Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the ‘1 Percent’
- ACTA: The International Treaty You've Never Heard of That Could Affect Internet Freedom
- Military Intervention vs. Maritime Union Power
- Obama to Use Pension Funds of Ordinary Americans to Pay for Bank Mortgage “Settlement”
- Shades of an American Kristallnacht?
- How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the ‘1 Percent’
- Could Ecuador Be the Most Radical and Exciting Place on Earth?
- The Washington-Wall Street Revolving Door Just Keeps Spinning Along
- Ten Steps for Radical Revolution in the US
- Obama to Use Pension Funds of Ordinary Americans to Pay for Bank Mortgage “Settlement”
Popular content
Today's Top News
US/Israel: Iran NOT Building Nukes
Has Iran decided to build a nuclear bomb? That would seem to be the central question in the current bellicose debate over whether the world should simply cripple Iran’s economy and inflict severe pain on its civilian population or launch a preemptive war to destroy its nuclear capability while possibly achieving “regime change.”
And if you’ve been reading the New York Times or following the rest of the Fawning Corporate Media, you’d likely assume that everyone who matters agrees that the answer to the question is yes, although the FCM adds the caveat that Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. The line is included with an almost perceptible wink and an “oh, yeah.”
However, a consensus seems to be emerging among the intelligence and military agencies of the United States – and Israel – that Iran has NOT made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. In recent days, that judgment has been expressed by high-profile figures in the defense establishments of the two countries – U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
You might think that you would have heard more about that, wouldn’t you? U.S. and Israel agree that Iran is NOT building a nuclear bomb. However, this joint assessment that Iran has NOT decided to build a nuclear bomb apparently represented too big a change in the accepted narrative for the Times and the rest of the FCM to process.
Yet, on Jan. 18, the day before U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey arrived for talks in Israel, Israeli Defense Minister Barak gave an interview to Israeli Army radio in which he addressed with striking candor how he assesses Iran’s nuclear program. It was not the normal pabulum.
Question: Is it Israel’s judgment that Iran has not yet decided to turn its nuclear potential into weapons of mass destruction?
Barak: … confusion stems from the fact that people ask whether Iran is determined to break out from the control [inspection] regime right now … in an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons or an operable installation as quickly as possible. Apparently that is not the case. …
Question: How long will it take from the moment Iran decides to turn it into effective weapons until it has nuclear warheads?
Barak: I don’t know; one has to estimate. … Some say a year, others say 18 months. It doesn’t really matter. To do that, Iran would have to announce it is leaving the [UN International Atomic Energy Agency] inspection regime and stop responding to IAEA’s criticism, etc.
Why haven’t they [the Iranians] done that? Because they realize that … when it became clear to everyone that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, this would constitute definite proof that time is actually running out. This could generate either harsher sanctions or other action against them. They do not want that.
Question: Has the United States asked or demanded that the government inform the Americans in advance, should it decide on military action?
Barak: I don’t want to get into that. We have not made a decision to opt for that, we have not decided on a decision-making date. The whole thing is very far off. …
Question: You said the whole thing is “very far off.” Do you mean weeks, months, years?
Barak: I wouldn’t want to provide any estimates. It’s certainly not urgent. I don’t want to relate to it as though tomorrow it will happen.
As noted in my Jan. 19 article, “Israel Tamps Down Iran War Threats,” which was based mostly on reports from the Israeli press before I had access to the complete transcript of the interview, I noted that Barak appeared to be identifying himself with the consistent assessment of U.S. intelligence community since late 2007 that Iran has not made a decision to go forward with a nuclear bomb.
A Momentous NIE
A formal National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 – a consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies – contradicted the encrusted conventional wisdom that “of course” Iran’s nuclear development program must be aimed at producing nuclear weapons. The NIE stated:
“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; … Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”
The Key Judgments of that Estimate elicited a vituperative reaction from some Israeli officials and in neoconservative circles in the United States. It also angered then-President George W. Bush, who joined the Israelis in expressing disagreement with the judgments. In January 2008, Bush flew to Israel to commiserate with Israeli officials who he said should have been “furious with the United States over the NIE.”
While Bush’s memoir, Decision Points, is replete with bizarre candor, nothing beats his admission that “the NIE tied my hands on the military side,” preventing him from ordering a preemptive war against Iran, an action favored by hawkish Vice President Dick Cheney.
For me personally it was heartening to discover that my former colleagues in the CIA’s analytical division had restored the old ethos of telling difficult truths to power, after the disgraceful years under CIA leaders like George Tenet and John McLaughlin when the CIA followed the politically safer route of telling the powerful what they wanted to hear.
It had been three decades since I chaired a couple of National Intelligence Estimates, but fate never gave me the chance to manage one that played such a key role in preventing an unnecessary and disastrous war — as the November 2007 NIE did.
