Friday, June 02, 2006

Persian Ploy, Part II

It didn't take long for young Mister Bush to execute step two of the Iran diplomacy stratagem.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a disingenuous offer to join in UN talks with Iran if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment activities. Iran has long insisted on its "inalienable right" to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and that it has no intention of attempting to develop nuclear weapons, despite claims to the contrary by Rice and other Bush administration luminaries.

As I and many others predicted, rejected the offer, describing it--justifiably--as the propaganda it was.

Thursday, as reported by the Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press:
President Bush said Thursday that the standoff over Iran's suspected nuclear program is headed for the U.N. Security Council if Tehran continues to refuse to halt uranium enrichment.

“We'll see whether or not that is the firm position of their government,” Bush said after a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. “If they continue their obstinance ... then the world will act in concert.”

This Bushism was eerily resonant of something published earlier in the day in a New York Times article: "And while the Europeans and the Japanese said they were elated by Mr. Bush's turnaround, some participants in the drawn-out nuclear drama questioned whether this was an offer intended to fail, devised to show the extent of Iran's intransigence."

The Bush administration continues to use fuzzy rhetoric to blur the distinction between Iran's desire to build a nuclear energy industry and its alleged ambition to develop nuclear weapons.

One of its leading echo chamberlains, David Brooks, repeated that mantra on Imus this morning, stating that having nuclear weapons was a "big deal" for Iran.

Imus said the Iran business is sounding like a replay of the Iraq situation.

You know it's obvious when Don sees it.

Brooks said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a "nut case." Expect to hear more and more of that epithet. Where did this propaganda vector start? Best I can tell, it came from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who last April called Ahmadinejad a "psychopath" and likened him to Hitler.

Remember back when Saddam Hussein was a Hitler-like psychopath?

And how about North Korea's Kim Jong Il? According to one blogger, Jong Il and Hitler actually share a fan club.

Russia's Vladimir Putin has also been compared to Hitler.

David Brooks himself has likened Iraqi Shia leader Moqatdr al Sadr to Hitler, calling him a "thug" and a "brown shirt."

How many Hitlers can you have in any given 70-year period?

Also on this morning's Imus, Brooks praised Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her openness with the American people. "Openness," to Brooks, must mean a willingness to openly deceive, distort, dis-inform, and most importantly, frighten. I'm waiting for her to let "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" slip out again.

Some news sources are speculating that Condi's offer to Iran was made over the objections of Vice President Cheney, who theoretically wants to skip straight to the bombing phase of negotiations.

I'm not convinced that's the case at all. This phony "deal" she's offered Iran is one they almost have to refuse.

If anything, it looks to me like Condi's handing Cheney the excuse he needs to hammer Iran on a silver platter.


  1. Anonymous11:56 AM

    How many Hitlers can we have in 70 year period? As many as it takes to gain control of the region. Americans won't fight for oil, but they will fight to remove nutjobs, except if one is leading their own country. ;) Never mind the U.S. has installed and supported more than one nutjob in the region over the years.

    Phillips points out in his new book that Iraq has vast oil reserves, "probably about 200 billion barrels more" than has been documented. But it'll be hard to get at unless there's regime change in Iran. (Though with the latest noise coming from Iraqi officials about the targeting of civilians, you have to wonder just how long they'll tolerate our permanent bases over there.)

    He quotes the oil theorist Michael Klare on the placement of new US bases in the region since 9-11: "The American military is being used more and more for the protection of overseas oil fields and the supply routes that connect them to the United States and its allies ... Slowly but surely, the U.S. military is being converted into a global oil-protection service."

    I just heard Tom Ashbrooke's piece this morning on the threat that is Iran. It's amazing how much attention is being diverted from the real purpose behind this latest bid for control over the region's oil.


  2. The funny this is, if the Admin were to just come out and say this is about securing oil in the world, and that oil is a national security issue, they'd probably get just as much support from the American people as they're getting going about it in this manner.

  3. William Bollinger1:46 PM

    Except then we'd be deafened when all the Democrats screamed "I told you so" in unison. Be careful what you wish for.

  4. Yeah, but people are used to the Democrats screaming. It's like the boy who cried wolf, which is problem the Democrats are starting, I think, to overcome.

    Regardless, I suspect a good percentage of those who support Bush and the GOP already would be just as happy to do so if he said "we need the oil for our own security, and I'm going to make sure we have access to it."

  5. Yes, but he'd have to square that with the "addicted to oil" speech.

  6. Assuming his supporters would care whether he squared it or not (I don't think most of them would, but I could be too cynical).

  7. Seven of Six4:26 PM

    bu$h has already said it's about the Oil!

  8. The Iran conflict is right on schedule. It's all about the November election, and even possibly, the creation of a crisis sufficiently severe to "postpone" that election.

    Not only is Iran expected to cease all nuclear activity; it is also expected to scuttle its "knowledge to make a nuclear weapon" in Bush's tortured syntax.

    Bush, Bolton, Rice, Cheney et al. keep upping the ante to which Iran must agree, until the conditions are impossible to meet. But of course, meeting the conditions was never the point. Justifying yet another war to the American people is the point, the only point. And the coming Iran war will be one more war for war's sake.

  9. I don't know if I can buy the "postponing the election" scenario, either for now or 2008. Seems a bit over the top, and there is no evidence to support the idea.