Insinuation as War Propaganda
By Anthony Gregory • Thursday February 23, 2012 10:41 AM PDT • 76 Comments
In 2002 and early 2003, the Bush administration made its case for war with Iraq. There were assertions given about Saddam’s maintenance of weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda. What was never said explicitly, however, was that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Yet by late 2003, seventy percent of polled Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally behind 9/11. Bush’s Republican voters were especially convinced of this.
Yet Bush and his officials never said this. And after the multiple disasters of the Iraq war began to present themselves with great clarity, the Bush officials were questioned about their pre-war intel. Yet they could say, strictly speaking, one thing they never claimed was Saddam was behind 9/11.
Condoleezza Rice had said something about the attacks originating in the same region or area as Iraq. There was all sorts of insinuation that Saddam might have been involved. And surely the Bush team never put an ounce of effort into disabusing the American people of the completely false notion that Saddam was behind 9/11. The vast majority of Americans believed it—indeed, at times, more Americans thought Saddam was behind the attacks than believed the Iraq War was just!—yet it was not only completely untrue, but not directly rooted in any explicit assertion given by the administration. Various pro-war commentators had said it, but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell—none of them ever did.
Fast forward a decade to the current day. Seventy-one percent of Americans—almost exactly the percentage that thought Saddam was behind 9/11—think that Iran has nuclear weapons. It’s a small sample, but it is consistent with polls over the last couple years, each one showing a majority believing Iran already has nukes, and almost nine out of ten Americans sure that Iran is seeking them.
Indeed, talking with “respectable” liberals—the type who listen to NPR and watch Jon Stewart—I find repeatedly that even folks who don’t want to go to war assume that every reasonable American knows that Iran is on the brink of having nukes, if the regime doesn’t already have them.
What’s bizarre about this, other than the fact that there is no credible evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons, is that no one in a position of official authority is claiming it either! Every report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, even when framed in a way to make Iran seem ominous, confirms the “non-diversion” of nuclear materials to weaponization purposes. The CIA and intelligence community have consistently stood by the National Intelligence Estimate findings that Iran has not sought a nuclear weapon since 2003 (and Iran doing so back then is only suspected based on very scant evidence produced by the Israeli government).
What’s more, in the last week or so, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stressed that not only does Iran not have nuclear weapons; there is no evidence that Iran even wants nuclear weapons!!
Even if Iran wanted to make nuclear weapons, it would probably take three or more years. Iran is reportedly attempting to enrich its uranium to 19.75% LEU. Nuclear weapons require 95%—and there is no evidence that Iran has the means to do this. It is even more dubious to believe a nuclear-armed Iran would be some sort of unprecedented threat for the United States, but that’s neither here nor there.
So what’s the deal? The Obama administration (and the Bush administration, and the UN) have all had the same official position: Iran doesn’t have nukes, and the Iranians probably aren’t looking to get them. Yet seven out of ten Americans think Iran already has them. Meanwhile, every Republican presidential candidate except Ron Paul warns about the unparalleled threat of a nuclear Iran, and the Obama White House punishes the country with tighter sanctions and ever more threats.
Indeed, Obama has thrived on the insinuation that Iran has nukes. When he acted tough back in 2009 because Iran had been caught red-handed with its fledgling nuclear facility at Qom—a civilian nuclear facility that Iran readily alerted the international community to, consistent with its continuing adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory—he did so against a backdrop of insinuation that of course everyone knows Iran wants nuclear weapons. He did this even though all that existed at Qom, according to an IAEA official, was a “hole in a mountain.” Why didn’t the president remind the public instead that there is little to worry about, since the entire Defense Department and intelligence community confirm that Iran has no nuclear weapons program?
If a war begins with Iran, it will largely be on the basis of propaganda believed by the public, propaganda that the government has never officially articulated. In the past, the U.S. thrived on outright lies for war: the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators, and so forth. There has long been a fair share of unsubstantiated allegations involved behind major U.S. wars—the USS Maine being sunk by the Spanish, the Zimmerman Telegram posing an actual threat to the United States, the Serbians committing genocide of ethnic Albanians, killing many tens of thousands of civilians in the late 1990s, and so on.
Yet today lies and unproven allegations are not enough. The U.S. warfare state appears to thrive on insinuation in its war propaganda. The U.S. war machine’s top brass never outright declare the most provocative claims about U.S. enemies. That way, when the war goes south and people begin accusing the political class of misleading them, the empire’s defenders can easily say (accurately in word if not in spirit): “Bush never claimed Saddam was behind 9/11! Obama never claimed Iran had nuclear weapons!”
