Glenn Greenwald has a follow-up on his story about the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists, and he calls the incidents what they actually are: Terrorism.
Part of the problem here is the pretense that Terrorism has some sort of fixed, definitive meaning. It does not. As Professor Remi Brulin has so exhaustively documented, the meaning of the term has constantly morphed depending upon the momentary interests of those nations (usually the U.S. and Israel) most aggressively wielding it. It’s a term of political propaganda, impoverished of any objective meaning, and thus susceptible to limitless manipulation. Even the formal definition incorporated into U.S. law is incredibly vague; one could debate forever without resolution whether targeted killings of scientists fall within its scope, and that’s by design. The less fixed the term is, the more flexibility there is in deciding what acts of violence are and are not included in its scope.
But to really see what’s going on here, let’s look at how a very recent, very similar assassination plot was discussed. That occurred in October when the U.S. accused Iran’s Quds Forces of recruiting a failed used car salesman in Texas to hire Mexican drug cartels to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. Let’s put to side the intrinsic ridiculousness of the accusation and assume it to be true [...] when that plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador was “revealed,” virtually every last media outlet — and government official — branded it “Terrorism.” It was just reflexively described that way. And I never heard anyone — anywhere — object to the use of that term on the ground that targeted assassinations aren’t Terrorism, or on any other ground.
It’s not like there is no evidence suggesting at the very least targeted assassinations, regardless of who is directing them. So why do media outlets resist the label of terrorism for these acts? Glenn cites this as an example of labeling terrorism as a pure move toward marginalization, and I think that’s right.
Meanwhile, in the NYT article cited above there’s quite a bit of evidence for this being part of a covert plot:
The campaign, which experts believe is being carried out mainly by Israel, apparently claimed its latest victim on Wednesday when a bomb killed a 32-year-old nuclear scientist in Tehran’s morning rush hour.
The scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, was a department supervisor at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, a participant in what Western leaders believe is Iran’s halting but determined progress toward a nuclear weapon. He was at least the fifth scientist with nuclear connections to be killed since 2007; a sixth scientist, Fereydoon Abbasi, survived a 2010 attack and was put in charge of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization [...]
“I often get asked when Israel might attack Iran,” Mr. (Patrick, director of the Iran Security Initiative at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy) Clawson said. “I say, ‘Two years ago.’ ”
Mr. Clawson said the covert campaign was far preferable to overt airstrikes by Israel or the United States on suspected Iranian nuclear sites. “Sabotage and assassination is the way to go, if you can do it,” he said. “It doesn’t provoke a nationalist reaction in Iran, which could strengthen the regime. And it allows Iran to climb down if it decides the cost of pursuing a nuclear weapon is too high.”
Charming realist, that Mr. Clawson.
The State Department vehemently denied any role in the attacks. If they are indeed being carried out by Israel, it strains credulity to suggest that the US has no knowledge.
Of course, Iran could be responsible for killing some of these scientists only to blame it on the West. Perhaps they all got out of line with the program for nuclear enrichment. Perhaps they were enemies of the regime. I’m sure you can come up with a lot of possibilities. What we do know is that, as Gary Sick writes, the US and Iran have sharply and swiftly moved to a war footing, propelled forward by a series of events. This is despite the fact that nobody can even confirm whether Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. We need to stop this trajectory before it’s too late, and catastrophic consequences ensue.




43 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Just waiting for that “Gulf of Tonkin” moment?
It will probably happen during the joint Israeli / US war games coming up.
It’s an assassination. If that isn’t terrorism nothing is. And now I see Iran is predictably threatening retaliatory assassinations of OUR scientists. Those assassinations, of course, will be terrorist acts.
Boy, I sure hope people in power are listening to this, DDay.
David,
Again, an excellent commentary.
Perhaps, reporters will get off their respective butt and at the next press conference of any sort, an intrepid reporter needs to ask, “President Obama, does the United States have any direct or tangential knowledge that Israel is either attempting to or assinating Iran’s members of its nuclear community?”
