Iranian History - the Milani Remix

NPR put history in the blender again - this time regarding Iran. On Sunday, Dec. 27th's ATC NPR's Guy Raz interviewed Abbas Milani in order to obscure and minimize the destructive, anti-democratic role the US has played in Iranian history:

[Raz] : "Let's go back for a moment and talk about, specifically, about the US' role. I mean, the basic narrative is that the United States has always played a key role in Iranian politics. This is the narrative widely accepted among the leadership in Iran and, to some extent, by the foreign policy establishment here in Washington, D.C. What is this information based on? Why is this view so widely accepted?"

[Milani] : "I think it is accepted because, like many myths, it has some base in reality and some base in ignorance. If you, in fact, look at U.S. involvement in Iran, U.S. begins to get involved in Iran after World War II. And the first attempt by FDR, the Roosevelt administration, is, in fact, to create what they call a democratic experiment in Iran. And from Roosevelt to Carter, every administration, with the exception of the Nixon administration, pushed behind the scenes, the shah towards a more democratic, a more open society."

The NPR report is essentially a reprise of Milani's Dec. 8th article in The New Republic. In the article and on NPR Milani points out the truth that Iran's clerics were involved in the 1953 coup against Mossadegh that installed the Shah. He uses this fact to pretend that the US role was minimal and that the US role in the Shah's Iran was to push for democracy. I asked an Iranian friend and scholar - Niloofar Shambayati - if she had any insights into Milani's NPR remarks and she noted that

"The fact is that those of us who have read scholarly works on the subject of 1953 military coup, including Ervand Abrahamian’s books, have known for decades about the controversial role of the clerics in that episode of Iranian politics. We have also known that, without the U.S. planning and full force backing, the idea of a military coup could not have materialized. The fact that occasionally American officials nudged the Shah to loosen his grip on the society and politics in order to ensure the continuation of his rule and U.S. hegemony not only adds nothing to the historical narrative of this period and but confirms the pursuance of imperialist agenda by successive Administrations. "

Arash Norouzi echos this analysis as he dismantles the lies and distortions of Milani in a fine point by point rebuttal. Norouzi writes:

"Milani has chosen to counter the Islamic Republic's disengenuous, hypocritical narrative with his own equally deceptive, revisionist narrative. It's a logically bankrupt essay permeated with misleading, feel-good innuendo, signifying much but saying nothing. Repeatedly, Milani tampers with facts, contradicts his own conclusions, and even betrays his own recent statements."

Needless to add, poor Guy Raz is completely inadequate in challenging Milani. Raz asks one challenging [though qualified] question:

"...declassified documents show that the United States helped the Shah create his feared and hated secret police as well. So the U.S. did have a role that could, I think, fairly be described as a meddlesome one at certain points."

Milani simply co-opts the truth and turns it into a bald lie,

"Oh, absolutely. I don't quarrel over that at all. And the gist of the article is that the notion that the U.S. has been only propping up despots in Iran and that the only purpose Iran served for the U.S. was to buy its weaponry and sell its cheap oil does not get to the core of a much more complicated, much more nuanced relationship."

At this point the hapless Raz simply folds and joins in the narrative that Milani is spinning,

"...in your article, you write: This is a seductive narrative, but what's strange is the group that it has seduced, the very meddlers themselves in Washington. What do you mean by that?"

So there it is. The US, the prime engineer of the Shah's installation and supporter of his dictatorship actually was working for freedom and democracy all along. And the proof of this lie? Simply the fact that the corrupt clerical regime in Iran was also complicit in the overthrow of Mossadegh.

Honest Debate - NPR Style

Last Saturday Scott Sermon made this claim about the US war in Afghanistan:

"There is honest debate now about whether the United States should commit more troops to Afghanistan, or withdraw them."

I'm not sure where Simon was hearing "an honest debate" - definitely not on NPR. A case in point was this Friday's ATC which featured a report from Don Gonyea on Obama's coming decision about troop levels in Afghanistan. Following the Thursday feature on Iran (see below) where NPR opted for a thoroughly discredited former UN inspector over one whom history has vindicated - NPR turns to the same playbook, aiming as low as possible in seeking an "expert" to weigh in on whether President Obama will, as Robert Siegel says, "approve a huge troop buildup there."

Most of the piece features über-Neocon Eliot Cohen attacking the possibility that Obama might not follow the advice of General McChrystal to send 40,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. The most unbelievable statement from Cohen was the following:

"If people come away from this thinking, well, the reason why he cut down the request from 40,000 to 25,000 is to make this more palatable for Nancy Pelosi, he has just created another set of problems for himself. And what's worse, he's created problems for our soldiers in the field."