But don’t think for a moment that our rulers aren’t glad the American people believe what they do. It makes wars so much easier to wage when the public buys into all sorts of nonsense. The plausible deniability that insinuated propaganda gives the ruling class is just icing on the cake.
Tags: Imperialism, Intelligence agency, Iran, Iraq, Presidential Power, Propaganda, The State, War 
This says very clearly what I’ve been thinking and wondering for a while. Why on earth does everyone think that Iran has nukes? The news keeps reporting the same stuff, that they are “attempting to enrich their uranium” and that “the experts say that Iran is only a few years from having nukes”, but how does this convince people that Iran is such an immanent threat? Maybe because most of the candidates running for the GOP talk about it....I dunno. But this article is great.
Carden | Feb 23, 2012 | Reply
That last sentence should have ended with “icing on the yellow cake.”
Vince | Feb 23, 2012 | Reply
Israel wants the USA to wage war on Iran. Israel has the support of Congress for doing so, and the support of the media as well. Thus the gullible, infantile, and ignorant public has been bamboozled , again.
richard | Feb 23, 2012 | Reply
Vince, I actually thought of that. But the yellow cake was an outright lie, not an insinuation. Maybe I over-thought it. ;)
Anthony Gregory | Feb 23, 2012 | Reply
Anthony,
This whole Iran thing is exactly what the left did with ‘climate change’.
Pollution, energy dependence, and severe changes in the weather are all bad things, to be sure, but were they really so bad that we needed cap and trade? NO! And we find out later that it was all a hoax. The Dutch professor who admitted to lying. The Hockey stick graph. The leaked emails from East Anglia University. Al Gore making millions (and he would have made more under cap and trade). The Himalayas weren’t really melting. The polar bears were just fine. Etc.
But now, the so called ‘right’ is trying to pull a similar fast one with Iran...
Iran, nuclear weapons, Islamic fundamentalism are all bad things, no doubt, but are they so bad that we want to jump to conclusions in the same way we did for Iraq and have another altercation we can not afford? NO! We will find out later who profited from a war with Iran. Who lied. Who ignored the truth. Who neglected their duties. Who fell for the hoax.
But will we learn our lesson?
Fool me twice, shame on me. Are the American people going to accept the blame? Or are they going to pass it off to the policy makers they keep electing and believing?
Keimh3reg Peh2u Meg | Feb 24, 2012 | Reply
Yes, 70% of polled Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally behind 9/11, which was patently false. Which only shows just how efficient our government and our major corporate media have become in influencing the American public. Pravda couldn’t have done a better job.
Robert Charron | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
Also when one hears the corporate media journalists and commentators profess to be interested in finding the truth and publishing the truth, the fact that 70% of Americans polled believed Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks shows just how corrupt or deluded the corporate media has become.
Robert Charron | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
Let’s see: the example in this article is a case where nobody says Iran has nuclear weapons, and the people believe. However the scientific community nearly all say we’re causing climate change, yet the people don’t believe.
Don’t really see your point.
Not to mention that none of those things you quoted have more than the smallest bearing on Climate Change. The emails were taken out of context, and very minor when put in context (not to mention the fact that it is only one dataset). The hockey stick graph actually still stands in scientific circles — it hasn’t been disproven at all. Al Gore is Al Gore. The Himalayas are one single location across a globe dominated by melting. And polar bear numbers are highly likely to be on the decline based on current data.
David | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
If Iran is not building nuclear weapons, then why does Israel want war with Iran? Iran does not even have a common border with Israel and poses no threat to Israel. Has the Israeli Government gone mad, or is it really the United States that wants the war?
Chris Condon | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
Outright lies and insinuation also preceded the war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan had no role in 9/11. Not a single Afghan participated in the planning or implementation in the attack on the Twin Towers. Regards the alleged Osama bin Laden extradition impasse, the Taliban made numerous concessions and overtures to the Bush administration for a solution which were rebuffed at every turn. At a conference in Berlin during Summer of 2001, Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik was alerted by US officials that “we will attack Afghanistan before the snow flies in October.” There are other indications that the US planned to attack Afghanistan long before 9/11 occurred. When, for example, Taliban Hashemi visited Washington early in 2001 to discuss the proposed TAP pipeline project negotiations which were seen as faltering, he was told “either accept our carpet of gold or we will bury you in a carpet of bombs.”
