Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 25, 2012

Joby Warrick Could Probably Become A Journalist

Someone up in the U.S. intelligence services has ordered to stop the current nuclear Iran frenzy.

The LA Times headlined yesterday: U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb

As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb.

The NY Times repeats that today on page 1 and above the fold: U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

Even as the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said in a new report Friday that Iran had accelerated its uranium enrichment program, American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.

The simple fact that the intelligence agencies do not believe that Iran wants to build nukes is of course nothing new. They said so repeatedly since the 2007 NIE. But it is interesting that in mid of the recent onslaught of pro-war anti-Iran reports and editorials someone decided to push the press into emphasizing the actual intelligence. I regard this as an attempt to pull gas prices back out of recession territory. But to really do that will require to lift sanctions on Iran. Otherwise this self inflicted wound will fester.

But the campaign has yet to reach the Washington Post where today Judith Miller Joby Warrick again spews pure propaganda: U.N. sees spike in Iran’s uranium production

Iran dramatically boosted its production of a purer form of nuclear fuel in recent months, with much of the increased output coming from a newly opened plant built inside a mountain bunker, U.N. officials said Friday, further exacerbating worries about Iran’s march toward nuclear-weapons capability.
The shift to underground bunkers and a larger stockpile of the highly enriched uranium, however, could shorten the amount of time needed for Iran to develop a weapon, U.S. officials and nuclear experts say.

Iran would probably have to take additional steps, including kicking U.N. inspectors out of the country, before it is able to assemble a bomb.[emph. add.]

Mr. Warrick thinks that one would only probably need to put a motor on a bicycle to turn it into a motorcycle. Or that one would only probably need to take additional steps to turn shit into gold. Thereby Iran would only probably have to take additional steps to turn low enriched Uranium into nuclear bombs.

Sure. Who knows? Maybe the Mahdi will reappear in Iran and miraculously further enrich its Uranium, convert it into metal and form it into a working bomb. So probably additional steps are indeed not needed there.

But it is not only probable but certain that Jody Warrick would need to take additional steps before being able to produce actual journalism.

Posted by b on February 25, 2012 at 11:27 UTC | Permalink


This (the Intel Community's view) was on the evening news in Oz tonight. It ended with a report from a panel of current and retired senior military personnel who wanted to make it clear to the US Public (80% of whom think Iran is making a Bomb) that attacking Iran is not a good idea.
which I suppose makes them Anti-semitic...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 25 2012 13:42 utc | 1

We have said this all along. Nice to get confirmation from someone in the known:
Putin: ‘The West wants regime change in Iran’

Vladimir Putin believes the US is using the issue of Iran’s nuclear program as a pretext for regime change. Meanwhile, its AMD plans for Europe is an attempt to have a monopoly on security.

"Under the guise of trying to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction they [the US] are attempting something else entirely and setting different goals – regime change," news agencies quote Putin as saying.

The Russian PM pointed out that US foreign policy, including that in the Middle East, was expensive, inefficient and largely unpredictable. Putin also added that, among other things, it may eventually disserve Israel.

"They changed regimes in North Africa. What will they do next? In the end, Israel may find itself between the devil and the deep blue sea," he said.

On a lighter side: The 10 Most Excellent Reasons to Attack Iran

Posted by: b | Feb 25 2012 14:04 utc | 2

The news I referred to above was on SBS World News Australia 6-30 pm Feb 25.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 25 2012 14:43 utc | 3

From b @ 2.
Putin also added that, among other things, it may eventually disserve Israel.
Good point, Vlad.
It would be richly ironic if Uncle Sam had to bomb Israel back to the Stone Age to "save" it from a counter-attack by angry Iranians. There must be more than a handful of US service personnel who'd jump at the chance to pay the Jews back for the unarmed ship they trashed in '67.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 25 2012 15:01 utc | 4

Putin is understating it. He must be laughing his head off. After all this brilliant strategy to end the Soviet Union by tempting them to enter Afghanistan, the US commits the blunder of entering themselves.
By the way the media is remarkably silent about the circumstances of this Koran burning.
Did it happen in Bagram airbase proper or in Bagram prison? Was it censorship or something else? Something like this for example

Posted by: somebody | Feb 25 2012 15:15 utc | 5

@somebody - The Quran burning happened at the prision. The U.S. military says prisoners, who each is allowed to have a Quran, used them to exchange notes scribed into them. Those Qurans were collected and thrown into the burn pit. The military doesn't how many just "a considerable amount" whcih could be several hundred (there are 2000+ prisoners in Parchim.

