The American press agency AP told this week about some interruption of Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities. The Islamic Republic denied and told it was reinforcing its activities. Pro-American media denounced the mullahs’ lie. This doesn’t surprise us. Washington which has sanctioned the mullahs for long in order to force them to become its allies can’t sanction them anymore because this might overthrow them. It is looking for any means that would delay new sanctions at a time when the mullahs refuse any appeasement with the United States. This is some American media diversion which is destined to the American (or Western) public opinion. This is an occasion to remind the chronology of relations between Tehran and Washington and to review several example of a permanent disinformation which nobody tells about.

Washington needs urgently an Islamic ally to control Central Asia instead of Russians and Chinese. Such ally has to be greatly considered by fundamentalist Muslims : it can be solely question of the Islamic Republic of Iran which tells to be the spokesperson of jihadist Islam and ready to finance every Islamist movement in the name of anti-imperialist struggle. This is written in the regime’s constitution.

Such union appears unconceivable to many people. But it would be relevant to remind that the United States was the first State to recognize this regime on its coming in 1979. Washington didn’t have any unrealistic geopolitical need to fulfil : actually, the members of the provisory government of the emerging Islamic Republic were part of two Islamist groups that had been financed by the Americans since 1961 after the creation of the OPEC by the Shah. Indeed this organization cut the share of British and American oil companies from 85% to 15%.

Actually Washington had just got an interventionist ally that was meant for making the region burst out in order to dismantle the OPEC and to create as well a multitude of weak States that would need its technical and economic support to extract their oil.

However such geopolitical projects were thwarted by the clergy who helped this revolution without being allowed to exercise power. The mullahs sent their supporters to the American embassy in order to take it by storm and obtain the proofs of the financing of the ministers on power. This forced those false anti-imperialists to resign. From that time, Washington has sanctioned the mullahs in order to force them to give the power back via the opening of its political space to its pawns that live nowadays in exile in the West. As the objective is to get back the direction of this interventionist Islamist regime, Washington mustn’t accuse the mullahs and their interventionism irremediably. It must avoid as well sanctions that would be susceptible to destabilise them faced with people who nowadays don’t wish to have Islam neither on power nor in their lives. De facto, Washington has had relentlessly to make some adjustment of its pressures since 1980. This is what we can qualify as some management of sanctions and accusations. The definition of the emergency of the Iranian nuclear file has always been in the heart of such management. The breakdown announced by Washington and denied by the mullahs appears as a good example. But this is not the first time that Washington adopts such reaction. Here are some examples.

Six years ago, the American State announced that according to the conclusions of its overall intelligence services the Iranian nuclear bomb was expected to be ready on the following year while the mullahs even didn’t start the exploitation of the enrichment plant of Natanz ! Then it called for international mobilisation to sanction the mullahs. It wanted that every country respect its sanctions. In the absence of a mobilisation for any existing nuclear activity, the American State that was at that time headed by the Bush administration specified that the emergency of the Iranian case was so important that it may resort to military action against this country. The great powers which are the mullahs’ strategic partners or their privileged trade partners accepted at that time the examination of the issue by the Security Council in order to curb the barely hidden American will to extend its hegemony to Iran. On the base of this international bond for its accusations, Washington adopted a dozen news financial sanctions against the mullahs and it published in November 2007 the new conclusions of the American intelligence services, the National Intelligence Estimation or the NIE, which postponed the creation of any bomb between 2010 and 2015. Then it formulated via Condoleezza Rice its first propositions of dialogue in which it was openly question of a possibility of entente.

Great powers that are Tehran’s privileged partners moaned and groaned a lot at that time because they were mislead by Washington which searched in and obtained they official adhesion to its war of economic attrition that was meant for inciting the mullahs to become its allies. Those States had reasons to get worried because they have noticed how alarming have been the results of the Iranian economy since April 2007. Those States were aware of the weaknesses of the Iranian economy and they thought that the mullahs would surrender after a short time considering the risk of penury and popular uprising that would be fatal to their regime.

But there was no capitulation because any reconciliation with Washington would oblige the mullahs to let the Islamists close to Washington come back to Iran. They would involve in the political sphere and they would take the power from inside. Consequently the mullahs denied every offer of dialogue despite growing pressures and they multiplied provocations in order to make any dialogue impossible and to make Washington involve in an escalation. Any risk of war would be susceptible to put oil supply at risk and make the Americans shrink back or even make their allies intervene in favour of the regime.

