45 of 50 people found the following review helpful
Eric C. Petersen
- Published on Amazon.com
for anyone interested in the Iran nuclear kerfuffle, a group that might hopefully include the U.S. Congress or the D.C. foreign policy apparatus, albeit this book rather clearly shows these two groups have been disinterested in any facts. Lacking until the publication of this book has been a comprehensive time line review of how events in this standoff came to be; media coverage of events has been sporadic, superficial, and often factually incorrect (even by the NYT, Washington Post, LA Post) and most articles are mere messaging channels for propaganda-with-a-purpose emanating either out of D.C. or Tel Aviv. For over a decade the American public has been exposed to "startling new revelations" of Iran's nuclear weapons intent, only to see these charges disappear with time - to be replaced by more new-and-exciting allegations that in turn... As a semi-serious student of this ongoing battle I've put minimal credence in media reports but held the quarterly IAEA reports in high regard; unfortunately, as Porter demonstrates, this organization had and has an anti-Iran agenda. One of its most effective tools has been to "never close the book": The IAEA will ask for specific information on a suspected activity, Iran then provides a full answer, the IAEA agrees there is no problem, but refuses to close this file, saying it may come back at some time in the future to "reconsider." At other times its reports simply omit mention of a closed item (like the alleged nuclear trigger activity at Parchin) thereby leaving it open. The aim of this game is to never give Iran a clean bill of health despite the country's full cooperation, thereby allowing sanctions to continue to gnaw at Iran's economy to achieve the real objective - regime change.
This book is a real page-turner, clearly written, and the amount of research that went into it a bit mind boggling. While there are dozens of revealing episodes, I'll land on a few that may be representative: After the 1979 Revolution Iran ceased work on the Bushehr nuclear power plant (about 80% complete) as it was viewed as one of the Shah's unnecessary projects. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) that under that Shah employed nearly 900 engineers and had a $3 billion-plus budget was virtually disbanded. (The Shah had plans for 20-plus reactors by the mid 1990s that was A-OK by the USA. The Tehran Research Reactor that the US supplied in 1967 ran on bomb-grade HEU; in cooperation with Argentina Iran downgraded the fuel load to 20% U-235 in 1987.) Facing severe electrical shortages, two years later it was decided to proceed with Bushehr. The Shah had paid a German firm $4.7 billion to construct Bushehr and $1.18 billion to France for a 10% ownership in Eurodif, a uranium enrichment project that was to supply the Iranian reactor with its fuel. The U.S. pressured both countries to refuse to honor their commitments, and France went as far as to refuse to return the billion-plus dollar deposit. Iran then approached the IAEA for technical assistance to bring Bushehr into operation but was denied because of U.S. pressure. American actions were in clear violation of Article IV of the NPT, and as Porter notes, "Instead, the US national security bureaucracy was simply substituting its own unilateral interests and policy for its legal obligations."
The decision by the Reagan administration to deny Iran its rights granted as a signatory of the NPT was clearly the genesis of the nuclear weapons issue and yet another example of a circular firing squad so often formed by the foreign policy folks in D.C.: Had the US allowed the original German-French deals to proceed not only would have the power plant come on stream in short order (later complicated when Saddam bombed it) but, more importantly, Iran would have had a source of fuel for the plant, i.e., there never would have been a reason for Iran to begin enrichment about twenty years later. But, some may say, reactors like Bushehr produce plutonium - if Iran was seeking a nuke this "peaceful" application of nuclear fuel could be used for a bomb. Not. "Reactor grade" plutonium is totally unsuited for weaponizing, no country has ever built a bomb from this plutonium source - and I will spare the reader a tutorial on reactor core nuclear decay cascade to prove why.
Two other events: First, 1989. That year saw the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, Khamenei selected as Supreme Leader and Rafsanjani elected president who was openly committed to integrating Iran into the global economic system (and spoke excellent English). The election of George H.W. Bush saw a more open approach to Iran based "strict reciprocity" mentioned in his first State of the Union speech. Long story short, by December 1991 Rafsanjani had succeeded in getting the last of US hostages freed in Lebanon. Through intermediaries in January 1992 Bush let the Iranians know that it might be possible to take Iran off the terrorist list, reduce economic sanctions, and compensate Iran for the July 1988 shoot down of an Iranian civilian Airbus by the USS Vincennes which had killed all 290 Iranian passengers and crew. The following month this list was expanded to consider allowing the sale of some airplanes and spare parts, lack of the latter which had severely impacted the Iranian air force in the Iraq-Iran War. In April this whole deal fell apart, according to National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft because "new intelligence" showed that Iran was embarking on a new course of terrorist actions and military aggressiveness. This new intelligence included the alleged assassination of an Iranian national in Connecticut by Iranian agents, an anticipated wave of Hezbollah terror in Europe and a lot of other garbage. There were two vocal proponents of Iran as a terrorist state "developing a capability to produce WMD and seeking to acquire nuclear weapons" - the CIA and the DOD. When Robert Gates returned as CIA director in late November 1991 he immediately launched a media campaign on the nefarious intents of the Iranian state - because he knew about the imminent Bush deal; only Bush, Baker, Scowcroft and Gates knew of the high-level meetings on this issue. As for the information used by Gates, he "substituted his own views for those of the intelligence community," not the last time this would happen by spokespersons of future administrations. The Pentagon soon joined Gates in this media crusade. Gates had no love for Rafsanjani for having revealed the 1986 secret visit of NSC staff to Iran in connection with the Iran Contra plan - an episode that almost cost Gates his career, but Porter concludes this combined intelligence-DOD attack on Iran was occasioned by the disintegration of the USSR: With the Cold War over, both agencies faced potentially large budget cuts so a new enemies list had to be created. Thus ended a possible comprehensive peace with Iran 22 years ago.
Second,the Gulf and Iraq wars and their bearing on the US disposition towards Iran. With the fall of the USSR and the lightning victory over Saddam in Kuwait the rise of the neocons started to take place in D.C., their views explicated in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). PNAC saw American military might at a "unipolar moment, a colossus astride the world, and our troops as the cavalry on the new frontier," or, as Michael Leeden put it, the US "should pick up some crappy country and throw it against the wall just to show the world whose boss." The game plan went as this: Saddam would be overthrown, turning Iraq into a base for projecting power into the rest of the Middle East, resulting in regime changes in those countries that had not been de facto allies of the United States. Bush's neocon advisors believed Iran's population was seething with revolt against the regime and a show of the effectiveness of US military power would shake the foundations of the regime in Iran. In 2003 Iran sent a detailed two-page proposal for direct negotiations on the full range of issues through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran. There was no reply to this proposal save to chastise the ambassador for forwarding it. With the situation in Iraq not following the neocons' utopian visions a harsher stance toward Iran seemed in order - both Rumsfeld and Cheney persuaded Bush that Iran was aligned with al-Qaeda,[!] and as one long-time Iran observer (Hillary Mann Leverett) noted, "They were not really interested in trying to keep Iran's enrichment program in check. We were on the march, so it didn't matter if they enriched. No focus on the nuclear issue was required because after regime change we might not want to oppose nuclear weapons by Iran." In sum, because the invasion of Iraq achieved the opposite of what the neocons anticipated Iran fell into the cross hairs, where it has been ever since.
As a final and then I'll put a cork in it: Until the election of Rabin as Israeli PM in June 1992 Israeli-Iranian relations were relatively benign - Israel was a major weapons supplier to Iran in the Iraq-Iran War and continued to sell weapons to Iran until 1992. When defense minister in 1987 Rabin held out hopes for a better relationship with Iran, but upon becoming PM did a 180 and the anti-Iranian invective started to flow. Why? Rabin began pushing his platform of negotiating with the PLO, an overture that was sure to be met with adamant resistance by certain elements in Israeli society - and one of them assassinated Rabin four years later. To overcome these doubts about peace talks with the PLO a larger threat had to be created that required portraying Iran and the Shiites in the region in the most lurid terms possible. As one observer noted, "If you don't make peace with these guys [the Palestinians], look what's coming next -Islamic fundamentalism with nuclear arms behind them." The election of Netanyahu in 1996 marked another round of Israeli agro-talk against Iran, but this time for a different reason - Clinton was pressing Bibi to implement the agreements reached in the Oslo Accords but Netanyahu believed he could dodge and weave on this issue by holding up the existential threat emanating from Iran. Unlike Rabin, Bibi had no intention of negotiating with the PLO and Iran gave him cover. In sum, Israel's new found hostility towards Iran in the 1990s had nothing to do with threats from Iran, but were ploys used for domestic politics - not that the Iranians were impervious to this criticism, a factor that led to the election of Mr. Ahmadinejad. In Netanyhau's second and current term he has used the threat of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. Another red herring - Israel couldn't do it even if it wanted to as a full-fledged strike would require over twenty more air refueling aircraft than they have, among other things. Both the Israeli and US military know full well this is an empty threat, yet this claim has not been refuted. Why? You can find out in the book - has something to do with (surprise!) the US Congress.
