|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Middle
East : Iran
Washington continues propaganda barrage against Iran
By Peter Symonds
24 August 2007
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
As it prepares for a diplomatic offensive against Iran at the
UN next month, the Bush administration is maintaining a steady
barrage of threats and propagandain particular, over so-called
Iranian interference in US-occupied Iraq and Tehrans
alleged nuclear weapons programs.
Last week, the New York Times and Washington Post
reported that the White House intends to announce to the UN General
Assembly its decision to brand the entire Iranian Revolutionary
Guard (IRG) as a specially designated global terrorist
organisation. Criminalising the IRG, a major component of Irans
armed forces, would not only intensify diplomatic pressure on
Tehran, but provide a convenient pretext for military strikes
against Iran.
Since the beginning of the year, the US military has steadily
escalated its allegations of Iranian meddling in Iraq,
variously accusing Tehran of supplying arms, training and even
directing Shiite militia in attacks on American troops. Last week,
Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the no 2 commander in Iraq,
claimed that Iranian-backed Shiite groups were now responsible
for half the attacks in Iraq, compared to 30 percent in January.
Such accusations rely on bald assertion, rather than evidence.
The only proof made public by the US military has
consisted of displays of Iranian-made weapons. Of course, the
staggering hypocrisy involved in accusing Iran of interfering
while the US military has laid waste to much of Iraq in the course
of its criminal four-year occupation of the country is passed
over without comment in the American and international media.
Last Sunday, Major General Rick Lynch, who commands US operations
south of Baghdad, added a further allegation to the listnot
only were Iraqi militiamen receiving instruction inside Iran,
but 50 IRG members were training Shiite militias inside Iraq itself.
They are facilitating training of Shiite extremists. We
know theyre here and we target them as well, he said.
In a performance that would be laughable if the implications
were not so serious, Lynch offered no evidence. Despite the fact
that his troops were targetting these 50 Iranians, the general
admitted to reporters in Baghdad that no Iranians had been captured
in his area of command nor any illegal weapons found in two months
of patrolling 125 miles of the Iran-Iraq border. But he knew the
IRG members were present by the increasing accuracy of insurgent
mortars and the growing number of sophisticated roadside bombs.
The Washington Post seized on Lynchs comments
in an editorial on Tuesday entitled Tougher on Iran: The
Revolutionary Guard is at war with the United States. Why not
fight back. Far from urging caution, the newspaper was critical
of the Bush administration for not contemplating tougher measures
than branding the IRG a terrorist organisation. This seems
to be the least the United States should be doing, given the soaring
number of Iranian-sponsored bomb attacks in Iraq, the editorial
declared.
Dismissing critics who warn that such a designation contradicted
tentative Iranian-US talks in Baghdad, the editorial continued:
Yet that contradiction, if it exists, seems puny compared
with that of a regime that participates in those discussions while
escalating its surrogate war against American troops. If Iran
chooses to fight as well as talk, the United States should not
shrink from fighting back with all the economic weapons it can
muster. While the Washington Post hesitated to spell
it out, the same logic would justify a US military attack on IRG
bases inside Iran.
The propaganda build-up for a potential assault on Iran is
unmistakable. The method recalls the lies about weapons of mass
destruction used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Unsubstantiated
claims about Iranian-backed militias killing US troops
are repeated, recycled, distorted and embellished by the media
to the point where they are simply declared to be fact. Given
the tempo of developments, it would be hardly surprising if the
Bush administration presented an Iraq-style dossier
on Iran to the UN next month as the basis for a new round of US
demands and threats.
The White House has clearly ruled out any negotiated end to
the confrontation with Tehran. The three rounds of the talks held
between the US and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad have produced
no easing of tensions. Iranian offers to assist the US occupation
of Iraq have been answered by ultimatums and condemnations of
Tehrans failure to modify its behaviour.
On Monday, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns told the
media, We are going to judge the Iranians based on whether
or not they do the right thing, which will be to fight against
the terrorist groups that are in Iraq, including the Shiite terrorist
groups that are attacking both the Iraqi Army as well as American
soldiers and others. What he meant by fight against,
Burns did not bother to explain, but the comment is revealing.
The US is not simply seeking an end to alleged IRG arms supplies
and training, but demanding Tehrans active involvement in
suppressing the legitimate opposition of the Shiite masses to
the US occupation.
In a comment in last weeks Time magazine, former
CIA field officer Robert Baer bluntly warned: Reports that
the Bush administration will put Irans Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps on the terrorism list can be read in one of two ways:
its either more bluster or, ominously, a wind-up for a strike
on Iran. Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on the
IRGC, maybe within six months. And they think that as long as
we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Irans
nuclear facilities. An awe and shock campaign, lite, if you will.
Baers remarks point to the second front of Washingtons
propaganda war: Irans nuclear programs. Without offering
conclusive evidence, US continues to insist that Tehran is seeking
to build nuclear weapons and demands that Iran shut down its uranium
enrichment facilities and cease construction of a heavy water
research reactor. Iran insists its programs are for peaceful purposes
and that it is within its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty to develop all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle.
In an effort to deal with outstanding issues, Iran met with
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials this week.
An accord was announced on Tuesday that IAEA deputy director Olli
Heinonen hailed as a milestone in clarifying aspects
of Irans nuclear programs. The agreement included putting
further UN penalties on hold. US officials immediately criticised
the deal as limited and effectively scuttled its implementation
by insisting that Washington would continue to demand a new round
of tougher sanctions in the UN Security Council next month.
In his comments on Monday, Burns derided the IAEAs efforts,
declaring: I think it is obvious what the Iranians are up
to. Its totally transparent. They have this dalliance with
the IAEA right now... So now you have the Iranians, and even some
other people in the IAEA system saying, well as long as the IAEA
is talking to Iran about questions they havent answered
for the last couple of years, we shouldnt sanction [them]
in the United National Security Council. That is absolutely unacceptable
logic.
What is perfectly plain is that there is absolutely nothing
that the Iranian regime can doshort of complete capitulation
to a never-ending stream of US demandsthat would end the
confrontation over its nuclear programs and its alleged meddling
in Iraq. The Bush administrations so-called diplomacy consists
of pressuring the other major powers into backing an escalating
campaign of punitive measures aimed at crippling the Iranian economy
and paving the way for war.
Burns foreshadowed that the Bush administration would adopt
harder-edged, tougher diplomacy in the UN in dealing
with what he described as the most radical and dangerous
government in the Middle East. Referring to Irans
nuclear programs, he said: This is going to be a major issue
in the month of September at the UN Security Council. We intend
to push it very, very hard.
Burns also spelled out that such diplomacy would
not go on forever. We still have some time to make diplomacy
successful, he declared. But President Bush has been
very clear, and many senior members of both parties of the Congress
have also been clear: the United States ultimately has a variety
of options... weve never taken the military option off the
table.
See Also:
New York Times on Iran: Neo-colonialism
with a liberal twist
[18 August 2007]
New provocation against Tehran
Bush to brand Iranian force as terrorist
[16 August 2007]
US military launches offensive against
"Iranian-backed" militia in Iraq
[16 August 2007]
Adding fuel to the Mideast fire: US unveils
huge arms package
[1 August 2007]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |