-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 10:18 AM
Share
I did a brief interview for All Things Considered last Friday, on the topic of media handling of the current war scare over Iran. Here's a link to the story, which ran over the weekend.
The interview got me thinking about the issue of media coverage of this whole business, and I'm sorry to say that most mainstream news organizations have let us down again. Although failures haven't been as egregious as the New York Times and Washington Post's wholesale swallowing of the Bush administration's sales pitch for war in 2002, on the whole the high-end media coverage has been disappointing. Here are my Top Ten Media Failures in the 2012 Iran War Scare.
#1: Mainstreaming the war. As I've written before, when prominent media organizations keep publishing alarmist pieces about how war is imminent, likely, inevitable, etc., this may convince the public that it is going to happen sooner or later and it discourages people from looking for better alternatives. Exhibits A and B for this problem are Jeffrey Goldberg's September 2010 article in The Atlantic Monthly and Ronan Bergman's February 2012 article in the New York Times Magazine. Both articles reported that top Israeli leaders believed time was running out and suggested that an attack might come soon.
#2: Loose talk about Iran's "nuclear [weapons] program." A recurring feature of Iran war coverage has been tendency to refer to Iran's "nuclear weapons program" as if its existence were an established fact. U.S. intelligence services still believe that Iran does not have an active program, and the IAEA has also declined to render that judgment either. Interestingly, both the Times' public editor Arthur Brisbane and Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton have recently chided their own organizations for muddying this issue.
#3: Obsessing about Ahmadinejad. A typical insertion into discussions of Iran is to make various references to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, usually including an obligatory reference to his penchant for Holocaust denial and his famously mis-translated statement about Israel "vanishing from the page of time." This feature is often linked to the issue of whether Iran's leaders are rational or not. But the obsession with Ahmadinejad is misleading in several ways: he has little or no influence over Iran's national security policy, his power has been declining sharply in recent months, and Supreme Leader Ali Khameini -- who does make the key decisions -- has repeatedly said that nuclear weapons are contrary to Islam. And while we're on the subject of Iranian "rationality," it is perhaps worth noting that its leaders weren't goofy enough to invade Iraq on a pretext and then spend trillions of dollars fighting an unnecessary war there.
#4: Ignoring Iranian weakness. As I've noted before, Iran is not a very powerful country at present, though it does have considerable potential and could exert far more international influence if its leaders were more competent. But its defense budget is perhaps 1/50th the size of U.S. defense spending, and it has no meaningful power-projection capabilities. It could not mount a serious invasion of any of its neighbors, and could not block the Strait of Hormuz for long, if at all. Among other things, that is why it has to rely on marriages of convenience with groups like Hezbollah or Hamas (who aren't that powerful either). Yet as Glenn Greenwald argues here, U.S. media coverage often portrays Iran as a looming threat, without offering any serious military analysis of its very limited capabilities.
#5: Failing to ask why Iran might want a bomb. Discussions of a possible war also tend to assume that if Iran does in fact intend to get a nuclear weapon, it is for some nefarious purpose. But the world's nine nuclear powers all obtained these weapons first and foremost for deterrent purposes (i.e., because they faced significant external threats and wanted a way to guarantee their own survival). Iran has good reason to worry: It has nuclear-armed states on two sides, a very bad relationship with the world's only superpower, and more than three dozen U.S. military facilities in its neighborhood. Prominent U.S. politicians repeatedly call for "regime change" there, and a covert action campaign against Iran has been underway for some time, including the assassination of Iranian civilian scientists.
#6: Failing to consider why Iran might NOT want a bomb. At the same time, discussions of Iran's nuclear ambitions often fail to consider the possibility that Iran might be better off without a nuclear weapons capability. As noted above, Supreme Leader Khameini has repeatedly said that nuclear weapons are contrary to Islam, and he may very well mean it. He could be lying, but that sort of lie would be risky for a regime whose primary basis for legitimacy is its devotion to Islam. For another, Iran has the greatest power potential of any state in the Gulf, and if it had better leadership it would probably be the strongest power in the region. If it gets nuclear weapons some of its neighbors may follow suit, which would partly negate Iran's conventional advantages down the road. Furthermore, staying on this side of the nuclear weapons threshold keeps Iran from being suspected of complicity should a nuclear terrorist attack occur somewhere. For all these reasons, I'd bet Iran wants a latent nuclear option, but not an actual nuclear weapon. But there's been relatively little discussion of that possibility in recent media coverage.
#7: Exaggerating Israel's capabilities. In a very real sense, this whole war scare has been driven by the possibility that Israel might feel so endangered that they would launch a preventive war on their own, even if U.S. leaders warned them not to. But the IDF doesn't have the capacity to take out Iran's new facility at Fordow, because they don't have any aircraft that can carry a bomb big enough to penetrate the layers of rock that protect the facilities. And if they can't take out Fordow, then they can't do much to delay Iran's program at all and the only reason they might strike is to try to get the United States dragged in. In short, the recent war scare-whose taproot is the belief that Israel might strike on its own-may be based on a mirage.
