Eli Clifton writes that Clarion Fund‘s new anti-Iran film is to be called (quite creatively) Iranium. I wrote about it a few weeks ago when news of it first surfaced. But now the Aish HaTorah-affiliated Clarion has a website for the film which reveals some interesting and damaging information. A review of the Interviewee page shows many of the usual pro-Israel Islamophobic neocon suspects like James Woolsey, Rachel Ehrenfeld, and Bernard Lewis. There is the requisite retired U.S. general.
Clarion lays out the purpose of the film clearly:
The film will present a wide array of options to combat the threat and will target influential U.S. interest groups and policy makers. After viewing the film, the general public will be able to understand the critical nature of the threats and encourage a movement aimed at preventing the further advancement of the Iranian regime and its nuclear arsenal.
The italicized phrase clearly delineates the goal of the producers as rolling back Iran, which could easily be construed as regime change. This is no surprise since it is a popular theme among Jewish neocons and their allies. It is important when the Republican Jewish Coalition begins pimping this film come the fall election campaign, spending millions of dollars on screenings at synagogues and ads in the Jewish Forward, etc. that anyone who considers writing a word about it know that there is a radical military-interventionist message inherent in this film. And this message is heavily endorsed by Israel’s current right-wing government, which would like nothing more than to see the U.S. either attack Iran or allow Israel to do so on its behalf.
Anyone who has followed Clarion’s previous propaganda ventures, Obsession and Third Jihad, will know that their M.O. is to co-opt a “native” to denounce “radical Islam” in the case of those two films, and Iran in the case of this one. In the former case, it was rightist Republican Arizona cardiologist Zuhdi Jasser, who performed the requisite role of Muslim-bashing.
For Iranium, they have recruited a new “star” of the Green protest movement, Caspian Makan. If you read his press clippings from publications as august as the Guardian, you’d be forgiven for thinking that this guy was Moussavi and Karroubi’s right-hand man. Makan claims to have been Neda Soltan’s fiance (not true) and claims to have been with her in her final moments after being fatally shot during the June riots in Teheran (also untrue). Makan will tell anyone who will listen of the terrible hardships he has suffered both as a heroic partisan of the Green movement and as a refugee who fled on an arduous trek through Kurdish Iran to Turkey and then to exile in Canada.
Last month, this impostor even got an audience (no doubt thanks to his connections with the Clarion folks–what a great coup for their film!) with Israeli President Shimon Peres. Apparently, the president’s handlers didn’t do their due diligence on this fellow–or else they did and they found him too much of a hasbara gold mine to pass up. You can read the propaganda clearly articulated in the Jerusalem Post’s dutiful patriotic stengography.
Iason Athanasiadis, has written the definitive expose of Makan, pointing out his tenuous relationship with facts and the truth. Indeed, Athanasiadis published Makan’s first interview after he escaped from Iran. As such, this journalist should be accorded some respect in light of his disavowal of the so-called Iranian dissident hero.
It is interesting that when Makan first arrived in the west he was Neda Soltan’s fiance. Here is how he described her last day in the Guardian interview:
On the day of her death, Caspian was out with his camera in another part of the city. “I was taking pictures of the protests and the protesters that day. It was hard to take pictures as the security guards were beating up protesters. I used my mobile’s camera when I couldn’t use my big camera. It was six to seven in the evening when I started seeing people get shot and injured. I thought of Neda a lot. I was very worried for her. I wanted to call her but the mobile phone system had been disconnected and I couldn’t contact her at all. I didn’t sleep that night. The terrible scenes were going through my head. I was sitting in front of my computer, looking at the photos I had taken. Around six in the morning my mobile rang. It was Neda’s number. But it wasn’t her. It was her sister. She said, ‘Caspian, Neda is gone!’ I didn’t understand what she meant. I couldn’t believe what she was telling me.”
And here is his description of his imprisonment following her death. Note how it sounds like it comes right from the pages of a Victorian romantic novel:
“They told me they were taking me to Evin prison. They took me to a prison cell. Neda’s grave number was 32. The grave next to that was number 34, my cell’s number. I didn’t want to come back after they took me. I wanted them to kill me as well.”
There was one small problem with all of this. It wasn’t true, as described by the Turkey-based reporter:
Makan launched into an account of Neda’s final days that was tragic and compelling. Unfortunately, it was also full of lies. The way he told it, Neda — a very politicized young woman — begged him to sally forward into the streets with his camera and document events. He dutifully did so, snapping extraordinary images of Revolutionary Guardsmen hanging off helicopters, mercilessly shooting into the demonstrators.
