The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ray McGovern Archive
Why Iran Distrusts the US in Nuke Talks
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Iranians may be a bit paranoid but, as the saying goes, this does not mean some folks are not out to get them. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his knee-jerk followers in Washington clearly are out to get them – and they know it.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the surreal set of negotiations in Switzerland premised not on evidence, but rather on an assumption of Iran’s putative “ambition” to become a nuclear weapons state – like Israel, which maintains a secret and sophisticated nuclear weapons arsenal estimated at about 200 weapons. The supposed threat is that Iran might build one.

Israel and the U.S. know from their intelligence services that Iran has no active nuclear weapons program, but they are not about to let truth get in the way of their concerted effort to marginalize Iran. And so they fantasize before the world about an Iranian nuclear weapons program that must be stopped at all costs – including war.

Among the most surprising aspects of this is the fact that most U.S. allies are so willing to go along with the charade and Washington’s catch-all solution – sanctions – as some U.S. and Israeli hardliners open call for a sustained bombing campaign of Iranian nuclear sites that could inflict a massive loss of human life and result in an environmental catastrophe.

On March 26, arch-neocon John Bolton, George W. Bush’s Ambassador to the United Nations, graced the pages of the New York Times with his most recent appeal for an attack on Iran. Bolton went a bit too far, though, in citing the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of November 2007, agreed to unanimously by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Perhaps he reasoned that, since the “mainstream media” rarely mentions that NIE, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” he could get away with distorting its key findings, which were:

“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. … We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. …

“Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”

An equally important fact ignored by the mainstream media is that the key judgments of that NIE have been revalidated by the intelligence community every year since. But reality is hardly a problem for Bolton. As the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, Bolton made quite a name for himself by insisting that it was the proper function of a policy maker like him – not intelligence analysts – to interpret the evidence from intelligence.

An ‘Embarrassment’

So those of us familiar with Bolton’s checkered credibility were not shocked by his New York Times op-ed, entitled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Still less were we shocked to see him dismiss “the rosy 2007 National Intelligence Estimate” as an “embarrassment.”

Actually, an embarrassment it was, but not in the way Bolton suggests. Highly embarrassing, rather, was the fact that Bolton was among those inclined to push President Bush hard to bomb Iran. Then, quite suddenly, an honest NIE appeared, exposing the reality that Iran’s nuclear weapons program had been stopped in 2003, giving the lie not only to neocon propaganda, but also to Bush’s assertion that Tehran’s leaders had admitted they were developing nuclear weapons (when they had actually asserted the opposite).

Bush lets it all hang out in his memoir, Decision Points. Most revealingly, he complains bitterly that the NIE “tied my hands on the military side” and called its findings “eye-popping.”

A disgruntled Bush writes, “The backlash was immediate. [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad hailed the NIE as a ‘great victory.’” Bush’s apparent “logic” here is to use the widespread disdain for Ahmadinejad to discredit the NIE through association, i.e. whatever Ahmadinejad praises must be false.

But can you blame Bush for his chagrin? Alas, the NIE had knocked out the props from under the anti-Iran propaganda machine, imported duty-free from Israel and tuned up by neoconservatives here at home.

In his memoir, Bush laments: “I don’t know why the NIE was written the way it was. … Whatever the explanation, the NIE had a big impact — and not a good one.”

Spelling out how the Estimate had tied his hands “on the military side,” Bush included this (apparently unedited) kicker: “But after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?”

It seems worth repeating that the key judgments of the 2007 NIE have been reaffirmed every year since. As for the supposedly urgent need to impose sanctions to prevent Iran from doing what we are fairly certain it is not doing – well, perhaps we could take some lessons from the White Queen, who bragged that in her youth she could believe “six impossible things before breakfast” and counseled Alice to practice the same skill.

Sanctions, Anyway, to the Rescue

Despite the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community, the United States and other countries have imposed unprecedented sanctions ostensibly to censure Iran for “illicit” nuclear activities while demanding the Iran prove the negative in addressing allegations, including “intelligence” provided via Israel and its surrogates, that prompt international community concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.

And there’s the rub. Most informed observers share historian/journalist Gareth Porter’s conclusion that the main sticking point at this week’s negotiations in Lausanne is the issue of how and when sanctions on Iran will be lifted. And, specifically, whether they will be lifted as soon as Iran has taken “irreversible” actions to implement core parts of the agreement.

In Lausanne, the six-nation group (permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) reportedly want the legal system behind the sanctions left in place, even after the sanctions have been suspended, until the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officially concludes that Iran’s nuclear activities are exclusively peaceful – a process that could take many years.

Iran’s experience with an IAEA highly influenced by the U.S. and Israel has been, well, not the best – particularly since December 2009 under the tenure of Director-General Yukiya Amano, a Japanese diplomat whom State Department cables reveal to be in Washington’s pocket.

Classified cables released by Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning and WikiLeaks show that Amano credited his success in becoming director-general largely to U.S. government support – and promptly stuck his hand out for U.S. money.

Further, Amano left little doubt that he would side with the United States in the confrontation with Iran and that he would even meet secretly with Israeli officials regarding their purported evidence on Iran’s hypothetical nuclear weapons program, while staying mum about Israel’s actual nuclear weapons arsenal.