In such pressure-cooker situations, the Estimates job is not for the malleable or the faint-hearted. The ethos was to speak with courage, and without fear or favor, but that is often easier said than done. In my days, however, we analysts enjoyed career protection for telling it like we saw it. It was an incredible boost to morale to see that happening again in 2007.
Ever since the NIE was published, however, powerful politicians and media pundits have sought to chip away at its conclusions, suggesting that the analysts were hopelessly naïve or politically motivated or vengeful, out to punish Bush and Cheney for the heavy-handed tactics used to push false and dubious claims about Iraq’s WMD in 2002 and 2003.
A New Conventional Wisdom
There emerged in Official Washington a new conventional wisdom that the NIE was erroneous and wasn’t worth mentioning anymore. Though the Obama administration has stood by it, the New York Times and other FCM outlets routinely would state that the United States and Israel agreed that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb and then add the wink-wink denial by Iran.
However, on Jan. 8, Defense Secretary Panetta told Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” that “the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them [the Iranians] … and to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.”
Panetta was making the implicit point that the Iranians had not made that decision, but just in case someone might miss his meaning, Panetta posed the direct question to himself: “Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”
Barak’s Jan. 18 statement to Israeli Army radio indicated that his views dovetail with those of Panetta – and their comments apparently are backed up by the assessments of each nation’s intelligence analysts. In its report on Defense Minister Barak’s remarks, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Jan. 19 summed up the change in the position of Israeli leaders as follows:
“The intelligence assessment Israeli officials will present … to Dempsey indicates that Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb. The Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon – or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile. Nor is it clear when Iran might make such a decision.”
At the New York Times, the initial coverage of Barak’s interview focused on another element. An article by Isabel Kershner and Rick Gladstone appeared on Jan. 19 on page A5 under the headline “Decision on Whether to Attack Iran is ‘Far Off,’ Israeli Defense Minister Says.”
To their credit, the Times’ Kershner and Gladstone did not shrink from offering an accurate translation of what Barak said on the key point of IAEA inspections: “The Iranians have not ended the oversight exercised by the International Atomic Energy Agency … They have not done that because they know that that would constitute proof of the military nature of their nuclear program and that would provoke stronger international sanctions or other types of action against their country.”
But missing from the Times’ article was Barak’s more direct assessment that Iran apparently had not made a decision to press ahead toward construction of a nuclear bomb. That would have undercut the boilerplate in almost every Times story saying that U.S. and Israeli officials believe Iran is working on a nuclear bomb.
But That’s Not the Right Line!
So, what to do? Not surprisingly, the next day (Jan. 20), the Times ran an article by its Middle East bureau chief Ethan Bronner in which he stated categorically: ”Israel and the United States both say that Iran is pursuing the building of nuclear weapons — an assertion denied by Iran — …”
By Jan. 21, the Times had time to prepare an entire page (A8) of articles setting the record “straight,” so to speak, on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions: Here are the most telling excerpts, by article (emphasis mine):
1- “European Union Moves Closer to Imposing Tough Sanctions on Iran,” by Steven Erlanger, Paris:
“Senior French officials are concerned that these measures [sanctions] … will not be strong enough to push the Iranian government into serious, substantive negotiations on its nuclear program which the West says is aimed at producing weapons.”
“In his annual speech on French diplomacy on Friday, President Nicolas Sarkozy accused Iran of lying, and he denounced what he called its ‘senseless race for a nuclear bomb.’”
“Iran says it is enriching uranium solely for peaceful uses and denies a military intent. But few in the West believe Tehran, which has not cooperated fully with inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and has been pursuing some technologies that have only a military use.”
(Pardon me, please. I’m having a bad flashback. Anyone remember the Times’ peerless reporting on those infamous “aluminum tubes” that supposedly were destined for nuclear centrifuges — until some folks did a Google search and found they were for the artillery then used by Iraq?)
2- “China Leader Warns Iran Not to Make Nuclear Arms,” by Michael Wines, Beijing
“Prime Minister Wen Jiabao wrapped up a six-day Middle East tour this week with stronger-than-usual criticism of Iran’s defiance on its nuclear program….”
“Mr. Wen’s comments on Iran were unusually pointed for Chinese diplomacy. In Doha, Qatar’s capital, he said China ‘adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons.’”
“Western nations suspect that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon, while Iran insists its program is peaceful.”
3- “U.S. General Urges Closer Ties With Israel.” by Isabel Kershner, Jerusalem
“Though Iran continues to insist that its nuclear program is only for civilian purposes, Israel, the United Stated, and much of the West are convinced that Iran is working to develop a weapons program. …”
Never (Let Up) on Sunday
Next it was time for the Times to trot out David Sanger from the Washington bullpen. Many will remember him as one of the Times’ stenographers/cheerleaders for the Bush/Cheney attack on Iraq in March 2003. An effusive hawk also on Iran, Sanger was promoted to a position as chief Washington correspondent, apparently for services rendered.
