[NYTr] So They Lied Again: The Iran Charade

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Counterpunch - Dec 5, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs12052007.html

The Iran Charade

So They Lied Again

By RON JACOBS

So they lied again. And again. Despite the fact that the Bush
administration knew quite well that its very own intelligence estimate
stated quite clearly that the Iranian government had halted its work on
building nuclear weaponry, Mr. Bush told the world not more than two
months ago that Iran was risking World War Three if it continued said
work. On Monday, December 3, 2007, an report from Mr. Bush's own
government said quite clearly that its intelligence proved that Iran
halted nuclear arms work four years ago. Despite this knowledge, the
Bush administration and its enablers in Congress have continued to move
the United States closer and closer to war with Iran.

Of course, the fact that the White House has been lying for at least
four years about the dangers of Iranian nuclear weaponry comes as no
surprise to many of the world's citizens. After all, it was this very
same administration that invaded Iraq on the basis of lies regarding
Iraq's nuclear ambitions and its long lost weapons of mass destruction.
What is somewhat surprising is the response to Monday's news from the
White House. According to national security adviser Stephen Hadley,
everything that the White House has said up to now about Iran's nuclear
intentions was not wrong. Indeed, according to Hadley, it only proves
that gathering intelligence is "notoriously difficult." Furthermore, in
the White House's estimation, this revelation proves that the White
House was right and that the US is correct to continue threatening war
and encouraging sanctions. You know, just to keep Iran in line. Now, I
don't know about you, but this argument sounds very similar to Bill
Clinton's line about what constituted having "sex with that woman." In
other words, they got caught in a lie and now the Bush White House and
its allies in the government and media are using facetious arguments to
justify those lies.

Will it fly? If US politicians like Joseph Lieberman and the government
Israel have anything to say about it, it will. Israel has already
essentially dismissed the report and continues to insist that Iran is
very close to possessing a nuclear weapon. In addition, the recent
appointment of Iraq war architect and propagandist Paul Wolfowitz to
the State Department office that deals with other nation's WMD may be
an indication that some type of story creation a la the yellow cake lie
of 2002 is already in progress. Even if this doesn't occur, the ongoing
spin by the White House to make Teheran's cessation of nuclear arms
activity a continuation is enough to convince me that Bush and Co. are
still keeping an attack on Iran on its front burner, despite the
hopeful and confused commentary by former CIA analyst Robert Baer that
appeared at Time.com on December 4, 2007. In this odd little piece,
Baer puts forth the supposition that George Bush himself was behind the
release of the intelligence estimate. Why? To forestall and attack on
Iran, of course. Essentially, Baer writes that Bush is against
attacking Iran because of the situation in Iraq-where he repeats the
latest Washington line that things are "looking up"-and because the
White House is afraid Israel will be attacked if Iran is. I'm not sure
where Mr. Baer has been or what prescriptions he may be on, but the
possibility of Israel being attacked because of Bush's bellicosity has
never been a concern of Bush in the past and if, Tel Aviv's statements
since the release of the intelligence estimate are any indication, it
doesn't seem to be a concern of Tel Aviv now. In the New York Times, a
different story is emerging-that the intelligence estimate "holds up to
scrutiny, but they (various experts) acknowledge that some conclusions
seem to have been thinly sourced." This statement sounds like an open
door to more spin. As for the situation in Iraq, Mr. Bush certainly
wasn't too concerned about destabilizing it in 2003 when he invaded.

Anti-Invasion and Anti-Tehran-HOPOI and Stop the War UK

Meanwhile, in the British segment of the movement against war with Iran
there is a debate over whether or not those groups and individuals
opposed both to a US/Israel attack on Iran and the theocracy that
currently rules that country can be part of the national Stop the War
UK Coalition. Some of those forces, now coalescing around the group
Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPOI), recently had their petition to
join that coalition rejected. The reasons for this decision are murky,
with the Stop the war Coalition claiming that HOPOI is hostile to its
aims and is seeking to set itself up as an alternative to Stop the War
UK. HOPOI's response to the rejection and explanation is that Stop the
War UK includes dozens of groups with differing agendas on several
issues but all of them are opposed to the occupation of Iraq and any
attack on Iran. How, they wonder, is HOPOI any different? Furthermore,
HOPOI claims the exclusion is political and revolves around some
prominent members of Stop the War UK being apologists for the Iranian
mullahs.

This argument is somewhat reminiscent of the debates that took place
among leftists regarding the Soviet Union and China during the post
Cold War era of the twentieth century. Like that argument, it has the
potential to divide a movement that needs to remain united. After all,
many of the groups in Stop the War UK are leftist, as are the groups
currently making up HOPOI. Divisions precipitated by different
tendencies on the left in antiwar movement around Vietnam occasionally
caused confusion not only amongst the Left but also among the general
population opposed to the war. Indeed, the support for the Soviet Union
by some left formations probably caused some folks to not participate
in the movement. Similarly, a perception by the general population
opposed to war with Iran might not participate in a movement that
appears to align itself with the government in Tehran-even if it
doesn't in actuality.

The groups in HOPOI are anti-imperialist first and foremost. This means
that before everything else they are opposed to an attack on Iran and
its people. They oppose US imperialism and Israeli aggression. As noted
above, the group is composed of small communist organizations and also
oppose the theocracy in Iran, considering it to be antidemocratic and a
betrayal of the revolution against the Shah. At one time the People's
Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) might have been considered to be in an allied
camp with HOPOI, but in recent years the PMOI's work with some of the
neocons in the United States and rumors that it works with various US
intelligence agencies has insured HOPOI's opposition to the group,
despite the PMOI's publicly stated opposition to a US invasion.

For those of us in the US and western Europe, our primary concern
should be preventing war with Iran. This may mean making temporary
alliances with groups with whom we disagree on several points, but to
allow those differences to supersede opposition to an invasion would
not only be foolish; it would be doing Washington's work. Perhaps
HOPOI's conference in London this weekend will make progress toward
alleviating some of the problems it is experiencing with Stop the War
UK.

Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather
Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big
Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music, art and
sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is
published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at:
rjacobs3625 at charter.net