30 of 38 people found the following review helpful
Jeremy J. Stone
- Published on Amazon.com
Gareth Porter's "Manufactured Crisis" ought to be a prize winning book for the insight, eloquence, and detailed documentation he brings to bear on the long-running struggle by American neo-conservatives and Israeli Likud leaders to shape American policy toward Iran through one nuclear scare after another.
Our greatest newspapers, and other commentators, are shown to have been easily manipulated by calculated leaks and spin on complicated nuclear subjects. The International Agency for Atomic Energy (IAEA) was put under enormous, sustained pressure. And the American intelligence community failed to react in an objective way as happened also over Iraq. This is a cautionary tale of events not yet completed and of a war over Iran that might have happened and still might.
I believe my late father, I.F. Stone, the legendary journalist, who was known for his careful reading of documents, would have considered this book a masterpiece of close reading and careful detective work on a world-wide basis.
My organization, Catalytic Diplomacy, supported some of Gareth Porter's travel and so we read carefully his dispatches over the last few years. But, candidly speaking, I never imagined a book this powerful and complete would result from his work. Gareth, a winner of the celebrated Martha Gellhorn Award, is a magnificent journalist and the book is an exciting read.
Jeremy J. Stone
President, Federation of American Scientists (FAS) (1970-2000)
President, Catalytic Diplomacy, (1999-present)
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful
Dr. Ludwig Watzal
- Published on Amazon.com
Since the early1990s, Israel, U.S. officials and their submissive European allies, supported by their uncritical and subservient media, have been peddling allegations, fabrications, accusations and lies that the government of Iran was pursuing a secret, military adjunct to its regularly inspected civilian nuclear program. The main thrust of Porter’s book is to demonstrate that this crisis was „manufactured“ and the accusations were bogus, i. e. Iran never had a military nuclear program. For over 20 years Israeli politicians have been claiming that Iran’s nuclear device was just around the corner. Despite the political hullabaloo and Netanyahu’s call for military actions against Iran’s nuclear installations: „Netanyahu never intended to use military force against Iran, and the Obama administration was well aware of that but was hoping to exploit the threat to gain diplomatic leverage on Iran“, writes Porter.
President Obama, under severe pressure from Israel, its Zionist lobby AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) together with the large majority of Congress, has been leading a worldwide effort to impose crippling sanctions on Iran to force it to give up its alleged nuclear-weapons program. Up until now, there exists no evidence that Iran carried out a military nuclear program. Beyond that, Gareth Porter, a historian and investigative journalist specializing in US foreign and military policy, demonstrates that the so-called stolen documents, which apparently „proved“ Iran’s covert nuclear program, were „fraudulent“. These „mysterious documents“ were allegedly smuggled out of Iran on a laptop. The author unravels the contradictions between the material in the documents and well-established facts. Did the U.S rely for its „evidence“ on Israeli intelligence services?
Porter shows how Israel, the George W. Bush and later the Obama administration, successfully portrayed the various actions taken by Western nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as responses to a long history of Iranian covert militarization of its nuclear program. Iran started its nuclear program under Reza Shah Pahlavi. At that time, the U.S. and Israel were allied with the Persian dictator and didn’t mind a nuclear Iran. After the overthrow of the Shah regime in 1979, however, the United States intervened aggressively, as early as 1983, to prevent Iran from pursuing its legitimate right to peaceful nuclear power. It was these aggressive efforts by the U.S. , that forced Iran to resort to black market transactions in order to acquire the technology needed for its civilian nuclear program, writes Porter.
