NYT Exposes Fraud of "Generous Offer" to Iran

Who says America doesn't have a free press?

Everything you know about the world will be reported by the New York Times -- eventually.

You just have to be very patient -- and read very carefully.

On Sunday, the New York Times reported that President Bush "accused" Iran of rejecting a new set of incentives to stop enriching uranium. "I am disappointed that the leaders rejected this generous offer out of hand," Bush said.

Of course, Iran didn't reject it "out of hand," as the article goes on to explain:

Tehran did not formally reject the offer... Mr. Mottaki [Iran's Foreign Minister] said that Iran's response would depend on how the West responded to Iran's May 13 proposal calling for international talks on all issues and improved international inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities.

Nor was it true that President Bush was disappointed:

The French and Americans presumed in advance that their new proposal of incentives ... would be brushed aside by Tehran, officials and diplomats said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

[Presumably, "sensitivity of the issue" means "because they are not supposed to be quoted on the record saying that the 'diplomatic' initiative is a charade."]

So, in the space of thirteen words, President Bush managed to lie (at least) twice.

Was it a "generous offer"? That of course is a matter of perspective. Iran is being offered a package of economic incentives to give up what Iranians -- not just the government, but Iranians generally -- regard as a fundamental right -- mastery of the technology to enrich uranium. As Iran's UN Ambassador told the Boston Globe on May 31, "This has become an issue of national pride." As the NYT notes, the same deal was offered in the past, and Iran rejected it.

Regardless of whether anyone in Washington agrees that Iran has the right to enrich uranium, it is an objective fact that Iranians generally, not just the government, believe that Iran has the right to enrich uranium.

In April, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland published a poll of Iranian public opinion. PIPA found that 81% of Iranians consider it "very important" for "Iran to have a full-fuel-cycle nuclear program" which would give Iran the capacity to produce nuclear fuel for energy production. Four out of five. Only 5% think Iran should not pursue a full-fuel-cycle program.

So, the United States and its allies made a proposal for Iran to give up something that four out of five Iranians consider to be "very important." The United States and its allies expected Iran to reject the "offer," as it has in the past.

Why the charade? The NYT explains:

But Mr. Bush and the Europeans who formally made the offer want to show that all efforts at dialogue are being taken.

So, "all efforts at dialogue" means restating a proposal that the government of Iran has already rejected -- and which Iran is expected, by those making the proposal, to reject again -- to give up something that four in five Iranians say is "very important."

Who is the audience for this "show"? People who don't read the New York Times, apparently. These people will be told that "all efforts at dialogue" have been exhausted and there is no alternative to "other punitive moves against Iran that could be taken by a 'coalition of the willing' outside the United Nations":

"Officials would not provide details, but analysts suggest those could include a naval embargo of the Persian Gulf or the refusal to supply Western-made technology required for Iran's oil industry, creating bottlenecks in Iran's oil production."

For those scoring at home, a naval embargo would be an act of war. If undertaken "outside the United Nations" -- i.e. without the authorization of the UN Security Council -- it would be a war crime. If you don't think Iran would retaliate for this act of war, or that it doesn't have effective means of doing so, then you are, as John McCain might say, "naïve and inexperienced."

Once again a false choice is placed before the world -- the fake diplomacy of the Bush administration or war. Are there no other alternatives?

The same PIPA poll found that 58% of Iranians support the idea of making a deal with the UN Security Council that would allow Iran to have a full-cycle nuclear program while giving the International Atomic Energy Agency "permanent and full access throughout Iran to ensure that its nuclear program is limited to energy production" and not producing nuclear weapons. PIPA notes that in a March 2008 poll for the BBC World Service 55% of Americans approved of such a deal.

Indeed, in its May 13 proposal -- which the NYT dismisses in a phrase by noting that it "does not mention the key Western demand -- that Iran stop enriching uranium," Iran proposed "international talks on all issues and improved international inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities."

Furthermore, as the Boston Globe reported May 31, Iran's UN Ambassador said Iran "would consider establishing an internationally owned consortium inside Iran that could produce nuclear fuel with Iranian participation."

As the Boston Globe noted on June 10, "Thomas Pickering, the US ambassador to the United Nations under President George H.W. Bush, endorsed the idea of such a consortium in a March article in the New York Review of Books." And the plan is "getting increased interest from senior members of both parties in Congress and nonproliferation specialists":

Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, have said publicly that the plan should be explored.

Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat, went further, calling the plan "a creative, thoughtful, and productive potential solution."

And Joseph Cirincione, a "nonproliferation specialist who serves informally as an adviser to Obama's campaign," says the idea is "worth exploring."

So there is an alternative. But you wouldn't know it from the "show."

If you think Congress should be pressing for real diplomacy with Iran, you can ask them to do so here.

Comments

[BarryLeonardini]

Good post Bob.

[realpolitic]

The New York Times is a constant target of the right because it does often expose administration hypocricies and mistruths. As usual, Bush makes a feigned attempt at diplomacy and when it is brushed aside he considers it an act of war. Never has such a powerful country like America been governed by a spoiled, bullying child like Bush. He attempts to rule our country like a bully rules the playground by knocking down anyone who challenges his authority. Bush is a simpleton. The situation with Iran may be delicate. However, we again need adults at the helm of the country.

[earthwealth]

You can blame Bush as much as you wish. But please don't forget that he was elected twice.
Nothing will change until majority of people in this country realize that they are the main source cause and perhaps feel guilty enough to do something about it or prevent it from happening again. The politicians who initiate wars are all publicly elected. Without public support they would never get to such position of authority. Public mostly in forms of taxes also pays for such actions. The bottom line is that shame and shame on us.

[realpolitic]

Yes, but most elected presidents who wage wars do not do so on a series of orchestrated lies. I do blame us. Rove gave us a snow job and we bought it hook, line, and sinker. I did not vote for Bush and never liked him. He seemed resplendently at a loss for words, even confused. I guess we all share in the blame, the media, the electorate for not being better informed, and those so close to Bush ready to sacrifice their integrity to advance his agenda, if they ever had such integrity. Hopefully, Bush will one day be held acccountable. Hopefully, it will not happen again, but I doubt it. Other demagogues will come forward.

[earthwealth]

The real problem with Iran that no mainstream media discusses is that no matter how much Iran is threatened and intimidated, she refuses to restart her nuclear arm program as our own intelligent groups have unanimously reaffirmed. Iran without possible nuclear arsenals is no use to our great industrial military complex. How else future military expansions and expenditures will be justified? And convince the wealthy Persian Gulf countries to buy more pricy military hardware. A military strike on Iran may be the last resort to push Iran to finally get into nuclear arm race and achieve our goal.

Furthermore, Iran and fear from its imaginary nuclear weapons is being used as smokescreen to cover up abuses taken place against the Iraqis and Palestinians. As long as Iran is under microscope, no one pays attention to Israel"s large nuclear arsenals. Iran"s nuclear issue is also used as a good reason to maintain a wide spread presence of our military in the Persian Gulf and the neighboring countries

[Durango]

It is clear that Bin Ladin and his crew hiding out in the Tribal territories of Pakistan, or even Afghanistan cannot justify the expenditures our Military Industrial Complex demands.

And how can we justify a missile defense system if Iran doesn't have Nukes.? Would never work against the Russians or Chinese. (won't work anyhow but that's a different subject)

I am afraid you are making too much sense here earthwealth.

Since weapons systems seem to be the only thing America anymore I agree that Iran is the perfect marketing tool for sales in the oil rich Gulf States.

What did Jefferson say "I fear for my country when I realize there is a just God."?

[Forsetti]

I hear their next offer will include Czechoslovakia.

[moreupnorth]

This is semi off topic but, I see a story within this story. This quote is quite disturbing ""Officials would not provide details, but analysts suggest those could include a naval embargo of the Persian Gulf or the refusal to supply Western-made technology required for Iran's oil industry, creating bottlenecks in Iran's oil production."

$4 a gallon gas and $135 a barrel oil and the plan is to potentially place an embargo, causing Iran's oil production to be curtailed. And all of this going on at a time when world leaders, including Bush, are all but begging for an increase in oil production. I would be curious to hear these analysts explain why exacerbating the current oil crisis would be a good thing for the world. I wonder if they have taken into account what a 10% reduction in oil supply will do to an already fragile world economy.

