David Sanger had a piece in the Times yesterday that was more Iran-fear-mongering.
Iran test-fired a sophisticated missile on Wednesday that was capable of striking Israel and parts of Western Europe, adding to concerns that Iran’s weapons-development program is fast outpacing the American-led diplomacy that President Obama has said he will let play out through the end of the year.
The piece included the highly-dubious statement that "enriching uranium to weapons grade [is] now under way at the large nuclear complex at Natanz."
Wait; as this other piece in the Times states, Iran is producing Low Enriched Uranium at Natanz.
"Theoretically, LEU can be transformed into bomb-grade highly enriched uranium with the same centrifuge technology…"
Theory isn’t fact. Sanger shouldn’t be throwing this sort of statement around, not when Israel lobbyists are pushing for a military confrontation. Just yesterday David Bromwich nailed Sanger, on Huffpo, for a similar agenda in his (mis)reporting of the Obama-Netanyahu showdown:
Is the Times trying once again to commandeer public opinion for U.S. or Israeli military action against a large country in the Middle East? Improbable as it may sound, it is becoming hard to escape that conclusion…[Sanger writes,] "Mr. Obama’s strategy is based on a giant gamble: That after the Iranian elections on June 12, the way will be clear to convince the Iranians that it is in their long-term interest to strike a deal." How gigantic is the gamble, in fact? That depends on whether you set greater store by the Israeli or the American estimate of Iran’s progress toward a weapon. It is a gigantic gamble only on the Israeli view. Evidently, Sanger takes on trust the accuracy of that view.
[Sanger] says that Iran is the major business between the U.S. and Israel in the coming year. The story is false, as an impartial viewer or reader of Monday’s news conference will recognize. The giant gamble of the Times is that by repeating the story they can shape events and help to make it true.
I’m getting the feeling that Sanger is to Iran what Judy Miller was to Iraq–the dogged New York Times reporter who fetched dubious reports to serve a belligerent agenda. Though apparently Sanger hasn’t got Miller’s neocon ideology. I think that’s a distinction without a difference…
Related posts:
- Is David Sanger Judy Miller deja vu, without the neocon fixins?
- ‘The Times’ establishes its policy: the meeting was about Iran, and Obama acceded
- Journalists Whine–But Judy Miller Has (Finally) Served the Calling
- Did ‘The Times’ Leave Judy Miller Out in the Cold Because She Was Jewish? And Other Parochial Asides from an Angry Bill Kristol
- Aaron David Miller: ‘Palestinians Fired at Israelis, Leaving 85 Palestinians and 16 Israelis Dead’
{ 30 comments }
I'm getting the feeling that Sanger is to Iran what Judy Miller was to Iraq I've felt that for two years, maybe three.
"enriching uranium to weapons grade [is] now under way at the large nuclear complex at Natanz." Which is complete, utter, bullshit. There is no, zero, record anywhere in the world that Iran is enriching beyond 5%. Nowhere. Not anywhere. And any idiot who follows this knows that weapons-grade enrichment is 92%-plus. And the higher the enrichment, the fewer the centrifuges. You'll notice that the Israeli papers report on the number of centrifuges in an attempt to prove something. To somebody. And it's all BS.
Phil, please keep this in perspective. While you are agonising exclusively over Israel-related issues, Obama shows every sign of turning Pakistan into another Vietnam.
I think it is far more, reporting, uncomfortable, demanding skillful response. I think your dismissal of the events, and their significance (current and prospective), is the head in the sand, the propaganda.
Obviously, Sanger has been given his orders to promote Netanyahoo's programme. This kind of thing will go until Netanyahoo has successfully evaded the things he should do,, and instead got everyone's focus on the evil mullahs, who say they are pursuing an innocent civiilan nuclear programme (which America, by the terms of the NPT , is OBLIGED to assist), and nobody has yet disproved. I agree with Rowan Berkeley that the expansion of the GWOT from Af to Pak will hugely complicate things. and is more urgent than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – that can safely be left on t.he slow burner for another half-century or so (by which time Israel will have destroyed itself by importing too many non-Jewish Russians and Ukrainians, and exporting more Israelis than those who make aliyah). If Netanyahoo wants to see the future of Israel, he should go to Goa.