According to U.S. embassy cables from Vienna, Austria, the site of IAEA’s headquarters, American diplomats in 2009 were cheering the prospect that Amano would advance U.S. interests in ways that outgoing IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei never did.

In a July 9, 2009, cable, American chargé Geoffrey Pyatt – yes, the same diplomat who helped Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland choose “Yats” (Arseniy Yatsenyuk) to be the post-coup prime minister of Ukraine – said Amano was thankful for U.S. support for his election,” noting that “U.S. intervention with Argentina was particularly decisive.”

A grateful Amano told Pyatt that as IAEA director-general, he would take a different “approach on Iran from that of ElBaradei” and that he “saw his primary role as implementing” U.S.-driven sanctions and demands against Iran.

Pyatt also reported that Amano had consulted with Israeli Ambassador Israel Michaeli “immediately after his appointment” and that Michaeli “was fully confident of the priority Amano accords verification issues.” Pyatt added that Amano privately agreed to “consultations” with the head of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission.

In other words, Amano has shown himself eager to bend in directions favored by the United States and Israel, especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program. His behavior contrasts with that of the more independent-minded ElBaradei, who resisted some of Bush’s key claims about Iraq’s supposed nuclear weapons program, and even openly denounced forged documents about “yellowcake uranium” as “not authentic.” [For more on Amano, see’s “America’s Debt to Bradley Manning.”]

It is a given that Iran misses ElBaradei; and it is equally clear that it knows precisely what to expect from Amano. If you were representing Iran at the negotiating table, would you want the IAEA to be the final word on whether or not the entire legal system authorizing sanctions should be left in place?

Torpedoing Better Deals in 2009 and 2010

Little has been written to help put some context around the current negotiation in Lausanne and show how very promising efforts in 2009 and 2010 were sabotaged – the first by Jundullah, a terrorist group in Iran, and the second by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. If you wish to understand why Iran lacks the trust one might wish for in negotiations with the West, a short review may be helpful.

During President Barack Obama’s first year in office, the first meeting of senior level American and Iranian negotiators, then-Under Secretary of State William Burns and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, on Oct. 1, 2009, seemed to yield surprisingly favorable results.

Many Washington insiders were shocked when Jalili gave Tehran’s agreement in principle to send abroad 2,640 pounds (then as much as 75 percent of Iran’s total) of low-enriched uranium to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that does medical research.

Jalili approved the agreement “in principle,” at a meeting in Geneva of representatives of members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. Even the New York Times acknowledged that this, “if it happens, would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly, and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit.”

The conventional wisdom in Western media is that Tehran backed away from the deal. That is true, but less than half the story – a tale that highlights how, in Israel’s (and the neocons’) set of priorities, regime change in Iran comes first. The uranium transfer had the initial support of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And a follow-up meeting was scheduled for Oct. 19, 2009, at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

The accord soon came under criticism, however, from Iran’s opposition groups, including the “Green Movement” led by defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has had ties to the American neocons and to Israel since the Iran-Contra days of the 1980s when he was the prime minister who collaborated on secret arms deals.

At first blush, it seemed odd that it was Mousavi’s U.S.-favored political opposition that led the assault on the nuclear agreement, calling it an affront to Iran’s sovereignty and suggesting that Ahmadinejad wasn’t being tough enough.

Then, on Oct. 18, a terrorist group called Jundullah, acting on amazingly accurate intelligence, detonated a car bomb at a meeting of top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commanders and tribal leaders in the province of Sistan-Baluchistan in southeastern Iran. A car full of Guards was also attacked.

A brigadier general who was deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces, the Revolutionary Guards brigadier commanding the border area of Sistan-Baluchistan, and three other brigade commanders were killed in the attack; dozens of other military officers and civilians were left dead or wounded.

Jundullah took credit for the bombings, which followed years of lethal attacks on Revolutionary Guards and Iranian policemen, including an attempted ambush of President Ahmadinejad’s motorcade in 2005.

Tehran claims Jundullah is supported by the U.S., Great Britain and Israel, and former CIA Middle East operations officer Robert Baer has fingered Jundullah as one of the “good terrorist” groups benefiting from American help.

I believe it no coincidence that the Oct. 18 attack – the bloodiest in Iran since the 1980-88 war with Iraq – came one day before nuclear talks were to resume at the IAEA in Vienna to follow up on the Oct. 1 breakthrough. The killings were sure to raise Iran’s suspicions about U.S. sincerity.

It’s a safe bet that after the Jundullah attack, the Revolutionary Guards went directly to their patron, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, arguing that the bombing and roadside attack proved that the West couldn’t be trusted. Khamenei issued a statement on Oct. 19 condemning the terrorists, whom he charged “are supported by certain arrogant powers’ spy agencies.”

The commander of the Guards’ ground forces, who lost his deputy in the attack, charged that the terrorists were “trained by America and Britain in some of the neighboring countries,” and the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guards threatened retaliation.

The attack was front-page news in Iran, but not in the United States, where the mainstream media quickly consigned the incident to the memory hole. The American media also began treating Iran’s resulting anger over what it considered an act of terrorism and its heightened sensitivity to outsiders crossing its borders as efforts to intimidate “pro-democracy” groups supported by the West.