In his Jan. 22 article, “Confronting Iran in a Year of Elections,” Sanger pulls out all the stops, even resurrecting Condoleezza Rice’s “mushroom cloud” to scare all of us — and, not least, the Iranians. He wrote:
“‘From the perception of the Iranians, life may look better on the other side of the mushroom cloud,’ said Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He may be right: while the Obama administration has vowed that it will never tolerate Iran as a nuclear weapons state, a few officials admit that they may have to settle for a ‘nuclear capable’ Iran that has the technology, the nuclear fuel and the expertise to become a nuclear power in a matter of weeks or months.”
Were that not enough, enter the national champion of the Times cheerleading squad that prepared the American people in 2002 and early 2003 for the attack on Iraq, former Executive Editor Bill Keller. He graced us the next day (Jan. 23) with an op-ed entitled “Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran?” – though he wasn’t favoring a military strike, at least not right now. Here’s Keller:
“The actual state of the [nuclear] program is not entirely clear, but the best open-source estimates are that if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered full-speed-ahead — which there is no sign he has done — they could have an actual weapon in a year or so. … In practice, Obama’s policy promises to be tougher than Bush’s. Because Obama started out with an offer of direct talks — which the Iranians foolishly spurned — world opinion has shifted in our direction.”
Wow. With Iraqi egg still all over his face, the disgraced Keller gets to “spurn” history itself — to rewrite the facts. Sorry, Bill, it was not Iran, but rather Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other neocons in the U.S. Department of State and White House (with you and neocon allies in the press cheering them on), who “foolishly spurned” an offer by Iran in 2010 to trade about half its low-enriched uranium for medical isotopes. It was a deal negotiated by Turkey and Brazil, but it was viewed by the neocons as an obstacle to ratcheting up the sanctions.
In his Jan. 23 column, with more sophomoric glibness, Keller wrote this:
“We may now have sufficient global support to enact the one measure that would be genuinely crippling — a boycott of Iranian oil. The Iranians take this threat to their economic livelihood seriously enough that people who follow the subject no longer minimize the chance of a naval confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz. It’s not impossible that we will get war with Iran even without bombing its nuclear facilities.”
How neat! War without even trying!
The Paper of (Checkered Record)
Guidance To All NYT Hands: Are you getting the picture? After all, what does Defense Minister Barak know? Or Defense Secretary Panetta? Or the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community? Or apparently even Israeli intelligence?
The marching orders from the Times’ management appear to be that you should pay no heed to those sources of information. Just repeat the mantra: Everyone knows Iran is hard at work on the Bomb.
As is well known, other newspapers and media outlets take their cue from the Times. Small wonder, then, that USA Today seemed to be following the same guidance on Jan. 23, as can be seen in its major editorial on military action against Iran:
“The U.S. and Iran will keep steaming toward confrontation, Iran intent on acquiring the bomb to establish itself as a regional power, and the U.S. intent on preventing it to protect allies and avoid a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region.
“One day, the U.S. is likely to face a wrenching choice: bomb Iran, with the nation fully united and prepared for the consequences, or let Iran have the weapons, along with a Cold War-like doctrine ensuring Iran’s nuclear annihilation if it ever uses them. In that context, sanctions remain the last best hope for a satisfactory solution.”
And, of course, the U.S. press corps almost never adds the context that Israel already possesses an undeclared arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons, or that Iran is essentially surrounded by nuclear weapons states, including India, Pakistan, Russia, China and – at sea – the United States.
PBS Equally Guilty
PBS’s behavior adhered to its customary don’t-offend-the-politicians-who-might-otherwise-cut-our-budget attitude on the Jan. 18 “NewsHour” – about 12 hours after Ehud Barak’s interview started making the rounds. Host Margaret Warner set the stage for an interview with neocon Dennis Ross and Vali Nasr (a professor at Tufts) by using a thoroughly misleading clip from former Sen. Rick Santorum’s Jan. 1 appearance on “Meet the Press.”
Warner started by saying: “Back in the U.S. many Republican presidential candidates have been vowing they’d be even tougher with Tehran. Former Senator Rick Santorum spoke on NBC’s Meet the Press: ‘I would be saying to the Iranians, you open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors, or we will degrade those facilities through air strikes and make it very public that we are doing so.’”
Santorum seemed totally unaware that there are U.N. inspectors in Iran, and host David Gregory did nothing to correct him, leaving Santorum’s remark unchallenged. The blogosphere immediately lit up with requests for NBC to tell their viewers that there are already U.N. inspectors in Iran, which unlike Israel is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allows IAEA inspections.