So far, the U.S. and Israel have done all they can to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program by, inter alia, sending hit men to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists and infect the computers of the nuclear installations with malware. According to the online newspaper „The Times of Israel“ from March 19, 2014, the Israeli Chief of Staff Benny Gantz revealed in a speech delivered before a class of students that „Israel had already conducted dozens of covert operations in foreign and enemy countries“, and that „Our Air Force is wherever we wanted it to be.“
Porter describes three stages that form the basis for the progress and the escalation of the crisis. Yet, he does not view each step by the U.S. and Israel as part of a master plan. On the contrary, he argues that each stage of the strategy developed in response to political developments and problems, which emerged from further coercing Iran on the nuclear issue. The first stage was triggered by the Iranian terrorist group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), which revealed at an August 2002 press conference Iran’s Natanz enrichment facility. MEK was removed a few months ago from the U.S. „terror list“. In 2008, the second stage was triggered when the U.S. obtained from unknown party stolen documents about a secret nuclear program. At the end of 2011, the third stage started by imposing new and more severe sanctions, targeting Iran’s oil export and banking sectors. This new round of sanctions was triggered by an IAEA report based on Israeli sources.
In the early 1990s, the U.S. portrayed Iran’s civilian nuclear program as a cover for its alleged ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons. In 2003, then Iranian president Mohammed Khatami offered negotiations with the U.S. the George W. Bush administration rejected it off-hand because Iran was a „rogue state“ and to ranked top on the so-called „axis of evil“.Until the end of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s term in office, the Obama administration together with Israel’s Benyamin Netanyahu tried to bully Iran into submission. With the election of the new President Hassan Rohani the demonization of the Iranian leadership did not work anymore.
Manufactured Crisis presents the first alternative narrative to the Iranian nuclear issue. The author shows what disastrous impact the U.S.-Israeli alliance has on the Middle Eastern region. This fateful partnership is rooted in America’s domestic politics. The Gordian knot must be untied for the benefit of the American people. At the end of the book, one gets the impression that the „Iranian problem“ is a U.S. one, or to put it differently, the U.S. problem is the alliance with Israel and the American political class inside the Beltway.
Gareth Porter’s well researched book presents readers with a clear view, so that they can see through the web of lies, deceptions and false accusations, to discover the real enemies of peace. A timely book more than worth reading.
Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as a journalist and editor in Bonn, Germany.
24 of 31 people found the following review helpful
Robert David STEELE Vivas
- Published on Amazon.com
I *strongly* recommend this book to every citizen concerned about a government that lies all the time. The NSA debacle of recent time, on top of the CIA debacles (rendition, torture, assassination by drone) on top of the various other White House led debacles are all deeply disturbing.
I have a copy of the book on the way and will provide my usual detailed review as soon as it arrives. In the meantime, here is a snippet from a really superb review by Peter Jenikins at Lobelog:
Porter concludes: "US and Israeli policies have been driven by political and bureaucratic interests, not by a rational, objective assessment of available indicators of the motives and intentions of Iranian leaders".
Another central theme, one that complements the hidden motive theme, is that intelligence material and intelligence assessments have played a baleful part in this saga.
Faulty interpretation of intelligence in the early 90s led US analysts to believe in a full-scale, clandestine nuclear weapons program, according to Porter, whereas, in his view, the weapons program never amounted to more than some weapons-related research between the late 90s and 2003.
Faulty interpretations can be forgiven. More seriously, Porter's researches suggest that in the first half of the last decade US analysts ignored or discounted evidence that called into question the assessments made in the 90s.
Peter's entire review can be easily found by searching for < Review (Guest): A Manufactured Crisis > or visiting Phi Beta Iota the Public Intelligence Blog.
Gareth Porter is one of a handful of truly stellar investigative journalists in such company as Sy Hersh, John Pilgar, archivist journalists such as John Prados, and advernture-journalists as Robert Young Pelton. I know him personally and hold him is the very highest regard.
11 of 15 people found the following review helpful
William O. Beeman
- Published on Amazon.com
Gareth Porter has been the most conscientious follower of the fantasy danger of Iran’s purported “nuclear weapons program.” In this new, meticulously documented book, he exposes the many lies and half-truths that have been promulgated over more than two decades to try and convince the American public and the world that Iran is the chief danger to international peace.
Before plunging into the details of the book, let me state its conclusions unequivocally: Iran has never been proven to have a nuclear weapons program. Any claim to the contrary is absolutely false. The attempt to claim that such a weapons program exists was the result of a decades-long effort on the part of American neoconservatives allied with right-wing forces in Israel to legitimize hostile actions against Iran designed to effect regime change there.