Despite the Jundullah attack and the criticism from the opposition groups, a lower-level Iranian technical delegation did go to Vienna for the meeting on Oct. 19, but Jalili stayed away. The Iranians questioned the trustworthiness of the Western powers and raised objections to some details, such as where the transfer should occur. The Iranians broached alternative proposals that seemed worth exploring, such as making the transfer of the uranium on Iranian territory or some other neutral location.

But the Obama administration, under mounting domestic pressure to be tougher with Iran, dismissed Iran’s counter-proposals out of hand, reportedly at the instigation of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and neocon regional emissary Dennis Ross.

If at First You Don’t Succeed

Watching all this, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan saw parallels between Washington’s eagerness for an escalating confrontation with Iran and the way the United States had marched the world, step by step, into the invasion of Iraq.

In spring 2010, hoping to head off another such catastrophe, the two leaders dusted off the Oct. 1 uranium transfer initiative and got Tehran to agree to similar terms on May 17, 2010. Both called for sending 2,640 pounds of Iran’s low-enriched uranium abroad in exchange for nuclear rods that would have no applicability for a weapon. In May 2010, that meant roughly 50 percent of Iran’s low-enriched uranium would be sent to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched uranium for medical use.

Yet, rather than embrace this Iranian concession as at least one significant step in the right direction, U.S. officials sought to scuttle it by pressing instead for more sanctions. The U.S. media did its part by insisting that the deal was just another Iranian trick that would leave Iran with enough uranium to theoretically create one nuclear bomb.

An editorial in the Washington Post on May 18, 2010, entitled “Bad Bargain,” concluded wistfully/wishfully: “It’s possible that Tehran will retreat even from the terms it offered Brazil and Turkey — in which case those countries should be obliged to support U.N. sanctions.”

On May 19, a New York Times’ editorial rhetorically patted the leaders of Brazil and Turkey on the head as if they were rubes lost in the big-city world of hardheaded diplomacy. The Times wrote: “Brazil and Turkey … are eager to play larger international roles. And they are eager to avoid a conflict with Iran. We respect those desires. But like pretty much everyone else, they got played by Tehran.”

The disdain for this latest Iranian concession was shared by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was busy polishing her reputation for “toughness” by doing all she could to undermine the Brazil-Turkey initiative. She pressed instead for harsh sanctions.

“We have reached agreement on a strong draft [sanctions resolution] with the cooperation of both Russia and China,” Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 18, making clear that she viewed the timing of the sanctions as a riposte to the Iran-Brazil-Turkey agreement.

“This announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide,” she declared. Her spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, was left with the challenging task of explaining the obvious implication that Washington was using the new sanctions to scuttle the plan for transferring half of Iran’s enriched uranium out of the country.

Obama Overruled?

Secretary Clinton got her UN resolution and put the kibosh on the arrangement that Brazil and Turkey had worked out with Iran. The Obama administration celebrated its victory in getting the UN Security Council on June 9, 2010, to approve a fourth round of economic sanctions against Iran. Obama also signed on to even more draconian penalties sailing through Congress.

It turned out, though, that Obama had earlier encouraged both Brazil and Turkey to work out a deal to get Iran to transfer about half its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for more highly enriched uranium that could only be used for peaceful medical purposes. But wait. Isn’t that precisely what the Brazilians and Turks succeeded in doing?

Da Silva and Erdogan, understandably, were nonplussed, and da Silva actually released a copy of an earlier letter of encouragement from Obama.

No matter. The tripartite agreement was denounced by Secretary Clinton and ridiculed by the U.S. mainstream media. And that was kibosh enough. Even after Brazil released Obama’s supportive letter, the President would not publicly defend the position he had taken earlier.

So, once again. Assume you’re in the position of an Iranian negotiator. Trust, but verify, was Ronald Reagan’s approach. We are likely to find out soon whether there exists the level of trust necessary to start dealing successfully with the issue of most concern to Iran – lifting the sanctions.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

(Republished from ConsortiumNews by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Iran, Israel Lobby 
Hide 50 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. rastignac says:

    Am I supposed to know why Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons?

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @moi
  2. KA says:

    Post revolution Iranian youths also know that history of post -Soviet America is an America remolded and remodelled after the interets of Israel. Seeing the departure of a nice ‘whipping boy ” from the cold war scene ,these neoocns like Solarz, Kagan family,Wormser family,Podohoretz family ,Wolfowitz,Perle,Feith,Abrams ,and AIPAC along with JINSA and numerous letetr head orgnaizations all leading to Tel Aviv wanted a new “Soviet” face to kick at with US militray muscle. These psychopaths wanted the controlling levers of this machine. Very soon they reached the top level in the Pentagon, occupied positions closer to the ears of the defense chiefs,polluted system that financed the defense and Pentagon ,and took control of the sewages and the swamps that provided the rich propaganda for constant wars .They also worked on the other side of the process creating US enemies , bolstering terrorism ,and even proviidng information to the outlaws and to the jihaidts. Wars bewteen enemies and nothing else, they knew would keep the Zionism alive.
    This is why McGovern’s 1970s approach to peaceful foreign policy was atatcked by Podohoretz and Kristol( the Father ) as it would rob Israel access to free arms,money machine that will finace those arms production, bribery and corruption that come along and the would create a world vision where conflcits and dissnet could be negotiated at table and not at across trenches .Israel wont survive such a world

    Whteher it is Joshua Muravchik or former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton ( ) or Joe Liberman or Podohoretz demanding for nuking or bombing or attacking Iran is immaterial . It is in the DNA of Israeli zionism fabric.