During the Warner interview, Dennis Ross performed true to form, projecting supreme confidence that he knows more about Iran’s nuclear program than the Israeli Defense Minister and the U.S. intelligence community combined:
Margaret Warner: If you hamstring their [Iran’s] Central Bank, and the U.S. persuades all these other big customers not to buy Iranian oil, that could be thought of as an act of war on the part of the Iranians. Is that a danger?
Ross: I think there’s a context here. The context is that the Iranians continue to pursue a nuclear program. And unmistakably to many, that is a nuclear program whose purpose is to achieve nuclear weapons. That has a very high danger, a very high consequence. So the idea that they could continue with that and not realize that at some point they have to make a choice, and if they don’t make the choice, the price they’re going to pay is a very high one, that’s the logic of increasing the pressure.
Never mind that the Israeli Defense Minister had told the press something quite different some 12 hours before.
Still, it is interesting that Barak’s comments on how Israeli intelligence views Iran’s nuclear program now mesh so closely with the NIE in 2007. This is the new and significant story here, as I believe any objective journalist would agree.
However, the FCM — led by the New York Times — cannot countenance admitting that they have been hyping the threat from Iran as they did with Iraq’s non-existent WMDs just nine years ago. So they keep repeating the line that Israel and the U.S. agree that Iran is building a nuclear weapon.
In this up-is-down world, America’s newspaper of record won’t even report accurately what Israel (or the CIA) thinks on this important issue, if that goes against the alarmist conventional wisdom that the neocons favor. Thus, we have this divergence between what the U.S. media is reporting as flat fact — i.e., that Israel and the United States believe Iran is building a bomb (though Iran denies it) – and the statements from senior Israeli and U.S. officials that Iran has NOT decided to build a bomb.
While this might strike some as splitting hairs – since peaceful nuclear expertise can have potential military use – this hair is a very important one. If Iran is not working on building a nuclear bomb, then the threats of preemptive war are not only unjustified, they could be exactly the motivation for Iran to decide that it does need a nuclear bomb to protect itself and its people.
31 Comments so far
Show AllIt's a fact that many reporters assigned to the region by these news-mongers possess, by reason of their ancestry, a claim to citizenship in Israel, and privileged citizenship, at that. Should the New York Times be expected to disclose when its reporter has such an interest?
I do agree: some have children who are, or have actively served in the IDF. Despite the assertions of Ehud Barak, the Isreali defence minister to the contrary, Fox and NYT are busy stoking the fire. One may suspect that it is for the benefit of IPAC, and Likudniks that those at the helm of both institutions continue with their rhetorics and not for the sake of Israel. That is why it is not surprising that Fox News on the right and New York Times on the left are both singing the same hymn.
We swallow Fox and affiliates because we have no control over them. But should we tolerate and read the diatribe published by the NYT, and Washington Post? Should we really continue to support them by buying them?
Anyone who says the NY Times is on the Left probably takes Obama for a socialist. Real genius, there.
NYT NARRATIVE FOR THE WET DREAMS OF WAR. "You can look, but just don't touch." says the imaginary bomb. "Aww, come on baby, you know how I feel about you." says the man. "No!" says the bomb, "Any preemptive moves, and I'll go off." "Come on baby, you know you want it." says the man excitedly, "Your mouth says no, but your eyes say yes." Guess what happens next? NYT NARRATIVE AFTER THE WAR. "I didn't mean it. I won't do it again. It was the booze. So help me god, I'll make it up to you."
Why are we not worried about the Saudi development of nuclear power? Why are we fixated on Iran?
"However, the FCM — led by the New York Times — cannot countenance admitting that they have been hyping the threat from Iran as they did with Iraq’s non-existent WMDs just nine years ago. So they keep repeating the line that Israel and the U.S. agree that Iran is building a nuclear weapon."
I haven't forgotten the lies, nor have I forgotten that Israel has hidden their development of nuclear weapons for decades.
Why fixated on Iran? Because isreal says we have to.
Rubbish. That is just cover that the United States of America uses. They suggest Israel at risk so as to rally the support of the elecotrate.
The reason the USA is fixated on is because Iran decided to no longer accept US dollars for their Oil. They have struck deals with a number of countries to be paid either in Gold directly or Russian or Chinese Currency.
This is what Libya did and got attacked for.
This is what Iraq did and got attacked for.
This is what Venezuela is moving towards as they are branded "supporters of terror". This policy is made in USA.
We will soon be in WWIII, since Israel is determined either to attack Iran, and drag the U.S. in that way, or to manipulate the U.S. into attacking Iran. A false-flag operation is all that it will take.
Either way, thousands upon thousands of innocent people will die, millions will suffer, and our masters of war will see their bloated fortunes skyrocket.
