generalspeaking

“You cannot claim your eagerness for democracy, human
 rights and all these things and  through unilateral sanctions
 try to put all sorts of suffering and inflict suffering and hardship
on other people.
This is a contradiction,” Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar
Salehi said at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran.

In a surprise step, on Friday Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister
John Baird announced that Canada was severing diplomatic
relations with Iran by closing its embassy in Tehran, and
 ordered the closure of the Iranian embassy in Ottawa along
with the expulsion of Iranian diplomats. This step, of course,
 aligns Canada more closely with the U.S./Israeli position
on Iran. Commenting on the announcement, which came
 from the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific conference in Vladivostok,
the Canadian foreign affairs  minister offered the following
 rationalizations for the abrupt action by
his government:

1. Iran’s support for the government of Syrian President
 Bashar al-Assad; 

2. Iran’s alleged “dishonesty” in its dealings with the IAEA
over its nuclear dossier;

3. Iran’s support of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other
resistance organizations deemed terrorist by the West;
 and

4.  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s allegedly
inflammatory rhetoric directed at Israel.

While the main reason touted by Baird for the hasty
diplomatic measure was concern over the safety of Canadian
diplomats in Tehran after the so-called assault on the British
Embassy there in November 2011, others feel this may be a
sign that a U.S.-sanctioned attack on the Islamic Republic is
imminent. Presumably attempting to quell such speculation
on foreknowledge of an impending Western-instigated
attack on the Islamic Republic, the Canadian foreign minister
remarked, “Unequivocally, we have no information about a
military strike on Iran.”

Baird absurdly characterized Iran as the “most significant
threat to global peace and security in the world today.”
Countering this allegation, Globe and Mail columnist Doug
Saunders wrote, “U.S. intelligence agencies and Israel’s military
chief, Benny Gantz, have said recently they believe Iran is not
pursuing nuclear weapons. There’s no suggestion of any
Iranian military attack against any other country at the moment.
The Iranian menace is all politics and potential.” The last 274
years of history testifies that Iran has maintained peaceful
relations and has only resorted to military force in self-defense,
such as during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. In fact, Iran has
not acted aggressively toward any of its neighbors since 1738,
when Nader Shah Afshar invaded India and returned with the
Kuh-e Nur and Darya-ye Nur diamonds in his booty.

Technically, Canada has not had full diplomatic relations with
Iran since 2007, when the former Canadian ambassador left
Tehran after failing to agree on terms of diplomatic exchange.
So when viewed from the context of its recent relations with Iran,
the latest maneuver by Canada perhaps may not be quite as
 drastic as it is being portrayed by media outlets. However
the timing of the diplomatic rupture seems quite puzzling, for
even at the height of the NATO campaign against Libya,
Canada maintained diplomatic relations. It was not until
August 2011 that Prime Minister Stephen Harper ordered
the closure of the Libyan mission in Ottawa.

This latest act most likely will lead to increased tension.
By cutting off diplomatic relations with Iran, Canada has
chosen to follow the path the United States took 32 years
ago by closing its direct channel of communications with
Tehran. Without a direct link from either Washington or
Ottawa to Tehran, the Western powers have reduced their
ability to prevent a minor incident that might occur in the
Persian Gulf from escalating into a major crisis. Canada
and Britain were also the main conduits through which
intelligence on Iran flowed to the United States.

From a broader perspective, of course, the Canadian
action can be viewed as further kowtowing to the West,
falling closer in line with the position of the Washington/
Tel Aviv axis on Iran and Syria, thus helping to put increased
diplomatic pressure on Russia and China. Canadian Foreign
Affairs Minister John Baird has already informed Russian
Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov of the Canadian
government’s chagrin over Russia’s support of the Assad
government and its use of its veto power at the UN Security
Council to block sanctions against Syria.

It is necessary to point out that these events are taking place
in the context of a U.S. presidential election. With Democratic
incumbent President Barack Obama neck-and-neck with
Republican contender Mitt Romney, the last thing Obama
would want is the “October surprise” of an Israeli attack on
Iranian nuclear facilities to disrupt his campaign, so it is safe to
assume that all efforts are being made to cool the Zionists’
aggressive ardor. Also suggesting that now may not be the time
is a perception that a President Romney would be in tighter
lockstep with Tel Aviv than would a second-term Obama,
judging by Romney’s strong stance in support of Israel’s
 “right to strike Iran in self-defense.” And judging by outside
campaign contributions from top spenders, Romney may just
be elected as Tel Aviv’s next man in Washington since he is
pulling in 4 dollars for every dollar that is going to Obama.

Noteworthy is the fact that Canada’s move comes in the
wake of the recent Non-Aligned Movement summit hosted by
Tehran. The increasing empathy other countries are showing 
for Iran’s position in its dispute with the West can be gauged
by the success of the NAM summit, the importance of which 
was underscored by the “controversial” attendance of UN 
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Also attending the summit,
hosted by predominantly-Shia Iran, was Egypt’s newly elected
president from the Sunni-aligned Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed
Morsi. The extravaganza, which was covered by a huge international
press corps, which even included seven American reporters,
was a major diplomatic coup for Tehran.

U.S.-imposed economic sanctions and has gathered significant support to counter them by



strengthening ties with its Asian neighbors. Most likely, the main result of the Canadian diplomatic split with Tehran will be a net loss in Western intelligence and no appreciable economic fallout for Iran, which continues to strengthen its position in the Asia-Pacific energy market. In short, this latest move by Canada most likely will result in greater harm to the United States and its allies than to Iran.