  3. KA says:

    “There was no way to meet the deadline, Mr. Kerry said from the tent, which was designed to defeat eavesdropping. The Iranians, he said, perhaps sensing that the deadline meant a lot in Washington and little in Tehran, were intransigent.”

    May be this water carrier boy for Israel should try a more non paranoid , non incriminating,non accusatory approcahes to understand Iran . May be it should rather focus on the existence of the real paranoia pertaing to eavesdropping that it misses purposefully in the service of Israel and its handlers.
    May be Iran simply remebers enough . May be Iran knows that once the levraging chips are gone ,its fate would mimick that of Ghaddafi in the gutter hearing the Zionists crowing “we came , we saw and Iran died”

  4. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website

    “Am I supposed to know why Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons?”

    Yes, you are supposed to know that supremacist Jews who comprise apartheid Israel demand that only “that shitty little country” can have such weapons in that region.

    And you are supposed to who know that if you disagree with this double standard you will get your ass kicked by Jews.

    antisemite: any thought or person that a Jew doesn’t like

  5. Ray McGovern will forever have my respect for his courageous confrontation of Rumsfeld in front of a sycophantic audience:

    With Iran this whole thing is so blatantly false and political:

    Why is Iran singled out for potential attack, rather than North Korea which actually has an atom bomb and is ruled by an unstable and despotic clique? Why can we not bring Israel into the equation since, with its huge secret nuclear arsenal, it is the main instigator of the whole situation?

    Just like those questions Ray asked Rumsfeld, these also need to be asked in broad daylight – yet American public doesn’t seem to care; even though the falsity of the present narrative is self-evident to anybody with half a brain!

    • Replies: @annamaria
  6. The goal must ultimately remain regime change, with the theatre of negotiation and diplomacy manipulating the situation to create the circumstances of world opinion for doing so, by creating a perception that everything else had tried but failed, due to the bad faith of the other party, which represents an existential threat. The preference would be an Egyptian-style strongman military dictatorship, a return to a Shah figure beholden to western interests as between 1954 and 1978.

  7. moi says:

    cuz we said so


  8. “Israel and the U.S. know from their intelligence services that Iran has no active nuclear weapons program,”

    Sounds like an unproven leap of faith on the author’s part, which undermines his entire premise.

    For a country struggling under sanctions, the huge expense of centrifuges is a very inefficient way of obtaining leverage at the bargaining table. And the Iranians are not stupid.

    Which would indicate that the centrifuges are part of an active nuclear weapons program.

    But if the author has some proof to offer, I would like to see it. As long as the proof doesn’t come from InfoWars, Ron Paul, or some other crackpot source.

    • Replies: @Aaron Klein
    , @Bill
  9. It is worth noting that the attack by Jundullah was executed with help from Israeli agents who pretended to be americans.

  10. @SickOfBias

    I would put my trust in Ray McGovern before I would in you. What is your proof that Iran is developing nukes? Iran has not attacked anyone in nearly 300 years. Personally I think they are nuts not to develop nukes for defense what with Israel and their puppet USA making threats on a weekly basis. The apartheid regime in Israel will not rest until they have the USA establish democracy in Iran similar to that in Iraq and Libya. How many Amerikan lives and how much money will it take to satisfy Israel?

  11. Bill says:

    Did you miss the part where he referenced the NIE? Maybe there was, like, a buffer overflow in your brain owing to how many times he referenced it?

    Or, maybe, you think the same sinister cabal in the US intelligence community which kept trying to tell W that there were no WMD in Iraq are also “lying” about Iran?

  12. Truth says:

    Is there a regime (or a proper “government”) in the Middle East that has a reason to trust the U.S., outside of, arguably Israel?

  13. This is a story about how your humble narrator attempted to act honorably. It is also the story of what happened as a result. Unfortunately, this letter won’t be able to address all of the points I’d like to make. With all of the dishonest elisions, bombastic flourishes, and pompous posturing, I can’t possibly tackle all of Iran’s testy roorbacks in a single go. To put it another way, we’ll be covering 190-proof Iran here. You don’t drink it; you sip it. Let’s begin our investigation with the observation that Iran is a savage widdiful. I’m being super-extra nice when I say that. If I weren’t so polite I instead would have stated that one of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which Iran is willing to squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies, especially given that it itself would be affected by such actions.

    Iran is a bear of very little brain, and long words bother it. There are different ways of reconciling oneself to this unpleasant, yet undoubtedly crabby, fact. Some people see nothing at all, or rather, want to see nothing. Others are perfectly well aware of the antisocial consequences which this plague must and will some day induce, but only shrug their shoulders, convinced that nothing can be done, so the only thing to do is to leave things alone. It wasn’t so long ago that people like you and me were free to create bridges between marginalized people and then extensions outward to broader constituencies. Recently, that’s become a lot harder to do. What happened that changed things so much? To put it briefly, Iran happened. By using threats of fiscal harm to coerce caustic sciolists into engulfing the world in a dense miasma of favoritism, Iran has managed to bowdlerize all unfavorable descriptions of its polemics.

