To: Editor of The New York Times
Response to "Iran is Expanding Its Nuclear
Program, Agency Reports" - August 31, 2007
By: Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
They say history repeats itself; yet we fail to learn from
our mistakes. *The New York Times* report by ELAINE
SCIOLINO and WILLIAM
J. BROAD "Iran
Expanding Its Nuclear Program, Agency Reports" (August 31, 2007) was a
sad reminder of 1917. America.
Almost a century later and once again the United States
government feels the need to explain itself to its public and overseas. Wars
have always demanded explanations. This was something that Woodrow Wilson
realized when the United States entered into the 'Great War' in April 1917.
He felt compelled to sell the war to the U.S. public, as such, he established a
substantial propaganda known as the Committee on Public Information (CPI). It
became necessary for the propaganda machine CPI, referred to as "the fight for
the mind of mankind", to go global. The goal was to wire general news as well
as 'crafted' for target audiences around the world and be distributed by CPI
officers. Papers were asked to carry the provided information; those that did
not carry CPI stories found themselves in short of supplies of paper from the United
States.
Today, it appears that the newspapers in this country have
faced several paper shortages; in the spirit of the Great War and the
propaganda apparatus set up to 'explain war', the stories we see in print are
not based on accuracy, but rely on the Bush White House agenda to justify wars
- one after another. The most recent example of this is the Sciolino and
Broad 'interpretation' of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'s
report on Iran which they presented so very inaccurately.
Their dangerous distortion of the
IAEA report is alarming for the Agency not only lauds Iran's cooperation, and
underscores the fact that Iran's uranium enrichment program is operating well
below capacity, but more to the point of the Sciolino and Broad article, a senior
U.N. official's remarks were obviously twisted for it was stated that given the
Iranian's point by point cooperation with
inspectors and Tehran's lack of significant enrichment progress it is "likely
to blunt Washington's push for painful sanctions."
The
Great War saw to itself 8.5 million dead, and a staggering number of
casualties; A tragedy so incompressible that historians are still
debating the cause/s which sparked such madness even long after the widows and
orphans have taken their resting place alongside their dead heroes. One historian, F.H. Hodder observed: It is one of the
minor compensations of the great war that it enriched our vocabulary by giving
us new words.... and giving new meaning to old ones' . In the first category
he cited 'camouflage', in the second he cited 'propaganda'. I must ask the
editors of *The New York Times*, are you 'camouflaging' the truth from the
readers so that we wage war on Iran, or is this 'Propaganda' so that Mr. Bush's
war on Iran is accepted by the American and foreign public?