IRAN-TIMES : CROSS SHOOTINGS OF MEDIA BOMBS
Two days ago, the Times published an undated Iranian document, without any heading or signature, stating that Iran disposed of a sophisticated atomic bomb. We noticed then it was a frame-up from Tehran because it would just have needed to notify the document’s characteristics to deny those allegations. Our analysis was right because 24 hours after it forgot to deny the Times’ allegations, Tehran announced the successful shooting of a long-range missile ; announce which is completely in line with its anti-appeasement strategy.
In the Iranian nuclear file, appeasement is the current key word. After those years during which Washington required more sanctions and even strikes if Tehran would refuse to meet its requirements, currently and despite hostage taking, missiles shooting or even new anti-Israel sentiments, we hear regularly Obama and also his entourage talking about dialogue or respectful diplomatic relations with Tehran.
The purpose of such peaceful speech is to manage to negotiate calmly the agreement Washington needs to become the world’s first oil power by overpowering, such as it did with Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Iran and Central Asia -which is accessible from Iran. But Washington also intends to use the mullahs to upset Chinese Muslims of the much wealthy Xinjiang region. Washington changed its attitude because it didn’t manage to subject the mullahs with its sanctions and currently it fears it would topple them if they get more than what they can stand.
The mullahs refuse this agreement since ever and despite every pressure because they know it implies necessarily their regime’s democratization which wouldn’t be to their advantage. Indeed Americans dispose of numerous Iranian paws who are perfect Islamists and who could be introduced in the regime -close of freer elections- to take the power sneakily and finally reduce the mullahs to civil servants who would have no say.
In order to take this threat away, the mullahs multiply such as they did in the past any kind of provocation to wreck this agreement’s hopes. It is question here of an inverted appeasement policy. While Washington intends to commit Tehran to some appeasement process, Tehran does its best to commit Washington to an escalation process with the hope to make it surrender for fear of a new war.
Into such anti-appeasement initiative, the mullahs benefited since ever from the great support of the United Kingdom, the current leader of the world’s oil market, which is sure to loose its supremacy within the scope of the United States’ anti-Chinese policy.
Within the framework of this mutual aid, British often published in the past reports, articles or documents that were opposed to Washington’s expectations. They were also against sanctions when Washington claimed them. Afterwards they spread documents that referred to the mullahs’ great nuclear capacity as long as Washington looked for stratagems to avoid them. They keep gaining momentum despite the fact they are on the list of the next victims of possible sanctions due to the fact they are Iran’s main gasoline suppliers.
Within the framework of this mutual aid conversely, the daily newspaper the Times published 4 days ago -on the 13 December- an article stating that Iran already disposed of the nuclear bomb. Washington ignored this so-called information that was based on a document without any header or signature -below.
Tehran and London then got straight to the second phase of their anti-appeasement plan. Tehran announced the successful shouting of a long-range missile -a recurrent untrue announcement because if we consider Iran’s dimensions, we would have detected it abroad. Simultaneously at the other side of the world, Gordon Brown who was paying Ban Ki-moon a visit stated that such missile shooting “spoke in favour of new sanctions”.
The missile shootin troubled the American opinion. Gordon Brown’s intervention cornered Washington and thus the latter had to take steps so to give satisfaction to the opinion by avoiding as much as possible to take away from its necessary appeasement policy.
As a small wink, Washington announced the Chamber of Representatives would adopt a sanction bill against the -British- companies that export gasoline to Iran even though such bill was already adopted last October by the same chamber. Since few weeks the American press has commented on the inexplicable delay the Senate needed to adopt it, a step that is necessary to submit it to the President’s approval.
Actually as it is faced with Tehran and London’s media bombs, Washington also dropped its own one but it made a point of specifying in the news items that deal with this phoney adoption that the president Obama may not resort to this law -i.e. he would not approve it- because he is waiting for the promising results of its appeasement policy ”within the next few weeks” - in 2010.
As for the Times article, Washington announced it would “open a new investigation dedicated to this information”, which is the much administrative answer we hear whenever the persons in charge pretend not to hear .
| Mots Clefs | Institutions : Diplomatie (selon les mollahs) |
 Americans didn’t forget to add a slight trace of irony by describing the Times article as a “fine example of journalism”.