Americans are flummoxed by conflicting statements
regarding an impending war with Iran. This is true for Americans who are
closely following events on this issue. Woe be for the average, hardworking
American who relies on the corporate news (CM) to keep him or her informed. The
CM is sadly lacking in this effort, or worse, distorting the issues involved
for self-benefiting corporate purposes, i.e. NBC is owned by General Electric,
a huge defense contractor.
Here are the facts,
most of which was presented in my article, War With Iran Imminent?, a little over two weeks ago .
In
a NIE in 2007 our 16 intelligence agencies agreed Iran is not making a nuke. This
was reaffirmed in 2011. Panetta stated clearly recently that Iran is not
making a nuke. Israel's Mossad has stated Iran is not making a nuke. Israeli
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that any potential military strike is very
far off. How far? Barak said it didn't matter. He said before Iran could
actually make a nuke she would have to throw out the IAEA inspectors and leave
the IAEA. This would be a clear signal that she is making a nuke and that would
cause repercussions Iran does not want, he said. And Barak is an Israeli hawk
closely tied to Netanyahu.
Here is another rather unpleasant fact. Virtually
nothing of this was reported by the CM to hapless Americans who want only to
know what is going on. " Recent comments by U.S and Israeli military leaders indicate that
the intelligence services of the two countries agree that Iran has not
decided to build a nuclear bomb, a crack in the Western narrative
that the U.S. press corps won't accept, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern
explains." http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/24/usisrael-iran-not-building-nukes/
Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years.
Adding to the complexity of the issue is a somewhat annoying
question. Ignoring for the moment that there is virtually no proof that Iran is
making a nuke (a fact conveniently overlooked by the CM and politicians), could
the West live with a nuclear-armed Iran? Admittedly, there are a variety of
answers to that question, some simplistic and sophomoric. A keen analysis of
that question is provided by Arthur Bright of the Christian Science Monitor, " Israel possesses an
estimated 200 nuclear weapons. The United States possesses thousands, and could within a few
hours turn all of Iran into a radioactive pyre. By what logic can anyone assume
the Iranians would unilaterally deploy nukes if they had them? Far more
plausible is that, in seeking nuclear weapons, the Iranians intend to forever
alter the balance of power in the Middle East, creating for themselves an
insurance policy of the kind enjoyed by Pakistan, North Korea, India
and others. North Korea, charter member of Bush's axis of evil, went nuclear
and was not invaded. Saddam Hussein had no WMD and was deposed and hanged.
Gadhafi gave up his WMD and was deposed and shot. "
What has changed since the disclosure of the unalterable facts
mentioned above? What has changed is that since time immemorial politicians
like Panetta and Barak have changed their tune. Like all politicians, they are
straddling the fence wanting support from both sides of the issue. More on that
later. This leaves analysts gazing in wonderment as to what the hell is going
on.
What started all this? Why all of sudden do we have war hype with
Iran? The answer is two-fold. First, beyond all comprehension, it began with
the highly
misleading November 2011 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) on Iran. Second,
the CM is in the business of selling the news, the more sensational the better,
and a war with Iran is "truly exciting." The consequences? Who cares, the
corporate headquarters of the CM are secure and advertisers are pleased. This
is what the vast number of Americans hear, exactly what the CM wants them to
hear, and they don't want to be confused with facts.
