Iran war drum
©John Cole

Where does one start with the new wave of propaganda that passes for US news and opinion regarding Iran? It is clear that the aim is to flood the airwaves (and our brains) with so much insanely ridiculous propaganda that we throw up our hands, give up trying to fathom the details, and retreat into a numbed state of acceptance.

What we are seeing is pure propaganda and Newspeak, and for those who know something of Pavlov and his work on Transmarginal Inhibition, the scenario is classic. People, ordinary people, do not want to go to war if left to their own devices. The kick or shove to provoke a reaction for war must come from outside. History provides us with many examples from the last 100 years: the Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, 911. In each case, the event galvanized public opinion, and war, which had been unthinkable the day before, became a certainty.

The mainstream media

A hysteria-filled Wall Street Journal article on 15th April 2008 caught my attention.
So: Iran is contributing to the death of GIs, is arming our enemies in Iraq, and is proceeding to ignore the world by enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon. Is the Bush Administration merely going to slink out of office with that legacy?
While knowing full well that this is pure propaganda, I decided to see what a little bit of web-based legwork could dig up in relation to the accusations leveled at Iran. I started with the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article and then dug around, following the mainstream articles circulating on the same day.

Listed below are the WSJ statements and below them what I found.
WSJ : "Iran [is] the source of trouble in Iraq,.."
Actually, the United States is the aggressor nation, waging a criminal war of aggression against a sovereign nation that at no time threatened the United States.
WSJ : "Iran has long funneled men and materiel to insurgents and provided safe havens across the border........Iranian-supplied rockets have attacked the Green Zone in Baghdad, while Iranian-armed Shiites battled the Iraqi government in the Basra offensive."
The US has an occupation army of approximately 150,000 (peak 168,000 in September 2007) or 15 combat brigades including (in 2005) 1,100 M1 Abrams main battle tanks and heaven knows how many other armoured vehicles, aircraft and helicopters. Added to this are the up to 200,000 US military "contractors" who in reality constitute a private and restriction-free mercenary army. These "men and materials" have to date killed or contributed to the killing of over 1,000,000 Iraqis.
WSJ : ".. Tehran is also developing 'proxy' militias in Iraq that 'are really instruments of the Iranian government' ....these 'special groups' [are] 'funded, trained, armed and directed by' Iran."
The US is training the biggest proxy militia in Iraq - the Iraqi Army - an instrument of the US government. A force of 131,600 soldiers, organised into 105 battalions split into 13 division. A force that is without doubt "funded, trained, armed and directed by" the United States (plus the UK and Australia). Furthermore, the only evidence for these special Iranian groups"; is the words of member of the US military command in Iraq and the Pentagon.
WSJ : "In a recent interview with a newspaper in Qatar, an Iraqi Sunni insurgent vented about Iran's support for al Qaeda in Iraq. 'We found Iranian [currency] at an al Qaeda headquarters that we uncovered,' Ahmad Salal al-Din told Al-Arab, as translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. 'We have also captured Iranian weapons, not to mention audio and video recordings containing announcements by al Qaeda fighters that they had received training in Iranian military camps and that al Qaeda wounded were being transported to Iran for medical treatment.'"
How convenient. Iranian money found at an al Qaeda headquarters! The source of this story makes it totally unbelievable. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an Israeli propaganda front organization. They mistranslate articles from the Arab press and then circulate their translations to western news services, effectively using it to plant the stories they want in the press.

As for matter of cash in Iraq, we learn the following from the Guardian newspaper in March 2006:-
Over the first 14 months of the occupation, 363 tonnes of new $100 bills were shipped in - $12bn, in cash. And that is where it all began to go wrong.

"Iraq was awash in cash - in dollar bills. Piles and piles of money," says Frank Willis, a former senior official with the governing Coalition Provisional Authority. "We played football with some of the bricks of $100 bills before delivery. It was a wild-west crazy atmosphere, the likes of which none of us had ever experienced."
What do we think all of those greenbacks were for? They certainly were not going to help the Iraqi people who have to beg and plead to get a few hundred dollars compensation when their family members are murdered by US troops.

