Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 2, 2013
Iran And The Danger of One’s “Own Reality”

There is a concept of “strategic messaging” used to let the public know how it is supposed to think about this or that policy or country. There are problems with such messaging. It often exaggerates or even invents “facts” and thereby turns into propaganda lies. It also creates an echo chamber where the strategic messengers over time comes to believe their own bullshitting.

When a senior aid to president Bush said:

”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

He was right in a specific way. The Bush administration, through its propaganda, created its “own reality” especially with regard to Iraq. But that reality was not the reality of other actors. Especially not the reality of Iraqi resistances. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” banner was his reality while the reality of the besieged U.S. occupation of Iraq looked much different. When more and more people became aware of that Bush political position sank to record lows. One can created one’s own reality but it is to one’s own peril.

Such “strategic messaging” disease has captured Washington with regards to Syria as well as to North Korea. Claims that Assad is about to fall or that Kim Jong Un is crazy does not turn such assertions into facts. But repeat them often enough and people, especially those doing the messaging, may come to believe them. These politicians then themselves react as if their propaganda assertions were true. The White House believed its own rhetoric that Assad would fall as soon as protests started and tried to plan for his immediate downfall. It took a quite for that view to change and even now there is only little of alternative planing. Empty but calculated threats from North Korea are seen as serious danger because “everyone knows” that North Korea is “crazy” and are therefor answered with risky military provocations.

A piece in today’s Wall Street Journal seems to confirm that a similar disease is growing with regards to Iran.

Iran converts its 20% Uranium to fuel plates for the Tehran Research Reactor. It does so because, as is well known, that reactor is indeed in dire need of fresh fuel and because many cancer patients’ lives depend on the medical output of that reactor.

The “strategic messaging” U.S. administrations have done with regard to Iran are full of lies. False claims are made that Iran would want to rush to a nuclear weapon. False claims are made about the 2009 election. False claims are made that Iran is concerned over the threat of an Israeli attack.

Thus we now get this piece which attributes Iran’s conversion of 20% enriched Uranium to all the false claims made about Iran but not to its indisputable real-live motivation:

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has decided to keep Iran’s nuclear program within limits demanded by Israel for now, according to senior U.S., European and Israeli officials, in a move they believe is designed to avert an international crisis during an Iranian election year.


Seeking to ward off international pressure, Iranian nuclear officials have kept the country’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 20% purity below 250 kilograms (550 pounds). Iran would need such an amount—if processed further into weapons-grade fuel—to produce one atomic bomb, experts believe. It is also the amount Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the United Nations in September that the world should prevent Iran from amassing, through a military strike if necessary.

Iran did convert the Uranium because it needed it. It didn’t convert it because of “international pressure”. It did not convert it because Netanyahoo made a cartoon performance at the UN. It didn’t convert it because Iran will soon have another election. There is no real data that would support any of the assertions made in the WSJ piece. There is real data that says Iran needs the fuel.

It is difficult to detect where the “strategic messaging” turns against its own creators. The point where people start to believe their own propaganda is not always clear. The WSJ journal piece has a tone to it that lets me fear those “senior U.S., European and Israeli officials” are near or already in a state where their self created “reality” makes the blind for the real one. If that is the case the danger for miscalculations and in the end war has increased.

Comments

American policy has been to weaken Iran by any means available since 30 to 40 years ago. Right now Iran is too strong to be invaded or attacked. And right now the Western camp is too weak to put boots in the ground. America is hoping sanctions will dampen Iran enough to open up other avenues (irredentism, color revolution etc…) for reducing her power, but this is a misguided policy with small chance of success. Iran has passed the threshold and is a robust state with powerful means to defend herself.
It is true I believe that there have been some accomodations from the Iranian side to either give the impression, or prove a real will, to advance the Almaty negociations forward. But, ultimately, the goal with this gesture is to provide face-saving alternatives for the West and not a step to close Fordow or stop 20% enrichment as WSJ might insinuate. Not to say that this will have additional tactical advantages by playing the time, which is on Iran’s side, and helping to further open-up the diverging interests between the collaborating parties: the US/Nato, Saudis, Israel, EU3, and Russia/China.