“Really?” I asked. “That’s funny, I never heard even a claim of helicopter-mounted snipers.”
“Yes, yes,” Makan assured me. “I would show you the evidence but the Islamic Republic confiscated all my archives.”
With Neda dead, Makan started giving interviews to international television channels, achieving the kind of international media profile he had always sought…Clutching a lock of Neda’s hair and a few pictures he snapped of her during their two-month acquaintance, he began a morbid international tour.
His blurb at the Uranium site calls him “her close friend.” This is closer to the truth of the matter:
Not only was Makan not Neda’s fiance when she died, they were not even romantically linked anymore. Neda left him after a row they had and Caspian was allegedly seeing another girl, with whom he was spotted attending one of the post-election protest marches..
Similarly, Athanasiadis notes that when he had first met Makan some years ago, the latter had claimed to be a photographer but none of the photographers the former queried who would know of his work had ever heard of him. I note the Uranium site calls Makan “an Iranian documentary filmmaker.” Dare we ask to see any of his “documentaries?” Is there even one?
The journalist describes Makan’s harrowing tale of privation during his trek to freedom, but then notes that the smugglers who took their lives in their hands to carry him to safety couldn’t stand the sight of him. Apparently, he had the nerve to complain about the quality of the accommodations they provided him on his journey!
If the alleged Iranian dissident had a reason for leaving Iran it doesn’t appear to be the one he claims. Rather, he had gone from being a regime-favored landscape photographer to being out of favor:
As a landscape photographer, he had always depended on the Islamic Republic for commissions (the Ministry of Culture block-bought all 3,000 prints of his book of landscapes from the Caspian Sea, one of the regime’s method for rewarding docile artists). Now, he was out of favor and the Ministry of Culture did not return his calls. So Makan escaped to Turkey.
Makan may have a burning passion, but it is not for Iranian democracy. Rather it appears to be a passion for the good life and the fruits of success possible in the west:
Makan’s Narcissus complex is clear from the photographs of himself that he posts on Facebook, wearing elaborate suits and ties, driving a Mercedes, or Karate Kid-like in martial arts poses…
Now, in interviews conducted inside gleaming TV studios, he looks smug as a bug in a rug in his brand new suit. Neda must be spinning in her grave.
So much for Iranium’s token Iranian. I’d say that, in a play on the film’s title that, rather than Iran being radioactive, their Iranian hero is. It’s somehow fitting that Clarion has turned to a charlatan for affirmation of their anti-Iranian views, since those behind this film are charlatans as well, albeit political ones.
It’s also worth noting that the anti-Muslim right seems to have a special need to embrace such quisling frauds. Aish HaTorah, with which Clarion is closely affiliated, has adopted another alleged Muslim convert to Judaism, a former druggie calling himself “Mark” (not his original name) Halawa. I called him the Manchurian Muslim in the post I wrote about him. Another was Walid Shoebat, the pseudonym of a Palestinian who claimed to be a Muslim-born PLO terrorist who turned against terror, the PLO, and became a Christian evangelical. Only problem, he was none of the things he claimed to be.
There is also another interesting character appearing in the film. Harold Rhode is a former colleague of Doug Feith and protegé of Bernard Lewis and Richard Perle. He worked with Feith and Perle via the infamous Pentagon Office of Net Assessment, where he was responsible for plotting U.S. military strategy in the lead-up to the Iraq war.
He reaffirmed in an interview with the Jerusalem Post the standard lies of Cheney and other neocon warriors that Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda and thought this was a more effective argument for war than Iraqi WMD (he at least was right on one of those counts). Here is a sampling of Rhode’s sharp analysis of the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection and by extension all of Islam:
He [Saddam] was clearly involved with these bastards, with al-Qaida and all sorts of other fundamentalists who are out to destroy the West.
Why should Saddam, a secular Sunni, get involved with al-Qaida? What was his motivation?Let’s say say that everybody here is helping everybody else. I help you in ways that are good for you, and you help me in ways that are good for me. I have a money system that can transfer things; you use it. I need weapons transferred to someone that you have connections with. I’m not your leader, you’re not my leader. It’s mutual. They’re all on the same side here… Look, there were times the KGB and the CIA were on the same side and there are times right now that this country [Israel] and Saudi Arabia are on the same side – that’s until the day Iran is taken care of and then that will end.
