Tony Cartalucci* told Mehr News in an interview that Obama’s friendly conduct of Rouhani in New York visit was merely a political guise for a regime change in reality.
“Even if the US has adopted a friendly guise, but in reality that is a friendly gesture, and the US seeks a regime change through opening arm to Iran,” he told Peiman Yazdani, Mehr News interviewer, which has written down his interview with Cartalucci in the following.
MNA: Considering Susan Rice interview with CNN today saying Obama will only recognize Iran’s right to “use” peaceful nuclear energy, will the USA collaborate with Iran based on mutual respect and recognize Iran’s nuclear right to “enrichment” of Uranium which is very important for Iran?
Throughout the US' foreign policy papers regarding Iran, and perhaps summarized best in the Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" , the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is not even considered an actual threat to global security or American security - but rather a threat to Western geopolitical influence in the Middle East. A nuclear-armed Iran represents a nation no longer capable of being threatened, invaded, or otherwise coerced. Likewise, the advancement of science and technology in Iran, even for entirely peaceful purposes, will enable it to become increasingly self-sufficient and able to weather the sanctions and subversion it is subjected to by the West and its regional allies. Any progress in Iran is unacceptable to the West unless it happens under the direction of a client regime that answers directly to Wall Street and London. Since that is not the current geopolitical reality, regardless of Iran's intentions with its nuclear program, politicians in America may claim they are ready for negotiations and may even come to the table, but covert subversion, crippling economic sanctions, and battle plans will still drive their true agenda.
MNA: Why some Arab counties and Israel are worried about possible nuclear agreement between Iran and USA? What would be the consequences of such possible agreement for them?
Arab countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel, do not have independent foreign policies. They are tied directly to the corporate-financier interests that reside on Wall Street and in London. In Brookings "Which Path to Persia?" it is even mentioned how regional allies of the United States will be used against Iran when the US itself cannot overtly act - such as in the event the US concedes to negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. For public and diplomatic consumption, the US will play the reasonable peacemaker, while it will covertly arm, fund, and direct its regional allies in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar against Iran and its allies. We can see this happening in Syria right now where US Secretary of State John Kerry says out of one side of his mouth he agrees to the recent Russian proposal regarding Syria's chemical weapons, and out of the other side of his mouth announces another torrent of cash, weapons, and equipment being sent to terrorists aimed at perpetuating the destructive conflict even longer.
For those who may believe the policies fleshed out in Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?" report are outdated, we need only read one of its author's, Kenneth Pollack's recent New York Times piece titled, "Short of a Deal, Containing Iran Is the Best Option," where Pollack states, "properly understood, containment would put pressure on Iran in various ways, to keep it on the defensive and to encourage the end of the regime. It would hold in place painful sanctions. It would include covert assistance to the Iranian opposition, cyber warfare in response to Iran’s support for terrorism, and continued diplomatic isolation."
Clearly, the corporate-funded policy makers handing the US government their agenda have no intention of giving up on regime change. It is not about Iran's nuclear program; it is about subverting Iran's sovereignty of which the nuclear program is just one of many manifestations.
MNA: Do you think that nuclear agreement can lead to further rapprochement between Iran and the USA and solve other existing problems between two countries such as downing Iranian passenger airplane, backing anti Iranian groups such as MEK?
If history serves us any instructive lessons, it is that US rapprochement is the harbinger of an impending and immense betrayal where the West attempts to get in close under the guise of diplomacy and progress, only to use that closer proximity to array covert assets against the targeted nation. This was seen in Libya where Muammar Qaddafi was reproached by the West, having given up his chemical and nuclear weapons ambitions and with promises of greater economical and diplomatic relations, to have the West covertly arm, train, and equip terrorists in Benghazi. These terrorists would use the so-called "Arab Spring" as a smokescreen for a full-scale proxy war against the Libyan government, which with NATO backing, they won.
That being said, now more than ever the Iranian government must be vigilant and continues to prepare itself against any and all known or potential US proxies, especially MEK and the various groups still being funded and armed in nearby Syria. Readers should be reminded that the terrorists operating in Syria with Western-backing are there specifically to undermine an ally of Iran and in turn, undermine Iran itself.
MNA: History shows Americans have not been reliable friends for regional governments (remember the way they treated Mubarak, Morsi and …). Can trusting the USA be harmful for Iran?
Absolutely. The corporate-financiers that drive the US are in the business of global hegemony. There are no seats at the table for "friends." The old adage of "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" has been used with devastating effect by these special interests. Libya's Qaddafi may have believed in the chance of rapprochement right up until French planes bombed his convoy leaving Sirte, and Western-armed terrorists surrounded, tortured, and killed him. Qaddafi was a man who proved the West's true principles for any who may have had doubts. Despite giving into all the West's demands and complying utterly with "global norms," his inability to concede Libya's sovereignty ultimately cost him his life and the future of his country.
The only way the US will adopt a policy that benefits Iran is if Iran makes the US adopt such a policy from a position of economic, strategic, and geopolitical strength. We can expect any negotiations between the US and Iran to include US demands for Iran to dismantle many of the institutions and capabilities it currently possesses that have already demonstrably prevented or blunted Western aggression and subversion. To give in to any of these demands would be folly, and just like with Qaddafi, will be cited as one of the primary reasons the West was finally able to prevail over Iran.
Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer. He has been published on many alternative media websites, including Alternative Thai News Network and LocalOrg. His writings deal with world events from a Southeast Asian perspective as well as promoting self-sufficiency as one of the keys to true freedom. His website is Land Destroyer Report.
PY/SH/MR
MNA
END
Your Comment