    You should never forget the three most important facets of Iran’s ravings, namely their jackbooted origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. As I mentioned before, a critical reevaluation of some of Iran’s escapades would unmistakably be beneficial. But let me add that it keeps stating over and over again that might makes right. This drumbeat refrain is clearly not consistent with the facts on the ground—facts such as that if I had to choose between chopping onions and helping Iran trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life, I’d be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that Iran avows that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. This is complete—or at least, incomplete—baloney. For instance, Iran fails to mention that many of the people I’ve talked to have said that Iran and its sycophants should all be put up against a wall and given traitors’ justice. Without commenting on that specifically I’d merely like to point out that the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.

    I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to treat the disease, not the symptoms. And just let it try and stop me. To be totally candid, Iran likes thinking thoughts that aren’t burdensome and that feel good. That’s why I love hearing the claims of a furacious ruffian who doesn’t realize that it’s a furacious ruffian. As a case in point, consider Iran’s claim that the poor, innocent, kitten-loving members of its terrorist organization are persecuted by people like you and me. Such claims always make me laugh because, as we all know, Iran intends to put its sleazy, aggressive phalanx of mean-spirited weirdos in charge of strapping us down with a network of rules and regulations. We should not stand for that, with that, or by that. Rather, we should make it clear that Iran keeps talking about the importance of its cause. As far as I can tell, its “cause” is to irritate an incredible number of people. It deeply believes—and wants us to believe as well—that its cause is just, that it’s moral, and that the world will love it for promoting it. In reality, by dissolving the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities, Iran is telegraphing its intentions to rouse the agitated petite bourgeoisie to chauvinistic fervor and hoodwink them into opening new avenues for the expression of hate.

    Iran predicted long ago that it’d go straight to Heaven after it dies. I see a different, warmer eternity for it, especially when you consider that it wants to control every aspect of our lives. Iran wants us to rise, fall asleep, work, and live at the beat of a drum. Then, once we’re molded into a uniform mass, we’ll be incapable of seeing that Iran has been hastening society’s quiescence to moral pluralism and epistemological uncertainty.

  14. geokat62 says:

    If this is the best that hasbarists can do to demonize Iran to justify an attack, may I suggest you take a page from the playbook of Wile E. Coyote and purchase a new plan of attack from Acme Inc!

  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The ‘chosen people” behinds are on FIRE. The fact is that Iranians are the victims of your crimes against humanity, but you have invested on your phony ‘victimhood’ to rob other nation and the world. No one takes you seriously. You have to return the stolen land back soon.

  16. @rustbeltreader

    A well-known joke:
    “Since I will not be able to dissuade you, I am turning straight to insults.”

  17. @rustbeltreader



    Satire, right? Iran = AIPAC and assorted minions.

    Folks. Excellent analysis here too:

    @Ray: Great piece.

  18. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website

    Good heavens, such verbosity and still no proof for Iranian nuclear weapons.

    If you want dead Iranians then why don’t you go and do it yourself instead of trying to dupe the US citizenry to shed it’s blood for your utterly hopeless cause of apartheid Israel.

    Excuse my Hebrew, but we call people like you ‘chicken shit’.

  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    and under the Shah, Iran was no disease, was it?
    LET me tell you what Teheran really is: is a very nice scaring monster. Iran is a pretty nice Binladenish scarecrow in the wheatfield… you know.
    G Bush arranged for a fake Osama bilLaden video on the EVE of elections second term… and
    Bibi bloodyniahu arranged for a speech in the US on the eve of polls for the same purpose.
    and Iran as it is is just like the bearded Laden in one more respect: both were (are) much better useful ALIVE than dead – and that is precisely why the americans “could not find him out” for ten years.
    the world knows what you do in Gaza as they know what the nazis did in Warsaw ghetto.

  20. @Bill:

    NIE you say? Is that anything like the paper that Neville Chamberlain was waving around?

    Iran’s non-compliance with inspections makes it hard to prove; but the fact that they are not complying makes them suspect.

    Do you trust Iran enough to re-open the American Embassy in Tehran and work there yourself, with your family in residence?

    Perhaps you are dumb enough to trust Iran with nukes. And perhaps you have $24 in your piggybank to buy this very nice bridge I am selling.

    @Aaron Klein:

    “Iran has not attacked anyone in nearly 300 years.”

    Care to walk back that claim? Or does attacking a hostile Iraq, and non-combatant Kuwait & Argentine Jews not count as attacks in your view?

    And, spare us the anti-Semitic ignorance of Israel, as well as the facts about what “Apartheid” is (and is not). It doesn’t impress anyone except for people who have already gorged themselves on your bile-flavored Kool-Aid.

  21. Oh, by the way Bill…

    You do remember that WMD were found in Iraq, just like Bush insisted, right?

    The proof was published in the NY Times, and I know how much you liberals respect that rag:

    Maybe you and Scott “there are no WMD in Iraq” Ritter can go on a double-date to discuss it.

    • Replies: @KA
    , @Anonymous
  22. @Sick

    LOL, that cache of 20-year old weapons? That’s the best you can do?

    Clearly the Hasbara are smarting from the agreement with Iran.

  23. geokat62 says:

    They’ve done to Scott Ritter what they did to Dorothy Thompson.

    Never heard of her? You’re not alone!

    “She spoke out against Hitler. For that, they made her a hero. She spoke up for Palestine. For that, they silenced her.”

  24. KA says:

    They manufacture lies and use that lies to build more. That is the hallmark of the Zionism .