I differ. I believe it is possible to keep two REALITIES in your mind at the same time. That paying attention to Iran during a critical qualitative transition period is a rational thing to do. You don't have a clue that "Sanger has been given orders".
It looks to me like the two things are orchestrated together: Israel will launch air attacks on Lebanon, Syria and Iran in quick succession, taking advantage of the US's ballooning land war in AfPak. Then the two campaigns will merge, with both Israel and the US bombing Iran. If you add to this the US involvement in north-east Africa, I think you see the outlines of a Global War on the Muslim world, with the further aim of isolating China. Even though China could at some point dump all its US Treasury Bonds, under more-or-less World War conditions the dollar would no longer be vulnerable. India will be on board, and Russia, I suspect, will try to stay 'uninvolved,' i.e. it would try to stay on good terms with all the 'Stans, even while they are trying to stay on good terms with the US. A de facto world war would solve all of the problems faced by the US and Israel — which are axiomatic "allies" because they're owned by the same people. It would render everything that gets discussed here — human rights, morality, equity, civilised behaviour, economic welfare, freedom of information — irrelevant and/or trivial. And, of course, the US and Israel have no shortage of weaponry, especially of the air-deliverable mass-destruction variety, which is harder to use under normal conditions, but in a World War, becomes "necessary".
Unlikely.
The aspect of this that I find odd, is that if Israel does undertake some military response to the Iranian escalation (proxy armies, nuclear capacity, delivery capactiy), the left and left-right will conclude that it was Israel that escalated, that "orchestrated" a military campaign, RATHER than Iran bearing any responsibility at all.
Who needs the New York Times when you have genuine Americans on the ground that have no Zionist oriented political constrains or agendas, such as Dr. Franklin Lamb in Lebanon telling us about today's visit to Lebanon by our Vice President Joe Biden, which coincidentally just happened to be followed by a CNI visit to Lebanon , and the Lebanese people's reactions to these visits? Biden Does Beirut http://pulsemedia.org/2009/05/22/biden-does-beiru...
Please read MRW's second post. This missile has been tested before and everyone already knew Iran was capable of making weapons like these.
Interesting prediction Rowan…. If this is true than it must be why Israel's most major military exercises in its history, which will be taking place in the last few days of May and first couple in June, in preparation for, which is what Hezbollah in Lebanon has been preparing for…I assume that Hezbollah is coordinating their defense to go along with Iran, Syria, and Hamas defenses….
If things carry on ballooning, as I put it, while "the world" remains supposedly "at peace," then China will eventually dump its US Treasuries anyway, and with the world currency markets still open, that would mean the dollar would be wiped out as a world reserve currency.
So what? PR can be fixed in the US, even under supposedly "peacetime" conditions.
Israeli "military response to Iranian escalation"? Is this a Hasbara talking point before the Israeli escalation?
Well spotted, Marion! That article is datelined "May 22, 2009 at 11:10 am, " which is puzzling, because it starts with Biden's arrival at 1150hrs, local time (Beirut), goes on to mention his arrival at Baabda Palace at 1214hrs, and even reports his press conference remarks at 1340-1350hrs. It's a delightful article, full of Lamb's characteristic humour, even if you skip the bits about Walid Jumblatt's mistress. It illustrates the comical aspect of the US's delusion that it can micro-manage every corner of the globe simultaneously. No previous empire has ever had this insanely grandiose delusion.
sure looks that way. At least we have a precedent to base our assumptions this time.
Theory isn't fact. Sanger shouldn't be throwing this sort of statement around, not when Israel lobbyists are pushing for a military confrontation. But he is throwing it around. He is one of the Israeli lobbyists pushing for war.