In July 2008, the Iranian economy was in a coma and the mullahs appeared more provocative than ever. Such behaviour made Washington upset because further to the information that was previously published, the average American got scared of the mullahs and claimed for increased pressure and even for a preventive war. However as more sanctions implied a risk of regime overthrow and despite that Iranian people asked for a strike at that time in order to neutralize the regime’s militia, Washington needed to avoid those both options. Thus Washington started to deny every ballistic progress that Tehran claimed such as it’s the case today with its insistence regarding the breakdown of centrifuges. Then it announced a new sanction that appeared to be the same than a previous one. In other words, it used cunning with its own public opinion. However it maintained general pressure on the mullahs. As they got weaker and weaker because of those sanctions, the mullahs gave more extent to their provocations. Washington allowed the diffusion of opinions that put at question the conclusions the NIE 2007 report in order to intimidate the mullahs. However this didn’t happen under the administration of Bush because the latter continued to announce fake sanctions and until the last days before the presidential election of November 2008, he sent emissaries to Tehran in order to negotiate an entente.

His successor Obama announced a new policy that was based on dialogue in order to calm things down. Short time before his effective settling in at the White House and in order to apply this policy of dialogue, Dennis Blair, the new head of American Intelligence, stated that Iran was developing every component of a nuclear weapon program in order to manufacture a bomb but that his services were sure the mullahs were not willing to start such process. In the meantime, a semi-official report specified that the regime didn’t dispose of the necessary quantity of uranium enriched at 3.5% that could be enriched at 90% and be used in the manufacturing of a bomb. On the base of such conclusions which didn’t question those of the NIE 2007, Obama decreed that application of new sanctions would be blocked for a year at a time when the mullahs were agonizing. Then he made new offers of dialogue and opening. Such offers were rejected and Tehran increased provocations notably by stating that it improved its production of enriched nuclear material. Washington denied the information and offered to make an exchange of the Iranian stock of low enriched uranium against French fuel on the benefit of the research reactor of the University of Tehran which was built by France. It focused debates on such exchange in order to conceal any enrichment progress of the mullahs and to not be forced to take steps that would risk overthrowing them.

Tehran participated in those debates in order to assert its right for enrichment at 3.5% and then at 20%. It even launched in front of witnesses the process of enrichment at 20% in order to cause the failure of reconciliation projects and avoid the come back to Iran of its former 1979 allies. Washington countered such offensive by questioning Tehran’s abilities to carry out its enrichment activities owing to difficulties to make centrifuges work properly ! In a report that was redacted on the last November by the pro-American new director of the IAEA, conclusions of the NIE 2007 were reviewed and it was implied that Iranian bomb would be available after the delivery in 2011 of the second generation of centrifuge that would not work suitably ! Then in March 2010, Washington called into question the ability of the mullahs to build new enrichment plants.

This week, one year after the IAEA report about the breakdown of Iranian centrifuges, at the end of November (which corresponds to a relaxation time favourable to celebration of Thanks Giving and to preparation of Christmas), Washington made such assessment topical by spreading a persistent rumour about the breakdown of Natanz centrifuges. Tehran acknowledged that a one-day break happened but it denied that there was any breakdown : the pro-American director of the IAEA intervened personally to confirm such breakdown without any further specification. Western media outbid and the breakdown became a real one ! On the upcoming days, the IAEA will confirm such facts in a new report ; it may give some specifications and forecast a delay of any nuclear progress.

Thus Washington eliminates the main source of worries as well as the mullahs’ main provocation mean in order to avoid the necessity of new sanctions when the latter shows no will of opening. As a matter of fact, they are preparing for aggravating things with the trial of two American hikers especially at a time when the regime might collapse because of a lack of support from militiamen and from the Bazaar. There is a will to discourage Western opinion about the necessity of sanctions.

Such dismantling of the public opinion goes with the absence of news about the repression which is lead by the regime against its youths or against Bazaari. For instance, yesterday the regime announced a new amputation in order to intimidate them but in the West, media solely told about the auction sale of Ahmadinejad’s car. This constitutes a sign for the regime. This implies it is free to do the nasty job and kill protesters.

