Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Demonizing Iran: US Media Continue Beating War Drums
Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal had a lead story about Israeli planning to possibly "go it alone" in an attack on Iran if the US were not to "succeed" in its diplomatic efforts to get Iran to "stop" it's alleged attempts to develop a nuclear weapon capability.
Aside from the fact that there is no hard evidence that Iran is trying to make a nuclear bomb or even to refine uranium to obtain nuclear-grade material, the paper ignored one crucial point: Israel cannot "go it alone" in any strike on Iran, since its key weapons--F15 and F-16 fighter-bombers--are supplied to it, and kept flying, thanks to the equipment and spare parts provided by the United States. Indeed the entire Israeli military machine is largely financed and armed by the US.
No Israeli military effort cannot go forward without the full backing of the US, and to say otherwise is to simply perpetrate a fraud on the public, implying that Israel is an independent actor on the world stage. It is not.
Another example of warmongering came in an interview by Terri Gross on her program "Fresh Air," which I believe is the most widely syndicated and popular program on National Public Radio, produced here in Philadelphia at the studios of NPR affiliate WHYY. Listening to "Fresh Air" this week, which featured an interview with New York Times war correspondent Dexter Filkens, a generally excellent reporter who distinguished himself for his reporting on the Iraq War, and particularly on the brutal US assault on the city of Fallujah, I heard Filkens refer casually to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as "America's arch-enemy."
Now it's possible, and I certainly do hope it's the case, that Filkens was being ironic here. But Terri Gross allowed this characterization of Iran's president pass without comment.
America's arch-enemy? Really? On what basis?
What, exactly, has Iran done to make itself America's arch enemy? It has backed the same Shi'ite led government in Iraq that the US has been backing, and indeed, to the extent that Iraq has stabilized, it is largely Iran's doing. It provided key help to the US in the early invasion of Afghanistan and the routing of the Taliban government, which was never favored by the Iranians.
We know that two years before the election of Ahmadinejad to the presidency, Iran made an offer to the US to recognize Israel, help broker a two-state peace solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and end Iran's support of armed groups in the Middle East region, all in return for the US accepting Iran as what the 70-million population nation unarguably is: a legitimate power in the region. That offer was slapped down by the Bush/Cheney administration, which had as its goal not peace in Palestine or with Iran, but the occupation and control of Iraq, and perhaps ultimately a war against Iran.
It needs to be said, but somehow never is in the establishment US media, whether corporate or not-for-profit, that Iran historically is not an aggressive, expansive nation. Though it is, by dint of its oil reserves and its population, one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the Middle East, it has not invaded another country since the 18th century, and there is no indication that it plans to invade any other country now.
Even nuclear experts scoff at the notion that a nuclear Iran would initiate an attack on Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with an estimated 200 high-grade nuclear weapons, and a first-rate delivery system of missiles and supersonic bombers. For Iran to launch a crude nuke at Israel would be an act of national suicide, and while individual terrorists may kill themselves, nations don't commit suicide. They may miscalculate, with devastating consequences, but they don't deliberately self-immolate.
None of this makes its way into the US media, which continues the drumbeat for war, whether by Israel, with US backing, or by the US, with reports that Secretary of Defense (sic) Robert Gates is presenting the president with Iran attack options, and that the White House, while "preferring a diplomatic solution" to Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions, is "keeping all options on the table."
Most media reports refer to Iran's "ability to produce bomb-grade uranium" within a year, without mentioning that there is no evidence that the country intends to do this (Iran insists it has no such plans). Those reports, quoting Pentagon and CIA sources, also quote "experts" as saying that Iran could develop a bomb within three to four years, again generally failing to add that there is no evidence that Iran is trying to do that, or is even considering doing it.
And yet Iran is consistently portrayed as America's "enemy" or even as its "arch-enemy"--a term that harks back to the Bush/Cheney claim that Iran was, along with Iraq and North Korea, part of a three-nation "Axis of Evil."
On its face the idea that Iran is America's arch-enemy is ludicrous. We are talking her about a third-rate country with an economy the size of Finland's, with a third-rate military, the total budget of which, at $4.8 billion, is less than the annual replacement cost for the US military's Chinook and Seahawk helicopter fleet, and which would be totally decimated in any all-out attack by the US.
Iran has no ability to attack the US, and even its ability to threaten US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan is severely limited, not to mention the fact that should it be foolhardy enough to initiate any such action, it would bring down the full force of the US military on its head in an instant.
