Ready...aim...

I was about to put together a posting noting that the IAEA's new U.S.-backed director general (Yukiya Amano) has tossed aside the evidence-based approach of his predecessor (Mohamed ElBaradei), issuing a report that adopts the U.S. propaganda line that Iran should be assumed guilty until proven innocent, and how the timing of that report dovetails so conveniently with the uptick in belligerent rhetoric coming from Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration...but then I saw that Chris Floyd had already written it, and covered the subject so thoroughly that there's not much left to add on those counts.  So by all means, go read his article right now.

When you get back, here's one thing Floyd didn't mention:

Although much of the research took place nearly a decade ago, the report said some tests "seem to have continued beyond 2004."

The date is significant because it contradicts a bedrock assumption by U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran halted weapons-related research in 2003. U.S. officials are revising their key judgments about whether Iran is seeking nuclear weapons or the capability to quickly produce them. The senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities, said he was "waiting on the intelligence community for a new document" assessing Iran's intentions.

The old document that established this "bedrock assumption" was the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (PDF), which "judge[d] with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program" and "assess[ed] with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007," concluding (in an amusing bit of bureaucratic understatement) that Iran "is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005."  The Obama administration made a point of rejecting the substance of the 2007 NIE just weeks after the inauguration, all but openly declaring its belligerent intentions—even as Obama was lying about his goal of "sitting across the table face to face" with Iran.

Just as the IAEA's relatively cautious assessments under ElBaradei have been the major international argument against the hair-on-fire, Iran-is-going-to-nuke-us-all narrative Obama and his coterie have been hawking, the 2007 NIE has been the major domestic counterargument (I'm talking about mainstream arguments here, by the way, not ideologically unsound responses like "Iran hasn't attacked another country since the 1800s" or "Iran isn't insane" or even "war is wrong").  But now the IAEA's pliant new director general has swept away the international counterargument, and based on the bolded quote above it appears that the Obama administration is planning to finish nullifying the 2007 NIE as well by having the intelligence agencies produce a new report that reaches the right conclusions—namely, conclusions that match the policy, thereby justifying even more hysterically aggressive posturing and threats.

What's crystal clear from all this is that the Obama administration is carefully and methodically removing the roadblocks to a military attack.  So as I said last year, it looks like the decision has already been made to commit the crime of assaulting a country that's no threat to us whatsoever, and all that's left now are the details of how and when.

Comments

[Donald Johnson]

I don't know if one of your links goes to the NYT article today link, but it had an interesting twist--on the one hand the article pushes the notion that Iran is trying really hard to develop nukes and on the other hand they say that the enriched uranium is being stored in a place where Israel could easily destroy it. That, we are given to understand, is a dastardly plot to lure us or Israel into attacking so they can then unite the country against foreign attackers.

The two theories don't seem to mesh very well to me, but it's interesting to see the NYT engaged in conspiratorial speculating that they'd never indulge if they were talking about the US.

[NomadUK]

it looks like the decision has already been made to commit the crime of assaulting a country that's no threat to us whatsoever

You mean, standard operating procedure, then.

[John Caruso]

Look, if Iran didn't want Israel to attack it, it shouldn't have worn that slinky dress and gone for a walk alone in the park.

[Catherine]

I'm sorry I don't recall, but was ElBaradei forced out, or did he resign on his own (assuming anyone knows for sure)?

This is definitely not good.

A logistic question. Are they just going to continue to print money and act as if it's backed up by something of real monetary value?

[John Caruso]

He resigned on his own, though he was subject to constant pressure and harassment from the U.S. and Israel--and it's anyone's guess what was going on behind the scenes. I can definitely understand his decision (whatever the background), but it's a shame, since he was the only major actor with any integrity in this pathetic drama.

[Harold M]

Catherine, the short answer is yes. They're going to keep extending free credit to banksters, pay them interest when the banksters loan it back and while they're doing so they're going to keep attempting to re-inflate the asset bubbles. Ponzi (not to mention the wingnuts) had nothing on these guys. I think some of them, in particular Larry Summers, know just how bad that is and actually get a kick out of it.

