Iran | ukwatch.net

George Monbiot on a Nuclear Iran

JamieSW — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:58:45 +0000

George Monbiot had a good article on the Iran nuclear issue in the Guardian earlier this week, wherein he identified the bottom line: that if Iran does want nuclear weapons, the reasons will most likely have to do with the clear security threats that it faces. Aside from the existence of Israel's nuclear weapons and those of the UNSC P5, who are obliged to disarm under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (the same treaty they wave at Iran) but refuse to do so, Monbiot could also have mentioned that Iran has Pakistan and India's weapons in its neighbourhood as well, plus US bases/allies in practically every neighbouring country and US warships in the Persian Gulf. Plus the US has invaded and occupied two of Iran's neighbours, justifying those actions with similar accusations to those now made against Tehran. And Israeli and US politicians continue to implicitly or explicitly threaten to attack Iran militarily (threats of force being illegal under the UN charter).

But I appreciate that newspaper columnists have to work within the constraints of space, and Monbiot’s article was focused on upholding the international mechanisms for non-proliferation and reminding us of Britain's own flaunted obligations in that regard. So the above isn't a criticism, more an addition to the point he was making in the article.

While I wholly agree with the main thrust of the article, I’d respectfully take issue with a couple of points Monbiot makes within his argument. He tries to portray his position as being on a sensible middle ground between Western governments who say Iran definitely does and “some anti-war campaigners” who say it definitely does not have a nuclear weapons program. But in fact he offers no challenge to the position of the former group; only to the latter. He actually seems pretty certain such a program exists, and that's a highly problematic stance.

Personally, I don’t say unequivocally that Iran does not want the bomb. I note for example Israeli historian Martin van Creveld's statement that, given the security threats mentioned above, Iran would be "crazy" not to build a nuclear weapon. But nor do I think we can state unequivocally that Iran does have a nuclear program, or even say (as Monbiot seems to) that we can pretty much assume that it does. It's important (a) to acknowledge that we don't know one way or the other, and (b) to also note the evidence that and reasons why Iran might not have such a program. These remain just as significant as the evidence that and reasons why Iran would have a weapons program. And one can't overstate the importance of looking at this particular topic in as balanced and accurate a way as possible, given what's at stake.

Monbiot accuses some anti-war folk of “clutching” at the recent US National Intelligence Estimate's (the consensus opinion of all US intelligence agencies) conclusion that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. He points out that the NIE also said that Iran’s uranium enrichment activities are such that if it decided to start a weapons program it could do so quite swiftly. Fair enough. But it's hardly valid to skip lightly over the difference between having a weapons program and not having one (but being able to start one quickly) as though the difference between the two doesn't exist at all. Moreover, Monbiot is failing to join the dots between this and his overall argument (that Iran wants the bomb as a deterrent). Whether the difference between Iran having a peaceful nuclear program and having a weapons program is a substantial one or not depends on the security environment. To the extent that the West continues to start wars all over the Middle East, fill the region with troops, military bases and aircraft carriers, arms its allies to the teeth and threaten war on anyone who challenges its hegemony, then yes, it becomes increasingly likely that the difference between a peaceful and a non-peaceful Iranian nuclear program will be an academic one. Monbiot could have drawn this into his overall argument if he'd seen what appears to me to be a fairly obvious connection.

Monbiot says that the International Atomic Energy Agency has many questions outstanding in relation to Iran's activities. But he should also have mentioned – because (as I point out above) it is not exactly irrelevant - that the IAEA has also said there is no evidence of a weapons program existing. What we cannot do is, to use Hans Blix's memorable phrase, turn question marks into exclamation marks in respect of this issue. That takes us into the same territory of false logic as the pre-Iraq war US and UK governments and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. People are not convicted on suspicion; there’s a very good reason why the burden of proof is on the party making the accusation and not on the party being accused.

(It is also, I regret to say, a little cheap of Monbiot to declare – with an adjective substituting for a properly functioning argument - that people citing a strong source of evidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons program – the NIE - are in some way desperately “clutching” at something flimsy. When the IAEA and the NIE both tell us that Iran is not making nukes, that has a good deal of authority, and for Monbiot to challenge this he needs to offer better arguments than these).

Monbiot says, rightly in my view, that "those of us who oppose an attack on Iran are under no obligation to accept [Iranian President] Ahmadinejad's claims of peaceful intent". However, as Juan Cole has pointed out, "the [Iranian] Supreme Jurisprudent has given a fatwa against having or using nuclear weapons as illicit in Islamic law. You can't acknowledge that Iran is a dictatorial theocracy and then turn around and say that his fatwa is irrelevant."

Recall that it is the Supreme Jurisprudent, not Ahmedinejad, who in ultimate charge of Iranian government policy. Note also that Khamenei's power is not simply material; it also rests on his credibility as an Islamic cleric. To flagrantly breach his own explicit ruling would clearly diminish his clerical and therefore his political standing, and that's something he'd have to take into account if he decided that Iran should have the bomb. That's not to say he would never do it, but it's a non-trivial barrier for him to overcome, which may mitigate against it happening. Again, this is not something we can simply ignore.

Monbiot asks,

"Why would a country with such reserves of natural gas and so great a potential for solar power suffer sanctions and the threat of bombing to make fuel it could buy from other states, if it accepted the UN's terms?"

There are three answers to this.

First, it would clearly make far more economic sense for Iran to maximise the amount of oil and gas that it can sell on the international markets rather than hand out at subsidised rates to its own people. That should be fairly plain. Yes, it could (and should) address this via renewable energy. But Iran's hardly the only nation on the planet that's woefully behind the curve on that issue.

Second, Iran may want to assume the position of "nuclear ambiguity": not having the weapons, but being in the position where its enemies are aware that it could assemble them in short order, and are deterred from attacking it as a result.

But third, and perhaps most importantly of all, the Iranian ruling class are highly ambitious; aspiring to the status of regional power in accordance with their nation's historic role. Iran's willingness to stare down the West and insist on nothing less than its entitlements under the NPT needs to be seen in that context. If you look at the rhetoric, you see a recurring theme of Iran insisting on its "rights". This subtext is key, in my view. What Tehran is really insisting on is its desired status as a serious player on the international stage. Using solar power does not offer Iran the opportunity to make this sort of a stand. The NPT does.

So I would caution against ascribing a very high degree of probability to the idea that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Absent any certain knowledge, and with evidence pointing in both directions, Monbiot’s approach needs to be more circumspect. Those best placed to judge say there is no evidence of such a program, and much of the Iranian behaviour which Monbiot cites as indicating the existence of that program can be plausibly explained in another way. I should neither be surprised nor unsurprised to learn for certain that Iran is trying to build a bomb. The fact is that we don't know, and in my view we can't call this in either direction with any serious level of confidence. Given the dangerous nature of the current stand-off between Iran and the West, a high degree of circumspection is essential to keep the temperature of this issue at a non-threatening level.

I should conclude by saying that I acknowledge Monbiot’s sound intentions to prevent a war with Iran (which would make the bloodbath in Iraq look like a tea party) and to hold our own governments to account for their role in nuclear proliferation. But I feel that his speculation on current Iranian activities leaves a little bit to be desired. He may actually be undermining his own aims by propagating the myth that Iran definitely or almost certainly does have a nuclear weapons program. It is important to fully acknowledge the fact that this accusation is a long way from being proven; not least because many thousands of lives may depend on how that question is answered.

Nuking the Treaty

Ellie Keen — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0000

What is the Iranian government up to? For once the imperial coalition, overstretched in Iraq and unpopular at home, is proposing jaw, not war. The UN Security Council’s offer was a good one: if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment programme, it would be entitled to legally guaranteed supplies of fuel for nuclear power, assistance in building a light water reactor, foreign aid, technology transfer and the beginning of the end of economic sanctions(1). The United States seems prepared, for the first time since the revolution, to open a diplomatic office in Tehran(2). But in Geneva ten days ago, the Iranians filibustered until the negotiations ended(3). On Saturday President Ahmadinejad announced that Iran has now doubled the number of centrifuges it uses to enrich uranium(4). A fourth round of sanctions looks inevitable.