#8: Letting spinmeisters play fast and loose with facts. Journalists have to let officials and experts express their views, but they shouldn't let them spout falsehoods without pushing back. Unfortunately, there have been some egregious cases where prominent journalists allowed politicians or government officials to utter howlers without being called on it. When Rick Santorum announced on Meet the Press that "there were no inspectors" in Iran, for example, host David Gregory didn't challenge this obvious error. (In fact, Iran may be the most heavily inspected country in the history of the IAEA).
Even worse, when Israeli ambassador Michael Oren appeared on MSNBC last week, he offered the following set of dubious claims, without challenge:
"[Iran] has built an underground nuclear facility trying to hide its activities from the world. It has been enriching uranium to a high rate [sic.] that has no explanation other than a military nuclear program - that has been confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency now several times. It is advancing very quickly on an intercontinental ballistic missile system that's capable of carrying nuclear warheads."
Unfortunately, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell apparently didn't know that Oren's claims were either false or misleading. 1) Iran's underground facility was built to make it hard to destroy, not to "hide its activities," and IAEA inspectors have already been inside it. 2) Iran is not enriching at a "high rate" (i.e., to weapons-grade); it is currently enriching to only 20% (which is not high enough to build a bomb). 3) Lastly, Western intelligence experts do not think Iran is anywhere near to having an ICBM capability.
In another interview on NPR, Oren falsely accused Iran of "killing hundreds, if not thousands of American troops," a claim that NPR host Robert Siegel did not challenge. Then we got the following exchange:
Oren: "Imagine Iran which today has a bunch of speedboats trying to close the Strait of Hormuz. Imagine if Iran has a nuclear weapon. Imagine if they could hold the entire world oil market blackmailed. Imagine if Iran is conducting terrorist organizations through its terrorist proxies - Hamas, Hezbollah. Now we know there's a connection with al-Qaida. You can't respond to them because they have an atomic weapon."
Siegel: Yes. You're saying the consequences of Iran going nuclear are potentially global, and the consequences of a U.S. strike on Iran might also be further such attacks against the United States..."
Never mind the fact that we have been living in the nuclear age for some 60 years now, and no nuclear state has even been able to conduct the sort of aggressive blackmail that Oren suggests Iran would be able to do. Nuclear weapons are good for deterrence, and not much else, but the news media keep repeating alarmist fantasies without asking if they make sense or not.
Politicians and government officials are bound to use media moments to sell whatever story they are trying to spin; that's their job. But It is up to journalists to make this hard, and both Mitchell and Siegel didn't. (For another example of sloppy fact-checking, go here).
9. What about the human beings? One of the more bizarre failures of reporting on the war debate has been the dearth of discussion of what an attack might mean for Iranian civilians. If you take out some of Iran's nuclear facilities from the air, for example, there's a very real risk of spreading radioactive material or other poisonous chemicals in populated areas, thereby threatening the lives of lots of civilians. Yet when discussing the potentially dangerous consequences of a war, most discussions emphasize the dangers of Iranian retaliation, or the impact on oil prices, instead of asking how many innocent Iranian civilians might die in the attack. You know: the same civilians we supposedly want to liberate from a despotic clerical regime.
10. Could diplomacy work? Lastly, an underlying theme in a lot of the coverage is the suggestion that diplomacy is unlikely to work, because it's been tried before and failed. But the United States has had very little contact with Iranian officials over the past thirty years, and only one brief set of direct talks in the past three years. Moreover, we've insisted all along that Iran has to give up all nuclear enrichment, which is almost certainly a deal-breaker from Tehran's perspective. The bottom line is that diplomacy has yet to succeed-and it might not in any case-but it's also never been seriously tried.
I'm sure you can find exceptions to the various points I've made here, especially if you move outside major media outlets and focus on online publications and the blogosphere. Which may be why more people are inclined to get their news and analysis there, instead of from the usual outlets. But on the whole, Americans haven't been well-served by media coverage of the Iran debate. As the president said last week, "loose talk" about an issue like this isn't helpful.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
EXPLORE:MEDIASPHERE, THUMBS, MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, IRAN, IRAN WATCH, MEDIA, NUKES, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 
#1.) Failing to point out that American interests and Israeli interests might not be the same.
#2.) Failing to point out who is clearly one of the main forces behind the lobbying for war which is indeed the Israel lobby.
It is inconceivable, for instance, in the media coverage of some major domestic gun legislation that there wouldn't be constant talk about whether the legislation was good or bad for America generally, and about the position of the NRA.
And yet here we're talking about war and the coverage all basically sounds like the only question is whether sanctions fail because a war will then be in our interest as per virtually everyone, period.
Using euphemisms.
By describing media coverage as a "disappointment", "failure, or as "letting us down", you imply that the corporate media outlets are analogous to a child who does not study the night before a spelling test, and then, to his parent's "disappointment", he "fails" the test and "lets them down".
Spreading misinformation to justify egregious war crimes goes well beyond the threshold of an honest mistake.
If a martian came down to earth and witnessed information outlets, owned and managed by the world's most powerful and wealthy individuals, spreading misinformation to justify egregious war crimes, they might rightly call it "propaganda".
Ironically, if you accept that the purpose of the major media is not to accurately "inform" but to "manufacture consent", by mainstreaming the idea of committing international aggression, Iran propaganda has been highly successful. The purpose of the major media is to make US state terrorism uncontroversial and normal.
I, as a student of IR in Iran, strongly believe that the US-Israeli miscalculation will lead to a catastrophe in the Middle East. Professor Walt is right. I agree with all points, but there is another one that must be considered seriously: “Struggle for Recognition.” Iran is trying to be recognized as an influential member of international society, its ideological foreign policy is no longer in existence and its leaders are really “rational”. Iran cooperated with the US in Afghanistan and Iraq and just, in turn, received this false claim: “Axis of Evil.” Iran has some serious security concerns. If you want to stop Iran from being a nuclear state in the future, just remove these concerns. And this is possible through a patient “diplomacy”.
Notice the Siegel interview or war drumming interview on my way back from DC attending the Occupy Aipac conference that both you and Mearsheimer spoke at last year. Siegel has allowed one unsubstantiated claim after the next to be repeated about Iran for years now. Helping set the stage. Posted at several sites about Siegels Iranian attack stage setting with Oren
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/israels-lobby.html
"Israel’s lobby (updated)
by Philip Weiss on March 8, 2012 33
Reid McConnell and Netanyahu
Reid McConnell and Netanyahu, by Kevin Lamarque
This photograph by Kevin Lamarque of Reuters appeared on the New York Times site yesterday. "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, center, met on Tuesday with Senators Harry Reid, left, and Mitch McConnell. Iran's nuclear program continues to dominate discussions."
Wait a second! Just two days ago, McConnell blasted his president's foreign policy on Iran as "blurred" and flawed in a speech to the Israel lobby, and said that he would be coming up with a policy to use "overwhelming force" against Iran in the Congress and he would gain broad bipartisan support for it.
And Obama has said that he doesn't want war, he wants diplomacy.
And lo and behold, a day later, McConnell is meeting with the warmongering prime minister of Israel and with the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who is supposed to be working for Obama??? WTF.
Update (from Alex Kane): The Republican Jewish Coalition has released an ad hitting Obama on his Israel policy, and the stars are leading Democrats who broke with Obama to back Netanyahu. Watch it (via BuzzFeed):
About Philip Weiss
Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
View all posts by Philip Weiss ?
Posted in Iran, Israel Lobby, Neocons, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics | Tagged featured
? ‘Forward’ joins ‘New Yorker’ in embracing MJ Rosenberg
‘NYT’ helps Netanyahu bury Palestinian issue ?
{ 33 comments... read them below or add one }
Dan Crowther says:
March 8, 2012 at 10:27 am
Yeah – now you got the post title right, brother Phil.
Log in to Reply
Dan Crowther says:
March 8, 2012 at 2:52 pm
“The Jewish Community Will Remember in November”
WOW.
This ad basically calls the “jewish community” de facto agents for Israel – and not in a derogatory war either. This is insane.
Log in to Reply
Thomson Rutherford says:
March 8, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Accordingly, is it any wonder that a large part of the ‘American community’ gets the idea that a large part of the ‘Jewish community’ acts as de facto agents for a foreign country, not very friendly to the U.S.? As Netanyahu said so wittily the other day, “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, why then it must be ….”
Log in to Reply
Taxi says:
March 8, 2012 at 10:46 am
Why are the American congressmen’s lips so tightly sealed? Don’t they know we already know their funky secret?
The chandelier halo over the head of their messiah?
Log in to Reply
MarkF says:
March 8, 2012 at 11:05 am
“The chandelier halo over the head of their messiah?”
More like a Harpo Marx wig. Sure do wish he took on the silent act too.
Log in to Reply
Bumblebye says:
March 8, 2012 at 11:20 am
That’s no halo – that’s the pantomime dame’s mob cap!
Log in to Reply
Charon says:
March 8, 2012 at 12:56 pm
LOL! I didn’t notice the chandelier, I wonder if that was intentionally photographed? Those two guys look like twins
Log in to Reply
pabelmont says:
March 8, 2012 at 10:50 am
These guys are amazing. They do not constantly say that Pakistan’s nukes are destabilizing (or a threat, directly or via terrorists, to USA), but they say that Iran’s non-nukes are so much a threat as to justify war — and say so despite USA’s military (and president).
Well, money talks! And who pays the piper calls the tune. We’ll see if the CinC can resist his Congress, bought and paid for.
Log in to Reply
ahhiyawa says:
March 8, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Like water off a ducks back.
Obama and his team knew his dismissal of Bibi’s ‘red lines’ would result in attacks from the I/Lobby, and from an increasingly weakening and irrelevant Congress composed of cheap dates on a cheap Saturday night.
One thing a first term POTUS must learn if he is to win a 2nd term, is that his greatest enemies aren’t the opposition, its his own party. Obama learned that lesson in spades before the 1st year of his 1st term played out.