If he’s secular, why did he write “Allahu akhbar” in his own blood on the flag, why did he supposedly have a Koran written in his blood? Why? I don’t know what secular means. Secular is a nice Western word. The best way you can put that in Arabic is la diniyah. La means no and diniyah is the law. That means you don’t fear God, you don’t fear judgment day. That means you can kill me or I can kill you and I’m not afraid of what God will say.
I’m ashamed to say that this is a man once employed by the U.S. government as an expert on Islam and the Muslim world. The fact that he’s starring in a new Clarion fund propaganda extravaganza doesn’t surprise me. But that he was sitting in a Pentagon office charting U.S. war policy speaks volumes about our utter failure there during the Bush years.
Thanks to Eli Clifton for sharing his background information about Rhode.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6d71a8ea-45c8-4b80-b8ed-a9c7c3f53b26)
Small correction… it seems Makan WAS indeed Neda’s fiance as they were going to get married. Other than that you are pretty much spon on!
Read the source I linked to. He specifically disputes this notion. It may be that at one time they considered themselves engaged. But that wasn’t the case at all when she died. They were broken up & he was dating another woman.
would a rep from the left tell me if makan, clarion fund, woolsey, ehrenfeld, lewis are still part of big oil and its current obsession to attack iran as they so obviously were earlier with big oil’s aggressive iraq campaign then slaughter.
is our beloved “world’s greatest intellectual” , mr chomsky, available for his luminous if somewhat peculiar interpretation.
Today’s LA Times, a rebuttal to Benny Morris on Iran
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-0421-munayyer-20100421,0,7413579.story
“Why Iran won’t attack Israel”
Take that Clarion Fund and partners!
That article is brilliant! And I don’t like to use this qualifier lightly. Thanks for the link.
Yes, Iason sounds like an amazing guy. I just Friended him on Facebook & he informs readers that he’s now in Dushanbeh, Tajikstan seeking out descendants of Greek Communists who were exiled there after the Greek Communist uprising in 1948 (I think). Amazing.
There is an arabic word for secular: ‘ilmani.
la-dini simply means non-religious. Rhode’s confussion about the meaning of the word “din” probably stems from the fact that it means “law” in hebrew but “religion” in arabic. .
Yes thanks. علماني is the Arabic word for secular, and the concept does exist outside the Western world, and even in the Arab and Muslim worlds, contrary to what Mr. self-proclaimed Expert pretends to know. Who knew those Ayrabs were sophisticated enough to understand such a concept, let alone have a word for it?
And if the guy knew even rudimentary Arabic, or anything at all about Islam he would know what din means, and that it means something different in Arabic than it does in Hebrew. The guy is just one more of the many ignoramuses who pretend to know something when they are really just making stuff up that fits their prejudices.
“Why Iran won’t attack Israel
The Jewish state’s substantial Palestinian population — which Israel once sought to expel — serves as a deterrent.”
to even discuss this lunacy is to become an idiot and to enter into israel’s propaganda.
best thing: israel and your western agents shut up.
Well obviously you did not mention that the link I gave is written in rebuttal to Benny Morris’s op-ed in the LA Times
“five”.
You see that’s what newspapers do, they publish editorials, This one, you chose only to give the underline that the LA Times chose to highlight, has a whole lot more to say than that.
American opinion is formed, not just Joe Blow voter’s opinion, but policy maker opinions are formed by such things in case you didn’t know that.
I just linked over to the website for this latest drivel from the Clarion Fund, due to be released late September.
“Groundhog Day” repeat of 2008.
Let’s just see how many newspapers it gets sent out to people’s homes in.
Richard this is one of your best written pieces ever.
Ilene is right. This is a very good piece and thank you for doing the research. I thought there was something odd in a representative of Iran’s opposition meeting Peres when all the wings of the opposition are as critical of Israel’s tretment of the Palestinians as Ahmadinejad is.
I found some interesting information when looking up who the iranium domain is registered to
Fund, Clarion ale@clarionfund.org
Clarion Fund, Inc.
That is the email for Alex Traiman who is the media contact for Clarion, who also does a radio show on Arutz Sheva, IsraelNationalNews.
But here is his most interesting position
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=PR&date=20100415&id=11413254
Public Relations for Suspect Detections Systems
Clarion gets to make them all look scary then SDSS gets to sell their wares to pick up the scary people
Google “Cogito Technology Featured on CNN” for the youtube.