The unequivocal statements Barack Obama and Gordon Brown made in Israel last week about Iran’s nuclear weapons programme cannot yet be justified(5,6). Nor can the unequivocal statements by some anti-war campaigners that Iran does not intend to build the bomb. Why would a country with such reserves of natural gas and so great a potential for solar power suffer sanctions and the threat of bombing to make fuel it could buy from other states, if it accepted the UN’s terms?

Those who maintain that Iran’s purposes are peaceful clutch at the National Intelligence Estimate published by the US government in November(7). While it judged that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, it saw the country’s civilian uranium programme as a means of developing “technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so.” The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency notes that no fissile material has been diverted from Iran’s stocks, but raises grave questions about some of the documents it has found, which suggest research into bomb-making (Iran says the papers are forgeries)(8). Those of us who oppose an attack on Iran are under no obligation to accept Ahmadinejad’s claims of peaceful intent.

Nor do we have to accept the fictions of our own representatives. The Security Council’s offer to Iran claimed that resolving this enrichment issue would help to bring about a “Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction”(9). But like every other such document, it made no mention of the principal owner of these weapons in the region: Israel. According to a leaked briefing by the US Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel possesses between 60 and 80 nuclear bombs(10). But none of the countries demanding that Iran scraps the weapons it doesn’t yet possess are demanding that Israel destroys the weapons it does possess.

This subject is the great political taboo. Neither Brown nor Obama mentioned it last week. The US intelligence agencies provide a biannual report to Congress on the weapons of mass destruction developed by foreign states, which covers Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan and others, but not Israel(11). During a parliamentary debate in March the British defence minister Bob Ainsworth was asked whether he thought that Israel’s nuclear weapons are “a destabilising factor” in the Middle East. “My understanding,” he replied, “is that Israel does not acknowledge that it has nuclear weapons.”(12) Does Mr Ainsworth really buy this nonsense? If so, can we have a new minister? If Iran builds a bomb, it will do so for one reason: that there is already a nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, by which it feels threatened.

But we make the rules and we break them. The non-proliferation treaty (NPT) obliges the five official nuclear states, of which the United Kingdom is one, to work towards “general and complete disarmament”(13). On Friday the Guardian published the notes for a speech made last year by a senior civil servant, which suggested that the decision to replace the UK’s nuclear missiles had already been made, in secret and without parliamentary scrutiny(14,15). Since then defence ministers have told the Commons on five occasions that the decision has not yet been made(16,17,18,19,20). They appear to have misled the House.

At the Geneva conference on disarmament in February, one delegate pointed out that the “chances of eliminating nuclear weapons will be enhanced immeasurably” if non-nuclear states can see “planning, commitment and action toward multilateral nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapon states” like the UK. If the nuclear states “are failing to fulfil their disarmament obligations”, other nations would use this as an excuse for maintaining their weapons(21). Who was this firebrand? Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Defence. A man of the same name is failing to fulfil our disarmament obligations.

Browne claims that Britain must maintain its arsenal because of proliferation elsewhere, just as those proliferating elsewhere say that they must develop their arsenals because the official nuclear nations aren’t disarming. With the exception of France, none of the other European states feels the need to deploy nukes. But the UK keeps preparing for the last war. Of course, no one is refusing to disarm; it’s just that the task keeps getting pushed into the indefinite future. Opponents of British nuclear weapons maintain that a new generation of warheads would survive until 2055(22).

The permanent members of the UN Security Council draw a distinction between their “responsible” ownership of nuclear weapons and that of the aspirant powers. But over the past six years, the UK, US, France and Russia have all announced that they are prepared to use their nukes pre-emptively against a presumed threat, even from states that do not possess nuclear weapons(23,24,25,26). In some ways the current nuclear stand-off is more dangerous than the tetchy détente of the Cold War.

The danger has been heightened by the US government’s current offensive. Condoleeza Rice, the secretary of state, is demanding that other countries accept her plans to destroy the last remaining incentive for states to abide by the NPT(27,28). The treaty grants countries which conform to it materials for nuclear power on favourable terms. It’s a flawed incentive - as the spread of civil nuclear programmes makes the proliferation of military material more likely(29) - but an incentive nonetheless. Now Rice insists that India should have special access to US nuclear materials despite the fact that it has not signed the NPT and has illegally developed nuclear weapons.

If she is successful, this effort - and the concomitant US demand that India is recognised as an official nuclear power - will blow the NPT to kingdom come. The treaty which survived the Cold War, and which remains the most important of the wilting guarantees against global annihilation, is being nuked for the sake of a few billion dollars of export orders.

Here’s where it gets really depressing. The Bush administration’s proposal has been supported by both John McCain and Barack Obama(30). The contrast between Obama’s position on India and his statements on Iran could not be greater, or more destructive of the inflated hopes now vested in him.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s insistence that Iran enriches its own fissile material, and the guessing game he is playing with Israel, the atomic energy agency and the UN Security Council is irresponsible and staggeringly dangerous. But if I were in his position I might be tempted to do the same.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. UN Security Council, 12th June 2008. Letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2008/infcirc730.pdf

2. Ewen MacAskill, 18th July 2008. Iran: US will seek green light to open base in Tehran. The Guardian.

3. Julian Borger, 20th July 2008. Iran given two-week deadline to end the nuclear impasse. The Observer.

4. No author given, 27th July 2008. Iran: Nuclear centrifuge total has doubled. The Observer.

5. Barack Obama, 23rd July 2008. Speech in Sderot. http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog#top

6. Gordon Brown, 21st July 2008. Speech to the Knesset. http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page16003.asp

7. National Intelligence Council, November 2007. National Intelligence Estimate. http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

8. IAEA, 26th May 2008. Implementation of the NPT SafeguardsAgreement and relevant provisions of SecurityCouncil resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007) and 1803 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-15.pdf

9. UN Security Council, ibid.

10. US DIA, July 1999. The Decades Ahead, 1999-202. Extracted at: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html

11. Joseph Cirincione, 11th March 2005. Iran and Israel’s Nuclear Weapons.
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3217

12. Bob Ainsworth, 26th March 2008. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/c...

13. Article VI. http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

14. Matthew Taylor, 25th July 2008. Britain plans to spend £3bn on new nuclear warheads. The Guardian.

15. You can see the document here: http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/press-releases/trident/secret-plan-to-rep...

16. Bob Ainsworth, 26th March 2008.

17. Des Browne, 7th January 2008.

18. Des Browne, 28th November 2007.

19. Des Browne, 19th November 2007.

20. Des Browne, 12 September 2007.

21. Des Browne, 5th February 2008. ‘Laying the Foundations for Multilateral Disarmament’. Geneva Conference on Disarmament. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/2008...

22. Matthew Taylor, ibid.

23. This was first mentioned by Geoff Hoon, 24th March 2002 on The Jonathan Dimbleby Show, ITV 1, and has been reiterated several times since.

24. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/Fu...

25. No author given, 19th January 2008. Pre-Emptive Nuclear Threat Issued By Russian General Yuri Baluyevsky. Sky News. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20082851301432

26. Jacques Chirac, quoted by John Thornhill and Peter Spiegel, 20th January 2006. The Financial Times.

27. No author give, 26th July 2008. Condoleezza Rice Paks a proliferation punch. The Economic Times. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Condoleezza_Rice...

