Skip to main content

You know sometimes it drives me absolutely bonkers when so-called "journalists" fail to report on obvious, easily-discoverable and CRITICAL facts about current events.  

The looming war or strike or conflict with Iran is clearly something that affects the entire globe.  Yet journalists consistently forget to mention something absolutely critical about Iran's potential to acquire/develop/build nuclear weapons.

The ultra-short version:

The SUPREME LEADER of Iran (yes that's his title) is the guy with all the power NOT the president.  And the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa which SPECIFICALLY forbids Iran (and Iranian scientists) from ever building, acquiring or using a nuclear weapon.  Ever.  (Another link here).

It is against the law to even criticize the Supreme Leader in Iran.  People have gone to jail for making even oblique remarks that seem critical of him.  It is pure lunacy to think that the Revolutionary Guards, the regular Iranian military or any other government agency is going to contradict one of his fatwas.

Is this ever mentioned in the western press?  Almost never.  

Longer version:

Iran is a kind of a democracy but it is set up on theological lines and therefore the religious leaders have the ultimate power in the country.  Every Friday in the capital of Tehran a sermon is given which is essentially the "baseline" for which all Iranian religious/political doctrine is established. In other words, this sermon is always the de facto official government policy.

The official position of the guy who GIVES the Friday sermon is extremely prestigious.  Last Friday (November 9) one of the higher-ranking clerics who run the country gave the sermon, excerpted below:

The very idea of an atom bomb is forbidden, the very deed is a sin.

I don't know how much clearly the religious rulers of Iran need to make it that they have zero freaking interest in owning, building or using a nuclear weapon.

It's a little difficult to understand the force of law that a fatwa from the Supreme Leader of Iran conveys but you'd think even an ignorant martini-guzzling journalist could figure out by the title that it carries a little more weight than the office of (just the) president of Iran.

Let's put it this way.  The current president of Iran and every other president since the 1979 revolution can't even run for office without first being approved by the Supreme Leader - he can't even get on the ballot.  

Other related forgotten points:

  1. Iran is/was a signatory to the NPT.  Again you don't have to be a lawyer to read that it clearly states the development of nuclear energy for civilian, non-military purposes is EXPRESSLY and CLEARLY permitted.  

Only four countries in the world are NOT signatories: North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel.  Wow exactly the nations we would want to be running around with unsupervised and unmonitored nuclear weapons!

  1. The IAEA has said about 5 bajillion times that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon.  Because of this (and a couple of other reasons including this fun nugget), the Peace Prize winning director of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei has been the victim of many "dirty tricks" campaigns by the United States to try to get him out of the position.
  1. The question of why exactly Iran needs nuclear power plants since it is sitting on a gigantic amount of petroleum and natural gas.

Couple of relevant facts:

A) Iran imports gasoline, about 4 billion dollars' worth in 2005 alone.  Rising oil prices affect Iranians just like it does Americans, so much so that the Iranian parliament just passed a bill to get people to drive less:

The plan would commit the government to expand railways and public transportation, take ageing cars off the road, and convert gasoline-powered cars to dual-use vehicles that can run on gasoline and liquefied gas (LPG). It also calls for improved highways, more stations to sell liquefied gas, the manufacture of cars that run on LPG and support for the production of hybrid and electric cars, and greater fuel efficiency in general, "Etemad-i Melli" reported.

The framework bill urges the government to help create conditions that will dramatically reduce the flow of private vehicles on city streets. It advocates a goal of making buses and other public transport responsible for 75 percent of all city traffic.

Wow what an insane world when the Iranian parliament has a rational approach to rising fuel costs!  If the American Congress tried to encourage the "expansion of railways" or getting 75% of people in cities to use buses they would be laughed at on every talk show.

So why does Iran need to import gasoline at all?  Because it can't refine the petroleum it has into gasoline.  As mind-boggling as it sounds, Iran actually sells crude oil to other nations who refine it and then re-imports it back as gasoline (as well as kerosene, diesel, jet fuel, etc).