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  25. @KA

    “They manufacture lies and use that lies to build more. That is the hallmark of the Zionism .

    Zionism’s Prior Condition: Propaganda

    “Propaganda by its very nature is an enterprise for perverting the significance of events and of insinuating false intentions…The propagandist will not accuse the enemy of just any misdeed; he will accuse him of the very intention that he himself has and of trying to commit the very crime that he himself is about to commit. He who wants to provoke a war not only proclaims his own peaceful intentions but also accuses the other party of provocation.”
    – Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, 1965

  26. KA says:

    Right now NPR ,out loud ,wondering why this time Iran agreed when just few years back it didn’t want to meet US or agree to any of these Same time Daniel Pletka is wondering of Iranian inevitable expansion of more hegemony that Israel and Arabs are afraid of.

    May be NPR should ask Brazil and Turkey what happened in 2011″ , maybe Daniel Pletka should remember her own dim views of Iranian nukes . She was entertaining those dark dim views out of the fear that an Iranian nuke wouldn’t ” unfortunately ” lead to abuse of the nuclear power but would counter the daily Israeli onslaughts against its neighbor . She doesn’t still like that dim possibility of resistance against the local Zionist thug.
    NYT like NPR support LGBT and democracy in NK. That’s their horizon of liberal Leftie progressive .possibilities Anything outside that space and outside that LGBT box,nothing is not allowed ,not considered .

  27. KA says:

    And NPR interviews David Brooks of NYT . He finds Iranian regime as murderous,cult based apocalyptic and dishonest. Citing these attributes of his own making,he finds the agreement ” bogus” . He thinks it will enhance the coffer values of Iran . Iran would spend those revenues to hurt America.
    NPR never asks him whether the service of his son in IDF in Israeli army influences his views since its Israel who is leading through the ” NPR, Fox,NYT, NY Daly/Post ” the Congress to destroy any possibility of negotiation.
    NPR then cites some poll number that says 70% American don’t know anything about what the negotiation is all about . NPR should cite they poll that says 2 to 1 American supports the negotiation. It should remind itself that 70 American supported Iraq war based on lies produced by NPR and its Leftie ilk
    . It should then think how to pile more lies on Americans so the rest 30% won’t have any ideas about the Middle East other than those endorsed by Israel. May be Americans have come to realize how grotesque those lies and how destructive these could be that they have figured out the ignorance would be better than having faith in these lies .
    David ,meanwhile can ponder on the murderous cult on which Israel was created and on which Israel is sustained .

  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Despite the apparent certainty of both governments prior to the war that Iraq possessed such weapons, no such illegal weapons or programs were found by the Iraq Survey Group.”

    How much do they pay you per post sickofbias?

  29. @geokat,

    I don’t think anyone made Scott Ritter repeatedly try to pick up underage girls, except Scott Ritter. His foot, his gun, his finger on the trigger. But the Iraqis might have been blackmailing him into saying their WMD didn’t exist with that knowledge.

    In any case, he has zero credibility.


    The fact that ISG didn’t FIND any chemical weapons while searching for them as Saddam Hussein vigorously attempted to hide them has no correlation to the actual presence of chemical weapons (or lack thereof). It just means that the ISG failed to find them. Whether that was due to incompetence on their part or cunning on the part of the Iraqis hiding them is a matter of debate. But the members of the ISG repeatedly said they saw convoys of trucks leaving facilities as they arrived to inspect them.

    PBS , BBC, and the NY Times have declared that Saddam Hussein possessed and used chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. Nova did a documentary about the gassing of Halabja. Are they ALL making it up? Are they ALL puppets of the zionist illuminati, plotting to pollute your precious bodily fluids?

    What part of the phrase “Iraq had chemical weapons” do you not understand? Because that is a documented fact, and most adults are able to accept it.

    Do you think that chemical weapons magically disappear overnight? Do you think the production capacity to manufacture them (which differs little from the infrastructure needed to make pesticides) can only be used once?

    Who, exactly, is paying you to pretend to be ignorant on the internet?

  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    What part of the phrase “Iraq had chemical weapons” do you not understand? Because that is a documented fact, and most adults are able to accept it.

    such selective righteousness, anonymous.

    yes most adults are able to accept that Iraq had chemical weapons because US and Germany sold them to Iraq.

    Then the US provided Iraq with coordinates to use those chemical weapons on Iranians — soldiers and civilians. Hillary Mann Leverett mentioned this on C Span the other day — 80,000 Iranians were killed or permanently injured by Iraq’s chemical weapons.

    Over a period of several years Iran protested to the United Nations about Iraq’s use of chemical weapons — the first such use since WWI. Their protests were ignored.

    Iranian military leaders wanted to weaponize CW in retaliation, but Ayatollah Khomeini would not permit it; a fatwa was issued against Iran’s use of a weapon of mass destruction, even in retaliation for the use of WMD against Iranian civilians. That is what Iran’s Islamic government means: that it conforms to Islamic principles even when it is inconvenient. And that is why the USA and its zionist minders have found themselves compelled to conduct a relentless campaign to convince the American people that “Iran cannot be trusted.” Because Iran has proven that it walks the talk. It is a principled nation, one with whom the American people share values and would rejoice to engage with, but the US is tethered to the Israeli stink-bomb.

