ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:

Experts on both Iran and nuclear proliferation said Bush’s remarks about Iran on March 20 were just plain wrong. So, why is Bush distorting the truth, escalating tensions, and provoking Iran and its people?

Follow this link to the original source: "Iran a Nuclear Threat, Bush Insists [1]"

COMMENTARY:

While most people in the United States were concentrating on pre-Easter Holy Week services, President Bush, on March 20, was speaking in an interview intended for the Iranian public and beamed over the U.S.-funded Radio Farda, which broadcasts in Farsi. Bush's radio interview, supposedly, was intended to lend "moral support" to struggling freedom movements inside Iran, and was also designed to stress U.S. support for Iran’s bid for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Well, as the saying goes, "he’s got a funny way of showing it."

Bush accused Iran of having openly declared its nuclear weapons intentions, in direct contradiction to a National Intelligence Estimate last December that concluded Iran had stopped its weapons program in 2003. Completely contrary to that report, Bush said, "They’ve declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people — some in the Middle East. And that’s unacceptable to the United States, and it’s unacceptable to the world."

But it just isn’t so. Many experts and analysts disagree strongly with Bush. Joseph Cirincione, president of a global security foundation called Ploughshares Fund, said: "Iran has never said it wanted a nuclear weapon for any reason. It’s just not true. It’s a little troubling that the president and the leading Republican candidate [referring to Sen. John McCain’s statement [1] that Iran is training al-Qaeda that is now excused as a "misspeak"] are both so wrong about Iran." And Suzanne Maloney, a specialist on Iran at the State Department and Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, said: "The Iranian government is on the record across the board as saying it does not want a nuclear weapon … It’s troubling for the administration to indicate that Iran is explicitly embracing the program as a means of destroying another country." Of course, these experts could be wrong. But it is more than a little disqueiting that the intelligence community, State Department officials, and private sector experts all seem to disagree with the President's assessment.

In a second interview with Voice of America’s Persian network, Bush said: "Please don’t be discouraged by the slogans that say America doesn’t like you, because we do, and we respect you." That sounds like shades of the Big Bad Wolf right before he swallowed Little Red Riding Hood, because the President's actions are not as conciliatory as his words.

The very day of the interview the Bush administration warned U.S. financial institutions about the dangers of doing business with Iranian banks. The Treasury Department issued an advisory, saying: "The government of Iran disguises its involvement in proliferation and terrorism activities through an array of deceptive practices," and proceeded to blacklist over 59 major banks and their branches with specific restrictions against Future Bank, a division of Bank Melli. The State Department got in on the act as well with this statement from Sean McCormack: "Over the past eight days, the U.S. government has undertaken a number of steps to put Tehran on notice that the international community will not allow the Iranian government to misuse the international financial system or global transportation network to further its aspirations to obtain nuclear weapons capability, improve its missile systems, or support international terrorism."

It bears recalling that the Bush administration was prone to exaggeration once before in an attempt to foment war. Prior to the Iraq debacle, the administration seemed to repeat on a daily basis the mantra, "they have weapons of mass destruction." We now know that to have been untrue, but it was a convenient exaggeration that has led to 4,000 American soldiers dead, untold numbers of dead Iraqi civilians, and the perpetuation of extreme and virulent anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East.

It might now be reasonably asked what response can be expected from Iran when patently false, aggressive, and bellicose verbiage is used by the administration? What end does the president now seek?

You can be "the decider" on this one.