A Poisonous Affair - my review of Joost Hiltermann's book.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I recommend Hiltermann's book, A Poisonous Affair: America, Iraq, and the Gassing of Halabja. It is meticulously researched, though I have my quibbles with it, detailed below.

Just as the myth that Iraq had a hand in 9/11 persists due to the effectiveness of Bush administration propaganda, to this day the Reagan administratin propaganda myth persists that both Iraq and Iran used chemical weapons during the war, when in fact Iran did NOT use chemical weapons, and and Iran didn't even develop the capacity to manufacture chemical weapons (though by 1985 Iran was starting to warn it it would consider using chemical weapon, as international law did permit retaliatory use, and the UN wasn't doing its job by condemning Saddam's atrocities.)

{click to enLARgE}

Indeed the myth that Iran also used chemical weapons is still actively promoted by the New York Times and Washington Post: Michael Gordon of the NY Times reported so in 1989 with one of his usual and trademarked "American Officials Said" lines:

"The American officials said Iran stepped up its chemical purchases in the latter stages of the Iran-Iraq war, during which both sides used chemical weapons"

Gordon again repeated this allegation in 2006 in an interview in which he also promoted one of the standard Rightwing excuses for why Bush lied about the Iraqi WMDs (short version: It was Iran's fault that Saddam inadvertently duped Bush into invading Iraq because Saddam continued to pretend to have WMDs in order to deter Iran - which is of course utter hogwash.) Here, just read for yourself what sort of crap this New York Times' chief military correspondent was still peddling just 2 years ago: 

And I’m going to throw out one last fact for you to ponder. Saddam Hussein wanted the world to think he had W.M.D. We also know that. Saddam’s concern was Iran. Saddam—he had fought a bloody war with Iran for eight years. Both sides used chemical weapons. Saddam wanted to comply with the letter of the U.N. inspections but he had a policy called “deterrence by doubt.” He didn’t want the Iranians to know his cupboard was bare, because he was concerned that would make him vulnerable to some sort of Iranian action.

And the Washington Post's country profile of Iran states unequivocally:

Chemical weapons were used by both countries.

Umm... no.

Anyway, back to Hiltermann's book: He makes clear, once and for all, that Iran did not use chemical weapons during the war,

And when the atrocity at Halabja came to light (Iranians took the international media to the scene of the atrocity --the late Kaveh Golestan was the first photographer to document it) the Reagan administration tried to shift the blame onto Iran (something Hiltermann had written about previously but in less detail)

BUT,

And,

[This is where Hiltermann is weak IMhO. He attributes motivations without sufficient basis. He suggests that it was "antipathy" for Iran that caused no one to question the allegation that Iran used chemical weapons. But he provides no factual basis to back that up. There could have been many other motivations, ie: financial gain. Did Hiltermann investigate that? He also suggests that the only reason that Iran didn't use chemical weapons against Iraq is because Iran didn't have the means to do so -- but again, he attributes motives without sufficient investigation or justification. Couldn't Iran's lack of a chemical weapons capacity itself be due to a moral aversion at ever using the weapons? In an otherwise well-researched book, these leaps to conclusions are glaring.]

Also, United Nations Security Council (whose members were actively backing Saddam) played dumb and refused to intervene and put a stop to Saddam's atrocities:

And what was the conclusion of this policy of looking the other way?

Comments

[mb]

Excellent post. Michael Gordon is a Zionist thug. I have read his articles in NY Times. Absolutely rubbish, as you said. Furthermore, the UN security council does not and never has had any credibility or fairness. Just look at the chronology of their resolutions. It is an Imperial group of 5 playing chessboard with the fate of other countries.