An article I wrote about the third set of UN Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran (S.C. Resolution 1803) was recently published in Telepolis,  March 5, 2008. The url is http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/27/27434/1.html

Following is an excerpt:

“[T]he scenario of how this new set of sanctions has been passed is strikingly similar to the scenario that was employed to create the pretext for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In December 2007, the U.S. government’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was made public. It stated that there was no evidence that Iran is involved with other than the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

For a while that seemed to take the wind out of the sails of those who were promoting a new set of sanctions against Iran. Though Iran resisted implementing the requirement of the two prior Security Council resolutions (1737, 1747) that it suspend its nuclear enrichment activity, with the IAEA, it had formulated a workplan to answer the outstanding questions that the IAEA said needed explanation. Iran expected a good report in the February 22, 2008 IAEA Report. Iran was asking that the oversight over its nuclear program be returned to the IAEA by the Security Council. Iran offered to implement the Additional Protocol if the matter was transferred out of the Security Council.

There appeared to be little basis for the Security Council to continue its demands on Iran, demands that were contrary to Iran’s rights under the NPT to the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But the IAEA workplan agreed to between Iran and the IAEA had one additional section yet to be acted on. This section was to be about “Studies”, rather than actual work with nuclear material.

The material in this section related to a laptop that the US intelligence agency had acquired which German officials identified as originating with the Mujahideen e Khalq (MEK) and its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI). The U.S. State Department has NCRI on its list of terrorist organizations. (see: “The ‘laptop of mass destruction’”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC04Ak03.html )

In the workplan Iran and the IAEA agreed to in August 2007, Iran explained that the documents emanating from the laptop were “politically motivated and baseless allegations,” but if it was provided with specific documentation, it would review it and “inform the Agency of its assessment.”
–

The article details how only a week before the IAEA report was to be published, the U.S. government declassified material that  it had claimed was the basis of its allegations against Iran. There was no time to examine the material before the IAEA report was to be published.

Subsequently a number of the Security Council members referred to the newly declassified material as the reason they voted in favor of the sanctions.

The “New York Times”, “Washington Post”, and other mainstream media in the U.S. had a history of articles about these allegations from 2004 on.

Yet, on March 3, 2008, the day the third set of sanctions were to be imposed, the “New York Times”, for example, published an article on its front page giving the impression that the allegations were “new” and not giving readers the background from 2004 and 2005 of having had these same allegations made and yet the data withheld so that it could not be evaluated.

While the mainstream U.S. media was taken with the supposedly new evidence, several blogs and other online articles documented the background of this drama and how these allegations were not in general “new” but were conveniently reintroduced when the U.S. wanted to increase the pressure for upgrading the sanctions against Iran.

This situation is an example of a repeat of the scenario of the role played by the “New York Times”, “Washington Post”, and other mainstream U.S. media setting the stage for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They created a fictitious narrative that Iraq possessed “Weapons of Mass Destruction”.

With regard to Iran, the fictitious narrative is that Iran’s enrichment program, a program that the IAEA finds in line with obligations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that Iran is a signatory to,  is actually a program to build nuclear weapons.

These allegations, which frequently refer to the data on a stolen laptop, have been floated in a variety of ways over almost 4 years.

In giving their explanations about why they were voting in favor of new sanctions against Iran, a number of the nations on the Security Council referred to the newly declassified material, despite the fact that the allegations about had not been able to be subject to a verification process.

For the recent “New York Times” article published the day of the Security Council was to vote on the 3rd set of sanctions and a very similar article by the same journalists written over 3 years earlier see:

“Meeting on Arms Data Reignites Iran Debate”, by WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER, published, MonDAY, March 3, 2008. The url is:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/world/middleeast/03nuke.html?_r=3&scp=8&sq=iran&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Compare with an earlier article by the same journalists:

“Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran’s Nuclear Aims”, By William J. Broad and David E. Sanger, published Sunday, November 13, 2005. The url is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/international/middleeast/13nukes.html

Bloggers have pointed out some of the problems in the newspaper articles and in the allegations themselves.

See for example Digby’s critique of the March 3, 2008 “New York Times” article:

Following is an excerpt:

“Stick This In Your Stovepipe”, Tuesday, March 11, 2008. The url of the blog is:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/stick-this-in-your-stovepipe-by-digby.html

“…[T]he [March 3, 2008 New York Times] article sounded very much like it could have been written by Judy Miller and that this looked like a conscious strategy to put last December’s bombshell NIE back on the shelf. The Bush administration will not accept its conclusions, and according to the article, many of our European allies were dismayed as well.”

“They are apparently seeking to discredit the conclusions and the New York Times is on board, once again….”

Quoting an article in the Hindu, digby writes:

“In a sense, this dishonest spin was inevitable. For as the U.S. found the IAEA knocking off the other (equally irrelevant but slightly more credible) ‘outstanding issues’ one by one, it was forced to wheel out the laptop’s contents once again, but this time as Exhibit No. 1. Even now, the Agency’s experts are divided. Dr. ElBaradei’s report treats the laptop’s contents with justified circumspection. However, his deputy, Olli Heinonen, briefed IAEA Board members about its contents, buttressing them with more information provided by unnamed intelligence agencies….After Iraq, the American press has forgotten nothing and learned nothing’.” 

(See, “The U.N. is escalating the Iran nuclear crisis” ,Siddharth Varadarajan, The Hindu, March 5, 2008. The url is http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/05/stories/2008030554841000.htm )

For helpful background on what has been happening with Iran and the IAEA, see Cyrus Safdari’s blog “Iran Affairs.” The url is: http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/11/the-iaea-report.html

The framing of the story of the ‘allegedly stolen Iran laptop’ and its 1000 pages of information that appears on blogs and in the mainstream media is strikingly different. It seems that several bloggers are trying to learn the lessons from the role played by much of the mainstream U.S. media in helping the U.S. government create a pretext for its invasion of Iraq. Bloggers are trying to explore the nature of not only the allegations against Iran, but perhaps as important, the form of journalism which will publish stories making serious allegations from anonymous sources and without having a means to evaluate the evidence. The mainstream media in this ways shows itself to be a pliant source of publicity in support of U.S. government policy aims. Instead of functioning as a watchdog, the mainstream media by publishing such stories,  act as the ”mouthpiece” for the abuse of power.