by Stephen Lendman
February 2, 2012
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio
News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time
and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.
All programs are archived for easy
In 2007, former Senators,
...established their Bipartisan Policy
Center (BPC) imperial project front group.
Among other issues addressed, war-making's prioritized. Its board of
Norman Augustine, former Lockheed Martin chairman and CEO
General Charles Wald, USAF (ret.)
John Rowe, Exelon chairman and CEO, the nation's largest proliferator of
dangerous nuclear power plants
Frances Fragos Townsend, Baker Botts partner; James Baker's a senior
Former FAA head Jane Garvey, BPC chairperson
Former National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) head Jason Grumet, BPC
Walter Isaacson, president and CEO of
the right leaning, pro-corporate Aspen Institute; formerly he was
CNN chairman/CEO and Time managing editor
Former Senators Charles Robb and John Danforth, as well as five former
senators and General James L. Jones (ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander
Europe and National Security Advisor, serving as senior fellows
BPC's new report, released February 1, is titled "Meeting the Challenge:
Stopping the Clock on Iran's Nuclear Development."
Previous Iran reports included:
"Meeting the Challenge: US Policy Toward
Iranian Nuclear Development" (September 19, 2008)
"Meeting the Challenge: Time is Running
Out" (September 15, 2009)
"Meeting the Challenge: When Times Runs
Out" (June 23, 2010)
"Iran's Nuclear Program: Status and Breakout Timing" (September 12, 2011)
They all urged a robust US response "to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons capability" even though BPC and Obama officials know Tehran's
development is entirely peaceful, commercial, and legal according to Nuclear
Non-Proliferating Treaty provisions.
Signed on July 1, 1968, NPT became effective March 5, 1970. Notably, Iran
was one of its first signatories in 1968. It permits uranium enrichment for
peaceful, commercial purposes.
Iran's program is entirely non-military. Nonetheless, it's maliciously
targeted unfairly and illegally even though it fully cooperates with IAEA
inspectors. Monitoring is constant, directly or through installed
surveillance cameras operating round-the-clock.
In contrast, India, Pakistan, Israel and America are nuclear outlaws. Their
policies endanger humanity. BPC's unconcerned.
On January 24, its
press release headlined, "Stopping the Clock on Iran's
Nuclear Development: Bipartisan Policy Center's New Report Recommends More
Credible Threat of Military Action Against Iran," saying:
"Iran's program fast approach(es) a volatile threshold."
"Preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability is one of the
most urgent national security challenges facing the US."
BPC's new report,
"argues that to prevent a nuclear Iran, the US must
demonstrate its resolve to do whatever is necessary, including taking
Despite no Iranian threat whatever, BPC promotes war. At issue is replacing
its independent leaders with servile pro-Western ones. As a result, anything
ahead is possible, including intervention against Syria.
America's business is war. Permanent war's its longstanding agenda. When
enemies don't exist, they're invented. Washington pushes the envelope
aggressively. Pretexts serve as justification. Imperial madness for
unchallenged global dominance follows. As a result, humanity's threatened,
today more than ever.
On February 1,
Reuters headlined, "Group urges credible US military threat
to Iran," saying:
BPC urged harsher war threatening rhetoric, covert operations, and stronger
US regional military presence to stop Iran's alleged nuclear weapons
"all options are on the table."
"central thesis is that to persuade Iran to address questions about
its nuclear program via negotiations (and) economic sanctions, (they) must
be accompanied by a credible threat of military attack against Iran's
It bluntly stated:
The United States needs to make clear that Iran faces a choice: it can
either abandon its nuclear program through a negotiated arrangement or have
its program destroyed militarily by the United States or Israel.
In the 1950s, Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program encouraged and financed
Iran's nuclear power program. Despite substantial oil revenues, the Shah
wanted a modern energy infrastructure, built around nuclear power.
As a result, by 1978, Iran had the world's fourth largest program, the
largest among developing nations, and plans were for 20 new reactors by
Washington's support continued until November 1978. Carter's task force
recommended replacing the Shah with Ayatollah Khomeini, then living in
At the time, his BP oil negotiations broke down. BP demanded exclusive
future output rights but refused to guarantee oil purchases. As a result,
the Shah sought other deals. Eager German, French, Japanese and other buyers
Washington and Britain were alarmed. Destabilization followed, including
reduced Iranian oil purchases and other economic pressures. US/UK agitators
fanned religious discontent and turmoil. Oil strikes occurred. Production
Regime change was planned. In January 1979, things came to a head. The Shah
fled the country. Khomeini returned and proclaimed an Islamic republic. In
May, he cancelled further nuclear development. It was peaceful then and now.