[earthwealth]

You have raised good points. I must add that it is ironic that the same economical sanction that we imposed on Iran during the last 30 years has prevented Iran from expanding their oil industries and consequently their export capacity is hurting us in our own wallets!
As long as people keep electing politicians who would put Israel"s interest before American interest, our problems will not get resolved. For example when it comes to Iran, Israel"s interest and American interest do not coincide. Since Iran has been isolated from American Businesses, the big gainers have been mainly China, India and Russia. At the time American businesses were prohibited to do business in Iran, Chinese and Russian businesses have been signing multi-billion Dollars contracts. If US-Iran relations is ever improved, Iran would make a strong and effective US ally in the Middle East and US may not have to rely on Israel so much. Consequntly there would be no longer any reason for billions of Dollars of annually financial and military US aides to Israel. For that exact reason, every time there is a chance that there could be some improvement in the US-Iran relation, the process is sabotaged directly by Israel or indirectly via Israel"s special interest groups such as AIPAC.

[holliwoodinc]

Good post, but you forgot to include one of the main reasons why Iranians feel they are entitled to enrich uranium in the first place: the fact that they are signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
Also, as an interesting side note, the only nation in the region that does possess nuclear arms, Israel, is not a signatory of the treaty.

[holliwoodinc]

(Although you do link to a page discussing it :) Don't mean to be to hard on you, Mr. Naiman, just thought the fact might bear repeating in the body of the post as well.)

[kikomnipotent]

Yes, but the Israelis are almost as white as us, so it's ok for them to have the nukes. It's those emotional dark skinned people you have to watch. The nerve of a 200 year old country led by a bafoon to tell the 4,000 year old cradle of civilization how to conduct themselves.

[earthwealth]

I never understood the real meaning of so called "Rogue States". You can call it whatever you wish. All I know, there has not been a day that the Sun sets and Israel has not butchered several Palestinians. Does that qualify Israel as a rogue or civilized state?Iran has never invaded or acted aggressively in the last 200 years. Just because our controlled media never covers it, does not mean it never happens. In fact Iran passed a good test after Taliban came into power in 1997. When Taliban in Afghanistan beheaded eleven Iranian diplomats who were sent by Iran"s government to Afghanistan for political discussion. Most people expected some military actions by the Iran. Instead Iran showed great restrains. Imagine if that happened to countries like Israel. One does not have to look far. Just look at our action after 9/11. Comparing rogue versus civilized nations, it appears that, civilized nations have big bombs and advertise how powerful and destructive their bombs are and do not hesitate to use them in the name of protecting self interest or imaginary future threats. In these countries one pilot may use powerful bombers in many missions repeatedly and brag about how effectively the bombings were done. Rogue countries on the other hand mostly do not have such powerful bombs and remain desperate.

[Hass]

Actually, Iranians - being Aryans - are "White" and have a better claim to being "Caucasian" too (the Caucasus were literally part of Iran for centuries)

The word Iran literally means "Land of the Aryans" (the Aryans were a real tribe of people who moved into europe and asia via central asia -- and no, they were not all the statuesque blondes of Hitlers homosexual fantasies)

Jews and Arabs are semites. Iranians are mostly Persians, some Turkish etc. and are Indo-European.

[BubbaC33]

What Israel has, or does not have, is not a part of this question. More to the point, Israel is not a rogue state, as Iran certainly has proven to be.

[Durango]

What Israel has or doesn't have is ABSOLUTELY part of the question.

Iran would be justified in thinking they need to protect themselves from Israel's nuclear weapons.

Get your head out of the sand

[holliwoodinc]

Actually, the fact that the government of Israel has such a vast nuclear arsenal is key to the discussion. The government of Israel's possession of such weapons encourages nuclear proliferation in the Middle East due to the enormous disparity in tactical power it creates in the region. The fact that the government of Israel has no internationally recognized legal basis to have any nuclear capability at all is, as I mentioned before, quite an interesting side note as it calls into question how they came to be in possession of such capabilites in the first place.
(Also, as yet another side note, if viewed through an unbiased perspective, the government of Israel could technically be considered a rogue state as much as the government of Iran as both governments have violated United Nations resolutions repeatedly.)

[Hass]

Not a rogue state? LOL! The entire state of Israel is based on the racist apartheid notion that non-Jews should be eradicated and replaced with immigrants. Every single town in modern Israel is built on or around a demolished Palestinian village. Israel blatantly refuses the most basic obligations under international law -- the right of return of refugees, the illegality of conquest and annexation, and the immorality of institutionalized apartheid. Not to mention that Israel has both nuclear as well as chemical/biological weapons programs.

