UPDATE Oct. 6, 2009: See Pepe Escobar's excellent article of October 1 in the Asia Times Online. This kind of critical analysis is sorely missed in much of the Western press. I hate seeing people get duped into supporting a war based on lies and innuendos.
UPDATE Oct. 1, 2009: Congressman Ron Paul presents a clear and balanced analysis of the misleading and increasingly vitriolic rhetoric regarding Iran. You can watch it in this Youtube clip:
Why are we so hard-pressed to find an analysis like this in the major newspapers or networks?
UPDATE Sept. 30, 2009: A New York Times article on msnbc.nbc.com, as if responding to my post (for the record, I think that this is unlikely), attempts to quell fears that the same pattern of rhetoric leading up to the war in Iraq is being duplicated with Iran now. The article credits the mainstream media with restraint in reporting the story, compared to its reportage of the war in Iraq six years ago. The Obama administration was also lauded for its more prudent approach where Iran is concerned. But is this true? A lack of analysis or context, innuendos and biased language can have a similar effect as the most hawkish and aggressive rhetoric.
Check out the president's recent comments on Iran, excerpted from Associated Press. Note the language. I've placed emphasis on key words and phrases.
"'Iran's leaders must now choose — they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations. Or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people,' Obama said in his radio and Internet address Saturday."
Click here to read the entire article.
This ultimatum is really an assault on the sovereignty of that nation--whether or not you agree with the policies of the Iranian government, sovereignty is the primary issue here. So, this is not about whether or not Iran is seeking nuclear capability. It's about integration into the New World Order.
Some of the most educated and moderate people in the Muslim world are Iranians.
The only nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel. In Central Asia, both Pakistan and India possess nuclear capability.
The U.S. has implemented some of the most radical policies of the Western Hemisphere in the history of the 21st century, post 9/11. Yet, I have not seen the United Nations speak of sanctions or any strong mandate from the Security Council on the war crimes committed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Pakistan. This is why I often believe that the U,N.--for the most part--is a sham, and the Security Council weak and corrupt.
The news article is eerily reminiscent of the rhetoric we saw in most of the Western press leading up to "Shock and Awe" in Iraq. And guess what. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
It is no secret that Central Asia and the Middle East have been in the crosshairs of the global elites for a long time. You can read about the grand strategy in Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, The Grand Chessboard, and the white paper entitled, Rebuilding America's Defenses, written by the neoconservative Project For a New American Century.
Is Iran a threat? I don't think so. Launching a nuclear attack against Israel is clearly not within the best interest of Iran--not only because of the retaliation from Israel, but the recrimination that would be felt from the united response of the global community. The Iranians are not stupid.
Is Iran developing nuclear capability for weapons. I really don't know. But I know something else: The U.S. hit a record for global arms sales before the end of fiscal 2009, leading the rest of the world in foreign weapons sales, according to Reuters.
Okay, is this an anti-U.S. rant? No. It's an anti-policy opinion. I'm against a hypocritical and unjust foreign policy. People die, lives are destroyed, and countries bombed back "to the Stone Age" as a result. This radicalizes otherwise moderate populations. I guess the policymakers forgot or are ignoring the historical fact, that it was U.S. policy in Iran that moved the country to the far right, and that put the imams in power--a grip that they maintain to this day.
But Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier and made threatening statements against Israel, you say. Did he say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map? This is where my faith in the corporate media completely disintegrates. Actually, it has been disintegrating for a long time. But I will refrain from digression here.
American journalist Robert Parry examines the Western media's irresponsible and, arguably, intentional lack of context when reporting on Ahmadinejad's Quds Day speech, from which the infamous claim was attributed.
Arash Norouzi, in an article on globalresearch.ca, examines the literal translation and the context of Ahmadinejad's speech. After reading Norouzi's article, one has to question the journalistic integrity of much of the mainstream Western news organizations.
A flag-waving, team-cheering press is no different than a "minister of information" or William Randolf Hearst who famously (or infamously) guaranteed, "you furnish the pictures, soundbites or stories lacking context [bold text inserted by author]and I'll furnish the war."