28. Sue Pleming, 24th July 2008. Rice says will push Congress hard on India deal. Reuters.

29. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/09/21/proliferation-treaty/

30. Elana Schor, 22nd July 2008. Q&A: India’s stalled nuclear deal with the US. The Guardian.

Just when you thought it was safe

Ellie Keen — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:59:00 +0000

Iran, the world's apparent resident evil, according to the axis theme brigade at least, is at it again: 'Iran test-fires long-range missile capable of hitting Israel' was the headlines in the British Daily Telegraph (Wednesday, July 9 th 2008) but no mention of Israel's estimated 150-200 nuclear warheads in the text; no mention of Israel being the nuclear power in the middle-eastern region; no mention either of superior British or US nuclear capability. Images of nine medium and long-range missiles without nuclear capability were screened globally courtesy of Iranian television ... oh dear the secret is out! The headline capture for most media was a deliberately placed quote from Hossein Salami the Air Force Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard: 'Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch' ... chill winds are apparently blowing across the middle-eastern sands, as if they weren't already.

Whatever we may think about the US and European approach to Iran, particularly the British and French wing of Europe at least, it's always worth bearing in mind that the incumbent Iranian leadership use Israel and the US as justification for its continuation in power not so different, tactically at least, from the way Mugabe uses the British as justification for his repugnant reign to continue also. It's often the case that many on the Left jump to the wrong conclusions once Israel and the US are mentioned in the same sentence, often forgetting that the Iranian leadership, and Hizbollah whom they support, aren't what we would call enthusiastic advocates of democracy even in a socialist sense. However, despite the fact that Iran has a pretty deplorable human rights record and is continuing to harass women activists fighting to defend the rights of women detailed by Amnesty International (see link below), nevertheless it's not entirely unreasonable for Iran to indicate to the world, as it is so obviously and publicly doing currently, that it has a right to defend itself from both Israel and the US, who both have far superior weaponry power.

An Associate Press (AP) report (Thursday, July 10 th , 2008) created their own version of events quoting 'official analysts' who claimed that the show of strength wasn't just about 'retaliation', as the Iranian's have constantly claimed, but also about going on the 'offensive', which the Iranian's have claimed would be nothing short of a farce, not to mention suicidal. AP wheeled out Suzanne Maloney from the so-called 'independent' Brookings Institution based in Washington D.C., who spoke of the danger posed to Israel by Iran. But it's always worth remembering that one Haim Saban donates generously to the Brookings Institution, funding the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Saban and Director of the Center Martyn Indyk, described by ABC News 'On the Issues' as a 'Brookings Expert' are fervent pro-Israeli supporters, with Saban also a major financial backer of the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign, who spent many hours of the campaign lecturing on pro-Israeli issues. Maloney is also a Senior Fellow on Foreign Policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy... it's making a lot more sense now! And the right wing in the US are also at it again; yes it is time to think about how fear can be generated amongst the public once again. Here's a clip from an interview with Ivo Daalder conducted by Diane Rehm that demonstrates this point clearly (Thursday July 10 th 2008):

Rehm: Ivo, if I could start with you, talk about these missile tests. What's going on, are there new capabilities about which you believe the U.S. needs to be concerned?

Daalder: Well anytime someone shoots a missile off we have to be concerned. These are systems that, if deployed with weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical or biological), could do a lot of damage -- and they could do a lot of damage over significant ranges.

Ah yes, it's the old 'weapons of mass destruction' routine happening all over again. If at once you don't succeed, try and try again!

But perhaps the real player who may just have most to lose is Russia, because for all the blustering of Iran many in the US are using the Iranian 'threat' as justification for the missile defence system they wish to strategically place in Europe. According to Seymour Hersh on BBC's Newsnight (Wednesday, July 9 th 2008, 10.30pm) whilst power shifts between Cheney and Rice on a casual basis, he believes that Cheney has the upper hand recently. Russia will therefore only be too aware that Iran, whom they support, may have handed Cheney and Co., the ideal excuse they were so desperately looking for. And perhaps we now know why Russia refused to back the US and Britain on new sanctions against the Mugabe led regime in Zimbabwe.

But perhaps the 'show of strength' has been exaggerated as Mark Fitzpatrick of the Institute of Strategic Studies has claimed in an interview with the BBC: 'It very much does appear that Iran doctored the photo to cover up what apparently was a misfiring of one of the missiles' claims Fitzpatrick ... but will anybody be listening?

Links

The Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2273986/Iran-tests-fires-long-...

Amnesty International Report Women act against repression and intimidation in Iran
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/women-act-against-repr...

ABC News 'On The Issues' Martha Raddatz interview with Martin Indyk
http://www.brookings.edu/multimedia/video/2008/0506_issues_indyk.aspx

SourceWatch on Haim Saban
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haim_Saban

Rehm-Daalder Interview under 'Iran and U.S. Missile Defense'
http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2008/0710_iran_daalder.aspx

Mark Fitzpatrick interview on the BBC under 'Iran faked missile test image'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7500917.stm

Israel's Amber Light

Tim Holmes — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:34:31 +0000

ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN NOT IMMEDIATE: BUSH TRIES DIPLOMACY HALF-HEARTEDLY
JNV Anti-War Briefing 115 (17 July 2008)

BUSH SENDS DIPLOMAT TO MEET IRANIANS

On 16 July, US President George W. Bush stunned observers by agreeing to send a high-level US diplomat to Geneva to meet Iranian negotiators face-to-face as part of the EU-led talks to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. As the Independent pointed out, State Dept. spokesperson Sean McCormack had said just the month before that the US would boycott such meetings unless 'Iran suddenly has a change of tune'. (17 July, p.23; http://tinyurl.com/633cn3)

In the event, it was the US that 'changed its tune'. Analyst Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation said: 'I think it's clear that Bush has pushed Cheney back twice now' (referring to the recent decision to remove North Korea from the US 'terrorist' list). (FT, 17 July, p.5; http://tinyurl.com/6jwgmj)

The Bush U-turn on Iraq had two features. First, he dropped the demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment before being allowed face-to-face meetings on the subject (US officials have met Iranian diplomats, but only to discuss security in Iraq). Secondly, he accepted the EU 'freeze-for-freeze' proposal, whereby the West holds off on further sanctions for a set period while Iran holds off on escalating uranium enrichment. 'Previously, Washington had stated that if Iran continued enriching uranium, the international pressure would only increase.' (Telegraph, 17 July, p.15; http://tinyurl.com/5emnvj)

The Bush diplomatic opening is very limited, however. William Burns, the third most senior State Department official, an undersecretary of state, is indeed being sent to Geneva to sit in the same room as Iranian negotiators, but his role is officially to do no more than reiterate the US line - on this one occasion.

THE OTHER PROPOSALS

The coverage of these recent developments has conformed to the Chomsky-Herman propaganda model of the mass media, demonstrating once again the key role of media self-censorship in maintaining what they call 'brainwashing under freedom'.

In the current reporting, the starting point of discussion is invariably the EU-led proposals put to Iran on 14 June, and the question is whether Tehran will accept this framework for negotiations. What is almost totally absent is any awareness that Iran had made its own highly significant proposals on 13 May this year.

One rare recognition of this simple reality came in an important commentary by Sir John Thomson. Thomson, a former UK Permanent Representative at the UN, was told by Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, in early July that EU negotiator Javier Solana 'had assured him the Iranian package could be part of the agenda for substantive negotiations between Iran and the 5-plus-1' (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany). (Independent on Sunday, 13 July, p.56; http://tinyurl.com/59jth3)

So the negotiations are proceeding because Iran's negotiating proposals (which have been almost entirely erased from history by the Western media) have been admitted to the negotiating chamber.

RED LINES

Ali-Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister who advises Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, on foreign affairs, made a critical point on 1 July. Apart from saying it was 'expedient' for Iran to resume nuclear negotiations on the 5-plus-1 offer, Velayati said: 'They say Iran should not make an atomic bomb and we say Iran needs nuclear energy. These two principles are your and our red lines which should be the basis for negotiations and [can be] agreed on'. (FT, 2 July; http://tinyurl.com/5ejuqk)

But how can these two 'red lines' both be agreed as a basis for negotiation? By going back to Iran's 13 May proposal for uranium enrichment to continue on Iranian soil—but under international control.

