Edited by Joanne Hanrahan
Original Article (Farsi)

In its 2010 budget bill, the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Forces Committee requires the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report on Iran’s major security and military strategy and submit it to the U.S. Congress. The secretary is also charged with finding ways to deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran’s doctrine, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.

It is widely known that U.S. has always taken belligerent actions against Iran and has not withdrawn its stance. It is still trying, whenever possible, to pursue this position to make Iran passive and submissive. Setting money aside in the budget for purposes of subverting Tehran’s government is an old story. Rather, experts are surprised when the U.S. attempts to reconsider past events with new vocabulary in connection with Iran.

For a number of analysts, Obama's various statements and word choices are viewed as an obvious approach adopted by U.S. officials because it is believed that this is a good opportunity for Iran to respond to subtle U.S. overtures by analyzing signals dispatched from the White House. The Guardian, a United Kingdom newspaper, recently published an article by Germany's ex-Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, titled “Obama’s Olive Branch for Iran.” In this article, Fischer encourages Iran to take this opportunity to negotiate with the U.S. over its nuclear programs.

But as time goes by and Obama must act rather than make speeches, the world sensibly realizes that he is not a man of change. Rather, he has changed his tone to achieve America's objectives at the lowest possible cost. What is currently presented as confrontation with Iran’s military doctrine is one part of an overarching strategy called “Iranophobia.” This Iranophobia began before Obama entered the White House and it is expedited and facilitated at present.

On the other hand, contemplation of the existing realities of America and Israel reveals that investment in military industries with policies of threats and domination constitutes another part of this Iranophobia strategy. Israelis have repeatedly claimed that Iran seeks to make nuclear bombs, an allegation that has never been proven, because Israel has a “don't ask, don't tell” policy. Iran, with a population of 70 million, spends only seven billion dollars for military purposes. In contrast, Israel, having one tenth the population of Iran, spends twice as much for the same purpose. U.S. military expenditures amount to more than 600 billion dollars annually, 85 times more than Iran. Nevertheless, they assert that Israel and America are peace-makers and Iran is the war-monger!

Such measures demonstrate that the U.S. is dishonest in its new strategy, and the new president of America, like his predecessors, is trapped by security concerns and this illusion of “Iranophobia.” The perpetuation of enmity against the Islamic Revolution has compelled the White House to use harsh diplomatic measures against Iran. This practice is followed at all times, as shown by strategies such as a recently passed bill titled “Victims of Iranian Censorship Act,” which appropriated 55 million dollars in 2010 for launching anti-revolution measures, counter-censorship and subversive software, and for providing the rebels with anti-filtering software and free web-logging applications.

The recent stance represents the Americans' adoption of a militarist policy to justify increasing the military budget against Iran, which is a dishonest pretext on their part. In fact, the U.S. takes this position to deny any accusations of militarism and to improve the image of its domineering policy.

On the other hand, it is worth saying that before taking office, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama decried the adventurous policies of Republicans and used his reprimands of his contenders’ behavior to win the elections. Yet, he keeps current national security and interests entangled with the policies of the past.

This fact shows that White House officials have always behaved dually in their efforts, meaning some rogue states and international laws violators, particularly Israel, have never been blamed because their interests converge with those of the United States. However, other independent actors are accused and condemned for not acting in concert with the interests of the White House.

Everyone is aware of this hegemonic regime's attempts to deceive other nations through the literature of demagoguery. But the attempt fails, because the Americans' dualistic behavior has resulted in the disclosure of real facts. In other words, the change of verbal literature led to the abandonment of any changes in behavior.

Therefore, budget appropriations and like measures cannot threaten the vigilant nation of Iran and are not even cause for worry, since all sorts of media exposure, economic sanctions, political maneuvering, and security talks have so far failed to bring Iranians to passivity and submission. Furthermore, no such efforts seem to have produced any observable effects.


Watching America