Posted by: ATH | Apr 2 2013 17:13 utc | 1

Related John Pilger piece: the-new-propaganda-is-liberal-the-new-slavery-is-digital

Posted by: biklett | Apr 2 2013 17:46 utc | 2

It will be particularly interesting to envision the day when the American public wakes up to the fact that much of the strategic messaging seems to originate in Tel Aviv or with their fellow travelers in the United States.
It is incredible that no one bothered to note that Obama chose a visit to Israel as the way to mark the 10th anniversary of the Iraq invasion. To anyone paying attention, it was pretty obvious that Obama confirmed suspicions that I America wasted $Trillions on behalf of a small, strategically irrelevant Jewish state.
And it is incredible that no serious commentator is linking the debt created by the Zionist driven Iraq fiasco to the need for austerity today and the gutting of Social Security, Medicare, and anything else that supports civil society.
It is also incredible that no one is making the connection between high oil and gasoline prices and the embargo of Iran, another counter-productive folly taken largely on behalf of the Jewish state. No one seems to take note of the fact that most of the case against Iran during the last election was justified by “defense” of Israel, not the United States. And no serious commentator dares mention Iranian oil surplus in the same breath as high oil prices.
My guess is that one day Zionist goading America into war will backfire. The propaganda will continue to work really well, until one day it doesn’t. And that day will come when Israel goads America into taking one step too far, leading to a big spike in oil prices and a tanking of the economy.

Posted by: JohnH | Apr 2 2013 19:38 utc | 3

strategically irrelevant? It’s a portal onto the whole ME shootin match. Also, prime real estate desired by all The People of the Book.

Posted by: ruralito | Apr 2 2013 20:00 utc | 4

Yesterday, Foreign Policy ran an article on North Korea which began from the assumption that North Korea is being provocative or belligerant and that the US was only responding in a reasonable way. It didn’t say or argue why the US had to respond in the way it did, and assumed that North Korea was the instigator. It also didn’t contrast the difference between North Korea *saying* things and the US government *doing* things like sending nuclear bombers on trial runs. This is the state of American “social science”: serve the state and empire.

Posted by: roger | Apr 2 2013 20:39 utc | 5

on “strategic messaging”
In the US military it has been “strategic communication”
Strategic communication has become a priority for not only the Army but also the Department of Defense.
General Caldwell, Afghan army trainer and now CG NORTHCOM:

Essentially, the survival of armed non-state actors depends on having a fertile ground of accepting populations to sow their seeds of discontent and lies. Influencing public opinion, therefore, becomes paramount to denying their popular acceptance and use of any sanctuary in the world. Eroding their support should then become a desired effect of any Strategic Communication plan.

The Pentagon definition of strategic communication:

Focused United States Government efforts to understand and engage key audiences to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of United States Government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all instruments of national power.

The US State Department has a similar policy, called “public diplomacy”:

The mission of American public diplomacy is to support the achievement of U.S. foreign policy goals and objectives, advance national interests, and enhance national security by informing and influencing foreign publics and by expanding and strengthening the relationship between the people and government of the United States and citizens of the rest of the world.

These policies have led the US military and State into social media, with contracts for sock puppet commenters, leading to what some call “disinformation.” The Pentagon has spent a billion dollars on strategic communications. Paid-for news articles, billboards, radio and television programs, and even polls and focus groups have been sponsored by the U.S. Central Command, which has raised its spending for information operations programs from $40 million in 2008 to $110 million in 2009 to a requested $244 million in 2010.
To add a little humor, in December the Pentagon press spokesman and Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs George Little sent a memo to the commanding generals of the various combatant commands. It explains Little’s decision to stop using the term “strategic communication,” which he believes causes “confusion.” According to Little, “the more accurate terminology, which will be used in future Joint Publications, is “communications synchronization.”

