Just as the "world powers" – as they’re eerily referred to in news accounts – were rejecting Tehran’s proposal to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent in exchange for lifting the draconian sanctions against Iran, an American cargo ship sent out a distress call near the Strait of Hormuz: pirates were attacking them.
Iranian naval vessels in the area responded immediately, chasing off the pirates – but giving them credit for doing so is apparently beyond the ken of the Western media. Iranian media reports on the incident are being disputed by the Israel lobby’s "Committee for Accuracy in Media" (CAMERA), which disdained the very idea that those Ey-vil Eye-ranians would ever engage in humanitarian behavior. They cite a spokesman for the Maersk Line, the company that owns the ship, attributing the repulsion of the pirate attack to their own security guards: Maersk isn’t commenting further, pending a "debriefing" on the incident.
CAMERA is constantly trolling the media, ever-vigilant for anything that may hurt Israel’s perceived interests. Their foreign overseer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been agitating for a US strike against Iran: ergo, anything good the Iranians have done didn’t really happen.
No sooner was the incident reported, then the CAMERA missive went out to every major media outlet, and the party line was soon established: the New York Times blog ran a story headlined "Iranians Take Credit for Thwarting Pirate Attack on U.S.-Flagged Vessel."
There’s just one problem with CAMERA’s sour grapes: the US government has admitted the Iranians played a significant role in saving the ship from attack. CNN cited a US State Department spokesman as saying "’We were aware of the incident yesterday. The situation was successfully deescalated by the ship’s crew and the Iranian crew.’"
In the world as CAMERA sees it, the Iranians aren’t capable of simple humanitarian gestures: they’re inhuman monsters one might bomb without a second thought. The CAMERA crew lives in a world peopled by caricatures, rather than human beings, where the Forces of Light (represented, of course, by Israel and its Western vassals allies) are eternally arrayed against the Forces of Darkness (Iran, and whatever Middle Eastern country is deemed an "existential threat" to Israel that week).
The American media are frightened to death of CAMERA, which wields inordinate influence on news coverage in this country – a situation mirrored at the governmental level, where the Israel lobby exercises a virtual veto over US policy in the Middle East. We see this in the "world powers" proposal to Tehran, which mandates an end to uranium enrichment in return for – practically nothing. The Iranians were offered medical isotopes, nuclear safety cooperation, and spare parts for civilian airliners – but the sanctions are staying no matter what the Iranians do.
What this tells us – and the Iranians – is clear enough: Washington isn’t interested in solving the alleged problem of Tehran’s nuclear program, which the Iranians say is for peaceful purposes only. What they want is regime change in Iran, and that is precisely what the sanctions – which exclude Iran from the international banking system, and embargo Iranian oil – are meant to achieve.
Our own intelligence community has told us – with "high confidence" – the Iranians gave up their nuclear weapons program in 2003, and never restarted it. The Supreme Ayatollah, Iran’s chief religious figure, has declared nuclear weapons are a sin against God, and disavowed any effort to build them. In spite of a number of Israeli-generated alarums – including outright forgeries and recycled pre-2003 materials – there is not a single iota of clear evidence Iran is engaged in making nuclear weapons or has any desire to do so.
That isn’t good enough for the "world powers," however – especially including the one not represented at the talks, which is Israel. Washington, London, and Tel Aviv have already passed a death sentence on the Iranians, and all that remains is to trump up a sufficient number of charges before pulling the switch. In the kangaroo court of the "world powers," Tehran is guilty and logically cannot prove their innocence. After all, since the Iranians have the knowledge, isn’t it just a matter of time before they have the means – how can they prove they won’t ever build nukes, even if they aren’t doing so now?
For the Iranians, the negotiations are a Kafkaesque trap: given these conditions, there is no way for them to assuage the suspicions of the West.
Even if President Obama wanted to, it would be almost impossible for his administration to come to an agreement with the Iranians on this issue in a presidential election year. The big campaign money is vehemently pro-Israel, and so is the core leadership of the Democratic party. Being "pro-Israel," in this context, doesn’t merely mean wishing the Jewish state well, or even sending billions in "aid" money at a time when our budget deficit is measured in the trillions. It means using US military forces to fight Israel’s wars. It means spilling American – and Iranian – blood. It means a war that will spread throughout the Middle East, send oil prices skyrocketing, and send the global economy – already reeling from instability – hurtling into the abyss of a worldwide depression.