Reading and watching American reporting on Iran reminds me of nothing so much as reading the Chinese state media about Taiwan when I was living in China. It's all pathetic nonsense, manufactured paranoia, and bluster. But at least the average Chinese citizen has enough sense to recognize that she or he is being fed a lot of propaganda. Americans, all too often, seem to ready to buy the garbage they hear and read about Iran. They may not be able to show you where on the globe Iran is, or tell you anything about the country other than perhaps that it is Muslim, but they will accept, uncritically, that it is our "arch-enemy."
Note to Filkens: If, as I hope, you were being ironic on "Fresh Air," please understand that irony requires a modicum of sophistication on the part of the listener--something I'm not sure you can count on with Times readers or NPR listeners.
- Posted in
64 Comments so far
Show All"Bush/Cheney administration, which had as its goal not peach in Palestine or with Iran, but the occupation and control"
I say, yes, let there be peaches in Palestine and Iran."
"What, you meant peace? Oh, well, never mind." (With apologies to Gilda.)
"Gentlemen may cry, peaches, peaches -- but there are no peaches".
(With apologies to Patrick Henry)
Hahaha. Obviously Mr. Lindorff forgot to proofread:
"Americans, all to often, seem to ready to buy the garbage they hear and read about Iran."
Shouldn't it be "... all too often..."?
This type of error can't be corrected via spell check. This one is easy too miss.
And "... seem too ready..." ?
In America, we have the right to freeze peach.
Small quibble: "We are talking her about a third-rate country with an economy the size of Finland's..."
I imagine that Mr. Lindorff doesn't intend offense, but are contries divided up into different ratings? Is Finland "third-rate"? Why is Iran a "third rate country"? Even given the state of its military and size of its economy?
Other than that, yes, well stated, A day doesn't go by when the richest country in the world, which can't afford universal healthcare for its own, (single payer is off the table), threatens other countries (but only third rate ones!) with attack..."all options are on the table".
You're missing the point. Finland, with five million people, is not third-rate. It is first rate, with one of the highest per capita incomes and standards of living in the world. But Iran, with an economy the same size but with 12 times the population, is a poor country. The third-rate appellation has nothing to do with the quality of Iranian people or their culture, but refers to their weak economy and tiny military.
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
"But Iran, with an economy the same size but with 12 times the population, is a poor country."
That makes more sense, to say Iran is a poor country, than to say Iran is a third rate country. For example, my neighbours, they live on the wrong side of the tracks, in the unfashionable east end, let's say, twelve to a room, living on one income. Are they third rate? or poor? Poor, describes their financial status, this is what you intended, Yes? Third rate, this can't help but be interpreted as a value judgement in so many respects: "If Iran is third rate, what is the big deal? Nuke'em!!! They are only third rate anyway!!"
Again, good article, cheers.
Very well argued, jlock123. I think the author will have to agree he used a poor choice of words.
Hahaha. Obviously Adhoc forgot to proofread:
"Very well argued, jlock123."
Shouldn't it be "... jlocke123..."?
Razor-sharp wit on this one!
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. ;)
Hi Dave,
This is an excellent article---saying just what needs to be said. The Media drumbeat is all too familiar, and the disinformation is everywhere. Iran has a RIGHT, under the Non-proliferation treaty, to develop nuclear power. There is no evidence that it is developing nuclear weapons. Israel, has refused to sign the treaty, and flaunts numerous UN resolutions concerning its 200+ nuclear missiles. The hypocrisy glares at all who choose to look.
Though I'm not for any nation having these weapons, sometimes I think it would be best for Iran to have them, as a deterrent to Israel---the rogue nation of the Middle East.
Dave,
I read your articles and I understand you to be a decent and intelligent man. But please do not measure the strength of a nation by its military budget, because if that were the case the invasion of Afghanistan would have been a "cakewalk". But we're stuck there in Af/Pak, bleeding blood (ours and theirs) and (borrowed) money. I cannot, and I doubt anyone else can imagine the consequences of attacking Iran.
Keep up the good work, and look forward to reading more of your articles.
The reason the US military is stymied in Afghanistan has nothing to do with relative military budgets of the US and the Taliban, which is a ratio that I cannot even display in numbers--it is simply that the US is an invading, occupying force, and the Taliban are defending their own country from an invader.
That distinction overrides all others. It's why the Vietnamese creamed American forces, despite the US unloading everything (except nukes) on them, indiscriminately killing millions of civilians, and using illegal weapons like Agent Orange defoliant, all kinds of gas weapons, etc.
People fighting for their homes will overcome any odds.