Posted by: b | Feb 25 2012 15:57 utc | 6

The WP is basically a Zionist propaganda outlet. It is owned by Mort Zuckerman, former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.

Joby Warlock--what an appropriate name for Zionist warmonger. Oops--Warrick. My bad.

Gas prices too high? It has finally dawned on the Appeaser in Chief that he's in a no win situation. If he attacks Iran, gas prices will go through the roof, making him unelectable. If he doesn't attack Iran, Zionist fellow travelers in the media and in commodities markets will stir up trouble and roil markets, driving gas prices higher.

The Appeaser in Chief has been had by Netanyahu and his gang.

Posted by: JohnH | Feb 25 2012 16:18 utc | 7

And we mustn't overlook Joby's rapid work on Thursday in publishing a pile of 20 year old telexes that David Albright found moldering in a corner of his office:

Those eeevil Iranians had the temerity to buy a bunch of dual-use technology 20 years ago. That must prove they want a bomb...

Posted by: Jim White | Feb 25 2012 16:19 utc | 8

He must be laughing his head off. After all this brilliant strategy to end the Soviet Union by tempting them to enter Afghanistan, the US commits the blunder of entering themselves.

This is an 'unintended consequence' of dumbass Yankees believing their own super-duper-power bs. It won't take Vlad long to apply a bit of course-correction to their aimless base & bunker buffoonery...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 25 2012 16:23 utc | 9

Regarding Putin's claim of Israeli blowback,"Whom the gods destroy,they first make mad" leaps to mind.

Posted by: dahoit | Feb 25 2012 16:55 utc | 10

is it likely that you are allowed to write own notes in a Koran book, if you are strictly religious?

Posted by: somebody | Feb 25 2012 18:02 utc | 11

It strikes me that the koran burning is deliberate policy. It is probably modelled on Israeli behaviour in the most recently Occupied territories and is designed to enrage muslims in order that perpetual warfare may be justified.
For Israel's fascists this may be reasonable, if risky, policy, but for the USA bent on world domination it makes no sense at all.
And not least because it is making the positions of puppets like the Saudis untenable. It must be difficult to motivate any but the most venal salafis in Libya and Syria to continue to work hand in hand with book burning zionists.

Posted by: bevin | Feb 25 2012 18:44 utc | 12

yep, bevin, it definitively was a bad PR move

I still find this underreported koran story very intriguing. I mean, was it really the first time they did this? Or was it practice. I guess they use it to break down the personality of religious prisoners
apart from being culturally stupid.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 25 2012 19:47 utc | 13

JohnH makes the key point:
"Gas prices too high? It has finally dawned on the Appeaser in Chief that he's in a no win situation. If he attacks Iran, gas prices will go through the roof, making him unelectable. If he doesn't attack Iran, Zionist fellow travelers in the media and in commodities markets will stir up trouble and roil markets, driving gas prices higher."

If I remember this is analogous to build up to the Armada adventure of Phillip II in 16th century Spain.

Posted by: JohnE | Feb 25 2012 20:06 utc | 14

@JohnH writes, The WP is basically a Zionist propaganda outlet. It is owned by Mort Zuckerman, former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.

Serious business.

Unfortunately untrue. Zuckerman owns NY Daily News and U.S. News and World Report, and is a Zionist, but does not have ownership interest in the WaPo.

How do I know? I can read SEC filings. (So could JohnH if he had taken the time.)

Posted by: Brice T. | Feb 25 2012 20:37 utc | 15

The Obama-administration know fully well that attacking Iran is a bad Idea, but haven't said so very explicitly in fear of loosing zionist votes. I'm not sure of the democrats role in the whole thing, but I suspect the oil-industry have been humoring AIPAC warmongering to turn the prices up, they need some incentive to get on with processing tar-sand about now. Higher oilprices sometimes fit American oil-industrys interests.
About the Quran-burning, the media will pick up on it as it becomes clear NATO and ISAF are forced to leave Afghanistan early. Al Jazeera reported charred Qurans were found by afghani workers picking up trash from Baghram airbase, and there is no sign protests are going to subside.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 25 2012 21:05 utc | 16

Not only tar-sand actually, but oil-extraction generally have become more expensive, as oil-wells are drying up, and they like to cash in while they can. Then it is nice to put the blame for higher gas-prices on somebody else, like Iran. Rattling the market with threats of war is actually the most effective instrument for regulating oil-prices, since no single country or entity has the direct power to set the price anymore, since OPEC no longer does that bit.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 25 2012 21:13 utc | 17

It is most probably not proper to write in the Koran. So, I guess we will have no problem verifying that the Koran's were, in fact, written in, right?

