To subscribe to the Emperor's Clothes newsletter
send an email with
SUBSCRIBE in the subject line to email@example.com
|Have you seen the Emperor's Clothes JUDGMENT! Video? It proves the
Western media lied about Bosnia.
Learn more about JUDGMENT! here.
With Internet Explorer, Best Viewed With Medium Text Size
Jared Israel replies
[Posted 6 April 2003]
For more articles arguing that the Iraq invasion will inevitably strengthen the Iranian regime, go to http://emperors-clothes.com/iraq-iran.htm
[ www.tenc.net ]
Jared Israel Replies
Dear Mr. Hillbut,
Alas, the truth is not simple.
I read Mr. Seales article in the Gulf News and also several similar pieces, such as Gwynne Dyer's article, in the Toronto Star, entitled, "Shia militants await their turn."
Mr. Dyer agrees
with you. He wrote:
The evidence given
to support such assertions is that US and Iranian leaders
have recently made some negative statements about each
statements can be deceptive. For one thing, these
officials are playing to different audiences, and their
respective audiences want and expect them to verbally
attack each other.
Moreover, Iran and
the U.S. have been trading the same hostile statements
for years. Indeed, the mutual attacks seem to get hottest
precisely when Iran and the US are working together on
some covert project. Perhaps this is intended to divert
us, just as members of a gang of pickpockets may stage a
loud argument and then, while the onlookers are absorbed
watching the show, steal their wallets.
articles I will show how this worked during the US-coordinated,
Iranian and Saudi terrorist campaign in Bosnia during the
But for now, let us take up your argument, as expounded by Mr. Dyer, the illustrious writer for the Toronto Star and writer-producer for the BBC and CBC.
Dyer says, the
"radical mullahs" who "control the army
and foreign policy" are shaking with terror "since
President George Bush has put Iran on his 'axis of evil'
hit list. So the more trouble the United States has in
Iraq, the better."
Nicely put. But is it true? This question is important because if Mr. Dyer is wrong, that is, if I am right in saying that Iran welcomes this war because it will inevitably increase Iran's power, and if the ayatollahs are taking concrete steps on the ground to support this war, then the implications are enormous. To start with, if the Iranians are helping the US, there would have to be an understanding between them. Everything points to this conclusion (as we shall see in this and future articles).
And, if so, what does that mean? That the whole US stance - that this war is intended to weaken terrorist forces - is exposed as preposterous. Because whatever one thinks of the US establishment or Saddam Hussein, it is clear that the Iranian regime is one of the strongest supporters of Islamic fundamentalist terror.
The facts on the ground show Iran wants to help the US-led war.
Going by existing
news reports (and, of course, such reports may be
inaccurate or incomplete) Mr. Dyer is quite wrong.
The Iranians, it appears, are actually quite
anxious to help the US side.
For example, consider the following from The Australian. The important part is in the fourth paragraph (emphasis mine).
Does this report
suggest that the Iranian Mullahs, who, Mr. Dyer informs
us, control the military, are doing everything they can
to make things harder for the U.S. side?
In this instance,
the Iranians wouldn't have needed to do anything to
make things a lot worse for the US side. The Iranian
coastal patrol could simply have failed to notice the
Iraqi suicide boats. Or the Iranian patrol could
have seen them too late and fired after they were out of
range. And missed.
If one of those
speedboats had hit the HMAS Kanimbla - a transport ship -
and killed a lot of Australian troops, it would have been
a disaster for the U.S. side.
Note also that
according to the article, Australian ships have gone
"on alert since the discovery of Iraqi boats packed
But this "discovery" was not made by
It was made by the Iranians.
would not have known they needed to go on alert unless
the Iranian military had contacted them and told them
they had intercepted the suicide boats.
suggest that the Iranian and Australian navies are in
close contact, with a previous agreement that the
Iranians would patrol these (for them) familiar coastal
waters to protect Australian ships from suicide attacks?
I could not find any mention of this important incident in the British or American media. Why not? Why doesn't the media want us to know that the Iranians saved the day - indeed, heroically saved the day. (Remember, these were suicide boats, loaded with explosives )
Even The Australian downplayed the incident. Thus, rather than put it on Page 1, where it belonged, they put it on page 2. And instead of giving the article a logical headline, such as:
they gave it the
And the article did not mention the most newsworthy item - namely, that it was the Iranians who saved the day for the US-led coalition - until the fourth paragraph.
Most people don't read more than the headline of an article. Among the minority that do read past the headline, most drop away before the fourth paragraph. So even among the small group who noticed this article, the great majority never learned about the Iranian role.
But at least The
Australian did report this remarkable incident. Which
is more than can be said for the rest of the English-speaking
US and Iran cooperate to destroy a former Iranian ally.
Here is another example.
According to the March 31st Australian Financial Review, the US and Iran have been coordinating actions in northern Iraq where Iran has, reportedly, sacrificed an old ally, the better to cozy up to the Great Satan.
consider the following letter, which we received a few
days ago, regarding an interview in the German
publication, Junge Welt.
It appears that Junge Welt, originally the main Communist youth publication in the GDR (East Germany) is ideologically inclined to portray Iran as part of some uniform Muslim opposition to the war, despite the evidence of their own interview. But here is the letter, so you may judge for yourself:
I find the Junge
Welt interview remarkable. In the past, the US and
Iran maintained a front of extreme hostility even when (indeed,
especially when) they were engaged in the closest
covert cooperation. This was true during the Iran-Contra
affair and during the US-Iranian collaboration in Bosnia;
the public statements they made about each other were
These days, Iran and the US are also trading insults. But, in addition, spokesmen for SCIRI, the Iraqi exile group, sometimes say positive things about the American invasion. SCIRI, as our reader correctly states, is armed and trained and financed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, that is, by Mr. Dyer's mullahs. So, these positive statements about the American war, made by SCIRI, represent Iranian policy.
Are Mr. Dyer and
other commentators simply mistaken when they say Iran
wishes to hinder the US invasion? Or are they
deliberately misinforming us? It appears that at
least one newspaper, the Washington Post, has
indeed lied to give readers the impression that
Iran is fiercely opposing the US in Iraq.
I will present the evidence for this charge in my next article, entitled, reasonably enough, "Washington Post Apparently Lies to Create Impression of Iranian-US Hostility."
[Footnotes Follow The Appeal]
[Make a donation]
We at Emperor's Clothes work hard to bring you important information and analysis. Often we are the first to expose misinformation and lies about US foreign policy and the media. We are beholden to no one. We state our sources, so you can check them. And we post important documents when possible.
We feel *privileged* to be involved with this Website. The work is its own reward. But we also have to pay the bills.
Our articles are *free* and may be freely reposted. They reach hundreds of thousands of people. Therefore, by donating some of your hard-earned money, you will be *doing something useful* to combat the lies of the powerful.
$25, $50, $100, $1000 - every donation helps.
Footnotes and Further Reading
Mr. Hillbut is quoting from the following article:
Toronto Star; April 4, 2003 Friday Ontario Edition;
Section: Opinion; Pg. A25; Headline: Shia Militants;
Await Their Turn; Byline: Gwynne Dyer
The Australian; March 28, 2003 Friday Tc Edition; Section:
World; Pg. 2; Headline: Navy Frigates On Alert For
Suicide Speedboats - War On Iraq: Day Eight; Source:
Matp; Byline: John Kerin
Australian Financial Review; March 31, 2003 Monday;
Section: News; International News; Pg. 11; Headline: Iran
Comes In From The Cold; Byline: Nick Hordern.
This Website is
Read more about the US and Iran...
a donation to
a donation to
a donation to