addition, a sort of strong deterrence would appear in favor of Iran and its allies, as well as a regional arms race. In describing the differing views of the U.S. and [Israel] concerning Iran’s acquisition of nuclear technology, one can acknowledge that in regards to the current situation, the U.S. does not consider this type of activity by the Islamic Republic to be a threat and even are ready to negotiate with Iran about enrichment at a lesser percentage. For this reason, the current U.S. government and its leader, Obama, hope to put this matter behind them through the use of diplomacy and peaceful solutions. But on the other hand, U.S. conservatives have a completely different view of the matter and consider any enrichment by Iran to be a severe threat to national security and seek the complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. In sum, we conclude that the point of no return in the eyes of the Zionist regime and America are in complete opposition to one another and in each, the time of threat and response is completely different.
The Zionist Regime’s Resort to Force and the American View
A decision by the Zionist regime to launch military strikes would do more to effect the position and actions of America in relation to Iran and [Israel] then the actual nuclear activities of Iran. Obama takes an entirely different view on Iran’s nuclear activities, the threat they present and, of course, how to deal with them. He believes that Iran’s nuclear program is not a great threat and can be controlled via diplomacy and harsh sanctions. Obama’s policy is in complete opposition with that of Israeli officials. This difference of opinion in how to confront Iran has created tension in the bilateral relations between [Israel] and the U.S. to the extant that on this question, each side is trying to pressure the other using whatever leverage they have to change their policies so that it conforms with their own. In this respect, one can observe the special and powerful tools each side brings to bear in the struggle over a nuclear Iran with all the attendant strengths and weaknesses in policy decisions.
At the moment, the United States is occupied with an election year and the election battle has begun between the two presidential candidates of the Democrats and Republicans. They try to exploit any error in their opponents speech, behavior or actions and use it against them in the minds of the public. For this reason, the current government puts all its effort into eliciting a positive response from the American public so that they can remain in the White House. But one must not overlook the negative effect of lobbies in the United States. One of the strongest lobbies operating the United States is the Zionists, who have the greatest effect on the election and can easily make or break either party. This lobby, with their great influence in both the formal and informal corridors of power and immense wealth at their disposal are very influential in the outcome of the election, acting through media groups, civil centers and think tanks. For this reason, the candidates of the two parties are in a situation where they can not differ with this lobby if they want to win the election and must try to act in accordance with the views of the lobby. In short, the Zionist lobby, with all the power it has, acts as the strong arm of the Zionist regime and the candidates and their government are under great pressure to adopt policies which conform with the [Israeli] government.
At this time, the American election year, on one side, there is great pressure on the Obama government coming from the Zionist regime, and from the other side, his government is being attacked by the Republicans. The Republicans are trying to show that they are more in accordance with the policies of the Zionist regime and because they are not in power, they are not required to act in a responsible manner. The alliance of the Republicans with the Zionist lobby is a weak spot for Obama in the election and the propaganda against him has been severe. In the attacks against Obama, they have criticized his Middle East policy and they believe he has acted passively in the confrontation with Iran and therefore the region has fallen into the hands of extremists. As a result, Iran will get nuclear weapons and that will lead to the destruction of Israel’s security and, ultimately, existence.
The widespread influence of the Zionist lobby and its effect on the outcome of the election arises from the extremist policies of the Zionist government in confronting Iran that create key opportunities in the U.S. election year. A plan of attack by [Israel] against Iran could upset the election and be a major factor in the result.
Military action by the Zionist regime and Obstacles in its Way
It is clear that with regards to the military power and defensive capabilities of the Islamic Republic, [Israel] can not start a war without the support of America and that this war would be very expensive and would require vast resources. For the same reason, the Zionist leaders, while fearful for their own destruction, have learned that any action which is not planned and weighed carefully can rebound on them and disgrace them before their own populace. Thus, in reality, the murky outcome of military action against Iran can be the biggest obstacle to starting the conflict. They fear the terrifying outcome of an assault.
On the other hand, it must be noted that if [Israel] starts a war with Iran, Iran will have no recourse but to resort to force in order to protect its own security and resources. In this event, it will employ the force required to reach its goals throughout the world, which would be the worst of circumstances for the world. From another aspect, we must note that the start of military action by the Zionist regime would be the end of international peaceful options which certain actors have worked to establish for more than a decade. Even the Islamic Republic of Iran despite the many sanctions against it has participated and shown its good will in the multi-lateral negotiations with the 5+1 Group. The fundamental reason and in truth one of the biggest obstacles to military action by [Israel] is that it would not in any way be decisive in destroying Iran’s nuclear capablities and at most would cause only a pause in Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities.
We must note that one of the most important means of insuring Iran’s safety in the face of foreign threats and the threats of the Zionist regime and its antagonistic behavior is the reduction of internal dissension and strengthening public support. We must try to protect the administrative system of the country and in a time when the country faces many international and military sanctions, increase government efficiency. Of course, it is important to state that whatever the type of attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the aggressor will gain nothing from it and it is self-evident that the power of the Islamic Republic is so great that it can respond with all its might. They will regret their ill-conceived attack. But it is clear that starting a war and resorting to force is so dangerous and costly that the smallest mistake is an unforgivable sin. For this reason, multiple roads exist by which to prevent war. One of these is relying on diplomatic measures and policies and utilizing the resources of international organizations, which is the necessary and least costly path. But meanwhile, military preparedness to face enemy actions is also one of the fundamental means to prevent war.