Both professor Richard Falk (Princeton University) and professor Gary G. Sick (Columbia University) have blamed the Zionist regime for pushing the US and other western powers to start WW III in the Muslim world. Israel wants this new war as a ploy to divert world’s attention from its own Zionazi policies on daily basis. Both Falk and Sick are on the National Advisory Committee of Middle East Policy Council.
United Nations special rapporteur Richard Falk has posted an article entitled Stop Warmongering in the Middle East on January 20, 2012. Gary Sick, who has served on the US National Security Council under presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan with special expertise on Iran – told radio The Voice of Russia that the price of war with Iran would be enormous.
“Probably the very last thing the president Obama wants to have at this point is a war with Iran. He had two wars that he is winding down as the result of some severe budgetary problems on his hands. He’s got an economy that’s in trouble, he is cutting back on the military and he is running for office. And the combination of all those things makes it very unlikely that he wants to start a war at this point. So, I personally think that president Obama is going to do whatever he can to avoid getting into a situation, which is actually counter-productive for everybody. It would not just be bad for Iran or for the United States. It would be bad for everybody in the region and the price would be simply enormous. I think he wants to avoid that,” said Dr. Sick.
Dr. Sick claims that the US has refused to negotiate its differences with Iran in good faith. He also believe that Mossad carried out the recent assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientist in Tehran as Israel wanted to sabotage United States contact with Turkey and Iran about restoring the negotiations.
Dr. Richard Falk, who has the honor to be listed among 8,000 ‘Self-Hating Israel-Threatening (S.H.I.T) Jews says when it comes to the Middle East, the US has no national foreign policy. It just follow Israeli dictation.
“The public discussion in the West discussing Iran’s nuclear program has mainly relied on threat diplomacy, articulated most clearly by Israeli officials, but enjoying the strong direct and indirect backing of Washington and leading Gulf states. Israel also has engaged in covert warfare against Iran in recent years, somewhat supported by the United States, that has inflicted violent deaths on civilians in Iran. Many members of UN Security Council supported escalating sanctions against Iran, and have not blinked when Tel Aviv and Washington talk menacingly about leaving all options on the table, which in ‘diplospeak’ their readiness to launch a military attack,” wrote Dr. Falk.
“It is not only an American insistence, despite pretending from time to time in an interest in diplomatic solution, that only threats and force are relevant to resolve this long incubating political dispute with Iran, but more tellingly, it is the stubborn refusal by Washington to normalize relations with Iran, openly repudiate the Israeli war drums, and finally accept the verdict of history in Iran adverse to its strategic ambitions. the United States has shown no willingness despite the passage of more than 30 years to accept the outcome of Iran’s popular revolution of 1978-79 that nonviolently overthrew the oppressive regime of the Shah,” added Dr. Falk.
“To be objective commentators we must ask ourselves whether Iran’s posture toward its nuclear program is unreasonable under these circumstances. Is not Iran a sovereign state with the same right as other states to uphold its security and political independence when facing threats from its enemies armed with nuclear weapons? When was the last time resorted to force against a hostile neighbor? The surprising answer is over 200 years ago! Can either of Iran’s antagonists claim a comparable record of living within its borders? Why does Iran not have the same right as other states to take full advantage of nuclear technology? And given Israeli hostility, terrorist assaults, and military capabilities that includes sophisticated nuclear warheads, delivery style, and a record of preemptive war making, would it not be reasonable for Iran to seek, and even obtain, a nuclear deterrent? True, the regime in Iran has been oppressive toward its domestic opposition and its president has expressed anti-Israeli views in inflammatory language (although exaggerated in the West), however unlike Israel, without ever threatening or resorting to military action. It should also be appreciated that Iran has consistently denied an intention to develop nuclear weaponry, and claims only an interest in using enriched uranium for medical research and nuclear energy. Even if there are grounds to be somewhat skeptical about such reassurances, given the grounds for suspicion that have been ambiguously and controversially validated by reports from International Atomic Energy Agency, this still does not justify sanctions, much less threats backed up by deployments, war games, projected attack scenarios, and a campaign of terrorist violence,” says Dr. Falk.