Both Bush and Obama have falsely told the public that Afghanistan “is the hub of international terrorism.”
Bruce G. Richardson | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
I think people believe this because Iran is literally floating on a sea of oil and yet they are wanting to “build nuclear power”. If you understand energy production you realize that this is a complete lie. The cost per kilowatt hour for nuclear power is going to be many, many more times that of digging down 10 feet and pulling the oil out. The cost difference is so great that it is patently ridiculous that Iran is working on nuclear energy. Combine this with their lifelong hatred of Israel and their pledge to wipe them off the face of the earth and it’s much more reasonable to think that Iran is working on a Nuclear Weapon. So I guess not everyone would assume Iran is working on weapons, only the reasonable people who understand.
DDayDawg | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
As George Carlin said ‘the average American is really stupid, but the tragedy is that 50% of Americans are stupider than that!’.
James Ray | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
I understand that there’s no “credible evidence” of nukes — but can you explain why Iran has enriched Uranium at a much higher percentage that is needed for nuclear power? What is their motivation for doing so?
Gregory | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
If I was Iran I’d want a nuke.
What with those lunatics in Israel always calling for Irans destruction, and constantly sponsoring terror attacks and assassination of Iranians....
Then you have the imperialistic USA on the other side, looking with greedy eyes at Irans oil.
The only way for Iran to be safe from these 2 warmongering lunatic nations is to have a nuclear deterrent. Notice the USA and Israel dont mess with Pakistan or India because they know if they tried to invade those countries, they’d get nuked.
GoIran | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
Don’t be an idiot. Educate yourself please. AGW is real and serious. I don’t know what documentaries you’ve watched, but it is time you stopped listening to conspiracy theories and started listening to what scientists are saying.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Steve | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
Ha, way to gain credibility by calling people idiots...
Vanmind | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
How is no one pointing out that this study is two years old? It was done in February 2010. It’s all there in the link.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/19/cnn-poll-american-believe-iran-has-nuclear-weapons/
This is the second time this week a publication has made this mistake. Due diligence, people.
Gavin Schalliol | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
@Keimh3reg Peh2u Meg
I’m sorry how is this whole Iran thing anything like the “left” and climate change. Climate change for one is supported by the majority of science and there is a general consensus that is true to a reasonable extent.
But attempts to curb climate change do not end with an unnecessary war with a country that doesn’t deserve it. Iran are not a large threat and it is just more war propaganda.
J. Hastings | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
A few years ago, a retired Iranian oil exec emigrated to the USA and gave a few talks about how Iran had basically wasted its oil reserves and before 2020, will have to import oil to keep itself going. Seemed crazy at the time. He contended that the nuclear program was actually for electricity because when the oil plants run short of oil, the lights in Iran will go out. Being economically isolated, they did not have access to any well-extension technology and since they have ‘so much oil’, conservation was not politically popular... until now that it is getting too late. Business execs started making long term plans on how to capitalize on this. At the same time, Mr Bush was adding Iran to the Axis of Evil – for no good reason except that it justified his actions somehow.
M.S. Lemkay | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
Because the Republicans and Israel lobby, like all good propagandists, know that the trick isnt in convincing people that something is true, its in simply behaving as if everyone is ALREADY convinced that it is true.
Its all pack behavior.
Will | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
Look at it this way: Say a man walks up to you on the street, and calmly tells you that it is in your best interest to run, because soon a stampede of buffalo is going to come barreling down the street to run you over. You might hesitate and question him, “What? Why are there buffalo running down a city street? How many buffalo? Is this some kind of trick? Who are you anyway”
But if that man gets together a crowd of people, and instead of telling you about the buffalo and the dangers involved, they simply all run down the street towards you with the look of panic on their faces, what are you going to do? Youre going to start running, without even knowing what the hell is going on.
Society is still operating entirely on instinct and jungle mentality. The Right understands this, and exploits it, while the Left makes the mistake of thinking everyone is some kind of rational scientist, hungry for facts and evidence.
Will | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
@Keimh3reg: There is data/evidence that suggests climate change is real. On the other hand, there is no data/evidence to support the idea that Iran has a nuclear arsenal, despite what the GOP tells us.
Judging by your blog, though, which says you’re a Ron Paul supporter, it’s obvious that you, too, have been bamboozled.
Erik | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
> Following a May 2009 test launch of a long-range missile, Ahmadinejad was quoted as telling the crowd that with its nuclear program, Iran was sending the West a message that “the Islamic Republic of Iran is running the show.”
– Wikipedia
> Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a ‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”
– http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2012/02/05/the-12th-imam-iranian-government-lays-out-justification-for-israel-s-destruction-video
Iranian diplomats offered to mi6 agents a deal: give us a pass on our nuclear program and we will stop killing your boys in Iraq.
– sourse: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/4735454/Iran-offered-to-halt-attacks-on-UK-troops-in-nuclear-pact.html
Stephen Marotta | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
All that to say that: we are already at war with Iran, a nation which will very soon succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons.
Stephen Marotta | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
I’m just going to keep posting facts as I locate them.
Remember AQKahn? this is from his signed confession:
> In 1989 or 1990 COAS, Gen. Aslam Beg, promised to give the Iranians a few weapons and technology in lieu of 10 years of our defence budget. The Iranian Army Chief, Shamkani, flew to Islamabad in his own plane to pick up the weapons and papers.
Stephen Marotta | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
Okay, you can think climate change is a hoax, but let’s go over the details:
1. There are numerous natural events that change the climate. The most common event we have evidence of is the last Ice Age. There is even growing evidence that there were previous “ice age” periods. The Earth goes through a natural weather cycle that includes vast cooling and heating. Climate change is not only real, it is an unstoppable natural cycle of Earth.
2. One Dutchman saying he lied about his findings does not make all of climate change debunked. Just like my evidence does not make it all true. You have to weigh more than the words of a few individuals.
3. The polar ice caps are melting. The ocean is rising. It’s documented. It’s very real. And of course Polar Bears are not going to die out. All that speeding up global warming will do is likely trigger another series of major weather events that freezes the majority of the Earth. If tropical birds can survive an Ice Age, Polar Bears will survive global warming.
4. All Al Gore wanted to do was make it clear that this stuff happens and that humankind has a unique ability to responsibly monitor our impact on Earth.
In conclusion, stop claiming facts are completely false because you hopped on some political bandwagon.
Now, concerning this article:
Iran has nuclear power plants. Also, they recycle their nuclear power. This means they can indeed make nuclear weapons. But why the hell would they? So they can get attacked by Israel’s friends in the UN?
All Iran has done for quite some time is remain the remnants of the Persian Empire, and attempt to retain that land. Nuclear weapons would only devastate the Middle East. Would America drop nuclear bombs on Mexico, or even Cuba? No. So ignore this insanity which feeds on your fear of Muslim psychoses, and move on with your life.
abner | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
“This whole Iran thing is exactly what the left did with ‘climate change’.”
That is the most asininely retarded comparison I’ve ever heard.
First of all Climate Change and its causes and potential effects weren’t made up by “The Left,” (whoever that is) but by thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies universally accepted by EVERY world scientific body. If you believe some or other of those studies are wrong, feel free to get your doctorates degree in a related field ad write a peer review yourself.
Second how many innocent people will be potentially killed from “cap & trade?” Seriously you’re comparing making polluters mitigate their externalized costs (finally) causing at worst, cleaner air and more jobs. To the wholesale murder of thousands of human beings and the wanton destruction of homes and environments. Are you REALLY serious? Does that REALLY make sense to you? Really?
SW | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
Bush, Cheney, and Rice may not have said it outright, but they used very well-researched propaganda technology to put it out there in a way that made many listeners connect the missing dots and do exactly what B,C, and R intended – get the subliminal message.
So yes, Americans believe it because American’s are very vulnerable to propaganda techniques, AND because the techniques are so effective they should be outlawed.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/no-mushroom-cloud-propaganda/
Susan V | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
One of the main jobs assigned to the MSM is “fleshing out” government insinuations by elevating them to the status of “facts” in the mind of naive and gullible listeners who lack the ability of thinking for themselves.
carroll price | Feb 25, 2012 | Reply
You know WHY you can’t believe climate change nor the current babbling about Iran? Because political parasites are supportive of it! That’s all the proof one needs to know that it’s false.
MoT | Feb 26, 2012 | Reply
Oh, I wouldn’t think the Left is any different in how it treats the public. It hates them as much as the Right and treats them like the animals both sides believe them to be.
MoT | Feb 26, 2012 | Reply
Certain medical equipment requires uranium enriched to 20%, and Iran has said that is what it will be used for.
Carlton | Feb 26, 2012 | Reply
Richard is correct. Over 4000 Americans died in Iraq for a lie, and the American Congress is ready to double down on their lies and betrayal of the American people.
The public is outrageously ignorant about events in the world, but a large part of their ignorant willingness to attack Iran is due to the US media. The US press and TV deliberately withhold the truth from the public, feeding them instead a steady diet of propaganda. It’s impossible to decide which is the worst, the press or Congress. Both are traitors.
William Fuller | Feb 26, 2012 | Reply
Then why do WE (The us) have nuclear power? Surely it would be cheaper to drill 10 feet down (as if it were really that easy) right?
Much of Iran’s economy depends on oil exports. As their internal energy needs expand it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to want to have other options available. Not to mention thier ostensible reason –to enrich materials for medical treatments that require it –and the fact that we have no evidence to the contrary and the other fact that the insinuations to the contrary seem to be coming from the same fear mongers that told us that Iraq had WMDs and there would be a mushroom cloud in NY if we didn’t attack right now!
SW | Feb 26, 2012 | Reply
This is what a scientifically backed article on climate change looks like, you need to cite actual sources, not just state that the majority of the scientific community is on your side... http://americasuncommonsense.com/blog/2010/07/02/climate-and-the-constitution-2/
left wing hippy | Feb 26, 2012 | Reply
They need 20% enriched isotope for medical use.
Mike | Feb 26, 2012 | Reply
Anthony Gregory,
The evidence speaks for itself. The people for peace are the minority. The majority will remain silent – enabling the status quo to continue moving forward.
James de Laurier | Feb 26, 2012 | Reply
I believe you have the metaphor right on this one Will...
Grant | Feb 27, 2012 | Reply
DDayDawg –
What “live long hatred of Israel” are you talking about? The two countries were allies before the revolution in 79.
When did Iran pledge to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?
The conclusions you draw are reasonable – for someone with a superficial understanding of an issue with roots much deeper than you understand. It’s not an insult, but it is a characteristic behavior of someone on an issue who does not have all the information.
Alternatively, when you are spoon-fed half-truths that have been repeated for a decade, they grow in your head and bare ingenuousness fruits.
Alternatively, Iran’s 79 revolution was a fire started covertly by the west through support of the Mujahaddin and fanned with denouncement campaign of Shah Pahlavi under the Carter administration for human rights violations (this, after the CIA created a secret police for Iran called “SAVAK”, trained to torture Iranian citizens who opposed the crown), which as predicted by the US picked up steam due to growing frustrations on the behalf of Iranian citizens for US interventionism within Iran’s sovereignty.
30 years prior, there was an organic democracy budding in Iran, and the CIA toppled it. Google Mossadegh and read for yourself.
Considering our history with meddling in Iran’s internal affairs, and that literally EVERY bordering country around Iran is occupied by the US, and the propaganda we run on them 24/7, why WOULDNT they want to protect themselves? What would the US’s position have been in the 80′s of Russia had invaded Canada and Mexico, lined warships along California and New England, and continuously demonized Capitalism as a threat to them? What would be the REASONABLE conclusions to draw with this information?
Assuming Iran were developing a weapon, they’d never use it unless provoked. Iran hasn’t invaded a country for 200 years, but it has it’s sovereignty violated many times in that span (Iran/Iraq war, coup d’tat in 1953, annexation of Azerbaijann, occupation by ). Why would the Mullah’s running the country RISK the stalemate they have with the entire world, not to mention the uninhibited tap they have on all of Iran’s resources, just to drop a bomb on Israel? Think about the end-game, man!
Evelyn Bertram | Feb 27, 2012 | Reply
Your buying faulty info. Its been proven that the president of Iran never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Old lie that’s been disproven already.
qawi | Mar 5, 2012 | Reply
@Gregory: They enrich mostly at about 4% for use in power reactors. The rest is enriched at about 20% for use in a research reactor producing medical isotopes. This last use is verified by the IAEA.
Antoine Mathys | Mar 24, 2012 | Reply
Adolf Hitler: “It is fortunate for governments that the people they administrator don’t think.” Because they have be dumbed down for so long millions of American citizens have lost the ability to think for themselves. Most are incapable of critical thinking or even doing their own research.
Bob Marshall | Jan 3, 2013 | Reply
George Soros has ties to 30 major news organizations.Whom most people are very familiar with but the majority still listen to and watch them anyway.How stupid is that? Hitler said his most powerful weapon was propaganda.He believed, like our media,if you say it long enough the majority will buy it.Works every time.
Bob Marshall | Jan 3, 2013 | Reply