[This is Part 3 of the series “Iran’s Century and a Half Fight for Sovereignty”. Part 1 is a historical overview of Iran’s long struggle with Britain’s control over Iranian oil and the SIS-CIA overthrow of Iran’s Nationalist leader Mosaddegh in 1953.
According to Robert Dreyfuss in Hostage to Khomeini, the US was involved in deliberately making the students occupy the embassy. The motive for the US was to have an excuse for intervening down there. Because W. Germany , the USSR, France, Japan and OPEC had plans for an economic program competing with the dollar dominance. And the US threatened the europeans to deprive them of ME oil if they went ahead with that program. In order to convince the europeans that the US meant it they needed that excuse.
This is among the parts of history that went down the memory hole.
And this is in total contrast with the coup in 1953 that even the CIA has confirmed.
..
Since the Iranian revolution, strongly supported by the UK and US happened but also has been lost to the memoryhole and in addition the Afghan war happened all the peace oriented plans faded away I guess.
..
Both the Campaigner special report 16 from may 1978 and NYT from may 7 reported about the Bonn Moscow accord from may 6 1978.
..
Campaigner called it Bonn Moscow Pact and mentioned that both Breznev and Schmidt said it was going to be a permanent detente.
The NYT account also quoted skeptical oppinions from some of W Germany's business circles.
One opinion was that the USSR didnt have much to contribute with.
..
But that must be seen as a biased opinion caused by the USSR's capacity to massproduce nuclear reactors thus also worrying the western part of the Iranian nuclear program.
..
The USSR was discussing that massproduction in order to assist the industrialisation of poor countries that was inherent in the mentioned competing economic project.
..
Dreyfuss mentioned that OPEC's condition for tying the competing financial instrument to OPEC was that it be part of development and industrialisation.
..
Text on the back cover of Dreyfuss book:
How British Secret Intelligence Service spies plotted the downfall of the Shah
How the Carter Administration set up the taking of 53 hostages in Teheran
How the secret terrorist society, the Muslim Brotherhood, brought Khomeini to power.
..
And I like to refer people to several documents on Larouchepub.com about the origin of MB as a British Imperial program, not anything with a genuine origin among arabs or persians.
E.g.
Muslim Brotherhood: London's shocktroops for the New Dark Ages
I asked Chat GPT: I was able to find **partial references that match elements of your quote**, but not the exact wording you provided. The material appears to relate to **1970s discussions about OPEC petrodollars, nuclear exports, and Soviet industrial strategy**, which were widely discussed in policy and journalistic sources at the time (including the *New York Times*, *Foreign Affairs*, and congressional hearings). Below are the closest verifiable references corresponding to each component of the passage you quoted.
---
# 1. Soviet plans to **mass-produce nuclear reactors for export**
There **is a documented reference** to the USSR planning large-scale reactor production and export to developing countries.
A technical/policy publication describing Soviet nuclear industry plans states that the USSR was building an industrial complex to mass-produce reactors:
> The USSR is constructing an industrial complex to **mass-produce reactors** called “Atommash”… production was expected to reach **three or four 1000-MW units per year**, with exports planned for Eastern Europe and **possibly the Third World**. ([Open Computing Facility][1])
This aligns with the claim in your quote that:
* the USSR was discussing **mass production of nuclear reactors**
* with the aim of **supporting industrialization in poorer countries**
---
# 2. Iranian nuclear program and Western reactor suppliers
There are documented deals in the **mid-1970s** where Western firms supplied reactors to Iran.
For example:
* West German company **Kraftwerk Union (Siemens/AEG)** signed a contract in **1975** to build two nuclear reactors at **Bushehr**. ([Wikipedia][2])
* Iran also invested **$1 billion in the French Eurodif enrichment plant** to secure nuclear fuel supply. ([Carnegie Endowment][3])
These deals were part of the Shah’s plan to build **23 nuclear power reactors** to industrialize Iran’s economy. ([Democratic Underground][4])
The existence of these deals explains why **Western European industrial circles were debating nuclear competition with the USSR** in the 1970s.
---
# 3. OPEC revenues tied to **development and industrialization**
During the 1970s oil shock, many OPEC leaders explicitly said that oil revenues were intended to fund **industrial development**.
Contemporary discussions in policy circles described OPEC’s broader political goal as part of a **“new economic order”** for developing countries. ([GovInfo][5])
This fits the line in your quote suggesting:
* OPEC wanted any financial mechanism linked to it to be tied to **development and industrialization**.