[TheRationalLeft]

Almost an accurate description of the NY Times article... but not quite. Mr. Naiman is being too generous to NY Times. In fact, the very first quote Mr. Naiman cites from the Times is out of context. He suggests that NY Times attempted to explain that Iran didn't formally reject the offer. Which is partially true. However, what NY Times is suggesting, is that the reason why Iran would do that is,

"to play for time, saying that it is in an ongoing dialogue with the West while continuing to enrich uranium to secure the amounts necessary to build a nuclear bomb."

In other words, NY Times is not conveying Iran in a positive light, but in a negative one. If only NY Times used at least similar standards during the pre-Iraq invasion, perhaps right now we wouldn't be in Iraq and Iran would be mentioned in association with partnership rather than another war.

http://rationalleft.com/

[Hass]

The irony in that NY Times statement is, of course, that no amount of enriched uranium made by Iran can actually be used to make a bomb since Iran's centrifuges manufacture low-enriched uranium (LEU) rather than highly-enriched uranium (HEU). This has been verified by the IAEA.

Unless Iran is also "playing for time" to rewrite the laws of physics, low-enriched uranium cannot be used to make weapons.

Now, which is worse: that the NY Times didn't know this but wrote that story, or did?

[Hass]

Incidentally, see more about this at

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2008/06/ny-times-iran.html

"LEU [low-enriched uranium] cannot be used to make nuclear explosives; HEU [highly-enriched uranium] can be used to make nuclear explosives"

And, according to every last IAEA report, including paragraph 5 of the latest (May 28 2008) IAEA report, Iran's centrifuges manufacture LEU, not HEU, as verified by surprise inspections

[deminmo]

First off, Congress has decided to put their heads up their
collective butts, until after the election. They don't want to
initiate anything that would upset a Democratic victory in
November. No war crimes trial. No Impeachment hearings.
No war with Iran. Yea, right. Bush has everything in place with
CENTCOM and Air Force and Navy forces. The only thing he's
still working on is the effects of war. That is, how many countries
are likely to try to blow the US and Israel off the map, should this
take place. Timing? Sometime around the election, maybe sooner.

[dadw5boys]

Wiat till the DEMS have a voting majority!!!!!!!

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

I am often critical of the NYT because it appears they are 'in' with the neocons (hiring Kristol, yellowcake, etc etc) while still managing to maintain a reputation for liberality. I picked up a sunday edition once around 3 years ago and there was a piece on 'bombing Iran' in just about every section. Was that an anomaly, or is 'bombing Iran' the normal topic of conversation?

Assuming the contents of this "fraud" to be accurate, will they continue to repeat the truth in order to counteract the repetition of the lie, or is this a one off?

Seriously, maybe a consistent reader can let me know. I don't know what to make of the NYT. That they played their part in launching the bogus war in Iraq is well known - Do they or do they not support launching another bogus war?

[Hass]

The NY Times was recently caught lying about the IAEA report on Iran. See:

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=10228

and

Concern voiced over exaggerated reports on Iran's non-compliance
By Francis Matthew, Editor at Large
GulfNews June 02, 2008
http://archive.gulfnews.com/region/Iran/10218067.html and

[joebhed]

thanks

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

"As usual, the New York Times is the worst" (FAR)

Yes, thanks for the links. I thought them backing off the neocon propaganda was too good to be true.

A lot of people actually believe their spin. What can we do to throw a light on them?

[S1m0n]

The US is going to have to get used to the idea of a Nuclear Iran, just as the rest of the world got used to the idea of a nuclear US. Luckily for us all, the government of Iran has a much better record for keeping the peace. Since they overthrew the shah, they've started no wars, (while fighting a spectacularly bloody one that the US egged Saddam Hussein into launching) while the USA has launched two large, one medium, and two small wars over the same period.

So; Iran is much more peace-loving than the USA, and we can live with them having the bomb; given the explicit threats from the present administration as well as the PNAC, Iran's supposed desire to master nuclear technology is completely understandable. In their place, that's what I'd be doing, too.

And so would you.