Maybe it’s just me, but aren’t these films Clarion is producing and the Traiman connection to Suspect Detection Systems interesting?
Oh well, could be entirely innocent.
Looks like Traiman is the PR flack for Clarion, a job that used to be held by Gregory Ross, a Hollywood right wing PR flack. Interesting why Ross & Clarion parted ways. Traiman definitely does have an interesting set of clients. Suspect Detection Systems MUST have some close connection to Israeli intelligence.
Richard, you shouldn’t be so suspicious! (teasing-back to serious)
http://www.suspectdetection.com/globes14-08-06.html
SDS is owned by co-founders CEO Shabtai Shoval and methodology counselor Ishayau (Sigi) Horowitz. The company’s team includes former members of the General Security Services, and a director is former Mossad director Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amiram Levin.
Looking up Amiram Levin, he was a member of Sayeret Matkal-both Barak and Netanyahu were members.
Here’s a very strong link, go to Shabtai Shoval’s linked in which has his website listed
http://www.iran-israel.com/
Interesting-Clarion’s latest film is on Iran. Shabtai Shoval has this.
I translated my book to English. Would you like to read it?
Shavi
“I don’t know what secular means.”
Ummmmmm – doesn’t he have a dictionary? It means not religious.
“La means no and diniyah is the law.”
I don’t know where this guy got his expertise in Arabic, but he needs a new English-Arabic dictionary. Din is religion, not law. The guy is clueless in every way.
And you notice that the JPost article featuring the interview w. him trumpeted his special expertise in the Middle East region, which one would presume meant he’d know the least thing about Islam & Arabic.
i got as far as these paragraphs:
Yet the pesky Palestinian minority Morris wishes had been expelled decades ago serves as a deterrent from a nuclear-armed Iran, should the Islamic Republic ever build nuclear weapons and consider using them on Israel. The fact that Arab Israelis were among the casualties of the 2006 war with Hezbollah speaks to the reality that no nuclear attack on Israel could happen without the deaths of countless Palestinians and Israelis, not to mention the likely destruction of Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam.
The reality of Palestinian casualties, the destruction of Jerusalem, the onset of regional war and the immediate destruction of Iran’s regime as a result of a multilateral conventional or even nuclear counterattack all serve as a credible deterrence
the same could be said about grenada not wanting to attack the usa. why not just say “grenada has no thought or desire to attack the usa or that the usa(israel) is so full of shit. that the only aggression is from the loud mouth.”
t
Right on. The greatest deterrent to an Iranian attack on Israel is that Iran, unlike Israel, is not an aggressive country, and has relatively sane people making foreign policy and military decisions.
Excellent article!!
I always suspected this guy Makan was a fraud, just like I suspected Chalabi was a charlatan and a con. I have pretty good instincts in this regard.
Wasn’t the “Pentagon Office of Net Assessment” the Office of Special Plans? But what’s in a name anyway? Both have a fishy smell. Apparently the OSP had a revolving door for Israelis who were involved in cooking up intelligence and their clearance was waived by Feith.
Colin Powell later referred to it as Feith’s “Gestapo Office”.
Anyway, hopefully, the masses won’t be fooled again!
“hopefully, the masses won’t be fooled again!”
As they say, live in hope, die in despair. The masses are being fooled even as we speak by exactly the same kind of hype about Iran that fooled them about Iraq. Frighteningly few learned anything from the Iraq experience.
Does this critique of Iranium implies Iran’s nuclear program is not a threat?
I’ve read “Why Iran won’t attack Israel” of the LA Times and it’s argument doesn’t hold water. It basically says that Iran won’t fire because Arabs may get in the way. Well, what if they don’t care? It’s precisely the fact that Israeli Arabs got fired upon by Hezbollah that indicates that Iran won’t hesitate because of the Palestinians.
Not to mention that the Palestinian population in refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon aren’t dissolved and their residents aren’t given citizenship just to keep fueling the conflict instead of letting people get on with their lives wherever they are. Arab regimes can be cynical with Palestinian lives, so can Iran.
If they ever seriously decide to actually fire a nuke, despite it’s mass murder and despite second strike, I’m sure the muslim population won’t stand in their way.
As for Jerusalem, it’s perfectly possible with today’s nukes and rockets to turn Israel into a waste land and leave Jerusalem untouched.