[Catherine]

Thanks to John and Harold.

I just read that ElBaradei may run for office in Egypt. God help him.

[redcatbicycliste]

John Caruso, this comment is off-topic, but I don't know how to contact you via email, so you can delete this comment after you have read it. I want to give you a heads-up, because you live in San Francisco: On Monday, 22 February, on KQED Radio (that is 88.5 FM or you can go to kqed[dot]org), on the show hosted by Michael Krasny, called Forum, the attorney John Yoo--the guy who wrote the torture memos--will be on the show, promoting his book, at the nine o'clock hour (9am PST). The show is a listener call-in show, so if you get through, you can hit him with a question and/or a comment. If you are interested in calling in, I'd advise you to dial in the number on your phone (you can go to the station's website to get the call-in number ahead of the show's start), and as soon as the host announces that the phones are open to the audience to call in, press your redial button tout de suite--even if you get a busy/engaged signal, listen to the show, as soon as the first caller asks his question and hangs up, immediately press the redial button on your phone. (If you need clarification on what I've written on how you can get through, you can email me.)

[Expat]

Catherine, John re: ElBaradei
IIRC ElBaradei's term of office was 4 years, he served two further terms of 8 years for 12 years IAEA Director:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei
holding the position until a replacement was agreed and took office. There was no resigning, just normal replacing. ElBaradei's predecessor was Hans Blix, notable for also bringing fact to fore to counter US propaganda, a quality that ElBaradei's successor appears to lack. Integrity walked out the door at IAEA with the departing of the 4th Director.
All this was common knowledge throughout the world with the exception of US population.

[John Caruso]

I meant "resigned" as in "left his position", not "left before his term in office was up"--sorry for any ambiguity. The open question is how much pressure was brought to bear to persuade him not to seek another term, or if he made the decision entirely for his own reasons.

I don't know much about Blix's actions when he was the director general of the IAEA, but as the head of UNMOVIC he was one of the great moral cowards of our time--the one person on the planet who had a real chance of stopping the war, but who chose the path of equivocation and bureaucracy instead (in contrast to ElBaradei, who gave the Bush administration no help at all with its propaganda).

[Expat]

My ambiguity, ElBaradei was not offered the renewal for another term due to pressure from the usual suspects. Resisting the propaganda machine is not done lightly or without consequence, the pressures to conform are enormous. IIRC the continuance in office was not offered, ElBaradei had no choice to make.

IIRC Hans Blix was one of those who reported to UN Security Council the actual state of conditions in Iraq during the assault (run up to the invasion) on Iraq, stating that no WMD were in evidence, that no substance was had in the propaganda allegations. These remarks were totally ignored by the US government, and (probably) the US media. Hans Blix was a hero in integrity against the Cheney/bush administration. It is not a wonder that he would be unknown or unappreciated by those having no other news sources than US propaganda. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix
Read the part:
In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament -- under resolution 687 -- could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided." [5]
Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found. [7]
In an interview with London's Guardian newspaper, Hans Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media" [8]

In 2004, Blix published a book, Disarming Iraq, where he gives his account of the events and inspections before the coalition began its invasion.

[John Caruso]

It was (ostensibly) ElBaradei's choice. The major pressure from the U.S. came in 2004 (in the form of the aforementioned harassment, including wiretapping), and was unsuccessful in keeping him out of office another term.

IIRC Hans Blix was one of those who reported to UN Security Council the actual state of conditions in Iraq during the assault (run up to the invasion) on Iraq, stating that no WMD were in evidence, that no substance was had in the propaganda allegations.

That would have been wonderful, but it's not what he did. Blix produced equivocating reports and comments that were just "balanced" enough to allow the Bush administration to spin them as non-compliance by Iraq, and he did it repeatedly. As Scott Ritter said: "I call him a moral and intellectual coward. [...] For me, Hans Blix had an opportunity to stand up and be counted in the face of history, and history is going to condemn this man for not doing what was necessary in one of the more critical times of modern history."