Posted by: John | Feb 25 2012 21:24 utc | 18

An observing muslim should never add or remove anything from The Quran, as a cristian shouldn't in The Bible, that is haram. But as your link shows, not all are strictly observant of this rule. Allthough, the incident was at Baghram airbase, so I can't see the relevance.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 25 2012 21:38 utc | 19

About the number of Korans burned - one can make some guesses and estimates.

Number issued to the prisoners
- assume logic, and that only literate prisoners are given Korans.
- the male literacy rate in Afghanistan as listed by the CIA World Factbook - given as 43.1% (CIA is always extremely precise in its numbers which makes me wonder where, or if, they learned statistics). The literacy rate also varies by province and ethnic group.
- a rough estimate - assuming 2000 prisoners, and EVERY prisoner writing in his Koran, or more likely, every Koran confiscated to be burned whether it had writing in it or not - maybe 900 burned.

I also wondered about whether writing in the Koran is approved. However, religions do allow for different actions in exceptional circumstances.

Posted by: Northern Night Owl | Feb 25 2012 22:10 utc | 20

that is the point all the news say Baghram airbase, which is correct in a way, however the prison is part of the airbase and the Korans were taken from prisoners

and, yes, it took me a while to find the above link.

this here is the mentioned detention facility

and yes, the pentagon says, they were confiscated because messages were written in them.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 25 2012 22:11 utc | 21

When I read b's comment about Qura'ns being burn't in the prison the thought that came to mind was removal of evidence that might be subpoenad later on in an investigation. They may have burn't them to avoid future headaches not even realizing how big a present headache they were going to create.

As for writing in the Qur'an. Certainly adding or subtracting from its text is a big sin. But writing comments in the sides is, though not common, acceptable by many. People write notes to themselves regarding the text etc.

Posted by: Khalid Shah | Feb 25 2012 22:20 utc | 22

Jody Warrick's "reporting" goes against the US intelligence agencies' assessments of the situation as you pointed out. It would be very amusing if the CIA, NIA, or some other MIC operation arrested her for endangering the US by going against their published assessments and alarming the public on the issue with propaganda.

That would never happen (could never happen) but it would amuse me if it did.

Posted by: markstoval | Feb 25 2012 22:31 utc | 23


You are right that nobody will arrest her.

Joby Warrick is a man.

Posted by: Brice T. | Feb 25 2012 23:21 utc | 24

What if I download the Koran, then delete it. Is that wrong?

Posted by: yes_but | Feb 26 2012 0:23 utc | 25

@ yeas_but

hehe.. good one. you troll.

No, that would actually be fine. The electronic ones, as long as not altered, can be copied, deleted, and retrieved at will.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 26 2012 0:57 utc | 26

Mmh.. only hypothetical exception I can come up with is if you delete someones electronic Quran and immediately cut their Internet-connection.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 26 2012 1:01 utc | 27

If there is anything I learned from the Iraq debacle is not to rely on the US intelligence community to prove or disprove that Iran is acquiring nukes. Why? Because the intelligence will always be "fixed" to fit the policy. The US intelligence community saying that Iran is not producing a nuke is worthless. The US policy of regime change in Iran is set in place, all that is needed is the action to do it. Once the decision is taken, then the intelligence will be fixed to fit the policy. That is what happened with Iraq and that is what will happen with Iran.

Posted by: ndahi | Feb 26 2012 6:46 utc | 28

The media windup to sell a war on Iran does resemble the Iraq war fraud, but I'm more inclined to believe the intelligence-experts this time around. With the Iraq war, they really didn't have proper experts to shout, those who did, weren't heard through the FOX/CNN media war-propaganda sensationalist campaign. There actually were reports from weapons-inspectors saying Iraq had destroyed all WMDs years earlier. It was a case of Bush saying he wanted war, and having his oil-companies and connections pay for a media-campaign.
Why Bush junior hasn't been impeached is beyond me.