The silence from the Christian churches and the Jewish synagogues in this country is, as usual, deafening. I mean, of course, the silence from those few churches and synagogues that are not actively beating the war drums.
You obviously didn't read the article. If Israel goes ON RECORD stating that there is no proof that Iran is "building the bomb," then it is not Israel banging the drums for war. One could say that in both the U.S., as well as Israel, there are those who want war, would go to war over trifles. However, there are conscientious persons who do not wish to see war take place. Many of these reside in both nations.
Ray McGovern may be pointing to OTHER entrenched interests that want to go to war... chiefly those who profit from weapons sales & development, those who make a killing on oil, added to those who think killing adds some positive macho bona fides to their political resumes and future ambitions.
I am disgusted and worried about the developments of late, as are many who have friends and relations in Iran. I wonder at the kind of people who can rush to war, lie to increase the chance of conflict, and not have any feelings about consigning other people to death.
The only thing that we hear from the media, is how Iran are constantly threatening to close the Straights of Hormuz, and unfortunately simple souls will believe it. What they do not realise, is that our sanctions, again based on lies, are crippling the economy of Iran, and the increasing number of US warships in the Persian Gulf - US, UK, France, Israel, have only one purpose - to start a fight, to force Iran's hand by backing it into a corner.
This whole situation, is a bit like when gangsters come to ask for protection money, they never come alone, and they always threaten violence.
If a war happens, then what will the fallout be for countries which have been involved in attacking Iran? What will be the reaction of Iranian communities in those countries, when they see their countrymen and women slaughtered?
The logical conclusion is that many will feel sufficiently enraged to take direct action, and as a result, they will be branded terrorists.
There is a saying - "We reap what we sow", and I for one hope that we do not go planting any more seeds for a long while.
Poignant analysis, Andy UK. Thank you for your evident humanity.
The real crux of this article is that even when the facts are made known, media interests (some of which reflect the wishes of its ownership) maintain the lies that make war possible. This is precisely how the propaganda of an increasingly fascist state operates... "Pay no attention to the facts! Our operators will tell you what is thus and so, and all you need to know. And you'd best not look any further. You know what happens to whistle-blowers or those who are not content with Official Narratives."
Because CNN and PBS have prior reputations for being "trusted brands," most people will believe what they hear from those sources. So some of us, BETTER informed from the writers featured on this site may seek to disabuse them of their misconceptions, and what largely happens is that they tell us we're the ones who are not well-informed. Why? Because Commondreams is regarded as some ultra radical site.
Even when I try to tell my contacts that Commondreams features those with major publishing and/or academic credentials, key figures, etc. They STILL buy the stories featured in the News. It is BEYOND Orwellian and a very good historical example for why the media should never become the organ of pay-per-view interests. It is THE PEOPLE'S air waves and Clinton is guilty of a massive sin... in having signed it away. This decision is right up there with Citizens United in terms of gutting any notion of a democratic, functioning Republic.
"Still, it is interesting that Barak’s comments on how Israeli intelligence views Iran’s nuclear program now mesh so closely with the NIE in 2007. This is the new and significant story here, as I believe any objective journalist would agree."
- so it's america that's wagging the tail.
"While this might strike some as splitting hairs – since peaceful nuclear expertise can have potential military use – this hair is a very important one. If Iran is not working on building a nuclear bomb, then the threats of preemptive war are not only unjustified, they could be exactly the motivation for Iran to decide that it does need a nuclear bomb to protect itself and its people."
- seems reasonable.
thank you ray mcgovern for the critical eye and the analysis of the nyt's propaganda. ultimately the western leaders want regime change for a different reason. what is the primary reason ? geopolitics (pressure on china's development and on russia's southern tier), the risk of the dollar losing it's legitimacy as the global currency, the necessity of the MIC to destabilize the region to insure future profits, or just the desire of the west to repossess all of that texas tea ?
...peace...
" ... the risk of the dollar losing it's legitimacy as the global currency... "
India is already talking of buying Iranian oil in gold, and hints of China also finding an alternative currency to use.
http://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/
Late to the post as usual. Pepe Escobar has written some excellent articles in the Asia Times about the ongoing attempts to isolate Iran and impose the embargo against their sales of oil. He shows that there is a great push back against the US and EU attempts.
India, China, Pakistan, Korea have refused to go along. Japan and a number of the countries in Europe Union are also attempting to refuse. Escobar also shows how the Iran has bypassed most of the attempts at sanctions. McGovern has an excellent article. He missed the statements of the past and present heads of the Mosaad, "Former Mosaad Chief: Iran Far From Achieving Nuclear Bomb" and Meir Dagan, "Attacking Iran would be the stupidest thing I could think of". The present head, Tamir Pardo, "Israeli Spy Chief Downplays Iranian Nuke Threat". He told a group of Israeli Ambassadors, "Iran is not an existential threat to Israel, even with a nuclear weapon".
