- In June 2009, a Brookings Institution report titled,
"Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward
Iran" was a regime change policy paper. Pro-Israeli right-wing ideologues
prepared it, including:
-
- (1) Martin Indyk: former US ambassador to Israel, currently
Brookings foreign policy director.
-
- (2) Kenneth Pollack: Former CIA analyst and National
Security Council staff member; current Council on Foreign Relations member
and Brookings Saban Center for Middle East Policy research director.
-
- (3) Michael O'Hanlon: Former Congressional Budget Office
national security analyst, currently Brookings senior fellow for defense
and military policy.
-
- (4) Bruce Riedel: Former CIA counterterrorism specialist
and assistant to the President and senior director for Near East Affairs
on the National Security Council; current Brookings foreign policy senior
fellow.
-
- (5) Suzanne Maloney: Former State Department policy advisor,
currently Brookings foreign policy senior fellow.
-
- (6) Daniel Byman: Former 9/11 Commission staff member;
currently Brookings Saban Center for Middle East Policy research director
and Georgetown University security studies professor.
-
- Report topics include:
-
- military options for disarming Iran;
-
- invasion;
-
- air strikes;
-
- allowing or encouraging an Israeli attack;
-
- regime change; and
-
- containment.
-
- Its introduction stressed "the trouble with Iran,"
asking what should America do about it? It falsely claimed Iran's well
along toward developing nuclear weapons. It also sited "Iranian mischief,"
including "support for terrorist groups," and its "wider
efforts to overturn the regional status quo."
-
- It claimed alleged "incontrovertible" evidence
that "Iran has aided groups seeking to overthrow the governments of
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain (and arguably Lebanon and Israel as well)
at various times," but didn't reveal it.
-
- In addition, it claimed alleged evidence shows "Iran
may have encouraged (perhaps even ordered) various groups to mount attacks
that have derailed (Israeli - Palestinian) peacemaking efforts."
-
- It asked if Washington "should (be) willing to accept
the Islamic Republic at all."
-
- Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 200 years
and threatens none now. However, Brookings called Tehran a threat to America,
when, in fact, Washington very much threatens Iran, the region and other
independent states worldwide.
-
- Brookings ignoried America downing Iran Air 655 in July
1988 in Iranian air space, killing 290 passengers and crew on board. Instead,
it falsely accused Tehran of attacking US Persian Gulf naval forces in
1987 and 1988.
-
- In fact, an Iraqi missile struck the USS Stark in March
1987, and the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine in April 1988
in waters it had no business being in.
-
- Brookings stressed "ticking clock" urgency
to act....(I)gnoring Iran is no long a realistic alternative (because)
Iran('s) the bane of the United States in the Middle East."
-
- Claiming its position doesn't "argue for one approach
over another" dismisses its hawkish stance.
-
- America's Media War on Iran
-
- For months, media scoundrels promoted it. They headlined
bogus accusations about Iran plotting to kill Saudi Arabia's US ambassador.
They feature stories about Iran's alleged nuclear threat despite no corroborating
evidence proving it.
-
- On December 29, New York Times writer John Vinocur headlined,
"Clock Ticking for West to Act on Iranian Nuclear Program," saying:
-
- "The Iranian nuclear clock ticks faster and louder
in 2012." Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak said they'll have nuclear
weapons in nine months and move into a "zone of immunity" safe
from attack.
-
- London-based International Institute for Studies anti-proliferation
director Mark Fitzpatrick agreed, calling it "a real possibility."
-
- US defense secretary Panetta believes it in a year, saying
(i)f we have to do it, we will deal with it." Perhaps he means an
election year October surprise after another self-inflicted homeland terrorist
attack blamed on Iran.
-
- Instead of responsible reporting, Vanocur encouraged
war. So do other MSM contributors in print and on air.
-
- On December 29, a Times editorial headlined, "Iran
and the Strait," saying:
-
- Doing it will be countered. "A Fifth Fleet spokesman
usefully reminded Iran this week that the Navy always stands 'ready to
counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation.' "
-
- According to IAEA "inspectors, Iran has created
computer models of nuclear explosions, conducted experiments on nuclear
triggers and completed advanced research on a warhead that could be delivered
by a medium-range missile."
-
- Fact check
-
- In November, outdated, forged, long ago discredited,
and perhaps nonexistent documents were used to claim Iran's developing
nuclear weapons.
-
- During his tenure as IAEA director general (December
1, 1997 - November 30, 2009), Mohamed ElBaradei avoided anti-Iranian rhetoric
and baseless charges. In fact, numerous times he denied a potential threat.
