The Americans Only Look Simple-Minded

Over the past two months and following passage of the first U.N. Security Council resolution that imposed sanctions on Iran, many newspapers and analysts in the United States – both political and military – have discussed the possibility of a military attack against the Islamic Republic. Since this broad propaganda campaign began and with the declaration of a new U.S. strategy in Iraq, there have been a variety of reactions within the United States. Analyzing these reactions reveals important facts that will help us understand the dimensions, goals, quality and results of this propaganda campaign. Here, let us examine some of these:

1) Who is it that has suggested the possibility of a military attack in the form of air raids and missile attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities and military centers? A close examination of these stories reveal that anti-war groups and critics of the U.S. military policy, from journalists like Seymour Hersh and politicians like Clinton, Albright and Powell to veteran military commanders of the Pentagon, have frequently pointed to imminent military action, while those who strongly deny such a plan are chiefly the neo-conservatives, including Bush, Rice and the U.S. secretary of defense. Therefore, the question arises: If talk of a possible military attack on Iran is mere propaganda and part of a strategy of psychological warfare, why should those directing such a tactic deny plans for an attack; and why do those seeking to neutralize these neo-con policies take them so seriously? The manner in which Bush and his supporters claim that his opponents are harping on the likelihood of a military assault and the way his opponents indicate their belief that an attack is imminent indicates that a consensus of sorts has formed around the issue.

2) Experience shows that U.S. media propaganda is anything but random, and we know that getting the word out through these media outlets costs hundreds and thousands of dollars per second and line. Seven military actions taken by the United States over the past half century in Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq, have always been preceded by similar propaganda campaigns. The outlets that direct such propaganda, such as CNN and Fox News, are affiliated with neo-conservatives and the Zionist lobby. That is why these extensive efforts to create such an atmosphere against Iran cannot be regarded as random, and are in fact the continuation of a propaganda campaign against the Islamic Republic that began long ago.

3) Over the past two months, this propaganda campaign has garnered considerable advantages for the United States. Passed by the U.N. Security Council, Resolution 1737 has succeeded beyond all expectations. This, after it was assumed by some [Iranian officials] that many countries wouldn’t abide by it. Apart from the 5+1 group [the U.N. Security Council plus Germany], relatively neutral countries including Japan, Switzerland and the Netherlands – and even Iran’s traditional supporters such as India and South Africa – have enforced the sanctions. The European Union has even intensified sanctions beyond what has been ordered by Resolution 1737. And while it took over eight months to pass the first resolution on sanctions – from March to November 2006 – it took only a month to pass the second resolution. According to the 5+1 members, the second resolution calling for the intensification of the sanctions will be approved by the end of March. [Resolution 1747 was passed unanimously March 24 ]. Therefore, achievements of America’s psychological warfare in the realm of nuclear diplomacy, the prompt enactment and execution of the first sanctions resolution and impending approval of the second – reveal how deep and complex this campaign is.

4) America’s twelve-year performance between the two wars against Iraq (1991-2003), which combined diplomatic, economic and propaganda efforts, show that this apparently non-military combination was in fact put into effect at the behest of the U.S. war apparatus, and was designed to actually pave the way to a final attack against Iraq.

Secondly, it is clear that being intimidated and surrendering to the combined diplomatic, economic and propaganda pressure doesn’t discourage Washington from seeking to achieve its ultimate goal. We can see this, since Saddam Hussein made unthinkably important concessions, including sacrificing Iraqi national sovereignty, dismantling its military capabilities, unlimited cooperation with [U.N. weapons] inspectors and representatives of the West and … and was clearly ready to meet any other demands of the United States. But yet all of these concessions only served to pave the way for the American invasion.

This is an important fact for analysts who think that America’s psychological war is aimed merely at demoralizing and imposing surrender on Iran: surrender will not remove the threat nor will ignoring it bring us security.

5) The U.S. propaganda campaign may lead [Iranian] leaders to the wrong conclusions about the threat. America’s military history shows that it is to the Pentagon’s undeniable advantage to leverage a rival’s ignorance about the threat or the zone of danger. Therefore, all the hubbub about American warships in the Persian Gulf and the deployment of fresh American troops in Iraq may be to draw the attention of Iranian officials to the south and southwest, while U.S. action in the northwest or northeast may be the real zone of danger. And while national security threats in ethnic areas have become a major concern of our officials, infiltration by the enemy’s security forces might produce even more destructive consequences. It is well to keep in mind that misinformation in regard to threats is a key hidden layer of the psychological and propaganda war in the media, and that these issues are usually lost into heat of debate over the question of whether the threat really exists or is mere illusion.

6) The role of this wave of propaganda in deflecting the attention of Iranian officials from the diplomatic and economic cost of this quarrel between Iran and the U.S. should not go ignored. In fact, one of the main achievements of this campaign is the effect it has had on the living conditions of the middle and lower classes, who form the main pillar of support for the Islamic system. The gradual increase in capital outflows makes Iranian society increasingly vulnerability to shock and crisis.

Reviewing the Iraqi case reveals the role of these pressures in reducing the country’s resistance. In other words, we must ask ourselves whether it benefits us to turn the quarrel between Iran and American into a “war of attrition.” The perception of safety just because several months have passed without military action – while we have had to pay the price in other ways – is a perception fully at the service of our rival’s interests.

7) Pinning our hopes on the U.S. domestic debate and the differences between the two main American political parties strengthens the illusion that no real threat exists. Indeed, the Democratic Party of the United States has closer ties to the Jewish lobby and Israeli government than the Republican. If we accept that the Zionist lobby is the Islamic Republic’s enemy number one, it would be overly optimistic to expect these Zionist allies to take measures that may be beneficial to Iran.

Frank statements to the Zionist lobby [AIPAC] by Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic Presidential candidate for the next election, highlight this fact. More important, Democratic support for Republican policies in regard to the confrontation with Iran exposes the disparity between the Democratic Party’s sham opposition and their concealed will. This demonstrates that not only the two main political parties but the entire government of the United States supports threatening the Islamic Republic.

Nevertheless, the Islamic Republic’s diplomacy should not ignore the opportunity presented by the opposition of prominent political and military figures to military action, which can be observed across the American political spectrum.

8) It should be obvious that two factors – reducing our vulnerability to pressure and increasing our capacity to retaliate – are what are most needed to reduce the threat and likelihood of military action against Iran. While these facts may not appear too complicated, many of our officials have neglected them!

Strengthening and highlighting our strengths, or at least reducing our weaknesses economically, politically, militarily and socially is the most vital duty of leaders, political factions, the media and our social activists.

The emphasis of the Leader of the Revolution [Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei] on greater coordination and the need to seriously threaten the enemy’s interests shows that senior officials of the Islamic system have adopted this strategy. But it seems that the implementation of this strategy, just like so many other directives of the Leader of the Revolution, have not been taken seriously by lower level officials.

In conclusion, we should make mention of the first trap set by the Americans in their new propaganda campaign: to encourage us to belittle it as simple-minded. This pleases our rival more than anything else. It could be said that a realistic analysis and the gradual, calculated and targeted dissemination of information throughout society acts as a vaccine and strengthens public morale in the face of such threats.