Why Are the MSM So Strangely Silent on Iran?

This last Friday the senior Iranian Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami (not to be confused with the moderate politician Mohammad Khatami) declared that Iran is already a nuclear state and that the Americans have been too blind to realize that.

Given the high-pitched pro-war propaganda in the US media, one would think that such news would instantly make the headlines, and will give free rein to pundits, journalists, and bloggers to discuss the necessity of finally starting the war against Iran. After all, all was about attacking Iran so that they don’t have a nuclear weapon. We’ve been hearing this for years now, that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, so let’s attack them.

Well, now a man in the highest ruling caste in Iran says they already have it – a news that should be very important, right? But our own MSM are strangely silent about it. Only a few media in the Middle East broadcasted the news, and no pundit or blogger even commented on it. And the American neocon pro-war politicians remained silent too.

Hmmm. Strange, isn’t it.

Not so strange, if one thinks logically about it.

The greatest nightmare for a war-monger is the removal of all reasons for war. In the case with Iran, the nightmare for the chickenhawks in the US has always been if Iran becomes a nuclear state and . . . does nothing. All the reasons for the war-mongering boil down to this: If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, they will act irrationally and will use the bomb. The key word here is: irrationally. In the chickenhawks’ world, there is no possibility that Iran gets a bomb and acts rationally, and doesn’t use it. Such a scenario destroy all the reasons for banging the war-drums; after all, many nations have nuclear bombs, and none of them have used it. Having nuclear weapons is one thing; using them is another, given the fact that a nation who first uses a nuclear weapon opens itself to retaliation by others who have it too. But in the case of Iran, it is necessary to peddle the propaganda that Iran will use its nuclear weapons if it has them. Otherwise there is no reason to attack them.

Ayatollah Khatami’s statement threw the warmongers in a quandary.

If Iran really has a nuclear weapon, it hasn’t used it. But . . . but . . . but that’s not according to the scenario! They were supposed to use the nuclear weapon if they had it, they were supposed to attack Israel, or the United States. Otherwise there’s no need for war if Iran acts rationally! But if they have it, and if they publicly announce it, they seem to be acting rationally. Who would have expected it? Well, yeah, CIA expected it, Mossad expected it, the Israeli government expected it, the Pentagon intelligence expected it, DIA expected it, experts on the Middle East and nuclear energy and foreign policy experts expected it. But besides these experts (and there is no reason to trust the experts, after all), who else would expect that Iran would act rationally when they have a nuclear weapon!

Well, may be Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon yet. That means Khatami is lying. He is a Muslim, after all, lying is a normal practice when it comes to dealing with non-Muslims. But wait. If he is lying about Iran being a nuclear state, could he be also lying that they are trying to develop a weapon at all? After all, once a liar, always a liar. May be they are just trying to scare the West and Israel, and have always been lying just to gain some advantage. May be Ehud Barak was right when he said that Iran hadn’t made the decision yet to even start building nuclear weapons? But . . . this is not according to the scenario either. I mean, if they are not even working on it, then why all the warmongering?

Either way, the reason for war is destroyed. Destroyed if Khatami told the truth, destroyed if he lied.

That’s the reason the MSM didn’t report it. The establishment wants war. The MSM serve the establishment. They won’t publish a news that shows that there is no need for war.