In the natural order of republican (the US is a republic, not a democracy) politics, the most powerful lobby and constituency is the rising ‘national security state’ that’s got Obama’s back. These are the guys and gals with all the secrets and dirt on every enemy Obama’s got, and was the source of much of the leaked scandals & bad press that rocked Bush and the Republicans during that goofs 2nd term.
There have been rocky moments, but Obama’s CinC bona fides vis a vis the ‘national security state’ are infinitely stronger and far more respected than anyone the Republicans are running for office November next.
Log in to Reply
Kathleen says:
March 8, 2012 at 11:15 am
Just returned from the Occupy Aipac conference actions in DC. Most of us have read about the Aipac (I lobby) for decades. Many of us have lobbied against the disproportionate amount of power and influence that the lobby has on US foreign policy for decades But as is often the case when you see the numbers (thousands) of people standing outside of congressional buildings in DC to go in and talk, lobby their Reps to vote a particular way say on Senate Resolution 380 etc you visually get what kind of pressure our Reps are under. Went to see and talk with legislative aides in both Ohio Senator Portmans and Senator Sherrod Browns offices about why they both co sponsored Senate Resolution 380 which the Aipac lobbyist were pushing for this week. Both legislative aides repeated almost identical responses. “capability” of Iran. “red line” Senator Sherrod Browns legislative aide also mentioned “constituent pressure” I mentioned to both aides that they should come to this site as well as RACE FOR IRAN to learn more about the facts on the ground. Reminded them that Iran has the right to enrich uranium up to 20% and that they were not going to give up that right under the NPT. That SR 380 demand that Iran give up their right to enrich which is not going to happen.
The legislative aide in Senator Portmans (oh) office seemed dangerously uninformed about the Iran issue.
As I drove back from DC to Ohio I heard NPR’s Robert Siegel interviewing Micheal Oren on All Things Considered. Oren was repeating inflammatory rhetoric about Iran as well as complete lies “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” Siegel did not challenge Oren’s false claims once. Not once. NPR’s Robert Siegel once again allows a push for an attack on Iran to be promoted under his watch as well as lies to be repeated about Iran
The link to Robert Siegel allowing Micheal Oren to repeat lies about Iran
Middle East
link to npr.org
Israeli Ambassador Weighs In On Netanyahu Visit
[4 min 32 sec]
ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:"
SIEGEL: Yes. You’re saying the consequences of Iran going nuclear are potentially global, and the consequences of a U.S. strike on Iran might also be further such attacks against the United States. Why shouldn’t the U.S. be informed of any Israeli plan to strike at Tehran given the fact that, as the prime minister says, you are us and we are you?
OREN: We have very close relationships with the Obama administration, as with the previous administrations. This is a historic alliance between the American and Israeli peoples. And, of course, America’s interests are part of our calculus in anything we do. At the end of the day, though, Israel must have responsibility for itself.
SIEGEL: Ambassador Michael Oren of Israel, thank you very much for talking with us.
OREN: As always, thank you, Robert.
WHEN HAS ROBERT SIEGEL HAD FLYNT OR HILLARY MANN LEVERETT ON HIS PROGRAM? WHEN HAVE YOU HEARD FLYNT OR HILLARY SAY “AS ALWAYS, THANK YOU, ROBERT”
oops sorry did not mean to post all of that.
Walt "2: Loose talk about Iran's "nuclear [weapons] program." A recurring feature of Iran war coverage has been tendency to refer to Iran's "nuclear weapons program" as if its existence were an established fact. U.S. intelligence services still believe that Iran does not have an active program, and the IAEA has also declined to render that judgment either. Interestingly, both the Times' public editor Arthur Brisbane and Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton have recently chided their own organizations for muddying this issue."
This has been going on for a solid 9 years. This past Saturday NPR's Scott Simon allowed a piece through totally focused on the assumption that Iran has a nuclear weapons program
http://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/
"Experts: A Strike On Iran Poses Many Challenges(173) (15)
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, addresses a meeting in Tehran on Thursday. Khamenei is a staunch defender of Iran's nuclear program.
March 10, 2012 There's been considerable debate about bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, but little talk about the logistics involved. Military experts say Israel would likely need U.S. help, and a bombing campaign would probably take weeks, not days."
Soon after the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq Cheney, Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bush, Kristol, Bolton, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Gaffney, etc etc were pivoted and started repeating unsubstantiated and inflammatory remarks about Iran. Cheney was on Tim Russerts Meet the Press in I believe late 2003 and hammered away on Iran. Russert did not challenge Cheney once when he repeated unproven claims about Iran. I think Russert said something like "what should we do"
Reuel marc Gerecht was on the Diane Rehm show numerous times repeating the endlessly repeated false claims about Iran, Bolton on Talk of the Nation, Kristol on the Daily show, (no Jon Stewart did not challenge to question these false claims about Iran. During the 2008 election cycle, McCain, Clinton and yes Obama referred to Irans Nuclear weapons program. As if there were documented proof that such a program existed. MSM host after MSM host allowed these claims to be repeated. Helping set the stage for an attack on Iran. One of the worst offenders has been NPR's Fresh air host Terri Gross who has not only allowed guest to repeat the unsubstantiated claims Terri has repeated them herself. Often. And how many of these same outlets refuse to have experts on their programs like Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett. Hell so far we can not even get Chris Hayes new Up program to have the Leveretts on. Wondering if there is some roadblock up keeping these experts off these programs. We are not talking about some commie pinkos. Leveretts were both in 43's administration for heavens sake.