McGovern writes, " The [CM] ignored
available evidence showing that the
new IAEA management was collaborating behind-the-scenes with U.S. and Israeli
officials on the Iran issue. "
He continues, " However, there were, in fact, significant overlaps in the
IAEA's description of Iran's nuclear program and the key judgments of the NIE,
but you would hardly know that from reporting in the [CM]. The IAEA report contains
no smoking gun regarding Iran's intentions about building nuclear weapons, but
notes that much of Iran's progress occurred prior to fall 2003 -- when the NIE
reported that Iran abandoned its weapons program. "
Complicating the issue further,
McGovern adds, " The
[CM's] rhetorical shift from accusing Iran of "building' nukes to seeking a
"capacity to build' them is reminiscent of Bush's sleight of hand when he went
from talking about Iraq's supposed WMD "stockpiles' to its WMD "programs' --
after it turned out there were no WMD stockpiles. "
So now the game has changed, not the
truths stated in my last article. It is impossible to alter truth. What has
changed is that those truths are being ignored and American and Israeli
political and military leaders as well as politicians are now issuing bellicose
remarks on the Iranian question. McGovern is correct. This is deja vu. This has
all happened before with disastrous results. Only this time a war with Iran
will be ten times worse. That, too, is being ignored. It is as if this was all
a game.
On Feb. 6th President Obama
ordered new sanctions on Iran, including her Central Bank. Iranian leaders have
said that an attack on its Central Bank is an act of war.
On Super Bowl Sunday, for all intents
and purposes, Obama gave a green light to Israel to attack Iran, please read: http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/07/obamas-super-bowl-fumble-on-iran/
Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders on Jan.
20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by
Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from
well-placed senior military officers. This received no play on the CM. Gareth
Porter of IPS news service reports, "Dempsey's trip was highly unusual, in that
there was neither a press conference by the chairman nor any public statement
by either side about the substance of his meetings with Israeli leaders. Even
more remarkable, no leak about what he said to the Israelis has appeared in
either U.S. or Israeli news media, indicating that both sides have regarded
what Dempsey said as extremely sensitive." That is extremely unfortunate. On
the other hand, it hardly matters. Obama has flip-flopped.
David
Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote earlier this month, "Panetta believes
there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June
-- before Iran enters what Israelis described as a "zone of immunity' to
commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians
will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make
a weapon -- and only the United States could then stop them militarily." The
remainder of his article stressed that an Israeli attack was imminent, not if,
only when and quite soon. His only concern was how Washington would react.
Analysts quickly dismissed this article. After all, how could Ignatius possibly
know what Panetta "believes?" Also, they find it incomprehensible, not to
mention suicidal, that Israel would launch a military attack on Iran. More on
this later and the developments are astounding. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-israel-preparing-to-attack-iran/2012/02/02/gIQANjfTkQ_story.html
Iran
has enough radioactive material to produce four nuclear bombs, Israel's chief
of military intelligence, General Aviv Kochavi, asserted at a security conference
recently. "Today international intelligence agencies are in agreement with
Israel that Iran has close to 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of uranium enriched to
20 percent, which is enough to produce four bombs," he told the annual
Herzliya conference. "Iran is very actively pursuing its efforts to
develop its nuclear capacities, and we have evidence that they are seeking
nuclear weapons," he said. Of course, this is in conflict with what Mossad
has said. The Mossad has stated that Iran is not making a nuclear weapon. What
are observers supposed to make of those incompatible assessments?
Later
at the Herzliya conference, Barak said there was currently "broad
international understanding that if the sanctions do not achieve their desired
goal of stopping the Iranian nuclear military programme, the need to consider
action will arise." He added, "Many experts, not only in Israel but
also in the world, believe that refraining from action would necessarily lead
to a nuclear Iran, and that dealing with a nuclear Iran would be more
complicated, more dangerous, and would cost more lives and money, than stopping
it today," Barak said. "Whoever says 'later,' might find that 'later'
is too late," he warned. Analysts are trying to square that with what he
said earlier as mentioned above. Of course, they cannot. You cannot fit a round
peg into a square hole. Barak also flip-flopped.
So
did Panetta. Earlier I mentioned the Ignatius article and the fact that
observers wondered how this writer could possibly know what Panetta believes.
The answer is quite simple. Panetta told him, as Gareth Porter reveals. "When
Defence Secretary Leon Panetta told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius
this week that he believes Israel was likely to attack Iran between April and
June, it was ostensibly yet another expression of alarm at the Israeli
government's threats of military action."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