In the 1980s, America encouraged Saddam's war against him. Around a million
on both sides died. Iran was too strong to defeat. Other measures short of
war followed, including vicious anti-Iranian propaganda.
It portrays the Islamic Republic as uncultured, uncivilized, and dangerous.
Forged documents and other materials suggest an Iranian nuclear weapons
program. Western media scoundrels regurgitate the lie. They've been doing it
for years, despite no corroborating evidence whatever.
Nonetheless, Washington, Israel and rogue Western allies spuriously accuse
Iran of covertly developing a nuclear weapons capability.
BPC urges combating it aggressively, including:
Strengthening America's "declaratory policy" to use force
Escalating disruptive covert operations
Bolstering Washington's Persian Gulf and
Gulf of Oman presence by deploying another carrier battle group,
conducting regional military exercises with allies, and
pre-positioning supplies for possible aggression
Building the military capabilities of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and UAE
"Quarantin(ing)" Iran if other
measures fail; it's diplomatic language for blockading, constituting
an act of war under international law
As a last resort, launching "an effective surgical strike against Iran's
BPC recommends several weeks of air attacks against key military and nuclear
targets combined with Special Forces on the ground, saying:
A military strike would delay Iran's acquisition of nuclear capability but
not eliminate it.
Still policymakers need to consider whether delaying Iran's program in the
short term would allow Washington to take advantage of that space to stop
Iran's nuclear program altogether.
It is also possible that the delays and increased costs that a devastating
strike would impose on Iran's nuclear program might be followed by a
different set of dynamics that would cause or compel the Iranian leadership
to change course.
More likely, it would encourage an Iranian nuclear weapons program to deter
future attacks. America strikes soft targets. Nuclear armed ones can
Former Senator Charles Robb said BPC tried to prepare a "reasoned,
thoughtful approach," not a "bombs away" one. The above recommendations
A Final Comment
Previous articles discussed America's media war on Iran, notably by The New
York Times in print.
On January 31,
Israelis its magazine to make an attack on Iran normal."
Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth analyst
Ronen Bergman headlined, "Will
Israel Attack Iran?" saying:
The New York Times Magazine "published a landmark in warmongering
journalism, a huge article predicting and justifying an Israeli attack on
Have all measures to contain Iran's,
"nuclear threat been exhausted, bringing
Israel to the point of last resort," Bergman asked?
Some of Israel's "most powerful leaders" believe it and want more decisive
action before "it will no longer be possible to act."
Moshe Ya'alon, Israel's Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic
Affairs stressed Israel's resolve, saying:
Our policy is that in one way or another, Iran's nuclear program must be
stopped. It is a matter of months before the Iranians will be able to attain
military nuclear capability. Israel should not have to lead the struggle
It is up to the international community to confront the regime, but
nevertheless Israel has to be ready to defend itself. And we are prepared to
defend ourselves in any way and anywhere that we see fit.
Other influential Israeli policymakers share his view. Bergman's complicit
by promoting them. So is The New York Times for providing feature space
instead of taking a principled anti-war stand.
Mondoweiss contributor Matthew Taylor called his article "Megalomania on
high," saying The Times piece "cheerleads an Israeli attack on Iran."
Former Carter/Ford administrations National Security Council member/Middle
East analyst Gary Sick
condemned the article as "sensationalist" hype adding
more "hysteria" to current US/Israeli Iranian relations.
He also called Bergman's conclusion "at odds with virtually everything he
produce(d) as evidence, but there are some omissions in his analysis that
regrettably have become predictably routine in talking about" Iran's nuclear
Like other anti-Iranian writer/analysts, Bergman ignores facts to hype fear.
Israel benefits by "keeping the pot near the boiling point" to portray
possible planned aggression as justified.
Bergman ended his article saying,
"I have come to believe that Israel will
indeed strike Iran in 2012."
Obama (so far) hasn't gone beyond saying "no
options (are) off the table."
The National Interest's Leon Hadar
believes Israel and Republican
candidates, not Obama, lead the war offensive and won't tolerate,
with Iran that would be acceptable to the regime there."
Other feature Times' articles and editorials unfairly demonize Iran.
barely stop short of endorsing war, but smooth the way if planned by
repeated baseless accusations.
If Israel and/or Washington use nuclear bunker-buster munitions against
underground Iranian nuclear facilities, millions of lives will be risked.
Retaliation will follow. The entire region will be inflamed.
General war may
follow, or as this writer explained several times in on air interviews:
At issue is possible WW III, the first nuclear war, potentially endangering
Hawkish policymakers, Bergman, others like him, and NYT editors mindlessly
ignore the threat.