Oh, but don’t worry: as long as the Israelis are happy, then so are we.
Given the stance of the "world powers," the Iranian nuclear "crisis" is bound to result in war: the United States is merely biding its time, waiting for the opportunity to strike. These negotiations are meant to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security, as well as assuage liberals in the West who vaguely remember the President’s campaign pledge – last time around – to personally meet with Iranian leaders and engage in a "dialogue." What a load of horse pucky that turned out to be!
We are back to my pet theory of "libertarian realism," an analytical framework which shows how foreign policy is made – one that focuses on the centrality of domestic political concerns rather than the reality on the ground in Iran (or anywhere outside the United States, for that matter). Barack Obama, like all politicians, wants power, and now that he’s in office he intends to retain it – at any price. If that means war with Iran, well then so be it.
It’s only a matter of time. These negotiations are but the prelude to the main event: get ready for "shock and awe" over Tehran. It may not come tomorrow, or the day after, but it is coming, of that we can be as sure as we are of anything in this world.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
Perhaps you’ve noticed our spring fundraising drive is in full swing – and that we’ve raised $31,000 in matching funds. There’s just one hitch: we have to raise the equivalent from our readers and grassroots supporters before we get a penny of it.
The War Party is also in full swing these days – perhaps you’ve noticed that, too. They are itching to attack Iran, and have even initiated a series of phony "negotiations," in the course of which they are issuing their non-negotiable demands, squeezing the Iranians with draconian sanctions until they comply. War propaganda is flooding the airwaves and the more Establishment-oriented sectors of the internet: all the Very Serious People are parroting the same party line. The Iranians, we are told, represent a mortal danger to the West – why, they’ve even erected a "missile defense" system over Europe that is supposedly guarding Prague against the non-existent danger of an Iranian missile attack. It’s just a coincidence, of course, that our military-industrial complex is reaping enormous profits from this "defense" boondoggle.
War is where the money is – in peace, not so much. The War Party has a virtually bottomless treasury with which to buy all the influence and propaganda it wants or needs: we here at Antiwar.com, on the other hand, live hand-to-mouth. But that’s okay, because we don’t need billions to counteract their clumsy and unconvincing propaganda: no normal person believes them, anyway. It’s just inside the Washington Beltway that they wield a decisive influence. And that is precisely their Achilles heel: we have the war-weary public on our side. But we can’t reach them without your help – and with the American ambassador to Israel assuring the Israelis that our war plans are in place and ready to launch, we need your help now more than ever.
Please – if you haven’t given yet, now is the time to make your tax-deductible contribution to Antiwar.com. Help us get those matching funds – and put us over the top. Donate to Antiwar.com today.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- Up Against the FBI – May 23rd, 2013
- Antiwar.com vs. the FBI – May 21st, 2013
- Two Cheers for ‘Isolationism’ – May 19th, 2013
- Our Civil Liberties, RIP – May 16th, 2013
- Raping the World – May 14th, 2013
mick
May 24th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
I realize what you say about Obama. However Ron Paul is not going to be elected as president. If Romney gets elected it is war with Iran for sure. And at the very least a new Cold War with Russia. So it is Obama or nobody. If you do not see it that way, Justin, or anyone else, you are in serious denial.
Nelson_2008
May 24th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Iran should make it publicly known that, if it's attacked, it will target the spent fuel pools at Fukushima. If Iran's nuclear facilities are fair game, then so are everyone else's. I wonder how "world powers" would like an uninhabitable Northern hemisphere.
sherban
May 24th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Israel is seen as one of the four countries with a bad influence in the world (the others are:Iran,North Korea,Pakistan).Only three countries gave a favorable opinion on Israel:US,Kenya and Nigeria.For the first time the polls made in Germany,France,England show a negative opinion on Israel and already in a clear proportion.Russia,China,Turkey and the rest of the world oppose war.I believe that the "free world" will sooner fall apart on more sanctions against Iran.For the first time in Israel important personalities take stand against war and accused Bibi of incompetence.I see that Haaretz changed the slogan "Iran threat"with "Iran debate".So,IMHO,is that the war party is going to lose.A whore as Sarkozy is gone.And beyond all the war is imbecile ,unnecessary,and with devastating consequences.All these could make even an empty person like Bibi to restrain.