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 2 2013 23:44 utc | 6

David Albright, the irrepressible anti-Iran propaganda queen, has recently come up with a new scary scenario (also on the WSJ) he calls “critical capability.”
Albright:

Critical capability means the point at which Iran could dash to produce enough weapons-grade uranium or separated plutonium for one bomb so quickly that the International Atomic Energy Agency or a Western intelligence service would be unable to detect the dash until it is over. . .We estimate that Iran, on its current trajectory, will by mid-2014 be able to dash to fissile material in one to two weeks unless its production of 20%-enriched uranium is curtailed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324789504578380801062046108.html
David Albright has formerly been concerned about “breakout.” He said that breakout could be accomplished in Iran within three to six months. Of course Iran would have to expel the IAEA inspectors prior to any such breakout, then initiate the up to six month process, enriching uranium to weapons grade.
Then, presuming it had the designs ready, it would have to construct a nuclear bomb (or warhead) and test it (important). Then and only then could Iran go ahead with the construction of bombs or warheads. It is unrealistic to believe that the US and others would be sitting blithely by while all this were going on. It would not be a quick process.
So breakout’s not the end. A nuclear weapon cannot be made of gas. The gas must be converted to metal, a difficult and very dangerous process because of the high potential for a critical accident (like a nuclear reactor without shielding) that would kill anyone in the room or nearby.
Then an implosion warhead would have to be constructed. Warheads are complicated little machines. The entire detonation process happens within a tiny fraction of a second so the hard part is constructing a warhead with reliable separation capabilities throughout the various stages. Testing is mandatory to make sure the thing works.
Clinton Bastin, nuclear scientist (which Albright isn’t):

“Iran has no experience with this process, and no facilities to carry it out. Assembly of metal components with high explosives is even more dangerous, because a nuclear explosion would kill those within half a mile. Because of the difficulties, Iran would need 10 to 15 years to make a weapon, after diversion of low-enriched uranium, which would be immediately detected by IAEA inspectors.”

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Bastin_Interview.pdf

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 3 2013 0:01 utc | 7

“Own Reality” and indeed OWN one. What is it? Totalitarianism depicted by Orwell bellow:

“If you want a vision of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a huma face – forever”
George Orwell

If you go to Youtube and try to play one of Exxon Arkansas oil spill videos, you can’t. I might be wrong but there are several of them and none of them is working and it isn’t accident.
Now I read this AJ article: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134265610113939.html
“My prediction came true. On March 20, 2013, the US Senate passed the Coburn amendment, an initiative which prohibits the National Science Foundation from funding political science research that does not explicitly promote “national security or the economic interests of the United States”.”
Totalitarianism, promoted by cave logic ruling class, has been gripping the U.S. more and more, it always been there, and it is going to be worst. Decline of empire in making and impotency to impose policies on rest of the world render totalitarianism visible and naked.
Yes, Own Reality, without quotes.

Posted by: neretva’43 | Apr 3 2013 0:10 utc | 8

If ever Iran wanted nuclear weapons, they would have bought them long, long ago, when the Sowjet Union fell apart, pretty much everything incl. nuclear weapons was for sale and the finally free Iran was a rather young republic.
Chances are, however, that one day israel, the criminal “country” on stolen land, which actually has nuclear weapons, will attack Iran with a nuclear strike. Quite simply because that ultra-aggressive small terrier has hardly any other chance against a large, powerful country like Iran.
Who cares anymore what the usa blabber? Unlike, for instance, the Nazi generals who had at least the human format to say “It’s over. You won, we lost” the usa is a diva way beyond her time who behaves like the bad guy in a horror movie; being basically dead it still makes a lot of ugly noise and spits fire.
They try to sell weared out soldiers who became psycho- and sociopathic and a menace to their own towns as an impressive threat. They try to sell lost wars as victories (even prematurely. Remember dubya declaring victory?)
Frankly, I even understand obama to not risk a real war. With what should he fight, what should he man with his worn out soldiers? With their super-high-tech-superior blah jets falling off the sky with breathless pilots? Against Russian and Chinese weapon systems that were build with the priority of an excellent system rather than “superiority” PR? Hardly.
And how should they defend themselves against really superior missiles with their defense missiles that have a 10% hit chance on a good day?
As a student I earned some money aside as doorman for an in-club. I know them quite well, those guys with a big mouth. They make all that noise *because* they feel how weak and helpless they are.
Frankly, I admire Putins and Xi’s patience and cold-blooded reasonability. They are right, of course. Why should they spent big money on a war when the usa is on their way down, anyway? On the other hand I personally (yes, that’s a weakness) would already have lost my patience and told Mr. obama “Write whatever you want in your funny magazines. But move out of Europe, Near/Mid East, Asia or we will help you the hard way. And if ever you dare to utter anything about ‘military options’, we will take them off the table and ramm them right and deep into your guts”
So, let them talk, blabber, blah about their wet dreams.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Apr 3 2013 0:42 utc | 9