On the basis of his discussions with Foreign Minister Mottaki, Thomson believes that Iran is 'ready to make some compromise agreements (as yet unspecified) on Middle Eastern issues that worry the west'. And on the nuclear issue 'it is ready to compromise to the extent of putting its enrichment-related facilities under the control of an international consortium—including, for example, France, Germany and the UK—which would then operate a modern, commercially oriented business producing nuclear fuel in Iran for sale globally. This is not what the 5-plus-1 are asking for, but in my view it is the best that is obtainable, and so long as it remains in force it precludes Iran from making a nuclear weapon.' (IOS, 13 July, as above. See also http://mit.edu/stgs/irancrisis.html.)

WHAT OF THE ISRAELI THREATS?

So while Ayatollah Khamanei gives the 'green light' for negotiations on the basis of rather vague 5-plus-1 proposals, President Bush is reported to have given the 'amber light' for an Israeli airstrike on Iran. Despite this, an Israeli strike looks unlikely, for the next few months at least.

The Sunday Times reported: ' "Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.'

This is not a formality: 'Nor is it certain that Bush's amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran's test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets. "It's really all down to the Israelis," the Pentagon official added. "This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn't believe that anything but force will deter Iran." The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. "If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green," he said.' (Sunday Times, 13 July; http://tinyurl.com/6gppuc)

Retired US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, concluded from the Israeli aerial exercises in June that 'Israel does not have the capability to effectively attack Iran's nuclear facilities.' Interviewed by Robert Naiman of the Huffington Post website, Gardiner pointed to a 2006 MIT paper by Whitney Raas and Austin Long, assessing Israeli military planners' think ing. Raas and Long believe Israel would want to attack the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan and the heavy water plant at Arak—with a combined total of 36 aircraft. (With supporting aircraft, this would match up with the reports of a 100-aircraft exercise in June.)

'An Israeli strike would not be much of a strike,' Gardiner says. The US would probably think in terms of about 10 times more aim points for a similar strike, he observes. (Robert Naiman, 'Is Israel Really Preparing to Attack Iran? Col. Gardiner Says No', 20 June; http://tinyurl.com/4r5y43)

On this analysis, an Israeli strike could not destroy even the three best-known Iranian nuclear facilities, never mind facilities which might be hidden. The strike could not meet the minimum required by the US, which would want the assault to 'set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success', according to the Pentagon source consulted by the Sunday Times. It appears, therefore, that there will never be a 'solid' Israeli plan to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, and so, if it acts rationally, the White House will never green light such an attack.

OBAMA MANIA

The danger, of course, is that the White House will not act rationally, particularly if it sees the Bush 'legacy' being lost to an incoming Obama administration. Hence, perhaps, the startling decision to mimic the Democratic presidential candidate in his popular decision to offer unconditional talks with official enemies. In Nov. 2007, before the publication of the NIE that Iran had no nuclear weapons programme, a poll found 73% of people in the US favouring nonviolent options in dealing with Iran; 45% opposed violence even if diplomacy and sanctions failed (only 46% favoured force in those circumstances). http://tinyurl.com/5no6ox

The end of the world is nigh. Maybe…

Ellie Keen — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:12:09 +0000

As speculation mounts as to whether the Israelis will be given the green light to bomb Iran later this year, so too do the number of articles warning of how the cunning Iranians are just playing for time and are running rings round the clueless European powers.

Now I have no idea whether the Iranians are being entirely candid when they say their nuclear programme is for civilian purposes only or whether they in fact intend to follow in the footsteps of the Israelis who are the possessors of the only actual nuclear weapons in the Middle East. I would have thought it would be in everyone's interest for the whole of the Middle East (and indeed, the whole world) to be a nuclear weapon-free zone. The one thing I do know, however, is that over the years a number of our UK-based newspapers have been more than willing to play up the threat of alleged Iranian weapons while downplaying the danger of the very real Israeli ones.

One journalist who writes regularly on the theme of Iran's presumed quest for nuclear weapons is Con Coughlin, a senior executive in the Telegraph group. Just last week he wrote a piece for the Daily Telegraph headlined Iran has resumed A-bomb project, says west.

A look at the sources he listed in his story and many of his other similar stories about Iran only turned up assorted unnamed "officials" and western "defence experts".

In September 2003, in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion and just a few months after Bush's "mission accomplished", speech, a news story by the very same Con Coughlin was telling us:

Iran is not only working hard to develop an atom bomb, but, left to its own devices, could achieve its stated goal of acquiring a nuclear arsenal within two years.

Get that? "Within two years". And acquiring nuclear weapons was a "stated goal" of the Iranians. That was in 2003. Again, the sources were listed as "weapons experts" and once again they were unnamed.

Just over a year later, another alarming story from Coughlin was headlined Five N-bombs within Iran's grasp as West prevaricates.

How long "within grasp" actually meant in real terms was this time left unsaid, but presumably it must have been very, very close indeed if Coughlin's previous story from 2003 was correct. The implication was clearly that the west should stop pussyfooting around and … well, I think you can work the rest out yourselves.

In January 2006, Coughlin informed us of a revised timescale. Now we were told that Iran "Could go nuclear within three years". This is what his sources had to say:

Intelligence sources say Iran will begin feeding converted uranium into 164 centrifuges at Natanz this week. That could enable it to create enriched uranium of sufficient quality for nuclear weapons production within three years. Previous estimates of the minimum time required had ranged from five to 10 years.

The "intelligence sources" must obviously have overlooked reading Coughlin's own news reports.

And in January 2007, Coughlin reported about growing cooperation between Iran and North Korea in the field of nuclear weaponry and he kindly provided us with yet another frightening timescale:

Intelligence estimates vary about how long it could take Teheran to produce a nuclear warhead. But defence officials monitoring the growing cooperation between North Korea and Iran believe the Iranians could be in a position to test-fire a low-grade device — less than half a kiloton — within 12 months.

Within 12 months. And that particular story was written 18 months ago. You do the maths.

I recall that Con Coughlin been writing these kinds of stories about Iran since at least the early 1990s – but I couldn't find the earlier stories archived on the Telegraph's website.

Just who are his sources and how credible are they? As ordinary readers of a newspaper we normally have no real way of knowing. But Nick Davies' excellent book, Flat Earth News, contains a revealing passage about Coughlin and the close ties he has cultivated over the years with MI6.

Back in 2002, the Sunday Telegraph settled an action brought by Saif al-Islam Gadafy, the son of the Libyan leader, over a 1995 story in which they had accused him of being involved in a huge Middle Eastern currency sting. The Sunday Telegraph admitted that allegations they had printed about Saif al-Islam were untrue. The author of that original article was – you guessed – none other than Con Coughlin, and we are told in Flat Earth News that Coughlin had in fact obtained his story from sources in MI6.

So how can we go about holding our own spooks to account for their mischief-making? Remember the depressing example of Sir John Scarlett, who for his sins in the notorious sexed-up Iraq dossier affair was punished by being… er… promoted to become head of MI6.

Well, that'll teach them, eh?

News International Threatens Media Lens with Legal and Police Action

JamieSW — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:22:55 +0000

On June 28 and July 3, Media Lens received repeated threats of both legal and police action from Alastair Brett, legal manager of News International’s Times Newspapers.

Noam Chomsky described the threat, pithily, as “pretty sick.” (Email, June 28, 2008) David Miller, professor of sociology at the University of Strathclyde and founder member of Spinwatch, commented:

“The response from the Times is an absolutely outrageous attempt to bully and censor you. It is not - unfortunately - surprising though, as the Murdoch empire is determined to attempt to snuff out those voices which try to bear witness to the truths of our age. Those that unmask naked power will be targeted by the Murdoch empire and its hench people. Maddox is the latest in a long line and is evidently a well networked member of the political elite - being a governor of the shadowy Ditchley Foundation. It is simply laughable that sending emails to complain about her distorted coverage constitutes harassment. Frankly, the drumbeat for war with Iran, to which she adds her voice, is much more like harassment, but of a whole nation. Its consequences are already more deadly serious for the people of Iran than any amount of emails from Medialens readers.” (Email, July 8, 2008)

Brett claimed Times journalist Bronwen Maddox had been subject to “vexatious and threatening” emails from Media Lens readers, which constituted “harassment”. If this did not stop, Brett told us, he would notify the police who might wish to investigate the matter with a view to bringing a criminal prosecution. As former New Statesman editor, Peter Wilby, noted in his Guardian article on the Times threat, this was no joke - prosecution for criminal harassment “can lead to six months' imprisonment or, if a court order is breached, up to five years”.