This time, oil only wanted a little price regulation.

The truth is that USA can't afford a new war, definitely not on Iran which is 3 times the size of Iraq. And there would be revolution if a US president proposed it. All sane people are sick of war now. Making sure Iran no longer have a capability to produce a nuke would mean bombing them 70 years back in time, which is the age of nuke-technology. That would be a war-crime if there ever was one. Especially as no real forces in Iran want the bomb.

One thing that never was explained to me is how Iran getting the bomb would be a catastrophic shift of balance making everyone else want one, when India and Pakistan already have it.

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 26 2012 9:33 utc | 29

Hi Alexander,
you just explained why the nuclear bomb is not really the issue ...:-))

it is a) Israel being contained by Hezbollah, Hamas plus probably now Egypt featuring Iran as supporter ...
b) Gulf Emirates scared stiff because part of their population is Shiite and they do have some sort of representative democracy in Iran, even if politics are dominated by clerics.
c) Jordan having a problem because a large part of their population is Palestinian.

So I find this event in Afghanistan to unite all Muslims quite fascinating.

Putin is correct, US policy is completely incoherent.
I do believe, they adopted a kind of "terror management" strategy, fuelling and fighting terror at the same time to remain in control. However, at the same time, the left does not know what the right is doing, so they can't even control themselves ..basically the world has become too complex to think in cause and effect.

In practical terms they still have to manage withdrawal from Afghanistan. It won't be easy.
The sheer magnitude of the change in positive perceptions of the president following the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 suggests a strong underlying process. Theories from sociology and psychology suggest that there exists a general relationship between fear of external attacks and support for standing leaders. I present a theoretical account for this relationship based on social identity theory."
"Three experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis, derived from terror management theory,
that reminding people of their mortality increases attraction to those who consensually validate their
beliefs and decreases attraction to those who threaten their beliefs. In Study 1, subjects with a Christian
religious background were asked to form impressions of Christian and Jewish target persons.
Before doing so, mortality was made salient to half of the subjects. In support of predictions, mortality
salience led to more positive evaluations of the in-group member (the Christian) and more negative
evaluations of the out-group member (the Jew). In Study 2, mortality salience led to especially
negative evaluations of an attitudinally dissimilar other, but only among subjects high in authoritarianism.
In Study 3, mortality salience led to especially positive reactions to someone who directly
praised subjects' cultural worldviews and especially negative reactions to someone who criticized
them. The implications of these findings for understanding in-group favoritism, prejudice, and intolerance
of deviance are discussed."

Posted by: somebody | Feb 26 2012 10:16 utc | 30

That is exactly why sites like MoA are so important, revealing and undermining the process of psychological control our politicians and FOX/CNN utilise to supress and divert the persiut of our basic political interests.
I'm a grateful fan of b and his work to cut through the propaganda, thanks!

Posted by: Alexander | Feb 26 2012 12:47 utc | 31

"...revealing and undermining the process of psychological control our politicians and FOX/CNN utilise to supress and divert the persiut of our basic political interests"

One could devote a lifetime to naming the various script reading whores in modern media that masquerade as "journalists". And MSNBC is a bad as Fox or CNN is.

Joby is just one of the sluts in the brothel, not really any better, or worse, than the rest of the establishments's offerings. And rather than giving you syphilis, AIDS, or crabs, they give ya ignorance. I think maybe you're better off with AIDS than you are with ignorance. And syphilis is certainly easier to cure than ignorance is. And crabs??? Well, at least you don't get them by turning on your TV.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Feb 26 2012 17:38 utc | 32

Savor it, everyone!

We are witnessing the media fallout of a very intense catfight at the top levels of the US Government--indeed, above the US Government, at the level of PermaGovernment. Don't invade Iran, because an invasion would most likely be disastrous, or invade now, because--as desperate and crazy as it is--the future US military position will only get worse?

(This has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or uranium enrichment, of course--it's all about oil, pipelines, regime change and strategic alliances.)

Something must be done, and soon. But what? Nobody knows! We are watching the seething desperation of madmen.


Posted by: Gaianne | Feb 27 2012 3:37 utc | 33

Meanwhile, Wikileaks uploads Stratfor. Hope Julian Assange has good bodyguards.

Posted by: catlady | Feb 27 2012 4:34 utc | 34

The comments to this entry are closed.