by Stephen Lendman
Times editors support the worst of US crimes of war and against humanity. Managed news misinformation substitutes for unvarnished truth.
Editorials wrongfully blame Assad for Western-supported death squad crimes. They've done so throughout nearly three years of conflict.
Obama's responsibility is ignored. Syria is his war. He launched it. He continues it. He wants regime change. So do Times editors.
On January 12, they headlined "Treading Water on Syria." They falsely called ongoing conflict "civil war." There's nothing whatever civil about it.
Syria was invaded. Death squads represent US interests. Washington offers full support. It includes funding, weapons, training and direction.
Key NATO partners, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan are involved. Imperial lawlessness repeats. Independent nations are targeted for regime change.
All options are used. Mass killing and destruction follow. One country after another is ravaged. Wars without end rage. Millions are killed. Human suffering is extreme. Don't expect Times editors to explain.
War "has become exceedingly complicated," they said. It's fundamentally simple.
US wars have common aims. They're waged to advance America's imperium. They're for unchallenged dominance.
They're for resource control and exploitation. They're for expanding Washington's military footprint. They're for replacing independent governments. They're for installing pro-Western ones.
They're for putting US stooges in charge. Times editors ignore what's most important to explain.
Peace prospects aren't encouraging, they said. Indeed not. They're predicated on regime change. Times editors support it. They want "Assad to step aside in favor of a transitional government."
Syrians alone should decide who'll lead them. International law mandates it. No nation, organization, individual or editorial board can dictate policy.
None can impose their will unilaterally. Doing so is lawless. It sustains conflict. It prevents ending it. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya explain best. So does Syria.
Out-of-control violence continues. Ending it remains elusive. Washington bears full responsibility. Supportive media editors share it.
US-imposed sanctions on Iran are illegal. Times editors support them. They lie claiming a military component to Iran's nuclear program.
They called last November's interim agreement a way to halt what doesn't exist. They support stiffer sanctions "if Iran cheats."
They ignore America's menacing arsenal. They ignore Israel's. They ignore their aggressive lawlessness. They ignore their partnership in one crime of war and against humanity after another.
They ignore Iran's abhorrence of war. They ignore its longstanding record. It hasn't attacked another country in centuries. It threatens none now.
Times editors one-sidedly support Washington's imperial agenda. They support Israel's. If "Iran...embark(s) on an even more aggressive search for a nuclear weapon, (it) could leave war as the only option," they say.
Imagine supporting war on a non-belligerent country. Times editors endorse all US wars. They support planned ones.
They regurgitate official lies. They're in front page features. They're in op-eds. They're in editorials. Willful misinformation substitutes for truth.
Millions of lost lives follow. So does mass destruction. How many ravaged countries will Times editors support?
How many lost lives are too many? How much human misery is too extreme? How often can lawlessness be supported? Times editors owe readers answers.
They deserve what they've never gotten. They're force-fed deplorable op-eds instead. Brookings Saban Center is one-sidedly pro-Israeli. It supports the worst of Zionist extremism.
Michael Doran is a former Bush administration National Security Council and defense official. He's a Saban senior fellow. He lied calling 9/11 a Muslim world religious conflict.
Muslims had nothing to do with it. Washington bears full responsibility. Perhaps Israel shared it. 9/11 was state-sponsored terrorism. Mounting evidence proves it.
Max Boot is a notorious neocon. He's a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. Both men support wrong over right.
Times editors gave them feature op-ed space. They took full advantage. They headlined "Obama's Losing Bet on Iran."
"Obama has staked the success of his foreign policy on" whether interim nuclear agreement terms with Iran become permanent policy.
Doing so "divert(s) attention from (whether Tehran) can become a cooperative partner in regional security," they said.
Iran prioritizes peace, nonviolence, stability and security. Longstanding US policy stokes conflicts. America bears full responsibility for decades of anti-Iranian hostility.
Washington alone can change it. Don't bet on Obama doing so. He demands regime change. Israel wants a regional rival removed.
America wants a pro-Western stooge replacing independent Iranian governance. Obama perhaps thinks nuclear diplomacy can achieve it.