---
# 4. West German business skepticism toward Soviet economic cooperation
Although I did not find the exact sentence you quoted, there are many documented references to **Western European skepticism about Soviet economic capabilities**, particularly during energy and technology negotiations in the 1970s.
For example, U.S. policy documents from the period emphasize that Western countries believed they retained technological advantages in energy technology and nuclear systems. ([Office of the Historian][6])
This type of commentary likely corresponds to the “skeptical opinions from West German business circles” mentioned in your quote.
---
# Likely origin of the quote
Based on wording (“Dreyfuss mentioned…”, references to **NYT**, **OPEC**, **Soviet reactors**, **West German business circles**), the passage most likely comes from one of these sources:
1. A **1970s energy geopolitics analysis** referencing *New York Times* reporting
2. A book or lecture citing journalist **Robert Dreyfuss** or **Robert Dreyfuss-type commentary on petrodollars**
3. A discussion of the **petrodollar recycling debate (1974-1977)**
The **exact wording appears secondary or paraphrased**, possibly from:
* a political economy book
* a blog/forum quoting earlier articles
* a lecture or academic commentary on the 1970s energy crisis
---
✅ **Conclusion:**
* Elements of the quote **are historically grounded** (Soviet reactor export strategy, Iran’s nuclear contracts, OPEC development rhetoric).
* However, the **exact wording you provided does not appear in a searchable primary source** and is likely a **paraphrased synthesis of several 1970s discussions** rather than a direct quotation.
---
✅ **If you want**, I can also try to **track down the specific “Dreyfuss” reference** (which may point to the original source of the passage). The wording suggests it may come from a **1970s or early-1980s geopolitical analysis of the petrodollar system**, and that can often be traced precisely.
Thanks, well if you are going to seek quotes I dont mind.
Continuing about other aspects relating to nuclear.
While I dont like the attitude of the current US it is true that China was able to absorb valuable knowhow from the US where the US elites let jobs be taken away from US expertise. There is no reason to blame China for that.
And in addition it wasnt China who blew the Three Mile Island reactor that Hollywood conveniently gave a hint about only weeks before it happened. Two settings were wrong. Not just a little bit suspicious. The US authorities who were in charge of nuclear power before the Harrisburg 'accident' were surprisingly negative to that energy source. I dont remember a source but I think it was in Larouchepub. Larouche et al had the view that the US/UK mainly guided by the UK elites intend to unleash a new dark age of backward societies without any intention of using science for the embetterment of our quality of life.
This source shows how one of the experts looks back on this period:
" They [The Chinese] got the knowledge of thousands of Americans who went over there to work"
Thanks for keeping this thread going, Peter. It’s fascinating what you can find in open sources, these days. Have you dug into Julian Assange and Wikileaks?
Well I followed Webster Tarpley, Daniel Estulin William Engdahl, Wayne Madsen and others who all exposed his double play so I saw him as a government agent. He was guided at Los Alamos as some kind of community punishment when he was a hacker. They let him think he was going help them with security. Can you imagine that genuine authorities would guide criminals to help with security? Of course this was a grooming operation to encourage him for his intended purpose. He had a typical profile for someone suitable to be conditioned by intel. Edward Snowden in the service of the CIA exposed the NSA. Wikileaks was used by NSA for payback where they revealed that the CIA had doubled on the kind of hightech methods NSA uses. That was in Wikileaks Vault7
Wayne Madsen revealed that Wikileaks lent their localities and equipment at the tune of $20M to insert trojans in Chinese government computers and using the trojans to commit IT chrimes against the US
Completely agree. Iran has been endlessly harried and vilified by the British and the US. It's appalling how they have interfered with peaceful countries around the world to the extent that international travel is a literal and figurative land mine. This further limits Americans travel to different cultures, which would reduce the ability of the censorship-military industrial complex to whip the population into a fearful frenzy, which is willing to bomb and/or sanction anyone 'back to the Stone Age'.
This applies even to countries who try to fight back in even the smallest way, such as simply not doing business with the rapacious mining and oil companies that prey upon South America, the Middle East and Africa, or on indigenous Australians with the help of 'their' own government.
