Ratcheting Up the Rhetoric on Iran
Commentary: Could the uptick in anti-Iran messaging emerging from the White House mean that a military confrontation is closer than we think?
May 22, 2008
|
|
Is the Bush administration bent on military confrontation with Iran in its final months? Is the White House preparing the American public for another war? Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner is an expert on military strategies and strategic games and he's been worried for a while that the Bush White House is moving toward direct military engagement with Iran. He writes, "Either directly or through proxies, the United States is fighting Iran in Afghanistan, Iraq, in three or four regions in Iran itself, in Lebanon, and in Syria." His hunch is that Bush and his advisers are preparing a formal warning for Iran and that the next incident involving a US-Iranian clash "could justify an air strike against the training camps inside Iran." He adds, "National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told reporters on a trip to the Middle East that the United States was entering a period of 'increased pressure' on the Iranians. An Israeli spokesman said…both Israel and the United States agree that tangible steps need to be taken against Iran." In addition, Gardiner notes, Israeli Army radio reported recently that, during the president's trip to Israel last week, a senior Bush administration staffer told Israeli officials that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney support military action against Iran (a claim the White House has vehemently denied). "Strong statements can force policy," Gardiner adds. “The situation in the Middle East has gotten more serious in the past week. Both the United States and Iran have made public statements that may force even more fighting."
Looking for evidence that the White House is heading (and driving the country) toward war with Iran, Gardiner monitors what he calls "the message volume"—the amount of talk about Iran in the media that he believes is mostly generated by the White House. As he concedes, this is an imperfect measurement. But it does cause him concern. Below is a report Gardiner prepared for Mother Jones that shows what he considers to be a troubling rise in the message volume related to Iran.
The White House pattern is well established. When administration officials are working to control a message, they do so using both content and volume. I've found it useful to understand the direction of policy by watching the message volume.
My methodology is not particularly sophisticated. Every morning, I Google News the issue I'm following and record the number of English language articles that come up.
As an example, during the run up to the 2004 presidential election in the United States, it felt as if the White House was trying to create fear to support the argument that George Bush should be reelected. That intuition was measurable using this method.
In the chart above, we can see what appears to be the product of a well-managed message campaign. When a strategic communications theme has been selected, senior members of the administration give speeches on the subject, the president will talk about the topic in press conferences, and "officials" will grant interviews to major print press outlets to discuss the matter. And in these circumstances, we'll hear from more than government sources. For instance, in materials recently released by the Pentagon to the New York Times for a piece on military analysts, there were numerous mentions in Pentagon e-mails about getting think tanks to support a particular message.
The result of all this is a tremendous echo. In the case of terrorism and the 2004 election, the volume was more than double the normal coverage of the subject. And if terrorism was the administration's topic of choice for 2004, what is it for 2008? The administration's strategic communication theme is not terrorism. The terrorism coverage of late looks like the vital signs of a dead patient: flat-lined. Iran, though, seems to be emerging as the dominant theme. This is the past 60 days of the Iran message.
The President's recent visit to the Middle East is an example of how the administration can keep the Iran message dominant. At every stop, President Bush talked about the threat from Iran. If he mentioned Iraq in any of his major speeches, I did not find it. Apparently, Iraq is to be kept off the front pages.
Gardiner predicts that the administration's message on Iran—content-wise—will increasingly focus on "what Iran has been doing to America," as the United States charges Iran with supporting attacks on U.S. forces and interests in Iraq. Meanwhile, Gardiner notes, Tehran has been vocal about what the United States has supposedly been doing to Iran: "In what has been an unusual series of statements and escalation by the Iranian government, the United States has been accused of direct attacks on Iranians and inside Iran. Iran accused the United States of being behind the attack on Iranian diplomats in Baghdad last week. Iran has painted an extensive picture of the United States being involved in the bombing of a mosque in Shiraz in April. In their story, the Iranians say they have uncovered a CIA network that planned many bombings, including oil facilities. Although none of this may be true, the statements represent a ratcheting up."
And a ratcheting up on either side, Gardiner notes, could trigger a military confrontation, intended or not.
I just can't believe Bush is so stupid that he would launch air strikes in Iran. Well, I hope he's not that stupid.
