Matt Johnson

*Originally published in Political Fiber, April 20, 2012

Last November, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its most alarming report to date on Iran’s veiled nuclear enrichment program.

At the bottom of page 7, the report contains an ominous section titled, “Possible Military Dimensions.” Item 38 of this section details concerns about Iranian “activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.” Item 43 goes on to list a catalog of violations implicating Iran in what looks to be an attempt to secretly develop offensive nuclear capacity.

There’s also a lengthy section under the heading, “Credibility of Information.” Over 1,000 pages of documentation are cited, along with extensive information from 10 United Nations member states, interviews with key officials involved in clandestine nuclear procurement activities, archives of satellite imagery, and a series of other independent sources. Needless to say, this report demands scrupulous investigation from anyone who claims to be interested in the pivotal debate over potential Iranian weapons.

Unsurprisingly, there are those who’ve already drawn compulsive, lazy parallels to the inaccurate intelligence surrounding Iraqi weapons in 2002 and 2003.

The noted historian and professor, Juan Cole called the IAEA report “nuclear demagoguery” and went on to say, “We’ve seen this picture before. Let’s not fall for it again…”

In an article for the Daily Mail Online, Peter McKay makes the standard Iraq comparison, mentions the present debate’s “deja-vu quality,” and asks, “Are we now falling into the same trap over Iran?”

Michael Calderone of the Huffington Post poses his own incredulous query: “Haven’t we seen this movie before?”

To these and a host of other commentators, the situation regarding Iran is perfectly analogous with what happened in Iraq.

In reality, they’re completely different scenarios. But the persistent opposition to objective inquiry remains both strident and dangerous. Media outlets that try to remain impartial and honest about Iran are lambasted as “war mongers” and accused of “cheerleading” another “war of aggression.” These stale platitudes are regurgitated through gritted teeth and without compunction everywhere.

Furious readers wag their fingers at the editors of The Atlantic and The New York Times for publishing stories about the IAEA findings. Judith Miller’s sullied name is invoked constantly and the specter of Dick Cheney floats into virtually every article. It’s a bewildering outcry against a meticulous report by a respectable organization.

Still, at least the widespread furor over objective journalism retains a degree of seriousness. Ron Paul doesn’t even go that far. In Iowa on December 30, 2011, Congressman Paul was pressed for an answer about the Iranian nuclear program. He clearly thought the question trivial and opted for a cheap joke instead of a thoughtful response: “They can’t even produce enough gasoline for their automobiles!” Right! How could they possibly produce a nuclear warhead?

Leaving aside the comprehensive IAEA report that Dr. Paul so effortlessly brushes aside, since when have domestic problems prevented a regime from become more militaristic? As it turns out, the inverse is the reality. Countries with glaring civil or economic issues frequently compensate for these deficiencies by rallying nationalistic fervor around perpetually visible, ridiculously bloated militaries. North Korea can’t even address its citizens’ most basic needs, but its xenophobic, paranoid dictator and his inner circle still managed to seize control of nuclear weapons.

And while they revel in this fact and demand tribute from other countries, they simultaneously parade their skeletal, stunted soldiers around columns of Cold War-era equipment to remind their enslaved citizens why they’re the envy of the world.

Do we have conclusive evidence that Iran will produce a nuclear weapon in the coming months? No. Should the United States attack Iran? No. Should we approach sobering, fact-laden IAEA reports with flippant passivity? I should think not. As the United States discovered in Iraq, intelligence of this kind can never be airtight. But this is only one more reason why organizations such as the IAEA don’t approach these issues arbitrarily. The possibility of nuclear blackmail isn’t a matter of indifference, as Ron Paul would have you believe. It’s a stark threat to international security and the most sacred principles of international law.

We should approach it as such.