These companies accomplish this with the help of the CIA and military in actioning coups against democratically elected governments, who are then replaced, either militarily or in a 'supervised' election, with or without a concurrent media blitz to amp up nationalist/fascist movements. A great example is Eva Morales, who was ousted in a military coup in 2019. https://www.latinorebels.com/2019/11/12/yestherewasacoup/
Another good example is Bolsinaro, who was basically installed in Brazil, after Lula was erroneously found guilty of widespread corruption in a falsified 'investigation', called Operation CarWash, funded by CIA cutout USAID.
Glenn Greenwald has covered the Lula-Bolsinaro debacle extensively, as has Aaron Maté covered the failed coup of Assad, which included the faked chemical weapons attack, uncovered by OPCW whistleblowers, in Syria. Maté has been targeted for censorship by the FBI his similar coverage of Ukraine, both the Maidan coup in 2014, the ensuing increase in corruption of that country and ongoing hypocrisy in Biden's policy toward the proxy war there.
These wars and sanctions have nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or freedom. They are about mineral resources, for which the neocon/neoliberal cabal does not want to pay open market prices.
Paradoxically, the Lula government is pursuing exactly the same political lawfare against its opponent Bolsinaro as Balsinaro pursued against Lula. The US has revoked the visa of the Brazil chief supreme court justice which is exactly the right response.
It’s wild. I wonder how Greenwald feels about his vociferous investigation into the conspiracy to indict Lula, given Lula is as bad or worse than Bolsinaro regarding free speech?
I've bounced around on this issue over the years in the peace movement, but much of the hysteria out of my poli sci degree & Washington amount to dishonest static. They don't believe in anything, certainly not security or defence. Human beings may-as-well believe in development, then.
If Iran wants to be the peacemaker, it should propose conditions of peace for Israel. I realize Iran can't recognize Israel until the Palestinian question is settled. But instead of empty rhetoric against Israel, Iran should be defining the conditions of an acceptable (though perhaps not desirable) peace. Until then, Iran is simply playing into neocon hands.
I guess Human rights issues, Inflation ( £1 Sterling = 65,000 Tomans ), Oppression of other religions & Starving families etc etc are not really important as long as the Rhetoric is the BEAUTIFUL conversation amongst civilisations! ... there is so much... Hardcore Toodeh members ( the wanna be communists of late 60'0 70.s ) Now admit Mosssadegh was a useless politician & the entire communist movement was a total waste of youth & energy in Iran. Alas, the still pro left, dont see what Iran was Before Reza Shah / Mohammad reza , During the Pahlavi resign , & Post Revolution.... It's an uninformed & subjective bias.
What an ugly and ignorant answer which does not account for what Iran is actually working towards today which is that very thing, prosperity and stability in the Middle East with the recent great diplomatic success of a partnership with Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and Iran with a so far successful ceasefire in Yemen. It is western imperialism that has fueled chaos and instability in the Middle East, notably with Sykes-Picot and the British Mandate of Palestine and the funding, support and even creation of Islamic terrorism notably in Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood and later the Mujahideen. It is Anglo-America who illegally bombed and invaded Libya and dispersed its war chest (the largest in Africa) to terrorists to fight in Syria against the Syrian people and paint it as a freedom movement. As Anglo-America continues to lose its foothold in the Middle East we see very clearly what truly lies behind the most violent chaos and with their exit how quickly nations will actually choose to align themselves with peaceful relations because they understand this is a benefit to all. People like you who spit on words such as PEACE and scoff at the proposal of a DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS, that does not make you a realist but complicit to the terror that has been sown in these parts funded and fueled by the Anglo-American empire today. You are blind to the fact that that very thing is happening in the Middle East today before your very eyes.
If Iran is a true harbinger of peace, why didn't they extend at least a tentative outreach to Israel? They could always make any offer contingent on decent treatment of the Palestinians. But Iran plays right into the neocon hands by refusing to rescind the (admittedly empty) statements predicting Israel doom. Iran can't have its cake and eat it. If Iran wants to be seen as a harbinger of peace, it must make some outline of peace with Israel. You don't have to approve of a country to deal with it.,
According to Robert Dreyfuss in Hostage to Khomeini, the US was involved in deliberately making the students occupy the embassy. The motive for the US was to have an excuse for intervening down there. Because W. Germany , the USSR, France, Japan and OPEC had plans for an economic program competing with the dollar dominance. And the US threatened the europeans to deprive them of ME oil if they went ahead with that program. In order to convince the europeans that the US meant it they needed that excuse.
This is among the parts of history that went down the memory hole.
And this is in total contrast with the coup in 1953 that even the CIA has confirmed.