Can you imagine hearing the Levertts saying to NPR's Robert Siegel as Micheal Oren said at the end of that interview (Iran war drumming) "As always thank you Robert" How many times has Siegel had Micheal Oren on his program selling a war with Iran and lying about the Israeli Palestinian conflict?
Their arguments have been consistently debunked and it is common knowledge that they are the mullahs stooges in Washington. Their agenda is well known. They also deny that the elections in 2009 were fraudulent which tells you just about everything you need to know about the Leveretts. That is laughable.
Who has debunked the Leveretts?
>> Their arguments have been consistently debunked and it is common knowledge that they are the mullahs stooges in Washington.
Debunked by whom? Please cite an example.
>> Their agenda is well known.
Yes they worked for the State Deparment.
>> They also deny that the elections in 2009 were fraudulent which tells you just about everything you need to know about the Leveretts. That is laughable.
No it's factual actually. Even polls conduicted by the University of Mariland predicted that Ahmadinejad would win.
KTS10110 are you one of the folks who try to block experts like the Leveretts from getting on MSM outlets? One of the other reasons the public is in the dark about the facts on the ground in the Iranian dispute is that MSNBC, CNN, Fox, NPR even Washington Journal will not have the Leveretts or Walt and others on their programs to talk about the facts and not fiction about Iran. Why is that.
Noticed on CSpans Washington Journal in a six week period had Mr. Singh, Mr, Jain from the WINEP, Yoghi Dreazen all pushing for a confrontation with Iran and repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iran. Also had Anne Marie Slaughter on who repeated the "Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map" along with pushing the idea that diplomacy with Iran has been exhausted. Barbara Slavin was also on pushing these ideas. All of this in six weeks. Not one person on who actually addressed facts on the ground in the Iranian dispute
Iran has right to enrich uranium up to 20% under the NPT
And we certainly do not hear the MSM focused on the fact that Iran has the right to enrich uranium up to 20% as signatories of the Non Proliferation Treaty. And that there is no hard evidence to prove otherwise
I heard the other day that Iran already exports some electricity. How true this is I don’t know but it certainly points in a coherent direction since any nation so dependant on the export of oil would be crazy not to invest now in a future alternative.
You're just going to take Khamenei's
word for it when he says nuclear weapons are contrary to Islam? Is torturing and murdering your own muslim population not against Islam? They are more concerned with power and prestige than they are with what is against Islam.
No one is taking Khameni's word for it. IAEA is on the ground and monitoring Iran's nuclear program. That is the real data. Khamenei is simply reinforcing the message we have been receiving from the IAEA and letting us know that that is Iranian policy.
It is refreshing to see so balanced a view of US media coverage of the Iranian nuclear business. The same would apply to coverage of Syria; Assad is a bloodthirsty killer, the opposition are the good guys. I watch the Russian English language program
http://rt.com/on-air/ and you would hardly imagine they were covering the same events. And, of course, Libya is seen as a great success, rather than a rival torn bloodbath under the thumb of one of Gadaffi’ s ex-deputies who now threatens to deploy maximum force against the opposition in Benghazi. Watching Russian TV suggests their view is more global, more cerebral, certainly less emotional. Their coverage of world issues is closer to the informed contributions of Don Bacon and others above. They have bureaux in both Washington and New York and broadcast an illuminating range of US stories, the Alyona Show can be an eyebrow raiser. I am not trying to sell Russian TV but I think it important to understand just how wide the gap is becoming between what most Americans are fed and what is available in other places because when others are shown clips of the things Leen writes of above their response is amused disdain, which is surely not the way the US wants to be viewed abroad. One tends to think control of the media a totalitarian tool, a ruthless censoring of information, but it seems it can also be achieved by force feeding with sticky foods.
Those who are agitating for a war with Iran have darker motives that we do not know.
One Prof. Walt's failure to cosider
In last Sunday's "60 Minuet" segment, Former Israel's head of Mossad described the situations with Iran as follow.
"80% of Iran's income comes from oil. It is therefore, obvious that the Mullahs have interest to raise the price of oil as high as possible, which will keep them in power.
Once they have the capability of nuclear arsenal, they will use the psychological effect on their oil producing neighbors, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrein, and others, to force them to raise the price even higher."
That is the very reason why even Iran's own Muslim neighbors do not want the Mullahs to have their finger on the trigger.
You have nothing to worry about then.
Since Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.
Yes because Bahrain and Saudi Arabia -- who also live off of their oil earnings -- want to keep oil prices low, so Iran has to threaten them with nuclear weapons to force the poor little darlings to raise oil prices.
Mostly on the mark, Dr. Walt, but...