Maddox claimed to have received "dozens of emails, many abusive or threatening". (Ibid)

Beginning with our very first media alert, published seven years ago yesterday, we have always advised our readers to treat journalists with respect:

“The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.”

As usual, many emails were copied or forwarded to us. We saw precisely one that could conceivably be described as “vexatious and threatening”. The email read:

"You have know [sic] idea who you are dealing with here. But I do like to help. I suggest that you read this [an inaccessible Facebook website entry] very, very carefully and fully. You have until 4pm Monday to respond to my original email or I will deem you to be fired."

This was also the only email offered up as evidence to Wilby for his Guardian piece. Unprompted by us, the offending emailer had earlier written to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, informing one executive:

“If you take more than 1 working day to reply to this email without a reason that I consider acceptable you can consider yourself fired.”

He also wrote to around 40 senior UK editors and journalists in June describing Media Lens as “a pack of absolute tossers”.

Ironically, we have been subject to far worse abuse than Maddox and Brett, and at the hands of mainstream journalists. Before becoming editor of the Independent, the former Observer editor, Roger Alton, asked one of our readers:

“Have you just been told to write in by those c*nts at medialens?” (Email forwarded, June 1, 2006 - original uncensored. Changed here to avoid triggering spam filters)

An online Observer article by Peter Beaumont described Media Lens as “a curious willy-waving exercise... Think a train spotters' club run by Uncle Joe Stalin.” (Beaumont, ‘Microscope on Medialens,’ June 18, 2006)

We have always found these insults more chucklesome than vexatious. Chomsky was once asked for his reaction to the abuse he receives:

"Man: ‘Noam... You've been called a neo-Nazi, your books have been burned, you've been called anti-Israeli - don't you get a bit upset by the way that your views are always distorted by the media and by intellectuals?’

“Noam: ‘No why should I? I get called anything, I'm accused of everything you can think of: being a Communist propagandist, a Nazi propagandist, a pawn of freedom of speech, an anti-Semite, liar, whatever you want. Actually, I think that's all a good sign. I mean, if you are a dissident, typically you are ignored. If you can't be ignored, and you can't be answered, you're vilified - that's obvious: no institution is going to help people undermine it. So I would only regard the kind of things you're talking about as signs of progress.’" (Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, The New Press, 2002, pp.204-5)

Questions Of Copyright

Brett also claimed that we would be acting unlawfully by publishing an email from Maddox without permission. We sought advice and one legal expert told us:

“The Times has no case over the confidentiality of email correspondence. Email correspondence, in itself, is not considered confidential - unless the precise contents of an email are confidential.”

Another suggested that the law is less clear and that the Times might carry out its threat. Another reminded us:

"Added weight to your cause is that the statements expressed and reproduced on your site represent important ‘political commentary’ (as opposed to artistic or commercial commentary). Political commentary is the most heavily protected type of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (via the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK)."

Another lawyer cited a barrister friend who nutshelled his view of the credibility of the Times’s case: "Tell them to f*ck off.”

Douwe Korff, Professor of International Law at London Metropolitan University and an expert on the European Convention on Human Rights, commented:

"I find the stance of the Times appalling in moral terms and flimsy at best in law. Their legal position, if endorsed by the courts, would severely limit freedom of the press over issues of major public concern. Is that what they want? I have little doubt their arguments would be kicked out by the UK courts if they pursued them here; they would certainly not be upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This is simply an attempt by a heavy-weight corporation to brow-beat a small freelance news operation that dares to be critical of its editorial line. It is quite scandalous. The Times should be ashamed of itself." (Email to Media Lens, July 8, 2008)

Having minimal resources for fighting a court case, either in terms of time or money, we decided to delete Maddox’s email from our media alert, ‘Selling The Fireball’, as demanded. You can see the amended version here

We also published a message on our website emphasising the need for respectful communication with journalists. Coincidentally, we had previously discussed the issue at length in ’Compassionate Media Activism,’ an interview with former Buddhist monk, Matthew Bain, published this week on the new Elephant Skin website.

The happy result of this episode is that a number of high-powered legal minds have offered us their services free of charge should the need arise in future.

Peter Wilby wrote about the Times’ threat in the Guardian:

“We journalists are accustomed to dishing it out, but have the thinnest of skins. At the merest hint of criticism, we are apt to turn to our lawyers. One reason for this professional sensitivity, I suppose, is that journalists are insecure egotists who like to occupy the high moral ground. Criticism assaults their sense of self-worth and, since their colleagues and potential employers are assiduous consumers of print, it may damage their future prospects.”

Wilby quoted from the banned email, perhaps thereby indicating his own feelings on the matter. But his piece was ’balanced’. He criticised us for not providing a link to Maddox’s original article, for not urging readers to always read journalists’ work before writing, and for not making clear to Maddox who we were when we wrote to her. He contrasted these “failings” with the Times’s “professional sensitivities”, which he suggested were over-developed.

There was something missing from Wilby’s article, however: the human catastrophe that provides the moral backdrop to the entire debate. George Monbiot alluded to it in 2004 when he wrote: "the falsehoods reproduced by the media before the invasion of Iraq were massive and consequential: it is hard to see how Britain could have gone to war if the press had done its job.”

Like the rest of the British media, the Times played a vital role in selling the public a pack of outrageous government lies that presented a totally non-existent and obviously risible ‘threat’ as somehow serious, plausible, and even (god help us!) urgent.

Many of the most sophisticated philosophies of human culture contend that rational understanding is the result, not just of wisdom, but also of compassion. This is certainly true of the current discussion. Brett’s complaints that our actions caused distress to one of his journalists, and Wilby’s ’balanced’ response, can seem almost reasonable, until we focus our minds and hearts (if we are able) on a single overwhelming fact. In significant part as a result of the actions of the British media, more than one million human beings are now lying dead in Iraq. In fact, the entire country has been subject to unrelenting destruction and slaughter by two decades of Western policy rooted in selfish greed. All of this has been buried in official propaganda, media silence and compromised ’balance’ - it barely exists for the public.

And of course there is more and worse. Almost unbelievably, the media’s Iran focus 2008 is near-identical to the media’s Iraq focus 2002-2003. It is entirely possible that hundreds of thousands of people will soon be lying dead in Iran as a result of sanctions and war, just across the border from Iraq.

The point is that we are unable to perceive the obscenity of the media silence surrounding this mass slaughter if we are unable to perceive the truth of those one million Iraqi deaths. And we cannot experience the truth of those deaths unless we have some compassion for our victims.

To understand what we have done to the Iraqi people, to feel something of their torment, casts the media silence in a very different light. It transforms, utterly, the actions of people like us trying to break that silence, as it does the actions of those who seek to stop us on the grounds that emailing journalists is “not proper behaviour” and makes “a mess of their inboxes”. (Brett)

In truth, the steps we have suggested are pitiful in their timidity. We have always seen media activism as a small, energising contribution intended to inspire much wider, much more profound, political organisation and activism.

What we have done to Iraq is not a video game; it is not a Hollywood invention. We really have destroyed an entire nation and brought misery to millions. About that, this whole country should not be writing a few emails; it should be in uproar.

Iraq task, Iran risk

tim — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:27:43 +0000

The architects of the "war on terror" in the George W Bush administration will soon be leaving office. But the four months until the United States presidential election on 4 November 2008 could be momentous. In Iraq and Iran, what happens in the next four months - or does not happen - will shape events in the next four years and even beyond (see "Washington's choice: subdue Iran, secure Iraq", 12 June 2008).

