Israeli Reactions to Oscar-Winning Iranian Film Reveals an Ignorant & Propagandized Population

 (AP Photo/Joel Ryan)

Last night, the brilliant Iranian film A Separation took the Best Foreign Film Oscar. This AP article, picked up by the Washington Post, about Israeli reactions to the film reveals the sheer amount of propaganda Israelis must be subject to regarding their perception of Iran. It's clear they are ignorant of what Iran is actually like...those interviewed are all shocked that the country is full of cars, home appliances, and real live human beings!

Here are the best quotes:

Yair Raveh, film critic for Israel's leading entertainment magazine, Pnai Plus, said, "Ultimately you don’t think about nuclear bombs or dictators threatening world peace. You see them driving cars and going to movies and they look exactly like us."

Rina Brick, 70, said, "Our image of how Iran works is less democratic than we see here. The judge, the police, everyone behaves as if they are in a Western country."

Rivka Cohen, 78, who left Iran at age 15, was "surprised by the way people lived in their houses...Everyone had a fridge and a washing machine."

Meanwhile, some movie-goers weren't even as enlightened as those above. Moshe Amirav, a political science professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said he "didn’t stop thinking about the bomb the whole time" he was watching A Separation. "I said, what a contrast that we see this Iranian film with such admiration, and then when we leave we think about how they want to kill us," Amirav said.

And that guy is a professor. Of political science. At a real university.

Here in the U.S., a new Zogby poll reveals that "78% [of Americans] believe Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons production" and that "68% say it is likely Iran would attack another nation if it produces nuclear weapons and has the ability to deliver them." Zogby also reports, "When asked what the US should do if it believes Iran has nuclear weapons, 37% support aerial attacks and another 7% would prefer both an invasion of Iran and aerial attacks. Increased economic and political sanctions are backed by 33%, while 10% would want no changes in current US policy toward Iran," while "79% are concerned that attacks on Iran could lead to higher fuel prices."

Meanwhile, here's writer/director Asghar Farhadi's acceptance speech after winning the "Best Foreign Film" Oscar last night:

"At this time, many Iranians all over the world are watching us and I imagine them to be very happy. They are happy not just because of an important award or a film or filmmaker, but because at the time when talk of war, intimidation and aggression is exchanged between politicians, the name of their country - Iran - is spoken here through her glorious culture. A rich and ancient culture that has been hidden under the heavy dust of politics. I proudly offer this award to the people of my country. A people who respect all cultures and civilizations and despise hostility and resentment. Thank you very much."

Clash of civilizations, indeed.

*****

Them's War-Startin' Words!Jeffrey Goldberg's Disingenuous Condemnation of Tucker Carlson

Today, the blogosphere was atwitter with the news that bow-tied super-douche Tucker Carlson, last night on Fox News, declared that "Iran deserves to be annihilated. I think they're lunatics. I think they're evil."

He also, bizarrely, stated that "we are the only country with the moral authority [...] sufficient to do that" because, apparently, the United States, with its more than 1,000 military bases across the globe and penchant for bombing, remote-control murder droning, unaccountable worldwide torture regime, invading and occupying foreign countries, is "the only country that doesn't seek hegemony in the world."

Watch it here:



Carlson's call for genocide was revealed to the non-Fox News-watching world by ThinkProgress's intrepid Eli Clifton and was quickly lambasted by numerous commentators. Even Jeffrey Goldberg has weighed in.

Goldberg, who has made a career of leading the charge for illegal war, didn't much like Carlson's comments. Writing on his blog today, Goldberg - after noting that he is "on friendly terms" with Carlson - condemns Carlson's murderous outburst as "the sort of rhetoric that leads to war" and states that "language like this -- careless or premeditated -- is inhuman and sets back America's interests."

This is all very noble and humane of Goldberg, but it's also completely disingenuous and hypocritical.

A mere four sentences after Goldberg quotes Carlson as saying, "I think they're lunatics. I think they're evil," Goldberg himself writes:

It should go without saying that Iran does not "deserve" to be annihilated. I wish, of course, that Iranian citizens will one day soon be free of the evil regime that rules their lives, and that Iran's neighbors, Arabs, Jews, everyone, will be able to live without fear of Tehran's aggressiveness.

Get it? No, not the fact that Goldberg's glorious hope for Iranians doesn't transfer to Palestinians who live under a two-tiered Israeli legal system, both within Israel and under occupation. And no, not the other fact that Iran's "aggressiveness" has translated into exactly zero military invasions of other countries in roughly two hundred years. The difference is that Carlson doesn't specifically make clear that he's referring to the "annihilation" of the Iranian "regime," rather than all 74 million Iranian citizens. (If he is forced into doing so, one can assume Carlson will make this very distinction when back-peddling. [UPDATE: Or not.]

Yet, unsurprisingly, Goldberg doesn't even play by his own rules, often using the shorthand term "Iran" to refer to the country's government.

In his much-discussed and totally wrong September 2010 blockbuster, "The Point of No Return," Goldberg hysterically referred to "the immediate specter of nuclear-weaponized, theologically driven, eliminationist anti-Semitism," meaning, of course, the Iranian government.

In an interview with Stephen Colbert shortly after its publication, Goldberg repeated the long-debunked claims that "Iran says they seek the destruction of Israel" and is "trying to gain nuclear weapons." He added:

Now, obviously, Iran poses threats to other areas of the Middle East and they pose a national security threat to the United States, but for Israel, they feel because of their history, because of their location, because of their vulnerability, they feel that this is an especially urgent threat.

Goldberg also described the Iranian government as "an unstable leadership, they are a crazy leadership" and explained, in the most paternal and patronizing manner possible, that "if they give up this path, if they stop seeking nuclear weapons, good things will happen to them."

In a totally incoherent rant published last June and amazingly headlined "Iran Wants the Bomb, and It's Well on Its Way," Goldberg decided to discuss "the reality-based worry that bloody-minded mullahs bent on dominating the Middle East aren't the sort of people who should have the bomb."

(Incidentally, it may be instructive to note that Goldberg's alarmist assumptions and assessments about Iran's intentions are not shared by any of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies or Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Brigadier General Martin Dempsey or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper or Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Ronald Burgess or even Israel intelligence estimates. In other words, he's a liar and a fear-monger.)

Goldberg also rehashes the baseless allegations that the Fordo enrichment plant was "exposed by Western intelligence agencies in 2009" and that "peaceful, internationally supervised nuclear program presumably would have no need for secret uranium-enrichment facilities buried inside mountains" Not only did Iran itself announce the existence of the site in accordance with its obligations under the safeguards agreement it has with the IAEA, but the site itself is under round-the-clock surveillance and subject to more intrusive inspections than nearly any nuclear site on the planet. Additionally, one might assume that with near daily threats of and rumors about an imminent, unprovoked Israeli or American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, even sites under safeguard (and in which the IAEA has repeatedly and consistently confirmed - multiple times a year, year after year - that there has been no diversion of nuclear material), should be defended from potential, illegal aggression. For Iran not to staunchly defend facilities and technology (in which it has invested billions) from attack would, in fact, be profoundly irresponsible, negligent, and dangerous.

On October 17, 2011, Goldberg described the Iranian government as "chaotic" and the Revolutionary Guard Corps as "protectors of Ayatollah Khomeini's dystopian vision for a radicalized Muslim world, enthusiastic exporters of terrorism, and rulers of a state within a state" and wasted multiple paragraphs on the supposed threat to American warships in the Persian Gulf by "a couple of true believers in an explosive-laden speedboat."

The next month, Goldberg wrote a piece for Bloomberg called "Why Obama Might Save Israel From Nuclear Iran." In it, Goldberg claimed that the IAEA "is set to release a report...offering further proof that the Iranian regime is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." Well, that didn't actually happen.

Furthermore, Goldberg once again stated that "[t]he leaders of Iran are eliminationist anti-Semites" and "mystically minded, mesmerized by visions of the apocalypse" and who "have repeatedly called for Israel's destruction and worked to hasten that end" by backing resistance groups which, Goldberg declares, "specialize in the slaughter of innocent Jews." In short, Goldberg sums up, "Iran's leaders are men who deny the Holocaust while promising another." Again, one assumes Goldberg doesn't find his own absurd rhetoric to be "the sort...that leads to war."

A few days later, in a blog post with the header "Is an Attack on Iran's Nuclear Program a Bad Idea?", Goldberg did his phony hand-wringing thing again. "As for me, well, I don't know which one is worse: A preemptive attack, or a nuclear Iran," he opined. "An attack would be disastrous on many levels, but I also think that a nuclear Iran would not be fully containable."

On January 23, 2012, Goldberg declared, "It's beyond a doubt that the Iranian regime would like to bring about the destruction of Israel." In the same piece, embarrassingly entitled "How Iran Could Trigger Accidental Armageddon," Goldberg concluded that "opponents of military action make a mistake in arguing that a nuclear Iran is a containable problem. It is not." Reading this determination, one wonders whether Goldberg thinks "[t]his is the sort of rhetoric that leads to war" or not.

On February 6, 2012, Goldberg was back making his constant ridiculous and shameful analogies between Iran and Nazi Germany, replete with heavy-handed Auschwitz references, and speculating about Iranian intentions with no evidence to support his lurid claims. He wrote:

Iran represents the definitive, post-Nazi Jewish nightmare: a regime that openly argues for the destruction of Israel and is seeking nuclear weapons. The Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said just last week, "The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor that should be removed and will be removed, God willing." The regime seems bent on building weapons that could actually bring about the obliteration of Israel and its six million Jews.

Just the other day, Goldberg once again exploited the Holocaust, through around the Nazi analogy and decided that "Iran is run by a regime whose first, defining act was of mass hostage-taking." Anyone with even cursory knowledge of the Iranian Revolution would know that the actual "first, defining act" of the Islamic Republic would better be described as the drafting and adoption of a complex and unique constitution which was approved by popular referendum mere months after toppling the quarter-century tyranny of the U.S.-backed Shah. But for Goldberg and others like him, Iranian history began on November 4, 1979. Goldberg continued to describe Iran as "comprehensively evil" and, more generally, "evil people."

So, according to Goldberg, when an Iranian official uses the specific term "regime" (as in, say, "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"), he secretly means "every single Jew on planet Earth," but when Goldberg himself uses the term he's really only describing the "crazy" or "evil" or "bloody-minded" or "eliminationist" Iranian government.

So, let's see here. Why might Goldberg be frustrated with Tucker Carlson's outlandish verbal diarrhea? Perhaps it's because he's stealing Goldberg's thunder.

*****

Troubled Jeopardy!: Travels Through Trebekistan

Hasbara for $1600, Alex! 

Back in January, a $1000 first-round clue on Jeopardy!, falling under the category "Judea," asked, "Galilee, Samaria & Judea in the south were the 3 traditional divisions of this ancient area with a still-current name." The correct question was "What is Palestine?"

None of the three contestants even buzzed in to respond. (Incidentally, this was a question a number of GOP presidential candidates had been answering incorrectly themselves at the time.)

Shortly thereafter, I posted this in the comments section of Mondoweiss:

The Jeopardy! answer/question about Palestine is especially intriguing and satisfying considering that, over the past few seasons, Alex Trebek and company have often featured clues (sometimes even whole categories with on-site video of Alex and team at Yad Vashem, floating in the Dead Sea, the Western Wall, and Masada) devoted to Israel and its current stewardship of Biblical sites and expropriation of history...usually in the form of answers and questions that wholly ignores the Occupation and existence of both Palestine and Palestinians.

Jeopardy!'s apparent love affair with Israel seems to have begun in earnest back in 2009, after Trebek and his Clue Crew were treated to a [three]-week hasbara trip to Israel by the Israeli Ministry of Tourism. It is clear this initiative was launched to correspond with the "Brand Israel" PR campaign.

Commercial advertisements insisting "There's a little bit of Israel in all of us. Come find the Israel in you" (paid for by the Tourism Ministry, of course) are still often aired during episodes of Jeopardy!.

In late November 2009, some days after Jeopardy! featured a category entitled "A Journey Through Israel", which Alex described as "reliving history thousands of years old or just a few decades old," Carlton Cobb wrote an excellent and informative post for Fair Policy, Fair Discussion, the official blog for the Council for the National Interest Foundation. It's well worth the read.

Good to see Jeopardy! is finally moving away from heavy-handed hasbara.

It appears I was too optimistic. The College Championship (first semifinal game) episode of Jeopardy!, which aired on February 8, 2012, included a Double Jeopardy! category entitled "The 21st Century." The $1200 clue stated:

"In 2005 Israel gave up control of this coastal territory"

The response of "What is the Gaza Strip?" was the desired question.

But the Jeopardy! writers, widely respected as masters of fact and trivia, are wrong. Since occupying the territory in 1967, Israel has never relinquished control of Gaza. Despite the hasbara talking point that Israel "unilaterally disengaged" from Gaza in 2005, dismantling its settlements and forcibly removing its 9,000 colonists, Israel maintains its effective control over the borders, economy, and Palestinians of the territory in a way that can only be described as continued occupation and collective punishment.

As Israeli historian Avi Shlaim points out, after the 2005 withdrawal of Israeli colonists and military personnel, "Gaza was converted overnight into an open-air prison. From this point on, the Israeli air force enjoyed unrestricted freedom to drop bombs, to make sonic booms by flying low and breaking the sound barrier, and to terrorise the hapless inhabitants of this prison."

The official 2005 Israeli "Disengagement Plan" even states clearly, "The State of Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip." It further declares, "The Gaza Strip shall be demilitarized and shall be devoid of weaponry, the presence of which does not accord with the Israeli-Palestinian agreements."

Beyond this, as the Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Programme points out, "Israel controls a buffer zone in the northern part of the Gaza Strip and does not allow Palestinian movement within 150 meters (de facto 500 meters) from the northern and eastern parts of the fence surrounding the Gaza Strip" and "retains the ability to effectively conduct land incursions, as stated in the Disengagement plan itself."

Even the CIA admits, "Israel still controls maritime, airspace, and other access to the Gaza Strip; Israel also enforces a restricted zone along the border inside Gaza."

But Israel doesn't just control the gates of the Gaza prison, it also controls the internal infrastructure, economic freedom and freedom of movement of its inhabitants. The Disengagement Plan itself states:

In general, Israel will continue, for full price, to supply electricity, water, gas and petrol to the Palestinians, in accordance with current arrangements...

In general, the economic arrangements currently in operation between the State of Israel and the Palestinians shall remain in force. These arrangements include, inter alia:

One. The entry and exit of goods between the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the State of Israel and abroad.

Two. The monetary regime.

Three. Tax and customs envelope arrangements.

Four. Postal and telecommunications arrangements.

Five. The entry of workers into Israel, in accordance with the existing criteria.

Just today, Alresalah reports that the vast majority of hospital patients in Gaza are at great risk due to the Israeli-imposed collective punishment of deliberate, extended electrical blackouts throughout the territory. Dr. Ashraf Al-qidra, director of Public Relations and Information Department at Gaza's Health Ministry stated, "More than 80% of patients in the Gaza Strip are threatened to terrible health status and possibility of death due to lack of electricity." He added that at least "404 of dialysis patients are at risk of death for their treatment is totally based on electricity" and that 100 children in intensive care are also at lethally threatened by the outages.

That fact that Israel still controls Gaza is so obvious, it is indeed curious that the fact-checkers on the Jeopardy! research team would allow this type of propaganda on its program.

Apparently, a three-week Israeli government-sponsored trip goes a long way to influence Jeopardy!'s conception of history. Unfortunately, when it comes to Palestine, it seems international law, collective punishment and simple facts are triple-stumpers for Trebek.

*****

Alan Dershowitz's Awful Law & Terrorist Friends

I know I shouldn't waste my time on this buffoon, but I simply can't help myself.

This is real.

Alan Dershowitz - Attorney General of Hasbara and Warmongering - has once again taken to the pages of the Wall Street Journal (along with an extended cut-and-paste job in David Horowitz's neocon rag FrontPageMag) to advocate for an Israeli or American military attack on Iran.

It appears that Dershowitz is now attempting to claim that a "preventative" attack on Iran is actually merely "reactive" on the part of Israel (or the U.S.) and goes to great disingenuous lengths to paint Iran as the aggressor - casting nuclear-armed Israel and its super-power patron, as usual, as mere victims of Iranian violence based upon allegations made by Benjamin Netanyahu blaming the Iranian government for recent terrorist attacks in Georgia and Thailand.

After using intellectually dishonest tactics to paint Iran as an aggressor against Israel (and, bizarrely, all Jewish people worldwide) and citing Article 51 of the UN Charter to argue for legal retaliatory military actions if Iran attacks a foreign country, Dershowitz writes, "This is not to argue against such an attack if Iran decides not to go after soft American targets. It may become necessary for our military to target Iranian nuclear facilities if economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts do not succeed and if the Iranian government decides to cross red lines..."

To say that his understanding, invocation, and defense of "preventative" military action is totally incorrect would be an understatement.  He is expressly advocating a first strike by the U.S. (and later expands this advocacy to an Israeli assault) which is - by any stretch of international law - a wholly illegal action that has long been considered "the supreme international crime."

It is additionally ironic for Dershowitz to invoke the UN Charter in making his grotesque arguments that absolve Israel and the U.S. of all past and potential violations of international law yet holds the Iranian government and people collectively accountable for any blog post suggesting Iran itself use military force. Whereas he uses Article 51 to make his case, he suggests the US explicitly violate Article 2 of that very same document. Article 2, as we know, states that all UN members "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." Yet, what does Dershowitz call for? He insists the US government attempt to deter Iran from weaponizing its nuclear program (note the unstated admission that Iran has no nuclear weapons program!) by providing a "credible" "threat of military action."

While it is becoming clear that Dershowitz is increasingly (and rightly) seen as not only a serial liar and a reflexive and shameless apologist for anything Israel does (or wants to do), but also as a completely morally bankrupt person, that doesn't mean his influence is irrelevant. Speaking in opposition to a recent human rights conference held at the University of Pennsylvania, Dershowitz claimed that he is in regular contact with both Netanyahu and Obama. Indeed, Dershowitz is an attention-seeker and self-aggrandizer, but I still wouldn't be surprised if his boast were partially true.

Most notably, however, is the fact that Dershowitz has recently taken up the mantle as a defender of the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK). Speaking in Washington DC earlier this month (fresh from decrying the PennBDS Conference), Dershowitz called himself a "human rights activist" and called for the MEK to be delisted as a terrorist organization. This alone, as Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project affirms, is tantamount to "material support" for a designated terrorist group. That Dershowitz was surely paid for his endorsement puts him in league with Howard Dean, Mike Mukasey, Rudy Giuliani, Lee Hamilton, and Wesley Clark, along with numerous former government officials and current members of Congress as defending a known terrorist cult which has recently been implicated in the murders of Iranian scientists, with substantial backing and training from Israel. If true, a more perfect definition of Israel as a "state sponsor of terrorism" could not be found.

Nevertheless, on behalf of the MEK, Dershowitz declared, "We know there's no evidence of terrorism. We know there's no terrorism." He continued, "The fact you call somebody a terrorist doesn't, however, make them terrorists. There is no evidence. We know that, that any military action or terrorist action has occurred, certainly not in the last decade." (Pointing out that Dershowitz frequently refers to Iran's alleged involvement in bombings in Argentina and Saudi Arabia in the mid-1990's would be too obvious, wouldn't it?)

He even invoked the Holocaust in his plea for ensuring the "physical safety" of MEK members in Iraq and declared that the US government and its citizens "are friends with people at Camp Ashraf" and are bound to "protect them."

So, at what point will Alan Dershowitz be charged with aiding a foreign terrorist organization?

*****

Obama Lies about the Iranian Nuclear Program:Super Bowl Sunday Media Blitz Edition

"I can't strut my stuff / when I got those lock‑step blues."
- Blind Lemon Jefferson, Lock Step Blues (1928)

During a Special Edition of NBC's Today Show, broadcast live on Sunday before the Super Bowl, Matt Lauer interviewed Barack Obama and asked the President about a potential Israeli attack on Iran. Obama said,

"I think they, like us, believe that Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program...[Iran is] feeling the pinch, they are feeling the pressure, but they have not taken the step that they need to diplomatically, which is to say, 'We will pursue peaceful nuclear power. We will not pursue a nuclear weapon.' Until they do, I think Israel rightly is going to be very concerned and we are as well."

Obama also noted that the United States and Israel "have closer military and intelligence consultation between our two countries than we ever have" and are working "in lock-step" to "solve" the Iranian nuclear issue, "hopefully diplomatically."

Watch it here:

(apologies for the advertisement that plays before the clip)

By blithely referring to an Iranian "nuclear weapons program," the President of the United States is knowingly contradicting the findings and statements of both the American and Israeli military and intelligence communities; the very communities he notes are engaged in such high-level information sharing, cooperation, and coordination.

On January 8, 2012, speaking on CBS's Face The Nation, Obama's own Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared, "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No." He added that the U.S. was "putting diplomatic and economic pressure" on Iran in order "to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon."

Ten days later, Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported that, when U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman General Martin Dempsey would soon meet with "various senior defense officials, including Barak and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz," he would be presented with an "intelligence assessment" that "indicates that Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb." Ha'aretz continues,

The Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon - or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile. Nor is it clear when Iran might make such a decision.

One week ago, on January 31, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper delivered his annual "Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" to members of Congress. Clapper reported that while American intelligence assumes that "Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons," the decision to do so has not been made. "We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons," Clapper said. This assessment was identical to the assessment delivered in March 2011 by Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, Director of Defense Intelligence Agency. Speaking before the Senate Committee on Armed Forces, Burgess said, "we assess Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict or launch a preemptive attack."

Following the leaked (and over-hyped) release of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safeguards Report on Iran in early November 2011, The National Journal's Marc Ambinder quoted a "senior administration official" as saying, "The IAEA does not assert that Iran has resumed a full scale nuclear weapons program nor does it [demonstrate] how advanced the programs really are."

Recently, due to sloppy reporting and public condemnation, ombudsmen at The New York Times, The Washington Post, and National Public Radio have all warned against claiming that Iran has a nuclear weapons program when the IAEA, U.S., and Israeli findings all deny that one exists.

"Shorthand references are often dangerous," wrote NPR's Edward Schumacher-Matos, "Repeated enough as fact — 'Iran's nuclear weapons program' — they take on a life of their own." The Post's Patrick Pexton noted that such misleading statements "can circle the globe in minutes" and "can also play into the hands of those who are seeking further confrontation with Iran."

Beyond that, Obama's claim that Iranian leaders have not yet declared their intentions regarding their nuclear program is not only disingenuous, it's a blatant lie. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only, that it is Iran's inalienable national right as affirmed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that it operates under strict IAEA safeguards and inspections, and that Iran has no intention of weaponizing.

There's no reason why Obama should be waiting for Iranian officials to say "We will not pursue a nuclear weapon," when they've been saying it for years.

Here are just a small sampling of examples:

As far back as March 23, 1997, then-Iranian President Rafsanjani, during an interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, was asked whether Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. In response, Rafsanjani declared, "absolutely not. We hate that weapon." After even more prodding by Wallace, Rafsanjani added, "We make missiles and we tell everybody that our missile industry is strong. But we're not after nuclear bombs and we won't go after biological and chemical weapons."

In early January 1998, the newly-inaugurated Iranian President Seyyed Mohammad Khatami stated, "We are not a nuclear power and do not intend to be, we have no plans to build nuclear weapons and are only seeking to have peaceful nuclear energy."

During an extensive and wide-ranging ABC News interview with Chris Wallace, conducted in Tehran in mid-September 2002, Hassan Rohani, the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and top adviser to then-president Mohammad Khatami, said, "When we have signed international treaties, it means we are not pursuing making nuclear weapons. We are not pursuing making chemical weapons. We are not pursuing making biological weapons. Iran is not interested in any of these."

Speaking in the northeastern Iranian city of Mashhad at the Imam Reza Shrine on March 21, 2003, Iranian head of state Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei declared, "The statement that the Islamic Republic wants to obtain chemical weapons and the atomic bomb is totally false...Nuclear know-how is related to a particular field of knowledge and serves many objectives. If there are people who are interested they could use certain aspects of the know-how to build an atom bomb. But we are not interested in an atomic bomb. We are opposed to chemical weapons. When Iraq was using chemical weapons against us we refused to produce chemical weapons. These things are against our principles. They are lying to justify themselves."

On September 12, 2004, The Financial Times quoted Iranian Supreme National Security Council official Hussein Musavian as stating, "The religious verdict of our leader is that using mass destruction weapons is forbidden, is haram [‘unlawful’ in Islam]," while Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi was quoted the same day in the Iranian media as saying, "We believe that the use of nuclear weapons is religiously forbidden. This is the leader's fatwa [religious decree]."

In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times on November 5, 2004, Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations, explained why Iran had no reason to seek a nuclear weapon, noting, among other reasons such strategic uselessness and financial burden, that Iran has "serious ideological restrictions against weapons of mass destruction, including a religious decree issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, prohibiting the development and use of nuclear weapons."

On August 10, 2005, Iranian nuclear negotiator Sirus Naseri delivered a statement to an emergency meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors which read, in part, "The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain."  Naseri also affirmed that "[t]he leadership of Iran has pledged at the highest level that Iran will remain a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT."

Iran's UN Ambassador Javad Zarif wrote another op-ed, this time in the New York Times, on April 6, 2006.  In it, he reiterated that "Iran's reliance on the nonproliferation regime is based on legal commitments, sober strategic calculations and spiritual and ideological doctrine. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, has issued a decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons," adding that Iran remains "party to all international agreements on the control of weapons of mass destruction."

Current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that spooky specter of genocidal doom, said in August 2006, "Nuclear weapons have no place in Iran's defense doctrine and Iran is not a threat to any country...We are not a threat to anybody; even our solution to the Zionist regime is a referendum." Soon thereafter, Ahmadinejad told CBS's Mike Wallace, "Basically we are not looking for - working for the bomb...The time of the bomb is in the past." The next month, Ahmadinejad said to NBC's Brian Williams, "You must know that, because of our beliefs and our religion...[w]e are against the atomic bomb."

In response to the imposition of illegal sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Iranian Ambassador Zarif delivered a statement to the United Nations Security Council in which he reminded the body that Iran has "categorically rejected development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on ideological and strategic grounds" and "reiterat[ed] that the Islamic Republic of Iran firmly believes that the days of weapons of mass murder have long passed; that these inhumane instruments of indiscriminate slaughter have not brought internal stability or external security for anyone and they will not be able to do so in the future."

When asked by CBS by Scott Pelley the following year whether Iran was building a nuclear weapon, Ahmadinejad answered, "It is a firm 'no.' I'm going to be much firmer now. I want to address all politicians around the world, statesmen. Any party who uses national revenues to make a bomb, a nuclear bomb, will make a mistake. Because in political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use....we don't need such weapons. In fact, we think that this is inhuman." A few days later, when interviewed by Charlie Rose, Ahmadinejad repeated himself, adding, "We've said many times before, we don't need the weapon. It's not enshrined in our defense doctrine, nuclear defense. And ideologically, we don't believe in it either. We have actually rejected it on an ideological basis. And politically, we know that it is useless."

At Columbia University, on September 25, 2007, Ahmadinejad stated, "Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers." In a response to a question from an audience member, he reiterated, "We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity."

Speaking to Charlie Rose in Tehran on August 22, 2008, Ahmadinejad declared, "We want nuclear disarmament [for all countries]...and we consider it to be against humanity to manufacture nuclear weapons...we oppose that strongly," continuing, "Our position is very clear...We believe that a nuclear weapon has no use, obsolete. Anyone who has a nuclear weapons does not create any political advantage for themselves."

A month later, on September 23, 2008, Ahmadinejad told Larry King, "We believe, as a matter of religious teaching, that we must be against any form of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. The production and the usage of nuclear weapons is one of the most abhorrent acts to our eyes." He added, "The time for a nuclear bomb has ended. Whoever who invests in it is going the wrong way."

The same day, during an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep, Ahmadinejad insisted that Iran was "a country that is simply seeking peaceful nuclear energy" and not nuclear weapons.

When MSNBC's Ann Curry interviewed Ahmadinejad the next year, in September 2009, he again said, "We don't have such a need for nuclear weapons. We don't need nuclear weapons. Without such weapons, we are very much able to defend ourselves...It's not a part of our any – of our programs and plans." (Nevertheless, MSNBC titled Curry's report, "Ahmadinejad refuses to rule out weapons.")

Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivered a sermon for Eid al-Fitr on September 20, 2009 in which he condemned Western countries of "falsely accus[ing] the Islamic Republic’s establishment of producing nuclear weapons." He made the official Iranian positon clear:

We fundamentally reject nuclear weapons and prohibit the use and production of nuclear weapons. This is because of our ideology, not because of politics or fear of arrogant powers or an onslaught of international propaganda. We stand firm for our ideology.

At the same time, they are aware of this. The US officials who claim that the Iranian missiles are dangerous or that we seek to produce atomic bombs know themselves that such statements are false. But it is part of the policy of Iranophobia that dominates the behavior of these arrogant governments today. They should correct their behaviour. The Iranian nation is vigilant and understands their enmity, and it will stand firm against them. The Islamic Republic will not surrender in the face of any attack.

In December 2009, President Ahmadinejad told the press in Copenhagen, "[W]e do not want to make a bomb...Our policy is transparent. If we wanted to make a bomb we would be brave enough to say so. When we say that we are not making one, we are not. We do not believe in it."

On February 19, 2010, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued a statement in response to Western allegations of an Iranian nuclear weapons program which declared, "[W]e have often said that our religious tenets and beliefs consider these kinds of weapons of mass destruction to be symbols of genocide and are, therefore, forbidden and considered to be haram," continuing, "This is why we do not believe in atomic bombs and weapons and do not seek them."

In early April 2010, in anticipation of a government-sponsored nuclear disarmament conference entitled "Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for None," then-Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki clarified the official Iranian position on nuclear arms. "Iran does not believe in nuclear weapons nor does it need one," he stated. "Iran believes that the era of nuclear weapons is over. These weapons are not even of use to those who possess them."

A statement by Iranian head of state, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, determined that "any use of or even threat to use nuclear weapons is a serious and material violation of indisputable rules of humanitarian law and a cogent example of a war crime." His message concluded, "We regard the use of these weapons to be illegal and haram, and it is incumbent on all to protect humankind from this grave disaster."

Speaking at the United Nations NPT Review Conference in May 2010, Ahmadinejad stated, "The nuclear bomb is a fire against humanity rather than a weapon for defense." He continued, "The possession of nuclear bombs is not a source of pride; it is rather disgusting and shameful. And even more shameful is the threat to use or to use such weapons, which is not even comparable to any crime committed throughout the history."

The same day, during an interview with Charlie Rose, Ahmadinejad said, "We are opposed to the bomb, the nuclear bomb, and we will not build it. If we want to build it, we have the guts to say it...So when we say we don't want it, we don't want it."

In an interview with Euronews, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said that Iran was determined to be "a new peaceful nuclear power" and insisted that "being a nuclear power does not mean that we are going to make a bomb."

Addressing the U.N. General Assembly in September 2010, Ahmadinejad reiterated his condemnation of atomic weaponry, saying, "The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon and which must totally be eliminated." He proposed "that the year 2011 be proclaimed the year of nuclear disarmament," reaffirming Iran's commitment to establishing a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad also told Larry King, "We are not seeking the bomb. We have no interest in it. And we do not think that it is useful. We are standing firm over the issue that both the Zionist regime and the United States government should be disarmed."

In a statement made on December 22, 2010, Khamenei said, "We don't have any belief in the atomic bomb and don't pursue it. Our religious principles and beliefs forbid the acquisition and use of such weapons of mass murder. We consider such weapons to be a symbol of destruction."

On June 15, 2011, Russia Today reported that during a meeting between Ahmadinejad, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's 10th annual summit in Astana, "[t]he Iranian President has once again declared unequivocally that his country has no intention of possessing a nuclear weapon." According to the Interfax news agency, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told journalists after the talks that, according to Ahmadinejad, "this will be Iran's official firm and invariable position in all practical affairs."

In early August 2011, Euronews published an interview with President Ahmadinejad during which he repeated these consistent statements on the nuclear weapons issue: "When we say we don't have any intention to build a bomb, we're honest and sincere. We believe that today if someone wants to build a bomb he's crazy and insane...An atomic bomb is against all humans."

During an interview with Russia Today conducted in Tehran in mid-August 2011, Ahmadinejad was asked whether, at some point in the future, Iran "may want to acquire a nuclear deterrent, a nuclear weapon." He responded, "Never, never. We do not want nuclear weapons. We do not seek nuclear weapons. This is an inhumane weapon. Because of our beliefs we are against that. Firstly, our religion says it is prohibited. We are a religious people. Secondly, nuclear weapons have no capability today. If any country tries to build a nuclear bomb, they in fact waste their money and resources and they create great danger for themselves."

In an interview with the Washington Post, also conducted in Tehran and published September 13, 2011, Ahmadinejad told Lally Weymouth, "If we want to have a nuclear weapon, we are not afraid of others; we will publicly announce it...When we say we are not going to build nuclear weapons, we mean it. Because we consider it an evil thing and we do not need those items."

On September 20, 2011, speaking with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, Ahmadinejad said that the only people who believe Iran is seeking nuclear weapons are "European and American politicians," and repeated, "I've said many times we don't want a bomb and we are against any nuclear bombs."

The same day, Ahmadinejad was interviewed by The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof and explained that the Iranian nuclear program was intended only "for peaceful purposes." He repeated this shortly thereafter to Edith M. Lederer of the Associated Press and also told Charlie Rose, "We are not seeking the weapon. We are not seeking the nuclear weapon."

In an interview with Charlie Rose aired on November 18, 2011, Mohammad Javad Larijani, head of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights and close adviser to Khamenei, said that Iran seeks "advancement in science and technology related to nuclear area, not directed toward the weapon area," adding, "We are a signatory of NPT, we are a sincere signatory to the NPT. We think non-proliferation is a benefit of Iran and all of us...We are an advocate of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons."

In mid-January 2012, Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani reaffirmed, "We are not after nuclear weapons. We do not find nuclear weapons right from a religious perspective."

On January 30, 2012, speaking before a visit by top IAEA officials to Iran, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi declared, "Iran is never, ever after nuclear weapons."

For some time now, Supreme Leader Khamenei's own website has had an entire page specifically dedicated to Iran's official policy on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. It should be read in full by anyone even attempting to discuss Iranian discourse on the nuclear and claiming that the Islamic Republic is "hell-bent" on building a nuclear arsenal. For instance, Khamenei repeatedly makes the distinction between nuclear technology and weaponry, stating,

...a country may be moral and disciplined in terms of its social behaviors. It may acquire knowledge and wealth as well, but at the same time it may use the knowledge, wealth and discipline of its people to annihilate another nation. This is wrong. According to our logic, it is not right for a country to use its knowledge to produce such weapons as nuclear bombs which annihilate armed soldiers, innocent civilians, children, babies and oppressed people indiscriminately once they are dropped somewhere.

He also declares,

Nuclear technology is different from building atomic bombs. Achieving nuclear technology constitutes scientific growth in a field that offers many different advantages. Those who are after building an atomic bomb can achieve their goal by following a certain branch of nuclear technology. Iran is not after an atomic bomb, and it is even opposed to possession of chemical weapons. Even when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, we did not try to manufacture chemical weapons. Such things are not in line with the principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Khamenei, referencing the American use of nuclear weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, explains that the "anti-human effects went beyond political and geographic borders, even inflicting irreparable harm on future generations. Therefore, using or even threatening to use such weapons is considered a serious violation of the most basic humanitarian rules and is a clear manifestation of war crimes."

And there's more:

On numerous occasions, the Iranian people and government officials have announced that they do not seek to develop nuclear weapons and that nuclear weapons have no place among the needs of the nation and the military system of the country. We believe that using nuclear weapons is haram and prohibited and that it is everybody's duty to make efforts to protect humanity against this great disaster. We believe that besides nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons also pose a serious threat to humanity.

[...]

Only those who have the motivation will go after nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not have this motivation, and it has never been after nuclear weapons. Iran does not need a nuclear bomb.

[...]

Iran is not after a nuclear bomb. Why would Iran want a nuclear bomb? Moreover, when an atomic bomb is detonated, it does not just kill enemies. Rather, it kills innocent people as well, and this goes against Islamic beliefs and the principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran. An atomic bomb does not discriminate between good and bad people, and it is not something that the Islamic Republic would use. The Islamic Republic is relying on something that is not affected by bombs, foreign invasions and other such things. Such things only strengthen what the Islamic republic is relying on. The Islamic republic is relying on the people.

Of course, one may believe or disbelieve the statements of Iranian leaders, but to say that they have not clearly articulated their official position on the continued peaceful nature of their legal and safeguarded nuclear program is simply not true.

Yet, despite these clear denouncements of nuclear weapons by Iranian leaders and repeated assurances that they have no intention of building such weapons, along with the unequivocal assessment by Western and Israeli intelligence agencies that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, President Barack Obama showed he has no problem repeating propaganda in order to score political points in an election year.

*****

UPDATE:

February 8, 2012 - Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern (with whom I've had the pleasure of sharing a podium) has also similarly addressed Obama's Matt Lauer interview in an excellent article entitled "Obama's Super-Bowl Fumble on Iran" on Consortiumnews.

McGovern points out that Obama's use of the term "lock-step" when discussing U.S. collaboration with Israel might not mean what the President thinks it means. McGovern writes:

What probably exceeded the Israeli leadership's fondest expectations, though, was Obama's pledge that in addressing Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions, the U.S. will "work in lockstep" with Israel.

("Lockstep?" What does Webster's say of "lockstep?"

noun:

1 – a mode of marching in step by a body of men going one after another as closely as possible;

2 – a standard method or procedure that is mindlessly adhered to...

adjective:

– in perfect, rigid, often mindless conformity or unison.)

Obama poured icing on Israel's cake when he emphasized that Israeli-U.S. military and intelligence consultation has never been closer. The result? Up in smoke went any possibility of plausible denial of foreknowledge on Washington's part, if — despite Panetta's oft-repeated pleas that Israel and the U.S. must "work together" — Israel follows its customary practice of shunning any advance warning (much less requests for permission), in favor of seeking post-hoc forgiveness for launching armed attacks.

It should also be noted that "lock-step" is a generally pejorative term, with origins not only in dehumanizing military obedience but also in prison - specifically, chain gang - terminology. The "lock-step" was enforced as a controlling mechanism and punitive tool in the American and Canadian penal systems of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

On second thought, maybe that's exactly what Obama meant.

With that in mind, I'll leave you with Blind Lemon Jefferson's "Lock Step Blues."






Lock Step Blues (1928)
by Blind Lemon Jefferson

I used to take my feet / in a midnight tramp
Now they got me / doing a different kind of dance

I couldn't keep away from [wild, bad] women / bad [liquor, whiskey] cards and dice
Now I'm doing the lock‑step baby / things ain't going so nice

It don't matter to me / whether it sunshine snow or rains
Because I can't go gay cutting / and carry a ball and chain

Mean old jailor / taking away my dancing shoes
I can't strut my stuff / when I got those lock‑step blues

Big rats in my cell / keeps me woke all night
My woman done turned me down / and I don't think that's right

Every morning / I walk down that big long hall
I'm screaming for my mama / can't make no time at all

*****

UPDATE II:

February 23, 2012 - Adding once more to the litany of explicit statements made by senior Iranian officials regarding the country's official stance on obtaining nuclear weapons, the seniorest of them all, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei - Iran's head of state and commander-in-chief - said yesterday that "the Iranian nation has never sought and will never seek nuclear weapons and has the capacity to break the supremacy of powers that rely on nuclear arms."

The Leader's own website reported:

Ayatollah Khamenei further noted that arrogant powers regularly engage in spreading propaganda and publicity with the ultimate objective of impeding Iran's scientific advancement.

"There is no doubt that decision-making establishments in countries that stand against us are quite aware that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons since the Islamic Republic of Iran regards the possession of nuclear weapons as a great sin, in terms of thought, theory and religious edict, and also believes that holding such weapons is useless, costly and dangerous," Leader of the Islamic Revolution said.

*****

UPDATE III:

February 28, 2012 - Addressing the United Nations Conference on Disarmament in Geneva today, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi described nuclear weapons as "immoral and illegitimate," called the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by United States an "inhumane massacre," and lamented the continued existence of massive nuclear arsenals maintained by a few world powers.

He also reiterated the Islamic Republic's official stance on nuclear weapons:

I would like to re-emphasize that we do not see any glory, pride or power in the nuclear weapons, quite the opposite based on the religious decree issued by our supreme leader, the production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, are illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin. We have clearly stated time and again that there are two alternatives in dealing with the Iranian peaceful nuclear program: one way is engagement, cooperation and interaction, and the other is confrontation and conflict. The Islamic Republic of Iran, confident of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, has always insisted on the first alternative. When it comes to our relevant rights and obligations, our consistent position is that Iran does not seek confrontation, nor does it want anything beyond its inalienable legitimate rights. What we are looking for, is justice and the refusal of double standards.

Furthermore, Salehi once again, as Iranian officials have done consistently for years, encouraged the establishment of a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Middle East.

*****

UPDATE IV:

April 6, 2012 - In an interview that appears in the spring issue of the Tehran-based quarterly Faslnaameh Motaale'aat-e Beynolmelali (International Studies Journal), former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani addressed Iran's nuclear posture and clarified comments he made in a 1999 sermon which have long been misinterpreted as a nuclear threat to Israel.  He stated:

We really do not want to make nuclear weapons and a nuclear weapon program. In a sermon during a Friday Prayer [at the University of Tehran in 1999] I advised the occupying regime of Israel that having nuclear weapons is not even in Israel's interest. If there is ever a nuclear confrontation -- Israel is a small country, it will not be able to take even one bomb. It is a small country and can be destroyed easily, although they interpreted my advice as a threat. We deeply believe that nuclear weapons must not exist, and this has been part of our policy. 

*****

UPDATE V:

April 8, 2012 - On the evening of April 6, the website for the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) quoted lawmaker Gholamreza Mesbahi Moghadam as saying that, even though Iran already has the knowledge and scientific capability to produce nuclear weapons due to its mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle and enrichment of uranium, it will never manufacture or acquire these weapons.

"Iran has the scientific and technological capability to produce [a] nuclear weapon, but will never choose this path," the website quoted him as saying.

While this comment sparked the predictable round of hysteria on the part of alarmists and fearmongers, it is hardly a shocking statement and is simply rooted in fact, not braggadocio or bellicosity.

It has long been known that at least 140 countries "currently have the basic technical capacity to produce nuclear weapons." Additionally, according to Green Peace, "[o]ver 40 countries have the materials and knowhow to build nuclear weapons quickly, a capacity that is referred to as 'rapid break-out.'"

*****  

UPDATE VI:

April 12, 2012 - Just days before renewed nuclear talks begin in Istanbul between Iran and the P5+1, White House spokesman Jay Carney on Wednesday reiterated to reporters at a press conference that the United States is still looking for Iran "to forsake their nuclear weapons ambitions, to demonstrate verifiably that they can reassure the world that they do not seek to acquire nuclear weapons."

This statement comes despite the fact that U.S. and Israeli officials, including U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Israeli Defense Minster Ehud Barak, and even President Obama himself, have repeatedly affirmed the fact that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb, does not even have a nuclear weapons program and has long assessed that no decision has been made by the Iranian government to pursue weaponization of its fully monitored, IAEA-inspected civilian nuclear energy program.

In order to meet the "bottom line" of American demands, Carney said, Iran must - at the insistence of the United States and explicit abrogation of Iran's own sovereign, inalienable, national rights - immediately implement "the full suspension of uranium enrichment."

In so doing, Carney has essentially repeated the position articulated by George W. Bush back in September 2005.  Speaking alongside Iraqi President Jalal Talabani at the White House, Bush spoke of a way to "enable [Iran] to have civilian nuclear power without learning how to make a bomb" while noting that "it's a right of a government to want to have a civilian nuclear program."  Bush suggested that "there ought to be guidelines in which they be allowed to have that civilian nuclear program. And one such guideline would be in such a way that they don't gain the expertise necessary to be able to enrich"

Look how far we've come.

*****

UPDATE VII:

April 13, 2012 -  In a editorial entitled "Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons," and published April 12, 2012 in The Washington Post, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi writes,

We have strongly marked our opposition to weapons of mass destruction on many occasions. Almost seven years ago, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made a binding commitment. He issued a religious edict — a fatwa — forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. Our stance against weapons of mass destruction, which is far from new, has been put to the test. When Saddam Hussein attacked us with chemical arms in the 1980s, we did not retaliate with the same means. And when it comes to our nuclear energy program, the IAEA has failed to find any military dimension, despite an unprecedented number of man-hours in intrusive inspections.

Meanwhile, Iranian English-language outlet PressTV reports today that Tehran's interim Friday Prayers leader, Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani, declared,

As the Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said and other Iranian officials have reiterated, the work done in the field of nuclear energy is not meant for making nuclear weapons.

These activities are for scientific purposes; you must realize and believe this.

*****

UPDATE VIII:

April 15, 2012 - Yesterday, CNN released a new three-part, 25-minute mini-documentary from Christiane Amanpour on the Iranian nuclear issue, entitled "A Nuclear Iran: The Expert Intel."  The special program features such Iran analysts and nuclear proliferation experts as David Albright, Hillary Mann-Leverett, Hooman Majd, Robert Kelley, and Anthony Cordesman.

The piece also includes excerpts from a recent interview Amanpour conducted with longtime senior adviser to the Iranian head-of-state and commander-in-chief Ali Khamenei, Mohammad Larijani.  Larijani tells Amanpour, "The message is clear: deal with Iran as it is.  Iran is not after nuclear weapon[s].  Nuclear weapon is not an asset for us, it is more [of a] liability.  Pakistan has nuclear weapons, you see is a shambled country in terms of security.  It doesn't add to our security. We are secure enough, we are strong enough, without nuclear weapon. And it is against the fatwa of Ayatollah Khamenei.  Nobody [would dare] do that."

When Amanpour presses the issue, asking Larijani, "So even if Iran was attacked, you wouldn't decide to go towards a nuclar military program?," Larijani responded, "This is the fatwa of Iman Khomeini and the fatwa of Ayatollah Khamenei."


*****

UPDATE IX:

May 23, 2012 - Speaking today at a memorial event for Iranian victims of Iraqi chemical weapons during the eight year Iran-Iraq War, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated Tehran's official policy that "production and use of weapons of mass destruction is forbidden" by Islam and that "[t]here is no room for these weapons in Iran's defense doctrine."

*****

The Warmongering Post:Iran, Israel, Ignatius, and the Intended Consequences of Propaganda

In the latest example of mainstream warmongering, today The Washington Post's David Ignatius writes,

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

When reading reports like the one Ignatius has filed here, it should always be remembered that what is being so nonchalantly discussed as a point of perturbation for a beleaguered Leon Panetta is, without doubt, the willful and active commission of a war crime. Not only that, but - in the words of the Nuremberg Tribunal - initiating a war of aggression, as Israel would undoubtedly be doing by unilaterally and illegally bombing Iran, is "the supreme international crime."

Ignatius, despite his clear intent of beating war drums under the guise of disinterested journalism, acknowledges repeatedly that Iran is not building nuclear weapons and has no nuclear weapons program. While the bogus Israeli claim of Iran reaching a "zone of immunity" (the new Barakian term for what until recently was ominously called the "point of no return") is noted by Ignatius, it's followed by the claim that this spooky "zone" would enable Iran to "commence building a nuclear bomb." Which means it's not currently doing that. Ignatius even reiterates the fact that - per U.S. (and Israeli and IAEA) intelligence - Iran is not building a bomb. Which means this is all speculative. Which means any potential attack would be "preventive" and not based on any immediate threat. Which means it would be totally illegal under any possible reading of international law.

Ignatius writes that "Netanyahu doesn't want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action." There's that "existential threat" again! Y'know, the one that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, former Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Ephraim Halevy, current Mossad chief Tamir Pardo say doesn't actually exist. Just today, Ynet reported that former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz also repeated the assessment that Iran poses no such threat to Israel. "The use of this terminology is misleading. If it is intended to encourage a strike on Iran, it's a mistake," he said.

Nevertheless, Ignatius repeats this absurdity as if it's an incontrovertible fact. It appears that, for Beltway reportage, "If Netanyahu says it, it must be true!"

Read more »