Exclusive: The New York Times continues its slide into
becoming little more than a neocon propaganda sheet as it followed the
Washington Post in publishing an op-ed advocating the unprovoked bombing of
Iran, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
If two major newspapers in, say, Russia published major articles openly
advocating the unprovoked bombing of a country, say, Israel, the U.S. government
and news media would be aflame with denunciations about “aggression,”
“criminality,” “madness,” and “behavior not fitting the Twenty-first
Century.”
But when the newspapers are American – the New York Times and the Washington
Post – and the target country is Iran, no one in the U.S. government and media
bats an eye. These inflammatory articles – these incitements to murder and
violation of international law – are considered just normal discussion in the
Land of Exceptionalism.
On Thursday, the New York Times printed an op-ed that urged the bombing of
Iran as an alternative to reaching a diplomatic agreement that would sharply
curtail Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it was used only for peaceful
purposes. The Post published a similar “we-must-bomb-Iran” op-ed two weeks
ago.
The Times’
article by John Bolton, a neocon scholar
from the American Enterprise Institute, was entitled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb
Iran.” It followed the Post’s op-ed by Joshua Muravchik, formerly at AEI and now
a fellow at the neocon-dominated School of Advanced International Studies at
Johns Hopkins. [For more on that piece, see Consortiumnews.com’s “
Neocon Admits Plan to Bomb Iran.”]
Both articles called on the United States to mount a sustained bombing
campaign against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities and to promote “regime
change” in Tehran. Ironically, these “scholars” rationalized their calls for
unprovoked aggression against Iran under the theory that Iran is an aggressive
state, although Iran has not invaded another country for centuries.
Bolton, who served as President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United
Nations, based his call for war on the possibility that if Iran did develop a
nuclear bomb – which Iran denies seeking and which the U.S. intelligence
community agrees Iran is not building – such a hypothetical event could touch
off an arms race in the Middle East.
Curiously, Bolton acknowledged that Israel already has developed an
undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal outside international controls, but he didn’t
call for bombing Israel. He wrote blithely that “Ironically perhaps, Israel’s
nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region
understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were
intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.”
How Bolton manages to read the minds of Israel’s neighbors who have been at
the receiving end of Israeli invasions and other cross-border attacks is not
explained. Nor does he address the possibility that Israel’s possession of some
200 nuclear bombs might be at the back of the minds of Iran’s leaders if they do
press ahead for a nuclear weapon.
Nor does Bolton explain his assumption that if Iran were to build one or two
bombs that it would use them aggressively, rather than hold them as a deterrent.
He simply asserts: “Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium
enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions.”
Pulling Back on Refinement
But is that correct? In its refinement of uranium, Iran has not progressed
toward the level required for a nuclear weapon since its 2013 interim agreement
with the global powers known as “the p-5 plus one” – for the permanent members
of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Instead, Iran has dialed back the level
of refinement to below 5 percent (what’s needed for generating electricity) from
its earlier level of 20 percent (needed for medical research) — compared with
the 90-plus percent purity to build a nuclear weapon.
In other words, rather than challenging the “red line” of uranium refinement
that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew during a United Nations
speech in 2012, the Iranians have gone in the opposite direction – and they have
agreed to continue those constraints if a permanent agreement is reached with
the p-5-plus-1.
However, instead of supporting such an agreement, American neocons – echoing
Israeli hardliners – are demanding war, followed by U.S. subversion of Iran’s
government through the financing of an internal opposition for a coup or a
“colored revolution.”
Bolton wrote: “An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear
infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could
set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a
thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such
action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition,
aimed at regime change in Tehran.”
But one should remember that neocon schemes – drawn up at their think tanks
and laid out on op-ed pages – don’t always unfold as planned. Since the 1990s,
the neocons have maintained a list of countries considered troublesome for
Israel and thus targeted for “regime change,” including Iraq, Syria and Iran. In
2003, the neocons got their chance to invade Iraq, but the easy victory that
they predicted didn’t exactly pan out.
Still, the neocons never revise their hit list. They just keep coming up with
more plans that, in total, have thrown much of the Middle East, northern Africa
and now Ukraine into bloodshed and chaos. In effect, the neocons have joined
Israel in its de facto alliance with Saudi Arabia for a Sunni sectarian conflict
against the Shiites and their allies. Much like the Saudis, Israeli officials
rant against the so-called “Shiite crescent” from Tehran through Baghdad and
Damascus to Beirut. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “
Congress Cheers Netanyahu’s Hatred of
Iran.”]
Since Iran is considered the most powerful Shiite nation and is allied with
Syria, which is governed by Alawites, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, both
countries have remained in the neocons’ crosshairs. But the neocons don’t
actually pull the trigger themselves. Their main role is to provide the
emotional and political arguments to get the American people to hand over their
tax money and their children to fight these wars.
The neocons are so confident in their skills at manipulating the U.S.
decision-making process that some have gone so far as to suggest Americans
should side with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria or the even more brutal Islamic
State, because those groups love killing Shiites and thus are considered the
most effective fighters against Iran’s allies. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “
The Secret Saudi Ties to Terrorism.”]
Friedman’s Madness
The New York Times’ star neocon columnist Thomas L. Friedman ventured to the
edge of madness as he floated the idea of the U.S. arming the head-chopping
Islamic State,
writing this month: “Now I despise ISIS as
much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be
arming ISIS?”
I realize the New York Times and Washington Post are protected by the First
Amendment and can theoretically publish whatever they want. But the truth is
that the newspapers are extremely restrictive in what they print. Their op-ed
pages are not just free-for-alls for all sorts of opinions.
For instance, neither newspaper would publish a story that urged the United
States to launch a bombing campaign to destroy Israel’s actual nuclear arsenal
as a step toward creating a nuclear-free Middle East. That would be considered
outside responsible thought and reasonable debate.
However, when it comes to advocating a bombing campaign against Iran’s
peaceful nuclear program, the two newspapers are quite happy to publish such
advocacy. The Times doesn’t even blush when one of its most celebrated
columnists mulls over the idea of sending weapons to the terrorists in ISIS –
all presumably because Israel has identified “the Shiite crescent” as its
current chief enemy and the Islamic State is on the other side.
But beyond the hypocrisy and, arguably, the criminality of these propaganda
pieces, there is also the neocon record of miscalculation. Remember how the
invasion of Iraq was supposed to end with Iraqis tossing rose petals at the
American soldiers instead of planting “improvised explosive devices” – and how
the new Iraq was to become a model pluralistic democracy?
Well, why does one assume that the same geniuses who were so wrong about Iraq
will end up being right about Iran? What if the bombing and the subversion don’t
lead to nirvana in Iran? Isn’t it just as likely, if not more so, that Iran
would react to this aggression by deciding that it needed nuclear bombs to deter
further aggression and to protect its sovereignty and its people?
In other words, might the scheming by Bolton and Muravchik — as published by
the New York Times and the Washington Post — produce exactly the result that
they say they want to prevent? But don’t worry. If the neocons’ new schemes
don’t pan out, they’ll just come up with more.
- Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
Chelsea Manning now has her own personal
Twitter account, 
.jpg)
