Litany of lies

Recent discussion of Iran's nuclear program in the mainstream American press continues to present grossly distorted, one-sided accounts that would find themselves at home in the Soviet press. The upcoming phase of "diplomatic judgment of Iran" (a phrase attributed to an anonymous American official) follows what has been widespread denunciation common throughout respectable commentary in the United States, as statesmen, politicians, and commentators fall over themselves to condemn Iran. For their part, Free Press editors have consistently and conveniently ignored (or forgotten) anything that doesn't fit this very narrow view. Coverage of the latest development reveals more of the same: "With IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors looking on" (Knight Ridder), "Iran had insulted [IAEA head] Mohamed ElBaradei... by removing the [IAEA] seals itself and not waiting for the agency to do it," (New York Times) which occurred at "at least three" nuclear enrichment sites in Iran. Reading the original IAEA press release, we learn that "Iran requested that the Agency removes, before Jan. 9, 2006, specified seals at Natanz, Pars Trash and Farayand Technique," facts ignored by Times editors and buried by others. With so much emphasis on "official" assertions, it's easy to forget buried, yet helpful explanations in the press noting that "Iran has been observing a protocol, which it didn't actually sign, allowing [IAEA] inspectors to visit many sites on very short notice" (Newsweek). Ending these "intrusive, voluntary international inspections of [Iranian] facilities" (New York Times) is an action transmuted into an "insult" (Times editors) and a "very, very ominous move" (German Foreign Minister Franz-Walter Steinmeier) resulting in a situation in which "The onus is on Iran to give the international community confidence" (British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw). The required confidence apparently isn't shared by ElBaradei–in the five nuclear-weapon states, that is. He recently chastised those countries (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China) for failing to disarm current stockpiles, which include the US arsenal of over 10,000 warheads (out of 27,000 worldwide). Such failures, he said, "naturally [are] creating an environment of cynicism among the non-nuclear-weapon States." Curious that such statements have zero bearing on the Iranian nuclear issue for the mainstream press. Indeed, at the UN World Summit last September, ElBaradei recalled that "the final declaration did not even mention nuclear disarmament or non-proliferation." This was, predictably, largely thanks to US Ambassador John Bolton, who ensured that "the United States was among those blocking strong calls for matching non-proliferation measures with steps toward disarmament by existing nuclear-weapons states" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette). Seeing through the filter, we can ignore scare tactics, leaving elite commentators to spout their dire warnings of "an Iran hell-bent on nuclear-arms capability" (Frederick Kempe), earning its place in the fabricated "Axis of Evil" so eloquently constructed by George W. Bush and his handlers. In determining what one thinks of Iran's nuclear intentions, it's crucial to take that first step; only then we can begin to come to our own conclusions, including realizations of our own responsibilities, rather than accepting judgments constructed for us.