Gonyea doesn't question or challenge this slur from a man who, in an homage to aggression, wrote in the WSJ in November of 2001, "the U.S. should continue to target regimes that sponsor terrorism. Iraq is the obvious candidate, having not only helped al Qaeda...." In April of 2002, Cohen also signed on to this kind of rubbish that contributed to the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis and 4000 US soldiers:

Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorists...and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network.

It is truly mind-blowing how NPR and the corporate media operates. No matter how dishonest, inaccurate, corrupt and servile history has proven certain characters to be - there is not only no accountability for previous behavior, but these figures are featured again and again as objective and disinterested experts. All Gonyea felt necessary to tell us about Cohen was this innocuous introduction: "Eliot Cohen is a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies in Washington." How charming...

America's Fighting Prowess

On Wednesday morning, NPR's Tom Bowman covers two military advisers to McCain and Obama, Richard Armitage and Richard Danzig respectively. After describing Richard Danzing briefly, here's Bowman talking about Armitage:

"...by contrast Armitage is a blunt and forceful man with a shaved head, a Vietnam combat veteran, who lifts weights and runs an international consulting company. Armitage and McCain share a bond of military service - in an earthy sense - of America's fighting prowess [voice of Armitage comes in] 'notwithstanding high tech weapon systems, it's only an infantryman with a bayonet who can take and hold ground and bend an enemy to our will' and it's that infantryman - rather 150,000 of them currently holding ground in Iraq that separates McCain and Obama more than anything else..."

It is a telling piece of "reporting" - more for what we don't find out than for what we do. First, there is no mention that Armitage most recently was in the news because he was at the heart of the Plame leak scandal. That's just the start, though. Notice the euphemism of "runs an international consulting company." That's the polite way of saying he's a blunt and forceful war profiteer, and part of his long lucrative career was his connection to CACI, identified as one of the main operatives in the Abu Ghraib scandal. There is no mention of his active role in the Project for a New American Century, and - further back in time - his involvement in Iran-Contra and possible connections to covert action related drug-dealing.

Yes, I know this all does take a bit of the shine of that imposing skinhead of his. And that BS about "notwithstanding high tech weapon systems" and "an infantryman with a bayonet" - I think we know which one Armitage has parlayed into his tidy millions. Frankly there's something uber-creepy about that "bend an enemy to our will" stuff - a whiff of the waffen (if restricted try here, and scroll down near the bottom) in that one might say. But that's not going to stop Tom Bowman from linking it right up with the "150,000 of them currently holding ground in Iraq." Zounds! Holding what fricking ground, if I might be so bold to ask?

Addendum:

• Another drawback of NPR's scant use of substance in its reports is how a little research might actually make a story more nuanced and interesting. Given that the thrust of NPR's report is how different Armitage/McCain and Danzig/Obama view the idea of withdrawing US troops, Bowman could have asked Armitage about his new change of views (a little over a year and a half ago, he was leading the call for withdrawal and stating his mea culpa on starting the war). That would be interesting.

• Also, in spite of all the warrior-tough guy persona, Armitage has enough of a moral center (unlike some news outlets) to call torture torture and demand that it not be condoned.

IDF Approved Script

If the US or Israel launches a preemptive war against Iran, NPR will have blood on its hands. This morning, four minutes and twenty-two seconds into the little five minute news "summary" that runs at the top of the hour Paul Brown read this:

"Israel's Defense Minister says Israel must consider possible military action to stop Iran's nuclear program. He spoke after Iranian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran has 3000 operational centrifuges for enriching nuclear fuel. Ahmadinejad has called for the elimination of Israel."

This is pure Neocon/Israel Defense Forces rubbish, and NPR knows it. Masbrow has commented on this phony "elimination of Israel" mistranslation. Juan Cole, way back in May of 2006 (!) noted that "gullible and frankly lazy and very possibly highly biased reporters" for the major news outlets were doggedly spreading the mistranslation. It's maddening to have to keep pointing out this utter IDF/Neocon propaganda - but the lie has a virulent life of its own and the cost of ignoring it is very high.

Neocon Public Radio

As Porter pointed out in the "Open Thread" comments below, NPR brings on a couple of neocons -Kenneth Adelman and Joshua Muravchik - and gives them lots of free airtime to offer their propaganda unchallenged and with support from from Scott Simon. The interview serves two main purposes - to shine a positive light on neoconservatism and to propagate anti-Iran misinformation.

Part I: The Glories of Neoconservatism

Simon describes neocons as "...often former liberals...who thought that liberals had accomodated communist totalitarianism at the cost of human rights..."

Adelman states, "....to save people in horrendous situations, which is to me the very essence and the very identity of the neoconservative movement."