For a reality check on Iran, refer to
http://bibijon.org/iranimage/
americans were taught to look for commies under their bed and build bomb shelters during the cold war now it is teorrism.
keep them in fear and you can control them has worked for thousands of years.
repubs have it down to a fine science at least give them that plus they have a demo party that is spineless.
makes it easy to do for them.
Time magazine's report, "Bombing Iran: The Clamor Persists", also accurately reflects the dangerous fear-mongering and sense of the Senate in their latest pro-war vote.
I watched the Senate vote on continuing Iraq war funding (and Iran bombing options), but I must have been tired and slipped off to sleep a few times during the debate and amendments because this is all I vaguely recall --- almost as if I were in some kind of an old dream:
”For what purpose does the gentleman from Bavaria rise?”
“Madam president, I rise today to submit an amendment to the bill for continued funding for the Fuhrer’s glorious war.”
“The clerk will register the amendment, and the gentleman from Bavaria is allotted five minutes.”
”Madam president, while many of our German soldiers share the glory of being recognized for fighting on both the western and eastern fronts, many other of our soldiers are engaged in activities at the Reich’s ‘special camps’ in which they can not achieve public recognition, because of the secret and security nature of their service, and from which they often receive mental scares.
“While all of us here in our honored seat of government recognize that such activities do not constitute torture and are necessary to protect the fatherland, our German soldiers engaged in these ‘other activities’ deserve additional medical benefits and extended educational benefits.
“My amendment to the Fuhrer’s fifth year emergency war funding bill would not restrict or limit the activities of these special units, but rather recognizes that additional GI (German Issue) educational benefits should be added to this war funding.
“I believe that I speak for both sides of the aisle in saying that adding these special medical and educational benefits to our war funding bill will help to assuage any concerns that the German people have about this unexpectedly long duration of the war, and help to add a fig-leaf of responsible concern to this otherwise nasty business ---- without, I might say, having any adverse effect on the Fuhrer getting the full measure of deutchmarks and blood for unhindered continuation of his war.
“We can all be sure that the loyal German media will report this amendment as adding a successful show of NSDAP’s concern, prudence, and responsibility to the Fuhrer’s war funding bill, and that all good German’s will recognize that we have done our duty --- without us having to actually stand-up to the Fuhrer and do anything substantial about this long, bloody, costly and immoral war.”
[Editorial note by the New Berlin Times: The amendment and the emergency war funding bill passed 70-26, and there was general enthusiasm by the Fuhrer, both parties, and the media that the addition of the medical and educational benefits for our troops and some addition heating aid for poor Germans created a successful outcome ---- although the war and the ‘special camps’ continued unabated].
"A variety of current and former high-level officials have recently warned that the Bush administration is attempting to instill a dictatorship in America, and will itself carry out a fake terrorist attack in order to obtain one."
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.c om/2008/04/high-level-officials-warns-of-fake.html
http://www.twif.org "All The Fascism That's Fit To Print"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080528/ts_nm/iran_bolton_dc_1
the final stages of the, how should we
say........Arab Union?
Let's face it. Africa is torn up and
crying for the fiat-banks.
The US will be in the same boat asking
for the Amero/NAU to deliver them
from evils of foreclosure,$8.00/gal
gas,drug cartels @ the border,
Mexican alien invasions, flying carpet
raids,nuclear suitcase,crashing dollar,
another bear sterns(retirement plan)
incident,another HAARP mis-hap and
so on.
To nuke Iran is to literaly burn the
flag for good.
NOW ABOOT THAT NAU/CONSTITUTION OF THE
NAU,AMERO,SPP/NASRA,NAFTA.............
And every time Bush, Cheney, and Rice goes on TV and stirs the Iran cauldron the price of a barrel of oil goes up. Wonder how much they and their friends have gained in their "blind" trusts and investment portfolios from all this?
If another war breaks out whether it's by the US or Israel, then this could blow the lid off an already viotile set of conditions.
The American people are not fouled by this oil grab and we are tired of the blood-thirsty neoconservatives and their gang of Israel Christian Zionist thugs.
We will be withholding out sons and daughters from joining in another international criminal enterprise and will be pressing out congress toward War Crimes and Genocide against those who continue to try and destroy out economy, way of life and leadership in the world.