Why doesn't it build more refineries?  Well for one thing building a refinery is incredibly expensive.  And all the (ludicrous) sanctions against Iran make this an even more difficult task.

Last summer when the Iranian government raised the price of gasoline from (approximately) 12 cents a gallon to 40 cents, there were riots in the street.

And as a corollary to the non-stop fun parade going on next door in Iraq, there is a thriving black market where Iranians are smuggling a lot of that domestically-refined Iranian gasoline into Iraq to be sold for a mega-profit.

  1. The neocons and others who openly want to overthrow the Iranian government know and have been planning on squeezing Iran's gasoline shortage crisis to foment civil unrest for years:

According to him, if and when imposed economic sanctions hit Iran, gasoline imports could halt and the result would definitely be civil unrest.

Amir Mohebian, a conservative analyst criticizes the Ministry of Oil's officials and their approach towards gasoline crisis and believes that gasoline is Iran's weak point that United States is using to put more pressure on Iran and the impact of the sanctions over the country's possible social unrest.

Got it?  First you deny them the ability to build refineries, then you deny them nuclear energy, then you squeeze their ability to import gasoline, then there are riots and civil unrest and magic, presto the evil Iranian government is overthrown (or at least seriously weakened).

That isn't just a neocon fantasy, members of the American Congress have openly advocated such a course of action:

Under the proposed legislation, any company that provides Iran with gasoline or helps it import gasoline after the end of the year could lose its access to U.S. customers.

"This is becoming the critical weakness of the Iranian government, meaning its dependence on gasoline," Kirk said in a telephone interview. "The riots show the gasoline shortage is a growing danger to the Iranian regime and a diplomatic opportunity for Western countries to force Iran to adhere to international nuclear rules."

Yes force it to adhere to the "rules" which is the NPT which says it can legally develop nuclear energy for civilian use.

How ludicrous is it that the American government is officially trying to punish companies from selling GASOLINE so that the average Joe in Iran can get to work?

As far as I can tell thank goodness this bill never passed into law.  

You may be wondering how nuclear energy would reduce refined petroleum product usage in Iran.  That's because a good portion of its power plants are powered by refined petroleum products.  For a look see here.

Bonus "fun fact":  The current Supreme Leader of Iran was nearly killed and is permanently disabled after an assassination attempt in 1981 by the MEK.  As such he is even MORE revered and often referred to as a "living martyr".  

You might remember the MEK as the terrorist organization which is sheltered and funded inside of Iraq by the United States government despite the Iraqi government's efforts to prosecute them for human rights crimes.  More Bush terrorist-loving-if-they-are-against-Iran facts can be found here.

And now you know what the western press will rarely tell you.


Originally posted to Soj on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 05:12 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It is all about OIL!!!!! (9+ / 0-)

    Never about nukes, Saddam, al Quida, Islam, insurgents, etc. ad nauseum.
    It has never been about anything but control of the oil.
    America can't just go ahead and BUY what it needs, the fascist Amerikka has to steal it in order to maximize profits.

    •  Oh good, we could use more of that! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It could be to maintain an access to oil, but not to 'steal it' as you suggest. If so, then I am waiting for the free, stolen oil benefits coming from Iraq. Tap, tap, tap, tap, ummm......

      If you believe it has been stolen, then you are unaware of the infastructure built and paid for by Iraqi oil profits. And what industry, or capital generating business platform is paying for the Iraqi troops and governmental expenses?

  •  VERY Good! Now that was worth reading! (7+ / 0-)

    Great Journalism.  Seriously

    The neocons and others who openly want to overthrow the Iranian government know and have been planning on squeezing Iran's gasoline shortage crisis to foment civil unrest for years:

    Now get this to the papers, to the News Outlets,

    We need to talk with our wallets because no one is listening to our words

    by one pissed off democrat on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 05:31:46 AM PST

  •  Thank you!!! (9+ / 0-)

    You're right. And this deserves to be frontpaged if only to silence those Kossacks who use the "But what if Iran is actually developing nuclear weapons?" strawman when we say that an attack on Iran needs to be off the freaking table.