In parallel, the Americans started to promote further the Green Movement, the false opposition which was invented by the mullahs despite that this virtual opposition remains opposed to any appeasement with them. This is a sign that an Islamic regime, even if it is hostile, is preferred to any laic regime which would be of no use for the United States. Nevertheless France and many other countries that suffer from such Islamism support the maintenance of the mullahs on power because the latter sell them oil at very cheap price (under market rate) and purchase thanks to such income surplus of old-fashioned products in the West. By supporting the maintenance of an Islamic model, those States remain not only close to Tehran but also close to Washington.

Finally, this changes nothing because the mullahs will never surrender. One day, it will be necessary to tell once again about the Iranian nuclear bomb. Maybe, in November 2011 or in November 2012, 2013 or 2015, we will hear about the launching of a process of assembling of the components that the mullahs are developing studiously.

Related article :
- (October 7, 2010)

| Mots Clefs | Décideurs : OBAMA |
| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Apaisement |
| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Sanctions Ciblées en cours d’application |

Additional notes to read imperatively

It is however necessary to specify that a nuclear bomb is not composed with a fuselage, a charge and a motor : a nuclear bomb is a complex cocoon in which a nuclear fission takes place with a precise duration and altitude. Without the necessary technology, even it is possible to get components, it doesn’t imply any specific progress.

But Tehran doesn’t dispose of such technology : the proof is that its engineers are even unable to start alone and without the assistance of the Russian manufacturer the civil reactor of Buchehr power plant. Besides, the mullahs’ regime doesn’t dispose of the necessary vectors to convey a potential nuclear bomb. As a matter of fact, it doesn’t have long-range missiles and in case it would manage to get some, it doesn’t dispose of any military satellite so to direct the engine and shield it from anti-missile missiles that are guided by NATO’s military satellites. Its inability to create a modern anti-aircraft defence system proves it has much backwardness in computer science.

In addition, it’s necessary to specify that every atomic and ballistic great nation didn’t start from scratch. But they developed their activities on the base of the works that were carried out by German scientists during Nazi time. Some of them were intercepted by Americans and others by Russians. Further to this, Americans transmitted their nuclear knowledge to French, British and Israelis while Russians transmitted it to Chinese and then to Indians (although no precise documentation exists about such guilty transaction).

At that time, nobody has ever transmitted anything to Iranians who were then in the Western camp but in conflict with British and Americans about OPEC. British were countering the Shah via their historical allies, the mullahs, while Americans refused to deliver him equipments and financed their own Islamist federalist pawns of Nehzat Azadi and OMIP. Those three Islamist groups that were operated by the remote control of those both countries finally overthrew the Shah in 1979.

Such as we mentioned it before, the mullahs stole this new regime from the Americans who adopted immediately and embargo coupled with very harsh sanctions in order to prevent the mullahs from acceding to high technologies. Isn’t it interesting ?

China and Russia could have overridden those sanctions. However those sanctions gave the mullahs notice to agree with Washington, which has prevented Russians and more recently Chinese from considering the mullahs as reliable allies. That’s why they never transmitted any nuclear or ballistic knowledge to the mullahs. The first reason is that they don’t want to grant the mullahs with the ability to negotiate better with Washington and the second reason is that, after any agreement, Washington would dispose of precise data on their nuclear and ballistic level.

De facto, we can assess that Iran never had any access to nuclear and ballistic knowledge. As it never has accessed to it and as it lacks nowadays of sufficient technologies, it is wrong to tell about its nuclear capacities. This is a fantasy which is not in conformity with the reality of the Iranian nuclear issue and which is used by Washington to sanction it or to have a break. As revenge, the mullahs’ regime built a totalitarian and abject State which has crushed women and decriminalized paedophilia. However Washington and its flunkeys never tell about those issues that would be susceptible to harm any entente or they introduce them as a joke. Mullahs are Islamic terrorists as well but Washington conceals it because it doesn’t wish to denounce an Islamist interventionism which its pawns supported in 1979 and which it plans to use after it took the control again of this Islamist abjection. True threat is not in Tehran but elsewhere.

The french version of this article :
- Iran : Rumeurs d’une panne atomique déjà évoquée en 2009
- (25 NOVEMBRE 2010)

Related articles :
- Iran : The Shah and the iranian nuclear project
- (October 1st, 2009)

- Iran : Obama is at the limit of absurdity
- (September 22, 2009)

All our articles in English...

| Mots Clefs | Histoire : Révolution Islamique
(ou coup d’Etat pétrolier américano-britannique)