It's hard not to be cynical about the corporate media globally. I just checked Google news for stories about Iran. There are literally thousands of them. I sampled a large number, over 90 minutes and, for the most part, they are essentially the same: implicitly evil Iran has "snubbed" the US, EU and Russia by refusing to stop enrichment of uranium and begin negotiations. All stories either simply assert Iran is making a bomb or is alleged to be making a bomb. The US is presented as leading the campaign to impose further sanctions on a country that - so far - hasn't done anything it isn't completely entitled to do under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. A treaty the US has largely ignored. With 15,000 nukes, the US is fully and excessively proliferated.
I didn't read a single story about Iran that said no one has presented any proof at all that Iran had a nuclear weapons program and then remained consistent on the point. Even if this was acknowledged, the very next sentence then makes it clear this should be ignored. I cite an AP story below that does exactly this. Yet no one has presented any proof. Every story I read took these unfounded claims at face value and simply restated them...again and again and again over the past several years.
A few stories today gave some background and said Iran was refusing to stop enrichment because it had already done so from 2002 to 2005 and got absolutely nothing out of it. Negotiations went nowhere. So now Iran will only negotiate with the centrifuges spinning. It has no leverage otherwise. But most stories are almost entirely from the US / "western" perspective.
What amazes me is that after all the lies the Bush Administration fed the world's media about Iraq and a host of other subjects, that same media still slavishly reprints more of the same day after day....and backing it up with columns and editorials castigating Iran.
I have yet to find ONE major newspaper anywhere with an editorial line that recognises NO PROOF of any of the allegations against Iran has ever been presented - by anyone.
For the blackout on that simple truth to be so complete, chance cannot be a factor and opinion isn't an option. How do we account for this, given the facts themselves do not support the line taken?
Admittedly, I have not read every one of the thousands of newspapers out there. But my sample is not small, across months, and the results of my informal survey are uniform.
Meanwhile, the
US is selling Israel bombers large enough to carry nukes to strike Iran. The Germans are selling Israel more submarines (Israel already has 3) capable of firing nuclear missiles at Iran (or anyone else it chooses).
Israel has explicitly said it is planning to use nuclear weapons to strike Iran if - and you have to LOVE this:
"If Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon," said Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking at a policy forum in Washington last week.
So they have no proof and they openly admit it....and carry on escalating anyway.
One might well wonder how selling a nuclear-armed and arguably paranoid Israel more and better ways to deliver nukes on its neighbours is aiding the cause of world peace. Nuclear non-proliferation this is not. Perhaps that is what this is all about. Conjure up some threat to allow Israel to be armed to the teeth and be part of the controversial US missile shield program and Russia can't object. Blowing smoke to hide the real agenda.
The same AP report linked to, after making it clear no one has any proof Iran has a nuclear weapons program, carries on the report as though Iranian nukes are a fact:
"With sanctions and diplomacy still the international community's preferred method to get Iran to stop building the bomb, an Israeli strike does not appear imminent."
Iran is supposed to stop making a bomb no one has any proof they are making and which Iran has denied repeatedly it is making.
What about those denials? Iran says it will need nuclear power for the day when its oil runs out. Iran's oil is heavy stuff and energy intensive to refine. Surprisingly, Iran is
dependent on foreign refineries for petrol and diesel. It's access to these - and the funds to pay for them - have been the target of sanctions. No wonder Iran wants to free itself from this sort of vulnerability by seeking alternative power sources.
Iran - an Islamic theocracy - has
declared nuclear weapons to be un-Islamic and contrary to the will of Allah. That is like the Vatican building nukes after the Pope says they are the work of the devil.
I don't think Iran could give anyone any assurances stronger than that one, so the current campaign against Iran isn't about assurances or guarantees. It's also ikely to be, in part, about cornering a rising regional power who wanted to trade oil in Euros....and using any pretext to do it. One gets the impression no matter what Iran did, the goal posts would be racing around the paddock and the US claims would remain the same. Let's also not forget the US is currently funding $400 million worth of
covert ops against Iran. Mosques and cars have been blowing all around that country for months.
The media who would claim to be credible and trustworthy lap it all up and in some cases, like Fox News in the US, are actively complicit in spreading what can only be described as propaganda. I'm betting when I read the news tomorrow, almost all of it will echo all the same stuff for which there is no proof at all.....and Iran will again be presented as a nasty piece of work determined to destroy Israel despite having
never actually made that threat. At worst, Iran has said it would respond if attacked. Not that it would launch an unprovoked war. On the contrary, it is Israel who has been making threats against Iran,
year on year.
Even the AP report admits that what Iran said about Israel is disputed, then errs in the details of what is disputed.
"The Iranian leader has in the past called for Israel's elimination, though his exact remarks have been disputed. Some translators say he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," while others say a better translation would be "vanish from the pages of time" — implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed."
There doubts. Where there is no proof at all there can be only doubt.
What we DO have proof of is that the Bush Administration lies. A lot. But you'd never know it from reading the newspapers on any given day. Even some of our local columnists, usually on the Right, like
Fran O'Sullivan, strongly buy into these unfounded claims. Why is that? Why don't the facts matter? Why are proven liars believed without question?