Porter’s account is fascinating and appalling reading. It is fascinating because he has created a compelling narrative showing how the framework for attacking Iran in this way evolved over decades. One of the most telling episodes in the book concerns President George H.W. Bush. In 1989 he was willing to improve relations with Iran eliminating sanctions that had been in place since the revolution of 1978-79. At that time American hostages were being held by Shi’a forces in Lebanon. Then Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati intervened, and all American prisoners were released. Bush was grateful and was supported by his national security advisor, Brent Snowcroft, but suddenly his administration reversed course.
As Porter describes it, though he and Bush wanted improved relations, everyone else on the national security team insisted that Iran was “deeply engaged in other acts of terrorism that made it very, very difficult to improve the relationship” (p. 87). Porter goes on to demonstrate that these “other acts of terrorism” were unsubstantiated. Essentially the decision not to go forward with improved relations was a political one and not based on any proven Iranian actions.
After Robert Gates, who had served on the National Security Council, became CIA director, the disinformaton about Iran continued. Porter documents that in 1992 it was Gates who first declared, with no hard evidence at all, that “Iran is developing a capability to produce weapons of mass destruction,” and was “seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.”
In this way the juggernaut against Iran was launched. Although the national intelligence estimate for that year declared that Iran would not seriously threaten U.S. interests, Gates’ estimate became gospel for the balance of the Bush administration, carrying forward into the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. Gates’ influence was indeed extremely telling.
After the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush administration was dominated by neoconservatives who had been active since the administration of his father and were anxious to see regime change throughout the Middle East. They ignored the fact that the Iranian nuclear energy program had started in earnest during the last years of the regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and declared that Iran had been undertaking “secret” nuclear developments. In fact, these were not at all secret, and had been governed by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran and the United States (but not Israel, Pakistan, India, or North Korea) were signatories, and which guaranteed Iran the “inalienable right” to the peaceful development of nuclear power.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was charged with carrying out inspections of Iran’s nuclear program (and indeed, the nuclear programs of all signatories to the treaty). They never once found the slightest evidence that Iran had a nuclear weapons program or had diverted any nuclear material for military use. Still Gates’ 10-year-old assertion that Iran was seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, though completely unproven, was seized upon by the neoconservatives who wanted to bring down the Iranian regime.
As Porter documents, the IAEA quickly became politicized. Its head, Mohamed ElBaradei, was excoriated by the George W. Bush administration, who tried to get him fired because he would not assert that Iran was building nuclear weapons. His eventual successor, Yukio Amano, was more compliant. Though still not able to say that Iran had a demonstrable nuclear weapons program, IAEA reports after he took office used convoluted language to suggest that they “could not eliminate the possibility” that Iran might be building nuclear weapons. Several attempts on Iran’s part during the Bush administration to negotiate over misunderstandings of its program were rebuffed by Washington, partially due to those same neoconservatives in his administration, notably John Bolton, who served as United Nations ambassador on a recess appointment during the crucial period from 2005-2006 and made it his mission to attack Iran with falsehoods at every turn.
Porter presents example after example of the U.S. media, most notably The New York Times, distorting the facts about Iran’s nuclear activities. Every action and decision was placed under a microscope, and though Iran had only completed one reactor in development since before the revolution, and was far from completing any facility for additional generation of nuclear power, the hyperbole in the press made it seem that Iran would have a bomb tomorrow. Lobbying groups such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) influenced these writings and lobbied the U.S. Congress for more stringent sanctions on Iran with the aim of completely dismantling Iran’s 40-year-old nuclear program. They also supported military action against Iran either by the United States or by Israel. Porter’s book features the famous picture of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointing to a picture of a Warner Brothers cartoon bomb and inveighing against Iran.
Porter’s book is essential reading for all Americans wary of the manufactured path to war. It shows how ideology can distort facts, and can be used as a weapon to sway public opinion in directions that are inimical to world interests. As talks with Iran in Vienna over its nuclear program proceed, Porter notes that the Obama administration, only after ridding itself of the extended influence of Robert Gates, has finally made attempts to wind down the two decades of baseless attacks on Iran to try and forge a rapprochement. The question remains whether warmongers in Washington, Israel, and some nations in Europe will come to their senses and let this happen.
William O. Beeman is professor of anthropology at the University of Minnesota. He has conducted research in Iran for over 40 years, and is author of The “Great Satan” vs. the