    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

    by kyril on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 05:39:36 AM PST

  •  I remember hearing that an Iranian official, (8+ / 0-)

    when asked why his country would seek to develop nuclear power at all when it's sitting on so much oil, replied, "Someday soon, the oil will run out."

    Yup.  Irrational religious fanatics, all of 'em.

    Some folks prefer a map and finding their own route. Others need someone to tell them where to go.

    by sxwarren on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 05:48:14 AM PST

  •  Send this diary to Keith Olberman. (5+ / 0-)

    Lets try to get attention to this message. Iranian People don't deserve to have happen to them what has hapened to the Iraqi People. Great Diary!

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 05:54:20 AM PST

  •  Take their word at face value? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rogneid, Keith Moon, Temmoku, DreadWolf
  •  I'm still waiting for all that rediation from the (0+ / 0-)

    bombing in Syria and all those WMDs that they found in Saddam's bunker to be itemized!
    I'd hold my breath..but I have to cough...

    All I want from Congress is...IMPEACHMENT!

    by Temmoku on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 06:19:36 AM PST

  •  The brought out the big guy and they're (0+ / 0-)

    pretending that they didn't put him up to it by distancing themselves from him, but Bolton is front and center and we all know what that means.

    After Bolton's pronouncements, there was a brief notation that George Bush doesn't think much of him anymore.  "he's interesting".

    Also, at the same time the FBI with two year old information is issuing warnings that the terrorists plan to attack shopping malls.  Of course, along with this dire warning, the FBI also says it isn't really concerned about this planned attack.

    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 06:25:28 AM PST

  •  The hubris of BushCheney to unilaterally (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    deny uranium enrichment to Iran in defiance of international treaty (NPT).

    Even if Iran intended to go for weapons, they wouldn't be capable for about ten years.  Do you really want BushCheney (the gang that can't shoot straight) to fix this hypothetical problem now?

    Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

    by groggy on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 06:54:44 AM PST

  •  Meanwhile Putin's hand is strengthened (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Russia and China are the beneficiaries of our incredibly short-sighted policies. America has lost most of its global influence because of crap like this.

    "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 07:05:03 AM PST

  •  Why Are You Back? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Haven't you posted enough crazy-assed garbage bordering on genocidal denial around this place?

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 07:10:25 AM PST

    •  Why not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I certainly do not agree with this but there is a small matter of free speech, until the editors of this blog decide to engage in censorship.

    •  DH (0+ / 0-)

      Who is this sudden outburst of blog rage aimed at?

      •  The Dishonest and Disreputable Diariest (0+ / 0-)

        For instance, this diary, which based an entire post on something presented as serious but which was actual satirical, but the diarist, when confronted on the ridiculous sourcing, didn't update the diary.  And then, of course, there was this abomination, which tried to discount the massacre in Srebrenica.

        This person traffics in dishonest sourcing and repugnant lies, and disgraces Daily Kos with his presence.

        [Yeah, there's also that thing about how he for a long time claimed to be a woman living in one place with one life story but was discovered to be a man living in another.  There were the claims of being, iirc, a federal law enforcement agent, but discovered to instead be a local 911 dispatcher.  It goes on and on...]

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 10:13:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

    and I take the Supreme Leader at his word.  Yes, I know, he's quoting the Former Supreme Leader, not the current one.  So, when somebody shows me where the current Supreme Leader has renounced these words, I'll be happy to retract.

    "I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray. You wore blue."

    by dfb1968 on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 07:46:08 AM PST

  •  In case no one's noticed... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, Joffan

    the US position appears to have changed from denying Iran nuclear weapons to denying them the knowledge required to make nuclear weapons:

    "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

    This is from a Bush press conference last month. Of course, Iran, not to mention virtually every other country in the world has the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site