@3 “The propaganda will continue to work really well, until one day it doesn’t.”
Oh, agreed. There will come a time when the whole shebang simply Jumps The Shark.
“And that day will come when Israel goads America into taking one step too far, leading to a big spike in oil prices and a tanking of the economy.”
Possibly, but if I had to put money on it I’d bet on something much more mundane. Something that personalizes this in a way that makes for trashy tabloid fodder.
Say….. if one of the Congressmen who make up Bibi’s Bitches(tm) takes his “enthusiasm” for the Zionist cause just too far, to the point where they are caught on hidden camera doing something that is undeniably Treason Against The United States of America.
Bound to happen one day, and when it does being counted amongst Bibi’s Bitches(tm) will go from being an advantage to an anathema for any aspiring politician.

Posted by: Johnboy | Apr 3 2013 1:04 utc | 10

Are You Going To Entropy Faire? (Kunstler)
…and linked therein…
USDollar: Ring-Fenced & Checkmate (Willie)
As Diamond Dave once sang: “It’s all over but the shouting. I’ve come to take what’s mine!”

Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 3 2013 1:04 utc | 11

“strategic messaging” = Hitler/Goebbels Big Lie technique

Posted by: brian | Apr 3 2013 1:07 utc | 12

I think it is safe to say that the people at the top are pushing an agenda, and being right on this or that detail means so much. Despite the “failure” of 9/11, and their “failure” in Iraq, the right is in a exponentially stronger position than they were in mid-2001.
Is what is presented to the population as news at this point is of any consequence at all? To policy makers, I mean. Isn’t it enough to just ensure that the population is frightened – ready to spend and/or fight when needed?
I think #8 is right on – RT had the oil spill in Arkansas on its front page, I didn’t see a steady interest in it in the US media. Of course with the tar sands pipeline debate, you’d think it would be an important issue to cover. The fact that it wasn’t shows where the media is on the issue. I think that is where the elites are most likely to fail, b – not on the things they have hundreds of well-trained propagandists working every angle like Iran and the debt, but on the underlying issues that really matter to Americans that they ignore in their elite bubble, then suddenly rear their head and surprise the elite and they get caught unawares.
#3 I think of course is stupid because it just seems to distil hugely complex issues into a neat little package. I just think it’s simple minded. But don’t run away or anything.

Posted by: guest | Apr 3 2013 1:11 utc | 13

damn, sorry – 1st sentence: “I think it is safe to say that the people at the top are pushing an agenda, and being right on this or that detail DOES NOT mean so much.”

