Weren't Wikileaks meant to be all about embarrassing America? It's amusing that the main point to have emerged so far with this latest tranche of documents is that Arab governments have been putting pressure on the US to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. This shouldn't be news to anyone who's been paying attention, but still, it's not quite the exposure of shady neo-con machinations that many were perhaps hoping for.
The Guardian, one of the main Wikileaks recipients, have gathered together a range of commenters to ponder matters of Wikisignificance: some familiar (Gary Younge, Seamas Milne), some not so familiar. Abbas Edalat and Phil Wilayto, in the latter category for me at least, simply refuse to believe what they're reading:
The latest batch of WikiLeaks revelations give the impression that it is the Arab states that are most energetically pressuring the US to attack Iran. That's definitely putting the cart before the horse.
In the first place, the Arab governments mentioned as being hostile to Iran – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and the United Arab Emirates – are all undemocratic, unpopular regimes that depend on US support to stay in power. As such, they seem to have absorbed the US claims that Iran is the region's greatest threat to peace.
A completely different view, however, is held by these governments' own subjects, among whom Iran's independent stance is hugely popular. According to a recent poll that asked Arab people in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates to name two countries they thought were the greatest threat to the region, 88% stated Israel, 77% stated the US and only 10% mentioned Iran.
This might, of course, have something to do with the relentless diet of anti-semitic and anti-American material that their media pump out. Or indeed knowing just what answers are expected of them.
Without a doubt, Iran does represent a threat to US imperial interests. Iran takes no orders from Washington, its natural resources are off-limits to Western corporations and it has no love for the corrupt, pro-Western governments that dominate the region. As such, it represents an obstacle to US hegemony.
To demonise Iran, the US has for eight years promoted the myth of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme, much as it demonised Iraq through its false charges about weapons of mass destruction. And while this myth has formed the basis for four sets of UN sanctions against Iran, the US has never provided the first shred of proof and its "evidence" of Iran's nuclear weapons studies has now been shown to be simply a fabrication.
No, the principal threat to Iran remains the United States, which for years, prodded by nuclear-armed Israel, has declared that "all options are on the table."
On 5 December, Iran is scheduled to begin revived negotiations with the five permanent UN security council members, plus Germany. This would be an ideal time for Washington to make the following declaration: that it will not attack Iran, will not allow an attack by Israel, will end all sanctions against Iran, will recognise Iran's right under the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue peaceful nuclear power, will return Iran's nuclear file from the UN Security Council to the IAEA in exchange for Iran's stated pledge to allow the intrusive inspections of the IAEA's Additional Protocol and will agree to discuss all outstanding differences in a spirit of mutual respect.
The myth of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme? Good lord. Is there anyone else, anywhere, who believes that Iran's nuclear programme is purely for peaceful purposes?
And the tone of admiration is unmistakeable: a threat to US imperial interests!...takes no orders from Washington!...its natural resources are off-limits to Western corporations!...it has no love for the corrupt, pro-Western governments that dominate the region!...it represents an obstacle to US hegemony! Yes, if you want the latest up-to-the-minute writing in support of a theocratic regime led by a madman who believes in the imminent arrival of the Twelfth Imam, which kills gays, stones women to death, tortures its opponents, pumps out anti-semitic poison while threatening to wipe Israel off the map and maintaining what amounts to an official position of Holocaust denial, then The Guardian - the UK's leading left-wing newspaper - is the place to go.
No doubt if these people had been around in the 30s they would have applauded Germany as 'a threat to US imperial interests', which 'takes no orders from Washington'. A contemptible bunch.
Posted by: Bob-B | November 30, 2010 at 06:51 AM
Sometimes I'm lulled into the belief that, as an English-speaking American that lives in a culture more reflective of Britain's than of any other, I understand your country. But when I ponder the fact of The Guardian's prominent place in English public life--and that it apparently speaks for a fairly large segment of your people--it's clear that I do not understand very much at all.
Posted by: Gene | November 30, 2010 at 04:05 PM
Some commenters, at places like Steve Sailer's, are convinced that the Wikileaks revelations are being orchestrated by ...
"WikiLeaks is obviously a well-executed PR operation. The information they're "leaking" is only damaging to the government on a superficial level. In truth, most of it supports neocon foreign policy aims like invading Iran. Pretending to be on the opposite side than the one you are actually on is very effective as it allows you to make bogus "admissions against interest" (this method is also known online as "concern trolling").
The fact that the mass media keeps talking about WikiLeaks is also a dead giveaway. If it were legit, you'd never have heard about it. Treat this stuff as about as authentic as the Niger yellowcake forgeries."
Posted by: Laban | December 02, 2010 at 02:14 PM