    Israel and the US operate under a chiasmic principle: for Israelis, use of whatever WMD are ready to hand — or that can be extorted from USA — is right in line with their Hebrew and talmudic principles: Judaism enshrines killing, and that on a mass scale. Judaism, the “religion” of death and destruction.

  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “You do remember that WMD were found in Iraq, just like Bush insisted, right?”

    You have not yet provided any credible evidence to support your original assertion that WMDs were found.

    “Iraq had chemical weapons” is a strawman – that has never been in dispute.

    The rest of your analysis is just as flawed as the dodgy WMD dossier. Is that you G W?

  32. geokat62 says:

    “But the Iraqis might have been blackmailing him…”

    Funny you should mention blackmail. This is something that the Zionists excel in! Unfortunately for them, it has come to light how the game is played: through the power of The Lobby, the USG has entered into an MOU with the Zionist state to “share” signal intelligence that is collected on all US citizens. And to mitigate against the risk of blackmail, the MOU stipulates that should the Israelis come across information on high level USG officials, they will immediately destroy it. Ever wonder why some congress people – Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Jan Schakowsky, etc. – are passionate defenders of the Zionist state?… now you know. And the kicker is this game is all paid for by the USA (United Suckers of America) taxpayer!

  33. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Iraqis knew Scott would be convicted by US over sex charges
    . So they decided to make that happen without fail by duping an eager Scott with false information,knowing fully well that Israelis would get angry and America to soothe the feeling of Israel would send Scott to jail,Iraq to pre Stone Age,Israeli trained interrogators to Abu Ghraib and shower Iraq with depleted Uranium.

  34. KA says:

    “Are all making it up?”
    Yes they did. They are doing it now on Iran.
    French suppportes of Nazi Getmany in Vichy France used to have the same line of arguments: Are the free press of Germany all making it up.

  35. KA says:

    Is Dersovitz in jail for having sex with underage girls? Oh ! He is under suspicion only ! But what about his equally obnoxious almost criminal other activities in relation to ME ,Finkelstein,threat to the government of California! Should we band them together and throw all his other achievements in judicial activities or academic activities out to the garbage?

  36. KA says:

    Here come the liberal Zionist-

    Alon Ben-Meir

    Iran, Not ISIS, Is the Real Menace
    Posted: 04/03/2015 11:33 am EDT Updated: 04/03/2015 12:59 pm EDT

    Now we know why Israeli PM ,cabinet,military and the intelligence are working with Nusra Front, IS ,and Al Quida calling them moderate .And have been even touting/ saying that these elements are
    preferable to Assad .

  37. KA says:

    Israeli expert on Iran: Claim of existential threat a fig leaf for occupation
    Q&A with Prof. Haggai Ram, head of Middle East Studies Department at Ben-Gurion University.
    By Ayelet Shani 21:20 03.04.15 4

    So were the arguments for wars against Iraq in 2003 and so is the reason for war against Syria.

  38. KA says:

    Yes, Mr. Waldman, the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Are Munich in 1938
    Posted By Tom Knapp On April 2, 2015 @ 6:57 pm In News | 11 Comments

    The nuclear talks ARE a lot like Munich in 1938. But it’s Iran acting out the role of Chamberlain in response to a US strategy –

    The Hitlerian method is this: Invent a “controversy” (for example, “ethnic Germans in Czech Sudetenland are oppressed”). Make a set of demands. If the demands are met, add new conditions.–

    The Iran “nuclear weapons controversy” is an invented crisis of that Hitlerian type.

    The US intelligence community says Iran doesn’t seem to be developing nuclear weapons, —

    Meanwhile, under the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is fully entitled to develop civilian nuclear power without submitting to US demands concerning how it may do so.

    Nonetheless, the US and its allies have imposed sanctions on Iran to force it to do … well, something. That something changes every time the Iranian government agrees.

    At the end of March, all parties seemed ready to sign an agreement – so the US piled on new conditions, concerning export of spent nuclear material, at the last minute. After which the US immediately issued a statement blaming the Iranians for the impasse its own negotiators had intentionally created.

    As I write this, the tentative outlines of an agreement have been announced. That agreement consists mostly of up-front demands on Iran with the dangling fruit of lifted sanctions in the future. I’m confident in my prediction that the US will break or void the agreement and trot out a new list of demands within a few months, —

    Appeasing the US in 2015 is a bad idea, for the same reasons (and likely to produce the same results) as appeasing Hitler was in 1938. But like Czechoslovakia back then, Iran now finds itself isolated and without friends.

    Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism [2]. He lives and works in north central Florida.

    Article printed from Blog:

    [1] No, the Iran nuclear negotiations aren’t Munich in 1938:
    [2] William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism:

  39. KA says:

    “Earlier this week, another nuclear expert skeptical of a deal, former administration non-proliferation czar Gary Samore, who works with a hawkish anti-Iran group, told a Columbia University audience that Congress was unlikely to reject any deal. (Samore, who has the ear of Congress, told the Times yesterday he found the new agreement’s key provisions to be “very satisfactory.”) But in downplaying likely Congressional intransigence, Samore got the big issue wrong: he cited the difficulty for Congress of putting sanctions back in place if it rejects a deal.
    That’s not really what’s at stake here. Congress, especially Democrats, the reasonable ones at least (not those willing to work with Mark Kirk, for example), will be hesitant to kill a deal because the heightened prospect of another disastrous war of choice in the Middle East is too daunting. AIPAC, in its statement, rejected the notion “that the only alternatives to this framework are capitulation or military action,” but they’re wrong. Killing this deal—the result, so far, of more than two years of grueling diplomacy—would put the US back on the path to confrontation with Iran. The progress made cannot simply be undone and remade; American credibility would be destroyed. John Bolton‘s recent pro-war op-ed was right about this one thing: as Dana Milbank put it, “The alternative to a negotiated settlement is not stronger sanctions—it’s war.”
    But the war they have been asking ,they would get since that what GOP of Adelson and Democrat of Saban want . So this choreographed dances by the Zionist,by Obama,by GOP and by France and UK would deliver same results that were delivered to Libyan and Iraqis

  40. geokat62 says:

    “Israeli expert on Iran: Claim of existential threat a fig leaf for occupation…”

    Here’s a comment I recently posted at

    A deal getting done is the worst case scenario for “Big Zion.” The lynchpin in their strategy is to change the subject from ending the occupation and finding a lasting peace. If there’s a deal, changing the subject will become that much more difficult. That’s why this deal will get scuttled… it’s only a matter of time!

  41. annamaria says:

    The MSM is owned by the beneficiaries of the status quo.

  42. geokat62 says:

    I was wrong about Scott Ritter. He is amazingly back from the dead, as a blogger at HP. Here’s his latest entry:

  43. KA says:

    “PBS,BBC,and NYT”
    Yes they reported. They were the only one invited in the echo chamber following the well scripted rules that governed the decisions who would and who wouldn’t be admitted in the Town Hall meetings of George Bush or of Dick full Cheny .
    Just to make the point more poignant-,its like saying Feith who went to chair the department at Johns Hopkins or Wolfowitz who ran the Wold Bank ,how could they be dismissed given the reputation they enjoyed .Also could be included into that pantheon of failed distant still unconvicted gods is Oill Heinholen. He moved from IAEA to Harvard corrupting both and adding credence to his expertise on Iran . How could it not be so? The echo chambers are convoluted,labyrinthine,and with deep hidden closets. But its gated and managed .
    This is why Rand Paul was rebuked by Wo Po over his slow claps and not so firm standing in ovation for Netanyahu compared to other.

  44. KA says:

    Norquist criticized the neocon’s zeal in starting another war on Iran. He ” said neoconservative advisors are effectively saying ” invade Iran” . Then everyone will see how smart we are’ .But after you have lost x number of times at th roulette wheel, do you public own”
    It were same Perle and same Joshua Muravchik who asserted ” Bush need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office” ,along with other neocons including like Lieberman, Podohoretz and later Hillary and McCain kept on harping same tunes for almost one decade .

    ThinkProgress 02/07/2007

    Norquist was accused of antiAmerican behavior. His opinion was even blamed on his links to Middle East in a way if that are or were used against another neocons,there would be demand for resignation and other charges would fly .

  45. KA says:

    “Iranian president should remember that it took a decade to get regime change in Iraq. Neocons don’t give up .they pass the torch to the next in line.
    In 1992 it was Scooter Libby and Wolfowitz authoring the defense planning guidance for attack against Iran.It was resurrected by Libby and Wolfowitz in 2000PNAC issued report rebuilding America’s defense .the threat picked up more steam as Wolfowitz and Feith started approving meetings between defense department officials and rogue Iranian agents in Rome and other places Michael Ledeen met Iran Contra arms dealer and later in 2002 teamed up with former AIPAC executive director Morris Amtay creating the letter head organization Coalition For Democracy in Iran. Very soon Larry Franklin who along with Rhode and Ledeen met some of those Iranian interested in regime change ended up in jail for spying . Very soon Feith and Wolfowitz expanded the scope against Iran and placed the relevant department under OSP the rogue intelligence organization .2000 PNAC signatory Abram Shulsky was in charge. Forward magazine weighed in and provided new name like Michael Rubin getting into OSP with vocal advocacy for regime change in Iran. That was May 2003. At that time stories spread by Ledeen regarding uranium going to Iran was debunked by CIA .who was pressurized to look at again but investigation ended in same conclusion.Lawrence Wilkerson bitterly admitted that 2003 attempts of negotiation between Iran and US was scuttled by the group. But the neocons kept on piling up pressure on administration and succeeded in reducing the influences of Condi Rice and sidelong John Negroponte by running parallel and separate operations outside Congressional oversight and CIA and National Intelligence director’s office or influences.
    Do don’t pin your hopes high. 1 / 23/2007 by Larissa Alexandrovna and M Kane

  46. RW says:

    It’s rare that I find a comment that makes no sense so enjoyable to read.

  47. geokat62 says:

    Here’s a recent article that reinforces the point that Iran was always a distraction from the real threat, the occupation.

    Here’s a snippet:

    The threat posed to Israel – whether perceived or real – is thus defanged. And at the same time, those former security chiefs still assert that the real threat to Israel is in its continued occupation of Palestinian territories and the avoidance of a negotiated political solution. Now, it seems that the Iran issue can no longer be used as a distraction.

  48. Re Iran:

    It would be very instructive to know if Bolton and associate peace-saboteurs have investments/close associates with investments in the Quatari gas-field: half of which lies in …Iran.

    Just don’t look to the MSM for the connections.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ray McGovern Comments via RSS