... your statement that the Fordow enrichment facility was built underground for protection rather than secrecy merits further discussion. While protection was surely a primary consideration, this statement glosses over the fact that the facility was under construction for two years in secret, contrary -- in the IAEA's opinion -- to Iran's obligations. See http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Report_Iran_16November2009pdf_1.pdf. In addition, the manner of Iran's reporting this facility to the IAEA in 2009 suggests that they acted then only to preempt the western powers who were preparing their own announcement.
>> While protection was surely a primary consideration, this statement glosses over the fact that the facility was under construction for two years in secret, contrary -- in the IAEA's opinion -- to Iran's obligations.
This is false. Under the NPT, Iran are obliged to declare the facility 6 months prior to the introduction of nuclear material into the facilty.
As it turns out, they haven't introduced any such material for 2 years.
>> See http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Report_Iran_16November2009pdf_1.pdf.
Please point to which passage in that document that states Iran vilated it's obligations under the Nuclear Safeguards Agreement.
Bear in mind that David Albright, the sycophant who loves to attract attention on these matters has been proven wrong repeatedly.
>> In addition, the manner of Iran's reporting this facility to the IAEA in 2009 suggests that they acted then only to preempt the western powers who were preparing their own announcement.
This is also BS. There is actually no evidence to support this claim. Suring a State Department Press Conference shortly after Iran's annoucement, the State Department spokesman was asked why Iran declared the facility when they did. Teh answer from the State Department was "we dont know".
Furthermore, ifthe suggestion that Iran acted to preempt western an announcement from powers would have to prove that Iran had foreknowledge of this announcement and therefore had intelliegence operative who intercepted this.
No evidence has been provided to support this theory.
In truth, the reality is the reverse. Iran's declaration of the facility caught the US flat footed, and the Obama administratiot subsequently came up with this claim to save face.
Iran wasn't going to report it
They were caught redhanded building a secret nuclear facility. They obviously weren't going to report it until they were busted by western intelligence agencies and the facility doesn't even make sense if they were really just pursuing nuclear power. Iran has a long history of secrecy inconsistent with a country merely seeking peaceful uses for nuclear power(see:North Korea).
>> Iran wasn't going to report it
What evidence do you have that Iran was not going to declare the Fordo facility when they did?
>> They were caught redhanded building a secret nuclear facility.
Rubbish. Not even the US government claims they were caught building a secret facility. In fact, when the State Department was asked why Iran decalred the existence fo teh facility when they did, the State Department answered that they didn't know.
>> They obviously weren't going to report it until they were busted by western intelligence agencies and the facility doesn't even make sense if they were really just pursuing nuclear power.
Rubbish. They were never busted. The Obama administrations simply claimed that the Iranians had found out that the West was onto them, but never explained how the Iranians knew that they were found out.
Secondly, the facility makes perfect sense and is consistent with them wnating to pursue both nuclear power and fuel their research reactor that produces nuclear medicine. 850,000 patients rely every year on the isotopes produced by the reseach reactor. After a decade of threats from the US and Israel, it makes perfect sense to build the facility where it cannot be bombed.
>> Iran has a long history of secrecy inconsistent with a country merely seeking peaceful uses for nuclear power(see:North Korea).
What history of inconsistency? You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
The only reason Iran even admitted to its existence is because they were tipped that western intelligence agencies had discovered it and were about to reveal it to the world.
Please read the links before claiming falsehoods
I said: the Fordow facility was under construction for two years in secret. This is true.
I said: the IAEA believes that Iran did not meet its notification obligations with respect to this facility. This is true. See P. 17 of the document I cited:
"17. For reasons set out in previous reports to the Board of Governors, Iran remains bound by the revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to which it had agreed in 2003,7 which requires that the Agency be provided with preliminary design information about a new nuclear facility as soon as the decision to construct or to authorize construction of the facility is taken."
Fordo was still a declared facility
The IAEA may think that Iran is bound by the MODIFIED version of the safeguards agreement but Iran (and others) say it is bound by the ORIGINAL version -which only requires formal declaration of the facility to the IAEA 180-days prior to the introduction of nuclear material into the site. Iran disclosed the facility before then, and in either case once operational the facility operates with IAEA safeguards.
KTS knows the secret yet "obvious" intentions of the Iranian government and so there's no need to have IAEA inspectors anymore because even if they return and say they found nothing of interest, KTS can nevertheless assure them that there's a secret nuclera weapons program in Iran that even 16 US intelligence agencies have thus far failed to find.
>> The only reason Iran even admitted to its existence is because they were tipped that western intelligence agencies had discovered it and were about to reveal it to the world.
There is no evidence of this. So what evidnce do you have, other hat heresay from Washington, thatg they were tipped that western intelligence agencies were about to reveal the existence of Fordo to the world?
None.
I have read the links Wolfboy and you are wrong
>> I said: the Fordow facility was under construction for two years in secret. This is true.
Irrelevant. Iran are under no obligation to declare it's existence until 6 months prior to the introduction of nuclear material.
