Upon further examination, despite the Narrative provided by the highly-concentrated and tightly-controlled corporate press, I found that the most vital information regarding this story had been omitted from the media's coverage, most of which directly contradicted the hysterical proclamations from the countries whose leaders are desperate to feign an excuse for starting yet another war.
The most important, of course, is that all of the politicians involved, as well as the government of Israel, have been trying to feign an excuse for an attack on the oil-rich regional rival for years now, an attack that was planned when these same countries drew up plans for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. According to respected journalist, Seymour Hersh, these countries were invaded first in order to encircle Iran, and provide forward operating bases from which the US, Israel, and Britain have been running covert operations into the country (1).
The second is that, while these politicians loudly "demanded Iran immediately open the secret nuclear plant to international inspectors", Iran had already informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)about the site, four days before these men claimed to have "exposed" it.
At the same time, Iran also made the site part of the newly-signed agreement between the country and the IAEA, which will allow full inspection and monitoring of its entire atomic energy program. Since this deal went virtually unreported, I can't fault the public, or even some reporters, from being unaware of this fact.
However, it is implausible that Obama, Brown, or Sarkozy were unaware of this, so the troubling question must be asked; Are these men, like their predecessors, willingly deceiving the world in order to bring us closer to war?
Glenn Greenwald warns that "The reason such accusations deserve so much scrutiny is obvious: there is a substantial faction in our political culture which craves a military attack on Iran - the same faction, more or less, that caused us to attack Iraq - and will seize on anything to justify that" (2).
These men made much of the fact that Iran chose to build the site within a military base, and tried to keep its location a secret, but former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, in Britain's Guardian newspaper points out that Iran has been facing the threat of military attacks directed at its enrichment sites for years now, and was most likely trying to ensure that their economically-vital energy program could survive such an attack (3).
He also contradicted Obama's claims that Iran was in violation of its commitments, and pointed out that, under existing agreements, Iran acted in accordance to its international obligations.
(In a display of supreme irony and hypocrisy, Obama warned that "We are committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise, that obligations must be kept and that treaties will be enforced", ignoring his government's inaction faced with the Israeli Government's refusal to end its rapidly-increased expansion of the illegal settlements in the Occupied West Bank).
Most of the media consulted the usual "experts" who condemned Iran's actions, but upon closer examination, those that were identified (many outlets did not identify their "expert" sources) all of these were members of the radical "think tanks" that have been advocating strikes on Iran for years.
Another important detail the press overwhelmingly omitted from its coverage is the fact that the fuel for atomic energy programs and nuclear weapons are very different, as are the processes used to produce each type. Weaponization demands that uranium is enriched to at least 90%, while Iran has barely been able to enrich to the 13% used in civilian reactors.
Even if Iran wanted to pursue weaponization, this would involve such a massive and specific expansion that this would be impossible to hide, and American and Israeli intelligence agencies have stated that this would take, at the very least, five years just to construct, leaving the international community plenty of time to respond.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support the monitoring and inspection of any nuclear program (I'm looking at you, Israel, especially given the Haredi's growing influence (4) ...), but I oppose those within the political arena in several countries, most of which have engaged in multiple wars of choice over the past eight years, who are using this to try to once again lie/frighten the public into another unnecessary war. This is especially troubling because, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran does maintain a sizeable military, as well as a defense pact with Russia, and has the potential to enflame the entire region, further undermine the Rule of Law, and kill an untold number of innocent people on all sides.
Mohamed El Baradei, the Director General of the IAEA, the United Nations "nuclear watchdog" recently said that the threat posed by Iran's atomic energy program has been deliberately "hyped" by those trying to start this war, and referred to any attack on Iran as "an act of Madness" (5). Considering Iran's conventional capabilities, I have to agree with this assessment.
Iran has stated that any attack within its borders will be met with missile strikes on Israel's nuclear sites. Because our press and government is still trying to maintain Israel's "nuclear ambiguity", these statements went unnoticed in the press, but is something the Israeli public in particular should consider before blindly supporting another march to war.
In an article published in CounterPunch, Gareth Porter documents how the US government has been leaking stories to the Associated Press and Reuters, in order to give the false impression that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons, an allegation contradicted by the evidence collected by both the IAEA and the intelligence community, including the agencies of the states whose Extremist politicians are disseminating these lies (6).
Not only does this expose the willingness of the politicians to lie to the public to further their agenda, it also demonstrates that, as was the case in the run-up to the disastrous war on Iraq, much of the media is once again acting as a willing conduit to this material.
This weekend's shameful hysteria exposed Obama as a full partner with those Extremists desperate to start another war, it also demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bulk of the corporate press is on-side with this agenda.
If there's a lesson to be taken away from this weekend's performance, this is it, and we should all be wary in the coming weeks.
Our politicians and media must exercise caution in the months ahead, to ensure that they are giving the public all the facts and, given the mistakes made in the run-up to the Iraq war, are not being used, unwittingly or unwillingly, to transmit dangerous and irresponsible propaganda, the endgame of which is yet another disastrous war of aggression.
The public must also be vigilant, and be willing to confront those observed to be engaging in such activity, which is a betrayal of the public, the respective countries involved, and most importantly, the men and women of the armed forces, who stand to lose the most should another war break out.
1)Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
July 27, 2008
- 2)Should any Iraq lessons be applied to Iran?
- Glenn Greenwald Sept. 26, 2009 http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
- 3) Keeping Iran honest
- Scott Ritter Sept. 25, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-nuclear-plant-inspections
- 4) Patrick Martin on a hostile takeover of Zionism
- Sept. 25, 2009 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/patrick-martin-on-a-hostile-takeover-of-zionism/article1302331
- 5) ElBaradei calls Iran nuclear threat 'hyped'
- CBC News September 2, 2009 http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/09/02/elbaradei-iran.html
- IAEA Head: Iran Attack 'Act of Madness'
- Associated Press Online
By GARETH PORTER
August 26, 2009