Posted by: guest | Apr 3 2013 1:12 utc | 14

Next frontier?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 3 2013 2:14 utc | 15

“There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.”
Buddha
Iran needs multiple + underground nuclear facilities AND refuses UN inspections AND admits to developing inter-continental ballistic missiles “because many cancer patients’ lives depend on the medical output of that reactor”???
So Iran is not repressing reformists by force, the Ayatollah’s promote women rights, they do not cut the hands of thieves and hang criminals, Iran does not support Assad’s crimes against his own people and does not send Assad new weapons shipments (killing more civilians than all the casualties throughout the decades Arab-Israeli conflict), there is no Iranian armament of Hezbollah and Hamas, Christian communities thrive under muslim rule, and the Moon of Alabama is an objective source of information.
Sure, Iran is developing a complex healthcare program and everything else is just propaganda.
Here are 3 news items and the most recent UN report for example:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/28/world/meast/iran-pastor-trial
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/03/13/five-iranian-christians-set-to-begin-trial-amid-human-rights-crackdown/
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2013/03/09/Iranian-women-and-their-fight-for-equality.html
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2013/gov2013-6.pdf
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/04/links-4213-2.html#sZ34LTib104w2EFi.99

Posted by: mos11 | Apr 3 2013 13:35 utc | 16

I’m sorry Mos, but you must have an underdeveloped sense of irony, quoting a Saudi publication on the rights of women.

Posted by: Lysander | Apr 3 2013 14:07 utc | 17

@mos11 said,
***Iran needs multiple + underground nuclear facilities AND refuses UN inspections AND admits to developing inter-continental ballistic missiles “because many cancer patients’ lives depend on the medical output of that reactor”???***
Each and every part of this paragraph is false, assumed from fallacy or implying it. Here are the facts:
– Since well before the revolution in 1979, when Iran was the US policemen in the Persian Gulf, the country, with the acquiesence of its boss, had plans for developping its nuclear industry.
– UN has no mandate to inspect Iran’s declared fissil materials. This mandate belongs to the IAEA which is a separate organisation than UN.
– The nuclear facilities always were, and still are, under permanent supervision of the IAEA.
– Prachin is a military site, not a nuclear one. Its inspection by IAEA needs either a special request – which has not been requested so far by the IAEA (most likely because its rejection by Iran will be legal and rightful), or an agreement between the sovereign state of Iran and the IAEA. The negociation for reaching such an agreeement are under way right now. By the way, Iran gave it’s agreement for such an inspection from Parchin twice in the past and they took place already around 2005.
– Iran has only one enrichment site underground, Fordow.
– Fordow was built after numerous US and Israeli threats to destroy the open-air Natanz site and Iran was straightforward in declaring that the reason the facilty was built is to keep the enrichment process on-going in case an illegal attack occurs on Natanz.
– One of the main healthcare applications of the nuclear technology is cancer treatment. the Tehran reactor, provided by Americans at the time of the Shah, was built for this purpose. It needs 20% enriched uranium as fuel.
– Around 3 or 4 years the nuclear reactor needed urgent refueling. Tehran, in a gesture of goodwill, proposed the swap of its 5% stockpile with 20% fuel rods. America blocked the accord and Iran started enriching to 20% to make the fuel by herself.
– Iran has converted much of the 20% enriched uranium into fuel pellets to be introduced into Tehran reactor. These pellets are almost impossible to be reconverted back to a form appropriate for fissile materials for bombs.
– Iran has plans to develop it’s aero-spatiale industry. She has send living creatures to space and is planning to send human in the next 5 to 10 years. The rockets needed for this kind of projects are all based on the same technology than the inter-continentale ballistic missiles.
– And yes you can obviousely find more accurate facts and interesting analysis in MOA and similar forum than in any other MSM media.

Posted by: ATH | Apr 3 2013 15:07 utc | 18

My guess is that one day Zionist goading America into war will backfire. The propaganda will continue to work really well, until one day it doesn’t.”
And then we will all get what’s coming to us?

Posted by: Mooser | Apr 3 2013 15:11 utc | 19

“So Iran is not repressing reformists by force, the Ayatollah’s promote women rights, they do not cut the hands of thieves and hang criminals, Iran does not support Assad’s crimes against his own people and does not send Assad”
Mos11, if you want to drive a tank into Tehran, I don’t think anybody will stand in your way. But, I guess that desire (and I’m sure you will be first in line at the recruiting station) shows us you’re a real man! Look, to save us the expense of arming you, bring your own Bushmaster. The Iranians have no defense against it!

