Recently the New York Times called on the Senate Intelligence Committee "to finally hold the Bush administration accountable for the fairy tales it told about Saddam Hussein's weapons."  The May 7 editorial focused on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pre-war lies about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. The editors described Rumsfeld's attempt to cover-up the lies as "profoundly twisted." (1) 

"Profoundly twisted" is strong language.   
 
In 2002 and 2003 the Times was not so refreshingly outspoken. During the build-up to the Iraq War the Times faithfully reported the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld lies about Saddam's "mushroom cloud" and "bioweapons in mobile trailers" with nary a challenge. 
 
Question: In 2006, will the Times unquestioningly report all the Bush administration's bombast, bluster -- and lies -- in the build up to the War against Iran?   
 
Thus far, the reportage on Iran is not encouraging.  It's not just the constant harping on Iran's "demands" or Iran's "defiance." (This wording, of course, makes Iran seem unreasonable and intransigent.)  More of a problem is what is not covered.  It's what media critic Norman Solomon has called "media omissions." (2)  
 
As the Bush administration ratchets up the rhetoric against Iran, key facts are absent in the coverage in the Times -- and other media.  
 
On April 14, 2006 the Times commented that Iran continued to "defy the calls for a suspension of fuel production." (3) Unmentioned in the article: Iran does have the right to enrich uranium -- just like any of the other 187 signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The point of the treaty is to allow the signatories to use commercial nuclear power.  This, in turn, means all the signatories are permitted to enrich uranium.  
 
The April 14 article made no mention of the NPT. This is par for the course for most reporting on the Iran situation.  Read any article on Iran and it seldom mentions, much less discusses, the NPT. 
 
Nor is there any discussion of the strange assumption that one party to the treaty, the US, has a right to police or amend the treaty. (Meanwhile the US itself is in contravention of the treaty. The US has failed to implement efforts to reduce its nuclear arsenal as is mandated by the Treaty.) 
 
Also missing: An analysis of the NPT's current status. Such a discussion would reveal inconvenient facts. An example: The nuclear states Israel, India and Pakistan are not members of the NPT. Even so the US has given tacit approval to their nuclear weapons programs of each of these nations. Consequently, as author Edward S. Herman points out, "the US's moral right to challenge Iran is non-existent." (4) 
 
Another major omission in reporting on Iran's "defiant" stance:  Israel's defiant stance. While Iran is resoundingly criticized for not having "full transparency" and not allowing complete inspections, Israel's estimated 100-200 nuclear weapons remain sacrosanct. (5)  
 
Israel's nuclear facilities have never been inspected by Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency or any other representative of the international community. The existence of the nuclear arsenal sitting deep underground in the Negev desert continues to be scrupulously ignored by the New York Times and most other US establishment media.  
 
Also off the radar is the fate of UN Security Resolution 687. This resolution ended the Gulf War of 1991. It was signed by the US and called for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. 
 
If these issues hit and stayed in the news, Bush's drive to war could be derailed.   
 
The idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's fundamentalist theocracy is chilling. This is a country where "honor killing" of women is legal and adulterous women are stoned to death. Gays have been publicly executed. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier and has made verbal threats against Israel. Many Middle East scholars view these threats as rhetorical and more for Iranian domestic consumption than an actual threat of war. For Iran with its no nuclear weapons to start a war against Israel with its hundreds of nuclear weapons would clearly be suicidal. 
 
Yet nuclear weapons are a devastating, horrific weapon in the hands of any country.  No country should be allowed to have them, whether it's the US, Russia, India and other current members of the nuclear club -- or Iran.  
 
Most experts believe that Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons. It's not a surprising development given the US's destructive attack on Iraq. Want to, however, is a far cry from has. (Most intelligence estimates put Iran at 5 to 10 years away from the bomb.) 
 
As many non-proliferation experts have noted, there's time to engage in meaningful diplomacy as opposed to the fake, saber rattling, I'm-going-to-get-you diplomacy of Bush et al. Albeit the possibility for a rigorous, authentic diplomatic effort is slim with the neo-cons in power.  Yet such an effort is dead-in-the-water if the New York Times is, once again, going to act like a poodle press. 
 
Would somebody on the Time's Editorial Board take note?  Don't do a re-run of 2002 and 2003. Don't opt for biased, sloppy reporting. This time shun being "in sync with lies told repeatedly by senior US officials." (6)  
 
This time, please, vigorously question the power brokers in Washington, DC. 
 
Mina Hamilton is a writer based in New York City. 
  
REFERENCES

(1) Editorial, "The Intelligence Business," New York Times, May 7, 2006, p.11

 
(2) Solomon, Norman and Erlich, Reese, Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You, Context Books, 2003, p.29

 
(3) Sciolino, Elaine, "UN Agency Says Iran Falls Short on Nuclear Data," New York Times, April 29, p. 1

 
(4) Herman, Edward S., "Uncle Chutzpah and His Willing Executioners on the Dire Iran Threat: With Twelve Principles on War Propaganda in Ongoing Service," March 15, 2006, www.zmag.org

 
(5) Hersh, Seymour, "The Iran Plans," April 10, 2006, www.zmag.org

 
(6) Solomon and Erlich, op cit, p. 29

Other Recent Articles by Mina Hamilton

* Bush Beckons the God of Pluto: Nuclear Reprocessing
* The Apartheid Wall: Is it Architecture or…?
* New Year's Dinner, 2005-2006
* Luis Posada Carriles: To the US Government, Embarrassment or Asset?
* Ohio On My Mind: Quiz for January 2005
* The Tsunami: Sea Change or Back to Business-As-Usual?
* Wishes for 2005
* Holiday Season, 2004
* Invitation to a Beheading Redux
* Sarin in Iraq?
* The Christian Dogs of War
* Abu Ghraib, Falluja and "All The News That's Fit to Print"
* Najaf, Falluja: How Do We Maintain Our Humanity?
* Bush: While Nero Fiddled…
* The Threat from Made-in-USA WMDs
* "Rifle Shots" and Nuclear Proliferation
* Mr. President, A Few Questions . . .
* Nuclear Energy, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ostrichism 
* Learning the Geography of Syria, USA Style
* Atrocities of War: Qalqiliya and the Apartheid Wall
* (AOL Browsers) Atrocities of War: Qalqiliya and the Apartheid Wall
* “Us” and “Them”: Who and What is a Terrorist?
* International Troops in Iraq: Fighting for "Democracy"
* What's in the Energy Bill? Stealth Nuclear Power Plants
* Not in the News: The Other Blackout
* Thursday, August 14: During the Blackout
* Bush and the Seven Deadly Sins
* In Memory of Abbie Hoffman
* Delusions
* Getting Prepared -- With Apologies to Shakespeare
* The Sack of Baghdad: "Like a Lobotomy"
* Talking About War - On the Subway
* How to Spell Quagmire