Paving the Way for War
09.13.07 - 09:56am
Earlier this month word started to emerge, on the web if not from mainstream news sources, that the anniversary of the dreadful events of September 11 would mark the start of a major propaganda offensive to pave the way for some form of military strike against Iran.
Given that there has been a drip feed of media reports regarding American threats to Iran for some time now, it is too early to make any informed judgment about whether we are at the outset of a sustained campaign leading to an act of war. However, there does seem to have been a spike in reports, especially from US media sources.
“Iran Linked to Iraq Rocket Attack” claims ABC News, adding:
U.S. military officials in Iraq tell ABC News that a rocket used in an attack on coalition headquarters at Camp Victory Tuesday was made in Iran. Officials say the rocket, which narrowly missed its target, was fired from an area of Baghdad controlled by Shia militia leader Moqtada al Sadr.
One awaits the headline “United States Linked to Rocket Attack” breathlessly reporting how a rocket used by some group or nation somewhere in the world was manufactured in America, thus demonstrating US involvement.
Meanwhile those rigorous upholders of the highest standards of the fourth estate, Fox News, reveal that US officials have begun planning the bombing of Iran:
Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.
Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, “everyone in town” is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.
This nonsense falls neatly into that category so familiar from reporting leading up to the invasion of Iraq, “the inevitability of war”, a soporific designed to suppress opposition and outrage by implanting in the public mind the erroneous idea that resistance is futile, war is coming no matter what. After all, “everyone in town” has agreed it is just about the timeframe now.
Yahoo reports a new statement from US Secretary of State, “Rice says U.S. needs to keep Iraq safe from Iran”:
“Iraq has very troublesome neighbors. Iran is a very troublesome neighbor,” she said, noting that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that if the United States leaves Iraq, Iran is prepared to fill the vacuum.
Rice said the United States needed Iraq and other allies in the region “to resist both terrorism and Iranian aggression.”
Condoleeza Rice fails to note that Iraq also has some fairly troublesome non-neighbours, with the United States continuing to bomb densely populated urban areas of Baghdad.
The Australian Herald Sun features claims from General David Petraeus, yes that man again, that Iran’s involvement in attacks on US soldiers is “very clear”:
General David Petraeus said the evidence included captured hard drives that contained digitised items taken from the wallet of a US soldier killed in an assault in January in Karbala along with four other US soldiers.
“The evidence is very, very clear,” Gen Petraeus said. “We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander and others. And it’s in black and white.”
While US efforts continue at the United Nations over the Iranian nuclear weapons programme no IAEA has yet found any sign of, including efforts to undermine the inspection programme itself, the main thrust of the media campaign now appears to be Iranian involvement in Iraq.
Right now, when it comes to Iran, every shard of metal is a smoking gun; in a classic case of doublethink, while we threaten Iran it is Iran who are the threat; as America and Israel actually train nuclear missiles at Iran the slightest indication that Iran might one day get a bomb of its own justifies the most horrific aggression; and the decisions have already been made, war is inevitable.
There is something eerily familiar about this strategy, isn’t there:
And as the Independent newspaper in London reports that 350 British soldiers, 250 of whom were told just days ago that they were on their way home, have been diverted at American request to new posts along the Iran-Iraq border, it appears that Gordon Brown, just like Tony Blair, just cannot bring himself to say “no” to the US.
Uh-oh. Do you have a link for that Independent story?
I’ve added it to the story now Dave and corrected the number. Was unable to do it this morning because the Independent website was down.
This is all monumentally depressing, but I just don’t think they’ll be able to sell it to people this time, either side of the pond. But Bush is running out of political lifetime to secure the legacy he dreams of, and I wonder if others within the US administration will have to cut him short before the natural run of the political process does.
The key difference this time is that a number of European countries seem to be very gung-ho about going for Iran, especially the Germans.
Whether America takes direct action or not she is making sure Israel is well equipped to have a go, and I think there’s little doubt that that’s exactly what Israel is preparing for.