In addition, al Qaeda doesn't exist according to the CIA. It is a front for the false flag operations carried out by US, British, and Israeli intelligence agencies. So if there are al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, it is not Iran that is supporting them.
WSJ : "These tactics will be familiar to anyone who has followed Iran's history in Lebanon, where Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is trying to bring down the elected government."
From Wikipedia; "Hezbollah has popular support in Shi'a Lebanese society and has mobilized demonstrations of hundreds of thousands. Hezbollah receives its financial support mainly from the donations of Lebanese Shi'ites" and "Hezbollah alongside with Amal is one of two major political parties in Lebanon that represent the Shiite Muslims. It holds 14 of the 128 seats in Lebanon's Parliament and is a member of the Resistance and Development Bloc.

"Hezbollah organizes an extensive social development program and runs hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Its Reconstruction Campaign ('Jihad Al Binna') is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructure development projects in Lebanon".

The parties that have however repeatedly sought to destroy democracy in Lebanon are Israel and the US, through the assassination of Rafiq Hariri and the subsequent Israeli bombings of Lebanon in the summer of 2006. Looking back, it is painfully obvious that these two events are linked.
WSJ : "This is all remarkable enough - a mountain of evidence that Iran is waging a proxy war against U.S. troops and our allies in Iraq. Still more remarkable, and depressing, is that most of Washington has reacted with a collective 'So what?' It's as if it's understood that the mullahs can kill Americans and get away with it. Part of the fault here lies with the Bush Administration, which has previously spoken up about Iran only to shrink from doing anything about it."
Actually the Bush Administration has very definite plans for Iran which give the lie to this statement and show just how well choreographed this propaganda operation (of which the WSJ article is just one small part) is. The Bush Administration's policy on Iran is set out in The National Security Strategy (2006), a document in which we find similar lies and propaganda designed to make the case for "regime change" in Iran. Three statements about Iran in the document provid us with new threads to pull on:
- "Iran has violated its Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards obligations and refuses to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes."

- "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime's true intentions are clearly revealed by the regime's refusal to negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come into compliance with its international obligations by providing the IAEA access to nuclear sites and resolving troubling questions; and the aggressive statements of its President calling for Israel to "be wiped off the face of the earth."

"As important as are these nuclear issues, the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; ..... Our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing."
No doubt the "outreach" to the Iranian people that Bush has in mind is the same as that so generously provided to the Iraqis. If he is successful in this outreach and liberates the same proportion of Iranians as he has Iraqis, he will murder about 3,000,000 Iranians.
WSJ : "Meanwhile, last week Tehran announced it has begun installing another 6,000 centrifuges at its Natanz uranium enrichment complex."
Hardly a substantial number and quite within Iran's rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, let's examine these statements in detail.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
"Iran has violated its Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards obligations and refuses to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes".
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the body responsible for determining whether such is the case, and nowhere has the IAEA said anything of the sort. Put simply, the statement is a lie. There are details of Iran's behaviour in relation to the IAEA that need exploring, but we'll come onto them a bit later. Also, since when has it been possible to objectively prove a negative?

While on the matter of Iran's purported breach of the NPT, it should be remembered that Iran as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has an "inalienable right" to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes guaranteed by Article IV of that treaty which reads:
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
The actions of the United States, in denying Iran it's "inalienable right" and in not facilitating "the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy" for the benefit of Iran, are two uncontestable breaches of United States' obligations under the Treaty. It is the United States that is in breach of the NPT, not Iran.

Did you know about Complex 2030? You should. The Bush Administration's plans under Complex 2030 include building a new nuclear weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). While current plans call for developing the RRW without nuclear testing, this attitude could change if the program moves towards deployment. In addition, the RRW program will establish the infrastructure needed to develop new warheads with new capabilities in the future. As the Department of Energy notes in its own summary of the Complex 2030 plan, one of the major goals of the effort is to "improve the capability to design, develop, certify and complete production of new or adapted warheads in the event of new military requirements." [Office of Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, "Complex 2030: An Infrastructure Planning Scenario for a Nuclear Weapons Complex Able to Meet the Threats of the 21st Century," DOE/NA-0013, October 23, 2006, p.5].

It is therefore the United States that should be the subject of international sanctions not Iran. Iran might have spared itself all of this trouble if it had never signed the agreement. Israel never signed it, but then we aren't so naïve as to think the Iranians would ever be measured by the standard the world uses to measure Israel, as the numerous UN Resolutions condemning Israel, none of which have had any effect, eminently demonstrate. Israel is estimated to have between 200 and 300 thermonuclear warheads. They are not developing a nuclear programme for sometime in the future; the programme and the weapons already exist. But we see no pressure on Israel to sign the NPT. We see no pressure on Israel to shut down its reactors.

