It seems that there's more than the usual amount of hype and speculation posing as news on Iran lately.
- "Tungsten Copper Metal"? The WSJ reported on "fresh clues of Iranian Nuclear Intrigue" which involved supposed Iranian imports from China of tungsten copper. Problem is that even if true, tungsten copper has widespread commercial applications, never mind the fact that it is used to make arms (not necessarily nuclear missiles...and Iran is quite proud of its missiles anyway, so no secret there.) So what's the story here except to push speculation and fear mongering?
Nevertheless, and true to form, the WSJ revives discredited "arms control expert" Gary Milholland of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control who naturally declares that "There doesn't seem to be any real doubt or debate whether Iran is going for the bomb." Gee Gary, isn't that what you said about WMDs in Iraq too? As I have written previously:
And regrettably, some of the same pundits and think tanks that helped peddle the "Iraqi WMD" threat are now active in promoting the idea that an Iranian nuclear weapons programme exists. For example, during the build-up to the Iraq invasion, the director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control repeatedly claimed that Iraq had "an active programme for building weapons of mass destruction", though in fact the IAEA inspectors had concluded otherwise. In editorials published in the Wall Street Journal he even went so far as to repeatedly accuse Hans Blix, then-Director General of the IAEA, of being "timid"-and "irrelevant" because of the IAEA's "failure" to find the non-existent WMD in Iraq. The editorials are still conveniently posted at IragWatch.org, a special website created by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control dedicated to "accounts of Iraq's efforts to build weapons of mass destruction". There were no attempts to withdraw these statements after the IAEA was vindicated and no WMD were found in Iraq. Instead, without missing a beat, the same organisation has simply shifted its attention to Iran: it has a started a new website called IranWatch.org, which urges policies to "stop the Iranian bomb". The fact that there is no actual evidence of any "Iranian bomb" appears to be as irrelevant to these pundits today as the non-existence of Iraqi WMD was in 2003.
- "Arms shipment intercepted"? In a redo of the Karine-A affair (an Israeli PR stunt wherein they "heroically captured" an "Iranian ship" carrying weapons for the Palestinians...just in time to undermine growing US-Iran rapprochement developing over Afghanistan) there are anonymous sources which claim that an Iranian-owned vessel was intercepted carrying artillery shells for someone (Hamas doesn't have artillery.) And what does "Iranian owned" mean, and how is that even relevant (and would the Iranians use an Iranian-owned vessel to smuggle arms when they could easily charter millions of other vessels?) And would it be possible for the Iranians to smuggle weapons all the way through the Red Sea and Suez Canal where shipping is regularly monitored? LOL Meanwhile the US is busy shipping explosives to Israel itself.
No actual proof exists that the shipment was from Iran, or who the intended recipient was, or what the shipment really consisted of (1 artillery shell? 10? 100?) and so there was no evidence that any of the suspicions about the shipment were founded, but naturally that doesn't stop the Likudnik Jerusalem Post from featuring the neocon, MEK-backer Raymond Tanter from giving some extra juice to the story anyway by promoting yet more speculation.
Similar stories had been promoted in the media about Iranian arms smuggling in the past, which were eventually discredited, and have been the subject of Right-wing blog conspiracy theories too. So again, what's the real story here other than an opportunity to create screaming headlines about "Iranian ship caught smuggling arms to Gaza"?
- "Running out of Uranium"? - I don't have time to mention this story in detail, suffice to say, what's the source? Again, anonymous leaks.
Could it be that the media are making things up out of sheer boredom for lack of substantive news due to the Obama turnover? Or is this scaremongering intended to ensure that Obama doesn't substantively change US policies with respect to Iran?
Comments