More likely he'll demand final settlement terms no responsible leaders would accept. Iran will be blamed for US duplicity.
Doing so heads things back to square one. Will war be Obama's option in response?
Both Times contributors claim Kerry wants Iran involved in Syrian peace talks. Why then is a formal invitation withheld? Why isn't it forthcoming without preconditions?
Why is Iran's participation conditional on accepting US-demanded terms? They demand regime change. They deny Syrians the right to decide who'll lead them.
They want a US stooge replacing Assad. They want another Israeli rival removed. They want Iran isolated. Tehran categorically opposes what no responsible leadership would accept.
Scheduled talks aren't for peace. They're for unconditional surrender. They're for greater US regional dominance. They're for acceding to Israeli demands.
According to Doran and Boot, Obama wants "to extricate the United States from the Middle East."
"(M)ore important is (America's) fear of Al Qaeda: The White House undoubtedly sees Iran and its Shiite allies as potential partners in the fight against Sunni jihadism."
Obama's "strategy is breathtakingly ambitious," they say. "It is also destined to fail."
US forces infest the Middle East. Washington wants unchallenged control. It's the oil, stupid. It's major gas reserves.
It's controlling other regional resources. It's exploiting them for profit. So-called "Sunni jihadis(ts)" are close US allies.
America uses them strategically. They're allies in Syria. They're enemies cross-border in Iraq. In 2011, they were allies in Libya. They're enemies now.
They're what America wants them to be. They can play different roles at the same time. It's longstanding US policy.
Washington showed up to stay. It plans no regional departure. US forces are strategically deployed. They didn't arrive to leave.
"Iran doesn't share a common enemy that would force it to unite with America," said Doran and Boot.
Iran sought rapprochement with Washington for decades. Since 1979, it was rebuffed. Is this time different? America has all the proving to do.
Don't bet on what hasn't happened before. Longstanding US duplicity is notorious.
"...Iran's proxies are fighting Sunni extremists in a number of theaters," claim Doran and Boot. US proxies are doing the fighting. Tehran wants conflicts ended.
Iran "cooperated with Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists, such as Hamas and the Taliban, when it has served its interests to do so," claim both writers.
Tehran's been a convenient punching bag for decades. It's wrongfully blamed for US and Israeli crimes. Extremist writers support the worst of America's imperial agenda.
Doran and Boot claim Iran "always harbored dreams of regional hegemony. There is no sign that (Hassan Rohani's election) changed anything."
"On the contrary, Iran is stepping up its support for (regional) militants..." It's arming Hezbollah and Syria, claim Doran and Boot.
It's justifiably aiding its allies. Doing so is the best chance for regional peace, stability and security.
Washington infests the Middle East with weapons. It sells billions of dollars worth to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other regional allies. It practically gives them away to Israel.
Don't expect Doran and Boot to explain. They support the worst of imperial lawlessness. They endorse war. They deplore peace.
They want Syrian and Iranian sovereignty destroyed. They want pro-Western stooge governance replacing it. They're mindless about one US-instigated war after another.
They don't give a damn about millions killed. They're silent about horrific suffering.
They ignore imperial lawlessness. They say nothing about Israel's involvement. They claim an Iranian "power play."
Iran wants peace, stability and security. It wants rapprochement with all nations. Washington wants war on humanity. It may destroy it in the process.
Doran and Boot turned truth on its head. Things will "get worse if Iran is allowed to maintain its nuclear program with international blessing," they claim.
America must ally with regional partners, they said. They want Assad deposed. "(I)f necessary (with) support of Western air power," they urge.
Better earlier than now, they said. Better late than never, they believe. "(T)here is no better alternative," they stressed Neocons think this way.
Why else would the region boil? Why do other areas America harms?
Why do cauldrons of violence prevent peace, stability and security? Why do Times editors feature hawks opposing peace?
Wars assure more of them. One segues to others. They rage out-of-control. They threaten humanity.
Don't expect right-wing extremists to explain. Don't expect editorial apologies for featuring them. Expect more of the same. It's longstanding scoundrel media practice.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.