Campaign of fear

Good God! The well-oiled Administration machine of deception and fear is at it again - aided in no small part by the timidly uncritical, yet subtly inflammatory, reporting of the Washington Post. Dana Priest writes in a page one story today:

As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.

Now, between you and me, America, that's some pretty scary stuff. Not so much for the news that Iran would hit back hard if it were pre-emptively attacked by the U.S. Duh! No, the truly terrifying thing is that, even in the face of the U.N. Security Council's Presidential Statement on Iran, and calls for patient diplomacy from senior European diplomats and the head of the IAEA, American officials would so casually continue to make statements about military action against Tehran.

The unmitigated gall is simply astounding. The fact that this Administration has repeatedly condemned the belligerent rhetoric of Iranian President Mamoud Ahmadinejad, and yet is itself openly contemplating the consequences of a few "military strikes" as if those strikes are a matter-of-fact, foregone conclusion - regardless of ongoing diplomatic processes - smacks of the most insidious hypocrisy.

The subjective definition, even if the U.S. attacks first, of any Iranian-backed retort as an act of "terrorism" is a well-known tactic of the manipulative, semantic game at which this Administration has come to excel, designed to mislead public perception and pave the way for another American "holy crusade."

Sound familiar?

Look, I'm no fool, entertaining fantasies of a smiling, peaceful Iranian society that wants nothing more than to love and be loved by the global community. As I've said many times in this column, the U.S. has ample reason to be suspicious of Tehran's long-range intentions, and justification for decrying Ahmadinejad's shrill and constant anti-Israeli stance.

But we would do well to remember that decades of incompetent American foreign policy have helped to craft the hostile attitudes we see in Iran today (anyone remember the Shah?), just as we armed and supported Saddam and trained Osama bin Laden in the intricacies of covert warfare. Perhaps we should start with an admission of our own documented failures, before wagging our collective finger too self righteously at 21st Century Persia.

Besides, this American President fancies himself as an accomplished outdoorsman. Can he really believe that the best way to protect his picnic guests from an angry bull is to keep waving a bright red cloth in its face?!

Of course, as with Iraq before, the accusations against Iran are still wholly a matter of speculation. Sure, Ahmadinejad is making some aggressive - and excessive - statements. But wouldn't anyone, if he or she were being backed into a corner by a bully with no confirmed reason for picking a fight? Until I see something more concrete than " 'Cause I say so!" as proof that Tehran has anything but peaceful intentions for its nuclear enrichment program, I'm unwilling to simply take the word of the same gang of infallible geniuses that promised us WMD, floral greetings, and Iraqi links to 9/11.

Likewise, even these frightening retaliatory scenarios that merit the lead paragraphs in Priest's article are... well, what precisely? Classified guesses? "Fixing the facts?" The WaPo piece continues:

U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said.

Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.

OK, maybe it's just me. But if I understand correctly, some unnamed "Intelligence" officials with "secret" evidence that they can't talk about are speculating that Iran might unleash worldwide violence if we launch an attack that we're certainly not planning to make 'cause we're seriously pursuing a diplomatic solution but we think you should be scared to death anyway. And this "news" is put on the front page of the Sunday Washington Post... for what purpose?

Could it be to deflect public attention from Bush's recent nuclear deal with India? Or to dilute criticism of the upcoming "bunker buster" test outside Las Vegas? Or to obscure the news that bestest buddy Saudi Arabia is working on a secret nuclear program of its own with help from new pal Pakistan?

Could it be to inflame citizen passions artificially as a prelude to the next diversionary, unwarranted military adventure our Warmonger in Chief has in mind?

Just look again at the language used. "As tensions increase"; "terrorist attacks worldwide"; "Iran would mount attacks"; "target civilians in the United States"; "It's a huge issue." Haven't we been down this road before?

The key phrases, easily missed by a public relentlessly conditioned to expect the next Muslim bogeyman, should be "say they believe"; "would not discuss what evidence they have"; "declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures." So tell me again - with no verifiable proof and no sign of enemy activity, exactly why is this report of any value at all, much less the prominent position it's been granted, if not to perpetuate the Administration's disingenuous fearmongering?

At the precise moment in time when we need serious, intelligent approaches to the spread of nuclear capabilities - and weaponry - throughout the world, we find ourselves at the mercy of the most incompetent, ham-fisted, obsessed "leadership" in our nation's history. We should indeed be worried about the spectre of increased global violence, and military nuclear proliferation. But we should have learned enough by now to know that it is this Administration that threatens to exacerbate an already delicate situation with its inconsistent nuclear policies, and its trumped-up "mission from God" against Iran.

And we should demand that our traditional media begin presenting a more accurate picture of this issue - and that they stop their willing complicity in the White House's latest campaign of fear.