Last year, at about this time, I wrote a post entitled… The Persian ‘Magical Mystery Tour’ and ‘the Phantom Menace’…! In it, I had featured Nami Shirazi’s most excellent post: The Phantom Menace: Fantasies, falsehoods, and fear-mongering about Iran’s nuclear program… An extensive look at all the din and hue in the MSM, of how close Iran was to the bomb, starting in 1984…! Basically, it averages out to Iran always being about two years away from the bomb…!
Now, in my latest installment, I’d like to feature the prolific, Robert Naiman, in both the Huffpoo and AlJazeera, today, in which he takes the Grey Lady, out behind the woodshed…
The New York Times misleading public on Iran
The paper has made faulty allegations about Iran’s nuclear programme without running proper corrections
…It’s deja vu all over again. AIPAC is trying to trick the United States into another catastrophic war with a Middle Eastern country on behalf of the Likud Party’s colonial ambitions, and the New York Times is misleading the public with allegations that say that the country is developing “weapons of mass destruction”.
In an article attributed to Steven Erlanger on January 4 (“Europe Takes Bold Step Toward a Ban on Iranian Oil”), this paragraph appeared:
The threats from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military objective, is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign [emphasis my own].
The claim that there is “a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military objective” is misguided…
…Of course, referring to Iran’s “development of nuclear weapons” without qualification implies that it is a known fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But it is not a known fact: It is an allegation. Indeed, when US officials are speaking publicly for the record, they say the opposite.
As Washington Post’s Ombudsman Patrick Pexton also noted on December 9:
This is what the US director of national intelligence, James R Clapper, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March: “We continue to assess [that] Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.
To demand a correction…
Yes, certainly a correction is in order… *crickets*
In the Huffpoo, Robert takes aim at the Wapoo…
WaPo: Sneaky Persians Menace Pentagon’s Noble Aim to Keep U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Forever
…In a front page exposé on January 4, the Washington Post revealed that sneaky Persian agitators are conspiring to thwart the Pentagon’s noble aim of keeping 10,000-30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan on “non-permanent,” “non-U.S.” bases after “all foreign troops are supposed to be withdrawn” in 2014, just as these sneaky Persians conspired to thwart the Pentagon’s noble aim of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq.
The Post story is quite instructive, even if it is not exactly “news” in the common sense of the term. It presents the world from the point of view of diehard Pentagon revanchists who want to keep U.S. troops in Muslim countries forever against the will of the majority of Americans and against the will of the majority of people who live in these countries. It presents this diehard Pentagon revanchist view as if there were no interests in the world besides those of Pentagon revanchists and wily Persian agitators, such as the interests of the majority of people who happen to live in the United States, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Of course, in the world view of the diehard Pentagon revanchist, the concerns of these mere residents are largely irrelevant, if they have no military implications. How many divisions do these mere residents control? These mere residents are just pawns in a game of Pentagon-sneaky Persian chess…
Now, the intrepid, MJ Rosenberg, takes the Mittster out back…
Mitt Romney embraces the Neocons
Mitt Romney’s newfound relations with the neocons could spell disaster for the United States, as the war drums begin.
…Misleading claims
His disturbing emphasis on Iran, which in no way presents a military threat to the United States – over the economy, no less – is very telling.
Romney insists that the administration’s engagement efforts have failed. Not quite.
Obama has hardly engaged in any diplomacy with Iran. After an initial foray in that direction, he quickly pulled back, deterred first by the Iranian government’s crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in 2009 and then by a Congress that, guided by AIPAC, vehemently opposes any negotiations with Iran.
According to Iran expert and journalist Barbara Slavin, the Obama administration has spent a grand total of 45 minutes in direct engagement with Iran.
Romney’s claim that “we have no sanctions of a severe nature” is just as false. The sanctions regime imposed by Obama is unprecedented in its severity. (Take a look at the full range of sanctions.)According to a law signed by Obama in December, as of next summer, anyone who buys Iranian oil will be banned from doing business with the US. We have the largest economy in the world, so this act could do much to damage not only Iran’s economy, but also the economies of some of our most trusted allies, such as South Korea. If Iran retaliates by keeping its oil off the world market and causing prices to skyrocket, the dire effects will be felt globally. Including here at home.
Sanctions will probably not succeed in preventing an Iranian bomb (since the days of the Shah, Iranians of all political stripes, including the Green Movement, have supported Iran’s right to nuclear development), but it is just absurd to argue that Obama has resisted imposing them.
As for the claim that Obama was “silent” when Iranian demonstrators took to the streets, Romney must know that the US’ embrace of the demonstrators would have been the kiss of death to their movement. Or maybe Romney actually believes that their cause would have been advanced if they could have been convincingly portrayed as US puppets…
Can I get off this clown car, I’m getting sea sick…!
As MJ stole my line…
God help us all…!



10 Comments

Back when Bush was Pres. and sabre rattling about Iran I put up signs that said “War with Iran? Now we’ll have to shop even harder!”
Hey Ctuttle, nice.
Darn sneaky Persians …
BTW, check out http://www.zerohedge.com/news/presenting-iran-attack-probability-timetable-and-complete-geopolitical-outlook-middle-east.
You probably already have, but it’s good stuff.
I like April myself. Nothing like a war in April to get beach season going.
Between this and Judy Miller we have to start asking ourselves if the NYT can be held accountable for starting illegal wars and the war crimes that followed.
We have to start asking ourselves just how bad Arab and Israeli economic problems are Israeli and America think a war with Iran will solve their problems but think about Arab Spring a war against the hated enemy Israel would unite the Arab people too.
Plus since its well known the Arab countries don’t like Israel a first strike by Israel and America would give them a great reason to go to war. Probably an oil embargo the Arab nations get higher oil prices out of it on top of good relations with Iran once we destroy their nuclear reactor plus a unified people and of course any protest against their government becomes pro Israeli and can be shut down in a second.
I think we think we are playing the Arabs but we never consider they might be playing us.
By we I mean America’s ruling class not the Left.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
HuffPoo and WaPoo? ROFL. Never heard that one. I agree with Undone that we are being played … by Iran! The former CIA agent, Bob Baer, said Iran might actually welcome an attack from the American and Israeli hillbillies because it would strengthen the regime in Tehran, just like the invasion of Iraq did. Duh.
Interesting an attack would give Iran an excuse to shoot down every oil tanker in the Gulf. In American war games under Bush America lost 16 warships in an attack on Iran.
Suppose Iran does not attack American warships with missile defense systems and instead attacks every oil tanker in the Gulf from countries that have American Bases and or get weapons from and are our allies in the Gulf?
The American fleet can not defend every oil tanker unless they separate and individual ships are much easier to attack.
Or they escort every ship in a convoy which would bring Gulf shipping to a crawl and of course we still lose at least 16 warships assuming Iran has not upgraded their missiles bought more missiles etc.
Missile attacks on the oil pipelines that bring oil to the super tankers would have the same effect.
Of course if America and Iran attack oil tankers then the price of oil goes even higher.
I do not have any idea how high oil prices would go in a panic situation like that.
The Persians have the will AND THE MEANS to put up a fight. The thing will quickly spin out of Washington’s control. It will be a disaster in your home town. Not just on TV. And it’s the same old liars and the same old lies.