-
- So do independent nuclear experts and America's Annual
Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community as recently as March
2011.
-
- "Tehran's latest threat to block global oil shipping
should leave no doubt about its recklessness and its contempt for international
law. This is not a government any country should want to see acquire nuclear
weapons."
-
- Fact check
-
- Truth isn't The Times' long suit. Baseless charges make
headlines. Fingers are pointed the wrong way. America's appalling contempt
for democracy, human and civil rights, international law and its own is
ignored.
-
- Times contributors dismiss issues of equity, justice,
rule of law standards, and peace. Instead, they cheerlead US wars and promote
new ones.
-
- Presidential aspirant Ron Paul said sanctions aren't
"an effective means to encourage a change of behavior in another country
without war. However, sanctions and blockades are not only acts of war....they
are most often the first step toward" it.
-
- "Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes." No evidence suggests "Iran has diverted
enriched uranium for the peaceful and lawful generation of power toward
building a nuclear weapon."
-
- "We should be clear about this: sanctions against
Iran are definite steps toward a US attack" as they were against Iraq
and Libya. Moreover, disrupting Iranian oil shipments will harm "global
trade and undermine the US economy, which in turn harms our national security."
-
- "This race to war against Iran and Syria is both
foolhardy and dangerous."
-
- Paul added that threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz
is a plausible response without "weapons of mass destruction"
to deter menaces.
-
- In fact, Paul's record on war is mixed. He supported
attacking Afghanistan, but called war on Libya "unconstitutional (and)
a loss for our American Republic."
-
- He opposed attacking Iraq because Congress illegally
ceded authority to Bush. In addition, he claimed it gave UN members say
over US foreign interventions.
-
- He also said GHW Bush sought and received UN authority
to attack Iraq in 1991 because UN Resolution 678 permitted "all necessary
means," implying military force if others failed.
-
- In fact, US ambassador April Glaspie OK'd invading Kuwait
to settle a border dispute over cross-drilling into Iraqi territory. A
recent WikiLeaks release confirmed it: the Glaspie Memo known as 90BAGHDAD423.
-
- Saddam was deceived. Iraqis paid dearly and still do.
The combination of war, sanctions, more war and occupation destroyed the
"cradle of civilization." Millions also died from war, post-war
violence, disease, deep poverty, deprivation, a repressive pro-Western
regime, and belligerent occupation.
-
- Claiming Iran seeks nuclear weapons is a ruse. At issue
is regime change to turn an independent state into a client one. Times
writers, op-ed contributors, and editors know it but feature managed news
and opinion, not truth and full disclosure.
-
- So do other major media scoundrels.
-
- On November 22, a Washington Post editorial headlined,
"More half-measures from Obama administration on Iran," saying:
-
- "By now it should be obvious that only regime change
will stop the Iranian nuclear program. That means, at a minimum, the departure
of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei...."
-
- In other words, whatever it takes is OK, including war
against another nonbelligerent state posing no threat.
-
- On December 30, a Wall Street Journal op-ed headlined,
"Iran's Hormuz Threat," saying:
-
- "The US and Europe are at last mustering the gumption
to target Iran's multibillion-dollar oil industry, and almost immediately
Tehran is threatening to bring Persian Gulf tankers to a halt."
-
- Around 40% of sea-borne oil passes through the strait
or about 15.5 million barrels daily. Disrupting it, of course, affects
all regional producers, including Iran. Catastrophic economic consequences
would result, including skyrocketing oil prices. So would war by bringing
America and Iran into direct confrontation.
-
- "Iran's leaders are trying to see if they can intimidate
(Washington) into backing down. The Western response should be to tighten
sanctions further to show such tactics won't work."
-
- "The episode is also a reminder (of Iran's) character
and intentions....wholly in character for the world's leading state sponsor
of terrorism." Disrupting Hormuz shipments should "be considered
an act of war that would be met with a military response (against) Iran's
military and nuclear assets, perhaps even its regime."
-
- A Final Comment
-
- Iran poses no belligerent or terrorist threat. In contrast,
America, key NATO partners and Israel are global menaces.
-
- Initiating war on Iran and/or Syria could be catastrophic,
especially if nuclear weapons are used. Yet major media scoundrels promote
it, mindless of the potential consequences.
-
- Nonetheless, more war in 2012 is likely because Washington,
Britain, France, and Israel want it, no matter the risks.
-
- Perhaps a September or October surprise will become pretext
to launch it. It wouldn't be the first time.
-
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
-
- Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive
Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central
time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy
listening.
-
- http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
|
