Mything The Point Over Iran

Yesterday, a diarist at The Daily Kos posted the news that the IAEA had voted to "report Iran to the United Nations Security Council on account of its nuclear activities." The diarist, "Meteor Blades" was considerably more sceptical than other "Kossacks" about the clear and present danger represented by Iran's nuclear ambitions and about the Bush regime's credibility. In an informal poll attached to the post, 23% were in favor of immediate "use of force to take out Iranian nuclear facilities," although a full third were in favor of allowing Iran to continue it's program under IAEA inspections and another 18% felt we should just leave the Iranians alone to do it's thing.

To me, that 23% in favor of immediate and catastrophic war - on a website constantly barracked by the Right as "moonbat central," the very heart of liberal extremism - is incredibly worrisome. These "liberal extremists" have swallowed the Bush narrative whole, as has faux-Democrat Joe Lieberman who has backed a Republican Senator, John McCain, for President while agreeing with McCain that "there's only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Have a careful look at the text of the IAEA statement. It's all about "lack of confidence" that Iran's programs are non-military because Iran needs to provide "credible assurances regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran." That's even after the IAEA accepted U.S. intelligence analysis in evidence, by the way. There is no smoking gun. No-one is 100% convinced, least of all El Baradei, that Iran is actively reaching for the Bomb. That's borne out by the majority vote of 27 vs 3, with 5 abstentions. Sounds impressive until you remember Condi had been aiming for 30 yes votes - and they only got several nations on board by including a phrease which Israel doesn't like but has no option other than to swallow:

Recognising that a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global non-proliferation efforts and to realising the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery.

The BBC says that the US and Europe split over the phrase:

The vote had been expected on Friday, but was delayed by an attempt by developing countries to soften the resolution, which was rejected by Germany, France and the UK, the countries proposing it.

Also, diplomats say Egypt made a proposal to include a reference to making the Middle East a nuclear weapon free zone.

This was rejected by the US, which saw it as an attack on Israel's nuclear arsenal.

But diplomats told AP news agency that Washington eventually agreed to the clause after it received overwhelming backing from European allies.

Further, several nations would have embarassingly (for the US) voted no or abstained if the statement had not included a commitment to wait for the IAEA's next report in March before actually bringing the matter up at the UN Security Council.

Iran, as it promised, has now suspended it's voluntary agreement with the EU3 to allow snap inspections and has also said it will commence enrichment of uranium to standards for power plant use. Associated Press reports "Iran ended all voluntary cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency Sunday." That's simply false. All NPT cooperation is voluntary and Iran is still cooperating at the level required of the IAEA and the NPT of all other nations. Other nations such as Pakistan and Israel don't cooperate at all but are still considered allies. America is about to recommence large scale plutonium reclamation from waste. Talk about double standards.

At the end of the day, I expect the Bush regime to have it's way over Iran, or if it doesn't to "go it alone" and start bombing. They don't have the brains to do anything else. The power of the myth is so strong, no matter what the reality is. Arthur Silber has an excellent article today about how the Bush regime has successfully mythologized the rush to war and created this unstoppable narrative, so strong that even "extremist liberals" have begun to believe it. He points out that much of it is built on the notion of "manifest destiny" - or if you prefer, the "white man's burden" - that so motivates many Americans who have imbibed it from birth yet have absolutely no evidence for their belief.

And Silber puts his finger perfectly on the tactic of creating fear so I am going to end with a quotation from his post:

Given the ease with which one can deflate the ludicrous notion that a nuclear Iran would constitute "the largest threat" facing the world, it is a cause for great concern that this view has so completely taken over rational debate on the subject. It is of even greater concern when we remember that we are only discussing a potential. But note how a central part of the propaganda campaign works: several months ago, the usual estimate for the time Iran would need to develop nuclear weapons was about ten years. Then it got reduced to five years. Now, people speak as if Iran will have nuclear weapons in the next few months. The unavoidable implication of this tactic is the obvious one, the one that Bush used so disastrously with Iraq: we need to act now. We have to do something now. There is only one word to describe this approach: it is not reasoned discourse -- it is hysteria, pure and simple.