Contrary to Wikileaks release, Iran is hugely popular among Arabs

Contrary to Wikileaks release, Iran is hugely popular among ArabsSubmitted by 
davidswanson on Wed, 2010-12-01 16:48 	* Iran 

By Abbas Edalat and Phil Wilayto
Note: A shorter version of this article was published Dec. 1 by the Guardian 
newspaper.
The latest batch of Wikileaks revelations give the impression that, next to 
Israel, it's the Arab states that are most energetically pressuring the U.S. to 
attack Iran. In terms of the real threat to Iran, that's definitely putting the 
cart before the horse.
In the first place, the Arab governments mentioned as being hostile to Iran – 
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and the United Arab Emirates – 
are all undemocratic, unpopular regimes that depend on U.S. support to stay in 
power. As such, they seem to have absorbed the unrelenting years of U.S. claims 
that Iran is the region's greatest threat to peace.
A completely different view, however, is held by these governments' own 
subjects, among whom Iran's independent stance actually is hugely popular. A 
recent Zogby International poll conducted in conjunction with the University of 
Maryland asked Arab people in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and 
the United Arab Emirates to name two countries they thought were the greatest 
threat to the region. Eighty-eight percent said Israel, 77 percent said the U.S. 
and only 10 percent mentioned Iran. (1)
Meanwhile, governments in the region that don't hold a hostile view of Iran 
include those of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey, not all of which 
are hostile to the U.S.
As to where the real threat to Iran comes from, it should be remembered that, 
despite massive US arms sales to Saudi Arabia (2), not one Arab country has the 
military capability of launching a serious attack against Iran. Only one country 
in the region has that ability: Israel.
But Israel is dependent for its continued existence on its $3 billion in annual 
U.S. subsidies, plus the diplomatic firewall the U.S. maintains for it in the 
U.N. Security Council. There is almost no way Israel could attack Iran unless it 
were first fully confident that it would be backed by U.S. forces, either 
because it had already received a green light or because it calculated 
Washington would have no other choice.
Without a doubt, Iran does represent a threat to U.S. imperial interests in the 
Middle East. Thanks to its large oil and gas reserves, and the fact that those 
resources are controlled by its government, Iran has been able to emerge from a 
devastating Western-supported eight-year war of aggression by Iraq as an 
independent economic, military and political regional power. Iran takes no 
orders from Washington or London, its natural resources are off-limits to 
exploitation by Western corporations and it has no love for the wealthy, 
corrupt, pro-Western governments that dominate the area.
As such, Iran represents an obstacle to the hegemony the U.S. desires. But 
openly declaring hegemony to be its goal would win no friends among either local 
governments or populations, so the U.S. has resorted to fabricating the myth of 
an Iranian nuclear weapons program, much as it promoted support for a war 
against Iraq by creating a myth about weapons of mass destruction, ties to 
al-Qaeda and links to the attacks of 9/11. President Bush also authorized 
support for a number of terrorist organizations to destabilize the Islamic 
Republic of Iran. (3)
Although the U.S. has been charging for some eight years that Iran is using its 
nuclear energy program as a cover for the development of nuclear weapons, it has 
never provided the first shred of proof. And yet, U.S. charges of an Iranian 
nuclear weapons program have formed the basis for four sets of U.N. sanctions 
against Iran.
The latest, implemented in June 2010, has been based on “evidence” the U.S. 
provided of alleged Iranian plans to redesign a certain kind of missile to 
accommodate nuclear warheads. However, as revealed recently by investigative 
reporter Gareth Porter, the “evidence” refers to an outmoded missile Iran had 
stopped using years ago. It is simply a fabrication similar to the fabricated 
evidence against Iraq (4).
Despite some disagreement over how much of its nuclear-related activities Iran 
is legally required to disclose, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, 
charged with monitoring compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 
reported on Nov. 23 of this year that it “continues to verify the non-diversion 
of declared nuclear materials in Iran.”
And in the Arab poll referred to above, 77 percent said that Iran should have 
the right to its nuclear program and should not be pressured to stop its 
activities.
No, the principle threat to peace in the Middle East, at least as regards to 
Iran is concerned, remains the United States, which for years, prodded by 
nuclear-armed Israel, has declared that in dealing with Iran, “all options are 
on the table.” As such, the onus is on the U.S. to remove this threat once and 
for all.
On Dec. 5, Iran is scheduled to begin revived negotiations with representatives 
of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members, plus Germany. This would be 
an ideal time for Washington to make the following declaration: that it will not 
attack Iran, will not allow an attack by Israel, will end all sanctions against 
Iran, will recognize Iran's right under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to 
pursue peaceful nuclear power, will return Iran's nuclear file from the U.N. 
Security Council to the IAEA in exchange for Iran’s already stated pledge to 
allow the intrusive inspections of the IAEA’s Additional Protocol and will agree 
to discuss all outstanding differences in a spirit of mutual respect.
(1) http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/08_arab_opinion_p...
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/21/us-congress-notified-arms-sa...
(3) http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
(4) http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53616
Abbas Edalat is Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics at Imperial 
College London and the founder of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military 
Intervention in Iran (CASMII).
Phil Wilayto is a member of CASMII's Board of Directors and author of “In 
Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation's Journey through the 
Islamic Republic.”