Right after news of a suicide bombing attack in Bulgaria that killed five Israeli tourists, Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu pointed the finger squarely at Iran. For media outlets that are supposed to evaluate claims based on evidence, this could have been a problem. But many outlets took these claims at face value–and in some cases actually bolstered his case.
"Five Israelis Killed in Bulgaria; Netanyahu Blames Iranians," read a New York Times headline (7/19/12). There was no evidence to support this, but look at how the Times' Nicholas Kulish and Matthew Brunwasser worked to shore up the claims:
Iran had no immediate comment on Israel's accusations, and no group claimed responsibility for the blast, which the Bulgarian foreign minister said had been caused by a bomb placed in the bus's luggage compartment. But if the Israeli accusations are confirmed, the Bulgarian blast would be the first successful attempt by Iranian operatives to kill Israelis in attacks abroad after a string of failed bomb plots targeting Israeli diplomats in Georgia, India and Thailand this year.
So we've moved from an allegation without evidence to citing previous allegations of Iranian backing for other attacks. But Iran's role in those incidents remains disputed as well. The Times added that Israeli officials saw another connections, since they noted that
the explosion came on the 18th anniversary of a bombing of an Argentine Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and wounded hundreds, an attack for which Argentine prosecutors have blamed Iran.
Again, allegations are piling up, seemingly in an attempt to bolster Israel's immediate allegations of Iranian culpability. (There are doubts about the Argentina story, as Gareth Porter reported in the Nation– 1/18/08.)
Near the end of the piece, Times readers are warned:
Some Iran analysts in Israel counseled caution about assigning responsibility for the Bulgaria blast until more evidence was presented.
But being skeptical should have been the approach all along–not a sentiment tacked on at the end of the article.
The next day (7/20/12), the Times ran another story. Now the finger was being pointed at Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. And this apparently only bolstered the Israeli case:
American officials on Thursday identified the suicide bomber responsible for a deadly attack on Israeli vacationers here as a member of a Hezbollah cell that was operating in Bulgaria and looking for such targets, corroborating Israel's assertions and making the bombing a new source of tension with Iran.
The added information is coming from anonymous U.S. officials, and should be treated with skepticism. What is unambiguously clear, though, are the two assumptions:
a) Hezbollah is responsible ;
b) that group acts on behalf of Iran.
There is no way to assess the first assertion; the public evidence is still nonexistent. But is the second assumption solid? William Beeman, an academic who was written about Iran, had a valuable piece in In These Times (8/15/06) arguing that the ties between Iran and Hezbollah are overstated by many analysts:
Iran's control over Hezbollah has been steadily declining since approximately 1996, during the reformist presidency of Mohammad Khatami. Money does continue to come "from Iran" to support Hezbollah, but not the Iranian government. Instead, it's private religious foundations that direct the bulk of support, primarily to Hezbollah’s charitable activities. Nor are the amounts crucial to Hezbollah's survival; even the high estimate frequently cited in the press–$200 million per annum–is a fraction of Hezbollah's operating funds.
So at this point we have government officials from the United States and Israel pointing fingers either directly at Iran, or at Hezbollah, which they assert acts as an agent of Iran. But the evidence for both is either nonexistent or highly debatable.
Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald (7/20/12) and Megan Iorio at Just Foreign Policy (7/19/12) both point out that the Washington Post treated the Israeli allegations more skeptically–which they should, as should any reporter.
It is entirely possible that evidence will emerge to substantiate the U.S./Israeli argument. Indeed, given the recent killings of Iranian scientists, one might expect some attack in response. But so far, that evidence has not emerged. One has to wonder how media would treat similarly unsubstantiated allegations if they were coming from a hostile government. Something tells me that you'd see a lot more skepticism.
About Peter Hart
Actually, Iran condemned all terrorist acts. Iran has been a victim of terrorism by Israel, the US and their lackeys like Jundullah and MKO. Iran also condemned the terrorist bombing in Syria that killed some top officials. However, the State Department refused to condemn the Syria bombing. I guess the lives of Israelis are worth a lot more than the lives of Syrians in American eyes (we already knew that, but now it is official).
Kinda interesting that the day after the bombing in Bulgaria, a lone gunman in the US decides to shoot-up a movie theatre. Is random criminal violence never considered an optional explanation? Did the Bulgarian bomber even know the religious identity of his victims? Could the Israeli victims simply been at the wrong place at the wrong time? We'll never know of course because any excuse to vilify Iran is sufficient to run a headline.