Simon asks Muravchik, "What about the idea that stimulating democracy around the world was a good thing?" He then asks Adelman, "How do you see the idea of encouraging democracies around the world - is that idea still looking good?"

Simon simply accepts and asserts that neoconservatism is about human rights and the spread of democracy. There is no critique of Neoconservatism's main ideal - complete US military hegemony over the world to protect our "interests." And, of course, there is not one reference to the historical record of neoconservatism's brutal human rights program as practiced in Latin America.

Part II: The Iranian Nemesis

Simon asks Muravchik to respond to the following statement: "You explore the idea that Iraq might have been the wrong war, the wrong time, the wrong place...the United States has been left out of position to confront a threat in Iran."

Amazing isn't it, how a complete non-threat like Iran, is posited as a threat by Simon.

To which Muravchik responds, "Whatever you might have thought about how much connection there was between Sadaam Hussein and al-Qaeda, what was crystal clear was that THE BIGGEST STATE SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM IN THE WORLD WAS THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN. (Simon can be heard grunting "ummhmm" in agreement).

Not only does Simon not challenge this utterly unsupported assertion, he offers his agreement!

Simon then turns to Adelman "Is the United States just out of position when it comes to credibility on Iran at this point?" Out of position? How about ethically and morally bankrupt.

Adelman claims that "a military solution is impossible in Iran because the main problem is nuclear weapons being developed there, and the nuclear weapons there are hidden buried and dispersed..."

Muravchik accurately corrects Adelman: "Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons," and then rolls on into his own bomb Iran bloodlust, "it has facilities and some of them may be hidden but we know where most of them are, and I believe we can cripple Iran's drive to get nuclear weapons through air strikes...."

Not only are the factual distortions unchallenged in this sorry excuse of an interview, but there isn't even a peep made about the immorality and illegality of an unprovoked air assault on a country that poses no significant threat to the United States.

The Company You Keep

Steve Inskeep followed up yesterday's hostile interview of Jimmy Carter by hosting Emory University history professor Kenneth W. Stein, a critic of Carter's book. In some ways the interview proves the validity of Carter's stated goal - encouraging debate on Israel's land confiscation and human rights atrocities against the Palestinians. Stein is unable to refute the allegations made by Carter against the Israeli government, and when asked about the use of the term apartheid, he is reduced to claiming that just because Israeli policy is in every respect like apartheid it shouldn't be called that (he says just because it looks, walks, quacks and smells like a duck doesn't make it a duck!)

Inskeep instead continues quibbling about Carter's meeting with Assad of Syria in the 1980s and whether his account of it makes the Israelis appear less flexible than the Syrians (as if this is the heart of the book's argument). Stein's weak argument against the book is that it doesn't blame Palestinians enough for corrupt Palestinian leadership and for terrorist acts against Israel, however, he in no way can counter the assertion that Israel is a gross abuser of Palestinian rights and has illegally seized and annexed Palestinian land. In fact he admits that it is true.

What I find significant in this report how blandly it is mentioned that Stein has published a rebuttal to Carter's book in the Middle East Quarterly (and they provide this link to the article). This deserves far more attention. What NPR doesn't tell us is the nasty little organization of extremist Likudnik neocons that runs the Middle East Quarterly - The Middle East Forum. The director of this bunch of smear artists and bigots is the vitriolic Daniel Pipes. That a history professor would want his "work" to appear in such a disreputable forum is indicative of the lack of integrity of his attack on Carter's book - and NPR's neglect in identifying the bias of the Middle East Forum indicates where their sympathies lie.

Finding Out Nothing

There are moments on NPR that reveal the beliefs and assumptions of the announcers and reporters delivering a story. This morning Renee Montagne reports about the doubts surrounding Bush's new "strategy" of escalation for Iraq. She says, "and in Baghdad a reporter told the US Ambassador, 'I just don’t see what has changed.' The US is adding more troops and focusing on security in Baghdad but it’s been tried that before." Not a bad start to a report, but...

Then Steve Inskeep says, "To find out what has changed we called the ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, and we asked him to define the American goal now." Hold it, stop, whoa! Talking to Khalilzad - Bush loyalist, Unocal frontman, and one of the original neocon architects of the Iraq War- is not going to help anyone "find out what has changed." Consider the ways Inskeep could have begun this interview:

Today we are going to get the perspective of US Ambassador in Iraq...
Now we will talk to Zalmay Khalilzad to hear his explanation of the President's plans...

Instead, as is often the case, instead of data, evidence, eyewitness testimonies, or investigation, NPR presents the statement of a powerful government official as if it were factual, legitimate information.