Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

The Black Psy-Ops Campaign against Iran

The Iranian regime is despicable in its lack of respect for basic human rights and in its regimentation of its citizens into a rigid theocracy. But it is no more of a threat to the United States than Burma or the Congo, both of which are just as oppressive. Iran has a very weak military and just isn't a serious threat to any other country. Its values are not US values. But if we are going to do things like send Marines into Iran to force Iranian women to wear bikinis at the beach, we are going to have a very busy century and Arlington Cemetery is going to run out of room.

The warmongers are undeterred.

Taylor Marsh has more on the bogus story from the National Post that Iran was about to make Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians wear identifying badges.

Marsh says that Iranian journalist Amir Taheri says he is standing by his column, which set off the furor, and that the law has been passed and is awaiting implementation. The laws passed by the Iranian parliament are available on the web and in Iranian newspapers, and certainly a law like this would have been written about and published. Could Mr. Taheri provide us please with a URL to the Persian text? If he does not, we have no reason ever again to believe anything he says.*

So we have now a non-existent Iranian law. Hmmm. How many more non-existents must we believe before breakfast?

Well, here is another. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, is reported to have warned that 'Iran was "months rather than years away" from acquiring the capability to make nuclear weapons. "Time is running out. . ." '

Months?

I am typing while rolling around on the floor laughing uncontrollably at this blatant falsehood and hypocrisy. The International Atomic Energy Agency just a little over a week ago said it can find no evidence that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program, as opposed to a civilian energy research program. Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei gave a fatwa in which he forbade nuclear weapons, and the Iranian government denies that it is seeking a bomb. The US National Intelligence Estimate says that if Iran were trying hard to get a bomb and the international circumstances were favorable to all the needed imports, it would still take ten years. And, neither of those "ifs" is in evidence.

Moreover, it is Mr. Gillerman's government that introduced nuclear weapons into the Middle East and that has actually threatened to use them. The Likud government menaced Baghdad with the Bomb in the run-up to the March 2003 War that they helped get up by supplying unreliable intelligence to Washington. It was their way of warning Saddam against trying to hit them with chemical warheads. But, would that have been a proportionate response. Iran doesn't have a bomb, has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and hasn't invaded another country since the 19th century. Israel has hudnreds of bombs, had refused to sign the NPT, and has threatened first use of nukes.

This is just demagoguery and lying.

Mr. Gillerman is, however, occasionally capable of telling the truth. Reuters reports,



"Ambassador Dan Gillerman, addressing a New York meeting of B'nai B'rith International, a Jewish humanitarian organization, heaped praise on U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, jokingly describing him at one point as 'a secret member of Israel's own team at the United Nations.' Noting that just five diplomats worked in the busy Israeli UN Mission, he told the group: "Today the secret is out. We really are not just five diplomats. We are at least six including John Bolton."


Bolton was put at the UN by Bush to get up a war against Iran, though for whom is not entirely clear. He is a notorious liar, who tried to peddle a ridiculous story about a supposed Cuban biological weapons program. He may well be the source of a flight of Judy Millerism that the Iranians had sent evil biologists to Havana to help with a supposed Cuban biological weapons program. Ooooooh. Those Marxist Ayatollah molecular biologist evil scientists are the absolute worst!

Imaginary laws. Imaginary bombs. Imaginary germs. Lies, lies intended to make a war.

If the Iranians were smart, they would dump that buffoon Ahmadinejad and get themselves a less inflammatory president. Ahmadinejad's antics are giving the warmongers in the West all kinds of pretexts to talk war on Tehran. They should take a lesson from what has been done to the Iraqis.

----

* This posting originally contained a criticism of Taheri for extolling the stability of the Iraqi dinar, which I said was artificial because it is a managed currency. Collier Lounsbury maintains that despite the managed character of the currency, its stability is a genuine phenomenon.

Mr. Lounsbury confirms, however, that in a roundabout way, it is Iraq's petroleum that keeps the currency strong. Currency stability is therefore not actually an achievement of the Iraqi or American governments, and, as long as the government did not work its currency printing presses overtime, would be a feature of Iraqi currency under any regime.

8 Comments:

At 4:12 AM, Blogger ejh said...

Typing while rolling about on the floor? Professor Cole, you should have been around in the age of vaudeville....

 
At 8:40 AM, Blogger Tupharsin said...

Bolton, etc. Why? What's in it for him? It's not as though he's Perle with a nice little earner on the side in the arms trade. Or Cheney with stock options in Haliburton. Or does he have? Is it possible that people like him are "taken care of" in that time honored and very direct way? With - needless to say -plenty of cut-outs and firewalls and "laundering" of the untraceable variety securing the "deal" and the "principals" - i.e., the marionette who's making the right noises at the U.N. and is only too happy to be well paid for services rendered and the people who want this war and are able to "buy" the necessary "influence".

 
At 11:45 AM, Blogger Dancewater said...

I think the only way Iran could "take a lesson from Iraq" would be to have nuclear weapons that might deter the DC idiots from declaring war.

And, after visiting several Representatives on the Hill yesterday, they assure me that they are not planning on attacking Iran. They are not even talking about it.

Of course,that says nothing about what the Bush administration might do.

 
At 12:07 PM, Blogger kvenlander said...

Did you see this: A group of Israeli diplomats wants to sue Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5006402.stm

 
At 2:02 PM, Blogger Bravo 2-1 said...

Why is this headlined as "Psy-Ops"?

 
At 3:22 PM, Blogger Daniel said...

Iran had a progressive president. Bush labelling Iran an "Axis of Evil" country set back the reform movement of Iran many years and reform-minded voters gave up and stayed home in Iran's last elections.

Actually, Prof. Cole discussed all this during the run up to Iran's parliamentary and Presidential elections.

As to the "disservice" of Iranian democracy, when the Mullahs can veto laws passed by the people's elected representatives, it is still a "theocracy" which is what Professor Cole called it, not a dictatorship.

 
At 10:26 PM, Blogger M1 said...

You're now officially the top contender for this year's Nobel Meatball Prize. (and that's a very good thing).

Now my Meatball cadre all have to dump themselves out of their wheelchairs and do 100 push-ups for not discovering you earlier.

 
At 5:05 AM, Blogger An ex-pat in Denmark said...

I've been reading this blog daily for about a year, but I've not posted any comments earlier (as I don't consider myself anywhere near as knowledgeable as I'd like to be before commenting), but the latest developments - with the invitation to talks issued by the Iranians - are fascinating.

In the Washington Post, there's a story about this invitation where they say that this represents a major shift and that Iran have always been very reluctant to talk to USA at all. But I believe I've seen statements all over the web (I wish I had links to provide, but alas, I don't) saying that the US has repeatedly dismissed any invitations to negotiate.

What's the deal on this? Has the Iranian government attempted to initiate talks with the US previously (I believe I read somewhere that they have made at least a few efforts since 2001, and I know for a fact that they condemned 9/11 and sent their condolences) and been rejected? Why, if that is the case, have the US rejected this?

I'm absolutely terrified about what is happening, but with the information overload that comes with the internet, I find it hard to find the information I want. Most sources are biased (and I suppose that so is this blog, for that matter) one way or the other.

/Jakob Ronander, Stockholm, Sweden

 

Post a Comment

<< Home