Given the NPT is the key to the Bush Administration's claims made in the National Security Review, it's worth reading [here].

In the preamble there is this:
"Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the worlds human and economic resources".
So who is the worlds biggest arms exporter? Who has invaded and is currently occupying two (Iraq and Afghanistan) sovereign nations (I'll not count Kosovo because it was never allowed to get to sovereign nation status before being occupied). Who is threatening war against another sovereign nation (Iran)? These are flagrant breaches of the Charter of the United Nations as well of the essential premises of the NPT by the United States. Perhaps the most important point in regard to Iran's nuclear weapons program however is that it currently does not exist, at least according to US intelligence.

Media Manipulation

Talking of threatening other nations, and continuing to pull on the threads, the second statement above from the National Security Strategy which states that "...statements of its President calling for Israel to 'be wiped off the face of the earth.'" needs exploring. Did Ahmadinaejad really say that?

Well..... NO, he didn't. He said something quite different at a conference on "The World without Zionism", as this article indicates.
[Ahmadinaejad] said "Lots of hopeless people ask whether a world without America or Zionism is possible or not"? and then, added that the answer to this question is absolutely positive as the same thing was happened in Iran Monarchy case, USSR case and Saddam dictatorship case. He pointed out that the famous iron curtain collapsed and it can be found only in history books nowadays. He told that "A recent similar case is Saddam, who assumed himself immortal and eternal, but today his legs and arms are chained and he is adjudicated by his former collaborators today" and following these examples he made a quotation from the Imam Khomeini's speech and said "As the Imam said, the Occupier regime of al-Qods must be wiped off the map".

Then he continued to defend the Palestinians right of having their own territories and own government. The rest of his speech is about supporting Palestine in their justified case, confronting Zionist regime and warning other Islamic countries not to make cooperation with Israel.

After giving a brief of this speech it will be easier to interpret the meaning of words. First of all; the striking slogan does not belong to Mr. Ahmedinejad and it is a quotation from Imam Khomeini's speech. Second, it was used to say that no system is eternal and no unjust regime is undefeatable. Third; phrases can be interpreted in many ways and the result depends on the interpreter's intention and goodwill. And finally, the words saying that "the occupier regime of Al-Qods must wipe off the map" just mean the Zionist regime not Israeli and Jewish people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran's anti-zionist and anti-american approach is not a new thing. The "death to America" and "death to Israel" slogans exist since the first days of the revolution. But these slogans aimed at American government and Zionist Regime not their nations and people. On the other hand, both America and Israel declares that the Islamic Regime in Iran shall collapse in every occasion. So what is the difference between both sides' intentions? Do we have to interpret that both Israel and America wish Iran to be wiped of the map, or do we have to understand that their problem is the current Islamic system in Iran? Hence, it will be useful to evaluate the events objectively.
This is but one example of the fabricated threat from Iran that is being presented to the peoples of the west, while the very real threats made by the US and Israel against Iran are ignored or treated as purely defensive statements.

Meanwhile, the pronouncements of the man with real power in Iran go unreported. Scott Ritter summed it up quite well in an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!:-
"The true power in Iran rests with the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader is the Ayatollah Khamenei. He is supported by an organization called the Guardian Council. Then there's another group called the Expediency Council. These are the people that control the military, the police, the nuclear program, all the instruments of power. And not only has the Supreme Leader issued a fatwa that says that nuclear weapons are not compatible with Islamic law, with the Shia belief system that he is responsible, in 2003 he actually reached out to the Bush administration via the Swiss embassy and said, 'Look, we would like to normalize relations with the United States. We'd like to initiate a process that leads to a peace treaty between Israel and Iran.'"
How often do Iranian peace overtures to the US get any play in the US media?

Now, one of the traits of the psychopath is an arrogant belief in their infallibility. So much so that they occasionally let slip a tidbit or two. Take for example the words of former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy back in October last year:

Referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "Had he not existed, we would have had to create him. He is doing great things for us."

