Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhite House & Press Spinning Iran's Centrifuges
Those who know about the centrifuges used to refine uranium tell me they must spin at an almost unrivaled velocity-almost unrivaled, because Bush administration statements are being spun at equivalent speed by White House and corporate media spiders. Without Spinmeister Karl Rove and former spokesman Tony Snow, it is amateur hour at the White House. And the theater would be as funny as The Daily Show, were the subject not so serious.
Judging from President George W. Bush's words and body language he is far from giving up on ways to "justify" attacking Iran's nuclear program-weapons-related or not. He appears convinced he must honor the pledge he has made to Israel's current leaders to eliminate what they have called an "existential threat" to Israel. This came through in a particularly pointed way on October 17, when an agitated president ad-libbed about the possibility of World War III, complaining loudly, "We've got a leader in Iran who has announced he wants to destroy Israel."
Not at all helpful to the president was the judgment of U.S. intelligence that the Iranians halted their nuclear weapons-related program in 2003, a judgment the administration made public this week. The White House knew only too well that that this bombshell could not be kept secret very long-the more so since Congress' intelligence committees, Pentagon brass, and senior CIA officials reportedly made it quite clear they would go public if the White House did not publish a sanitized version of the key judgments of the latest National Intelligence Estimate.
On Oct. 26, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell launched a trial balloon, declaring he would no longer declassify and release summaries of National Intelligence Estimates, but that balloon was quickly shot down.
So what can Cheney and Bush do now to "justify" striking Iran? Several months ago, about the time new intelligence established there was no active nuclear weapons program in Iran, there were signs in the rhetoric coming from the president and Gen. David Petraeus that the argument was going to hinge on claims that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards were supplying the wherewithal to kill our troops in Iraq. Petraeus was clearly ready to play that game, but his superior, Admiral "we're-not-going-to-do-Iran-on-my-watch" William Fallon would not play along. And neither would the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is now back from a brief visit to Iraq and his caution so far on this issue suggests he is paying more heed to Fallon than to Petraeus. In other words, there is no sign that Gates wants to abet using Iranian meddling in Iraq as a pretext for a military strike on Iran. Gates' well-deserved chameleon-like reputation counsels caution here, since a word from Cheney or Bush could conceivably make Gates a fervent champion of this pretext for war. But people do mature; Gates is smart; and I doubt he would want to be so closely associated with starting a regional war, if not WW III.
Spinning Enrichment
So where does that leave the beleaguered president? This week's spinning by the White House and subservient media suggests the administration still thinks it can make a case for war, by obfuscating the nuclear program in Iran. This has become clearer as administration mouthpieces blur the distinction between uranium enrichment for a civilian energy use (permitted to signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty) and the much more demanding requirements of a nuclear weapons program.
The spinners have resurrected the discredited argument that Iran's nuclear program must be for weapons, because Iran's oil and gas should suffice to meet all its energy requirements. Thus, the administration's Pravda, also known as the editorial page of the Washington Post, on Dec. 5: "Iran's massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds...even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium."
And thus another major administration mouthpiece, also known as the New York Times, on Dec. 6, in an op-ed, "In Iran We Trust?" by Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin: "Why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value."
This is a familiar canard; i.e., that Iran's claim that its nuclear program is for electricity production is given the lie by its own large oil and natural gas reserves, so uranium enrichment must be for nuclear weapons development. Condoleezza Rice took that line over a year and a half ago (shades of those (in)famous aluminum tubes that she said could "only" be used in a nuclear application but turned out to be for conventional artillery). At about the same time Dick Cheney complained that since the Iranians are "already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."
It all makes me think of Harry Truman's complaint: "They must think we were born yesterday!" Rice and Cheney have selective memories-or take us for fools. Back in 1976-with Gerald Ford president, Dick Cheney his chief of staff, Donald Rumsfeld secretary of defense-the Ford administration bought the Shah's argument that Iran needed a nuclear program to meet its future energy requirements. That argument, of course, is even more valid today, with the price that can be obtained for oil and the specter of Peak Oil.