In posing this question at every press conference, the citizens of this nation, will slowly come to realize that “terrorism” needs to be applied appropriately and where the distinction between the Law of War and “terrorism” and where this “terrorism” is relagated to its proper usage. If so, the ever-present War Hawks won’t and can’t control the discourse.
Jaango
For contrast, Ron Paul published some inflammatory news letters 20 years ago.
Is it that, or the call for murder on a mass scale that disqualifies candidates in America?
We really should walk away from Israel..they are a part of our problem. I’ll censor myself but I have to say that the Zionists are ruining America.
I totally respect Greenwald – the man has earned it.
In re the relativity of the word terrorism, Hillary Clinton made a revealing comment on the assassination today.
“”I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters yesterday in Washington. “There has to be an understanding between Iran, its neighbors and the international community that finds a way forward for it to end its provocative behavior, end its search for nuclear weapons and rejoin the international community.”"
Ha! Terrorism my ass. It’s simply what you get when you don’t play ball. Iran deserves nothing less for failing to reach an “understanding” with the “international community”: “And you can expect more where that came from, motherfuckers. Hell, you brought it on yourself. After all, it is only the result of your own “provocative behavior.”"
Yeah, the US might not be behind it, but the State Department sure condones it.
The CIA Mossad debate is a chicken and the egg question. The NDAA codifies political assassination into the US arsenal of response. SB 1867, it’s precursor, did so as well. Who knows what original agreement the CIA and Mossad are working under, Obama won’t tell us that’s for sure…and Clinton (I think not!)
As far as Ron Paul goes, well he is psychotic and a government agent so I guess maybe he was involved too. Just put that conspiracy in your pipe afterthought and smoke it!
Remember, our only real claim to geopolitical construction these days is war. Everything else we did, or might have done, is preterite and mythological.
Furthermore as far as the “question” of whether or not the assassinations in Iran are terrorism they obviously are. Israel and the US wish to force a change in the policies of the Iranian regime and to do this they arr creating their own regime of fear and violence, sensational in that it involves highly visible bombings that kill only a few but a critical few indeed.
That’s terrorism.
Within the intel communities in many countries, I am told 20th hand or further from the source, that who benefits analysis suggests Iran killing its own people. Toss in the difficulty of getting such a plot into Iran and it seems hard to see how anyone other than the Revolutionary Guard is at fault.
Indeed – the benefit – smearing the US and Israel – would seem to make the conclusion easy. Toss in the fact that death changes neither the direction toward a bomb nor the timeline to get there, and it is hard to see any benefit to anyone but the Revolutionary Guard. But there is a counter-argument that Bibi benefits if you believe he wants to go out as the Israeli PM that started an atomic war with Iran and needs Iran to respond violently to the death of the fellow so as to start it. But how violent must the response be for Israel – its pointed out that Iran already kills Israeli’s in London and indeed Iran controlled Hez has several hundred American non-combat deaths to its credit – so Iran does not need an excuse to try to kill an Israeli or an American. But then that suggests if simple revenge for those Iran and Hez assignations of Americans is the motive, then America may have done the killing.
It is all too confusing for my old brain – but it certainly is not as simple as “the Israeli’s obviously killed him”.
If what happened was assassination, as widely suspected, then the terrorist label would apply. Use it by all means if it makes one feel better.
Well, yes, Clawson is a realist but certainly not charming. The point is, is his take plausible or probable?
There was an alarming report this morning that an Israeli scientist postulated Iran was likely to experience more misadventures going forward. I didn’t catch the whole segment, and wonder if there’s anything to it.
It’s not unlike the cold war. Same old, same old, whatever label applies.
So presumably when the international community opposed and condemned the US invasion and occupation of Iraq you not only supported the violence of the insurgents against that occupation but those people who became jihadis and pursued terrorism against the domestic US in response?
Or is terrorism against ‘them’ ok but not against us as the tables turn?
Per that article by Glenn Greenwald:
Emphasis mine.
