Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 3, 2012
An Example Of NYT Reporting On Iran

As the New York Times reported: C.I.A. Says Iran Makes Progress On Atom Arms:

A draft Central Intelligence Agency report on Iran concludes that the country is making progress on a nuclear arms program and could develop a nuclear weapon …

But Iran's leaders deny interest in developing a nuclear weapon. "We have no need for nuclear weapons," Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Mohammad Besharati was quoted as saying on Iran's official radio on Friday. He described press reports that Iran was planning to acquire nuclear weapons as "a lie and a plot."

But the report, which goes further than the last formal estimate on Iran, is expected to be fiercely contested when it is reviewed for approval by the nation's other intelligence agencies this week. The earlier report, written late last year, concluded only that at least some of Iran's revolutionary leaders were intent on developing nuclear weapons, but that the program was disorganized and in an early stage of development.

Another example of the current dispute centers on a classified Pentagon overview of Iran's military buildup that concludes that by the end of the decade, Iran will have enough naval equipment to "dominate" Persian Gulf waters and threaten commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Administration officials familiar with the report.

The report, prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency late last summer, also concludes that over the next eight years, Iran will double the number of tanks and armored vehicles in its arsenal and try to service and even build tanks itself. The country is expected to replace its aging American warplanes with the same number of some of the most advanced planes and related weapons systems from Russia and China, to buy more missiles from China and North Korea and to increase its chemical weapons stockpiles.

But parts of the report are viewed as overblown by other Pentagon experts, who say that the naval buildup is being matched by the gulf Arab states, and that the most Teheran might be able to do by 2000 is to threaten — but not dominate — the region.

Comments

Hah! “That 90’s Show” – already in re-runs!

Posted by: Jeremiah Cornelius | Feb 3 2012 20:54 utc | 1

You may want to read how the Washington Post’s David Ignatius seems to have entirely made up a view he attributed to US Def Sec Panetta about a supposedly imminent Israeli attack on Iran, which everyone has taken at face value:
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2012/02/ignatius-lies-panetta-israeli-strike-on-iran.html

Posted by: Cyrus | Feb 3 2012 21:03 utc | 2

Its not just the NYTs. Read the piece on yesterday’s opinion page in the Los Angeles Times. Apparently, “no one disputes” that Iran is a huge threat to Israel. At least, according to the zionist shithead that penned the piece.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Feb 3 2012 21:48 utc | 3

Put on your thinking caps fellers, as I can’t corroborate this story anywhere else, and have never heard of this news agency however, for what it’s worth…
Dempsey Told Israelis U.S. Won’t Join Their War on Iran

WASHINGTON, Feb 1, 2012 (IPS) – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders Jan. 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from well-placed senior military officers. bot dot dot…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 3 2012 23:45 utc | 4

Another suspicious leak that doesn’t pass the smell test.
Why would Iran want tanks? After what Hezbollah did to Israel’s Merkava?
If Iran wanted to waste money–like the US and Israel–they would indeed invest in lots and lots of tanks. And just where would they drive these tanks to? Into the sand storms of the Arabian Peninsula?
What nonsense!
My guess is that Iran’s $10 Billion defense budget will continue to be prioritized around building a solid deterrent capability, not on buying a bunch of tanks (AKA sitting ducks.)

Posted by: JohnH | Feb 3 2012 23:52 utc | 5

I blame the fonts. There’s something about those gothic characters makes even sensible people prostrate themselves. It’s uncanny.

Posted by: yes_but | Feb 4 2012 0:34 utc | 6

Isn’t it sad that the Nobel Peace Prize winning president doesn’t take this opportunity to tell Israel that if they try to bomb Iran, an act of war, our AWACS will see them heading out and will take them out.
Tell them that the US will no longer take part in wars of aggression and prevention. Period.
Yeah, good luck with that….

Posted by: jawbone | Feb 4 2012 0:49 utc | 7

U$, I subscribed to ipsnews for a period; my impression is that on the main political issues it broadly follows the lines of the western agenda, but it also gives a lot of interesting news on the “South” of the world you’d have trouble finding elsewhere; I’d like to know if others here know ipsnews, and their opinion on it
Gareth Porter, whom you linked to, is an important reporter on the Middle East, I’m sure you know him

Posted by: claudio | Feb 4 2012 1:05 utc | 8

Hah! “That 90’s Show” – already in re-runs!
Posted by: Jeremiah Cornelius

Indeed. Or, maybe “That 90’s into Early Oughts Show.”
And, indeed, it is so disrespectful for the directors of the current version to show such disrespect for the US public.
Ack!
Glen Greenwald notes the repetitions.

Posted by: jawbone | Feb 4 2012 3:08 utc | 9

JohnH @ 5.
All good points, imo.
When I read fabrications like that I can’t help wondering if it’s just another example of the US M-IC elites taking incautious advantage of their own mirages. The US obsession with the razzle-dazzle of updated WWII hardware helps create an illusion of invincibility in the eyes of a naiive public. But the reality of tanks is as you portray it.
Same with ships and navies.
One of the problems with the US Navy’s 20 or so bloated Carrier Groups and Battle Groups is that fear of air and/or missile attack obliges the ships in each group to sail in such close proximity that it is vulnerable to destruction by a single nuke.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 4 2012 3:39 utc | 10

note the last sentence in the article:
“These experts add that Iran has so far to go and so little money to spend that its reinforced military force might be unable to do more than to deter aggression by its neighbors. They also blame the Israeli Government for fanning the recent alarm by portraying Iran as the most dangerous threat to both the region’s and Israel’s security.”

Posted by: annie | Feb 4 2012 4:41 utc | 11

That report seems much more balanced that those now coming out of the NYTs.
The bit about the tanks was right on the money, for example, and the paper went to great lengths to point out that there was considerable debate within the Administration regarding the meaning behind the (then) Iranian military buildup.
The bit about the nukes was clearly wrong, but to its credit the article did point out that many in the Administration thought the Iranians were looking to develop the “capability” to breakout, rather than endevouring to manufacture a bomb.

Posted by: Johnboy | Feb 4 2012 6:17 utc | 12

“I read the NYT in order to see not what the news is but how the news is covered. I read the paper in order to understand more about the US government and its motives. On foreign policy, I read this paper merely in order to understand the foreign policy project of the US government. In matters of foreign policy, US media just follows (with rare exceptions) the orientations and agendas of the government.”
As’ad AbuKhalil Why I read The New York Times

Posted by: Neretva’43 | Feb 4 2012 17:46 utc | 13

There’s your metaphor for the News-of-the-Day, right there!

Posted by: yes_but | Feb 4 2012 19:14 utc | 14

Re: Neretva’43’s comment #13
“News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity.” Bill Moyers.
For the word, “people”, insert “Powers That Be”.
EVERYTHING you read in the Western Press with the exception of the sports scores is manipulated information carefully designed to distort your opinions to favor those who own your future. Those who own your future also happen to own the New York Times, NBC, The London Times, Fox, the United States of America’s government, judiciary, educational system, financial institutions, the City of London, the…(…you get the idea.)

Posted by: arthurdecco | Feb 7 2012 0:05 utc | 15

synopsis arthur and Neretva’,
The only time they tell the truth is when it just happens to coincide with their agenda.

Posted by: juannie | Feb 7 2012 0:22 utc | 16

Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons to counter Iran

SAUDI Arabia could acquire nuclear warheads within weeks of Iran developing atomic weapons as the threat from Tehran triggers an arms race across the Middle East.
In the event of a successful Iranian nuclear test, Riyadh would immediately launch a twin-track nuclear weapons program.
Warheads would be purchased off the shelf from abroad, with work on a new ballistic missile platform getting under way to build an immediate deterrent, according to Saudi sources.
At the same time, the Saudi kingdom would upgrade its planned civil nuclear program to include a military dimension, beginning uranium enrichment to develop weapons-grade material in the long term.
Saudi officials emphasise that Riyadh has no military nuclear program at present and will continue to lobby for nuclear disarmament across the region.
But the Saudi government accepts privately that there is no chance of Israel surrendering its undeclared arsenal of warheads, and Riyadh is determined to match Tehran if its arch enemy in the Gulf goes nuclear.
Like many Western powers, Riyadh is convinced that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons, and is preparing for a worst-case scenario should Western efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear advance fail.
The Times has learnt that commanders of Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Missile Force have been actively considering the missile platforms on the market.
“There is no intention currently to pursue a unilateral military nuclear program but the dynamics will change immediately if the Iranians develop their own nuclear capability,” one senior Saudi source said.
“Politically, it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom.”
Pakistan is the most likely vendor of warheads to Riyadh, according to Western officials.

there’s more at the link…
WTF? This has to be some Rumsfeldian prop-agenda, OR P2OG* bullshit “leaked” to a foreign news agency for the express purposes of domestic consumption?
For those whom have forgotten: P2OG stands for Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, a U.S. intelligence agency that would employ “black world” (black operations) tactics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive,_Preemptive_Operations_Group

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 10 2012 16:09 utc | 17

Sometimes the things the NYT doesn’t report on Iran are more interesting than the stuff its contributors make up and attribute to Iran.
For instance, take the oil embargo.
I’ve been keeping an eye out for MSM “news” about Iran’s threat to pre-empt the EU’s June/July deadline by ceasing its EU deliveries immediately. I haven’t seen anything about either the threat, or the outcome of the vote in Iran. Then a few days ago I found a reference to it squirrelled away at the bottom of this AP-Reuters article on Haaretz.
Iran: US, Israel highly vulnerable to retaliatory strikes (Feb 8, 2012)
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iran-u-s-israel-highly-vulnerable-to-retaliatory-strikes-1.411736
The article consists of the kind of blather one would expect AP and Haaretz to attribute to anonymous Iranians, but the last par says…
“More than two-thirds of Iran’s lawmakers have endorsed a statement calling for cutting off oil sales to the European Union before EU sanctions on their country go into effect. The statement, which was read Wednesday in an open session of parliament broadcast on state radio, said “in the case of the continuation of illogical policies” by the EU, Iran will look for alternative customers for its oil before the European embargo goes into effect in the summer. The statement was signed by 200 of the parliament’s 290 lawmakers.”
If the above statement is true, and the publication of it under an irrelevant headline was deliberate, then one could reasonably conclude that the embargo is beginning to look like a typical right-wing “it seemed like a good idea at the time” plot. If one counts all the countries who have politely (and not so politely) told US-NATO to stick its Iran embargo where ‘the sun doesn’t shine’ then the embargo doesn’t have enough support to yield anything more than an increase in oil prices.
……………………..
The day before the article above appeared there was this from Reuters…
Exclusive: China buys up Saudi, Russian oil to squeeze Iran (Feb 7, 2012)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-china-oil-supplies-idUSTRE8161RG20120207
This crux of this story is in the first par…
China is scouring the world for alternative oil supplies to replace a fall in its imports from Iran, as it seeks to negotiate lower prices from Tehran, and has been drawing heavily on Saudi Arabia.
The article is full of stats and factoids but doesn’t attempt to mke the case that China is on the verge of cutting ties with Iran.
Many factors make the story interesting and confusing but it seems that China has found a way to help itself (by saving money on the oil it buys from Iran) while helping Iran to thwart the embargo by soaking up as much surplus production capacity as possible before the EU can get to it. It’s worth remembering that China’s investment in Lybyan oil took a big hit when NATO toppled Ghaddafi. One doesn’t have to be Albert Einstein to figure out that Libya was the last time China will sit on its hands while NATO deliberately sets out to curtail its access to global oil resources.
The EU and US are on their last legs. No amount of mock-indignation and impotent, Sarkosy-style flouncing, from Shrillary and Susan Rice about imaginary problems in Syria (while acting like incompetent morons over the EU financial melt-down) can save them.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 12 2012 6:40 utc | 18