$248.00 donated in past month
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay FeatureRelated Categories: U.S. | Anti-War
New York Times Fuels Anti-Iranian Sentiment
New York Times Fuels Anti-Iranian Sentiment
by Stephen Lendman
Times editors, columnists and contributors support the worst of US policies. They regurgitate official lies.
They abhor truth and full disclosure. They substitute managed news misinformation. They do so consistently.
They advocate business as usual. They betray their readers in the process. They do it unapologetically.
They march in lockstep with imperial lawlessness. They call aggressive wars liberating ones.They're in bed with corporate America.
They're silent about police state repression. They believe NSA spying keeps America safe.
They want Edward Snowden prosecuted. They call responsibly exposing government wrongdoing criminal.
Times history reflects complicity with US spy agencies. Articles benefiting CIA, FBI, NSA, and illicit US operations are published. It's done disgracefully. It's longstanding Times policy.
So is Iran bashing. Times editors endorse decades of ruthless US policies. They want Iranian sovereignty destroyed.
They want pro-Western governance replacing it. They want Iran returned to its bad old days. They want America's imperium advanced.
They support lawless sanctions. They're imposed for fraudulent reasons. They harm ordinary Iranians most.
Iran's a nonbelligerent country. It prioritizes peace and stability. It threatens no one. Sanctions are crimes against humanity.
The General Assembly's 1974 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States says no nation may use or encourage use of economic, political or other measures to coerce another country to to subordinate its sovereign rights in any way.
Under Part IV, Section 1, Chapter III, Article 54 of the Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977):
(1) Starving civilians during war is prohibited.
(2) Attacking, destroying, removing, or compromising indispensable items is prohibited. They include foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, irrigation works, and other essential products, services, and facilities relating to them.
UN General Assembly Resolution 44/215 (1989) prohibits political and economic coercion against developing countries.
It specifically covers trade and financial restrictions, blockades, embargoes, and other economic sanctions. It calls them incompatible with UN Charter provisions.
They adversely affect the ability of nations to function politically, economically and socially. They harm civilians most.
The International Conference on Nutrition, World Declaration on Nutrition, Food and Agriculture Organization, and World Health Organization (1992) recognized the right to access nutritionally adequate and safe food as a fundamental right.
Iran abhors international terrorism. Washington and Israel prioritize it. US Code defines it as follows:
A. "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
B. appear to be intended -
i. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
ii. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
iii. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
C. occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...."
The US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37, 1984) shortened the definition to be "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature....through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."
Crimes against humanity breach fundamental international law. Civilian populations must be protected at all times.
Illegitimate sanctions harm human rights grievously. Imposing them against nonbelligerent countries violates international laws and norms.
Blockades are acts of war. Multiples rounds of sanctions targeting vital state functions have similar effects if pushed too far. Ones in place violate fundamental human rights.
They're illegal. It doesn't matter. Times editors support them. They endorse what demands condemnation.
They lie about Iran's nuclear program. It's legal. It's peaceful. It's non-military. US intelligence says so annually. Iran has no nuclear weapons program. No evidence suggests otherwise.
It wants a nuclear-free Middle East. It wants all nuclear weapons abolished. They threaten humanity's survival. Their existence is too great a danger to risk.
Complicit with Washington, key NATO partners and Israel, Times editors, columnists and contributors support Iran bashing.
They endorse red lines, timelines, deadlines, sanctions, sabotage, subversion, cyber attacks, assassinations, saber rattling, falsified IAEA hype, ad nauseam warmongering, and manipulated to fail P5+1 talks.
They feature anti-Iranian op-eds. Amos Yadlin's a retired Israeli Air Force (IAF) commander. He's a former US IDF attache. He heads Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS).
Avner Golov's an INSS researcher. He's a former IAF officer and Israeli National Security Council member.
New York Times editors gave them featured op-ed space. They did so disgracefully. They gave them a platform to lie. They let them fuel anti-Iranian sentiment.
They took full advantage. They headlined "Iran's Plan B for the Bomb," saying:
"Is Iran finally ready to talk?" Will President Hassan Rohani "reach a deal on its uranium enrichment program?"
"(I)t would be dangerous to think that Iran's proposal for negotiations alone would pave the way for a deal. What matters is not the talks but the outcome."
Iran's nuclear program is peaceful. It's legitimate. It complies fully with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) provisions. No evidence suggests otherwise.
Dozens of other countries enrich uranium the same way as Iran. Only the Islamic Republic is criticized. Doing so reflects double standard hypocrisy.
At issue isn't Iran's nuclear program. It's red herring cover for regime change. Don't expect Times editors to explain. Don't expect op-ed liars to do so.
Don't expect expect Israeli contributors. They endorse longstanding anti-Iranian policy. Priority's given to Israel's Greater Middle East agenda. At issue is eliminating key rivals.
It's expanding Israeli territory. It's making Israel the sole regional hegemon. It's waging imperial wars to do so.
Yadlin and Golov want Iran denied its legitimate rights. Lies substitute for truth and full disclosure.
"Whoever negotiates with Iran," they say, "must acknowledge that the enrichment of uranium from a low level (3.5 percent to 19.75 percent) to weapons-grade level (90 percent) is only one of three dimensions of Iran's nuclear strategy."
"A second dimension is Iran's progress toward a quick 'breakout capability' through the stockpiling of large quantities of low-enriched uranium that could be further enriched rapidly to provide weapons-grade fuel."
"Third, Iran also appears to be pursuing a parallel track to a nuclear capability through the production of plutonium."
"If there is going to be a nuclear deal with Iran, all three parts of its strategy must be addressed."
They want Iran's legal nuclear program compromised. They want the Islamic Republic returned to its bad old days.
They want its sovereign independence destroyed. They want another regional vassal state.
They claim Iran's able to build a bomb in months. They falsely suggest Tehran plans doing so.
"Any agreement must ensure that an Iranian breakout is detected quickly enough to allow for a Western response - meaning that the international community must be able to uncover any concealed facilities and activities for the production of fissile material."
"A solution will also have to address the potential for a plutonium bomb." In early 2014, its heavy-water Arak reactor's expected to become operational.
"Some American and European officials claim that Iran could produce weapons-grade plutonium next summer."
"These two announcements indicate that Iran is making progress on this alternative track."
"So far, the West has not paid much attention to the potential for a plutonium-fueled weapon. Now it must do so."
"A functioning nuclear reactor in Arak could eventually allow Iran to produce sufficient quantities of plutonium for nuclear bombs."
"Western negotiators should instead demand that Iran shut down the Arak reactor."
Iranian nuclear facilities operate legally. So will Arak. It's not being built to be shut down. Doing so's non-negotiable.
Yadlin and Golov want "Western leaders (to) maintain their current leverage - sanctions and a credible military threat - and ensure that any future agreement with Iran addresses all three dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program."
"Moderate messages from Tehran should not be allowed to camouflage Iran's continuing progress toward a bomb."
Yadlin and Golov represent US/Israeli imperial interests. They want Iran neutralized. They want vassal governance replacing its sovereign independence. They want what they won't get.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen [at] sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.