WTF? Who is the client of whom? Israel has far more influence on the policies of the United States than the United States has on the policies of Isreal. Wake up, Glenzilla. Wake up. ;-)
Well, it might be plausible that Iran is bumping off some who are no longer needed, know too much, being replaced, or who are suspected of being flight risks.
Sadly, nothing any of us think or say matters in the least. The psychopath industrial complex has slipped its leash for good, and will do what it must.
This seems seriously self-defeating for the Iranians. I understand the theocracy of Iran is brutal, and that precedent is there with Stalin and Mao and many others, but Mossad and the CIA have too much blood on their hands to be given the ‘Get out of Jail’ card so quickly. Psy-ops works with paradoxes best, and our propaganda campaigns have a great deal of repugnant history.
War with Iran: Time to get all the people ready, confused, and mobilized.
What matters for us here is that the malleability of the words “terrorist” and “material support” mean it is only a matter of time until dissenters like us are considered fair game under new detention provisions of the NDAA. I assume many here are already aware that some PETA activists targeting agribusiness facilities have been labelled as “terrorists” by the FBI. Time for us to focus on the home front, IMO.
War with Iran is going to cost what many hundreds of TRILLIONS? When i was just a pup in the 60-70′s it was millions then in the 80′s it was billions. Now it’s all in the hundreds of TRILLIONS. Fuck them and their made up numbers and their bullshit values. When are we going to eat OUR folly. The bankers own nothing. WE OWN THE EARTH. Plant a seed. Occupy everywhere.
Our folly could be extinction.
Greenwald tweeted a picture of the latest scientist to be killed with his son, who looks about 2 or 3 years old. The man himself was 32. More important than the fact he was a “nuclear scientist” is the fact that he was a man with a family. He did not deserve to die so that evil old government ghouls on two continents can continue to terrorize our planet. I am sick of it!
http://www.realclearworld.com/2012/01/12/why_not_call_it_terrorism_in_iran_131708.html
The question has to be asked: will these assassinations stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons — even for a fairly decent chunk of time. The answer that question, by just about everyone I’ve heard, is no.
So, what does that leave the US and Israel? A pissed off Iran that’s going to be nuclear armed and without a few extra scientists who actually know what they’re doing, to keep it safe.
I don’t think anyone outside of Iran wants to see a nuclear-equipped Iran, but after invading Iraq and after bombing the shit out of Libya (and I don’t even necessarily disagree with that one), and comparing those incidents to North Korea, it’s easy to understand why the government in Iran isn’t going to care very much what anyone else thinks. If they get nuclear weapons, they’re home free from ever having to worry about any American “regime change.”
That’s the reality of the situation, whether we like it or not. We may as well accept that fact and realize Iran is going to get nuclear weapons. If we accept that reality, we want to make sure that they’re a) going to do it safely, and b) going to embrace diplomacy and the wider world at large.
I think it’s time to seriously reconsider how we deal with Iran and other countries like it and instead of ignoring them them, engaging with them and trying to improve relations and improve the livelihoods of the people living in it. In the end, it’s going to be those people who enforce change in Iran and we’re going to want to be in good relations with the regular people of that country for when they have their own Arab Spring… and ensure that there are mechanisms in place to keep the nukes safe when that happens, as scary as that’ll be.
Eyeballing the map reveals Iran is about six times the size of Iraq, or at least five times.
What are they thinking of?
More from that ‘charming Realist’, WINEP’s Clawson…
“What we have been saying to Iran is that there has got be a confidence building measure that emerges out of the next round of negotiations,” said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in an interview with Yahoo News Tuesday.
Still, Clawson said, he didn’t think prospects for a deal look promising.
“I think it’s heading towards confrontation,” Clawson said. “The whole point from the beginning is if we put pressure on the regime, the Iranians will crack at some point.”
So far, at least, there’s little sign the strategy is yielding the desired result. The Iranians to date have responded to the prospect of the tightened financial sanctions on the country’s oil sector with an announcement of the launching of operations at the fortified, underground Fordo nuclear enrichment facility–together with sporadic threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. “The Iranians are screaming and yelling and upset and threatening,” Clawson said.
So why isn’t that a sign that the U.S. strategy is failing?