Given the threats of attack from Israel and the US, and the desire for an excuse to do so, you have to ask what benefit Iran would realize from this, don't you?
In this context, I don't see retribution for the assassination campaign to be a sufficient motive for an unalloyed act of terrorism.
Of course, that's thinking rationally.
Something the corpress avoids assiduously when it comes to Israel and Iran.
Here is the quote from Pentagon spokesperson, George Little: "The attack does bear some of the hallmarks of Hezbollah but we're not in a position to make any final determination on who was responsible," Little stated.
That's not a lot to 'run with'… ^..^
Frankly, I'm surprised the Israelis haven't blamed the Cinema attacks in Denver on the Iranians. It would make about as much sense.
When I read about the bomber and his having a drivers license from Michigan, I had a first thought and I don't know if Iran deals with that phony credit card and license stuff, but a group did use phony I.Ds from all over the world. Now when I read about phony I.Ds I think of that big scam that Mossad pulled using people's I.Ds and credit cards from both Israeli and Irish citizens. That's the first thing I thought of, and my first thought isn't fair either, because I have no evidence, just a past incident too.
why do I get a sense of Deja-moo? The feeling that we have all seen this Bull sit before.
I think people should initiate a campaign of writing in to the media outlets to tell them that they will simply never believe anything the Israelis say about anything ever again – and that they do not believe American sycophants to Neocon/Israeli policy either. We need to show the a**holes that lying to us has a cost: their credibility immediately, and hopefully their entire business in time.
Send in postcards that read, in big letters:
Who ——————————– SCORE
American/Israeli Media Lies — 0
Iran's Resulting Credibility —– 1
and every time they lie, up the count for Iran. Show them that lying about Iran only proves that Iran is innocent and that the lies are self-defeating.
Netenyahu wants regime change . . . in America . . . more than he wants it in Iran. It is well known that he dislikes Obama and would prefer the extremist support of the NeoCons, instead. The whole 'Iranian nuke' saber-rattling that Israel is doing is about pushing those "be afraid" buttons that Republicans are so fond of. Iran has been closely watched for years. 16 US Intelligence agencies determined that Iran had discontinued work on a nuclear weapon in 2003 (when we invaded Iraq and found out for them that Saddam had no WMDs), and the assessment still holds. What they want is nuclear ENERGY and both the US and Israel know it.
The one thing EVERY American voter should know is that the issue with Iran is NOT nuclear weapons, it is OIL. Iran has no nuclear weapons in production. Mark my words: the closer we get to the election, the more Netenyahu is likely to keep pushing alarms, even accusing Iran of things that it isn't doing or influencing at all – hoping to make it look like Obama is not willing to stop WWIII by helping the Israelis bomb Iran! This will presumably make Obama look like the kind of "soft on terror" president that Americans won't tolerate and he will lose the election. Don't fall for it! Let me repeat: Iran has no nuclear weapons in production. Unless it can sell some of its crude oil for money – and our sanctions are now making THAT impossible – Iran can't afford to do much of anything. The Western powers are hoping that the mullahs will fall as the Iranian economy collapses, but it's a huge gamble. After all, SANCTIONS ARE ACTS OF WAR, so we shouldn't be too surprised if Iran pushes back by closing shipping lanes or something. It is all about regime change and getting Iranian oil back into Western control. It's about the Empire getting its way.
After its irresponsible way of dealing with the weapons of mass destruction issue in Iraq, one would have thought that the New York Times would have learned to be more cautious about unsubstantiated claims.
Prime Minister Netanyahu's interest in immediately claiming that Iran is behind the vicious terrorist act against Israeli civilians in Bulgaria is understandable. He immediately cries "Iran" at every opportunity, to ratchet up the pressure against the Iranian nuclear program, and to constantly divert attention from his lack of initiative to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
The international media should be aware of this dynamic. According to the latest public opinion polls in Israel, the Israeli public is be becoming disenchanted with Netanyahu's ineptitude in many spheres of Israeli life, and except for his house organ
Yisrael Hayom, the mass circulation freebee financed by Sheldon Adelson, Netanyahu's behavior is a constant subject of criticism in the rest of the mainstream Israeli media.
Netanyahu is reported to have said that "The New York Times (clearly referring to Tom Friedman, Roger Cohen, Nicholas Kristof and the editorial columns) and Haaretz (the Israeli liberal daily critical of Netanyahu's policies) are Israel's enemies". The editors of the New York Times should consider that a badge of honor.