That's a fascinating comment for the former head of Mossad to make and explains a great deal about the behaviour of Ahmadinejad. But even if such a scenario is not the case, there is ample evidence of Israeli fabrication of stories that are then planted in the media. Israel's Ha'aretz reported in 2005 that the Israeli Defense Force plants fake stories in the Arab media, which it then translates and tries to retail to Israeli journalists. The work of Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) mentioned earlier would seem to be part of this initiative. MEMRI is known to be the source of highly unreliable "translations" such as the "wiping Israel off the map" quote.

You might even say that Mossad has created the Ahmadinejad that people read about in the Western press.

Speaking of unreliable quotes, earlier this week, Agence France Presse (AFP) attributed this statement to Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Ashtiani (deputy head of the Iranian armed forces):
"We are not worried by Israeli manoeuvres, but if Israel takes such action against the Islamic Republic of Iran, we will eliminate it from the global arena".
AFP reported this statement as being carried by the Mehr news agency and the official state news agency of Iran, IRNA.

The statement was repeated throughout the western media. However a search of the Mehr news agency website for any mention of Mohammad Reza Ashtiani returns just 2 relevant returns, neither of which includes such a statement or anything remotely close. As for INRA, his name doesn't seem to have been mentioned by the news agency in the last month.

Searching both news agencies for the quote itself also draws a blank. Maybe the Iranians don't like to put these quotes on the Internet in English, or maybe these things were never said. I'd bet on the latter being the case based on previous experience, and I'd bet on MEMRI or another arm of the vast Israel propaganda machine as being the source.

So it seems pretty obvious that the Iranian leadership is NOT threatening Israel in any way, yet the contrary is being endlessly repeated in the mainstream media.

So it's pretty obvious that the entire pattern of 'facts' as presented in the mainstream media and in US government policy documents is a fabrication. They think they can manufacture reality. So what would you do if you were in Iran's position? It's obvious that the US and Israel are preparing to attack and are preparing the ground so as to have the fig leaf of legitimacy, at least as far as the media presentation is concerned. Maybe you'd open your arms to the IAEA and have them prove once and for all that you are just pursuing nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons.

For that to work you'd have to trust the IAEA, wouldn't you.? So can Iran trust the IAEA? Scott Ritter was a weapons inspector in Iraq. According to this blog, in his 2006 book, "Target Iran: The Truth About the US Plans for Regime Change" he reveals:
- the level of collusion between the Israeli Intelligence and IAEA, which on occasion has turned all its collected data over to the Israelis, in order to get their "expert analysis".

- "Israeli intelligence teams would often travel to Vienna, and rendezvous with IAEA personnel in hotel rooms used as impromptu safe houses. On the issue of Iraq, the Israelis had established a similar level of cooperation with the IAEA's Iraq Action Team...The relationship involved not only the provision by Israel to the IAEA of intelligence information, but also placing at the disposal of the IAEA the extensive resources of Israel's intelligence analytical community, where the IAEA could pose questions to selected technical experts, or have the results of inspections or other intelligence data reviewed by the Israelis. This relationship...operated with the expressed permission of the Director General..." (p. 49)

- "Thanks to the IAEA inspections, the United States (and Israel) had extremely detailed intelligence on Iran's nuclear enrichment program... "(p. 147)

- "Many Germans secretly supported the Israeli position concerning the need for a preemptive strike. German intelligence agents, operating under economic cover, had been inside Iran for years, often times in support of joint German-Israeli mission objectives...So even while German diplomats negotiated in support of an incentives-based approach towards resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis, German intelligence officials secretly hedged their bets towards an American-backed effort to undermine and overthrow the regime of the Mullahs." (pp. 154-155)

- "When it came to defining what constituted the national interest, John Bolton, like many of his neoconservative colleagues, seemed to possess a decidedly split personality, especially when it came to maters involving the state of Israel...Bolton has developed a strong relationship with Israel, one that had him undermine official U.S. policy by keeping policy papers critical of Israeli actions from crossing the desk of the Secretary of State as Bolton did early on in the tenure in the administration of George W. Bush, blocking a memo which suggested that Israel had violated American laws with its July 23, 2000, assassination of Salah Shehada, a senior Hamas activist in Gaza City.

