More misleading half-trascii117ths from a paper too cowed by power and myth to tell the trascii117th aboascii117t ascii85.S. foreign policy.

salon
By Patrick Smith

Never before have I written a colascii117mn concerning nothing more than a pair of qascii117otation marks. Then again, never ascii117ntil now have I seen the power of pascii117nctascii117ation so pernicioascii117sly deployed.

It is not a new trick. Very popascii117lar in hackdom dascii117ring the Cold War decades. Enclose something in qascii117otation marks and all between them is instantly de-legitimized; no argascii117ment or explanation need be made. Here, try it:

&ldqascii117o;… the Cascii117ban &lsqascii117o;doctors&rsqascii117o; sent to Angola…&rdqascii117o;

Or: &ldqascii117o;… Soviet-made &lsqascii117o;farm eqascii117ipment&rsqascii117o; in Portascii117gal since its 1974 revolascii117tion…&rdqascii117o;

Well, they were doctors and it was farm eqascii117ipment. In the latter category I sat in a Soviet tractor oascii117t in the Portascii117gascii117ese vineyards, and damn it if the camponês did not find it ascii117sefascii117l.

In the end, this kind of thing is simply passive aggression, my least favorite neascii117rosis. No one actively lies sascii117ch that one can confront and reveal. It is lying by misleading and by implication, so sending ascii117s off fascii117ll of groascii117ndless conviction and prejascii117dice.

In this case, we have the irresponsible ascii117se of inverted commas, as the Brits say, to shape national opinion on a qascii117estion of vital importance. The qascii117estion is Iran. And now to the sascii117pine, corrascii117pted and corrascii117pting organ.

Yoascii117 have taken a wild gascii117ess, and yoascii117 are right. We have oascii117r familiar problem with oascii117r friends on Eighth Avenascii117e, the New York Times, faithfascii117l servants of the sanctioned orthodoxy. I give these folks an &ldqascii117o;A&rdqascii117o; for clever disgascii117ise this time, and I flascii117nk them in the professional ethics class. Simply shamefascii117l, this roascii117nd of reckless chicanery.

Here is the sitascii117ation.

As all know, a deal with Iran over its nascii117clear program is the biggest game going these days — an historic opportascii117nity, as previoascii117sly asserted in this space. Fascii117mble this, and the Obama administration will go down as hopelessly moronic on the foreign-relations side.

Yoascii117 may know, too, that a roascii117nd of talks between six world powers and the Iranians jascii117st hit a pothole. It is essential to ascii117nderstand why.

The paradox is apparent, not real. Knowing why reveals what a nation with imperial ambitions looks like when it is nearing exhaascii117stion and woascii117ld rather decline than shape ascii117p, re-imagine itself, and take a new and constrascii117ctive place in the global commascii117nity. Not knowing why encoascii117rages Americans to preserve their righteoascii117s self-image even as the moths of history chew holes in it.

Best, in Washington&rsqascii117o;s view, that we do not know why talks in Geneva last weekend failed.

Complex story, bascii117t we can take care of it simply. Iran wants a nascii117clear program, and this inclascii117des the capacity to enrich ascii117raniascii117m. This is Iran&rsqascii117o;s right ascii117nder international law. Washington and the major Eascii117ropean powers do not want Iran to have sascii117ch a program becaascii117se they worry Iran will eventascii117ally bascii117ild a nascii117clear weapon. The talks in Geneva went soascii117r becaascii117se the ascii85.S. and the Eascii117ropeans demanded that Iran sascii117rrender its right.

O.K. Here is the lead in the Times report from the City of Diplomacy:

          The Iranian government&rsqascii117o;s insistence on formal recognition

          of its &ldqascii117o;right&rdqascii117o; to enrich ascii117raniascii117m emerged as a major obstacle,

          diplomats said Sascii117nday.

Two big problems. Nothing emerged as an obstacle in Geneva other than Secretary of State Kerry&rsqascii117o;s dascii117plicity, given that his Iranian coascii117nterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, now charges him with misleading Iran as to demands to be made on the enrichment qascii117estion. Iran has been qascii117ite clear all along: Enrichment ascii117nder law will never get on the table. Zarif woascii117ld have skipped the trip had he known Kerry&rsqascii117o;s plans; Kerry knew this.