So it appears that all the phony propaganda is merely a cover to keep getting $3 billion in military goods from the US each year and continue to occupy and colonize the land they have stolen from the Palestinians.
Well-argued, Iowa. The dollar's hegemony in the global oil trade business is real, real enough to have aced Saddam right out of his Western saddle.
I think you got it iowablackbird,
There isn't just one reason, there's a whole bag of them, and none of them have anything to do with making a nuke bomb. Israel has quietly built up the Second to Fifth most powerful military in the world (depending on how you measure it) and they are just itching to invade all their neighbors. They want Land, Water and Glory. AIPAC is leaning on Congress to bomb. Wall Street is leaning on Congress to bomb to save the dollar's reign in the Mid East and to hand the rest of the Caspian Sea Natural Gas and Oil over to the Texas Oil Mafia like they did in Iraq. The MIC needs a new fake war since they can't prop the several they started up into any thing believable. How is the MIC fake war economy going to keep on fakin' if there's no war?
Peace has about as much chance of staying intact right now as a dandelion in a hurricane. And this Iran thing has been just like waiting for a dreaded hurricane to make shore on your beach. You know it's coming. You just don't know when. It's the most nerve wracking thing in the world. It's narrowly missed you for five years. But this time all the cannibals are dressed up in war paint and it's not a good sign. It's not a video game like a quarter of the nation thinks it is. It could get us all killed in a escalating nuclear war if someone screws up. And I am aware of at least two Dr Strangelove screwups that happened in real life (Go codes issued and recall codes were invalid.)
No, we're playing with fire here. This is stupid. If we were worried about radiation we would do something to contain the over 100 Hiroshima's that have dirty-bombed the whole world since March 11, 2011 from Fukushima's Triple Nuclear Meltdown (which is still out of control and nuking us.)
I have lost all confidence in this system of trade and governance to serve the people. It's gotta go. OWS this spring!
TJ
it is not illegal for a country to make nuclear weapons in the first place
israel has somewhere between 200-600 but its a no-no to mention that because they haven't officially announced it, whatever that means
so we have the hypocrisy of a nation - israel - whom everyone knows has nukes (and says nothing) leading a new war chant against a country that doesn't have any
makes me sick
"There are currently eight states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be "nuclear-weapon states" (NWS) under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States, Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and China. Nations that are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons are sometimes referred to as the nuclear club.
Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, three states that were not parties to the Treaty have conducted nuclear tests, namely India, Pakistan, and North Korea. North Korea had been a party to the NPT but withdrew in 2003. Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons, though it has refused to confirm or deny this, and is not known to have conducted a nuclear test."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
psst - don't tell anyone but holland has them too
"Although the Netherlands does not have weapons of mass destruction made by itself, the country participates in the NATO nuclear weapons sharing arrangements and trains for delivering U.S. nuclear weapons, i.e., it has weapons of mass destruction made by another country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
let's include belgium, germany, itlay and turkey
"Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium,[40] Germany,[40] Italy, the Netherlands,[40] and Turkey[40] to deploy and store.[41] This involves pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practicing, handling, and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and adapting non-U.S. warplanes to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs. U.S. nuclear weapons were also deployed in Canada until 1984, South Korea until 1991, and in Greece until 2001 for nuclear sharing purposes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
let's throw in japan
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron
no list would be complete without south korea
http://www.anti-imperialist.org/korea-nukes-tw-10-22-06.htm
the real reason amerika wants to destroy iran is that they sell oil in denominations other than amerika money - the worn out and worthless dollar
"The U.S. media tells us that Iran may be the next target of U.S. aggression. The anticipated excuse is Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. William Clark tells us that economic reasons may have more to do with U.S. concerns over Iran than any weapons of mass destruction.
In mid-2003 Iran broke from tradition and began accepting eurodollars as payment for its oil exports from its E.U. and Asian customers. Saddam Hussein attempted a similar bold step back in 2000 and was met with a devastating reaction from the U.S. Iraq now has no choice about using U.S. dollars for oil sales"
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/9-irans-new-oil-trade-system-challenges-us-currency/
gadaffi was killed for his move to get rid of the bloodsucking world bank
"Libya was not a "dictatorship" in the traditional sense, and Momar Gaddafi was not the evil rogue portrayed by Western propaganda.
If fact, he was a hero. Gaddafi’s Gold Dinar Plan and Libya’s Public Central Bank would have changed the monetary system and freed all of Africa from the Private Central Bank System. Ultimately, it might possibly have freed the NATO host nations from their own parasites – Vampire Private Central Banks.
