Oct 29, 2011
The Obama administration announced two weeks ago that a bumbling Iranian-American used car salesmanhad conspiredwith a U.S. government agent posing as a representative of Mexican drug cartels, to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. This broughthighly skeptical reactionsfrom experts hereacross the political spectrum.
But even if some of this tale turns out to be true, the handling of such accusations is inherently political. For example, the U.S. government's 9/11 commission investigated the links between the attackers and the Saudi ruling family, butrefused to make public the resultsof that investigation. The reason is obvious: there is dirt there and Washington doesn't want to create friction with a key ally. And keep in mind that this is about complicity with an attack on American soil that killed 3000 people.
By contrast, the Obama administration seized upon the rather dubious speculation that "the highest levels of the Iranian government" were involved in this alleged plot. President Obama announced that "all options are on the table," which is well-known code for possible military action. This is extremist and dangerous rhetoric.
University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, a leading Mideast scholar,offered thatObama may be "wagging the dog" - looking for a military confrontation to help his re-election in the face of a stagnant economy and high unemployment. This is certainly possible. Recall that George W. Bushused the build-up to the Iraq war to secure both houses of Congress in the 2002 election.He didn't even have to go to war. The run-up to war worked perfectly to achieve his main goal: all of the issues that most voters cared about and were threatening to cost Republicans one or both chambers of Congress - the jobless recovery, Social Security, corporate scandals - disappeared from the news during the election season between August and November. President Obama's advisers certainly understand these things.
Of course the latest saber-rattling could also just be part of a long-term preparation for war with Iran, just asPresident Clinton spent years preparing the ground for the Iraq warlaunched by Bush. Once this is done,war is difficult to stop; and once these wars are launched, they are even more difficult to end, as 10 years of useless, bloody war in Afghanistan show.
That is why international initiatives to roll back the march toward war, like thenuclear fuel-swapproposal brought forth by Brazil and Turkey in May 2010, are so important. The Iranian government hasrecently offeredto stop enriching uranium if the United States would provide uranium for Iran's medical research reactor - which it needs for hundreds of thousands of cancer patients. This uranium would not be usable for weapons. The proposalwas endorsed byleaders of the American Federation of Scientists.
Brazil is one of the few countries with the international stature, independence, neutrality and respect to help defuse this confrontation. We can only hope that it will make further attempts to save the world from another horrible war.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Mark Weisbrot
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. His latest book is "Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong about the Global Economy" (2015). He is author of co-author, with Dean Baker, of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (2001).
The Obama administration announced two weeks ago that a bumbling Iranian-American used car salesmanhad conspiredwith a U.S. government agent posing as a representative of Mexican drug cartels, to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. This broughthighly skeptical reactionsfrom experts hereacross the political spectrum.
But even if some of this tale turns out to be true, the handling of such accusations is inherently political. For example, the U.S. government's 9/11 commission investigated the links between the attackers and the Saudi ruling family, butrefused to make public the resultsof that investigation. The reason is obvious: there is dirt there and Washington doesn't want to create friction with a key ally. And keep in mind that this is about complicity with an attack on American soil that killed 3000 people.
By contrast, the Obama administration seized upon the rather dubious speculation that "the highest levels of the Iranian government" were involved in this alleged plot. President Obama announced that "all options are on the table," which is well-known code for possible military action. This is extremist and dangerous rhetoric.
University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, a leading Mideast scholar,offered thatObama may be "wagging the dog" - looking for a military confrontation to help his re-election in the face of a stagnant economy and high unemployment. This is certainly possible. Recall that George W. Bushused the build-up to the Iraq war to secure both houses of Congress in the 2002 election.He didn't even have to go to war. The run-up to war worked perfectly to achieve his main goal: all of the issues that most voters cared about and were threatening to cost Republicans one or both chambers of Congress - the jobless recovery, Social Security, corporate scandals - disappeared from the news during the election season between August and November. President Obama's advisers certainly understand these things.
Of course the latest saber-rattling could also just be part of a long-term preparation for war with Iran, just asPresident Clinton spent years preparing the ground for the Iraq warlaunched by Bush. Once this is done,war is difficult to stop; and once these wars are launched, they are even more difficult to end, as 10 years of useless, bloody war in Afghanistan show.
That is why international initiatives to roll back the march toward war, like thenuclear fuel-swapproposal brought forth by Brazil and Turkey in May 2010, are so important. The Iranian government hasrecently offeredto stop enriching uranium if the United States would provide uranium for Iran's medical research reactor - which it needs for hundreds of thousands of cancer patients. This uranium would not be usable for weapons. The proposalwas endorsed byleaders of the American Federation of Scientists.
Brazil is one of the few countries with the international stature, independence, neutrality and respect to help defuse this confrontation. We can only hope that it will make further attempts to save the world from another horrible war.
Mark Weisbrot
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. His latest book is "Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong about the Global Economy" (2015). He is author of co-author, with Dean Baker, of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (2001).
The Obama administration announced two weeks ago that a bumbling Iranian-American used car salesmanhad conspiredwith a U.S. government agent posing as a representative of Mexican drug cartels, to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. This broughthighly skeptical reactionsfrom experts hereacross the political spectrum.
But even if some of this tale turns out to be true, the handling of such accusations is inherently political. For example, the U.S. government's 9/11 commission investigated the links between the attackers and the Saudi ruling family, butrefused to make public the resultsof that investigation. The reason is obvious: there is dirt there and Washington doesn't want to create friction with a key ally. And keep in mind that this is about complicity with an attack on American soil that killed 3000 people.
By contrast, the Obama administration seized upon the rather dubious speculation that "the highest levels of the Iranian government" were involved in this alleged plot. President Obama announced that "all options are on the table," which is well-known code for possible military action. This is extremist and dangerous rhetoric.
University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, a leading Mideast scholar,offered thatObama may be "wagging the dog" - looking for a military confrontation to help his re-election in the face of a stagnant economy and high unemployment. This is certainly possible. Recall that George W. Bushused the build-up to the Iraq war to secure both houses of Congress in the 2002 election.He didn't even have to go to war. The run-up to war worked perfectly to achieve his main goal: all of the issues that most voters cared about and were threatening to cost Republicans one or both chambers of Congress - the jobless recovery, Social Security, corporate scandals - disappeared from the news during the election season between August and November. President Obama's advisers certainly understand these things.
Of course the latest saber-rattling could also just be part of a long-term preparation for war with Iran, just asPresident Clinton spent years preparing the ground for the Iraq warlaunched by Bush. Once this is done,war is difficult to stop; and once these wars are launched, they are even more difficult to end, as 10 years of useless, bloody war in Afghanistan show.
That is why international initiatives to roll back the march toward war, like thenuclear fuel-swapproposal brought forth by Brazil and Turkey in May 2010, are so important. The Iranian government hasrecently offeredto stop enriching uranium if the United States would provide uranium for Iran's medical research reactor - which it needs for hundreds of thousands of cancer patients. This uranium would not be usable for weapons. The proposalwas endorsed byleaders of the American Federation of Scientists.
Brazil is one of the few countries with the international stature, independence, neutrality and respect to help defuse this confrontation. We can only hope that it will make further attempts to save the world from another horrible war.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.