Selling The Fireball: George Bush And Iran

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.” 1

The remarks raised fears in London that Bush is “determined to take action against Iran before he leaves office in January,” the Independent reported.2

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.3

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.4

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.” 5

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.1

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 2005.6

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.7?

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.8

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.9

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.”

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!

  1. tinyurl [] []
  2. tinyurl []
  3. tinyurl []
  4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7458650.stm []
  5. tinyurl []
  6. www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/04/politics.topstories3 []
  7. Parisa Hafezi, Reuters, June 15, 2008 []
  8. tinyurl []
  9. tinyurl []

Media Lens is a UK-based media watchdog group headed by David Edwards and David Cromwell. The second Media Lens book, Newspeak: In the 21st Century by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2009 by Pluto Press. Read other articles by Media Lens, or visit Media Lens's website.

9 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. evie said on June 25th, 2008 at 12:06pm #

    Dear Media Lens
    The “war on Iran” is all hype, fear mongering, distraction. Odds are extremely good the ruling class do not want WWIII. I repeat – do not want world war III or IV or whatever numeral is favored by the lying ass experts, “insiders” who have yapped about war on Iran for 4 years.

    An attack on Iran, who would in turn retaliate on Israel and coalition troops in the region, and would bring all the world’s white folks into the fray, including Russia, and of course China and India would choose sides, and Latin America would pick sides.

    “The remarks raised fears in London that Bush is “determined to take action against Iran before he leaves office in January,” the Independent reported.” Yeah, yeah, the same thing was said in the run up to election 2004 – Bush would attack Iran to ensure his reelection.

    Attacking Iran, predicted often by the likes of Sy Hersh, etc., has passed its due date, several times. The coming attraction/trailers of War On Iran is the liberal/progressive politics of fear.

    War on Iran or a “US led terrorist coaltion” – It ain’t gonna come to the theater. (BTW labeling US troops as terrorists will not further the “movement”).

    Rather than the little sheople studying issues such as failing education, collapsing infrastructure, political corporate social corruption, immigration, inflation, unemployment, internal intentional destruction of the USA, etc. – instead we can run skeered and elect the one who we think will save us from a “future” war which is nothing more than political saber rattling, pissing contest, stalemate, deadlock, b.s.

  2. bozhidar balkas said on June 25th, 2008 at 2:15pm #

    i’m doubtful that EU/US/IOF will attack iran. only extremely hateful people wd attack iran. remember, they r not dumb but imbued w. pathological hatred.
    i do not see a single causative factor for attacking iran.
    there was not a single causatie factor for invading afgh’n and iraq.
    wars never go as predicted; prediction being, that US/IOF/EU can destroy all iranian nuclear energy production plants.
    even use of nuclear bombs may not be able to stop iran in whatever it is ab to make.
    we can also expect that world wd be enraged like never before if Nbombs were used. radioactive fallout may harm even some of the EU countries, turkey, russia and other regions.
    thus i hope US is bluffing and hoping to, by mere threats, to persuade iran to abandon its atomic energy work.
    but few if any nations wd succumb to threats. iran won’t, i believe.
    thank u

  3. Deadbeat said on June 25th, 2008 at 3:25pm #

    i’m doubtful that EU/US/IOF will attack iran. only extremely hateful people wd attack iran.

    This is an extremely naive perspective but one that is all too common on the “left”. That is because many on the “left” is in denial about the influence that Zionism has especially on U.S. Foreign policy. It’s influence is why the nation got mired in Iraq.

    See: Project For A New American Century (PNAC)

  4. Arch Stanton said on June 25th, 2008 at 4:15pm #

    So evie, I assume you think WWIII is a bad thing? I also assume you don’t watch too much TV.

  5. evie said on June 25th, 2008 at 4:32pm #

    Zionism – first and foremost – is about profit/greed. Ideology is the smokescreen.

    PNAC – one of 100s of sociopolitical stink tanks. Creative writers who dream up excuses, causes, ideology, to cover profiteering via war, and other methods which are slower but more palatable (humanitarian “aid”).

    People always want 1 group they can definitively point to (other than their own social unit) and say “Yep Bubba, it’s all the fault of them damn ____ (fill in name of favorite scapegoat).

    Tell me, how does Zionism hold such a grip on the USA’s short and curly? Does it also control Europe? Is it done by payoffs or polaroids or both?

    Lemme see Bubba, who’s on the goat list so far … Bilderbergers, Neocons, Illuminati, the antichrist, the Pope, Islamofascists, second coming Jesus freaks, shape shifters, reptilians among us, Pod People, the Secret Team, the Final Stand of the White Race, the Masons, AIPACkers, Knights of the Templar, and Zionists (bad Jews) .

    Thank goodness the CIA is not in on any of this stuff.

  6. evie said on June 25th, 2008 at 4:36pm #

    Arch
    Of course another world war is a bad thing. I try not to watch TV – there’s a reason it is called the “boob tube.” Don’t suck on it too much.

  7. Tony S. said on June 26th, 2008 at 6:21am #

    I guess any delusions of European “independence of thought” are finished. European thought is apparently lock-step with George W Bush’s fascist leadership. Once again Europe does not see the fascist threat.

  8. Arch Stanton said on June 26th, 2008 at 11:23am #

    I was being facetious evie because you post like you have a brain in your head. On the other hand, there’s Thomas Gray: “Where ignorance is bliss, ‘Tis folly to be wise.”

  9. evie said on June 26th, 2008 at 11:52am #

    Ok Arch. Thanks. I used to wonder if blissful might not be a better state to be in. ;)