[Revealed]

The empire of Iran or Persia has always been a rival of the western expansionism into the east. During Julius Caesar's time one of the triumvirate Crassus, then the richest war-profiteer of the Roman empire (equivalent to today's Halliburton) wanted to improve his warrior credentials and invaded Parthia (today's Iran). At the battle near what is now Harran (ancient name of Carrhae), part of Iraq's Anbar province, Crassus, the world's richest man was outwitted by the Parthians, who did not engage the mighty Roman legions in close combat but instead used the "Parthian shot" (which came to be known as the 'parting shot') and rained arrows from a distance. Tens of thousands of Roman army was slaughtered in one afternoon. Crassus was beheaded and his lifeless head was sent out to Parthian court where the king threw it as a prop in a play. Some lessons the western generals and profiteers never learn from history.

[globality]

Why would we expect Iran or any other middle eastern nation to give up on aquiring nuclear weapons when Israel is given a free pass. They possess 200+ nukes and should be forced to become signatories of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty or loose all US aid.

It is the duty of the leaders of countries to protect their citizens and sovereignty. As long as Israel is allowed to operate outside the international community, I would encourage all nations to do what they must to protect themselves.

[Hass]

The Iranians repeatedly assert that they are NOT seeking nuclear weapons and that nuclear weapons would NOT protect them in any case. They have offered to place additional restrictions on their nuclear program over and above what is legally required, to further ensure that it cannot be used to make nuclear weapons, but the US has rejected that offhand. This whole debate is not really about nuclear weapons -- that's just a smokescreen. That's why perfectly reasonable solutions have been dismissed by the Bush administration, which continues to increase its demands, move the goalposts and impose ridiculous pre-conditions on talks with Iran ---- because the ultimate goal is regime change in favor of Israel, not non-proliferation.

[KPinSEA]

Exactly ... the policy is about regime change, not disarmament, *exactly* as it was in Iraq. One would have to be a charter member of the Slow Learners of America to believe anything else.

The only goal, and achievement, of Bush 'diplomacy' has been to move our European allies off their earlier position that we should pay lip service to the legal structure of the NPT and IAEA and recognize Iran's right to enrich all the uranium they want as long as it isn't diverted to a weapons program.

Now we have an unashamedly hypocritical policy that our friends can flaunt the NPT all they want and still get aid from us, and our 'enemies' (however we define them this week) will face the threat of tens of thousands of their citizens being murdered if they should try to do so.

[Hass]

By the way, the IAEA already has "permanent access" to Iran's nuclear program. The last IAEA report specifically stated that all of Iran's enrichment activities are under IAEA safeguards -- and the subject of 14 surprise inspections too.

[Hass]

Why do the Iranians think enriching their own uranium is so gosh darned "important"? Its not just "pride".

1- These sorts of "generous offers" to Iran have been characterized as "empty boxes with pretty wrapping" by independent analysts (SOURCE: British-American Security Information Council, Preliminary analysis of E3/EU proposal to Iran 11 August 2005)

2- Despite its large oil and gas reserves, Iran already had a clear case for diversifying its energy resources into nuclear power by the 1970s. Since then its population has tripled, while its oil production has almost halved, and it now consumes about 40% of its oil domestically. (SOURCE: Le Monde diplomatique, Nov 2005)

3- Iran"s identified uranium ore reserves could produce as much electricity as that from some 45 billion barrels of oil " about one-third of Iran"s proven oil reserves " with almost zero emissions and atmospheric pollution. (SOURCE: Energy Tribune Dec. 11, 2006)

4- Some developing nations are skeptical of the intentions of the five original nuclear states and are reluctant to give up the option of enriching uranium. They don"t trust the United States or other nuclear countries to be consistent suppliers of the nuclear material. (SOURCE: New Global Nuclear Order; Los Angeles Times October 15, 2006)

5- A tiny pellet of uranium held in the palm of your hand weighs about seven grams... It can generate as much energy as 147 gallons of oil. (SOURCE: Nuclear Renaissance, Forbes.com Nov 14 2007)

[jhNY]

Thanks for providing this information to interested readers, among whom I count myself.

[Viper]

My gosh .. facts...you must not be a repug.

If you ask countries if they want IRAN to have nukes... most say no.. Note however they also would say no to Isreal or us having Nukes along with China, Russia and etc.

Never the less you will here time and again that many of Iran's neighbors against them having nukes! LOL... of course they are! And us too!

Regards