Tuesday, June 20, 2006

What is Chomsky thinking?

Kash Kheirkhah

Referring to the current crisis over Iran's nuclear program, Noam Chomsky, a key intellectual figure within the left wing of the United States politics as he is called, writes in The Guardian today that before 1979, when the Shah was in power, Washington strongly supported Iran's nuclear programs whereas today the standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear power, and therefore must be pursuing a secret weapons program.

Well, that's distorting the facts in broad daylights. Earlier today in a speech in Kings Point, New York, President Bush once again recognized Iran's right to "peaceful nuclear energy":

"Iranians have a large presence on the Internet and a desire to make even greater progress, including the development of civilian nuclear energy. This is a legitimate desire. We believe the Iranian people should enjoy the benefits of a truly peaceful program to use nuclear reactors to generate electric power. So America supports the Iranian people's rights to develop nuclear energy peacefully with proper international safeguards."

Mr Chomsky, every schoolboy now knows that what has prompted the world to react so strongly to the Iran's nuclear program is the nature of the current Iranian regime. How long will it take you and other members of the liberal elite to realize that the regime you are dealing with now in Iran is of a unique terror nature? How long will it take you to realize that nuclear weapons at the hands of such a regime could mean imminent threat to the whole world? How long should apss before you actually learn anything from the Second World War?

As for the US support for Shah's nuclear program, how can you ever compare the current regime in Iran with Iran's government before revolution? As I once said here, The Americans supported the Shah because his government was always a 110 percent committed to the international treaties. It's like having a knife in the hands of a repeat offender or a respected citizen. which one would you feel safe giving the knife to? Did Shah or any member of his administration ever funded terrorists or spoke of wiping another country off the map?

Chomsky then lapses into politically correct expostulation:

"Iranians are surely not as willing as the west to discard history to the rubbish heap. They know that the United States, along with its allies, has been tormenting Iranians for more than 50 years, ever since a US-UK military coup overthrew the parliamentary government and installed the Shah, who ruled with an iron hand until a popular uprising expelled him in 1979."

Really? Well, I have news for you sir. We also know that when the same Shah that the Americans installed in 1953 began to grow out of the role the Western powers had assigned for him and proudly announced "that era is over", The US, led by Jimmy Carter, and joined by other Western powers, effectively helped pull the carpet from under his feet. Mr Chomsky, Iran under the Shah had problems indeed, but almost every Iranian now knows that in spite of its shortcomings, the previous system was not one tiny bit as evil as the current regime is. As for the coup, well, the Japanese have already discarded history to the rubbish heap and are now looking forward to a peaceful coexistence with the nation that dropped a nuclear bomb on them, why should we dwell on the past? More important than that, how do you know what we really know or want?

Chomsky doesn't stop at that and makes sure he gives mullahs the ultimate benefit of the doubt:

"In May 2003, according to Flynt Leverett, then a senior official in Bush's National Security Council, the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami proposed "an agenda for a diplomatic process that was intended to resolve on a comprehensive basis all of the bilateral differences between the United States and Iran". Included were "weapons of mass destruction, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the future of Lebanon's Hizbullah organisation and cooperation with the UN nuclear safeguards agency", the Financial Times reported last month. The Bush administration refused, and reprimanded the Swiss diplomat who conveyed the offer."

Sir, are you kidding me or what? Didn't Madeline Albright apologize to mullahs for the coup? What was Iran's response? Didn't Bill Clinton try to shake hands with Khatami in the UN and Khatami instead, decided to make himself scarce out of his fear for his boss's reaction? A solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the main banker of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East? Time to engage the reality of Iran sir.

Great arguments Mr Chomsky. Thanks to your thinking which bases its arguments on polemics rather than empiricism, terror states such as the Iranian regime will continue to be alive and well.