“It’s a lot better to have a fight” that Iran provokes, Clawson replied, before adding: “Better to enter World War II after Pearl Harbor, and World War I after the sinking of the Lusitania.”
papau-
this sounds like co-operating in propaganda on your part.
you undermine your credibility greatly with this sort of gossip.
and you know it’s propaganda because you cleverly use the phrase “20th hand…”
disgraceful!
do you clintonistas really believe you can get away with lying as long as you mix it with a little truth from time to time?
disgraceful!
amen and amen
The US might be messed up, but do you really trust Iran?
That’s a pretty dumb question. Sounds like the Dick Cheney school of logic.
Well, in my comment @9 I wasn’t making a statement about what I thought about either of your questions. I was suggesting that Clinton’s response was an odd thing to say for someone who is trying to convince folks that the US was not behind the assassination. She was saying, in effect, that it wasn’t the US, but at the same time what else does Iran expect, what else does it deserve. The US didn’t do it but it is OK with Clinton that it was done? What might the Iranians (or us) make of her comment, her sympathies? In the paragraph that starts, “Ha! Terrorism my ass,” I was mocking her explanation. I was being sarcastic, facetious. Perhaps I didn’t convey that well.
But my short answer to both of your questions is no. I also agree with Greenwald and Brulin’s assessment of “terrorism” as strictly a term of political propaganda. The word is used in the same way that the US applies the word “regime.”
What does trust have to do with it? Does the same consideration for personal relationships apply to nation states?
The one and only country to ever use nuclear weapons against another country was the US. Where does that put trust?
“I don’t think anyone outside of Iran wants to see a nuclear-equipped Iran . . .”
If Mutually Assured Destruction is a sound doctrine, as so many war-mongering, Cold War conservatives have assured us, why not have a nuclear-equipped Iran? The confidence in this doctrine always seems to break down when it is suggested that it be applied to the “barbarian” Third World. Funny.
You may be right about Iranian motives. What else but nukes might give the US pause?
No, but then I don’t have a lot of trust in the Israelis either. They have a history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
No, I don’t trust Iran, at least the part that supports what passes for a government, but then I don’t have a lot of trust in the Israelis either. They have a history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
First and foremost, the problem with both Iran and Israel is one of religious fundamentalism.
Good point. Religious wars and crusades are a particularly ugly form of human insanity.
And we have, as you know, a lot of those religious nuts here in America too. Go Pats! (New England is playing Tebow on Saturday.)
Get real -
Defining Propaganda as reasoning you reject – interesting definition – brings back memories of SDS – a reason I left.
20th hand refers to the fact those I talk to are old and not tied to any actions or those doing actions – it does not mean the logic should be rejected out of hand.
Northwood showed the US willingness to kill US citizens to advance a political goal – you think that kind of thinking is limited to the US?
“What matters for us here is that the malleability of the words “terrorist” and “material support” mean it is only a matter of time until dissenters like us are considered fair game under new detention provisions of the NDAA.”
YUP!
From the Guardian:
Targeted assassination of an enemy scientist is the opposite of terrorism, and everybody goddamn well knows it. So Greenwald, you, and everyone else who yells the equivalent 2 + 2 = 5, is not just lying, but brutally assaulting the truth.
The real enemy is war.
Damn, I get so tired of making the same argument to the same fools.
papau writes:
“defining propaganda as reasoning you reject…”
“reasoning” ?
you flatter yourself, papau.
writing that you’ve heard “20th hand” that iran killed its own scientists when far more likely suspects with more believable motives are available, specifically israel, is just repeating propaganda, papau.
papau -
substitute “israel employing mek” for “revolutionary guards” and i suspect you’ll be a lot closer to the truth.
papau -
thanks for the reference to “northwoods”. it took me a while to find it.
reading the story made me wonder if someones in the rumsfeld dod, with full support from dunce cheney, didn’t use northwoods as a model for the anthrax “attacks” in fall 3011.
see:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Operation_Northwoods
You didn’t put up an argument, you spewed an insult. So you’re the fool.