When Iran is the target of terrorism, the NYTimes isn't even sure if the word "terrorist" applies, since they're, you know, Iranians:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/iran-reports-killing-of-nuclear-scientist.html?pagewanted=all
So, the official Israeli reaction is apparently a Facebook posting that confesses the Israeli military spokesman doesn't know which Mossad agent was assigned to kill the Iranian civilian…
It's clear why Israel expects retaliation all over the world from the Iranians.
One has to wonder how media would treat similarly unsubstantiated allegations if they were coming from a hostile government. Something tells me that you'd see a lot more skepticism. – The Article
No, we would see (in the main stream media) folks all screaming 'See, See, we told you so, even these guys don't like them', this is people who want the fights to happen. Anything and everything they can use will be; even if they have to lie and make it up on the spot.
Im actually surprised no one has blamed it on the tea Party.Well not yet anyway.
My problem with all this is if Iran or Hezbollah admits this, two things will happen….Most people on these sights will say they are lying, or the press who reported it are lying.And two…..They will say- well they deserved it.Im glad support for Israel on this sight is fifty percent.Ok stop laughing…..it was a joke but not all that funny.
"Sentence first, then trial," said the Queen.
There is a parallel between mainstream media’s present day propaganda against Iran and the pre-Iraq-war propaganda which started during Clinton's administration. The goal is to keep the heat on Iran in order to justify the sanctions. The sanctions are intended to weaken the government and people of Iran before an Iraq style invasion, much the same way the lesser matadors weaken the bull by exhausting and bleeding him before the toreador shows up and “bravely” deals the final blow. The weakening of Iraq started with Bush the first and continued with Clinton who bombed Iraq bi-weekly and whose sanctions killed 1.5 million Iraqis. Clinton killed more Iraqis than did Bush the lesser.
This is about regime change. The US didn't lose in Iraq. They have a much more sympathetic regime than Saddam's. The US owns almost all of Middle East by proxy. The goal is to have one such regime in Iran as well. BTW, this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. When it comes to foreign policy they are both Neocons.
Freespirit
Invasion of Iran is not in the cards at all.Not from any geopolitical stratagem experts could even dream up …..short of a direct attack on us by Iran or on our national interests.It is just not what we are trying to achieve there.We are trying to stop them from working toward a bomb because in their hands it is a very destabilizing force in that part of the world.I don't know to what lengths we will go to stop them,or more importantly the Israelis.I think in the end we will find Iran will have the bomb in fragrant violation of all their promises.We will be left then to surround them with an ABM ring of steel and the solemn promise that if they authorize the release of nuclear weapons- they will be a sea of glass shortly after.How sad.I see Iran as ultimately a friend of this country.Such wonderful people.Led ……..by madmen.
Yes yes I hear the chant that America wants to invade the middle east en total.As if our boots on the ground mean to stay forever.News for you…….Develop our own resources and we wont need the middle easts oil.
Michael, you need to shed yourself of imperialist thinking. Whose is WE? Who gave YOU the right to make decision for the rest of the world?
In saying "we" I am including America under the stated stance of our elected leaders.Policy.From the president through the house and senate, including his cabinet dignitaries, secretary of state etc.That being the "we'.We- of course will act in our own national interest above all else.Those positions thankfully so far are echoed by the majority of the world body, including the UN.Though of course that will not be the deciding factor in any defense of our own national interest..Did I misstate that position?
You see I find people on your side of the coin have no respect for Iran.They openly threaten and you poo poo them away like children.You laugh at the maniac in the room waving a gun.Dangerous game."We" on my side of the coin listen to what they say and do, with laser like interest….and respect.We take them seriously, and prepare to counter their threats.If Iran wants better relations with the west it is as easy as taking a few steps to stop the threatening posture.If we want better relations with Iran pray tell what should we do?
I
Iran is defenseless against a nuclear Israel. But that is rarely mentioned in context. When some are afraid for their lives, as Iran is, they will bluster in hopes of it keeping the dangerously armed away. But as we have seen only if you have nuclear weapons will the mighty nations back off. (See the USA and N. Korea for a recent example.) Also Iran has been following the law and joined a nuclear monitoring group that the USA, Israel, Pakistan, N. Korea and India have not. What do we see here? If you follow the law you will become a pariah and the lawless are not touched. Good or bad they have nothing to fear from IAEA inspectors, but Iran does.
Ironically Iran is considered in the region to be a stabilizing influence and Israel to be the destabilizing factor. And the USA backing them 100% makes for a poor diplomat in this area.
Ask Bank of Beirut