Speaking Truth to Power on Iran
Credibility of Bush administration sinks to new low after report demolishes bomb claims
Just when it seemed that American credibility could not sink any lower, comes word from America’s own spy agencies that Iran wasn’t making the bomb that George W. Bush said it was.
So, “World War III” and “a nuclear holocaust” are not imminent.
That’s good to know before he could’ve launched a war on Iran, unlike Iraq where he did, though Baghdad had no capacity to make the “mushroom cloud” that Condoleezza Rice said it did.
Given the new intelligence assessment, it’s not Iran that’s looking like a rogue state but rather the U.S., at least the Bush administration - “running around like a mad man, blade in hand,” as Vladimir Putin put it recently.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exulting in “total victory.” Bush is struggling to maintain that he was not wrong. This is not a pretty sight.
What is comforting is that the American intelligence community has spoken truth to power. Unlike Bush, it has learned a lesson or two from Iraq: not to exaggerate and lie, and to admit when wrong.
The spooks acknowledge they were wrong to have said in 2005 that Iran was building the bomb when, in fact, they now think it had stopped doing so in 2003. If Iran does decide to build one, it won’t be able to do so for some years.
This conclusion has several serious implications: It refutes the image, carefully constructed, of anti-American, anti-Semitic mad mullahs mixing ingredients in a secret nuclear shed.
The National Intelligence Estimate says simply: “Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military cost.”
In other words, Iran is not all that different from other nations. The International Atomic Energy Agency is fully vindicated.
It had found no evidence of a weapons program, a conclusion fully backed by Russian intelligence.
The UN agency has not even said that Iran had a weapons program prior to 2003, only that Tehran hadn’t been forthcoming about its covert activities dating back to 1988 - a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Last August, the agency’s chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, got Iran to agree to disclose details of that dark period. Last week, he said Iran is making “good progress.”
He also said that Iran has 3,000 centrifuges (which enrich uranium) but that he could not guess Tehran’s “intentions.”
For his consistently nuanced position, he has been subjected to a smear campaign. He, in turn, has said that advocates of war are “crazies” - something many leading Americans have been saying as well, and will say more loudly. Bush faces an uphill battle imposing sanctions on Iran tougher than the ones in place under two Security Council resolutions.
Veto-wielding Russia and China, already wary, are not likely to agree. Britain, Germany and France may try for European Union sanctions. But Italy and Spain have balked.
That would leave the U.S. to toughen its own sanctions, dating back to the 1979 Iranian revolution.
Bush’s problem is not just with the nuclear program but rather that Iran refuses to be a client state. It supports Hamas and Hezbollah, and has carved out spheres of influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran may pull out of the talks with the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, and deal only with the atomic agency in Vienna.
As for the Security Council resolutions, it argues that they are “illegal” - Iran has not violated the nuclear treaty, which allows uranium enrichment. Iran temporarily suspended doing so (2004-2006) only as part of a deal: The European Union would get the U.S. to stop being hostile and negotiate a new relationship. When the EU failed, Iran resumed the program.
A compromise being floated is to have the enrichment done in Russia or by a consortium of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain).
If Iran can’t work out such compromises with the atomic agency, it can do what North Korea did: pull out of the non-proliferation treaty and shut the door on UN inspections. This is the route that non-signatories Israel, India and Pakistan took to develop their own nuclear bombs by stealth. White House hawks, from Dick Cheney down, stand discredited. This is their second setback, the Annapolis conference on the Arab-Israeli conflict being the first. They lost an internal struggle to Rice, who convinced Bush to try for peace. Barak Obama is looking good and Hillary Clinton not. Believing a woman candidate must pander more to the war gallery, she has been belligerent on Iran, while he has said he’d deal directly with the Iranian leaders. Much of North American media have a lot to answer for. They’ve been an echo chamber of the U.S. administration on Iran, just as they had been on Iraq.
In conclusion, three thoughts:
While Iran’s ruling clerics do understand carrots and sticks, Bush has little credibility to use either.
Instead of helping Iran’s human rights activists and its strong civil society, he has only strengthened the clerical regime. “No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq and Afghanistan repeated in Iran,” noted Akbar Ganji, Iran’s leading dissident, who spoke at the University of Toronto last week.
At a time when Canada could have played a bridging role, Stephen Harper has let relations deteriorate to the point that there’s no Canadian ambassador in Tehran and no Iranian one in Ottawa at this time.
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2007
i would like to comment,that i am already sick of the faddist expression”truth to power”give it a rest.also i wish somebody would explain to me what is meant by a “progressive”community.progressively what ?progressively bad ?or progressively good?it seems a vague expression that means absolutely NOTHING.progressive is almost an ant-thesis of free-will..as progression takes no special thought or application-it just happens…
It is not in the neocons’ interests to help human rights activists and civil society. The power structure dislikes Iran’s economic and foreign policy because they serve the interests of the Iranian people and not global capitalism. Therefore, issues such as theocracy vs. democracy and open society are used merely as pretexts by the neocons to fool the masses into thinking Western aims in Iran, the Middle East, and the world are motivated by a genuine concern for the people, when in fact they only want to milk Iran like they’re milking any other client state.