It's why the US budget for war is so outrageous. What is needed to defend America is very little. We Americans can handle that. What the US spends for the military, probably 90 percent of it, is for imperialist expansion and control outside of the US, on behalf of large corporate interests. It has nothing to do with US security, and in fact, makes us less safe, by making more enemies, and by enabling the shifting of US investment, and thus jobs, overseas.
Dave
www.thiscantbehappening.net
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
NPR (National Public Radio) has been transformed under the eight years of Cheney/Bush tyranny into just another right-wing media machine. And C-SPAN on the weekends seems to have an endless supply of right-wing book authors to hold forth on how wonderful corporatism and fascism really are...
Depressing...
NPR (National Public Radio)--didn't you mean National Pentagon Radio where they are afraid to use the "T" word.
OYE
Just as depressing is that the "Democrats" are quite happy with the NPR status quo.
"NPR (National Public Radio) has been transformed under the eight years of Cheney/Bush tyranny into just another right-wing media machine."
Surely you jest! NPR hasn't been listen-able, except for Garrison Keillor, since the 1980s when I first heard the term "National Pentagon Radio." That's why Pacifica Radio was so important to many of us. To think NPR turned into a right-wing forum in the 21st Century is ludicrous, or else you are under 20 and I owe you an apology.
Minor point, but did your proof reader take the day off, Mr Lindorff? In addition to the peach=peace typo noted by 4thefuture, I would assume that you meant to say: "they don't deliberately self-IMmolate."
On a more substantive note, you must surely realise that a purely imaginary nuclear threat level has nothing whatever to do with the reality. In fact, you've stated the real issue quite accurately without identifying it as such. Iran is a target precisely because "it is, by dint of its oil reserves and its population, one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the Middle East." Even if one ignores Israel's coincident interests, the U.S. "full spectrum dominance" geopolitical and globalization agenda cannot possibly tolerate that situation.
-Iran is a target precisely because "it is, by dint of its oil reserves and its population, one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the Middle East
Hmmm, Iran is a "threat" to the US, because it has power, due to its energy potential? Full spectrum dominance doesn't just entail using the army to achieve energy supply control, it seems, it means that nations, simply by possessing oil, gas, or nuclear energy, are innately, threatening to the US government. Interesting. The logical conclusion is that to meet the American calls for "disarmament", nations could only comply by impoverishing themselves; selling their resources; allowing foreign control of their energy supplies. Indeed, perhaps this is what we are seeing.
I can certainly buy that perspective without much difficulty. I guess I was suggesting that you don't actually have to pose any real threat at all to be a prime target for imperial aggression, but I suppose that may be a trifling distinction without a significant difference when all is said and done.
Sioux Rose
RV: Glad to see another "proof reader" in the house. (I had not read down the thread before posting with the same observation.)
By pop-culture, manufacturing-consent standards, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an ideal "arch-enemy"-- a worthy successor to the demonized Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, aka "Ayatollah Assahola".
Even Homer Simpson owns an "Ayatollah Assahola" T-shirt!
Ahmadinejad is brown-skinned, short, "foreign-looking", and most of all comes off as cocky and disrespectful to Uncle Sam and its sidekick Little Izzy, the US hegemony's secular Santa Claus and its Chief Elf. (Sorry, John Bull, but you're semi-retired at best.)
Such impudence is not to be countenanced! If Ahmedinejad didn't want to be an "arch-enemy", he should've practiced a more flattering, unctuous, and even obsequious tone-- there is plenty of Tony Blair video to study and emulate!
My late dad, may he rest in peace, rose from reluctant draftee to Master Sergeant in Dubya-Dubya Two; he was a good-hearted but under-educated man reminiscent of TV's Archie Bunker.
I guarantee that if Dad were alive and well, he'd scowl at TV clips of Ahmedinejad and mutter, "Look at that nincompoop!" But even Dad wouldn't reckon him an "arch-enemy".
None of this is particularly rational, logical, sophisticated, or even grown-up. Welcome to Amerika!
Besides, it's no coincidence that Ahmedinijad reportedly looks EXACTLY like Emmanuel Goldstein.
We have always been at war with Iran! Not yet, but soon.
-Ahmadinejad is brown-skinned, short, "foreign-looking",
Otherwise put, he is not welcome in Arizona. ;)
(Is it because Arazonites don't like short people?)
Oh, I'm sure nativist hero Sheriff Joe Arpaio has one-size-fits-all pink underwear and a rancid bologna sandwich for the likes of Ahmadinejad, should he be foolish enough to let the sun set on him in the Grand Canyon State.