Gaddafi’s courage and pioneering efforts in trying to restore national sovereignty and making the government responsible to the people instead of to the Global Banking Elites is the reason why he was targeted and killed."
http://www.dailypaul.com/183810/the-truth-behind-gaddafis-murder
if the dollar loses its status as the currency with which oil is bought and sold its value will plummet to about one red cent overnight
so the mafioso government, the bankster terrorists and the existential israelis are just keeping the niggers down, as the saying goes
chomksky knows it:
"This is a recurrent theme in Chomsky's thinking about the American empire. He argues that since government officials first formulated plans for a "grand area" strategy for US global domination in the early 1940s, successive administrations have been guided by a "godfather principle, straight out of the mafia: that defiance cannot be tolerated. It's a major feature of state policy." "Successful defiance" has to be punished, even where it damages business interests, as in the economic blockade of Cuba – in case "the contagion spreads"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/07/noam-chomsky-us-foreign-policy
"“What that reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership and of course the Israeli political leadership,” Noam Chomsky, renowned American linguist and political dissident, told Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman on Tuesday."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/30/wikileaks-show-leaderships-profound-hatred-democracy-chomsky/
dude, great post. Hugo Chavez is an exception, he narrowly escaped the consequences of accepting something other than US dollars for oil. The Venezuelan people stood up for him.
Living in a region under constant threat from the terrorist state of Israel would make anyone nervous and even if it were true that Iran wants to have such weapons to defend themselves it would make sense but based on the history of American and Israeli lies it is very likely that Iran doesn't even want them as their religious mullahs claim. Somebody must stand up against the zionist extremists in Washington and Israel.
We need to remember that the goal is 'regime change' which we do to anyone who starts talking about getting rid of the US dollar as basis (also petrodollar advocating) for international trading.
Just look at most recent persons who advocated this besides Iran,
Saddam Hussein, Ghadafi, ex-IMF head-Strauss, China,
Well gosh, now that we know they aren't trying to make nukes I guess we'll have to apologize and drop the sanctions.
The president repeated the "we will never allow a nuclear Iran" warning in his State of the Union address last night. He, too, apparently didn't get the message that Iran is NOT developing such a weapon and that our sanctions punish it unfairly. In 2005, Agence France published an article noting that America's Project for the New American Century neocons/fascists were building support in Europe. Over there they were to be called the Committee for a Strong Europe, and it's probably the Committee's members who deliver the neocon message in their countries and the U.N. (At least one country -- China? -- plans to pay Iran in gold for oil. Good.)
Ellen Brown, CA Fitts, Dr. Michael Hudson and many others point out that dollar hegemony especially in oil markets is a big factor. The nuclear nonsense is a red herring.
Iran has entered bilateral agreements with many of its neighbors recently to cut out the dollar and exchange local currency and gold for oil. Iran set up an oil bourse in Kish island that is non-US dollar denominated.
Gaddafi wanted to set up an African central bank with a gold-backed Dinar currency. He wanted to accept only gold Dinars for oil, not dollars. Tony Blair double crossed him, now he works for Jamie Dimon at JPMorgan. JP Morgan is the beneficiary of Libyas largesse. Gadaffi should have known that he had to accept worthless paper for his oil or suffer the consequences, and that he did.
Hugo Chavez narrowly escaped these consequences when he dared to sell oil for something other than US dollars.
Saddam Hussein learned the hard way when he sold oil In Euro and not dollars in 2003, he was quickly taken out. Crudely put: You accept the worthless paper for your oil or get laid to waste. What are you supposed to do with the dollar glut? Buy T-Bills of course. That's how deficit military/security Empire Inc. is funded -through foreign central banks.
Once the vestiges of dollar hegemony are gone, the US will no longer be able to fund the Empire Inc. As Paul Kennedy notes in the classic Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, the financial/economic underpinning is the key determining factor of an empire's rise and fall. Simply put, since the US economy has been gutted and reduced to debt-slavery service (serf-ice jobs) jobs and the debt Ponzi scheme is out of control (corporate debt, BoP debt, private debt, and govt. debt), the US has no productive economic underpinning to support the Empire.
The Empire's days are numbered and it appears that a declining Empire will engage in risky and reckless behavior in a desperate attempt to prolong the inevitable. I hope we can survive in the process
Israel and Bush tried for 8 years to pressure Iran into a conflict that would give an excuse to illegally invade, and now Obama. Like was said Israel and the United States have a habit of useing False Flags. Our tax dollars are used to supply Israel with the many weapons they have and want. Israel wants to bomb Syria , conquer neighboring Arab countries and fear Iran may interfere. The United States want control of Iran's oil. A book to read:
Aspects of Jewish power in the United States
Would it not be more responsible for the US to ask Israel to vacate Palestine (which is the cause of Iran's intransigence) then to engage in a $2 Trillion war with Iran.
