WaPo: Security Council (Doesn't) Set Deadline for Iran (Again)

[leveymg]

Reading The Washington Post these days is all about the art of comparing the headlines, which tend to mimic the Bush-Cheney-Rove political line, with the facts reported in the news articles they get tacked onto.

The WaPo, as its known here abouts, is of two distinct minds. The headlines are the product of the editorial suite, which often contradicts what those who report on the news actually write. When facts sneak past the editor, you have go looking for them, buried inside the story. There's nothing really new about that, as anyone who's ever worked for a large newspaper will tell you, but the split between the left and the right sides of the brain of Washington's last newspaper is getting more noticable.

For instance, here's the headline in today's edition:

Security Council Sets Deadline for Iran

The subtitle and opening paragraphs seem to back that assertion up, as follows:

U.N. May Impose Sanctions Unless Nation Ends Nuclear Activity by Aug. 31

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; Page A11

UNITED NATIONS, July 31 -- The U.N. Security Council approved a resolution Monday demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear fuel by Aug. 31 or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

The resolution, passed 14 to 1, represented the first time that the international body has legally required Iran to halt its enrichment of uranium. It increased pressure on Tehran to begin negotiations -- with Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -- aimed at addressing international concerns that it may be developing nuclear weapons.

Right down the line, that's what Bush, Cheney, Rice and Bolton have been saying would happen if Iran failed to give up its nuclear fuel enrichment program. And, that's all that most Americans ever hear. But, that's NOT what really happened at the U.N. yesterday. If we read though that same article past the fold to the second page, we encounter an entirely different story, as told be Colum Lynch (couldn't be a nom d'plume?):

"Chinese and Russian envoys, meanwhile, sought to play down the threat of sanctions, saying the chief aim of the resolution was to invite Iran to resume negotiations and to support efforts by U.N. nuclear experts to secure greater cooperation from Tehran.

Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, agreed to support the resolution only after striking language that could have been used to initiate military action."

The next paragraph reverts to WaPospeak, the talking point the Administration would like us to retain:

"John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Iran can either "choose the route of cooperation" -- and accept the offer to resume negotiations -- "or they can choose not to, in which case we will be back here in a month looking at a sanctions resolution."

Did you, too, pick up on that dissonance between what Bolton is saying and Ambassador Chrukin's statement? If you were the typical American, you'd never have read what the Russians are actually saying. That's because the headline writers (I hate to use the word) lie. If you want to get to the real substance of the subject, you should take the pie-lover's approach to the daily feed: read the paper inside out. Start at the top of the second page of the story. That's where you'll usually find the really good stuff, the writer's own take on the subject. The reporter's own take on the news tends to be more factual than the headline-writing editor's.

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS OR CARTE BLANCHE FOR WAR WITH IRAN?


So, what are these threatened UN sanctions, if China and Russia continue to refuse to sign on to any UN resolution that might form the legal pretext for an American military strike against Iran? What exactly does the Bush Administration think is going to change between now and the end of this month, when the next UN vote comes, that might alter the votes of two permanent members of the Security Council?

Whatever the White House has in mind, without the votes of Russia and China, military action against Iran isn't going to get the U.N. seal of approval. This all seems to be a replay of the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. The point isn't so much to get the Security Council to agree unanimously to a strike against Iran -- because that's not going to happen -- it's to try to get most Americans to BELIEVE that the U.N. has agreed to "sanction" an attack, even though it won't.

Because the U.S. invaded Iraq following "U.N. sanctions" of the Saddam Hussein regime, most Americans will get the impression that any sort of U.N. vote against Iran -- even if its expressly limited to some sort of trade restrictions -- means a go-ahead for military action. That's the point of today's WaPo headline, and those like it splashed across the American corporate media. That isn't an isolated or unintentional error in news coverage. Everyone in the world knows it, except the majority of Americans, who get their news from CNN, MSNBC, Faux, the networks, or one of the surviving daily newspapers.

Here's what they're not telling you: all the members of the U.N. Security Council aren't going to impose economic sanctions while the Bush-Cheney regime still occupies the White House with a rubber-stamp legislature. Everyone else wants to avoid a real U.S.-Iran war, and practically nobody wants Tehran to have real nuclear weapons. So, this is a long, drawn-out dance, of sorts. If one wants meaningful international steps to halt Iran's nuclear program, we will have to wait for the adults to come back to Washington.

There's yet another reason to be highly skeptical about any talk of U.N. sanctions on Iran. The notion that an economic sanctions regime would be effective, even if everyone agreed to vote for it, just doesn't square with reality.

You wouldn't know it from American headline news, but for the past twenty years something like international economic sanctions have been in place on Iran, and it hasn't made much difference. Iran simply exports so much oil, at an inflated price because of the added risk-value and scarcity created by the American-led military action in the region, that Iran's economy has been growing rapidly. That has afforded Tehran the luxury of a nuclear program in addition to a formidable conventional and chemical arms inventory, while it continues to meet the basic needs of most of its growing population.

In fact, something resembling the facts are buried way in the back pages of the Washington Post, if you look for them, but they're there. Example 2, the very same WaPo that is a big part of the RW Noise Machine now has an on-line version that they're trying to market as PostGlobal. You have to go looking for it at the site -- it requires a lot of clicking and backtracking to find, but Eureka, there it is in a little page reserved for commentary from "The World Community". Consider the following commentary in light of Bolton's threat about a "sanctions resolution":

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/ali_ettefagh/2006/07/against_all_odds.html

Against All Odds Iran Trades On
By Ali Ettefagh | July 28, 2006; 11:07 AM ET

Tehran, Iran - For the last 25 years, international trade with Iran has been subject to an unfair, albeit failed political agenda to isolate Iran with sanctions. Blocking Iran's WTO application was a cheap political tool. But alas, Iran's natural gas and oil reserves remain in demand.

The ambitious Doha Development Agenda of WTO started in mid-1990s in a world much different from today. The mood was very positive. It was probably the most vibrant, peaceful time that the world has experienced in living memory. Ideological differences and the Cold War were set aside. The rich and the less fortunate were busy with joint ventures and investments. Financial and fiscal discipline in governments was the gospel.

Though a long road still lies ahead, Iran has made noticeable progress with reform of its regulatory structure and has diversified its economy. Revised and simplified tax, currency, import and foreign investment laws are some of the results. A privatization program is in progress to reduce state ownership in the economy and open the market to competition.

Iran's state-planned economy is now self-sufficient or a net exporter of items that were on its import roster merely a decade ago: grains, cars, steel, construction materials, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, and many industrial products. As a trader and producer, Iran is gaining market share in other (non-WTO) markets such as Afghanistan, Central Asia, Iraq, Russia and Syria. Export sales supplement dynamic demand at home where more than 30% of Iranian population is less than 30 years old. Despite all foreign pressures, Iranian GDP growth ranks along with China, India and Turkey.

Success of globalization is pegged to reduced political tensions. Sustained purchasing power and jobs in meaningful production must overcome cultural rifts and prejudices focused on immigration. It is necessary to maintain trade and interaction in our highly interconnected world, be it in the Middle East, North America or Europe.

That commentary may be disguised as a piece about trade -- which would explain how it snuck into the WaPo -- but it tells me a lot about why the push by the White House and the E-3 toward "economic sanctions" against Iran at the UN is a sham, and the rest of the world knows it.