The media also forgets to tell us that Ahmadinejad is more of a figurehead, and has no say in Iran's nuclear, police and military decisions.
Scott Ritter:
"Well, when we say “Supreme Leader,” first of all, most Americans are going to scratch their head and say, “Who?” because, you see, we have a poster boy for demonization out there. His name is Ahmadinejad. He’s the idiot that comes out and says really stupid vile things, such as, “It is the goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the world,” and he makes ridiculous statements about the United States etc. And, of course, man, he—it’s a field day for the American media, for the Western media, because you get all the little sound bites out there, Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad, president of Iran. But what people don’t understand is, while he can vocalize, his finger is not on any button of power. If you read the Iranian constitution, you’ll see that the president of Iran is almost a figurehead.
The true power in Iran rests with the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader is the Ayatollah Khamenei. He is supported by an organization called the Guardian Council. Then there’s another group called the Expediency Council. These are the people that control the military, the police, the nuclear program, all the instruments of power."
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/16/scott_ritter_on_target_iran_the
Sioux Rose
When I read this information, apart from the parallels one can draw in terms of the media's familiar (and false) run-up to war with Iraq (also a 2-bit power), I see what Carl Jung termed, "The shadow" at work. Just as the typical Southern White racist retains these primitive beliefs in part to vindicate the souls and reputations of his ancestors, until America can OWN what it has done in the form of brutalizing civilians of foreign lands, its collective guilt is projected onto the next target conveniently defined as "the enemy."
The alcoholic or drug abuser must eventually come clean to experience catharsis, and the path to healing. So, too, must a nation drunk on violence OWN its own dark shadow. Otherwise, through the skillful use of media as an organ of disinformation campaigns, enough citizens will be seduced into "going along" with the next costly count-down in terms of massive "collateral damage" to others.
P.S. Mr. Lindorff, the "god" Mercury is now in one of its tricky retrograde phases where typos tend to be more prolific.
In your paragraph # 8 you state "peach in Palestine" instead of peace. And in your paragraph #16, you say "all to often" whereas it ought to read "all too often."
It's a good time to double check all written agreements.
Sioux Rose; That peach for peace got me going too! ...Sorry.
Fuzzy Peace empirePie April 22, 2010
Peachy keen peace
has lost it’s sheen.
The Pope abandons ceramic doves for ‘little boy’s
as ‘fat man’ provides a shadow for gamely toys
and desire sheds it’s fuzzy mirth,
trading tense from be to been.
Excellent analysis, Sioux Rose.
I guess if you're going to play at being Superman, you need an arch-enemy in the Lex Luthor mould. You must at all costs stop him from getting any Kryptonite.
Iran has an aggressive and immensely powerful nation possessing thousands of nuclear warheads with multiple methods of deployment occupying the country on its western border.
Iran has an aggressive and immensely powerful nation possessing thousands of nuclear warheads with multiple methods of deployment occupying the country on its eastern border.
That same aggressive and immensely powerful nation has multiple aircraft carrier fleets sitting off its southern coast in the Persian Gulf.
A second aggressive and militarily powerful nuclear-armed nation in the region, which is allied with the first aggressive nation.
HELL YES IRAN IS DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THEY'D BE FOOLS NOT TO!
It's enough to make one long for the "good old days" of the bipolar world where "mutually assured destruction" sustained relative global stability and some constraints on superpower aggession. Hell, it's even arguable that the Evil Empire's "commie threat" provided some counterbalance to the worst excesses of unfettered capitalism domestically.
All things considered, the U.S. "single superpower" victory looks more and more like a loss for all of humankind.
[All things considered, the U.S. "single superpower" victory looks more and more like a loss for all of humankind.]
Not all of humankind. I'm still not willing to write off all of us because the us elites have gone utterly batshit crazy. But the 'victory' of the cold war is turning out to be quite a Pyrrhic victory for the yanks. They have the strongest military in the world and are aching to use it against someone, yet no one is foolish enough to give them a real challenge at this time. Why would you? If you were a nation state, and had the advisors who've studied statecraft and the 'art of War', wouldn't you too wait for the usa to spend all of its treasure on weapons, go broke, have a nice little revolution that takes care of the excess arms in that nation (all the while hoping against hope that the nutballs don't get their hands on the nukes and launch them at each other, or someone else).
Even if the usa does do the utterly stupid thing and invades/attacks Iran, that use of military force will only hasten the inevitable end of the yank superpower. Iran doesn't have enough power to hurt the usa, (although they might be able to sink a carrier if the USN gets too close to shore) nor do they have the power to resist an invasion. But they do have enough power to block the Strait of Hormuz, and that would screw the richest (and the poorest) people in the usa.