“What is comforting is that the American intelligence community has spoken truth to power. Unlike Bush, it has learned a lesson or two from Iraq: not to exaggerate and lie, and to admit when wrong.”
Ummm, correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t our intelligence agencies attempt to bring info to light that Iraq DID NOT have nuke capability? Didn’t the neo-cons cook the intel info for Iraq as well? There doesn’t seem to be any diff between the Iran issue and the Iraq issue insofar as the drum beats for war. And the same ole song and dance occurred with respect to the intel community with Iraq-as in “it was their fault, not ours we didn’t find any WMDs” Bushie speak-wise?
nayoibi -
I like the term ‘progressive’ (instead of ‘left-wing’, which cedes the high ground to those on the ‘right’).
Do you have an alternative to hang our hats on? I think we’re open to new ideas here.
‘Progress’, moving forward, getting somewhere, ‘making progress’ on our long road to freedom, equality and fraternity. That assumes human volition, no?
Active and constructive words are indicative of positive ideas, IMHO.
Someone posted (in response to a previous rant o’ mine) that ‘progressive’ has historical baggage. That is a consideration.
“Barak Obama is looking good and Hillary Clinton not. Believing a woman candidate must pander more to the war gallery, she has been belligerent on Iran, while he has said he’d deal directly with the Iranian leaders. Much of North American media have a lot to answer for. They’ve been an echo chamber of the U.S. administration on Iran, just as they had been on Iraq.”
Hillary and Obama have both pandered to a very specific war gallery, the Israel Lobby, which raises issues of misplaced loyalties as well as issues of political judgment. But when Obama panders to Zionist racists he does it with more nuance. The distinction is subtle, but it’s there. Obama or Edwards may be the best we can get. Anyone but that calculating, triangulating, prevaricating, overcompensating warmonger Hillary.
As far as the US media being an echo chamber for White House fascists, we know that, and that’s why Siddiqui’s article got published in the Toronto Star instead of the NYT.
“speaking truth to power” is a Quaker saying, I think, which has become popular recently. “What is the truth?” is the usual retort, so maybe “speaking facts to power” would be a better expression nowadays in a world of truthiness.
Yes, we Quakers claim “speak truth to power,” the title of a 1955 pamphlet by the American Friends Service Committee. Hardly “faddish,” actually rather middle-aged, and not unique to Quakers. I suspect that the 1955 committee got the idea from either union organizers or Gandhi, more likely the latter, but haven’t been able to trace it.
What I don’t particularly like about it is the implication that only those in official high positions have power, and that the way to get them to change is to talk rationally to them. Not a bad idea (though frequently useless when they’re not ignorant they’re scheming or corrupt). But ultimately community groups /civil societies need to reclaim our power, by acting not just speaking.
I thing that “Progressive” in this context means Open-Minded Forward Thinking. Given the left’s demonstrated inability to agree on a platform, it must also mean Independant Thought without co-operation or consideration of bringing forward successful coherent goals or ideals. We may not need to lock-step like the Republicans, but it would sure be nice to have an effective course of action that we could agree to support. Or at least not work against.
Veteran 66-68
the american public should be OUTRAGED that Cheney refused to make the intel report public for a year and that Bush was commenting about the possible WWW3.
These people should be impeached!
Where is the outrage??? Do people not have a sense of morality? Everybody is talking about how important religion has become- but people are unaware of being simply wronged- starting an unnecessary war AGAIN.
Thank you intel people for finally blowing the wistle on these lies.
And what is it all about- NOTHING about nuclear weapons- the multinationals want to suck up the Iranian oil and stop the nationalization of that oil. It is just plain thievery.
Meanwhile these same oil companies will not promote solar and wind tax credits and we are burning CO2 into the atmosphere which takes 100 years to get rid of it.
There is a need, as Siddiqui points out, to rail against the powers entrenched in positions to do untold harm to many people. Indeed, Canada could be a source of mediation were we to have a leader who was not deeply in the pockets of transnationals who are in control. Harper is too deeply embedded (in bed actually, with those powers) much to our disgust. With him in charge, our voices are not being heard since he emulates the actions of both the Bush government and the ‘Washington Concensus.’
The good news is that this ‘Empire,’ is not only the US, but rather a conglomeration of decentralized powers and can be dismantled bit by bit by all of us who seek to make a difference. Read Negri and Hardt’s book “Empire,” that shows how even the slightest resistance by many individuals or small groups can subvert the machinery that is slowly killing us. Oddly enough, the NIE is one of those small occurrences that eats away at Empire, if one perceives through the lens of those authors.