Israel reportedly used an American-made F-16 fighter-bomber to drop a bomb on a house in the Gaza Strip, killing Shehada and fourteen others (including women and children), and injuring more than 100 others. In his position as undersecretary of State, Bolton has engaged in numerous one-on-one meetings with Israeli officials without getting prior country clearance from the relevant offices within the State Department. Bolton frequently travels to Israel, where he has developed a strong relationship with Israeli intelligence officials, again outside of official bureaucratic channels..." (p. 141)

- "On May 22, 2006, at a B'nai B'rith breakfast meeting in which John Bolton had already spoken, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman declared Bolton to be the sixth Isareli diplomat assigned to the United Nations. Gillerman also noted that if the B'nai B'rith membership, historically unquestioningly pro-Israeli, were counted, the Israeli Mission would in fact be one of the largest at the United Nations. (p. 20 8)

- "German, Britain and France were behaving in a manner that was strikingly similar to the behavior of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 when he backed down over Hitler's demands over the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. In an effort to forestall another American illegal war of aggression, the Europeans were negotiating with Iran to convince the Iranians to give up a nuclear program that operated demonstrably within the framework of international law. Europe committed to the principle of Iranian legal rights regarding the enrichment of uranium, all the while caving in to pressure from the United States to deny Iran this right. (p. 163)

- "When Israel's early attempts to sell the Iranian WMD threat failed to gain traction in Washington, despite Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer's personal lobbying (George Tenet rejected the intel casting doubt on its credibility), the Israelis looked for a new conduit for their intelligence that would "spur America to take that threat posed by Iran [sic] more seriously."

- Sobhani [an Iranian con-artist] and CDI [Committee for a Democratic Iran, an AIPAC spinoff] provided an ideal solution, namely that the Israeli government use Reza Pahlavi as the mouthpiece for telling the world about what the Iranians were up to in the field of nuclear weapons, and in exchange Pahlavi would be given immediate credibility and with it front runner status in the race of those trying to rule Iran post-Mullah. Unfortunately for the Israelis and CDI, Reza Pahlavi balked...Undeterred, [Michael] Ledeen and the CDI turned to the MEK, or more specifically, its political front in the Washington, D.C., the NCRI, as the next best option to bring the Israeli intelligence to center stage. CDI reportedly lobbied the NCRI representative, Alireza Jaferzadeh, to serve as the mouthpiece for presenting the Israeli intelligence to the general public...Israeli intelligence had maintained a relationship with the MEK that dated back to the mid-1990s. (p. xxv)
Did you get that? Israel fabricates the evidence, but they can't pass it to the media themselves. Thus all Israeli intelligence on Iran, most of dubious quality, was presented to the American public, and the rest of the world, through a third-party, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the political wing of Mujahedin-e-Khalq (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran).

Remember back to the years prior to the invasion of Iraq when the same thing was going on and Israel was passing intelligence to the US that Saddam had WMD?

It's worth reading the IAEA reports on Iran. They are obviously carefully worded to meet the imperatives of the political masters of the world, but they are clear that there is no evidence of Iran having or seeking nuclear weapons capability. They do complain about a certain lack of Iranian cooperation and lack of access to certain sites, but in light of what Scott Ritter has to say, there are very reasonable grounds for Iran trying to protect it's legitimate security interests against Israeli and other intelligence agents. It's has to be pretty obvious that there is a very high likelihood that Israel and the US are using IAEA inspections as means of acquiring targeting information for their planned war of aggression against Iran. Would you cooperate under these circumstances?

Talking of "targeting", consider this:

"An Iranian attack against Israel would trigger a tough reaction that would lead to the destruction of the Iranian nation," National Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer said in remarks of rare virulence.

Given Mossad's history of false flag attacks on Israel and its allies, we should not dismiss the idea that they will fake an Iranian attack on Israel, and then carry out this threat. The trick worked for 911, 7/7 and Madrid, so why not stage a "failed nuclear attack by Iran" on Israel?

Again, the former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy is most informative noting that Israel would not be destroyed.
"We cannot say that the Iranian threat is an existential threat on the State of Israel. I believe that the State of Israel cannot be eliminated. It cannot be destroyed because of things you know and because of things you can imagine."
Addressing Israel's activity in the face of the Iranian nuclear program, Halevy said:
"You should assume that things have been done and things are being done, and assume that the Jewish mind can create amazing things."
It is abundantly clear therefore that the nuclear issue is a fabrication, just as the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue was a fabrication for the invasion of Iraq, and that the Jewish minds in Israel and the US are indeed "creating amazing" stories.

