President Ahmadinejad said Iran has "no interest" in nuclear bomb on Larry King Live. Part 3 of 5

Recently politicians, lobbyists, and propagandists pushing the lie (standard it used in the run-up to the disastrous Iraq war) that Iran poses a nuclear weapons threat to the United States and Israel.

The fact that Iran is not and has not been a nuclear threat to either nation is rendered irrelevant by a narrative of universal "concern" about its nuclear program.
US media distortions

In mid-August, for example, after The New York Times quite uncharacteristically ran a piece diminishing the supposed danger of Iranian nukes, the story was misrepresented in newspapers and on TV stations across the country in the most frightening terms. As MSNBC's news reader put it that afternoon: "Intelligence sources say Iran is only one year away from a nuclear bomb!"

On August 13, on Fox News, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton implicitly urged Israel to attack Iran's new light-water reactor at Bushehr before it began "functioning," the implication being that the reactor represented some sort of dire threat. But the facts are not on Mr. Bolton's side. The Bushehr reactor is not useful for producing weapons-grade plutonium, and the Russians have a deal to keep all the waste themselves.

On September 6, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a new paper on the implementation of Iran's Safeguards Agreement which reported that the agency has "continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran to any military or other special purpose."

Yet despite the IAEA report and clear assertions to the contrary, like before Iraq War, news articles that followed were dishonest to the extreme, interpreting this clean bill of health as just another wisp of smoke indicating nuclear fire in a horrifying near-future.

A Washington Post article published the very same day led the way with the aggressive and misleading headline "UN Report: Iran stockpiling nuclear materials," "shorthanding" the facts right out of the narrative. The facts are that Iran's terrifying nuclear "stockpile" is a small amount of uranium enriched to industrial grade levels for use in its domestic energy and medical isotope programs, all of it "safeguarded" by the IAEA.
An ignored clean bill of health

The September 6 IAEA report confirming for the zillionth time the non-diversion of nuclear material should be the last word on the subject until the next time they say the same thing: Iran, a long-time signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is not in violation of its Safeguards Agreement.

So what's all the hubbub about Iran's "nuclear defiance" and "danger"?

The IAEA's latest report does note that Iran has "not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." Indeed, the agency's frequent mentions of Iran's "lack of full cooperation" is a big reason why US media reports portray Iran in ominous terms.

But here, too, US media frequently miss the point. Never mind that 118 nations around the world have signed a statement criticizing the IAEA's "peaceful activities" conclusion as a departure from standard verification language. More broadly, Iran's "lack of full cooperation" by itself is an outcome of Western bullying and propaganda.

An outrageous standard

Meanwhile, Washington continues to apply to Iran the outrageous standard it used in the run-up to the Iraq war: an unfriendly nation must "prove" it doesn't have dangerous weapons or a secret program to make them -- or potentially face military action.

"Proving a negative" is, to say the least, a difficult obligation to meet: You say you haven't read Webster's Dictionary cover to cover? Prove it!

The bottom line is that Iran is still within its unalienable rights to peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT and the Safeguards Agreement -- a point even Tehran's fiercest critics (grudgingly) acknowledge. The only issues it is defying are the illegitimate sanctions and demands of the US and UN, which themselves defy logic and sense.
Journalists' ethical obligation

It is far past time for the members of the American media to get their act together and begin asking serious follow-up questions of the politicians, "experts," and lobbyists they interview on the subject of Iran's nuclear program.

Many of these same journalists still have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis on their hands from the months they spent continuously and uncritically parroting the lies, half-truths, and distortions of agenda-driven Iraqi dissidents and their neocon champions who pushed us into the Iraq war.

Perhaps this is their shot at redemption.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Iranian
• President
• Mahmoud
• Ahmadinejad
• Josh
• Fattal
• Shane
• Bauer
• Sarah
• Shourd
• American
• hikers
• International
• Atomic
• Energy
• Agency
• Israel
• Israeli
• PM
• Benjamin
• Netanyahu
• Skilled
• Killer
• Iran
• no
• interest
• nuclear
• bomb
• Attack
• israel
• military
• missiles
• fire
• nuke
• Tehran
• IAEA
• killing
• Islam
• Gaza
• Flotilla
• US
• ambassador
• UN
• John
• Bolton
• Republican
• bombing
• campaign
• Bill
• Kristol
• Iraq
• Nuclear
• Non-Proliferation
• Treaty
• Safeguards
• Agreement

[fonsidream]

1:20 He is making a major point.

If someone has concerns for the damage of neuclear weapons, they must focus on unarming United States, who already demonstrated mass-destruction at Hiroshima - Nagasaki.

[shareislam1]

That is the problem of today. When you speak what is truth, your are being a clown for many.

Glad tidings for the clowns.

.

[DarPower1]

@fonsidream Thats actually not legit for two reasons. One the United States has already deactivated many nukes after the cold war. And secondly, Japan seems to trust the United States and its anti nuclear operations. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done during a time where nukes were considered 'end all be all' weapons. The US has no interest in sparking global thermonuclear, it never has shown an interest in doing so.

[Urindunk]

@BEARARMZ

Thing is, that if he got nuclear weapons, he can be sure that Iran won't end up like Iraq. No one attacks a country that has nukes. Even if Iran ARE making nukes, I'm sure it's not to use it against anybody, but just to avoid anyone attacking them.

[Afghanistang]

@spanky5130 why? btw learn some manners,

[spanky5130]

@Afghanistang Stfu buddy

[Afghanistang]

Iran do have it and will make sure to destroy america, thats why america cant or not going to do shit.

[milestogotilisleep]

Are there human rights in north america? Give me a break, Larry King.

[2005wais]

President of Iran tough guy isn't afraid what to say to the world not like some presidents

[publictel]

@fonsidream YES YES THROWING A NUCLEAR BOMB ON CVILIANS WOMEN CHILDREN

JUST TO SHOW POWER