[caption id="attachment_114255" align="alignright" width="224"] "Israel has drawn up plans for a combined air and ground attack on Iranian nuclear installations if diplomacy fails to halt Tehran's atomic program..." - Toledo Blade, March 14, 2005[/caption]
Last month, amid the Israeli bombardment of Gaza,accomplished lunatic Louie Gohmert, a Republican congressman from Texas, took to the House floor andcalled for Iran to be attacked.
After insisting it is "time to cut off every dime of American money going to anyone who has any kind of relationship with Hamas or those killing in the Middle East, and especially in Israel," Gohmert added, "It is time to bomb Iran's nuclear capabilities. It is time for the United States, if we are not going to stop Iran's nukes, then let Israel do it. A friend will not put another friend in this kind of jeopardy."
Never mind that Iran has no "nukes" for anyone to "stop," since it'snot actually making any and never has made or acquired any. Never mind that Iran has beenconsistentlycomplyingwith the prescriptions of the multilateral deal agreed to last November by Iran and six world powers. Never mind that a number of recent articles in widely-read media outlets haveaddressedthemyriadfalsehoodsandmythsresponsiblefor thepast three decadesof fear-mongering andpropagandaabout Iran's civilian nuclear program.Still, the persistentfalse narrativethat military strikes by either the United States or Israel may follow any potentialfailureto reach a deal continues to berepeatedin the press. Of course, the fact that any such attack would beunequivocally illegalunderinternational lawis rarely noted in these assessments. Indeed, even the "threat" of attack is itselfexpressly prohibitedunder the terms of the United Nations Charter.Pronouncements that Iran isclose to having a nuclear bomb, orclose to being bombed, are ubiquitous in the media.Threatsagainst Iran - by both theUnited StatesandIsrael- have been made fordecades, despite routine Iraniandismissalof suchrhetoricas mere bluster.
Thefrequencyofsuch threats- always reported with fever-pitched alacrity by a dutiful and prostrate press - isalarming.
Not only is an American or Israeli attack on Iran alwaysjust around the bend- regardless of the state of diplomacy orintelligence assessments- but the mediaconsistentlyprovidesfantasyscenariosby which its audience canimagine, replete with maps and graphics, justhowsuchwar crimeswouldtakeplace.
Over twenty years ago, areport in theIndependent(UK) published on June 23, 1994revealed that the Pentagon had inked a deal to provide Israel with advanced F-15I fighter jets, designed to "enable the Israelis to carry out strikes deep into Iraq and Iran without refuelling."
Three years later, on December 9, 1997, aThe Times of Londonheadline screamed, "Israel steps up plans for air attacks on Iran." The article, written by Christopher Walker, reported on the myriad "options" Israel had in confronting what it deemed "Iran's Russian-backed missile and nuclear weapon programme."
Such reports have been published ever since. Of course, neither the United States nor Israel will attack Iran,regardless of the success or failureof negotiations, but such reports (often the result of strategically timed "leaks" by anonymous government officials) serve to not only tointentionallytorpedo diplomacy but alsomislead the publicinto believing the absurdlyfalse narrativesurrounding the Iranian nuclear program; that is, either Iran must be bombed or it will acquire a nuclear arsenal. This is nonsense.
Below are some of the constant headlines we've seen over the past dozen years promoting such propaganda. When will this madness - this pathological obsession with the false necessity of dropping bombs and the righteous inevitability of killing people - stop?