New York Times, Washington Post Create 'War On Iran' Reality
Iran and Maliki Government Firm Ties, As Iran Promises Security To Help 'Secure' Iraq
If the United States, with the help of Israel, attacks Iran in the coming year, the moment that Vice President Dick Cheney gave a chilling, lopsided grin in response to a question about what the US intends to do about Iran will go down in history as the first clear sign that BushCo. was readying for more war :
When Larry King asked Cheney in an interview on July 31, ""Would you make an overt move on Iran?" Cheney said with a grin, "For what reason?" He then added, "I'm not going to speculate about prospective operations."Cheney has been instrumental in preparing the homeland for a series of air strikes on the nuclear energy infrastructure of Iran. Naturally, he has been helped out enormously in this task by the same cabal of warpig NeoCons who created a looming enemy danger out of Iraq in 2002.
And the Washington Post, and the New York Times have been primary in giving voice to the NeoCons and the infamous rollcall of "senior military sources" and "White House sources", just as they did before when most Americans barely even knew the Iraq War was already locked and loaded for March 2003.
President Bush is pumping the claim that Iran are arming, training and funding Shia insurgents in Iraq to attack and kill American troops, primarily through the use of "advanced" IEDs
But how true are those claims? Think Progress rounds up the expert opinions :
– Gen. Peter Pace told reporters he has no evidence of any links between the explosives killing Americans and the Iranian government.
– A National Intelligence Estimate released in February concluded that Iranian involvement was “not likely” to be a major driver of violence.
– A recent McClatchy analysis of U.S. casualties in Iraq confirms earlier reports that the great majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are Sunni Saudis, not Iranians.
Last Thursday, President Bush issued his first clear warning of the military action to come :
Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get tough with Iran.
"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans in Iraq," he said.
He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their government.
"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."
More from Raw Story :
The degree of responsibility than can be placed on Iran and the Shiite groups it supports for current attacks in Iraq is not clear. Until recently the US tended to blame most Iraqi violence on Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda. However, what McClatchy describes as a "growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq" appearing in US media is beginning to remind observers of the media campaign in 2002 that led up to the invasion of Iraq.
Kurt Nimmo writes that Cheney "is getting antsy to kill Iranian toddlers and grandmothers" :
Let’s cut to the chase: Cheney is not “skeptical of diplomacy with Iran,” but rather finds it abhorrent and anathema. As a neocon, Cheney wants to bomb Iran and kill untold numbers of Iranian toddlers and grandmothers—anything short of mass murder will be wholly insufficient. As for this purported “truckload of fighters or weapons,” Publisher & Editor notes: “It was reminiscent of the day in September 2002 when Cheney and other officials went on Sunday talk shows and touted the now-infamous Gordon-Judith Miller front-pager in the Times on the ‘aluminum tubes’ in Iraq and the possible ‘mushroom cloud’ on the horizon.” Of course, plenty of clueless and ill-informed Americans bought into this transparent scam and no doubt many will this time around as well.
Think Progress details how the Washington Post and the New York Times are facilitating the NeoCon push for a War On Iran, through one-sided stories on the "debate" and through the use of non-attributed sources to build a consensus amongst Americans that Iran is already fighting a war against the US through Iraqi insurgents :
In today’s Washington Post, reporter Robin Wright gives neoconservative pundits like the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol and AEI’s Michael Rubin a platform to advocate for military action against Iran. Wright suggests these calls are part of “a new drumbeat for bolder action.” Without offering opposing viewpoints, Wright recycles the preemptive strike theories of her sources — all prior advocates of preemptive military action against Iraq.
Like the NYT’s Michael Gordan before her, Wright uncritically reports the Bush administration’s claim that “since May, the first formal talks between U.S. and Iranian envoys in 28 years have not deterred Iranian support for Iraqi Shiite militias targeting U.S. troops and the Green Zone,” a claim that has become media conventional wisdom.
Iran, meanwhile, knows exactly what is going on :
Intelligence Minister Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, a cleric, said Iran's enemies had waged "psychological warfare" to prepare for military action against the Islamic Republic.
In comments carried overnight by the government-owned Iran newspaper, he suggested the country's successful defence against Iraqi forces during the 1980-88 war and more recent US setbacks in Iraq had, however, forced the Americans to rethink.
"The resistance of the Iranian nation during the eight years of holy war and the defeat of the enemies in the Middle East caused the Global Arrogance (the United States) to put aside the option of a military attack against Iran," he said.
Iran is also locking in a series of new trade, diplomatic, energy and military alliances with the Maliki government. On behalf, of Maliki, the Iranian government is promising to help Iraq sort out its security, but is demanding the US withdraw its forces from Iraq :
These latest move by Iran and Maliki has sent Australia, a key ally in the Coalition of the Willing, into a near state of apoplexy. Australia's prime minister, John Howard, is now demanding the Maliki government meet numerous political goals, and get the Oil Law passed, or Australia will withdraw its forces.
An end to violence in Iraq depends on the US withdrawing its troops, Iran told Iraq’s prime minister yesterday, seeking to deflect blame for bloodshed that the US directs at Tehran.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, facing political woes at home and US criticism for lack of progress in bridging sectarian division, won support from Shiite Iran in a visit to Tehran.
Howard's big demands to Maliki came only hours after the prime minister "discussed Iraq" with President Bush.
Unlike the US, Australia still has diplomatic ties with Iran, and it is looking more likely that Australia will be used by BushCo. to ramp up the pressure. Pressure that Iran, however, is unlikely to feel, or react positively to.
Iran sees no reason why it should play by the Coalition's rules. It has Russia and China on side, and a solid relationship with the Maliki government in Iraq. Iran only has to look to the media in the United States to see the growing chorus of opinionists and even key Republicans now saying the Iraq War is lost.
Iran knows that BushCo., despite the rhetoric of the NeoCons, has little support for military action against its nuclear energy infrastructure.
Like BushCo. the NeoCons are a fading force in American politics and influence.
How The American Zionist Lobby Launched Their Pro-Iran War Propaganda Campaign In 2006 In New York, With The Help Of Republican Senators
Fears Of US Attacks On Iran Grow As Media Campaign Hots Up
Cheney Urges Strikes On Iran, Bush Steps Up To Back The Vice President
Iran Promises To Help Iraq's Security