>> I said: the IAEA believes that Iran did not meet its notification obligations with respect to this facility. This is true. See P. 17 of the document I cited:
This is subject to debate due to the fact that Iran agreed to the additional potocols temporarily (between 2003 and 2005) during which time it ceased all enrichment and awaited a proposal from the E3. After 2 extensions to the deadline (which the E3 failed to meet) Iran, ended the impostion of the additional protocols and resumes enrichment.
The additional protocols were never ratified by Iran's parliament, so no Iran does not remain bound by the revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part. No contry in the world iks bound by treaties to without ratifying them.
The Iranians announced the Fordnow facility before it was discovered by Western intelligence. This announcement was made within IAEA protocols. Obama and State tried to make it sound like a violation but it wasn't.
The Iranians announced the Fordnow facility before it was discovered by Western intelligence. This announcement was made within IAEA protocols. Obama and State tried to make it sound like a violation but it wasn't.
Israel's boneheaded leadership desperately want to pursue "Greater Israel", but are unable to do so for various reasons. (Chief of which is the fallout of the "Arab Spring.") Attacking Iran is one windmill that Israel is determined to tilt at.
Burns: "I was the point person on Iran from 2005 to 2008,"
"and I never once met an Iranian official"
Let me guess: you were too busy brown-nosing the Israelis to ever have the time.........
Prof. Wald:
Thank you for your balanced coverage of Iran, which for somebody like myself that is in Iran is much appreciated.
I also want to thank you for Number 9.
I have been attempting to get this issue more attention but it's just now getting some notice. Please see "Nuking Iran":
http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/mohammad-alireza/nuking-iran
I have started a blog on Iranian.com which highlights the latest Iran related news that may also interest you. Here is the latest post:
http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/mohammad-alireza/iran-news-condensed-and-highlighted-009
Peace,
M. Alireza
Iran
... it was an analogous situation that led the USSR to start establishing missile bases in Cuba. This was in response to the fear campaign from the US, planning to plant nuclear missiles along the Soviet border with Turkey. The response was brilliant. After a good deal of public hooha, nobody killed, the Soviets agreed not to deliver missiles to Cuna, and very quietly, after some time the US shut down its plan to intimidate the USSR with nukes on its border. Big USSR success, although generally regarded as an American one.
11. ConsideringStephen Walt a Serious Pundit
Pray tell, Mr. Walt, why you think focusing on Khamenei rather than Ahmadinejad would make any difference in assessing the threat Iran poses?
Khamenei: Israel is a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9059179/Iran-We-will-help-cut-out-the-cancer-of-Israel.html
Are you going to tell us this was a mistranslation?
It's not like Iran is parading Shahab-3 missiles down the streets of Tehran with banners and posters talking about the destruction of Israel, right?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/what-is-at-the-root-of-the-israel-iran-confrontation/252024/
Iran is not threatening Israel
>> Pray tell, Mr. Walt, why you think focusing on Khamenei rather than Ahmadinejad would make any difference in assessing the threat Iran poses?
Iran does not pose a thrat becasue Iran is no threatening Israel. Or did 500 Israelis die when Khamenei describes Israel as a "cancerous tumor"?
>> It's not like Iran is parading Shahab-3 missiles down the streets of Tehran with banners and posters talking about the destruction of Israel, right?
Saying Israel should be wiped off the face of the world or uprooted is not a threat. A threat is what Israel is doing every week when threateneing to bomb Iran.
Um, what? Are you even trying to make sense?
"Iran does not pose a thrat becasue Iran is no threatening Israel."
Besides the mangled English, your sentence is about as informative as a child's Crayola drawing. Khamenei's threat couldn't be more explicit -
"From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help."
"Saying Israel should be wiped off the face of the world or uprooted is not a threat. A threat is what Israel is doing every week when threateneing to bomb Iran."
Again, logic is obviously not your strong suit. There's a cause and an effect - Iran threatens to destroy Israel and actively funds, trains and equips organizations that carry out deadly attacks on Israeli civilians. Israel and Iran had cordial relations until the latter was taken over by a bunch of radical fundamentalists. So try to get this into your thick skull: *Iran* is the instigator of all the hostilities.
Only someone who's been brainwashed by watching Press TV and other sources of Iranian propaganda for weeks on end would believe that Khamenei is referring to peaceful "regime change".
Even then, though, you'd be hard-pressed to explain why Iran parades missiles with banners screaming "Death to Israel" or funds, equips and trains terrorist groups who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of Israeli civilians (as well as Americans) and whose explicit goal is to destroy Israel *through violence*.
When you promote such violence or find excuses for it, you've lost all legitimacy as a discussant. Thanks for playing.
Well, yeah, that's what NATO does: it instigates regime change by firing missiles at that regime.
Iran doesn't do that, because Iran doesn't fire its missiles: it simply parades them up and down the streets of Tehran, where they can't do any harm to anyone.
Reality isn't your strong Kerpin
>> There's a cause and an effect - Iran threatens to destroy Israel and actively funds, trains and equips organizations that carry out deadly attacks on Israeli civilians.
Israel has NEVER threatened to destroy Israel and as for actively funding, training and equipping organizations that carry out deadly attacks on civilians, Israel has been implicated even by the US mainstream media in such activities.