Posted by: Mooser | Apr 3 2013 15:16 utc | 20

Some sanity finally coming to the Indian government. The big issue with importing Iranian oil is that the US/UK essentially controlled the insurance agencies that insure all oil transactions. India has finally created a $400 million dollar backdrop insurance for Iranian oil imports, & backed it with a further $2 billion in government guarantees. This will ultimately have some big roll-on effects on the energy insurance cartels…
India bypasses Iran oil sanctions
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2013/03/31/india-bypasses-iran-oil-sanctions/

Posted by: KenM | Apr 3 2013 15:44 utc | 21

If they decide on war, the reason will not be the nuclear issue. Iran has been capable of going nuclear since the times of the Shah. India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea did it and did not sign the Non Proliferation Treaty. There is no issue with three of these states.
War on Iran would raise oil prices through the roof. It would economically kill Europe, China and India. Even if the US is beginning to feel energy independent a price raise would affect them too. It would very soon become World War III.

Posted by: somebody | Apr 3 2013 16:07 utc | 22

Bacon 6, come on, that can’t be true. It’s illegal to conduct propaganda on the homefront.

Posted by: scottindallas | Apr 3 2013 16:37 utc | 23

We are all mad as hatters. But, some of us are vicious, power mad, psychopaths. The managers of the enormous killing machine called the USA, e.g.

Posted by: ouchosparks | Apr 3 2013 17:39 utc | 24

I haven’t been around much lately. Is mos11 our latest site-specific Hasbarabot? Just checking…

Posted by: arthurdecco | Apr 4 2013 2:02 utc | 25

Slightly off topic, but I attribute most of the political bullshitting to which we’re subjected (by bought-and-paid-for-polititions) to the Totalitarian Capitalist scourge/cancer of Privatisation.
The entire Yankee “war machine” is owned lock, stock and barrel by wealthy individuals and shareholders and is run for Profit – first and foremost. The same disgustingly wealthy individuals also sponsor, and thus own, a majority of politicians.
This private ownership of everything which used to be government enterprises and responsibilities has completely distorted the social, commercial and moral fabric of societies in which it has been adopted and has rendered ‘public opinion’ irrelevant thanks to a plethora of well-funded think/spin/smear tanks.
One example of this war on Public Opinion can be found in Oz in the Voluntary Euthanasia debate. In Oz more than 80% of people believe there is a need for a carefully drafted law to make it legal (under strictly defined circumstances) for people whose lives have been rendered pointless by a terminal health condition to request that their suffering be ended by being painlessly “put to sleep” like a sick horse, or pet dog or cat.
But that would be illegal.
Euthanasia was legalised in Australia’s Northern Territory, by the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. Soon after, the law was voided by an amendment by the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 – by arch-Neocon, pro-Israel and ($1,000,000) B’nai B’rith Gold Medal-winning, pro-business PM John Dubya Howard, via hand-maiden MP, Kevin Andrews.
A person well known to me has been conducting a part-time search for evidence of financial connections between the (highly profitable, private) Nursing Home Lobby and hi-profile anti-Euthanasia politicians. The search has not been fruitless but the list of perps is not sufficiently long or persuasive for a Q.E.D exercise in whistle-blowing (lots of Blind Trust accounts to get access to and then join ‘ownership’ dots).
But it’s getting there.
Exposing the ‘financial dealings’ of Western politicians should be a top priority of ALL citizens. A (ostensibly) squeaky-clean Liberal politician, Billy Snedden, died suddenly in 1987. Due to an unseemly legal squabble between his heirs it became public knowledge that he had a Swiss Bank account. If Billy Snedden had one it seems likely that he wasn’t alone.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 4 2013 3:46 utc | 26