Cheney and Rumsfeld persuaded a hesitant President Ford to offer Iran a deal that would have meant at least $6.4 billion for U.S. corporations like Westinghouse and General Electric, had not the Shah been unceremoniously dumped three years later. The offer included a reprocessing facility for a complete nuclear fuels cycle-essentially the same capability that the U.S. and Israel now insist Iran cannot be allowed to acquire.
A pity that our domesticated media seem unable to catch the disingenuousness.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he chaired some National Intelligence Estimates and produced/briefed the President's Daily Brief.
This article appeared first on Consortiumnews.com
27 Comments so far
Show All"Why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value."
Answered your own question, didn't you, guys? And in addition, there is peak oil to be considered which in their case may be later than other countries, but still within our lifetime.
(Attn: cruz_ctrl and WTF)
Even though the U.S. House passed a resolution based on Iran's president's alleged vow to destroy Israel, and even though you still hear this vow cited unquestioningly by everyone from TV journalists and evangelists to President Bush himself, apparently the original statement of the Iranian president was mistranslated. (For more on this -- and other fascinating things you may not yet have read about -- please see http://www.projectcensored.org.)
My understanding is that another of the Iranian president's remarks was also mistranslated. Apparently, what he said, in Farsi, at Columbia U. was only that homosexuality was not a problem in Iran, not that there was no homosexuality in Iran. (I believe I read about this latter item in "The Nation," but I am not sure.)
Let us for a moment examine all of the evidence which has been used so far to try to build the case for war against Iran:
Axis of evil - Iran supposedly is the number one sponsor of terrorism in the World. I don't know about anyone else, but I cannot remember the last time an Iranian was implicated in a terror act. There have been Saudis (mostly), Africans, Egyptians, Yemeni, Palestinians, Indonesians, British of Pakistani origin.
I can however recall an act of terror by the United States, and it was when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airbus over the Straights of Hornuz - unfortunate mistake?
Iran's nuclear programme - they haven't breached any NPT rules as far as I can see, but the US (closely followed by it's lapdog the UK), is trying for sanctions leading to military action, because we are trying to convince the World that Iran intends, at some point in the future to "wipe Israel off the map", which would of course lead to the total destruction of Iran. I don't think so!
President Ahmendinajad's famous quotation - this must be the most misquoted peace of a speech ever. Let's get this right shall we. He did not say that he intended to "wipe Israel off the map". He said that the "Zionist regime would disappear from the pages of history"
IEDs or shaped charges - Our leaders are trying to tell us that Iran is almost solely responsible for the production of IEDs, which we are to believe account for nearly 40% of our military deaths in Iraq. Shaped charges or IEDs have been around since the second World war, when they were used by Belarus fighters against the German Panzer regiments. They are not "new" technology, but they are easy to make in the field, and extremely effective against AFVs, particularly small ones, such as Armoured Personnel carriers, which do not have heavy armour, but rely on speed and manouvrebility.
Iran are backing the Shia militias in Iraq - Yes they most probably are, because the Shia were the very people who were being slaughtered by Sadaam Hussein, and who today are targetted by Al Quaeda and Sunni insurgents. It is interesting to note, that part of the new US strategy in Iraq, involves arming Sunni fighters, and also Kurdish "freedom fighters", who can strike inside Iran's borders.
Thats all I can think of for the moment, but I am quite sure there is a lot more.
So National Intelligence Director Mike McConnel launched some sort of trial balloon in October, declaring he would no longer declassify and release NIE summaries, the balloon quickly got shot down, and (by implication) this is good news and cause for rejoicing because it shows the national intelligence bureaucracy can and will stand up to the White House neo-con ideologues?
Well, for the short term news cycle, maybe it is good news. But for the long term health of the republic's democratic process, it's a very dangerous precedent in my opinion.
