Robert Parry

"What's the Arabic word for 'terrorism'? -Iran

If you read the major American newspapers or watch the propaganda on cable TV, it’s pretty clear that the U.S. foreign policy Establishment is again spoiling for a fight, this time in Iran.

Just as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was the designated target of American hate in 2002 and 2003, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is playing that role now. Back then, any event in Iraq was cast in the harshest possible light; today, the same is done with Iran.

Anyone who dares suggest that the situation on the ground might not be as black and white as the Washington Post's editors claim it is must be an “apologist” for the enemy regime. It’s also not very smart for one’s reputation to question the certainty of the reporting in the New York Times, whether about Iraq’s “aluminum tubes” for nuclear centrifuges in 2002 or regarding Iran’s “rigged” election in 2009.

It’s much better for one’s career to clamber onto the confrontation bandwagon. Nobody in the major U.S. media or in politics will ever be hurt by talking tough and flexing muscles regarding some Muslim “enemy.” And, if the posturing leads to war, it will fall mostly to working-class kids to do the fighting and dying while the bills can be passed along to future generations.

More »

Kourosh Ziabari
 

Government-run psy-ops campaigns as a prelude to war

"The continued presence of all options on the table"; this is the disappointing message which a Nobel Peace Prize laureate dispatches internationally. In his latest interview with CBS news, American President Barack Obama refused to rule out the possibility of a military strike against Iran. By saying so, he linked up with former U.S. President George W. Bush, who coined this well-known catchphrase.

Putting the nature of these options aside, the very "table" on which they should be placed is a matter to be considered too. -In terms of legitimacy, who is in a position to decide upon the destiny of Iran's nuclear program? Does the Nobel Peace Prize laureate want to set aside the question of legitimacy and rather engage in power politics? -What is wrong with Iran having a nuclear program? Why, exactly, should a 70-million nation be subjected to crippling sanctions, continued threats of military strike, isolation and economic embargo? What is the definite answer to the simple question that "why should the U.S., France and Israel possess nuclear weapons"? Which nation is the more offensive and violent? -Iran with its nuclear program, which has been demonstrated time and again to not have anything to do with military purposes, or Washington and its European allies, who have started on this adventurous, and aggressive trajectory of threats and sanctions?

More »

Edward S. Herman & David Peterson

"The United States defines what constitutes a "threat" to international peace and security, and as it demonizes the entity alleged to pose the "threat" the establishment media fall into line, help inflame passions about the "threat," and thus facilitate U.S. policy goals towards it, irrespective of the validity or the direction of any real threat. Thus, Israel may have a substantial nuclear arsenal and may have engaged in cross-border wars and threatened to attack Iran, and Iran may have no nuclear weapons, not engage in cross-border wars, and not threaten to attack the United States or Israel, but the ratio of media attention paid to Iran's and Israel's nuclear programs for the seven-year period we studied was 92-to-1 in the New York Times, and 114-to-1 in a very large sample of wire services and newspapers."

More »

John Hankey

There is a financial oligarchy in this country, that tries, by every means available to it, to control all essential political activity, including the education of the citizens, their thinking, the information available to them, etc. Some politicians genuinely see themselves as public servants, and wish to serve the public good. They can give passionate and inspiring speeches, spoken truly from the heart - but they know good and well that if they want to get elected they must carry out the agenda of the elite. All politicians, even those trying to make society more fair, must be brought to heel, one way or another. It is not a simple game. And the tools used to control politicians are varied: controlling the information they receive is often effective; some times bribery or a scandal is necessary. It was necessary to shoot John and Robert Kennedy in the head. The bloody deaths of the Kennedy brothers sent a message to every politician that still echoes today. And I think the evidence shows that Obama received a reminder of this message recently.

More »