By the way, Negri was incarcerated in Italy for a number of years for his dissident views.
How about “Neo-Progressives”? The original “Progressives” are archaic or obsolete. Why not “Neo-Democrats”, “New Age Party” or “World Peace Party”.
Anything but the deeply-rotten, reeking, foot-in-the-grave, fossilized, fraudulent, blighted, Democrat/Republican charade/sham that we are plagued with currently.
Dick Cheney managed to stop the NIE for almost a year. The Russians are already saying that the NIE conclusion that the Iranians were exploring ways to build a nuke up til 2003 are false. The UN nuclear watch dogs also never charged the Iranians with attempting to build nukes. The NIE is damning enough, but what would it really show if we find out that the Iranians were really not working on a nuke. It would knock the props out of any defense against proposed impeachment. I think the most recent story from the New York Times about how the US has proof that the Iranians were trying to build a nuke until 2003 IS FALSE. Dick Cheney used the NYT to plant a number of bogus stories about how bad those Iraqi’s were before the Iraqi War and then he used the NYT stories to justify his charges against the Iraqis. This most recent NYT story doesn’t pass the smell test. Most physics graduates know the basic mechanics of building a nuke and most of the tecnical information is out there on the Internet. It doesn’t mean that the Iranians or the physics student are going to build a nuke.
You neo-cons want an easy target? The Japanese have 20,000 lbs. of plutonium, recycled from power reactors. Divide it by 15 and they have enough bombs to destroy us many times over. They certainly have the technical kinowledge to build a bomb. Let’s bomb them back to Mt Fuji before they get us. Impeach the bastards in the White House and leave the Nipponese alone.
Siddiqui has summed it up pretty well. Our national credibility has never been so low. The Bush disease has spread to Canada and France, but there is hope–Australia found a cure by ejecting Howard.
It worries me that, when Bush exits stage right, this country could well vote in another personable yahoo, like Huckabee, who couldn’t even spell NIE the other day. And, his God says the Earth is only 6,000 years old, even though there is historical evidence of human civilization going back 10,000 years.
I thnk Iowa and New Hampshire contribute to this political trend in that they both stress retail, face-to-face politics in substantially rural, conservative states. This puts the emphasis on personal charm and takes it away from leadership and problem-solving abilities. So a guy like Kucinich can’t get much traction, but Huckabee can.
Consequently, The bar for the White House has become set so low now, that I would just be happy to have someone in there who can read.
Well, I really got away from the subject, but so did everyone posting about terminology. I’m happy with liberal, progressive, leftist, socialist, or “hey you!”; but the most accurate term would be democratic-socialist-ethical-humanist, which is a bit unwieldy.
Pfft Stephen Harper should cahnge his last name to Bush as well. he is no better this is icing on the cake, NAFTA, NAU,all those back door deals with the states. He wont even deal with Iran because he doesnt want to piss off Bush. so much for our Sovereignty! Mr.harper youhave screwed us again!
ggpearl says,
“Ummm, correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t our intelligence agencies attempt to bring info to light that Iraq DID NOT have nuke capability?”
I beg to differ. Back then, wether strong armed, coerced or sweat-talked the spooks were in on the war racket. Remember George “slamdunk” Tenet squatting behind Collin “blot on my record” Powell in the UN general assembly, while they presented to the world cartoonish slides of supposedly mobile WMD platforms?
Now, I agree the spooks are not to be trusted, but this time they did really stop the “AIPAC, Military-industrial-Media Complex, Nutty Armogedanites” train to war.
The US Army War College has military students and analysts that have served in the middle-east. The last publication of parameters has an article on Iran. The military downplays the nuclear threat. Other articles I have seen detail military budgets and purchases throughout the middle-east. Intrestingly Iran’s military budget is small by middle-east standards and minimal for a country surrounded by hostile nations. We see images of missles being paraded in Iran, but a check of websites that track weapons purchases reveal a country that purchases defensive weapons and appears not to be trying to project forces beyound its borders. As for the comments about truth, read your military analysts and war colleges as these are the folks that must put policy into action. They have to confront the facts on the ground. We need a president that consults with our countries specialist and makes decisions based on the facts on the ground.
Excellent article. Haroon Siddiqui sure knows how to speak truth to power.
Bush and Cheney will not accept the reliability of an intelligence assessment until it’s confirmed by knowledgeable, reliable sources: e.g. Curveball, Ahmed Chalabi, Doug Feith, the White House Iraq Group, etc.
no doubt..truth is power…why not just affirm that truth is power and power is always in truth….truth does ring…it is the catchy phrase’truth to power’that i find objectionable..due to mindless uniformity of adopting catch-all faddist expressions,done in big brother fashion.as an alternative to progressive,i might suggest something such as ‘enlightened’community.