I’m too convinced that Iran won’t use nukes against Israel, at least because Israel’s credible second strike capability. However, Iran’s nuclear program is still a grave threat for two main reasons
1. The *threat* of nuclear weapons can limit Israel in fighting against Hezbollah and Hamas and I’m sure the well-being of the ordinary guy in Gaza and Lebanon isn’t high on their check-list.
2. Iran can provide nuclear material to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda. If it can do so covertly without an obvious proof, it can create a whole new precedent in the history of nuclear weapons when the attacker doesn’t have a return address so the victim doesn’t have a good second strike option (nuclear or otherwise).
Here’s a scenario to illustrate: Iran gets weapons grade uranium and plutonium, rockets and warheads. However, Iran never assembles and tests any nuclear weapons, thus achieving two goals:
a. not setting off a dangerous arms race b. making it clear it could use nukes if need be.
Instead, Iran provides Al-Qaeda with plutonium which it uses to dirty-bomb major cities around the western world. NATO decides to take action. Trouble is, there’s no one country to fight and you can’t invade them all at the same time. So, Al-Qaeda basically goes unpunshied.
Oh, you mean just like the millions of Occupied Palestinians who are given neither their own state nor Israeli citizens, which in turn “keeps fueling the conflict??” And the Israeli regime “can be cynical w. Palestinian lives” as well.
I see, there’s some special new Israeli nuclear weapon which can hit one small area and not affect the surrounding area? What are you smokin’? If such a bomb were dropped on Tel Aviv it would certainly not lv. Jerusalem untouched. Or have you forgotten radioactive fallout? Or is there a new weapon which avoids this messy complication?
That’s precisely why a balance of terror could be a good thing when there is an imbalance. I’m convinced that if the U.S. had nuclear weapons during the Cold War & Russia didn’t that the world would’ve been a much more dangerous & unstable place w. much greater likelihood the U.S. might’ve used it weapons or at least used them as cugdels to bully other nations into submission.
What a load of horse manure. The neocons & Bibi-istas have raised this possibility fr. time immemorial & never provided an ounce of evidence that this was ever even considered by Iran. On the contrary, every statement & action by Iran indicates it has never contemplated doing this & that it would not do this. I dare you to provide a single shred of evidence that supports this whacky theory.
Ditto what I wrote above. You’re spinnin’ & not doing a very good job of it either. If anyone might do this it might be Pakistan, which has much greater history of complicity w. the Taliban. Iran has never indicated it supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
The difference is that there’s an ongoing conflict between Israel and “Occupied Palestinians” when there’s no such conflict between Palestinian refugees and their Arab hosts. There’s no reason why Syria shouldn’t grant them citizenship.
You’re right of course that the occupation has to end but that’s no excuse for the miserable state of Palestinian refugees in other countries.
Richard, exactly what is your expertise in nuclear weapons? Try looking up effective radius of some nuclear weapons and you’ll see that Jerusalem can be spared.
Iran has a puppet called Hezbollah which it supplies with pretty much anything it has. From experienced officers to ground-to-sea rockets. There’s no reason why Iran wouldn’t supply Hezbollah or other organization with some nuclear material. Who says there’s some magic red line when it comes to uranium?
The difference in the balance of power in the Cold War and Israeli-Arab relations is that Israel can’t threaten Hezbollah with nukes.
It’s clear that Israel won’t nuke Lebanon over Hezbollah, no matter what it does. However, Iran may very well threaten Israel if it pushes Hezbollah a bit too much.
There’s a basic asymmetry here which has and will be cleverly exploited.
Besides, Hezbollah’s aim is to destroy Israel, completely and utterly. They’ve said so themselves and backed their words with actions. None of the parties in the Cold War wanted to destroy the other in this sense.
“The difference is that there’s an ongoing conflict between Israel and “Occupied Palestinians” when there’s no such conflict between Palestinian refugees and their Arab hosts. There’s no reason why Syria shouldn’t grant them citizenship.”
You got the cause and effect mixed up. The conflict is ongoing because Israel expelled most Palestinians and denied them citizenship. This syntax even implies Israel can grant them citizenship if the conflict is resolved, though that’s probably not what you meant. Even so, if the refusal to accept the Jewish state is the problem, citizenship rights vis-a-vis Israel shouldn’t be an issue at all. It’s a Jewish state. Granting civil rights to non-Jews is not on the agenda.
