Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Friday, March 21, 2008

Bush Lies about Iran on Now-Ruz





On Thursday, Bush lied about Iran again: "President Bush said the Iranian government has "declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people . . ." The Iranian leaders have consistently condemned nuclear weapons as inhumane and denounced them and said that they don't want them and it would be illegal in Islamic law to use them. Bush is welcome to disbelieve them, but he is not welcome to lie about what they said. He again hinted around that they might have a nuclear weapons program, for which there is no evidence and which flies in the face of the findings of his own intelligence analysts, in the National Intelligence Estimate.

It is all the more insulting that these were Bush's remarks on the occasion of the Persian New Year, which should have been a moment for diplomacy and reaching out.

When Bush's spokesman was pressed for a clarification of Bush's lies, he responded with more lies, saying Bush was referring to a combination of Iran's nuclear ambitions and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threat to 'wipe Israel off the face of the map.' But the nuclear ambitions are civilian as far as anyone can prove, and Ahmadinejad never threatened any such thing.

William Branigan (with Robin Wright) of the The Washington Post notes:

" In an October 2005 speech to a conference on a "World without Zionism," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted by a state-run Iranian news agency as agreeing with a statement by Iran's late spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, that "Israel must be wiped off the map." Iran's foreign minister later said the comment had been incorrectly translated from Farsi and that Ahmadinejad was "talking about the [Israeli] regime," which Iran does not recognize and wants to see collapse.

According to Farsi-speaking commentators including Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, Ahmadinejad's exact quote was, "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Cole has written that Ahmadinejad was not calling for the "Nazi-style extermination of a people," but was expressing the wish that the Israeli government would disappear just as the shah of Iran's regime had collapsed in 1979.

In December, a U.S. intelligence review concluded that Iran stopped work on a suspected nuclear weapons program four years earlier, reversing a previous assessment that Iran was determined to acquire nuclear arms."

Branigan deserves some sort of medal for fearless truth-telling. You can only imagine the sort of pressure he will get over these paragraphs from the Propaganda Corps.

I heard Barack Obama speaking last August, and he said something very interesting. He said words to this effect: "You know how they say that if you repeat a Big Lie often enough, it becomes accepted as reality? Well, the same thing can be said of the truth." If you repeat the truth often enough, you can get it accepted as the truth. Obama, as usual, is right and more-- he reminds us that there is hope, that we don't have to surrender to cynicism or the Propaganda Corps in American political life. I think this WaPo article is the biggest success I've ever had in that regard.

Just to give you an idea of how wrong Bush is, here is what Ahmadinejad actually said in a recent interview in the Spanish newspaper, El Pais:


' Throughout its history, Iran has always been a peaceful country. We have not attacked anybody. Everything we are doing is aimed at defending the country. We think that the age of nuclear weapons is over. If they were useful, the United States would not have the troubles it currently has and the Soviet Union would not have disappeared. The Zionists have atomic bombs, but they are failing against HAMAS. We not only think that the age of nuclear weapons is over, but we are also not interested in building them, because we consider that they are against human rights and dignity. Our security doctrine is a defensive doctrine. '

Ahmadinejad isn't saying something new here. I discussed his earlier statement here:

'"Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression." He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections:

"Weapons research is in no way part of Iran's program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections." '

Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has condemned nuclear weapons, said Iran does not want them, and pledged no first strike with any sort of weapon:

' "Their other issue is [their assertion] that Iran seeks [a] nuclear bomb. It is an irrelevant and wrong statement, it is a sheer lie. We do not need a nuclear bomb. We do not have any objectives or aspirations for which we will need to use a nuclear bomb. We consider using nuclear weapons against Islamic rules. We have announced this openly. We think imposing the costs of building and maintaining nuclear weapons on our nation is unnecessary. Building such weapons and their maintenance are costly. By no means we deem it right to impose these costs on the people. We do not need those weapons. Unlike the Americans who want to rule the world with force, we do not claim to control the world and therefore do not need a nuclear bomb. Our nuclear bomb and our explosive powers are our faith, our youth and our people who have been present on the most difficult scenes with utmost power and faith and will continue to do so. (Chants of slogan, God is great). '

Ahmadinejad says a lot of kooky, bigotted and objectionable things things, and he is a hardliner who has tried to purge liberals. But Bush's propaganda only has the effect of building him up as important and improving his electoral chances.

7 Comments:

At 6:53 PM, Blogger daryoush said...

The mis-quoting and repeating of the mis-quoted statements (in this case Ahmadinejad) seems to have been also been the case against the Pastor Wright's comment on "Chickens coming to roast".

As you have shown, Ahmadinejad was quoting Khomeni. Just as the Pastor was quoting Malcom X. And interestingly in both cases by taking it out of context media has created its own version of reality.