Fair enough. "All of humankind" was clearly an overstatement, but the repercussions extend far beyond the U.S. in my view.
As for Iran's potential, I suppose it depends on what one would classify as "hurt[ing] the usa." In any case, it appears that they're flexing some of their muscles at the moment. See Iran's military begins large-scale war games - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/22/iran-military-war-games
'Now the roving gambler he was very bored
trying to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said 'I never engaged in this kind of thing before
But yes, I think it can be very easily done
We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun
and have it on Highway 61'
Dylan
[I would add that Iran's president is quite the man-]
I dunno about that. How is it 'manly' to poke a mad dog?
But I do agree with everything else you've said, and the article itself.
The US and Israel are both members of the UN. The UN Charter, which both nations have ratified, forbids member nations to use military force, or to threaten to use military force, against sovereign nations. Either the US and Israel should withdraw from the UN, or they should arrest those of their leaders who threaten attack on Iran.
RIGHT!
I remember when in 2006 President Ahmadinejad wrote to President Bush a letter, and there was a loud media and public outcry that he was diabolical, and then I read the letter and couldn't find the diabolical part.
Whenever the U.S. government demonizes a foreign country I instantly get suspicious. I've been looking under my bed to find Communists lurking there for years and now all of a sudden I'm supposed to like the Red Chinese. I've been told to hate and distrust all Arabs for years and now I'm supposed to defend Saudi Arabia. I'll use a quote from a classic movie -The Dirty Dozen to end my post "I prefer to make my own enemies"
"I've been looking under my bed to find Communists lurking there ..."
There's one now, peeping out of your wife's blouse!!
"The US and Israel are both members of the UN. The UN Charter, which both nations have ratified, forbids member nations to use military force, or to threaten to use military force, against sovereign nations."
Good point, which our warmongering fawning corporate media NEVER mention. Sadly, bully nations such as the U.S. pay no attention to laws they find inconvenient.
If it appears that the Dems will lose big next November, will Obomber "wag the dog" by attacking Iran before the elections?
Spinning Ahmadinejad Into Hitler:
An excellent breakdown of how the media took what he said and changed it into "conventional wisdom".
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
Fairly important info to know if we are going to coninue to tell the story of how Ahmadinejad says "stupid things."
.
Weeks before the outbreak of the Spanish American War, Weeks before the "Sinking of the USS Maine"; Correspondent Richard Harding Davis cabled William Randolph Hearst, complaining that Cuba was dull and boring. Mr. Hearst cabled back, "You write the copy, and I will provide the War".
We have recently seen the Media writing hot copy about the threat of Saddam and his arsenel of WMD. We have seen televised coverage of Colin Powell showing off Photo- Intel of Iraqi Nuclear Missles. The biggest U.S. Newspapers have reported CIA and MI-6 Intel about the Iraq and al-Quida connections; as well as "outing" a Washington based CIA control-operative.
Additionally, Israel is now a "rogue" fascist state with over 600+Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction.
A modern-day Hitler is Prime Minister of Israel, and the "Mad Hatter" has control of the Media,,,,,,,,,
/
"It has backed the same Shi'ite led government in Iraq that the US has been backing, and indeed, to the extent that Iraq has stabilized, it is largely Iran's doing."
Heh, heh ... hardly stabilized, but what do you think those Shi'ites in Iraq will do if Iran is attacked?
Good article with points that M$M conveniently doesn't bring up. Too bad this article isn't being picked up by M$M.
amerikans are so propagandized/ brainwashed/ afraid; most are too busy shopping, or out to lunch,or glued to the idiot box... that they do NOT really care what their country is doing to the world ! Iran, Iraq, Afpak... whoa... all builtup as threats to amerika.
tioche, Mexico
To add to the list of typos, "it's" stands for "it is", whereas "its" is used to indicate possession.
So the first sentence "it's alleged attempts to develop a nuclear weapon capability" needs some remedial work.
Second point -Iran is swimming in cheap oil. It is unclear how America's oil came to be beneath the country called Iran, but "golly darn it ain't gonna stay that way".
Third point -and this one is sounding like a broken record- this must be the second decade at least that I have heard several times each year from the stenographic M$M that Iran is poised to acquire nukes. It has to be this way since Israel continually needs to justify the US arms donation, but it really is getting a bit long in the tooth.
Can't they invent another enemy?