"Iran can demonstrate its seriousness about concern with regard to terrorism by taking concrete actions, such as dropping support for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and suspending its uranium enrichment program," the ambassador said.
Another official, a spokesman for the White House, said that Iran was a "state-sponsor of terror" and the Iranian president had no business being at the 9/11 site.
The media's attitude was no different.
"Iran plans to bomb Israel if Israel attacks Iran," declared AOL Time Warner's article about Ahmadinejad's visit. The same article mentioned that an official in Ahmadinejad's government had been involved in the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran, a major incident in which 63 U.S. diplomats and 3 U.S. citizens were taken captive in 1979.
Now maybe it's just me, but "Iran plans to bomb Israel if Israel attacks Iran" sounds like a really dramatic way of stating the obvious; I mean, what country would not retaliate if it were attacked by another country? As for the hostage crisis, AOL Time Warner's focus on what ''one'' public servant happened to be doing thirty years ago might seem a bit petty, but there was probably a reason for the focus. Not too long ago, the Western mass media stumbled upon the fact that one perpetrator who was been photographed during the hostage crisis looked like a young version of Ahmadinejad. Today, the CIA claims with "relative certainty" that the man was not Ahmadinejad. Nevertheless, without waiting for verification, the media had spread rumors about the photo. Once the story fell apart, the media refused to back down. But the best they could do, as we see, is insinuate a relationship that was the equivalent of "he was your 'father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate", which is telling.
As the roast continued, the mass media also accused Ahmadinejad of declaring that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and berated him for his "anti-Israel rhetoric" and "advocating genocide." One unnamed Israeli official even called for Ahmadinejad to be abducted so that he could be tried for his words in an Israeli court. As it turns out, Ahmadinejad did not even say what he was quoted as saying; the words cited were fresh from the imagination of Ethan Bronner, a writer for the Jewish-owned New York Times who had "accidentally" mistranslated a speech that the Iranian president had given.
Can you see the pattern here? Perhaps aware that U.S. media giants like AOL Time Warner support Israel and those who support Israel are eager to agitate against Iran and its president, things begin to make more sense; after all, Iran's president questions the accepted version of the Holocaust and dares to suggest that its purpose is to justify Israel's existence and guilt Germans into financing and supporting it. Additionally, although Israel is the only country in the Middle East capable of launching a nuclear attack, Iran is purportedly on its way towards obtaining nuclear capabilities which, in terms of military power, mean parity with Israel. Iran is also a patron of Hezbollah, a resistance group with which the Israelis are at battle with over land claims.
Every American can look up the facts and form their own opinion about Iran, Israel and the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli and Lebanon crises. Some might not consider that their business at all, and that is fine. Either way, it is important to at least understand how those on both sides have an agenda to shape minds and win support. That said, any American's opinion about U.S. involvement in these conflicts should be about what is best for America, and what America has to risk or gain in consequence - it should not be about what some pro-Israeli lobbyists, no matter what they say, actually see as the best outcome for Israel. That distinction is important, because the Israel fan club would love for Americans to get on their side to the greatest extent possible, no matter what and no matter the cost to America; after all, the more involved the U.S. is in Israel's conflicts, the less of a burden Israel has to achieve its war aims, and the greater the risk that Israel will overplay its hand, to America's detriment, if Israel thinks it can achieve its aims with American help. This is the primary reason we should be wary of the pro-Israel lobby, its bought-out politicians and allied press and media, because everything they say is basically to propagate U.S. involvement. We should never forget that.
Another thing we must not forget is what is actually at stake for America. You would think that, after two recent and arguably disastrous engagements in the Middle East, its people would be more in tune with this reality. But, as public discourse seldom goes in this direction, perhaps a reminder is needed. The raw truth is that Israel's war machine does not churn forward without the support of U.S. tax dollars and growing debt - at the very least. Moreover, Americans should consider what it means when Israel's military leaves Lebanon in ruins after each out-of-proportion, "retributive" strike there. This goes beyond the hypocrisy of finger-pointing at Iran for "sponsoring terror" by supplying Hezbollah, because the more important issue is that the repercussions of this mass murder tend to boomerang. You would think Americans would understand this as well, given the popularly-accepted understanding that the 9/11 attacks were carried out because of U.S. involvement in the Middle East in years prior. But the lessons appear to be forgotten, too.
Perhaps here more than anywhere, the level of amnesia is astonishing. After all, the "Founding Fathers" are still pedestalized in America, so you would think the warnings about foreign allegiances and alliances would be more closely heeded. In his Farewell Address, for example, President George Washington told Americans to "steer clear of a permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world"; President Thomas Jefferson's Inaugural Address, meanwhile, included similar advice: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none." These concerns did not just come from anywhere; the young nation had just removed the yoke of London's overlords - and seen first hand how the South, taking the "Tory" side, nearly ruined the cause for independence. Not surprisingly, all immigrants to the young U.S. nation, from the first days of its existence, were forced to renounce foreign oaths.
Of course, these days, you would hardly know such a policy to have existed. If born in Israel, for example, you can be an American, Israeli and even a German citizen all at the same time, and nobody will ask what direction your loyalties take you. We live in an era where the pro-Israel lobby is the biggest financier of the U.S. government and, unlike other foreign lobbies, it does not even have to register as a foreign entity. Instead of organizing in protest, people appear to be afraid to even suggest any of this is true. But it is; look up "AIPAC" online and you will find this out, too. You will also see that AIPAC is the second strongest, if not the strongest, source of political funding in America. This should be a major red flag; after all, if so many politicians have to be bought out, corrupted and bribed to support your cause, what does that say about the confidence and certainty that such support would flow from naturally from that possibility being the best option? Accordingly, when politicians speak of "democracy", "Judeo-Christian values" or the notion that "Israel is our aircraft carrier in the Middle East", listen to see if more is offered up than just jingoism and buzzwords. Also, check the speaker's pockets; there is a clear difference between a public servant advocating policy for the betterment of their own country and being paid to pretend this is the case. Be wary of the difference - and those who wish to make their own enemies into America's enemies. Remember the warnings of America's forefathers.
