You are herecontent / Iran Through the Media

Iran Through the Media


By David Swanson

An AP article on Tuesday begins: "President Bush bats away talk of bombing Iran's disputed nuclear sites as 'wild speculation.' But plodding diplomacy hasn't borne fruit so far, and the administration is facing a hard truth: There may be no way to stop Iran from getting the bomb."

Here we have encapsulated the most warmongering position to be found in the U.S. media. The reporter who wrote this, Anne Gearan, believes that Bush is lying when he says that talk of attacking Iran is wild speculation, because in reality, she tells us, his administration is considering just that. But the fact that Bush is lying is not worth mentioning. Rather, it is important to praise him for "facing" the possibility of war.

Diplomacy, Gearan informs us, should be put down as "plodding," and as having not borne fruit. When it was tried and what fruit it was supposed to have borne need not even be explained. The point is to put down diplomacy. Instead, it is important that Bush is strong enough to face a "hard truth." Why is it the truth? Because the AP says so. And what is it? This: "There may be no way to stop Iran from getting the bomb."

Hmm. U.S. intelligence believes Iran is five to 10 years away from that – even if Ahmadinejad's latest bragging proves true. Why would there be no way to accomplish that over a period of years? Whence the sense of emergency?

And can we have a little accountability for the CIA having given Iran plans to build a nuclear bomb, as reported in "State of War" by James Risen?

Gearan goes on: "The Bush administration's choices are few and fraught with problems. They include a military strike to end or slow Iran's alleged drive to acquire the ability to build nuclear weapons, international diplomacy, and direct U.S. negotiations - and concessions - to persuade Tehran that it has more to gain from giving up weapons than from building them."

So the military strikes that Bush calls wild speculation would end or slow Iran's drive to create weapons, or at least be intended to end or slow that? How do we know this? Because we believe this is what Bush would say if he were to stop lying about having no interest in an attack? But didn't the experience of Iraq teach us anything about how honest that claim would be?

Gearan mentions the possibility of diplomacy, but jumps right back to hyping the threat and the urgent need to act:

"The U.S. could also throw up its hands and do little as Iran acquires nuclear know-how, and figure it is possible to deter Iran from using any weapons it may build - just as the U.S. has been able to deter nuclear threats from the former Soviet Union and China."

Ya think? How many thousands of times could the United States, or even Israel, completely obliterate the nation of Iran? And we're supposed to believe an Iranian attack is likely?

This topic was covered much more honestly on Sunday in a Knight Ridder article by Warren Strobel, John Walcott and Jonathan S. Landay, and last Thursday in a Chicago Tribune article by Mike Dorning.

Owen Matthews in the Daily Mail on Thursday went so far as to admit the obvious:

"…George Bush's belligerence seems to have proved the catalyst behind Iran's latest spur of nuclear research. For many Iranians, the quicker they can join neighboring Pakistan and Israel as members of the nuclear club, the safer they'll feel. Iran and the U.S. are locked in a vicious circle. The more America piles on the pressure, the less possibility there is for Ahmadinejad to back down without a fatal loss of face. Driving Iran into a corner can only lead to disaster."

So, what CAN we do? Matthews suggests that "the West's best chance is to try to change Iran, not just change its leadership. Iran's recent waves of student prodemocracy protests are in abeyance now, for sure, but not irrevocably so. Fully half of Iran's population is under 30. The battle for Iran's future starts with them."

Good news to Bush, no doubt, if someone can let him know. Oddly, his pattern seems to be to talk about democracy only after bombing a country into ruins, not before.

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I have to disagree with the Matthews suggestion that "the West's best chance is to try to change Iran, and not just it's leadership"...Because, THAT'S the problem!!! The West needs to stop "changing" anything other than itself. Regardless of whether or not "we" think that Ahmadinejad is a little "kooky", he is certainly no crazier than the regime that we have in power, and more importantly, he was democratically elected by the people of Iran. No, not all of them voted for him, but even those that didn't, still believe that their country has every right to nuclear technology, and based on the NPT...they DO!!!

So no, rather than consistently trying to CHANGE a country or a nation that has completely different cultural values than the west, (for which this regime has absolutely no regard) a little diplomacy might help. And, there is a UN, and it's agency...the IAEA, who are trained to handle this. The west needs to stop bullying the rest of the globe, and utilize the institutions and extensive framework of international law that has been established for these purposes. Instead, these criminals in the Western white house have trashed centuries of treaties and and international law, and absolutely REFUSE to ever talk up front, with any of the countries that they bully from afar.....All of these "warnings" that the US has sent...via the media, has done exactly what Mr. Swanson has suggested. It's given Iran that much more reason to dig in her heels, for the simple fact that they will not be dictated to by the US.
And why does BushCo continue to insist that Iran wants a nuclear weapon even after it's president has said repeatedly, (though I've never seen it printed in MSM) that the faith of Islam doesn't ALLOW for nuclear weapons. The culture does not believe in nuclear weapons, and Ahmadinejad has said that on a number of occasions. He's also said that Iran believes that NO country or nation should have nuclear weapons, and yet Iran is surrounded by nations that DO have them.

The bottom line is that BushCo will not rest until they have managed to take over all of the resources of the Middle Eastern oil nations, and they didn't take over Iraq's oil as planned, so they won't stop, and they won't negotiate to avoid a conflict, because that is exactly what these yahoos want. They take what they want...by force. Diplomacy has never even been attempted, and the US won't even consider it. Not this gang...
cyrena1987

Originally posted by donpenders

DonP Bush talks of diplomacy but, his administration refuses to talk with Iran. The U.S. refuses to meet with the Europeans who are talking with Iran. I fear that the decision has been made in Tel Aiv that the only recourse is bombing Iran in the belief that like Iraq fear of American military will prevent Iran retaliation. I think they are wrong.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.