Tensions have recently flared up between the international community and Iran over their alleged nuclear weapons program. The Obama administration has proven itself just as rapacious as the previous Bush administration in dealing with Iran. With new “evidence” about Iran’s alleged nuclear program, the Republican hopefuls and many Israelis are using this as proof that Iran must be destroyed before “it can get the bomb.”

Just like previous U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya the corporate media is complacently distorting information in order to arouse public support for brutal political agendas.

The same pretexts that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq are again being used to support an invasion of Iran. The evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons is inadequate. The invasion of Iraq not only yielded no weapons of mass destruction, but has destabilized and destroyed Iraq.

Sanctions rarely if ever work; diplomacy is the only effective and peaceful mechanism with which to engage Iran. Sanctions, rhetoric, and military invasions have all been proven failures.

Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons states, “(each of the) states must undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date to nuclear disarmament,” and toward developing a treaty “on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

States possessing nuclear weapons such as the United States, France, United Kingdom and Israel have not fulfilled their obligations to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons. How can these countries, especially the United States, lead the debate and set the agenda on whether any country can or cannot enrich uranium when they have disobeyed international law? How can these violators of international law claim that Iran “is being a rogue regime” when they have continuously disregarded international law and when Iran has signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons?

Moreover, the international community often advocates political coercion through dangerous rhetoric. Ryan Crocker, former United States ambassador to Iraq, wrote in an article titled “Eight Years on a Diplomat’s Perspective on the Post-9/11 World” about the impact of the “Axis of Evil” speech. Then-president George W. Bush gave his State of the Union address in January 2002, denouncing the “Axis of Evil”, which he defined as Iraq, North Korea and Iran.

After the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan (before the speech was made) we were in negotiations with Iran and the Iranians “seemed eager to work with us and with the new Afghan government led by Hamid Karzai,” according to Crocker.

One of the issues we were trying to sort out in those early days was the fate of former Afghan Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

“Soon after the speech, the Iranians not only released Hekmatyar from house arrest, they re-inserted him back into Afghanistan,” wrote Crocker. “Today his Hezb-i-Islami organization is one of the deadliest insurgent forces in eastern Afghanistan, where U.S. troops have taken their highest casualties since 2001.”

Clearly, ratcheting up the rhetoric destroyed what meager relations we had with Iran.

Economic sanctions have had little usefulness and effectiveness in resolving international disputes. For the scholarly journal, International Security, political scientist Robert A. Pape wrote an article called “Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work,” explaining that most modern states resist external pressure.

“Pervasive nationalism often makes states and societies willing to endure considerable punishment rather than abandon what are seen as the interests of the nation, making even weak or disorganized states unwilling to bend to the demands of foreigners,” wrote Pape. “In addition, states that have modern administrative capabilities can usually mitigate the economic damage of sanctions through substitution and other techniques. Finally, even when such capabilities are lacking and ruling elites are unpopular, they can still often protect themselves and their supporters by shifting the economic burden of sanctions onto opponents or disenfranchised groups.”

There is nothing in The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that disallows Iran to enrich uranium. In a 2011 Los Angeles Times article titled “Iran Nuclear Negotiations: It’s Time to Reopen the Iranian Nuclear Talks,” six former European ambassadors to Iran wrote:

“In principle, however, nothing in international law or in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty forbids the enrichment of uranium. Besides Iran, several other countries, parties or not to the treaty, enrich uranium without being accused of ‘threatening the peace.’

“And in Iran, this activity is submitted to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency…the IAEA has never uncovered in Iran any attempted diversion of nuclear material to military use. Conclusively the only option left to use is diplomacy.” More recently, Iran has been accused by the United States of attempting to assassinate a Saudi ambassador. Ray McGovern who served as an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years, has been interviewed on the Alex Jones show last October and written many articles on GlobalResearch.org stating that the alleged plot was a complete hoax set up by the U.S. government, to fuel support for an attack on Iran. Also, Steve R. Pieczenik, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations, went on the Alex Jones show and also stated that the Justice Department was making it up.

What would Iran gain from killing a lowly Saudi ambassador? How would killing a Saudi ambassador benefit Iran? And why would Iran put the job of killing the ambassador in the hands of a Corpus Christi car salesman?

According to Transatlantic Trends 2011, a survey of American and European public opinion, published a report conducted regarding Iran. Section Four (Transatlantic Security), reports that very few people in the EU (6 percent), the United States (13 percent), and Turkey (4 percent) preferred military action over other options.

A poll conducted by CBS found that a majority of Americans (55 percent) say the threat posed by Iran can be contained by diplomacy. Only fifteen percent say the situation requires the United States to take military action.

Remember the reasons for invading Iraq. Instead of heading the words of IAEA, the UN General Assembly, Iraqis, and millions of protestors around the world, the United States launched an illegal invasion of Iraq. The result was not only did the United States find no WMD’s, but the invasion has led to the death of over 600,000 Iraqis, as reported by the U.K. medical journal The Lancet.

Again, the same “experts” who took us to war because of Saddam Hussein’s non-existent WMD’S are again clamoring for an invasion of Iran based on the same propaganda they gave the American people almost a decade ago.

I challenge you check the facts and think critically; the corporate mainstream media is only concerned with promoting an agenda and not facts. I challenge you to compare what CNN and Fox report and compare it to RT News and Global Research and draw your own conclusions.