The situation for the Palestinians in other Arab countries isn’t as exceptional as often portrayed. Azerbaijan refuses to resettle Azeris from Nagorno-Karabakh and Afghanistan has a 30 year refugee crisis. I also doubt the sole reason is the conflict with Israel; the Gulf states only grant citizenship to a thin layer of their people and resettling the Palestinians would set an unwanted precedent for liberalisation. Syria also keeps many Kurds stateless.
Most importantly, it boils down to what the Palestinians ask for. I’m not aware of any orgs or activists who ask us to push for their naturalisation in Arab countries, certainly not as an alternative to pressure on Israel.
Andrew, that’s precisely the point. Israel won’t grant citizenship to the Palestinians. Not now, not ever.
Between today and some future date when an independent Palestinian state will be established, there’s no reason why Arab nations can’t make their Palestinian brothers more comfortable by granting citizenship.
In Arab countries, citizenship doesn’t come with political rights, so I don’t see what’s the problem. Once the Palestinian state gets on it’s way, they can happily move there. Until then, let them get on with their lives wherever they live.
And there’s no reason why the state that made them refugees to begin with can not honor their right of return. In two short paragraphs you tout Israel as more liberal than the Arab states (non-Jewish Israelis enjoy political rights until they don’t, say, when the Knesset makes it impossible for non-Jews to live with their spouses) and appropriate the exceptional right to break international law by committing a mass expulsion and barring their return.
Having a vested interest in creating a refugee crisis doesn’t add much weight to your concern for the refugees when they’re targeted by a third party.
There are 2 issues here: one is yr baseless claim & the other are the facts. The facts say that Iran has never done anything like this, ever. Never given any nuclear material to anyone. If it had, if there had ever even been whisperings of this the Mossad or CIA would know about it & trumpet it around the world. But it hasn’t happened regardless of yr wild-eyed, baseless speculation.
O lord, you remind me of Chicken Little’s “the sky is falling.” You’ve been reading too many of Nasrallah’s press releases. Israel has said many times that it seeks to destroy Hezbollah completely & utterly. SO what’s the point? Who’s right & what does it matter?
What is the baseless claim you’re referring to? The idea that Iran supports Hezbollah? It’s not baseless at all. Start here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/apr/29/in-search-of-hezbollah/ Here’s a quote:
“The movement first emerged during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, in which between twelve and nineteen thousand Lebanese died, most of them civilians and many of them Shiites. Militant followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, Hezbollah’s original cadres were organized and trained by a 1,500-member contingent of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, who arrived in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley in the summer of 1982, with the permission of the Syrian government. For Iran, whose efforts to spread the Islamic revolution to the Arab world had been stymied by its war with Iraq, Hezbollah provided a means of gaining a foothold in Middle East politics.”
Iran is deeply involved with Hezbollah in many ways. Iran has a great influence over it, if not command.
Sure, Iran has yet to leak uranium to anyone else. However, Iran officially shouldn’t have weapons-grade uranium either. Once it has, and once Iran will admit so, it will no longer embarrass them to provide some uranium to some brave Shi’a warrior brothers in south Lebanon.
The baseless claim is that Iran might give or would give a bomb to any terror group it supports.
You’ve merely stated that Iran supports Hezbollah. Of course they do just as the U.S. uses Israel as its proxy. But you haven’t & can’t point to a shred of evidence that Iran has given or would ever give a nuclear bomb to Hezbollah. This is typical hasbara geshreying about the sky falling. DOesn’t work here I’m afraid.
Look, I admit I’m merely extrapolating. Here’s what I know: France leaked nuclear tech to Israel in the sixties and the west overlooks it ever since. (i’m not passing judgement, merely stating a fact)
There is a black market for nuclear tech in which Pakistan and N. Korea are sellers and Iran’s the buyer.
Given the fact that Iran is in the market and that nuclear tech has been leaked before, it is reasonable to speculate this may happen again.
Since Iran is on the market and since it supports Hezbollah, Iran *might* provide it with some uranium. Can you guarantee they won’t?
Look what you wrote: Iran was the BUYER (& even this is something you claim w. no proof offered–I’ve never heard that Iran bought nuclear technology fr. anyone on the black market). Not the seller. Do you understand the difference?? Show me a single instance in which Iran sold anything to anyone related to nuclear technology or nuclear bombmaking. Then we can talk. Till then, you’re making no sense.