..
Since the Iranian revolution, strongly supported by the UK and US happened but also has been lost to the memoryhole and in addition the Afghan war happened all the peace oriented plans faded away I guess.
..
Both the Campaigner special report 16 from may 1978 and NYT from may 7 reported about the Bonn Moscow accord from may 6 1978.
..
Campaigner called it Bonn Moscow Pact and mentioned that both Breznev and Schmidt said it was going to be a permanent detente.
The NYT account also quoted skeptical oppinions from some of W Germany's business circles.
One opinion was that the USSR didnt have much to contribute with.
..
But that must be seen as a biased opinion caused by the USSR's capacity to massproduce nuclear reactors thus also worrying the western part of the Iranian nuclear program.
..
The USSR was discussing that massproduction in order to assist the industrialisation of poor countries that was inherent in the mentioned competing economic project.
..
Dreyfuss mentioned that OPEC's condition for tying the competing financial instrument to OPEC was that it be part of development and industrialisation.
..
Text on the back cover of Dreyfuss book:
How British Secret Intelligence Service spies plotted the downfall of the Shah
How the Carter Administration set up the taking of 53 hostages in Teheran
How the secret terrorist society, the Muslim Brotherhood, brought Khomeini to power.
..
And I like to refer people to several documents on Larouchepub.com about the origin of MB as a British Imperial program, not anything with a genuine origin among arabs or persians.
E.g.
Muslim Brotherhood: London's shocktroops for the New Dark Ages
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1979/eirv06n18-19790508/eirv06n18-19790508_014-muslim_brotherhood_londons_shock.pdf
"In the immediate sense, the Ikhwan is an outgrowth of
a movement within the Muslim world that began in the
19th century, under the direction of Oxford and
Cambridge universities and the mystical circles of the
Scottish Rite of Freemasonry."
I asked Chat GPT: I was able to find **partial references that match elements of your quote**, but not the exact wording you provided. The material appears to relate to **1970s discussions about OPEC petrodollars, nuclear exports, and Soviet industrial strategy**, which were widely discussed in policy and journalistic sources at the time (including the *New York Times*, *Foreign Affairs*, and congressional hearings). Below are the closest verifiable references corresponding to each component of the passage you quoted.
---
# 1. Soviet plans to **mass-produce nuclear reactors for export**
There **is a documented reference** to the USSR planning large-scale reactor production and export to developing countries.
A technical/policy publication describing Soviet nuclear industry plans states that the USSR was building an industrial complex to mass-produce reactors:
> The USSR is constructing an industrial complex to **mass-produce reactors** called “Atommash”… production was expected to reach **three or four 1000-MW units per year**, with exports planned for Eastern Europe and **possibly the Third World**. ([Open Computing Facility][1])
This aligns with the claim in your quote that:
* the USSR was discussing **mass production of nuclear reactors**
* with the aim of **supporting industrialization in poorer countries**
---
# 2. Iranian nuclear program and Western reactor suppliers
There are documented deals in the **mid-1970s** where Western firms supplied reactors to Iran.
For example:
* West German company **Kraftwerk Union (Siemens/AEG)** signed a contract in **1975** to build two nuclear reactors at **Bushehr**. ([Wikipedia][2])
* Iran also invested **$1 billion in the French Eurodif enrichment plant** to secure nuclear fuel supply. ([Carnegie Endowment][3])
These deals were part of the Shah’s plan to build **23 nuclear power reactors** to industrialize Iran’s economy. ([Democratic Underground][4])
The existence of these deals explains why **Western European industrial circles were debating nuclear competition with the USSR** in the 1970s.
---
# 3. OPEC revenues tied to **development and industrialization**
During the 1970s oil shock, many OPEC leaders explicitly said that oil revenues were intended to fund **industrial development**.
Contemporary discussions in policy circles described OPEC’s broader political goal as part of a **“new economic order”** for developing countries. ([GovInfo][5])
This fits the line in your quote suggesting:
* OPEC wanted any financial mechanism linked to it to be tied to **development and industrialization**.
---
# 4. West German business skepticism toward Soviet economic cooperation
Although I did not find the exact sentence you quoted, there are many documented references to **Western European skepticism about Soviet economic capabilities**, particularly during energy and technology negotiations in the 1970s.
For example, U.S. policy documents from the period emphasize that Western countries believed they retained technological advantages in energy technology and nuclear systems. ([Office of the Historian][6])
This type of commentary likely corresponds to the “skeptical opinions from West German business circles” mentioned in your quote.