The current level of conflict in Iraq is lower than for most of the period since the start of the war in March-April 2003, but it continues at a substantial level. The United States military's losses have also been on a declining trend [1], but it still lost twenty-nine people in June 2008, an increase from nineteen in May. But this is far from the only index [2] of the fragility of the current security environment, as two recent incidents and one longer-term factor show.

The first incident is a US military raid on 27 June 2008 on the town of Janaja in southern Iraq that killed a civilian reported to be a relative of Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. The operation involved sixty US soldiers as well as Apache helicopter-gunships; did not include Iraqi units; and was apparently conducted without the knowledge of the provincial authorities, even though Karbala province was supposed to have been under Iraqi control. The response [3] of the Iraqis was, not surprisingly, sharp (see Hannah Allam & Sahar Issa, "U.S. Raid Angers Iraq [4]", Miami Herald, 28 June 2008).

The second is a suicide-bombing attack in Anbar province on 28 June that killed twenty-three people including three US marines, which an al-Qaida insurgent group said that it had perpetrated (see Alissa J Rubin, "Group Claims Responsibility for Iraq Attack [5]", New York Times, 29 June 2008). The attack was targeted [6] against local Sunni leaders who were supporters of the anti-al-Qaida "awakening movement", and the militant responsible had been a member of the movement. It was, in short, an "inside job".

The trend is the construction right across Baghdad of a network of walls designed to separate armed factions and communities. These have contributed to the decrease in violence, but have also produced a prison-like environment that is resented by many citizens (see Hamza Hendawi, "Iraqis Say Walls Protect But Feel Like Prison [7]", Associated Press, 28 June 2008).

The Iraq outlook

Beyond the immediate security environment, two large developments are a signal of Washington's current strategic thinking in relation to Iraq. The first is the opening up of Iraqi oil reserves to thirty-five companies in a bidding competition to increase oil production. At the outset the process involves six oilfields, though five short-term contracts are also being offered to American and European companies (see Sudarsan Raghavan & Steven Mufson, "Iraq Opens Oil Fields to Global Bidding [8]", Washington Post, 1 July 2008).

The opening of the Iraqi oil industry to private companies represents a major departure from the nationalised industry of the Saddam Hussein era. Such a process was an early aim of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA [9]) established in the wake of the US invasion as the key instrument of US political control in the post-Saddam flux. Many believed and more hoped that a partially functioning Iraqi government has been able to take an independent line on this issue, though it now appears that the process of privatisation has been closely overseen by a group of American advisers. This group itself, moreover, was led by a team from the US state department, thus giving the George W Bush administration a direct role in the process (see Andrew E Kramer, "U.S. helped Iraqis on oil contracts [10]", International Herald Tribune, 1 July 2008).

This series of columns has consistently argued that the primary purpose of the termination of the Saddam Hussein regime was less to gain control of Iraq's oil reserves, even if they were around four times the size of US domestic reserves; rather, it was the location of Iraq in a region containing nearly two-thirds of all of the world's oil that was more significant (see, for example, "Iraq's danger signals [10]", 13 December 2007). Nonetheless, the manner in which Iraq's oil is coming under external control does begin to give some credence to those who claim a more direct connection between Iraq's oil and the decision to go to war.

The plan to expand Iraqi oil production carries a real concern for its designers: that the pipelines and processing plants will be vulnerable to the kind of insurgent activity that inflicted such enormous economic damage in 2004-05. This fear may be connected with the second large development - the plan to maintain US military forces at current levels for at least until mid-2009. The last of the five additional combat-brigades that formed the year-long US "surge" is now departing the country, but plans are already underway to bring 30,000 fresh troops into the country early in 2009 (see Lolita C Baldor, "U.S. To Send 30,000 Troops To Iraq [11]", Associated Press, 28 June 2008). These will replace existing contingents in a routine fashion, but what is less remarked is their effect on overall US deployment; namely, that that 142,000 troops will remain in Iraq, a number actually 7,000 more than were present before the surge began in February 2007.

It is always possible that violence will decrease to the extent that further withdrawals can take place, but the Pentagon is not currently planning for this. Its calculation is most likely based on a real fear that many of the insurgents are lying low and will return to the conflict in the coming months. If this proves correct, then a likely target will be Iraq's oil installations just as foreign companies are moving in. This too will become clear by November 2008.

The Iran prospect

The Pentagon's current preparation for a major long-term military presence in Iraq is accompanied by a sharpening of rhetoric over the putative threat posed by Iran's nuclear plans. Most of this is at present emanating from some Israeli commentators and some of the Washington-based think-tanks and policy groups that identify themselves with what they imagine Israel's national interest to be.

Most analysts are aware of the capacity of the Iranians to respond to any military attack by the United States or Israel in numerous ways, by (for example) escalating tension in Iraq or engineering a massive spike in crude oil prices. This often leads them as a result to discount the risk of an attack on Iran. Against this, some circles in Washington argue that Iran's capacity to react has been much overplayed; in this view, Iran is actually far weaker than is commonly appreciated (see Seymour M Hersh, "Preparing the Battlefield [12]", New Yorker, 7 July 2008). The conclusion is that now may be a good time to demonstrate resolve by targeting Tehran's nuclear facilities, however limited they might currently be (see Gareth Porter, "'Weak' Iran ripe to be attacked [13]", Asia Times, 1 July 2008).

What has always to be remembered in weighing the effect of these nuances is that there is a bottom-line for Israel: namely, there must never be another country in the region that has nuclear weapons - deterrence must work only one way if Israel is to be secure. In addition, a strong thread within hardline Israeli political thinking in the present political conjuncture (though opinion on the matter is not uniform) is that a Barack Obama presidency would be bad news. He may have sounded hardline over Iran in his speech [14] to Aipac on 4 June 2008, but Obama is seen as a highly intelligent politician with a worrying streak of independence in him (see "Iran and the American election [14]", 5 June 2008).

It is troubling, then - a matter of concern to those in Israel and Washington who seek to resolve the Iran issue by force - that Obama is ahead of John McCain in the opinion polls. Perhaps, in such uncertain and unpredictable circumstances, now is the time to pre-empt Iranian nuclear developments - whatever the costs - rather than wait for an Obama victory and the nightmare prospect of talking to the enemy?

These, then, are the four months that will determine the future of the region and much of the world - not least the long-term security of the state of Israel - for years ahead. Iran and Iraq at the heart of present concern, though the security deterioration in other areas deserves to be noted: Afghanistan and Pakistan (see Julian E Barnes & Peter Spiegel, "Afghanistan Attacks Rise, U.S. Says [15]", Los Angeles Times, 25 June 2008), and parts of north Africa (see Michael Moss, "Algerian militants win new lease on life as Al Qaeda affiliate [16]", International Herald Tribune, 1 July 2008). Whether the incoming White House tenant faces the ashes of a new landscape of war or merely the fallout of the old one, the world is in for a long and bumpy ride.

Links:

[1] http://icasualties.org/oif/
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR200807...
[3] http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080629/ts_nm/iraq_raid_dc_1
[4] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/586350.html
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html?ref=middl...
[6] http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008/06/28/qaeda_claims_iraq_suicide_bom...
[7] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_inside_the_walls...
[8] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/01/ST20080701...
[9] http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/cpa/
[10] http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/30/business/contracts.php
[11] http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=116&sid=1430221
[12] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh/?yrail
[13] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG02Ak04.html
[14] http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/HQblog/gG5CKp
[15] http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/25/world/fg-usafghan25
[16] http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/01/africa/01algeria.php

Peterson Answers Kamm

Tim Holmes — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:43:15 +0000

Yesterday, we published a media alert (http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080625_selling_the_fireball.php), in which we discussed our exchange with Times commentator, Bronwen Maddox. In response, Times commentator Oliver Kamm wrote to us:

Gentlemen,

I have read your latest media alert urging your supporters to lobby Browen [sic] Maddox, Chief Foreign Commentator of The Times. You ask Bronwen for a reference for her comment that the authors of the NIE report on Iran's nuclear programme believe, with hindsight, that "they should have phrased it differently".