Oswaldwasalefty
May 25th, 2012 at 12:11 am
The nuclear issue is a red herring, obviously. So what is the real issue? It's really very simple. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the regime that took over Iran starting in 1979 has refused to pay for the sovereign debts to the U.S. accumulated by the hated Shah regime. I haven't the slightest doubt that these debts are still on the books and being counted. I also don't have the slightest doubt that Washington wouldn't attack Iran if they were to raise the white flag of surrender on this issue. U.S-Iranian relations would be quickly normalized if this were to happen. Just as U.S.-Vietnamese relations were quickly normalized after Hanoi raised the white flag of surrender and "agreed" in 1993, after 18 years of economic warfare, and using China and Cambodia to fight Vietnam, to settle the debts of the hated Saigon regime. This is how you settle accounts with the Godfather in Washington, if you want to avoid the wrath of the military power he has at his disposal.
mickperry
May 25th, 2012 at 1:08 am
Yet another nasty little outfit exposed to a little light of day, and Justin you've come up with the perfect definition of what we just saw in Baghdad: 'a kangaroo court' fits like a glove.
And no Ozzie, the regime that took over Iran in 1954 now wants it back.
june8642
May 25th, 2012 at 4:25 am
The debt is negligible and not a consideration by the U.S. Government. Even if Iran waived a "white flag", it would not deter Israel from dictating to the U.S. that regime change must occur in Iran. The nuclear weapons or uranium enrichment debate is a farce. Israel, through its AIPAC lobby, has dictated to the U.S. Government that there must be regime change in Iran. Subsequently, this will prove its control of U.S. foreign policy and prove to the rulers of all Middle Eastern countries its hegemonic authority over their ability to govern.
richard vajs
May 25th, 2012 at 5:12 am
It is not about oil; it is not about the Embassy seizure in 1979; it is not about old debts – it is 100% about how Israel seems to take great joy in seeing nothing but poverty and destruction all around it. Israel cannot eat its bread and feel satisfied unless all of its Muslim neighbors are starving. Israel can't be happy unless its neighbors are miserable. It builds nothing – it only steals and destroys. It is to the everlasting shame of America, that we aid and abet this perverse and evil little country.
Roger Lafontaine
May 25th, 2012 at 6:27 am
One might say that the American media is CAMERA-controlled.
Duglarri
May 25th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Iran doesn't have to threaten to attack anyone else's spent fuel. The Bushehr reactor is on the targeting list, and hitting that would create a Fukishima in the Gulf; the prevailing winds would blow the fallout over the Gulf States, Saudi, and Kuwait; and contamination in the water would close desalination plants that provide water to thirty million people.
John_Muhammad
May 25th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
And if Iran did an about-face and agreed to new elections immediately, how do you think those would play out? Do Washington and Tel Aviv think the Iranians are going to elect someone who is just going to roll over for their oppressors? Or do you think they'd elect somebody who might take even a harder line against the US and Israel? Do they really think Iran is just going to dump it's entire governmental and legal system because we want them to?
As we have seen quite recently, "regime change" doesn't always- and really rarely- work out the way it is engineered to work by outside forces. We've effected 'regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,and we've seen it happening in Egypt and elsewhere- have any of them proved to be any more friendly towards the West than before?
RickR30
May 25th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
camera can't understand rational humanitarian behavior because, well, they think everyone acts like israelis, that's all they know.
Generalissimo X
May 26th, 2012 at 10:35 am
persia/iran is one of the oldest cultures on the planet. they had sophisticated mathematics, cities, agriculture, poetry and all aspects of modern life while their european counterparts were living in caves, painting their faces blue and killing each other with sharpened sticks. the persian culture pre-dates all three of the abrahamic faiths by thousands of years. that in itself speaks volumes to the absurdity of the modern religious/political conflict transpiring.
everyone knows the criminal cia murdered their leader (mossadeq) in the 50's and installed the shah who'd give mao and stalin a run for their money. after 20+years the mullahs said enough and we act self righteous and blame them for standing up for themselves??! we paid and armed iraq to invade them and iran suffered casualties in the millions. the beligerent, hostile usa rings their country with military bases and it is they who are dangerous? iran is one of the few non-nuke actors in the region and they are a threat? the idea is absurd as it is laughable. i routinely wonder how stupid and/or cowardly a person has to be to believe this lie. it's shameful that a country that was founded by the likes of george washington, ben frankin etc. has descended into such slavish, unspeakable cowardice? the hope at the end of the day really is that all bully's eventually get their due. the laws of the schoolyard apply to the laws of history.