This is what I find most bizarre about the entire Iran-nuke-sanctions-all-options-on-the-table nonsense.
Here is the American position: Iran is NOT allowed to have nukes!!!!!!!!!!
Here is the Iranian position: We are allowed to enrich uranium for our nuclear program, and nobody has a right to make us stop!
Here is the bizarre bit: Iran actually agrees with that American proposition.
As in….
Iran agree that their signature on the NPT means that they are prohibited from manufacturing nukes.
Furthermore, the Iranians insist that:
(a) they don’t need nukes,
(b) they can see no circumstances where they could use ’em,
(c) they are immoral to any right-thinking muslim
(d) there’s a f**king fatwah against having them, f**kwit.
So the Americans appear to be preaching to the converted i.e. the Iranians AGREE that they can’t have nukes, and that’s why they have no interest in making any.
But note the opposite i.e. the USA will not agree with the proposition that Iran has a right to a nuclear industry.
Yet how odd that the MSM insists that it is Iran that is draggin’ the chain in negotiations, whereas the recalcitrant party is really the USA for refusing to accept even the most basic of propositions i.e. that Iran has a sovereign right to a nuclear industry.
Iran – quite correctly IMHO – won’t step up to the plate until they hear the USA acknowledge that most simple of propositions.

Posted by: Johnboy | Apr 4 2013 4:51 utc | 27

Making one’s own reality “often” works up to a point.
Human affairs are very much driven by myth, aka interpretative frames, story lines, ideology, propaganda.
That holds from the individual level – the savvy con man who fleeces ppl, the pretend Queen who does the same, the cult leader, the movie star who has a fab life, the pol who shapes the destiny of a country, etc. – to various groups (e.g. religions), and even to Nations, like the US.
But reality, in the shape of either Nature or the world views held by others often intervenes brutally, when the creation of the *reality* stretches too far.
When you hold power to shape major world events, thru military domination and cultural, socio-political clout, it is easy to enforce with impunity – dissidents or disbelievers are ignored or silenced in various ways – and just carry on. The exercise and demonstration of power, shaping or creating reality, like the Salvador option in Iraq after an illegal invasion, agreed to by other powers, no counter-power.. – become its own justification, its own raison d’être.
Because we can. Because we feel like it. (Note, there are always particular, sectarian interests at work who profit massively, temporarily. e.g. arms industry, outsourced defense, cement cos. etc.)
When the creation of a new reality is essentially destructive and not constructive in any sense, not even to profit from some kind of control.. you have to wonder. The US is rubbishing its own people – the prison industry, big Pharma, lack of effective health care, creation of dead zones, the war on teachers and privatization of education, abandoning infrastructure, etc. etc. The reality created is not that of a soldered group but of an out-of-control elite.
All this is not particular to the US… more evident there is all. The finance industry (world) is detached from reality in a sense and has been doing a supreme job of ruling in the sense of profiteering without serious checks or obstacles or any return whatsoever. Some Big Corps occupy a similar position. Both are opaque, shady, not linked to Nation States (except vaguely pro forma) and have directly or secretely bought Gvmts.
The Old Aristocracy was visible, as it was tied to the land, manufacturing and producing on the land, with a local workforce, used symbols of power to dominate, as well as the ‘State’ and were held responsible to some degree. The reality they created was overtly managed, it was open, understandable.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 4 2013 15:20 utc | 28

thanks Noirette
you have an uncanny knowledge of how things work. your explanation covers so many things.
I am not quite ready to go back to a monarchy regardless of how popular that seems to be. there has to be a way of letting the masses feel responsible for themselves, to understand that they hold the power and they allow others (elected officials, public servants) to run certain administrative affairs.
Beppe Grillo here in Italy has got a little of that awareness started, time will tell if he is able to sustain the movement. my fear regarding the grillini is that if they should actually be close to ruling, the right wing would immediately launch a “golpe”. many people I speak to share that opinion.

Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 4 2013 16:01 utc | 29

@Noirette #28:
It was once my belief (recently) that the intent was to make the US into a garrison state, from which the elites could muster troops to do their bidding. Now I’m not so sure. The intent seems to have morphed into “bleed it dry and leave an empty husk.” Since the manner in which they are proceeding will leave the whole planet in this state, is the plan actually to escape the planet? Did someone finally take Gerard K. O’Neill seriously?

Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 4 2013 20:49 utc | 30