[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Iran

[C. G. Estabrook]

Q: Professor Chomsky, you have stated several times that most of the 
countries of the world, including the members of the Non-Aligned 
Movement (NAM), support Iran’s efforts to develop its civilian nuclear 
energy program, but some voices in the United States are still making 
hawkish comments. Why is that the case?

A: Not only the Non-Aligned Movement, but also the large majority of 
Americans believe that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy. But 
almost no one in the U.S. is aware of this. That includes those who are 
polled, and probably think they are the only ones who hold these 
beliefs. Nothing is ever published about it. What appears in the media, 
constantly, is that the “international community” demands that Iran stop 
uranium enrichment. Almost nowhere is it brought out that the term 
“international community” is used conventionally to refer to Washington 
and whoever happens to go along with it, not just on this issue, but 
quite generally.

Q: The U.S. government is clearly practicing double standards in its 
foreign policy. While supporting Israel’s right to possess a nuclear 
arsenal, the U.S. is relentlessly pressuring Iran to halt its civilian 
nuclear program. What are your views on this? And does the International 
Atomic Energy Agency have the authority to investigate Israel’s nuclear 
weapons program?

A: The basic point was explained very candidly by Henry Kissinger. He 
was asked by the Washington Post why he now claims that Iran does not 
need nuclear energy so it must be working on building a bomb, while in 
the 1970s he insisted forcefully that Iran needs nuclear energy and the 
U.S. must provide the shah with the means to develop it. His answer was 
pure Kissinger: “They were an allied country” so they needed nuclear 
energy. Now they are not an ally, so they do not need nuclear energy. As 
for Israel, it is an ally, more accurately a client state. So they 
inherit from the master the right to do as they please.

The IAEA has the authority, but the U.S. would never permit them to 
exercise it. The new U.S. administration has given no indication that it 
is any different.

Q: Four sovereign states possess nuclear weapons outside the framework 
of the NPT. Three never joined the NPT and the fourth withdrew from the 
treaty. Could Iran eliminate the endless pressure being imposed on it by 
withdrawing from the NPT?

A: No, that would simply escalate the pressures. Apart from North Korea, 
all of these countries receive extensive U.S. support. The Reagan 
administration pretended it did not know that its ally Pakistan was 
developing nuclear weapons, so that the dictatorship could receive 
massive U.S. aid. The U.S. has agreed to assist India in developing its 
nuclear facilities, and Israel is a special case.

Q: What are the obstacles blocking the establishment of direct talks 
between Iran and the U.S.? Does the Israeli lobby really have such a 
great influence over the U.S. corporatocracy?

A: The Israeli lobby has some influence, but it is limited. That was 
demonstrated in the case of Iran, once again, last summer, during the 
presidential campaign, the time when the influence of lobbies is at its 
peak. The Israeli lobby wanted Congress to pass legislation that came 
close to calling for a blockade of Iran, an act of war. The measure 
gained considerable support, but then suddenly disappeared, probably 
because the White House made it clear, quietly, that it was opposed.

As for the actual factors, we do not yet have adequate internal records, 
so it is necessary to speculate. We do know that a large majority of 
Americans want to have normal relations with Iran, but public opinion 
rarely influences policy. Major U.S. corporations, including the 
powerful energy corporations, would like to be able to exploit Iran’s 
petroleum resources. But the state insists otherwise. I presume that the 
main reason is that Iran is just too independent and disobedient. Great 
powers do not tolerate that in what they take to be their domains, and 
the world’s major energy-producing regions have long been considered the 
domain of the Anglo-American alliance, now with Britain reduced to 
junior partner.

Q: Do you believe we will see a tactical or systematic revision in the 
approach of the U.S. mainstream media toward Iran during Barack Obama’s 
term in office? Will these media outlets stop their anti-Iranian propaganda?

A: The media generally adhere fairly closely to the general framework of 
state policy, though policies are sometimes criticized on tactical 
grounds. A lot, therefore, depends on the stand that the Obama 
administration will take.

Q: And finally, do you believe that the U.S. president should apologize 
for the United States’ crimes against Iran over the past century, as 
Iran has asked?

A: I think that the powerful should always concede their crimes and 
apologize to the victims, in fact go much farther and provide 
reparations. Unfortunately, the world is largely governed by the maxim 
of Thucydides: the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they 
must. Slowly, over time, the world is becoming more civilized, in 
general. But there is a long way to go.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=192278