As Ray McGovern warns, Sec Def Robert Gates has a history of chameleon like behavior. Recall too it was only a few months ago - immediately before the Congressional recess - that Michael McConnell and CIA director Hayden were feverishly briefing the House and Senate leadership about a scary up tick in intercepted terrorist chatter indicating another domestic attack was in the offing, and a pesky recent court ruling somewhere was hindering prompt approval of NSA's electronic intercept request.
Therefore, all those office holders who fail to pass a quicky renewal of NSA's domestic surveillance authority outside of FISA judicial oversight will likely have blood on their hands, if they go home for recess and Detroit or Des Moines goes boom some time in August. Senator Doofus, please don't say your friends in the national intelligence community didn't warn you.
It worked like a charm.
So before there's too much dancing in the streets over the revised NIE that today makes an attack upon Iran less likely, think real hard about how you expect the media, the pundits, and the politicos to reflexively react next week, next month, or next year when the shoe is on the other foot.
If Bush, Cheney, Gates, and McConnell together next announce newly discovered (highly reliable, highly classified) evidence NOW proves Iran is back building nukes again, and that there's smoking gun evidence that Amadinijad is actually the antiChrist, shall we expect our elected political leaders to jump up and dance to their new tune?
Bill from Saginaw
Gail---I agree with you and have maintained all along that Iran may have vast oil reserves, but at the current and likely future prices for oil, this is their national treasure----why would they NOT want to sell it to the highest bidder?
Hells bells--that's what the big oil companies are doing---do they offer US citizens any deals on the oil they control? They'd sell it right out from under our noses to the highest bidder.
Iran's nuclear intentions are to get a bomb but they are following the well worn path of nuclear proliferation by pursuing energy plants first with the secret help of other states that are willing to trade in the technology. Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea used these methods successfully - why get specifically pissed at Iran?
If it takes a few bombs to justify an Iran invasion then bombs away but which US city will Bush and Co. attack this time.
Study - I read the article you linked, but I don't understand what it means. Can you help me out?
I found the follwing article, a short blurb, buried in the back pages of the Times on a Sunday. It shows that neocons are so desperate that they are putting words in the mouths of the Iranians. Please read and forward:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/world/middleeast/09iran.html?ref=world
The U.S. Dollar is plummeting out of control. Iran is no longer selling oil in U.S. Dollars. Invading Iran could give the U.S. control over the straits of Hormuz where oil flows out to the rest of the world.
This invasion must sound pretty lucrative to the neocons on Capitol Hill. There's just one problem: Will China and the rest of the world continue to support our Empire?
With Israel next door I can see why they probably need nuclear weapons! To defend themselves from a run amok state. Israel is just as hostile to them as they are back. We won't mention what they (Israel) did to the Palestinians. I can really see why we are on the Moslem's worlds 'S...list'. The Christian's in this country have been playing favorite's since they (Israel) took over. And all over some book that has very dubious origins. But, a lot of Christian's believe it is the word of God. But, personally I think it's like it was in Iraq. He just wants to start another war to have some place for Blackwater to go and tear up the countryside. He wants to waste a bunch more military hardware, money and soldier's to his insane glory!
For quite some time, the USA was the #1 extractor and exporter of oil and refined products, and prices were controlled by our own OPEC--The Texas Railroad Commission--and the USA is still the #3 oil extractor, about 6Mbbl/D. Yet, the USA is also the largest user of nuclear power for electricity by a very large margin. Plus, the USA has very large amounts of coal and natural gas to use. So why does the USA, with all its fossil fuels, need nuclear power?
For some comparisons between the rising competitors, China and India, and the USA in the energy production and resource use areas, please peruse this set of pdf slides, especially 45-51, http://www.aspousa.org/proceedings/houston/presentations/Vince%20Matthews%20China%20India1.pdf
This is a presentation from the same conference that puts forth the argument for more nuclear power in USA to help mitigate Peak Oil--the very argument BushCo won't allow Iran to use. Once again it's just the slides, http://www.aspousa.org/proceedings/houston/presentations/SCOTT%20PUGH%20ASPO%20Nuclear%20Status.pdf
It appears that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really said on Oct 25 2005 translates as:
The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.