Generalissimo X
May 26th, 2012 at 10:40 am
sure, but look at the elites here. of course they're going to support such a monstrosity as israel. they themselves are demonic sociopathic fiends who get off on suffering. not to mention they make billions on the whole evil enterprise. evil can't exist without enablers and that's where people like the bush family, the clintons, etc. and all the rest come into play. and look at the hereditary aspect, most of these people's families have been doing the same thing for generations. no accident there either.
guest
May 26th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Another reason why Iran is being targeted for a "regime change" is not even mentioned in this article or anywhere else on antiwar.com.
The oil and gas reserves in and around the Caspian Sea…
The West doesn't want to rely on Russian pipelines (this is important) and the proposed Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey pipeline is unlikely to be built after the 2008 Russia-Georgia War (this too is important).
Building that pipeline across Iran from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf begins to look like a much better idea.
Of course a client regime has to be installed first.
This is about Western power and money, not about what Israel wants. Wake up people. I'm not saying that Israel isn't lobbying hard for this war but you need to look at the big picture and connect the dots.
Expect the Iran War to begin after the 2012 election. And it truly doesn't matter if Obama or Romney wins. Really.
The race for the oil and gas in the Caspian Sea began after the Soviet Union collapsed, and it made this Iran war inevitable.
Carmelita
May 27th, 2012 at 2:24 am
A vote for Obama is a vote for war with Iran. Obama and Hillary make this very clear.
This is the typical Democrat smoke and mirrors. Obama is for war. Romney is also for war. But there will be other names on the ballot. You can vote for a war with Iran by voting for Obama or Romney. Or, you can vote to stop that war by voting for somebody else. Every voter in this election has a choice between having the blood of the next war on their hands, or voting to stop the next war.
Rop
May 27th, 2012 at 2:28 am
The reason for war is very simple. The US targets any country that does not bow down to it. Any country that tries to follow any sort of independent policy is targeted and must be destroyed. Iran is being targeted because they've publicly refused to kiss the US' rear end. Since they have refused and tried to assert their independence, then they must be destroyed before they give any other people in the world any uppity ideas like freedom and independence.
Aleksandar
May 27th, 2012 at 3:50 am
I would say that this makes a legitimate case for Iran to build nukes. That is their only deterrent now, might be the difference of not ending up like Libya and being more like North Korea. They may then play right into the hands of whoever is accusing them now of having a nuclear WMD capability, but at least their infrastructure will be saved from the destruction of the "shock and awe".
James
May 27th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
The Shah's debts were small. The Iranians, post revolution, did something that only one other nation, Mexico, achieved successfully…the nationalization of American Oil Company assets. Churchill begged Eisenhower to pull BP's chestnuts out of Mossadeq's fire, which he did. Shortly thereafter, BP sold its Iranian assets to American firms. The Ayatollah finally realized Mossadeq's dream of nationalization, but at American rather than British expense. Mexico,by the way, seized American oil and mining companies during the Depression when that distraction saved them from the usual reaction of the U.S.
Outsider
May 29th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Call me naive, but I'm not as convinced as Mr Raimondo that we will ultimately go to war with Iran. As all polls show that Americans are increasingly against these wars of empire, would it not be folly for Obama to start another war before the election? The people have always 'rallied round the flag' in past conflicts, but would it happen again, given Obama's unpopularity? How would he explain it to his left wing base, who may decide to stay home? I can't see those supporting Romney switching over, given the venom spewed towards this Pres.
I do agree that, if Romney wins, it won't be long before the bombs start dropping on Teheran, especially since the R's are owned by the Israeli lobby. However, is it possible that, if no war starts before the election, it may be avoided? Although many in his party back AIPAC no matter what, I'm not sure that the same can be said for Obama, who many accuse of being anti-Israel. If the Pres wins a 2nd term and is able to avoid this catastrophe, he may yet earn the Nobel Peace Prize that was given to him prematurely. One can only hope!
Outsider
May 29th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Totally agree with you mick! As more of a libertarian, I oppose Obama on domestic policy and think that Romney MAY do a better job there. However, the war issue, which is life or death, trumps the economy. If Obama is reelected and is able to avoid war before the election, it is at least possible that there will be no war. Unlike GWB and the neocons, Obama, despite his use of drones and his bombing of Libya, may be the most rational actor in the bunch and move towards peace after the election.