After six historic days,
over 100 participating nations expressed support for common interests
as well as host country Iran. The New York Times said NAM "handed….Iran
a diplomatic victory."
The Christian Science Monitor suggested efforts to isolate Iran failed.
The Russian International News Agency (RIA Novosti) said participants
supported Iran and its peaceful nuclear program.
The Tehran Times said "NAM summit set back US-Israeli campaign to isolate
Press TV called the summit the "most important" political event in the
Islamic Republic's history.
Late Friday, the largest, most impressive NAM summit in decades ended.
Iran gained prestige. It emerged standing tall. America, Israel, and
rogue allies got long overdue black eyes.
President Mohammed Morsi was Egypt's first leader to visit Iran since
its 1979 revolution. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also came for
the first time.
They combined support with criticism. Morsi shamelessly endorsed imperial
efforts to topple Assad. Ban regurgitated Israeli lies about Iran allegedly
wanting the Jewish state destroyed and denying the holocaust. These
canards long ago wore thin.
Ban also called for diplomatically resolving Western/Iranian differences.
He said it's "regrettable that Iran has yet to reach agreement with
the IAEA on a plan to resolve all outstanding issues." He urged both
sides to pursue "a reciprocal, step-by-step process."
Washington and Netanyahu hardliners were duly embarrassed. The summit's
success ran counter to their belligerent, isolationist, imperial policies.
At the same time, a strategically timed IAEA report suggested an Iranian
threat. None exists. Western and Israeli leaders know it. So does IAEA
head Yukiya Amano. He's more pro-Western stooge than honest broker.
The report said Tehran increased its uranium enrichment capacity by
30% since May. It doubled it at its fortified Fordow facility.
With no evidence whatever proving it, it implied Tehran's moving closer
to weapon-grade material. It falsely alleged Iran's Panchin facility
conducts nuclear related explosive tests.
Panchin is a conventional military site. Most nations have similar ones.
Only Iran is called a nuclear threat.
Media scoundrels took full advantage. They downplayed or ignored summit
achievements while headlining IAEA implied accusations. In fact, they're
more smoke than fire.
Deep in its report, IAEA said most Iranian fuel is enriched far below
weapons grade. Conversion would be hard at best. In addition, much new
material is in metal form for use in a nuclear research reactor. Uranium
in this form can't be enriched to weapons grade.
In other words, an alleged threat doesn't exist. What should have been
headlined was ignored or downplayed. The timing tried to undermine Iran's
According to Britain's International Institute for Strategic Studies
research analyst/project coordinator Dina Esfandiary, the event showed
Iran "still has friends and trade partners despite international efforts
to isolate it."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's closing speech said:
NAM summit achievements were "unprecedented." "(B)right, glorious and
effective" prospects lie ahead.
"The important political message by NAM to the international community
is the message of friendship and peace and its readiness to tackle global
"All the members underlined the necessity for fundamental transformation
in the global management and interactions. All the members emphasized
public participation in the management (of the world) based on justice
and amity as the foundation of sustainable peace."
"All the members underlined the (need for the) promotion of the status
of the movement and the preparation of the grounds for the establishment
of the required structures for the mutual reinforcement of the members’
capabilities and joint involvement in the global interactions and equations."
Ahmadinejad also stressed the importance of avoiding conflict. He highlighted
the need for logic and dialogue in dealing with major global challenges.
He urged participants to establish a temporary secretariat and organize
Member states warned about plots to sow discord. They also expressed
concern about certain nations seeking world dominance at the expense
The final communique contained around 700 clauses. Topics addressed
opposition to the misuse of human rights;
global nuclear disarmament;
opposition to racism and Islamophobia;
support for Iran's peaceful nuclear program;
opposition to US sanctions;
opposition to outside interference in Syria's internal affairs;
support for national sovereignty; and
solidarity with and support for Palestinian rights.
At the same time, Netanyahu's bluster continues. On August 31, the Jerusalem
Post headlined "PM tells US time has run out on Iran diplomacy," saying:
Netanyahu "got into a diplomatic shouting match with US Ambassador Dan
Shapiro…." At issue is disagreement with Obama over when, not if, to
target Iran's nuclear facilities.
Earlier in the week, Republican Congressman Mike Rogers visited Israel.
An unnamed source said Netanyahu began an anti-Obama "tirade," saying
"(i)nstead of pressuring Iran in an effective way, (he) and his people
are pressuring us not to attack the nuclear facilities."
The source also said "sparks flew" between Netanyahu and Shapiro. An
earlier Jerusalem Post report quoted Netanyahu saying he'll never let
Israel live under the shadow of annihilation.