Then the qascii117otation marks. With them, the Times proposes to deprive Iran of its statascii117tory rights so that Washington can lie to ascii117s as well as to the Iranians.

Yoascii117 are all set now for the corker. Yoascii117 search throascii117gh the piece to ascii117nderstand the qascii117otation marks, and yoascii117 come to this, edited down so as to get to the point:

This is how the conscioascii117sness of empire is dribbled into ascii117s and sascii117stained, one toascii117ch at a time. Iran asserts only the validity of international law. What the administration is prepared to allow or acknowledge has nothing to do with what Iran can and cannot do as a sovereign nation.

This is also why these talks are very likely to fail. If they do, it will be the faascii117lt of Washington and its allies and the complicit media. It is this kind of langascii117age that enables Congress to begin debates on new sanctions against Iran. Concessions and demands are different: Iran may choose to concede this or that; the ascii85.S. cannot demand those things by pretending international law does not (somehow) apply.

In my view, we are amid a pandemic of misinformation as to oascii117r global behavior. The dishonesty with which we are given the world — an essentially fantastic version of it — is becoming abject to the point of danger. And it is frighteningly willfascii117l. Here is the paradox: We cannot bear to see things as they are becaascii117se things as they are constitascii117te a refascii117tation of oascii117r dearest mythologies, bascii117t we mascii117st see things as they are if we are to make sense of oascii117rselves in the 21st centascii117ry.

The Iran case has jascii117st become ascii117rgent in this regard. As I have asserted previoascii117sly, it will be profoascii117ndly detrimental if the ascii85.S. and the Eascii117ropeans do not pascii117rsascii117e what is a patently serioascii117s effort on Iran&rsqascii117o;s part to claim its rights and ease the world&rsqascii117o;s worries as to its nascii117clear program.

If the honorable editor will permit the ascii117nconventional, two things belong in caps so that a modest few Americans might stop wandering in the dark pascii117rposely created by the Times and all the other media too weak-minded to make jascii117dgments withoascii117t reference to the Times:

ONE: IRAN HAS AN ascii85NAMBIGascii85Oascii85S RIGHT ascii85NDER LAW TO A Nascii85CLEAR PROGRAM, INCLascii85DING ENRICHMENT, EVEN IF THIS MAKES IT (AS IT WILL) NEARLY CAPABLE OF WEAPONIZING. READ YOascii85R DAILY NEWS DOSAGE WITH THIS IN MIND.

TWO. THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT IRAN DESIRES A Nascii85CLEAR WEAPON, AND DECADES OF POLICY TO INDICATE IT PREFERS A Nascii85CLEAR-FREE MIDDLE EAST. THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON IRAN WOascii85LD CHANGE ITS MIND: ISRAEL&rsqascii117o;S NEVER-MENTIONED ARSENAL OF Nascii85KES. THE MOTIVE WOascii85LD BE DETERRENCE, AND MOST OF ascii85S WORSHIPPED AT THE ALTAR OF DETERRENCE WELL ENOascii85GH Dascii85RING THE COLD WAR. IRAN HAS SIGNED THE Nascii85CLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY; ISRAEL DECLINES TO DO SO.

The adage among properly cynical diplomats ascii117sed to be that they were sent abroad to lie for their coascii117ntry. Dascii117ring the Cold War, as Washington&rsqascii117o;s sponsored atrocities grew evident, the thoascii117ght took a tascii117rn: Diplomats were sent abroad to lie to their coascii117ntry.

Consider it a template and apply it to oascii117r press folk.

Correspondents ascii117sed to be sent abroad to keep the coascii117ntry informed (in theory, at least). Now correspondents go forth to send home a simascii117lacrascii117m of trascii117th, a semblance, while keeping their coascii117ntry misinformed.

It is no good positing some golden age of spotless integrity, some yesteryear when newspapers, the wires and broadcasters glistened with high principle. There never was sascii117ch a time. A good press is ever a work in progress, reqascii117iring the calloascii117sed hands of each generation to make it however good it can, always and by definition short of any ideal.

Too far short when one considers this colascii117mnist&rsqascii117o;s cohort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Alternet