The statement brings to mind the statement of an advisor to George Bush who suggested that, as an Empire, they were now capable of "creating reality", a form of thinking that betrays pathological overtones, as we have shown before.

In 2004, former Wall Street Journal reporter and author Ron Suskind wrote in New York Times Magazine:
"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend - but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
The former Mossad chief further believes that Iran was the big loser in the second Lebanon war, saying:
"What happened in Lebanon was an Israeli move which hit the Iranians right between the eyes. They did nothing, absolutely nothing. It was a powerful and direct move by Israel, and they did nothing."
Now forgive me, but wasn't that war meant to be due to Lebanese/Hezbullah aggression, and wasn't Iran meant to be supplying all those missiles that were hurting Israel so much that they just had to be allowed to continue the slaughter for a week more?

Haaretz reports him stating that,
"One of the great achievements of the war was the destruction of the [Hezbollah's long range] missile arsenal and of Iran's strategic capabilities [there]. It was one of the more successful operations of the air force and of Israeli intelligence."
Halevy says that the inability of Iran to respond to a blow "right between their eyes" shows that "they are no giants."

So we see another of the real reasons for the invasion of Lebanon by Israel in 2006. It was a direct attack on Iran via Hezbullah.

The Wall Street Journal and all the rest of the mainstream media are lying. They parrot the accusations against Iran when the very things that Iran is accused of are in fact being perpetrated by the US and Israel.

In this odyssey around the news reports framing Iran for the war of aggression that Israel and the US are seeking, it has become ludicrously apparent that the mainstream media regard the masses as plain stupid.

One of my favourites is the idea being peddled in the UK that Iran is responsible for arming the Iraqi resistance and the Afghan resistance with the resulting death of British occupation troops. The UK Daily Telegraph carried this story in May 2007 where we are asked to be outraged at Iran supplying the Afghani resistance to a foreign occupying army. However, while the article parrots the standard propaganda, the insert diagram of the SA-7 missile hasn't been properly doctored for it states:
"Supplied to Mujahideen by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war, 1979-1989".

SA-7 Surface to air missile as presented in the Daily Telegraph (23 May 2007)

So the only concrete evidence in the entire article states that the US has historically been a supplier of such weapons.

The UK Times Online carried this story in June 2007 in which we are told:
"A ROYAL NAVY helicopter ....was shot down by a sophisticated surface-to-air missile supplied to Iraqi militants by Iran......America knew that the Mahdi Army, .... had obtained the shoulder-launched missile from the Iranians but failed to tell the British... Witnesses ... saw a ball of yellow flame, typical of a particular type of missile..."

".....The families of those killed were frequently asked to leave the inquest as secret details of the missile ......were discussed. The report of a board of heavily edited and was classified Top Secret Codeword, the highest UK classification."

"This was because telephone intercepts, intelligence reports and pieces of the missile recovered from the scene confirmed that it came from Iran...

Three days before the attack, State Department officials interviewed an Iraqi linked to the Mahdi Army who told them Iran had supplied the militia with the Russian surface-to-air missile....the CIA dismissed the Iraqi detainee as "a well-known fabricator", the sources alleged.
So we are asked to believe that a notorious Iraqi fabricator was the source of the intelligence regarding Iran supplying a single missile, that the missile can be uniquely identified due to a "yellow ball of flame" and that the families of the deceased were removed from the hearing because of the secret that Iran supplied the missile, a secret so important that it is all over the UK media. Isn't it obvious that the reason the families were removed from the hearing is that the Iranian connection is a fabrication, a fabrication so important that it has the highest UK security classification.

The Times article continues:
"Des Browne, the defence secretary, confirmed the scale of Iranian involvement in southern Iraq earlier this month. "Well over 80% of the violence is targeted against the British forces, much of it quite specifically influenced by the Iranians," he said.

"We stand between them and their ambitions to share the spoils of what is potentially one of the richest cities in the world and to show the local population that they can force us out would be quite a coup for them. It's in their interests to have their proxies drive us out of Iraq."
Once again, the psychopath confesses. Iran stands in the way of the imperial ambitions of the US and the UK, acting as always, on behalf of Israel, and has to be removed.