---
# Likely origin of the quote
Based on wording (“Dreyfuss mentioned…”, references to **NYT**, **OPEC**, **Soviet reactors**, **West German business circles**), the passage most likely comes from one of these sources:
1. A **1970s energy geopolitics analysis** referencing *New York Times* reporting
2. A book or lecture citing journalist **Robert Dreyfuss** or **Robert Dreyfuss-type commentary on petrodollars**
3. A discussion of the **petrodollar recycling debate (1974-1977)**
The **exact wording appears secondary or paraphrased**, possibly from:
* a political economy book
* a blog/forum quoting earlier articles
* a lecture or academic commentary on the 1970s energy crisis
---
✅ **Conclusion:**
* Elements of the quote **are historically grounded** (Soviet reactor export strategy, Iran’s nuclear contracts, OPEC development rhetoric).
* However, the **exact wording you provided does not appear in a searchable primary source** and is likely a **paraphrased synthesis of several 1970s discussions** rather than a direct quotation.
---
✅ **If you want**, I can also try to **track down the specific “Dreyfuss” reference** (which may point to the original source of the passage). The wording suggests it may come from a **1970s or early-1980s geopolitical analysis of the petrodollar system**, and that can often be traced precisely.
[1]: https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/SftP/MagazineArchive/SftPv8n5s.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "FOR
THE"
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushehr_Nuclear_Power_Plant?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant"
[3]: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2013/04/irans-nuclear-odyssey-costs-and-risks?center=middle-east&lang=en&utm_source=chatgpt.com "Iran’s Nuclear Odyssey: Costs and Risks | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
[4]: https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?address=364x3060229&az=view_all&utm_source=chatgpt.com "CHECK OUT THIS OLD AD- \"GUESS WHO'S BUILDING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS\" - Democratic Underground"
[5]: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1975-pt14/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1975-pt14-4-1.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "June 11, 1975"
[6]: https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v36/d193fn8?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Historical Documents - Office of the Historian"
Thanks, well if you are going to seek quotes I dont mind.
Continuing about other aspects relating to nuclear.
While I dont like the attitude of the current US it is true that China was able to absorb valuable knowhow from the US where the US elites let jobs be taken away from US expertise. There is no reason to blame China for that.
And in addition it wasnt China who blew the Three Mile Island reactor that Hollywood conveniently gave a hint about only weeks before it happened. Two settings were wrong. Not just a little bit suspicious. The US authorities who were in charge of nuclear power before the Harrisburg 'accident' were surprisingly negative to that energy source. I dont remember a source but I think it was in Larouchepub. Larouche et al had the view that the US/UK mainly guided by the UK elites intend to unleash a new dark age of backward societies without any intention of using science for the embetterment of our quality of life.
This source shows how one of the experts looks back on this period:
" They [The Chinese] got the knowledge of thousands of Americans who went over there to work"
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2021/eirv48n31-20210806/eirv48n31-20210806_025-the_truth_about_nuclear_power_en.pdf
Thanks for keeping this thread going, Peter. It’s fascinating what you can find in open sources, these days. Have you dug into Julian Assange and Wikileaks?
Well I followed Webster Tarpley, Daniel Estulin William Engdahl, Wayne Madsen and others who all exposed his double play so I saw him as a government agent. He was guided at Los Alamos as some kind of community punishment when he was a hacker. They let him think he was going help them with security. Can you imagine that genuine authorities would guide criminals to help with security? Of course this was a grooming operation to encourage him for his intended purpose. He had a typical profile for someone suitable to be conditioned by intel. Edward Snowden in the service of the CIA exposed the NSA. Wikileaks was used by NSA for payback where they revealed that the CIA had doubled on the kind of hightech methods NSA uses. That was in Wikileaks Vault7
Wayne Madsen revealed that Wikileaks lent their localities and equipment at the tune of $20M to insert trojans in Chinese government computers and using the trojans to commit IT chrimes against the US
Completely agree. Iran has been endlessly harried and vilified by the British and the US. It's appalling how they have interfered with peaceful countries around the world to the extent that international travel is a literal and figurative land mine. This further limits Americans travel to different cultures, which would reduce the ability of the censorship-military industrial complex to whip the population into a fearful frenzy, which is willing to bomb and/or sanction anyone 'back to the Stone Age'.