The reference is a statement by Admiral Michael McConnell, director of the National Intelligence Council, before the Senate Intelligence Committee on 5 February this year. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana asked McConnell: "You just mentioned that if you had to do it over again [i.e. report on Iran's nuclear programme] without the heat of the moment, some time to reflect, you would have changed a couple of things. What would you have changed?"

McConnell replied: "I think I would change the way that we describe [the] nuclear program; I mean, put it up front, a little diagram, what are the component parts so that the reader could quickly grasp that a portion of it, I would argue, maybe even at least significant portion, was halted and there are other parts that continue."

You'll find the exchange on page 32 of the transcript, here: http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20080205_transcript.pdf

It seems to me that you would be doing your own supporters a service if you were to try answering your own questions before launching imprecations at senior journalists who exercise unreasonable patience and courtesy in responding to you. Conversely, given that your supporters declare on your message board that the BBC World Service broadcasts "blatant propaganda for the Jewish religion", I think Bronwen and the other commentators you target might be forgiven if they are unmoved by your complaints.

Sincerely,
Oliver Kamm

To quickly address the last point, it is amazing that anyone would attempt to denigrate a website on the grounds that it hosted a particular comment posted by a member of the public. Presumably, then, media professionals should revile the Guardian editors, associated as they are with the paper’s Comment is Free website, which hosts all manner of outrageous comments. Maddox was a “target”, not of “complaints” or “imprecations”, but of polite invitations to rational discussion of the facts. Kamm is arguing that these should be rejected on the grounds that a post he didn’t like appeared on our message board. Comment is indeed free, but sometimes superfluous.

Media Lens is very much a collaborative effort. We are assisted by a large number of friends, including specialists and expert commentators in different fields. They are often incredibly generous in sending us advice, comments, references and other help. On this occasion, we circulated Kamm’s email to Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, David Peterson and others, hoping for a couple of comments in response. But Peterson went much further - he sent us a full demolition of both Maddox’s and Kamm’s arguments. There’s little point trying to gild the Peterson lily, so we are very happy to publish his reply as a Guest Media Alert.

We would, though, first like to invite readers to reflect on how confidently the mainstream journalists recited the official propaganda line that the authors of the NIE report had radically changed their testimony to highlight the Iranian ‘threat’. And notice how Maddox in particular strongly asserted that “the IAEA's report a few weeks ago... has injected the new urgency”, which had left the NIE report badly out of date.

As we will see, in an almost identical replay of media performance in 2002-2003 over Iraq, these bold assertions are based on a heap of highly questionable government claims involving captured laptops and the like.

It is also useful to compare the quality of Peterson’s analysis with that of Kamm and Maddox. The chasm in rationality tells us much about why the corporate media is doing such an appalling job of informing the public and in working to relieve human suffering.

Peterson’s response:

Dear David:

What is changed in our reading of [the NIE report] Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities (Dec. 3, 2007) by the little excerpt that Oliver Kamm produces from U.S. National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell's testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Feb. 5, 2008)? Kamm believes that everything is changed. In point of fact, nothing is changed.

In the passage quoted by Kamm, McConnell's phrase is "nuclear program" - not nuclear weapons program. There is no question that Iran has a nuclear program.

Bronwen Maddox had written that the NIE's authors now believe it "gave too much attention to a perceived abandonment of an attempt to design actual weapons, and too little (the authors acknowledged) to two more serious points: the fact that there had been a weapons design programme, the first time that the US had said it had evidence of this; and the rapid progress of uranium enrichment, a much more difficult technical barrier to overcome than the design of a warhead."

I do not know by what criterion Iran has been determined to be making "rapid progress" in uranium enrichment - (a) Iran has been at it for years; (b) both the IAEA and Iran itself report that Iran has achieved a reactor-grade level of enrichment between 4% and 5%; and (c) aside from Washington's capacity to influence the way these matters are treated internationally, what other reason could there be for calling this "rapid progress"?

The source of the allegations about "actual weapons" and "weapons design" is dubious in the extreme. Here was how the Christian Science Monitor explained it three weeks ago:

“But there is a history of imperfect intelligence tips. A report in the Los Angeles Times last year quoted a senior diplomat at the IAEA saying that the CIA and other Western spy agencies had been giving sensitive information, but that ‘since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong.’ The story said US officials "privately acknowledge" that much of the evidence they had on Iran - including the detailed designs described in the current IAEA report, reportedly taken from a laptop stolen in Iran -‘remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove.’" (Scott Peterson, ‘Nuclear report: parsing Iran's intent,’ June 5; http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0605/p06s02-wome.html?page=1)

Because of the way the LA Times archives its material, this article at the moment is inaccessible to me. However, see Julian Borger’s article from February 23, 2007:

“One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran.

"Tehran rejected the material as forgeries and there are still reservations about its authenticity in the IAEA, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency. ‘First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away,’ one official said. ‘The data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer.’ IAEA officials do not comment on intelligence passed to the watchdog agency by foreign governments, saying all such assistance is confidential.” (Borger, ‘U.S. Intelligence on Iran Does Not Stand Up, Say Vienna Sources,’ The Guardian, Feb. 23, 2007; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/23/topstories3.usa)

For another helpful report, also see Ewen MacAskill, ‘Intelligence expert who rewrote book on Iran,’ The Guardian, Dec. 8, 2007.

Anyway. Bronwen Maddox makes her assertions on very weak (and my hunch is officially-sourced and meritless) grounds. Oliver Kamm's use of Michael McConnell's February 5, 2008 exchange with U.S. Senator Evan Bayh changes nothing in our reading of the December National Intelligence Estimate on Iran - most certainly nothing in a direction that warrants belief in Iran's nuclear weapons threat to international peace and security. What is more, to resort to this exchange strikes me as an act of desperation.

On the other hand, where Iran is concerned, the threat posed to international peace and security by the U.S.-Israel axis is as grave or graver than ever. But this is a categorically different point than one derived from U.S. and Israeli allegations about Iran's nuclear program.

Last Point. In an appearance by Oliver Kamm on the BBC's Late Edition program Kamm was once asked a question that (to roughly paraphrase it) went something like this: The U.K. has nuclear weapons. The Government is proposing to upgrade them and to maintain them for decades to come. How do you justify denying nuclear weapons to other states such as Iran and North Korea, but accept the fact that the U.K. and U.S. not only keep but upgrade theirs? Kamm's reply was:

“We are a civilized state. Iran and North Korea are not. It's not just a matter of the way we conduct our own affairs. Iran has conducted systematic nuclear deception, while being a signatory to the [nuclear] non-proliferation treaty.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WHGIxIIr18)

Given that Oliver Kamm has placed himself within the "clash-of-civilizations" camp, on the civilized side of the great divide, no less, I for one may be forgiven if I am unmoved by his defense of Bronwen Maddox and the Washington regime's allegation that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

And I trust that the rest of Media Lens's supporters will be equally unmoved.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA
davidepet@comcast.net

Postscript. For the sake of the Media Lens archives, I will reproduce here the relevant excerpt from Michael McConnell's February 5, 2008 exchange U.S. Senator Evan Bayh; three contemporaneous reports that dealt with Michael McConnell's testimony; and an op-ed by John R. Bolton, wherein this quite brutal American pre-emptively attacks McConnell on the very day McConnell was scheduled to testify before the U.S. Senate:

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9480#9480

SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Oliver Kamm
Email: oliver.kamm@tiscali.co.uk

Write to Bronwen Maddox at the Times
Email: bronwen.maddox@thetimes.co.uk

Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org

The Media Lens book ‘Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media’ by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published in 2006. For details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here:
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php

Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate

We have a lively and informative message board:
http://www.medialens.org/board

Selling The Fireball: Bush and Iran

Tim Holmes — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:57:56 +0000

When George Bush arrived in Britain last week as part of his "farewell tour", the real reasons for the visit were buried well out of sight. The tour was not, as the Guardian suggested, a mere "continental au revoir". The purpose was to coerce Gordon Brown into raising troop levels in Afghanistan and to support toughened sanctions on Iran. Bush said pressure on Iran was necessary to "solve this problem diplomatically", but warned: "Iranians must understand, however, that all options are on the table." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7456081.stm)

The remarks raised fears in London that Bush is "determined to take action against Iran before he leaves office in January," the Independent reported. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/bush-threatens-iran-wit...)