You gotta love that Kerpin - Israel is an official state sponsor of terror. That's been pretty obvious to not of us, but not even you Habrats can deny it any longer.
>> Israel and Iran had cordial relations until the latter was taken over by a bunch of radical fundamentalists.
Yes, Israel does tend to have cozy relationships with US sponsored tyrants and dictators.
After all, Israel belongs to the same club - the Washington welfare program.
So cordial was the relationship that Israel taught the Savak the fine mr points or mass murder, torture, and disappearing people.
>> So try to get this into your thick skull: *Iran* is the instigator of all the hostilities.
Let's see. Please remind us how many countries Iran has attacked, invaded and gone to war with compared to how many Israel has - and then have your thick explain how this proves Iran is the instigator of all the hostilities.
>>Even then, though, you'd be hard-pressed to explain why Iran parades missiles with banners screaming "Death to Israel" or funds, equips and trains terrorist groups who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of Israeli civilians (as well as Americans) and whose explicit goal is to destroy Israel *through violence*.
Israel has not only destroyed Palestinian society through violence, but was founded on violence and terrorism - and continues to be sustained through violence.
>> When you promote such violence or find excuses for it, you've lost all legitimacy as a discussant. Thanks for playing.
According to that logic, guess that means Israel has no legitimacy. Thanks for scoring another goal.
Maybe you should stop playing.
I listened to that interview no real time to make a serious impression...old African American proverb "rejection increases desirability".
The Dangerous Implications of an Israel-Iran war
What do you think Putin means by this statement?
“the growing threat of a military strike on this country [Iran] alarms Russia, no doubt. If this occurs, the consequences will be truly catastrophic. It is impossible to imagine their real scale.”
Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said the following about interference in Iran and the Middle East:
“a very big war that will cause suffering not only to countries in the region, but also to states far beyond its boundaries.”
Russia’s outgoing ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin:
“And if Iran is involved in any military action, it’s a direct threat to our security.”
Former Member of Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff Col.- General Leonid Ivashov: Russia Is Ready to Use Military Power to Defend Iran and Syria; Attack on Syria or Iran Is Indirect Attack on Russia; US in Libya Like Hitler in Poland.
Russia is defending the entire world against fascism.
=========================================================
Everybody is ignoring that an Israeli attack on Iran may well bring on World War III.
There are many historical conditions present indicating the likelihood of World War III is a real threat. Both Russia and China are actually threatening nuclear war - implied or direct.
Future historians are going to point out how the signs were so obvious it was truly amazing that most people ignored them. This is really a no-brainer.
25+ Signs that point to nuclear war: goo.gl/p5eRM
Does China want war? goo.gl/TA8qy
Get more information here: goo.gl/84NSP
The entire point of the Lobby is to prepare the nation for a war. With these constant articles, they are trying to give the appearance of a national debate.
Same methodology was used in Iraq.
The problem: The internet has democratized the information flow. Most people are not buying it anymore. Great majority of comments are against the war and recognize it is an attempt by Israel-firsters to use American resources in yet another war. They might succeed in starting one but it will back fire.
Unbiased in-depth news coverage 24/7 from 180 countries available by WORLD NEWS, www.worldnews.co.in
what a forum....all the usual suspects...lol
no point in commenting on walt or his ivory tower theories. I STILL have not heard walt say how he would get iran to climb down...I STILL have not heard what he would propose in "negotiations", but I cold guess what he would offer...lol...
I like how he says he 'could be wrong'...
its amazing how cavalier walt is with america's best allies(according to obama) security. amazing...
and what if iran was threatening to wipe france off the map? or the UK? What then? and lets not reduce this to ahmedinejad....their nuclear program is supported by far more than him....and the statements from MANY iranian leaders all suggest that in their minds, israel needs to be eliminated. I think walt is either dangerously naive, or, has some sort of anti israel agenda.
The rest of us will have to stick to evindece and facts, which tells us that all 16 US intelligence agencies and the Mossadn agree Iran has no nuclear wepoans program.
We know that REALREALIST is both dangerous, and , has a pro israel agenda.
"I don't think at hand is a few doubt to facilitate Iran is morphing into a martial dictatorship with a ... Sort of religious-ideological pretense," Clinton believed in response to questions on the Council on Foreign Relations
Israel has had a nuclear syllabus in support of years, aided by the US and France in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which the US and France has signed but Israel has not. The Arabs don't like it.
Mike
Hope Stephen Walt and others listen to the program on Iran that Scott Simon clearly decided to air on his Saturday news program. Basically based on the assumption that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. Hope Walt adds these types of decisions on MSM outlets like Scott Simons program as an active way to promote the unproven claims about Iran
http://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/
Experts: A Strike On Iran Poses Many Challenges(173) (15)
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, addresses a meeting in Tehran on Thursday. Khamenei is a staunch defender of Iran's nuclear program.
March 10, 2012 There's been considerable debate about bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, but little talk about the logistics involved. Military experts say Israel would likely need U.S. help, and a bombing campaign would probably take weeks, not days.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(86)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE