As Usual, Orientalism Employed to Undermine Diplomacy with Iran

Blue Mosque, Jean-Léon Gérôme

"We are always wrong when we believe that Orientals think logically as we do." 

- President Dwight Eisenhower, in comments to his National Security Council, 2/17/1955 

"Really, it seemed hardly fair that dignified and correct western statesmanship should be defeated by the antics of incomprehensible orientals." 

- L.P. Elwell-Sutton, Persian Oil: A Study in Power Politics, 1955

As talks between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, Great Britain, Russia, the United States and Germany) over Iran’s nuclear program are set to resume on October 15 after a long hiatus, much is being written by establishment analysts and the Beltway think tank commentariat about the potential for a diplomatic breakthrough and what it will take to get there. As always, racist and derogatory tropes – echoed, if not influenced, by the often disparaging and ignorant words of both Western and Israeli officials about Iran – are common in assessing what is often referred to as “the Persian mind.”

We hear that Iranians can’t be trusted, that they are wily rug merchants fooling the world with soothing talk tinged with jasmine and saffron. We hear they are wolves (in both wolf’s and sheep’s clothing – but never in denim, of course), that they are snake charmers, and are warned against succumbing to their silky and seductive talk of constructive engagement because “leopards do not change their spots.”

A week ago, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman - who will be the United States' lead negotiator at the upcoming talks with Iran - told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "deception is part of the DNA" of Iranians.

This is par for the course. Nearly a year and a half ago, with a new round of nuclear negotiations on the horizon, in a post entitled, “Perceptions of Persia: The Persistent and Pervasive Orientalism of the West’s Iran Policy,” I wrote:

As renewed negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 over the former’s IAEA-supervised nuclear energy program are set to continue on May 23 in Baghdad, politicians, pundits and the press have been energetically reinforcing the Orientalist narrative. Well-connected American journalists Barbara Slavin and Laura Rozen recently penned an article entitled, “Can Western Women Tame Iran’s Nuclear Negotiators?,” invoking psychosexual models of “Persian proverb[s]” and Scheherezade as a basis for nuclear talks [between American and European female interlocutors and] the male Iranian negotiators. Meanwhile, Iran hawks are taking every opportunity to paint Iran and its government as caricatures of irrational, untrustworthy, genocidal, suicidal lunatics – serial liars and deceivers bent on world domination…

This Orientalist rhetoric, which serves to sufficiently dehumanize and objectify Iranians to the point where collective punishment through economic sanctions, assassination, sabotage, surveillance, cyber attacks, regime change and even threats of bombing and devastation are justified and normalized in Western commentary, has remained unchanged.

Take, for example, some comments made by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of Britain’s MI6 secret intelligence service, this past March at the UK Zionist Federation’s annual gala dinner. After describing Iran as “a state with many flaws and weakness, and a political system that is very fragile,” he told the crowd that “Iran is equivalent to a dangerous adolescent, [and] one does not want that adolescent to have access to certain technologies and weapons. The route the international community is on is the best and most practical.” At the same event, former Mossad chief and head of Israel’s National Security Council Efraim Halvey noted his ”indelible impression that Iran is dead scared of Israel.”

One is immediately reminded of the way in which the Western press described Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who led Iran to nationalize its oil industry in the early 1950s. A TIME magazine profile called Mossadegh a “weeping, fainting leader of a helpless country,” and a “strange old man” who “put Scheherazade in the petroleum business and oiled the wheels of chaos.” The magazine derided him as a “dizzy old wizard” who ”knows the value of the childlike tantrum.” The British media called him a “fanatic,” “impervious to common sense,” “nervously unstable” and “martyr-like.”

These days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – whose words are often approvingly parroted by influential American journalists - routinely describes Iran’s current leadership as a “messianic, apocalyptic, radical regime” with “wild ambitions” and “bent on world domination.”

In an article for Al Jazeera English, headlined, “Of Persian snake charmers: Racism and global hegemony,” foreign affairs analyst (and, full disclosure, one of Muftah‘s excellent editors) Murtaza Hussain addresses the very phenomenon of Orientalizing Iran and points to a number of recent examples:

The neoconservative hawks who were the architects of Iraq’s destruction – apparently unfazed by their ghoulish record in this regard – have in recent years set their sights on the nation of Iran as their next target. To this end, crippling sanctions – designed to literally “take the food out of the Iranian peoples’ mouths” – have been implemented in an effort to inflict maximum suffering on the civilian population and to generate favourable conditions for another war. Disregard for the basic humanity of the many Iranians who will die in the course of such policies is a necessary accomplice to this project. 

However, in recent weeks it would seem that a major setback has occurred to the neoconservative plan for another US war. A new Iranian government – conciliatory in its tone where its predecessor was shamelessly provocative – has come to power with the stated intention of reaching peaceful detente with the United States. Such a development necessarily makes the possibility of war more remote, and, to the chagrin of the neoconservatives, these overtures appear to have been cautiously welcomed by the administration of President Barack Obama. 

With their prized new war seemingly snatched from their grasp, it has been remarkable to watch the vast tantrum of anger and indignation among some hawks, in which the same racist beliefs which characterised past imperialism have bubbled back to the surface with remarkable speed. 

From warnings to "beware of Persian snake charmers", to allegations that for Iranians "deception is part of their DNA", the prospect of a peaceful detente with Iran has brought out a seemingly inexhaustible cavalcade of frankly racist rhetoric. 

As part of this campaign, long-time Pentagon official and neoconservative stalwart Harold Rohde has published a helpful primer on the apparently-monolithic “Iranian mind” and the dangers it poses in any negotiation. According to Rohde: 

“Compromise (as we in the West understand this concept) is seen as a sign of submission and weakness. When the West establishes itself as the most powerful force and shows strength and resolve, Iranians will most likely come on board … it is for this reason that measures of good-will and confidence-building should be avoided at all costs.” 

In this are clear echoes of the stunningly ignorant claim – popularised during the era of the Iraq War – that "Arabs only understand force", and that thus uniquely among human beings, they are incapable of appreciating empathy or conciliation. 

Similarly, according to this overtly racist argument, Iranians too are unlike any other humans on Earth and are in fact more akin to animals or small children who must be shown firm discipline as opposed to respect or decency in the course of any negotiation. 

With remarkably ignorant worldviews such as these informing their strategies, it is unsurprising that US foreign policy in the Middle East has been such a catastrophic failure over the past decade. 

Dispatches from ‘the villa in the jungle’ 

On October 1, Binyamin Netanyahu attended the UN General Assembly to deliver an unapologetically aggressive, demeaning and hostile speech directed towards the just-elected president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani. In his address Netanyahu used language completely alien to the typically careful discourse of international diplomacy, calling Rouhani “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, characterising him as an untrustworthy liar, and bizarrely stating at one point that “Rouhani thinks he can have his yellowcake [uranium] and eat it too”. It is difficult to imagine such language openly directed against any other elected leader in a diplomatic forum such as this. 

But as a representative of Ehud Barak’s “villa in the jungle” and the state that Theodor Herzl correctly said would exist as “a rampart of Europe against Asia”, Netanyahu was not alone in his overt condescension towards Iran and the Iranian people. A senior Israeli official also advised his US counterparts not to trust any Iranian offers of dialogue as "Persians have been using these [duping] tactics for thousands of years, before America came to be". 

The darkly humorous coda to this spectacle was Netanyahu’s suggestion – days later – that he would “consider” taking a phone call from Rouhani if one were proffered. Ostensibly, this consideration would come only if the Iranian president were to grovel on his knees and beg for such an opportunity, even in the wake of Netanyahu’s unabashed insults and threats towards him.

Casting Iranians as inherently duplicitous, devious and irrational is a sure-fire way to undermine diplomacy before it even begins. Of course, this is precisely the point.

*****

Originally posted at Muftah.

*****

The Forever Year:An Imaginary Iranian Nuke is Still a "Year or More" Away

Back in March, President Barack Obama told an Israeli television station, "Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don't want to cut it too close."

Of course, when it comes to silly predictions about Iran's nuclear program, we've heard that Iran has been roughly a year away from having a nuclear bomb for the past ten years.

It comes as no surprise then that, in a new interview with the Associated Press, Obama reiterated this same time frame, even though seven months have passed.

According to the current "U.S. intelligence assessment," he said, Iran "continues to be a year or more away" from producing a nuclear bomb. "And in fact, actually, our estimate is probably more conservative than the estimates of Israeli intelligence services," Obama added.

So how does time stand still when it comes to Iran? The reason is simple:

Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon, as American, European and Israeli intelligence agencies have publicly acknowledged. It's leadership has routinely and consistently denied and repudiated any intention or desire to do so.

For years now, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has repeatedly affirmed in testimony before Congress, "We do not know... if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

Last year, Benny Gantz, chief of staff of the Israeli military, told Ha'aretz that he believed the Iranian leadership had not yet made a decision to weaponize its nuclear program and, more importantly, that he didn't think it ever would.

So how long will it be until we hear Iran is still "a year or more" away from having a nuke?

Perhaps the "or more" part of that phrase actually means "or, more accurately, never."

*****

The Mainstreaming of Iran: From Ancient Persian Ruins to Iranian Living Rooms

A photograph from “Iranian Living Room”: Mohammad at home with his dog Loosy

(Photo Credit: Nazanin Tabatabaei Yazdi)

The perception of Iran, as presented in the Western media, is beginning to change. What was once only flaming flags, wild-eyed mullahs and spinning centrifuges is being, slowly, replaced by images of beautiful landscapes and, more importantly, human beings (instead of caricatures). Finally, we are beginning to see who is really on the receiving end of our disastrous and dangerous policies.

A recent post on the popular website BuzzFeed featured a photo-essay of the “25 Amazing Sites Americans Are Missing Out On In Iran.” Among the dazzling images are the ruins of Achaemenid palace at Persepolis, Amir Chakhmaq Complex, Zein-o-Din Caravansarai, the tombs of Hafez and Ferdowsi, and, of course, Esfahan’s incredible Naqsh-e Jahan Square. Introducing Western audiences to this side of Iran – the side they never see on the news – is a huge step toward altering common conceptions and destroying false and offensive narratives.

Another case in point: a new limited edition, photo-documentary book published by Fabrica, a Benetton-affiliated, Italian communications research center, studio and school, entitled, “Iranian Living Room.”

Bringing together the extraordinary work of 15 young Iranian photographers, we are shown the intimate and rarely-seen world behind the windows of everyday Iranian home life and brought into what the book’s editors describe as “a unique space beyond global media and local state. This is where life is lived in private in Iran; it is often where life takes place, in fact.”

They add:

In this living room both literal and metaphorical, we are privileged to discover multiple interpretations of Iranian reality: cultural differences and similarities, solitude and conviviality, relaxation and excitement, dressing up for an interior life versus dressing up for the street, the rhythms of religious ceremony and the patterns of everyday life.

Where much life on the street is presented by the world’s media as foreign and inhibited, behind these closed doors the lens captures a life that is immediately recognisable in all its untrammelled richness. It takes on a central role as a kind of counterpoint to the contested street, functioning as a new public sphere. It is both far away and close to home. These vignettes are framed by young photographers who, through their own storytelling, might help change the stories we tell about Iran.

The project, as a post in Slate notes, “portrays a range of cultural, economic and religious backgrounds” and “features portraits of Iranians of all ages, from large families to young singles.”

Fabrica has released this video promoting the book (which is, sadly for those interested, already sold out).


Below are more photographs from “Iranian Living Room.”

(Photo Credit: Majid Farahani)

Teenage boys playing video games and smoking hookah pipes at home in Tehran.

(Photo Credit: Ali Tajik)

Yasmin paints in her bedroom while roommate Negar sits in the kitchen.

(Photo Credit: Mahshid Mahboubifa)

*****

Originally posted at Muftah.

*****

Netanyahu's 33 Minutes of Shame at the UN

As expected, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before a nearly empty United Nations chamber Tuesday afternoon did not disappoint.  Chock full of lies, threats and bad puns, his shameless rant solidified his role as the planet's most obsessed and pathological liar, the world's Warmonger-in-Chief.

This year, Netanyahu didn't need to bring a silly drawing to complement his sociopathic ravings about Iran. The Israeli Prime Minister himself is a cartoon.

His speech was essentially a poorly-written rehash of the garbage he's been peddling for ages now, with a nearly verbatim reiteration of his summer media blitz talking points.

The good news is, besides those concerned for his sanity, those interested in the proliferation of propaganda, and his bussed-in cheering section - comprised of a veritable who's-who of awful humans including Sheldon Adelson, Alan Dershowitz and Dore Gold- barely anyone is paying attention to him anymore.

Still, a few of his grotesque lies should be identified.

As noted here yesterday, Netanyahu repeatedly referred to an Iranian "nuclear weapons program" that - according to all American, European and Israeli intelligence assessments - doesn't exist.

(Of course, this is unsurprising. In a briefing alongside President Obama the day before he spoke at the UN, Netanyahu insisted that the only deal possible with Iran is one by which "Iran fully dismantles its military nuclear program" and "thwarts Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.")

He also said an Iran armed with even one single nuclear bomb would present an effective equivalent to "50 North Koreas," which literally word salad with no discernible meaning.

Netanyahu stated, as he has in the past, that Iran is actively developing "intercontinental ballistic missiles," in order "to carry nuclear warheads," adding that "Iran is building now ICBMs that the United States says could reach this city [New York] in three or four years."

He said the same thing back in July. His routinely hysterical Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said the same thing back in February 2012. As detailed often, this claim is a gross exaggeration, if not an outright impossibility. No expert or genuine assessment supports this view.

As he has in the past, Netanyahu also claimed that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is a "wolf in sheep's clothing," a longtime deceiver of the international community and devious manipulator of diplomacy, who has admitted in writing to having used negotiations a decade ago to expand Iran's nuclear program.

Netanyahu quoted from the text of Rouhani's 2011 book National Security and Nuclear Diplomacy, which reads, "While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan. In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan."

But as Peter Jenkins - a longtime British diplomat who was closely involved in those negotiations at the time - explained back in June, this is a wholly disingenuous reading of Rouhani's words. Rouhani, Jenkins wrote, "is not some wily Oriental who cannot be trusted; he is rather a defender of Iranian interests who drives a hard but honest bargain and is true to his word."

Further, as I have pointed out before and which Netanyahu obviously failed to mention, it was on Rouhani's watch that Iran voluntarily suspended uranium enrichment in 2003 and accepted intrusive inspections above and beyond what was legally required by its safeguards agreement for two years. During this period, the IAEA affirmed the peaceful nature of the program. It was only after Iran's European negotiating partners, at the behest of the Americans, reneged on their promise to offer substantive commitments and respect Iran's inalienable right to a domestic nuclear infrastructure that Iran resumed enrichment.

While nearly every sentence uttered by Netanyahu from the dais at Turtle Bay could be dissected and debunked, I'll confine myself to addressing only one more:

Netanayhu incessantly called for Iran's entire civilian nuclear infrastructure to be "fully and verifiably dismantled," claiming that any "residual capability to enrich uranium" presents the everlasting threat that Iran will retain the ability to build atomic weapons.

To drive his point about dual-use technology home, he turns again to the new Iranian president's own words.  Netanyahu exhorted his fellow world leaders to "pay close attention" to what Rouhani said in a 2005 speech to Iran's Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, which he believes speaks directly to Iranian duplicity.

He quotes Rouhani as saying, "A county that could enrich uranium to about 3.5 percent will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90 percent. Having fuel cycle capability virtually means that a country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons."

The speech Netanyahu quotes from is available to read in full here [PDF].

When read in context, it becomes clear that Rouhani is acknowledging the sensitivity and potential of any civilian nuclear program, rather than boasting about Iranian deceit and nefarious intent.  Netanyahu also omits a crucial phrase from Rouhani's statement. Here it is, as delivered:

"...having fuel cycle capability almost means that the country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons, should that country have the political will to do so. 

This means that a country that possesses fuel cycle technology can enrich uranium, and the country that can enrich uranium to about 3.5 percent will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90 percent. It is for this reason that today the international circles are discussing this capability with an extraordinary degree of sensitivity." (emphasis added)

Countless senior Iranian officials have declared for decades that Iran does not intend to, nor will it ever, build nuclear weapons, a determination routinely confirmed by U.S. military and intelligence officers.

Perhaps most laughable/appalling about Netanyahu's entire charade is the notion that he sees himself as champion of truth. Prior to his trip to New York, Netanyahu told the Israeli press, "I will say the truth. In the face of the sweet talk and the smiles one needs to tell the truth. Only the truth, today, is vital to the security of the world, and of course essential to the security of our country."

His acolytes in government and the media are only too eager to oblige this contorted self-image. "Netanyahu understands that there is a lot of euphoria" over the election of Rouhani, an anonymous senior Israeli official told the New York Times. "Netanyahu knows that people in the international community will want to believe. I think you'll see in his remarks a lot of facts, a lot of facts that no one denies."

Ari Shavit wrote in Ha'aretz that Netanayhu's arguments at the UN were "factual and germane." His colleague Chemi Shalev called the speech "strong and persuasive" and praised him for presenting "clear cut evidence" of Iranian duplicity. "His argument was succinct, his testimony convincing, his delivery eloquent, as always," Shalev gushed.

Expect to hear these same talking points repeated in the days and weeks to come - by Netanyahu himself, the press, and his minions in both the Israeli government and United States Congress - without challenge or skepticism.

*****

UPDATE:

October 4, 2013 - Just two days after Netanyahu's stand-up routine at the UN, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing proved to be an echo chamber for Israeli propaganda against Iran.

With scripts written by Netanyahu, AIPAC and the MEK, U.S. senators regurgitated the same talking points noted above and elsewhere, in their comments and questions for State Department deputy and lead negotiator Wendy Sherman.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio even went so far as to repeat the nonsense about ICBMs and literally quoted Netanayhu's UN speech directly in his own deranged statement, before describing Iran as "a country run by liars" and "a bunch of really evil people."

He ended his bizarre diatribe by warning against genuine diplomacy.

"These are evil liars that we're dealing with," Rubio said.

*****

UPDATE II:

October 7, 2013 - Netanyahu's propaganda train keeps on a-rollin', with many appearances in which to make the same tired points and spew the same old lies.  Lucky for him, American media personalities are idiots who refuse to challenge bullshit with facts.  His recent interview on Face The Nation was yet another opportunity for him to repeat the same crap that oozed out of his mouth at the UN earlier this week.

Israeli commentators don't seem any better, as evidence by this nonsense posted by Chemi Shalev this week.

Pathetic.

*****

UPDATE III:

October 14, 2013 - In the New York Times this past Saturday, a front page paean to Benjamin Netanyahu written by Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren paints a portrait of the Israeli Prime Minister as a lone warrior in a dangerous wilderness, a modern-day Cassandra, warning of an inevitable future only to be ignored and ridiculed rather than heeded and lauded as a prophet.

In truth, Netanyahu is a pathological liar, a deranged obsessive, warning about imaginary threats and play-acting like a contemporary Churchill against a manufactured adversary.

Such delusion is only bolstered by his fan club of warmongers and maniacs, such as Bill Kristol and Michael Makovsky, who laud Netanyahu in a recent Weekly Standard piece. "No one likes the truth-telling skunk at the appeasement party," they write, before calling Israel "an outpost of human progress in the Middle East​" and promoting an Israeli military assault on Iran in order for Netanyahu to save the world.

*****

Israel's Hilarious Hysteria:or, How Many North Koreas Does It Take to Fear-Monger About Iran?

Back in April, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz took the stage at the second annual Jerusalem Post Conference in New York City and told the right-wing crowd that, among other things, an Iran with an atomic arsenal would be "equal to 30 nuclear North Koreas."

Steinitz repeated all the favored Israeli talking points; he called Iran an "existential threat," tossed out lazy comparisons between the Iranian government and Nazi Germany, and insisted that "a very clear military threat" be issued to Iran in order to scare its leaders into capitulating to American and Israeli demands. He has been saying the same things for nearly a decade now.

Once at full capacity, Steinitz warned, the Iranian nuclear program would be able to produce 20 to 30 nuclear bombs each year and declared the evidence-free speculation that, "if Iran gets the first few bombs, in a decade or so they will have 100 nuclear bombs."

Then, in July, Steinitz announced at the annual Cyber Conference at the Institute for National Security Studies that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran had grown even more dire. "The Iranian threat is the equivalent of 40 North Koreas," he said. "It is a threat that will change the world order. This is the challenge of our generation, as far as global diplomacy is concerned. There is time only for one thing, which must be made crystal clear."

Well, according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's embarrassing, lie-filled speech before the United Nations General Assembly today, the "threat" and "danger" posed by "a nuclear-armed Iran" has again greatly expanded over the past five months, despite the election of moderate pragmatist Hassan Rouhani as Iran's new president this past June. Using the same North Korea metric for threat assessment, Netanyahu had alarming news for us all.

"A nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East wouldn't be another North Korea," the Israeli leader told a mostly-empty hall on the final day of the UN's General Debate. "It would be another 50 North Koreas."

That's another whopping 10 Korea jump in just a few months!

In his rambling, shameless diatribe, Netanyahu referred no less than thirteen times to an Iranian "nuclear weapons program." He stated that "it's not that it's hard to find evidence that Iran has a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program; it's hard to find evidence that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program," and declared, "Iran is not building a peaceful nuclear program; Iran is developing nuclear weapons."

Quoting John Adams without even the slightest hint of irony, Netanyahu said, "Facts are stubborn things."

Left unmentioned, of course, was the fact that all American and international intelligence assessments consistently affirm that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and that the Iranian leadership has not made any decision to actively pursue a nuclear bomb, a determination shared by Israeli military and spy agencies.

Since Israeli officials continue to spout this inane propaganda from their podiums and in the press with impunity, who knows how many North Koreas Iran will turn out to be come next Spring?

*****

Kerry, Kerry, Quite Contrary:US Secretary of State Reveals Ignorance on Iranian Nuclear Program

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
(Credit: CBS)

In an extensive interview with Scott Pelley on CBS' "60 Minutes" this past Sunday evening, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry revealed a startling lack of awareness of certain basic facts regarding Iran's nuclear program and the history of various proposals Iran has made to alleviate suspicion over its intentions.

Such ignorance goes a long way to explaining how faulty and false information is disseminated by politicians, goes unchallenged by the press and is subsequently regurgitated by professional pundits who take government declarations at face value without engaging in either critical thinking or independent verification.

Interviews such as Kerry's on "60 Minutes" effectively launder lies by turning false information into uncontested fact, simply by virtue of their repetition by someone believed to be both knowledgeable and reputable.

During the interview, the Secretary of State and interviewer Scott Pelley said a great many questionable things; however, perhaps none was as egregious as this bizarre exchange:

John Kerry: Iran needs to take rapid steps, clear and convincing steps, to live up to the international community's requirements regarding nuclear programs, peaceful nuclear programs.

Scott Pelley: Give me an example, one concrete step, one thing that they can do to assure the world that they're giving up their ambitions.

John Kerry: They could immediately open up inspection of the Fordow facility, a secret facility and underground in the mountains. They could immediately sign the protocols, the additional protocols of the international community regarding inspections. They could offer to cease voluntarily to take enrichment above a certain level, because there's no need to have it at a higher level for a peaceful program.

Scott Pelley: Enrichment of uranium, which is what happens at Fordow.

John Kerry: Correct.

Scott Pelley: Throw the doors open to that place.

John Kerry: Well, that, among other things. Look, I believe, that we have hopes. President Obama clearly welcomes President Rouhani's overtures. But words are not going to replace actions. What we need are actions that prove that we and our allies, our friends in the region, can never be threatened by this program.

Scott Pelley: But the United States would look favorably on relaxing or eliminating the sanctions if the Iranians were serious about abandoning their nuclear weapon.

Where to begin?

First, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which monitors and safeguards "international community's requirements regarding nuclear programs" has never once found Iran to be in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has consistently affirmed that Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful, as no nuclear material has ever been diverted to a military program.

Regardless of what questions may remain about Iran's past research or hypothetical ambitions, the IAEA has repeatedly noted "that the Agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies."

Pelley's weird comment about "the Iranians...abandoning their nuclear weapon," literally makes no sense considering that the United States intelligence community and its allies have long assessed that Iran is not and never has been in possession of nuclear weapons, is not building nuclear weapons, and its leadership has not made any decision to build nuclear weapons.

Beyond this, though, the "one concrete step" Kerry suggests to Pelley that Iran might do to signal its transparency and good intentions is something Iran is already doing.

Inspections

Kerry states that Iran "could immediately open up inspection of the Fordow facility, a secret facility and underground in the mountains," yet the enrichment facility at Fordow is already open to intrusive IAEA inspections and has been since being declared to the agency by Iran itself in September 2009.

The site was announced by Iran to the IAEA on September 21, 2009, well in advance of the 180 days before becoming operational as required by Iran's Safeguards Agreement. At the time, the facility was still under construction and did not actually begin uranium enrichment until early January 2012, roughly 840 days after it had been declared to the IAEA. The facility was subsequently described as "a hole in a mountain" and "nothing to be worried about" by then-IAEA Secretary General Mohammed ElBaradei.

When the plant began operation, IAEA spokesman Gill Tudor confirmed to the press that "all nuclear material in the facility remains under the agency's containment and surveillance." To date, this continues to be true.

Furthermore, Iran has never refused IAEA inspectors admission to any of its safeguarded nuclear sites. All sites and facilities are under video surveillance, readily accessible to IAEA inspectors, open to routine inspection, and subject to material seals application by the agency. In addition to the two regular inspections all of Iran's enrichment facilities are subject to each and every month, "two unannounced inspections are conducted every month at Fordow," according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

So, when Pelley suggests - and Kerry concurs - that Iran should "throw the doors open" to Fordow as a sign of good faith and legal obligation, they reveal their staggering ignorance of the facts on the ground.

Nuclear expert Mark Hibbs has explained on the Arms Control Wonk blog,"There are IAEA safeguards personnel in Iran 24/7/365," pointing out that inspectors enter and examine enrichment sites like Fordow "frequently and routinely," where they carry out "two kinds of inspections: 'announced inspections' and 'short-notice announced inspections.'" The "announced inspections" are conducted with "24-hour notification" given to Iran, while "Iran's subsidiary arrangements in fact permit the IAEA to conduct a short-notice inspection upon two hours' notice."

Former Iranian nuclear negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian, now a lecturer at Princeton University, has noted, "Since 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has implemented the most robust inspections in its history with more than 100 unannounced and over 4000 man-day inspections in Iran." And in 2012 alone, IAEA investigators spent 1,356 calendar days in Iran, conducting 215 on-site inspections of the country's 16 declared nuclear facilities, and spending more than 12% of the agency's entire $127.8 million budget on intrusively monitoring the Iranian program, which fields only a single functional nuclear reactor that doesn't even operate at full capacity.

Again, no diversion of nuclear material to a military program has ever - ever - been found.

Additional Protocols

Kerry also suggests Iran should "sign...the additional protocols of the international community regarding inspections." What he either doesn't say or doesn't know is that Iran has already signed the IAEA's Additional Protocol; the Majlis (Iranian Parliament), however, has never ratified it.

Nevertheless, for over two years beginning in October 2003, Iran voluntarily abided by the protocol, which allowed IAEA inspectors access to facilities usually not covered by its standard Safeguards Agreement. In November 2003, the IAEA affirmed that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons programme."

And the following year, after extensive inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities were conducted under the auspices of the Additional Protocol, the IAEA again concluded that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."

This conclusion has since been reached by every single IAEA report - often upwards of four times per year.

After it became clear to Iran that, at the insistence of the United States, its inalienable right to domestically enrich uranium would not be recognized, it stopped voluntarily complying with the Additional Protocol, but has maintained its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement.

The Deal That Always Was

Secretary Kerry, as seen above, also stated that Iran "could offer to cease voluntarily to take enrichment above a certain level, because there's no need to have it at a higher level for a peaceful program."

Ok, for one, Iran is enriching uranium far below weapons-grade levels, for the purposes of fueling nuclear power plants and to use in medical research reactors. The only reason Iran began enriching uranium to almost 20% is due to the refusal of the United States to allow Iran to purchase such nuclear material for its safeguarded Tehran Research Reactor on the international market.

More importantly, however, is the fact that Iran has for years offered specifically to restrict its enrichment program and to open it up to international cooperation, thereby making it literally impossible for diversion to weaponization to take place unnoticed.

Two decades ago, Iran was making such gestures, only to be rebuffed, denied and dismissed by the United States.

In October 1992, in response to American concern over assessments that Iran was pursuing a "research programme for fissile material production" (i.e. a domestic enrichment program), Iran not only "repeatedly denied any non-peaceful intentions, stating that it accepts full-scope IAEA safeguards, is a signatory to the NPT and requires the nuclear plants for electricity generation and desalinisation," but also "indicated it is prepared to accept enhanced safeguards measures on both nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia and China, as well as having no objections to the return of the spent fuel to the country of origin as a similar agreement had been concluded with Germany during the 1970s."

In mid-2003, Hassan Rouhani, then Secretary-General of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said that, in order to resolve any questions over whether its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, Iran was "ready to accept the participation of other big industrialized countries in its [uranium] enrichment projects."

Later that year, Iran declared, even though it had the "right within the nuclear non-proliferation regime to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," the country's leadership had "decided voluntarily to suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities," in order to best resolve all outstanding issues with the IAEA.

On March 23, 2005, the Iranians presented a four-phase plan to their European negotiating partners, which offered to restrictions and enhanced monitoring, along with prescribed, reciprocal actions by the EU, and was intended to end the nuclear impasse once and for all. It called for Iran to resume uranium enrichment, with EU cooperation, and for the Majlis to begin the process of approving legislation that would permanently ban the "production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons." The critical second phase of the plan would establish a "ceiling of enrichment at LEU level" and set a "limitation of the extent of the program."

In his first address before the UN General Assembly in September 2005, then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that, as a "confidence building measure and in order to provide the greatest degree of transparency, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to engage in serious partnership with private and public sectors of other countries in the implementation of uranium enrichment program in Iran. This represents the most far reaching step, outside all requirements of the NPT, being proposed by Iran as a further confidence building measure."

On November 18, 2005, in yet another publicly presented proposal, the Iranians repeated the offer set forth earlier that year, reiterating its willingness to cap its level of enrichment, set a "[l]imitation of the extent of the enrichment program to solely meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran's power reactors," and agreeing to the "[i]mmediate conversion of all enriched Uranium to fuel rods to preclude even the technical possibility of further enrichment." Iran also included the ongoing "implementation of the Additional Protocol," instituting a [p]ermanent ban on the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons through binding national legislation," and allowing enhanced and [c]ontinuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors at the conversion and enrichment facilities to provide unprecedented added guarantees."

This was all while Iran was in the early stages of enriching uranium and had hardly any stockpile.

Later, in an April 5, 2006 oped in the New York Times, Iran's then UN Ambassador Javad Zarif laid out a number of proposals for resolving the nuclear standoff. In addition to affirming Iran's continued commitment to the NPT and its stance against "the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons," Zarif stated Iran's willingness to do the following:

Limit the enrichment of nuclear materials so that they are suitable for energy production but not for weaponry;

Immediately convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods, thereby precluding the possibility of further enrichment;

Limit the enrichment program to meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran's power reactors and future light-water reactors;

Begin putting in place the least contentious aspects of the enrichment program, like research and development, in order to assure the world of our intentions;

Accept foreign partners, both public and private, in our uranium enrichment program.

Iran has recently suggested the establishment of regional consortiums on fuel-cycle development that would be jointly owned and operated by countries possessing the technology and placed under atomic agency safeguards.

That was seven-and-a-half years ago. The United States, and its European lackeys, either ignored or rejected these proposals. Rouhani is now the President of Iran and Zarif is his Foreign Minister. Since then, we are to believe that sanctions, which harm the health, lives and livelihood of ordinary (and often the most vulnerable) Iranians, and the constant threats of military action have forced Iran to the negotiating table, ready to capitulate to Western demands.

But Iran has been offering the same things for a decade. All it has asked in return is acknowledgement of its national rights. This had not changed.

In March of this year, Iranian leader Ali Khamenei was clear. "In the nuclear issue, Iran only wants the world to recognize its right to enrichment, which is Iran's natural right," he said during a speech in the northeastern Iranian city of Mashhad. "If the Americans truly want to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran, the solution is easy," he declared, "They should acknowledge Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes."

Similarly, President Rouhani recently insisted, "We will never forgo our…intrinsic right to a peaceful nuclear program, including uranium enrichment," adding that "no amount of pressure, arm-twisting, threats and sanctions will cause Iran to abandon this right."

John Kerry, of all people, is well aware of Iran's right to enrich uranium. In a 2009 interview with the Financial Times, Kerry himself stated that the demand - once pushed by the Bush administration and now maintained by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - that Iran have no enrichment capability is "ridiculous" and "unreasonable."

"They have a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment in that purpose," Kerry said. To claim otherwise was "bombastic diplomacy."

As a new round of nuclear talks between Iran and the the five permanent, nuclear-armed members of the UN Security Council and Germany looms on the horizon, and communication between Iran and the United States has been restored at the highest levels, hopefully Secretary Kerry will do a little more homework about the Iranian nuclear program.

Getting the facts straight can only increase the possibility of a real diplomatic breakthrough and potentially put an end, once and for all, to this absurd charade.

*****

George Stephanopoulos Thinks Iran is Enriching Weapons-Grade Uranium...But It's Not.

Iran's new foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif appeared on ABC's "This Week" and addressed a number of the same questions every Iranian official is asked again and again in interviews by the American media.

George Stephanopoulos, who effectively conducted the same interview with former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad three years in a row, asked Zarif about possible concessions Iran is willing to make over its nuclear program. By doing so, however, he revealed that he knows very little about Iran's domestic enrichment program and the consistent findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In response to Zarif's comment that, for negotiations to be successful, Iran's inalienable right to enrich uranium be recognized and sanctions begin to be lifted, Stephanopoulos countered, "I understand that's your demand. But in return, is Iran prepared to stop enriching uranium at the levels they are now enriching it?"

Iran, under strict IAEA safeguards, round-the-clock surveillance and regular intrusive inspection, is currently enriching UF₆ (uranium hexafluoride feedstock) to between 3.5% and 5% U-235 for use as fuel in nuclear power plants and to just under 20% U-235 for use in medical research reactors. Both 5% and 20% enriched uranium are considered "low-enriched uranium" (LEU). Neither of these enrichment levels is close to the minimum of 90% U-235, or high-enriched uranium (HEU), needed to produce nuclear bombs.

Earlier this year, Senator Chuck Schumer made the same error in a letter to his constituents.  He claimed - contrary to all available evidence, IAEA findings, and American intelligence assessments - that Iran "continues to enrich uranium into weapons-grade nuclear materials" and that "experts say that the type of fuel that they produce is sufficient to arm a nuclear warhead."

Neither of these claims is true. In fact, the very same day Schumer's letter (which declared that Iran is "hot pursuit of nuclear weapons"), was distributed, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper affirmed in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that "Iran could not divert safeguarded material and produce a weapon-worth of WGU [weapons-grade uranium] before this activity is discovered" by both international monitors and Western spy agencies.

Far from being in "hot pursuit" of atomic bombs, Clapper also stated that the Iranian government has no nuclear weapons program and the American intelligence community does "not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

Not only this, but Iran has been systematically converting its roughly 20% LEU into U3O8 (triuranium octoxide) metallic fuel plates for its research reactor, thus precluding the material's further enrichment to weapons-grade and decreasing its accumulating stockpile, thus deliberately reducing the potential threat of proliferation. Nuclear physicist Yousaf Butt has explained, "This conversion essentially freezes the enrichment level and subtracts from the 'enrichable' gaseous stockpile used in centrifuges. It is not something that a nation hell-bent on weaponization would do."

The Tehran Research Reactor, where these fuel plates are used, produces radioisotopes required to diagnose and treat more than 850,000 cancer patients across the country.

In short, Iran is not - and has never even been accused or suspected of - enriching weapons-grade uranium.

Yet, as Stephanopoulos' interview with Zarif continued, it became increasingly clear the ABC host thinks it is.

When Zarif noted that, while "various aspects of Iranian's enrichment program" are open to negotiation, Iran's "right to enrich is nonnegotiable," Stephanopoulos replied, "But you don't need to enrich above 20 percent, which is only used for military purposes."

Zarif explained, "We do not need military-grade uranium. That's a certainty and we will not move in that direction."

Stephanopoulos, after asking if Iran would ever allow "surprise inspections" of its nuclear facilities - something Iran already does - was told forthrightly by Zarif that Iran has absolutely no interest in producing nuclear weapons.

"We're not seeking nuclear weapons... We don't want nuclear weapons," the Iranian Foreign Minister said, echoing decades of official Iranian policy. "We believe nuclear weapons are detrimental to our security. We believe those who have the illusion that nuclear weapons provide them with security are badly mistaken. We need to have a region and a world free from nuclear weapons."

What was Stephanopoulos' response? This:

"But if you don't want nuclear weapons why enrich uranium to the levels you're enriching uranium?" he wondered.

Again, Iran is not enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels, so Stephanopoulos' question makes no sense. Next time, perhaps, he'll ask one of the hundreds of thousands of Iranians suffering from cancer why they think their government is enriching uranium to the levels it does.

With media personalities like Stephanopoulos, it is no wonder that the American public remains misinformed and misled on basic facts about Iran's nuclear program.

*****

Mainstream Media's Ongoing Disinformation Campaign on Iran

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams

As the United States and Iran carefully embark on a renewed push for diplomacy, including direct contact between the presidents of each country for the first time in 34 years, the mainstream media continues to stymie any chance for an honest assessment of Iran's nuclear program, engaging instead in disinformation, misrepresentation and misleading reporting that has long characterized coverage of the issue.

In just the past month alone, numerous networks, newspapers and websites have referred, both implicitly and overtly, to an Iranian "nuclear weapons program," despite the fact that, for years now, United States intelligence community and its allies have long assessed that Iran is not and never has been in possession of nuclear weapons, is not building nuclear weapons, and its leadership has not made any decision to build nuclear weapons. Iran's uranium enrichment program is fully safeguarded by the IAEA and no nuclear material has ever been diverted to a military program. Iranian officials have consistently maintained they will never pursue such weapons on religious, strategic, political, moral and legal grounds.

The August 27, 2013 broadcast of NPR' "All Things Considered," featured correspondent Mara Liasson claiming that the tragic civil war in Syria is "a proxy war" and that "Iran, who is developing its own weapons of mass destruction, is currently backing the Syrian regime, and it is watching very carefully to see what the U.S. does."

The same day, an editorial in USA Today similarly advocated the U.S. bombing of Syria, stating that it "would demolish U.S. credibility" were Obama not to order a campaign of airstrikes, "not just in Syria but also in Iran, which continues to pursue nuclear weapons despite repeated U.S. warnings."

Neither Liasson, who has a history of getting things wrong about Iran, nor the editors of USA Today was being honest with their audience, presenting what are allegations unsupported by any evidence as fact.

In a TIME magazine article published online at the end of August, Michael Crowley wrote, "If another round of negotiations with Tehran should fail, Obama may soon be obliged to make good on his vow to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."

New York Times staff writer Robert Worth assessed the Obama administration's push for bombing Syria on September 3, explaining, "If the United States does not enforce its self-imposed "red line" on Syria's use of chemical weapons... Iran will smell weakness and press ahead more boldly in its quest for nuclear weapons."

On September 4, the website Foreign Policy posted a shrill piece of propaganda in which former AIPAC official and accused Israeli spy Steven Rosen claimed that not bombing Syria "would certainly undermine the campaign to prevent Iran from completing its nuclear weapons program."

On September 5, Politico revealed that "some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran's efforts to build a nuclear weapon. They are expected to lobby virtually every member of Congress, arguing that "barbarism" by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated, and that failing to act would "send a message" to Tehran that the U.S. won't stand up to hostile countries' efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, according to a source with the group."

On September 6, Peter Baker wrote in the New York Times that stepping back from a military assault on Syria would signal a lack of willingness on the part of Obama to counter the nonexistent "the development of a nuclear bomb by Iran."

On September 10, the Washington Post reported uncritically on the same story, identifying AIPAC's position that there exists "a direct connection between the Syria crisis and Iran's effort to get nuclear weapons." The Post quoted an unnamed AIPAC official as warning of grave consequences were the United States not to bomb Syria, noting that "it will send the wrong message to Tehran about their effort to obtain unconventional weapons."

The Post was back at it on September 15, stating in an article that "Israel's security establishment fears that a failure to punish Syria for its use of chemical weapons could encourage Tehran, Syria's ally, to continue to enrich uranium for a bomb."

When this erroneous conclusion was brought to the attention of Patrick Pexton, Washington Post's former ombudsman, he agreed that the claim "should be corrected," as no government, agency or organization on the planet has ever claimed Iran is enriching uranium "for a bomb."

Editors for the Times and Foreign Policy allowed those statements to be published. Neither Politico nor the Post challenged these absurd presumptions.

USA Today published another misleading article on September 22, which stated that President Obama is "trying to take advantage of a diplomatic opening–created by the installation of a new, more moderate president in Iran–to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program."

Peter Hart of the media watchdog organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) caught this bit of disinformation and added that the USA Today editing staff are "not the only ones who should consider clarifying the record." He quotes CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer smugly opining on September 22, "Rouhani says that Iran does not want and is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. Does anybody take that at face value?"

Hart noted:

Actually, the burden of proof should be the other way around: Politicians who claim that Iran has such a program should have to prove it. Schieffer obviously doesn't see the world that way. He's interviewed people like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and failed to challenge their claims about Iran's weapons. Indeed, Schieffer presented them as facts, telling viewers about Iran's "continuing effort to build a nuclear weapon" (FAIR Blog, 7/15/13).

Even more alarming, though, was a claim from NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, which opened his Friday evening broadcast on September 27.  Speaking of the surprising telephone conversation between Presidents Obama and Rouhani, Williams said, "This is all part of a new leadership effort by Iran - suddenly claiming they don't want nuclear weapons! - what they want is talks and transparency and good will. And while that would be enough to define a whole new era, skepticism is high and there's a good reason for it."

Really, Brian? Suddenly? In truth, the Iranian government has constantly reiterated its wholesale condemnation of nuclear weapons and refusal to ever acquire them - for over twenty years.  Apparently the host of what is often the most-watched evening newscast in the country believes pretending the statements by Rouhani represent a sea change in Iranian policy, rather than undeniable consistency, is good for ratings.

There is literally no way Brian Williams believes this is breaking news unless he has both short-term and long-term memory loss. Why not? He himself has reported on Iran's repudiation of nuclear weapons for years now.

On September 19, 2006, Williams asked Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to respond to what he deemed the U.S. government position that Iran "[s]top enriching uranium toward weapons," which made no sense in the first place since no one on the planet - including the United States - had ever claimed Iran was enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels.

Ahmadinejad replied, "We have said on numerous occasions that our activities are for peaceful purposes... Did Iran build the atomic bomb and use it? You must know that, because of our beliefs and our religion, we're against such acts. We are against the atomic bomb."

Williams interviewed Ahmadinejad again in late July 2008 and asked the Iranian president, "Is Iran's goal to have nuclear power or to be a nuclear power in the sense of possessing weapons?"

Ahmadinejad again was clear: "We are not working to manufacture a bomb. We don't believe in a nuclear bomb... Nuclear energy must not be equaled to a nuclear bomb... A bomb, obviously, is a very bad thing. Nobody should have such a bomb."

Williams' NBC colleague Ann Curry also conducted a number of interviews with Ahmadinejad over the past few years during which the Iranian president expressed identical sentiments.

Nevertheless, as The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald puts it, "NBC News feels free to spout such plainly false propaganda - 'suddenly claiming they don't want nuclear weapons!' - because they know they and fellow large media outlets have done such an effective job in keeping their viewers ignorant of these facts. They thus believe that they can sow doubts about Iran's intentions with little danger that their deceit will be discovered."

Despite the increasingly rapid pace of renewed Iranian and American communication and cooperation, the media's disinformation campaign against Iran has yet to slow down.  The journalists, editors, analysts and anchors who traffic in dishonest reporting should be held accountable.

Media researchers Jonas Siegel and Saranaz Barforoush recently wrote in the Cairo Review of Global Affairs:

If the goal of news media is to act in the public interest, to hold public officials accountable, and to permit an informed public to play a constructive role in the foreign policy decisions made by their governments—in their name—then journalists ought to consider more carefully how they go about framing the facts and assessments that animate complex policy issues such as Iran's nuclear program and how the international community could and should respond. Without considering these fundamental characteristics more carefully and reflecting a broader spectrum of viewpoints and policy possibilities in their coverage, they are liable to repeat the mistakes that contributed to disastrous policy choices in the past.

*****

The title of this post was originally,"Mainstream Media's Ongoing Misinformation Campaign on Iran," but has been changed to reflect the more accurate definitions of the words "misinformation" and "disinformation."

Misinformation is unintentional; disinformation is deliberate.

(h/t atheo)

*****