This applies even to countries who try to fight back in even the smallest way, such as simply not doing business with the rapacious mining and oil companies that prey upon South America, the Middle East and Africa, or on indigenous Australians with the help of 'their' own government.
These companies accomplish this with the help of the CIA and military in actioning coups against democratically elected governments, who are then replaced, either militarily or in a 'supervised' election, with or without a concurrent media blitz to amp up nationalist/fascist movements. A great example is Eva Morales, who was ousted in a military coup in 2019. https://www.latinorebels.com/2019/11/12/yestherewasacoup/
Another good example is Bolsinaro, who was basically installed in Brazil, after Lula was erroneously found guilty of widespread corruption in a falsified 'investigation', called Operation CarWash, funded by CIA cutout USAID.
Glenn Greenwald has covered the Lula-Bolsinaro debacle extensively, as has Aaron Maté covered the failed coup of Assad, which included the faked chemical weapons attack, uncovered by OPCW whistleblowers, in Syria. Maté has been targeted for censorship by the FBI his similar coverage of Ukraine, both the Maidan coup in 2014, the ensuing increase in corruption of that country and ongoing hypocrisy in Biden's policy toward the proxy war there.
These wars and sanctions have nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or freedom. They are about mineral resources, for which the neocon/neoliberal cabal does not want to pay open market prices.
Paradoxically, the Lula government is pursuing exactly the same political lawfare against its opponent Bolsinaro as Balsinaro pursued against Lula. The US has revoked the visa of the Brazil chief supreme court justice which is exactly the right response.
It’s wild. I wonder how Greenwald feels about his vociferous investigation into the conspiracy to indict Lula, given Lula is as bad or worse than Bolsinaro regarding free speech?
This is a lovely piece Cynthia.
I've bounced around on this issue over the years in the peace movement, but much of the hysteria out of my poli sci degree & Washington amount to dishonest static. They don't believe in anything, certainly not security or defence. Human beings may-as-well believe in development, then.
If Iran wants to be the peacemaker, it should propose conditions of peace for Israel. I realize Iran can't recognize Israel until the Palestinian question is settled. But instead of empty rhetoric against Israel, Iran should be defining the conditions of an acceptable (though perhaps not desirable) peace. Until then, Iran is simply playing into neocon hands.
If they don't blow themselves up, of course.
I guess Human rights issues, Inflation ( £1 Sterling = 65,000 Tomans ), Oppression of other religions & Starving families etc etc are not really important as long as the Rhetoric is the BEAUTIFUL conversation amongst civilisations! ... there is so much... Hardcore Toodeh members ( the wanna be communists of late 60'0 70.s ) Now admit Mosssadegh was a useless politician & the entire communist movement was a total waste of youth & energy in Iran. Alas, the still pro left, dont see what Iran was Before Reza Shah / Mohammad reza , During the Pahlavi resign , & Post Revolution.... It's an uninformed & subjective bias.
What an ugly and ignorant answer which does not account for what Iran is actually working towards today which is that very thing, prosperity and stability in the Middle East with the recent great diplomatic success of a partnership with Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and Iran with a so far successful ceasefire in Yemen. It is western imperialism that has fueled chaos and instability in the Middle East, notably with Sykes-Picot and the British Mandate of Palestine and the funding, support and even creation of Islamic terrorism notably in Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood and later the Mujahideen. It is Anglo-America who illegally bombed and invaded Libya and dispersed its war chest (the largest in Africa) to terrorists to fight in Syria against the Syrian people and paint it as a freedom movement. As Anglo-America continues to lose its foothold in the Middle East we see very clearly what truly lies behind the most violent chaos and with their exit how quickly nations will actually choose to align themselves with peaceful relations because they understand this is a benefit to all. People like you who spit on words such as PEACE and scoff at the proposal of a DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS, that does not make you a realist but complicit to the terror that has been sown in these parts funded and fueled by the Anglo-American empire today. You are blind to the fact that that very thing is happening in the Middle East today before your very eyes.
If Iran is a true harbinger of peace, why didn't they extend at least a tentative outreach to Israel? They could always make any offer contingent on decent treatment of the Palestinians. But Iran plays right into the neocon hands by refusing to rescind the (admittedly empty) statements predicting Israel doom. Iran can't have its cake and eat it. If Iran wants to be seen as a harbinger of peace, it must make some outline of peace with Israel. You don't have to approve of a country to deal with it.,