 
At 1:28 AM, Blogger BadTux said...

I've looked at Iran's arms purchases looking for a pattern. The only pattern I've found is that Iran's arms purchases are largely useless for the task of invading other countries. Things like anti-tank rockets and SAM's are useful only for defense. You want tanks and bombers and such to go on the offense, and Iran is not buying those.

In short, words are cheap. But Iran's actions seem to be matching their words in this case. They are buying massive numbers of man-portable anti-tank rockets and SAM's, but it appears that their overall military strategy is similar to that of Hizballah -- wait for the attacker to come to them, rather than vice-versa. Not suprising, given the connections between the Revolutionary Guards and Hizballah...

 
At 2:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Cole,

You wrote,
"Obama, as usual, is right",

When you write that, do you mean -

he's right about unilaterally bombing or sending special ops into Pakistan based on "actionable intelligence"? (where have I heard that phrase before?)

Wholeheartedly supporting and expanding the war/occupation in Afghanistan?

Increasing the size (and scope of operations) of the US military?

Setting an adjustable time frame for "redeployment" of an unspecified number of troops from Iraq over a period of 16-18 months, beginning 8 months from now, while refusing to commit that all troops will be withdrawn before 2012?

Treating Iran as a "threat" to the US and the region?

His unconditional support for Israel, Israel's WMD's, and all Israeli military aggression?

Refusing to pursue impeachment or war crimes charges against Bush and Company?

Do you agree with these positions of his? Or are you simply content to ignore them?

When you write "he reminds us that there is hope, that we don't have to surrender to cynicism" are you even aware that you are just mindlessly parroting his campaign slogans?

 
At 2:37 AM, Blogger larkrise said...

"a moment for diplomacy and reaching out". I doubt that George W. Bush ever thinks of diplomacy or reaching out. He lives so far removed from reality that reaching out is a foreign concept to him. His idea of diplomacy is to send Rice or Cheney to scold and badger, or try to broker oil deals.Rice would like us to think she did some good in North Korea, but it is my opinion that the Chinese did most of the work in that arena. The State Department has lost many good people because of Bush and Rice. It will take years to rebuild the State Department after these two incompetent extremists have wreaked havoc upon it. If Deadeye Dick had his way, the entire Department would be sacked. His idea of diplomacy is to shoot first and ask questions later, if at all. I strongly suspect most world leaders grit their teeth and take deep breaths around Bush, Cheney and Rice. They are counting the days, hours and minutes until they are rid of them. So are the rest of us, who think negotiation and dialogue are much more beneficial than pre-emptive war and the total devastation of countries and their citizens.

 
At 4:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not surprised "Anonymous" chose to remain anonymous.

And "larkrise" -- of course Deadeye Dick asks questions later. Just ask that guy in Texas. "Are you okay?"

But more to the point, given that we have a stated desire for "regime change" in Iran, it's kind of hard to criticize them for desiring the same thing in Israel. But of course, that's different. They're them, and we're us.

Similar to Ahmadinejad seeing the humor in being criticized for "meddling" in Iraq by the foreign country that has 160,000 soldiers there. It's not that he's that clever -- just that, like the rest of us, he has such an easy target in the Bush administration.

 
At 9:57 AM, Blogger G.Gar said...

Actually Bush's threats to Iran never materialise. Objectively speaking, A U.S thorough blow is sole practical way to relive the suffering of the Iraqi people- whpo took 1 million casualties leaving alone, the destruction of the once most developed and progressive country in the Arab world and sending it back to aprehistoric state of chaos

Iran is occupying Iraq along with the U.S through the Iraniased elements ( Badr) as well as the Iranian Forces and intellignece corps who share a common interest with The U.S in wiping out the Arab identity of Iraq; which in turn will lead to a radical change in power relations in the Middle-East in favour of Iran and Israel who share a long term staregic interests in dismantling Arab countries and polities along artificial sectarian lines.


Since many Americans condemn the neo -conservative invasion of Iraq once they have bee well-informed on the on Arab and Iraqi affairs, then they also have, by logical necessity, to condemn the Ayatollahs of the medieval Iran- the parteners in the rape of Iraq.

Admiting that the inavsion of Iraq was wrong is not enough. America has a moral responsibilty to bring things back to normal, that is cutting off the bloody hands of Iran off Iraq and reinstalling the legitmate Iraqi pre-2003 government.

 
At 12:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If one takes what anonymous wrote at 7.36 am, and a minute later, what larkrise wrote at 7.37, one has the actual dilemma well defined.

The policies of Obama, hardly progressive, rather a continuation of imperialist assumptions, is the best on offer. The need for change, however, is staggering.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home