Iran shoots off a test missle, and we're supposed to be all worried. Israel, who answers to no political or military constraints, has hundreds, and the means to deliver them. Or does Richard Witty make a case for the proven pacifism of the Israelis? Is Iran sending thousands of settlers into territory not their own, and protecting them with its army?
"(by which time Israel will have destroyed itself by importing too many non-Jewish Russians and Ukrainians," Destroyed itself? In what way? Israel will simply become "more diverse". If these Ukranians and Russians have something Israel wants,( whatever that might be, even if it's simply as cannon fodder) come they will, at Israel's urging. You make it sound like some kind of religious equality is necessary to Israel. Anyone who is willing, or can be coesrced, to live under the domination of the Israeli system (which advantages certain Jews, mostly) is welcomed by the Israeli government, apparently. A tremendous number of victims of one type or another are needed to maintain Israel, and not all of them are Arab.
"The aspect of this that I find odd, is that if Israel does undertake some military response to the Iranian escalation" Unbelievable! A response to an escalation is aggressiveness, preventive war. You claim a country has the right to attack another country because of a perceived or imagined or anticipated increase in their military capacity? Or is it only Israel who has that right? But of course, it's that agressiveness on Israel's behalf which gets the glands churning, and the ziocaine flowing.
" I believe it is possible to keep two REALITIES in your mind at the same time." My psychiatrist has an ugly name for that.
Israel has been escalating against Iran for quite some time whether it is pushing severe economic embargos and blockades against Iran (Acts of War) or preparatory exercises for their attack on Iran. Why do you leave these facts out? If you use Israel's illegal theory of preventive war, Iran would itself be justified in attacking Israel to preempt the coming attack. Right?
Let's remember that Judy Miller was never an obvious neocon. Thus, her reporting carried a patina of credibility, until it didn't. What Sanger and Miller have in common is membership in the Aspen Strategy Group (remember Scooter Libby's letter to Judy Miller when she was in jail that the roots of the aspen all turn together?) Here is their wikipedia site listing their membership. Nice bedfellows indeed. Scooter Libby is scrubbed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen_Strategy_Group
The point you guys have to digest is that Iran is not innocent in this. Its not a question of who is the worst bad guy. A conflict is mutual. Its innaccurate to state that Iran is benign, or not threatening. It would be wonderful if you added your voice to a request to Iran, "We understand where you're coming from, but we fear the effects of escalation. We feat that it will result in war, whoever initiates it." I don't hear that. I hear only blame and contempt for Israel.
But, Richard, Israel has nukes now, and it has been land-grabbing in the OT for over forty years. Iran may be threatening, but Israel is doing–isn't there a qualitative difference here US citizens should weigh in the balance of this "mutual conflict?"
RE: "by which time Israel will have destroyed itself by importing too many non-Jewish Russians and Ukrainians" & "Destroyed itself? In what way?" MY ANSWER: By electing more and more Avigdor Lieberman types!
RE: "…Dr. Franklin Lamb in Lebanon…" SEE: The Sabra Shatila Foundation LINK – http://www.sabrashatila.org/
Richard only hears" blame and contempt for Israel." Now I wonder if that's because the blame in this particular matter lies with Israel? Could it be true? That would go along way to explaining the contempt you hear too, Richard. Hmmmm….. I guess that possibility was never going to go very far with you, safe to say (makes it even tougher when it turns out to be true – bummer!) Hope that helps though…
The US should weigh in. Thankfully Obama is insisting that Israel stop the settlement construction (to reluctant ears). But, the US SHOULD pay close attention to the goal, policies, and actions that Iran takes. To date, Iran insisting on violent militancy relative to Israel, HINDERS the ability of Palestinians to make a transition to any viable state. It gives Israel the plausible excuses of "they are all against us". When Iran acts to enact "erase them from the page of history", its impossible to dismiss. I wouldn't share a bed with them.
Comments on this entry are closed.