So, the article makes plain that Israel's spokesperson went on RECORD stating that Iran is not building the bomb, and the message got convoluted through the. U.S. media circus to reinforce the old canard, or lie. But still, the forum's bash-Israel-first and foremost (even for things that are outside of its interests and directly related to U.S. acts) team shows up to reinforce the lie they prefer.
How different are you: Steve Fournier, Sinnbad, Petrkrop, Thalidimide and Mike Smith from the "news" agencies pushing the lies that may make war possible?
Do you need to be right at the expense of thousands of human lives, or is it that your hatred of a certain ethnicity makes any rational or balanced analysis impossible?
SiouxRose, the article also makes clear that U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta went on RECORD stating Iran is not building the bomb. So, your argument to absolve Israel from responsibility would apply equally to the U.S. government.
"However, on Jan. 8, Defense Secretary Panetta told Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” that “the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them [the Iranians] … and to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.”
Panetta was making the implicit point that the Iranians had not made that decision, but just in case someone might miss his meaning, Panetta posed the direct question to himself: “Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”"
I do not think that either government should be absolved of responsibility simply because one person, no matter how high the position, makes a truthful statement. What does it matter if Panetta told the truth when Obama spins it differently in the State of the Union address: "President Barack Obama warned Iran on Tuesday the United States would keep up pressure on its disputed nuclear program with "no options off the table" but said the door remained open to talks for a peaceful resolution.
In his State of the Union address, Obama said Tehran was isolated and facing "crippling" sanctions that he said would continue so long as the Islamic Republic keeps its back turned to the international community.
"America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations," he said."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-usa-obama-speech-iran-idUSTRE80O0B120120125
McGovern's piece shows, very clearly, that the FCM is ignoring the truth, but it doesn't show that they are driving policy. I think what it shows is that the truth doesn't matter. For the few who bother to look for it, it's out there in the open, but if a government official says the truth once, then lies thrice, which are you going to hear? Or if one person tells the truth and the rest of the government tells the official truth, which is going to get the most news coverage?
"Amb Ron Prosor addresses UN Security Council on the situation in the Middle East (24 Jan 2012):
As we gather in this chamber, an alarm bell is ringing. Never has it been so clear that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon. This is the single greatest threat to the security of the entire world. Now is the time to act. Tomorrow is too late. The stakes are too high. The price of inaction is too great."
"
PM Netanyahu (23 Jan 2012):
"Sanctions will have to be evaluated on the basis of results. As of today, Iran is continuing to produce nuclear weapons without hindrance."
"Defense Minister Barak (23 Jan 2012):
"We hope that those sanctions will be imposed quickly and implemented rigidly, in order to really test the Iranian leadership. [These sanctions] must force [the Iranian leadership] to internalize the fact that the whole world is opposing its ongoing attempts to go nuclear."
Last 3 quotes from Isreali Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/The+Iranian+Threat/Statements+by+Israeli+leaders/Iran_Statements_Israeli_leaders-2012.htm
The FCM is guilty of reporting the official truth, but they aren't the ones creating it.
'
Both countries "ignore the truth" because they wish to go to war for OTHER reasons.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran terrifies people the world over who have been conditioned to believe that the leaders of this country are all "madman" who wish to commit suicide by killing Israelis.
They can not say "We goto iran so that Israel can have a free hand seizing more territories in the Middle East" or we "Need to go to war against Iran so as to ensure the US dollar remains the worlds reserve currency".
They can not speak the truth. This is why they put people in jail who speak the truth. Their entire power base is built upon one great lie and they can not allow it to unravel. People who reveal these lies will be labeled terrorists or in support of terrorists and eliminated.
it may well be that iran is clandestinely "not" developing nuclear weapon technology. that is to say, they may be pulling a "saddam," making everyone believe that "all options are on the table" to intimidate and confuse countries that oppose them. in particular, if they can succeed in making the alliance of nations who are pushing sanctions so strongly look foolish or too eager for war over a refusal to accept the truth, they may succeed in turning the sentiments of the great majority of the world against the u.s. and its cohorts.
moreso than they already are, that is.
Bombing Iran is off the table. Only the freaks and ignorant idiots like Santorum are still yapping about it. And of the course the weaklings of lamestream media have to continue treating those freaks as if they're sentient, for fear of losing funding, as the article notes, or fear of losing ratings from the freaks and ignorant idiots in the lamestream media audiences.
"So they ( The N.Y. Times ) keep repeating the line that Israel and the U.S. agree that Iran is building a nuclear weapon".
" We are the tools and vassals of rich men ( read the 1% ) behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance ( or we will lose our employment ). Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of ( the 1% ) other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
John Swinton --New York Times reporter at a speech before the New York Press Club.