Nothing about "wiped off the map" or "dsetruction". Good article here: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
Every time I see a report about Iran on Fox News it pictures Iran with a missle. Iran is surrounded by hostile states. Yet Iran has a modest military budget. Iran purchases mainly defensive weapons and lacks the ability to project forces beyound their border. Iran just finished a 30 week mini-series involving Jewish Families in WWII Germany. It was the most extensive and expensive mini-series in Iran. I think Iran's view is that the Europeans were not able to kill the Jews, so they sent them to the middle-east. The creation of Isreal is a European plot to rid Europe of Zionist, according to Iran. Iran doesn't blame the Jews, but would like a single state of Palastine with Jews living within it, as opposed to a two state solution. Wiping Isreal off the map doesn't mean killing Jews.
"Don't get me wrong: I love nuclear energy! It's just that I prefer fusion to fission. And it just so happens that there's an enormous fusion reactor safely banked a few million miles from us. It delivers more than we could ever use in just about 8 minutes. And it's wireless!"
William McDonough,
militantliberal December 8th, 2007 6:33 pm
"Yes, why should Iran want nuclear power? But then again, why should we? If other columnists and posters on this site are correct, nuclear power is fundamentally unprofitable."
They may not be looking at a profit margin in the nuclear power industry but simply looking for an alternative to keep their country electrified without having to use their oil which they can sell between $70-$100 per barrel....and possibly more in the future. If they can break even with a nuclear power grid and sell their oil at an astronomical price, why wouldn't they?
Is it possible they might want to develop nuclear weapons down the road? Of course! They are surrouded by countries that already have nukes and could present a threat to them. But that doesn't mean they are going to work toward developing nukes, especially if they are being monitored.
Look it was the Ford adminstration in the mid 70's that bought the Shah's argument that they needed nuclear power to free up as much oil as possible from domestic use so that they could sell it on the market.So, the Ford adminstation started shipping them the tecnology..
Rick: Thanks for bringing up the fatwa. I have known about this for some time and have never figured out why the media has never focused on it. The president of Iran has NO power. The Ayatollah does. What the hell is the problem here? Could it be the oil?
Rebel Farmer: No it is not the oil. It is Israel.
an agitated president... complaining loudly, "We've got a leader in Iran who has announced he wants to destroy Israel."
Does anyone have definitive proof (like a transcript) that he ever said exactly that? From what I've heard his comments were taken out of context and, in fact, were twisted to sound like that. I know the guy is out-to-lunch (there are no homosexuals in Iran) but I don't think he wants to wage war against anyone. Incidentally, Iran has not started a war in at least the last thousand years.
STOP THE HYPE!
Yes, why should Iran want nuclear power? But then again, why should we? If other columnists and posters on this site are correct, nuclear power is fundamentally unprofitable.
Is there a connection between the CIA standing up to Cheney in the NIE and the sudden firestorm over the erased torture tapes?
That this wanna-be emperor has no clothes has become obvious to even more recalcitrant types. Nobody's buying it anymore.
Back in 1976-with Gerald Ford president, Dick Cheney his chief of staff, Donald Rumsfeld secretary of defense-the Ford administration bought the Shah's argument that Iran needed a nuclear program to meet its future energy requirements.
The offer included a reprocessing facility for a complete nuclear fuels cycle-essentially the same capability that the U.S. and Israel now insist Iran cannot be allowed to acquire.
Thanks for another great article, Ray McGovern!
We will always have people like Bush and Cheney as well as some media acting as their echo chambers. An intelligent and informed audience would heckle these people off the stage no matter how cleverly they try to spin. Therein lies the problem.
Ray - Thanks AGAIN for helping us try to connect the dots. Especially the info about the deals cut with the Shah of Iran under Ford. Is there any way to get that info out into the MSM to counteract the current misinformation being put out there about Iran's development of nuclear energy?
It all makes me think of Harry Truman's complaint: "They must think we were born yesterday!"
Harry may have had a point, but recent events make me wonder if P.T. Barnum was not closer to the mark with his comment that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."