Still a timely article judging from FOX's documentary
which states the existance of Iran's Nuke WMD program
as a "fact" though it's existance has yet to be proven.
**************************************************************
The Coming War on Iran January 30, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01302006.html
Fox News Fans the Hysteria
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
In keeping with its established role as purveyor of disinformation,
Fox "News" talking head Brit Hume misreported Fox's own poll. On
"Special Report" (January 26) Hume said that 51% of Americans "would
now support" air strikes on Iran. What the poll found is that if
diplomacy fails, 51% would support air strikes.
Can we be optimistic and assume that diplomatic failure does not
include orchestrated failure by the Bush administration? Alas, we
cannot expect too much from the American people as even the corrected
report indicates a majority of the population in thrall to
disinformation.
The only "evidence" that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons is mere
assertion by members of the Bush administration and the neoconsevative
press. Iran says it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and the
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors say there is no evidence
of a weapons program.
Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Under the
treaty, signatories have the right to develop nuclear energy. All they
are required to do is to make reports to the IAEA and keep their
facilities open to inspection. Iran complies with these requirements.
There is no Iranian "defiance." When news media report "defiance,"
they purvey disinformation. The "seals" on Iranian facilities were
placed there voluntarily by the Iranians while they attempted to
resolve the false charges brought by the Bush administration. The
"Iran crisis" is entirely the product of the Bush administration's
determination to deprive Iran of its rights as a signatory of the
non-proliferation treaty. It is just another demonstration of
President Bush's opinion that his word overrules fact, law and
international treaties.
Despite the clear and unambiguous facts, the Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll
reports that 60% of Republicans, 41% of Independents, and 36% of
Democrats support using air strikes and ground troops against Iran in
order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This poll
indicates an appalling extent of ignorance and misinformation among
the American public. The Bush administration will take advantage of
this ignorance to initiate another war in the Middle East.
A majority of Americans have now been deceived twice on the same
issue. Just as there was no evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear
weapons, there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
There is nothing but unproven assertions, assertions, moreover, that
are contradicted by the evidence that does exist. Americans, it would
appear, are so anxious for wars that they welcome being fooled into
them.
One wonders, also, where the 60% of Republicans, 41% of Independents,
and 36% of Democrats think the US will find the ground troops with
which to invade Iran. As the three-year old "cakewalk war" in Iraq has
made completely clear, the US does not have enough ground troops to
successfully occupy Iraq and to suppress a small insurgency drawn from
a Sunni population of 5 million people.
We hear report after report from military authorities that the Iraq
war is straining our armed forces to the breaking point. For example,
a Pentagon study by Andrew Krepinevich (AP news report, January 24)
concludes that the US Army cannot sustain the pace of troop
deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency.
Every military expert knows this to be true, although few can afford
to say it. If we are on the breaking point from trying to deal with an
insurgency drawn from 5 million people, how are we going to send
ground troops into vastly larger Iran with a population of 70 million
people? It boggles the mind that a majority of Americans favor an
impossible policy.
The situation is even worse than it so far sounds. Another recent
poll, a LA Times/Bloomberg poll, finds, according to the LA Times,
that 57% of the respondents "favor military intervention if Iran's
government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear
arms." These are the same respondents, 53% of whom believe it was not
worth going to war against Iraq.
The poll thus reveals the American public as grist for the
neoconservatives' war mill. If a country can produce material for
nuclear energy, it can, with additional facilities and knowledge,
produce material for nuclear weapons. Thus, if Iran exercises its
rights under the non-proliferation treaty, 57% of Americans support a
US military attack on Iran!
American politicians, whose strings are pulled by the American-Israeli
Political Action Committee, despite AIPAC's current engulfment in
spying charges against the US, are demanding, as we will see below,
that the US attack Iran "in order to protect Israel."
One excuse for these demands is the statement by the new Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Europeans should give Israel a
piece of Europe and move the country there. His statement that Israel
should be wiped out was a statement for Muslims, not a statement of a
program of action. The Iranian president is simply elevating Iran's
standing among Muslims by taking advantage of the overwhelming Muslim
sentiment against the US and Israel that President Bush has created.
The American notion that Iran might march into Israel is laughable.
Iran has four routes into Israel: through Turkey and Syria, through
Iraq and Syria, through Iraq and Jordan (or Lebanon), and through
Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Three of these routes are foreclosed by
US troops on the ground, and the fourth by the Turkish Army.
Moreover, Israel has never signed the non-proliferation treaty and
does have nuclear weapons. An Iranian invasion of Israel could be
fatal for Iran.
Why, then, is the American population being whipped up by the Bush
administration and Fox "News" into war hysteria against Iran?
Fox is aggressively agitating for war with Iran. On shows such as
Hannity and Combs, guest after guest--Newt Gingrich, Ollie North,
various retired generals, pundits, and even Democratic
politicians--agitate for attacking Iran.
For example, on January 26th and 27th Liberal Democrat Bob Beckel said
on Fox that the US must "absolutely" attack Iran if for no other
reason than "for the sake of Israel." Democrat Bill Richardson
affirmed that "we need to renew and re-strengthen our commitment to
Israel." Newt Gingrich said that it is so urgent to attack Iran that
it must happen within the next few months. According to Gingrich, Iran
not only cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, but also Iranians
"cannot be trusted with their oil."
On January 27 Democratic strategist Pat Cadell expressed mystification
as to how strongly the polls surged, literally overnight, in support
for attacking Iran.
One wonders if Americans ever think of the consequences of the rash
actions that they say they favor. The Bush administration has placed
Iraq in the hands of the majority Shia, who are allied with Iran,
which is allied with Hizbollah, the strongest military force in
Lebanon, which is friendly to Hamas, the new Palestinian authority.
What response might a US attack on Iran bring from the Shia population
in Iraq? What terrorism might Iran unleash throughout the Middle East?
What US puppets might fall? What consequences might follow if Iran not
only shuts off Iranian oil, but knocks out facilities throughout the
region and blocks oil flows from the Middle East?
Compared to attacking Iran, attacking Iraq was a small if reckless
risk. Nevertheless, the unexpected consequences of the US invasion of
Iraq have prevented the Bush administration from achieving its goals.
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda must be marveling at the rank stupidity
of the American people. Maybe Fox "News" only pretends to be the
Ministry of War Propaganda for the Bush administration and is really
in the employ of al Qaeda.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the
Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street
Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He
is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01302006.html
--
Just some favorite sites:
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe-arch.html
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
.
|