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), warned that any attack on Iran would transform the region into a "ball of fire." Even from the West's point of view an attack would be disastrous:

"A military strike would spark the launch of an emergency programme to make atomic weapons, with the support of all Iranians, including those living abroad." (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWSpmwY-Ckcf_V2Kf5RRNOgDh7Hg)

ElBaradei added that an attack would make it impossible for him to continue as head of the IAEA.

In support of Bush warmongering, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared, on cue:

"Today, the most immediate threat is that of a terrorist attack. Thanks to the effectiveness of our security forces, France has not been attacked in recent years. But the threat is there, it is real and we know that it could tomorrow take on a new form, even more serious, by nuclear, chemical and biological means." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7458650.stm)

Sarkozy's propaganda contribution was splashed all over the BBC website as "Breaking News." The previous weekend, the Times had hinted at machinations behind the scenes, noting that "the French President has quite deliberately donned the mantle once worn by Tony Blair, defiantly - even triumphantly - talking up his love for all things American". (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news/world/europe/article4133574.ece)

Sarkozy had delighted Washington by saying the West must choose between "an Iranian bomb and the bombing of Iran". "The frost is over," according to one French government aide. "We want to show the warmth that now exists between the two countries after the frictions of the recent past." (Ibid)

The "warmth" translates as French obedience to US power - a policy change which will make France far more, not less, likely to be targeted for terrorist attack, particularly if Iran becomes the next victim of a US-led terrorist 'coalition'.

Madness In Search Of War

The BBC also found space to boost Bush-Brown propaganda:

"Iran has been accused of not co-operating with the UN over its nuclear programme, amid fears it is enriching uranium to use in weapons." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ uk_news/politics/7456081.stm)

No mention was made of last November's US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which summarised the work of the 16 American intelligence agencies. The report disclosed that Iran had not been pursuing a nuclear weapons development programme for the previous four years:

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme."

The report added:

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons programme suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/ world/2007/dec/04/politics.topstories3)

It is 'balanced' BBC reporting to mention alleged "fears" about Iran as genuine, but not to mention an intelligence report that undermines the credibility of those fears. This, recall, even as the catastrophe in Iraq - based on identical US-UK propaganda and identical BBC servility - is ongoing.

We asked Bronwen Maddox, chief foreign commentator at the Times, why she had failed to mention the NIE report in her June 17 article on Iran. She replied on June 17:

Good morning. You don't introduce yourself, beyond your name, so I have no sense of whether you are professionally involved in the subject, or are simply interested. I'll answer assuming the latter.

I have written extensively on the NIE. But things move on, and the comments since November by the NIE authors that they should have phrased it differently have helped change the mood. The phrasing gave too much attention to a perceived abandonment of an attempt to design actual weapons, and too little (the authors acknowledged) to two more serious points: the fact that there had been a weapons design programme, the first time that the US had said it had evidence of this; and the rapid progress of uranium enrichment, a much more difficult technical barrier to overcome than the design of a warhead.

The NIE report unfortunately gave Iran a propaganda coup, but did not, in the opinion of IAEA inspectors, portray a lower threat than was already discerned.

Really, though, it is the IAEA's report a few weeks ago which has injected the new urgency. So in blunt answer to your question, as I write a daily, short running commentary on current news, I didn't mention the NIE directly as it is too out of date for the purposes of yesterday's piece.

Very best and thanks for taking the trouble to write.

Bronwen Maddox
Chief Foreign Commentator
The Times

We replied on June 23:

Dear Bronwen

Many thanks for such a speedy response; it's very much appreciated. I'm co-editor of Media Lens, a website that monitors media issues.

You write that the NIE report authors commented "that they should have phrased it differently". Have you got a reference for their comments, please?

You also write that the IAEA report in May "has injected the new urgency."

The report noted that "substantial explanations" were still lacking for documents suggesting that Iran had worked on atomic bomb-related explosives and a missile warhead design. But these are documents introduced into the process at the very last minute by Washington in early February. Given the US record of inventing evidence on Iraqi WMD, isn't it reasonable to assume that these may prove to be baseless allegations designed to prevent the IAEA from resolving all "outstanding issues" with Iran as part of US warmongering?

You write "I didn't mention the NIE directly as it is too out of date for the purposes of yesterday's piece."

But why, then, did you not mention a June 15 Reuters report that noted:

"Analysts believe that offering Iran security guarantees, an idea floated by Russia, could help end the deadlock, seeing such guarantees as Iran's fundamental goal given the Bush administration's 'regime change' policy toward it." (Parisa Hafezi, Reuters, June 15, 2008)?

The US has refused to withdraw its threats. This is technically a criminal act (the UN Charter forbids the issuing of threats) and a sure way to prevent diplomacy. Indeed, in May 2007, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the hawkish National Security Adviser during Jimmy Carter's presidency, called the US approach on Iran "clumsy" and "stupid". He noted that the US had insisted that the Iranians give up their right to enrich uranium as a precondition for a serious dialogue on the subject. Brzezinski commented:

"I frankly don't understand how anyone in his right mind would make that condition if he were serious about negotiations, unless the objective is to prevent negotiations." (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles? article=a_conversation_with_zbigniew__brzezinski)

Again, you appear never to have mentioned Brzezinski's view. Why is that?

And why did you not mention the view of the Saudi press earlier this year in response to Washington's efforts to line them up in an anti-Iranian crusade? Arab News commented:

"In his confrontational remarks about Iran, he offers no carrot, no inducement, no compromise-only the big U.S. stick. This is not diplomacy in search of peace. It is madness in search of war." (http://www.cfr.org/publication/15352/bush_ fails_to_convince_arab_states_about_iran.html)

That observation is also not out of date, and has also not been mentioned by the Times.

Finally, why did you not mention the call for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East? Polls suggest that such an initiative is supported by 75% of the American people, Iran would almost certainly accept it, and the US-UK are specifically committed to it.

After all, Bush, Blair and Brown have all attempted to offer a legal cover for the Iraq invasion by appealing to UN Resolution 687, which calls on Iraq to end its production of weapons of mass destruction (which Bush and Blair of course claimed it had failed to do). Article 14 calls on parties to establish a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. This is an embarrassment to the United States and particularly to Israel, which has 150-200 nuclear warheads it is not about to give up.

Best wishes

David

We have received no further reply.

Bush - The Damage To America's "Image"

The deep-seated tendency of the elite media to bury the crimes of the powerful will be well to the fore as Bush prepares to leave office. Thus, a Guardian editorial, 'Goodbye to all that,' observed of the president:

"the damage Mr Bush has inflicted on America's image is impressive, especially with close allies like Turkey." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/16/georgebush.eu)

With Iraq and Afghanistan in ruins, with action on the rising catastrophe of climate change effectively stymied, the Guardian editors chose to focus on damage to America's "image". The editorial concluded:

"Rebuilding global trust will be the major task of the next US president."

This single sentence speaks volumes about the Guardian's conformity, about its refusal to expose the brutal priorities of power. The major task of the next US president will be the same as it has always been. If you are weak and defenceless, or in the way - watch out!

SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Bronwen Maddox at the Times
Email: bronwen.maddox@thetimes.co.uk

Write to Ian Black, Middle East editor of the Guardian
Email: ian.black@guardian.co.uk
Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org

Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us:
Email: editor@medialens.org

Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate

We have a lively and informative message board:
http://www.medialens.org/board