Claiming it runs counter to facts, of course. Iran poses no threat.
In contrast, Israel and Washington menace the region. Media reports
invert truths. Doing so advances the ball for war.
At the same time, a healthy debate continues. On September 1, Haaretz
headlined "Former Mossad chief: An attack on Iran likely to foment a
generations-long war," saying:
Former Mossad and National Security Council head Efraim Halevy argued
years earlier that Iran posed no threat. He strongly opposes war. Nonetheless,
his latest comments are measured.
He stopped short of reproaching Netanyahu. He understands Iran's position.
He supports resolving differences diplomatically. He calls his views
"I do indeed argue that a nuclear Iran does not constitute an existential
threat to Israel. If one day we wake up and discover that Iran has nuclear
weapons, that does not mean the start of the countdown to the end of
Israel’s existence. Israel need not despair."
"We have deterrent capability and preventive capability. If Iran acquires
nuclear weapons, Israel will be able to design a true operational response
that will be able to cope with that."
"I am absolutely appalled when I hear our leaders talking as though
there were no Israel Defense Forces and as though there were no State
of Israel and as though Auschwitz is liable to be repeated."
Iran is no existential threat, he stressed. Force is an unacceptable
option. "Going to war is an absolute and irreversible act that entails
high costs." A possible generational war could follow, he believes.
Preventing it should be prioritized.
Halevy stopped short of saying attacking Iran would be disastrous. However,
his comments strongly suggested it. He urges all possible options for
peace, not war.
"It's always worth remembering," he said, "that the greatest victory
in war is the victory that is achieved without firing a shot." In other
words, war accomplishes nothing. Peace should be pursued at all costs.
On August 31, Haaretz discussed the "secret reason for Netanyahu's timing"
on attacking Iran, saying:
"The reason behind the timing of a possible attack….is one big act of
deception." Netanyahu is more bluster than bite. He's a hothead. His
rhetoric and reasoning disengage.
He and Barak believe whatever they do, Washington's support will follow.
"This is deception." Netanyahu "is misleading people." He depends on
US support. Nonetheless, his rhetoric does much to undermine it.
His narrow vision is hardline. He wants his way regardless of Washington's
position. Does he really want war or is he faking it? As prime minister
from 1996 - 1999 and since 2009, he never initiated one.
Why now when no strategic threat exists? Why when the potential consequences
may be disastrous? If he goes it alone and fails, he'll be condemned
and risk isolation.
He and Barak understand and won't attack without Washington's agreement
and ideally its partnership in a joint attack.
"In private conversations," he fears Obama "will take revenge for the
overt efforts to defeat him and will prevent (him) from attacking Iran."
For this reason only, "some reliable sources say" he'll attack Iran
during the Democrat National Convention next week "when the timing is
the worst for Israel. That's the price of" showing support for Romney.
That's a price too high to pay. Doing so would risk Israel's security.
It might also force Netanyahu to resign or replaced.
Haaretz is more worried than reasoned. Netanyahu is belligerent, extremist,
and hotheaded, but he's not crazy. Expect no attack next week.
A same day Haaretz report suggested he's "banking on an exit strategy,"
At minimum, he has two options. He and Obama will meet at the September
General Assembly meeting. In addition, a joint US-Israeli military exercise
is scheduled for mid-October.
Attacking Iran pre-election "would be like sticking a finger in" Obama's
eye." Don't expect it. At the same time, Israeli bluster eliminates
Belligerents don't usually announce intentions in advance. Doing so
suggests talk short of action. Netanyahu/Barak cry wolf constantly.
It doesn't mean follow-through is off the table, but suggests the timing
In addition, Iran concluded a successful NAM summit. World support was
expressed. Tehran's prestige was enhanced. Attacking the Islamic Republic
now perhaps would engender world wrath.
Even hotheads know doing so is stupid and counterproductive. Israel's
security would also be at great risk. Perhaps relations with Washington
would be jeopardized.
Friction may be behind the Pentagon's decision to send fewer US forces
for Austere Challenge 12 in October. Initially, 5,000 were scheduled
to participate. Numbers were reduced to at most 1,500.
In addition, planned missile interception systems will be reduced in
number and potency. Patriot anti-missiles will come without crews and
maybe one instead of two Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships.
America remains committed to Israel's security. At the same time, defiance
doesn't go down well. Hegemons assert they're boss, and what they say
goes. Israel got the message. Expect no imminent attack on Iran.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized
Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge
discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News
Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time
and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy