Maine Owl

Nothing learned: NY Times pages open to Iran nuke fear mongering

Iran Remains Defiant, Nuclear Agency Says
By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD; Published: Sep. 6, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Three months after the United Nations Security Council enacted its harshest sanctions yet against Iran, global nuclear inspectors reported Monday that the country has dug in its heels, refusing to provide inspectors with the information and access they need to determine whether the real purpose of Tehran's program is to produce weapons....

Imagine that! Iran doesn't trust what might happen when you cooperate with the IAEA. What events in history could cause not just the Iranian enemy, but any reasonable person to doubt the motives of Washington?

Writer and former CIA presidential briefer Ray McGovern recently has pointed to the obvious answer -- Iran hawks in the White House are trying to figure out how to re-run the fall 2002 George W. Bush playbook. Despite a few skeptics like Admiral Blair (who was fired last spring), "pressure is building" to come up with some sort of "Curveball II" so the null 2007 nuclear estimate on Iran can be rewritten in time for Democrats to run a fear campaign in October. THIS STORY by McGovern from July lays out the case. An Iranian scientist, Shahram Amiri, who had been in the U.S. for 14 months until earlier this summer did not quite fill the bill. But as can be seen from the story above, there is plenty of dry powder left in the armory.

For those unfamiliar with Curveball, THIS long post from the old blog is a detailed examination of the "mobile bioweapons labs" canards -- the famously non-existent "Winnebagos of Death."

Today's particular story about Iran not filing reports to the liking of it's enemies eerily reminds me of a story from exactly eight years ago this week:

Bush, Blair make case against Iraq
CNN; September 7, 2002

CAMP DAVID, Maryland (CNN) -- President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Saturday there is ample evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, but critics questioned that conclusion and late Saturday some of the evidence the leaders cited was brought into question....

Blair said on Saturday morning, "We only need look at the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning, showing what has been going on at a former nuclear weapon site."

He said satellite pictures indicate new construction in Iraq at "former nuclear weapon sites."

Blair said he had just read about a number of attempts by Saddam to conceal weapons of mass destruction and concluded that he must act. "A policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to," he said.

I dare say there was more critical reporting then than there is now. It's almost like the War Party has learned better how to manage media than major media has learned about how to report skeptically on official claims.

From a political point of view, I highly doubt that the U.S. Democratic administration in power can get the same mileage out of Iran fear mongering that the Republicans did in 2002. It just doesn't work the same for Democrats.

About former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, isn't there a dock for him somewhere at The Hague? At least the sickening image of Blair strutting around his new book like a puffed-up peacock is being met by vigorous and healthy protest:

When Mr Blair visited Dublin, protesters threw shoes and eggs and one attempted to perform a citizen's arrest. He has now confirmed his second public appearance, an event at a branch of Waterstone's in Piccadilly, will be scrapped.

Mr Blair said: "I have decided not to go ahead with the signing as I don?t want the public to be inconvenienced by the inevitable hassle caused by protestors."

Another Counterpunch piece on the clenched fist saga

Notable is its even fuller historical take than the piece I cited Wednesday. Plus, the activities of the conniving Dennis Ross are laid out in detail. But most important is the title,

The Fourth Round of Sanctions on Iran
The End of "Tough Diplomacy"?
By SASAN FAYAZMANESH

...On June 9, 2010?after much delay caused by such unforeseen events as Brazil and Turkey resisting the repetition of the Iraq scenario--the fourth UN sanction resolution against Iran was passed by the Security Council, with Brazil and Turkey voting 'no' and Lebanon abstaining. The passage of the resolution officially ends the 'tough diplomacy' phase of the Obama Administration's Iran policy. So far, the policy has followed closely the script written by Dennis Ross and his associates in the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. If the script is followed all the way through, we should expect the next phases to consist of more severe unilateral sanctions, a naval blockade, and, ultimately, military actions against Iran. The last phase would complete the US-Israeli policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq.

This is the big kahuna. Just like prior to the 1st Gulf War, or the Iraq War, no amount of diplomacy or concession or "confidence building" measure can be accepted. The Bush/Obama program includes an already-written script that says Iran will be neutralized by force.

And why should they think it won't work? The Iraq War is a SUCCESS in this regard. The Israelis have demonstrated in Lebanon & Gaza as the U.S. has in Iraq that extreme aggression is met with but a whimper from the "international community," at least the tiny part of it not either dominated or managed by the U.S.

But still, Iran is the biggest bite yet. China & Russia have gone along because they get what they want out of the deals (missile sales, eg) and the sanctions basically will not affect their dealings with Iran. That whole calculus could change if an aggression is launched by U.S./Israel. We'll see...my guess is before Obama leaves office.

Obama shows his clenched fist to Iran

So the 15-member U.N. Security Council has at U.S. behest approved a fourth round of mild sanctions against Iran to keep on the pressure over nuclear issues. The vote was 12 to 2 with one abstention.

Interestingly, the resolution was opposed by Turkey and Brazil. I had read the news over the last month or so that these two countries and their leaders had brokered a potential solution satisfactory to Iran. Iran would give up substantial capacity to produce nuclear reactor fuel and move a significant amount of existing enriched uranium out of the country. These new sanctions, then, are slaps to the faces of Lula and Erdogan, Brazil's president and Turkey's prime minister respectively.

The importance to the U.S. of continuing tension is made clear by the observed reaction of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when the threat of diplomatic success of the Brazil/Turkey/Iran negotiations emerged.

I was not made aware of just how extreme this reaction was until I read the entire story as told in an excellent piece by Esam Al-Amin posted on Counterpunch June 9. Obama stabbed his Brazilian and Turkish allies in the back:

Obama's Doublespeak on Iran

On April 12, 2010, President Barack Obama hosted a forty-seven nation Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. He met with dozens of heads of state making his case for a fourth set of crippling sanctions on Iran because of its intransigence on the nuclear issue. His main argument was the refusal of Iran to accept the proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of transferring the bulk of Iran?s low enriched uranium outside the country in exchange for medical nuclear isotopes.

The following day Obama met with President Luiz Lula Da Silva of Brazil and Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan of Turkey ... Obama not only encouraged them to pursue a diplomatic breakthrough, but he also vowed to be constructive and flexible, as well as promising to send them in writing the parameters of any deal deemed acceptable to the US. ...

The piece goes on to describe the conditions Obama laid out in an April letter, conditions the Iranians apparently were ready to accept. However,

On May 17, an agreement based on the American and IAEA proposals was signed by the foreign ministers of all three countries. A week later Iran submitted an official letter to the IAEA acknowledging the pact and stating its intention to transfer its LEU to Turkey within one month once the plan was accepted.

To the complete surprise of Brazil and Turkey, the White House and the State Department dismissed the deal out of hand within 24 hours, rejecting the same principles outlined in Obama?s letter. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even called it ?a ploy? before a hearing in the Senate?s Committee on Foreign Relations on May 18, declaring that a sanctions resolution against Iran in the Security Council is imminent.

Secretary Clinton now has her sanctions, the fist firmly is clenched, and Obama has revealed himself to be a backstabber. Evidently the U.S. leaders did not believe the Iranians actually would go for the quite rigid deal. So it was necessary to revoke it against the threat of success.

Evidently the U.S. prefers to coddle the one real nuclear power in the Mideast -- Israel -- while playing a game of threats, sanctions, and false diplomacy. How much stock should we put in Obama's now oft-repeated desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons when he won't stand behind his own diplomatic positions?

Have we learned from Iraq after all?

These are the answers to Sunday's matching quiz:
1. B; 2. C; 3. D; 4. A

Click HERE to see the background and discussion below.

Now, for a nightmare headline--that is if you are a U.S. or Israeli reactionary who was hoping the "September surprise" enrichment plant "revelations" would leverage a more damaging attack on the Iranian population:

Iran agrees to open up uranium enrichment plant to inspection
Provisional deal offers hope of defusing crisis
Julian Borger in Geneva | guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 October 2009 20.39 BST

Iran agreed in principle today to export much of its stock of enriched uranium for processing and to open its newly-revealed enrichment plant to UN inspections within a fortnight.

The agreements, struck at negotiations in Geneva with six major powers, represented the most significant progress in talks with Tehran in over three years, and offered hope that the nuclear crisis could be defused, at least temporarily.

Western officials cautioned that the preliminary agreements could unravel in negotiations over the details. But if the deals were completed, it would push back the looming threat of further sanctions and possible military action.

Of course this news reads a little different from U.S.-based sources: "Obama: Iran Must Follow Through on Nuke Promises."

Maybe this does make Obama look a bit more rational and able to manage disparate global interests than the Republicans, especially last year's losers, as Rachel Maddow pointed out HERE. Maybe Obama is playing a clever game to defuse the more bloodthirsty elements occupying Washington and Jerusalem.

But somehow I don't think the threat of U.S.-approved violence against the Iranian people is over. It appears the Iranians have played a card the Americans did not expect they would--the agreed to outsource uranium enrichment. This was a proposal floated as early as the 2004 presidential campaign by the Democrats. I've written about this before, back when John Edwards still was a viable candidate:

On the essential aspects of "militarism and oil-driven expansionism," it seems to me quite clear that calls to "negotiate" with Iran ring hollow. Walking a tightrope while recognizing that very few in America, especially in Democratic primaries, are particularly in a mood to jump into a bigger war, Edwards appeared to be conciliatory in a recent interview with Ezra Klein of The American Prospect. The trouble is, there is really no aspect of US imperial policy in the Middle East that possibly could be conceded in a negotiation with Iran, and Edwards failed to offer such.

In that Klein interview, Edwards explains what America would ?give? Iran. They would be allowed to have a nuclear fuel cycle, controlled by Washington. Presumably Iran would be also be allowed to pay its oh-so-?hard? oil $ in exchange for these benefits brought to it by the elite technocratic contracting entities in the multinational Nuclear Suppliers Group. Also, Iran would get economic "help," presumably from a dose of neoliberal medicine. If I were Iranian, that deal would be totally a non-starter.

I may have been proven wrong here. I hope so, if it means that an attack on Iran and the counter measures Iran would almost certainly take do not happen. But unfortunately I'm not quite ready to believe the forces lined up against Iran are going to stand down just yet.

The first answer today will be a freebie. Your free question is, Which world leader has declared that Iran must "come clean" on its nuclear program after the existence of a small, long-known-about underground enrichment facility was "revealed" on Friday?

Of course the answer is President Barack Obama who Friday in Pittsburgh at a G-20 meeting news conference said,

When we meet with them on October 1st, they are going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice.

Doesn't that sound somehow familiar? If you've been paying attention for the last couple of decades, it should! So for your quiz today, please give the letter of the person or persons below who said (or wrote) each of the following. (Note: A certain country name has been replaced by "[they]" so as not to reveal too much about the answer.):

1. ____ "So, they have to come clean. They wanted to come clean, OK? They could not come fully clean, then they'll have to declare things they don't want to give. So, they give partial documentation in a hurry. There were some notes, there were some documents they shouldn't have, if they wanted, if they were serious, they shouldn't have."


2. ____ "[Have they] come clean at last?"


3. ____ "We asked for a declaration of all of his WMD come clean. He refused to do that. He?s, again, continued to do everything he could to thwart the inspectors. I'm hard-put to specify what it is he could do with credibility at this stage that would alter the outcome. He's always had the option of coming clean, of complying with the resolution, of giving up all of his weapons of mass destruction, ..."


4. ____ "I do feel that there's still reason to believe that he is hiding and has not come totally clean. ... And I am anticipating a unanimous view that we've got to keep our eyes wide open and not be lulled by some letter or some very belated offering ...."

Please pick from these choices:

A. George H. W. Bush
B. Khidhir Hamza
C. David Albright and Robert Kelley
D. Richard Bruce Cheney

Please post your answers in a comment. Solutions will be given in a couple of days.

What kind of country allows an election to be stolen?