Earlier this week, the Technology and Culture Forum at MIT sponsored an event, “Iran and American Foreign Policy: Where Did the US Go Wrong?”, featuring Noam Chomsky and the two of us. The event was moderated by Prof. Ali Banuazizi of Boston College. ››read more

In testimony to Congress on Wednesday, Obama's State Department official Wendy Sherman reiterated the administration's policy on Iran. Since the intelligence community has concluded for some time now that Iran has not yet decided to pursue nuclear weapons, Sherman felt compelled to recite a litany of supposed Iranian transgressions to justify America's harsh economic sanctions and overall belligerence toward the country.

Every major criticism of Iran, though, is one that can also be lodged against the United States. ››read more

Iran should take part in an international conference agreed by Moscow and Washington to help broker an end to the Syria conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insisted in an interview broadcast Thursday. ››read more

If you look at the Balkans, if you look at Iraq, if you look at what we did in Libya, if you look at what we say we want to do in Syria—in every one of those cases, the argument for humanitarian intervention is inextricably bound up with the argument for coercive regime change. Frankly, I think Russia and China are eminently justified in saying that they’re not going to enable that.” ››read more

In an excellent report released last month, the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) offered a thoroughly documented—and devastating—critique of mainstream media coverage of the Iranian nuclear issue. Authored by Jonas Siegel and Saranaz Barforoush, Media Coverage of Iran’s Nuclear Program: An Analysis of U.S. and U.K. Coverage, 2009-2012, see here, reviews coverage of Iran’s nuclear activities and the international controversy surrounding those activities in six major English-language newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Guardian, and the Independent. ››read more

Some human rights groups, especially Amnesty International, seem to have forgotten an important human right: peace. A petition has been launched to remind them. ››read more

By once again blowing the chance to close a nuclear deal with Iran, the U.S. and its western partners have set themselves up for escalating the conflict with the Islamic republic ››read more

Political motive revealed after Cambridge University first claimed scientist's non-attendance was on medical grounds ››read more

Israeli commentator Meir Javedanfar has made a very successful career of trafficking conventional wisdom and mainstream narratives about Iran’s nuclear program.

In a recent op-ed for the Guardian newspaper he has insisted – as he has done for years now – that the economic warfare and collective punishment exacted upon Iran at the behest of the United States and Israel is a beneficial policy that has made the Iranian government more malleable and amenable to Western diktat over its uranium enrichment program. ››read more

"The billions of dollars we are lavishing on the B61 is criminal. This is billions of dollars spent on a weapon whose mission evaporated at the end of the cold war. It's clearly aimed at buying senators" ››read more

The Syrian conflict has been accompanied by a distinct media narrative. Within this narrative - which poses a binary division between the forces engaged in the conflict, identifying the players as good (the rebels, who must receive 'our' support) and bad (the government) - the role the West must play is that of potential saviour, whose aim is to cautiously observe the conflict so that it may intervene to 'fix' the situation, as The Guardian's Simon Tisdall put it:

"So what can Obama do? As Vladimir Putin was expected to make plain to John Kerry in Moscow on Tuesday, he cannot count on Russian (or, therefore, Chinese or UN security council) support to fix Syria." ››read more

If western politicians were really interested in saving lives, they would use their leverage to negotiate a settlement ››read more

No universally applied principle justifies the Israeli attack on Damascus. Only self-flattering tribalism does that ››read more

The bombing of Syria by Israel yesterday hit up to 12 targets near the capital, Damascus. It cannot be seen as anything other than an act of war against another country. It is clearly illegal under international law. ››read more

The President talks peace, while ratcheting up hostilities and even intervening in Syria in order to get to Iran ››read more

Sanctions, whether unilateral or multilateral, have been the United States' core policy on Iran since the 1979 revolution. President Barack Obama entered office confirming that he intended to pursue a policy of engagement with Tehran. During his tenure, however, the United States has orchestrated its harshest sanctions to date against Iran. ››read more

WPSU, Penn State’s public broadcasting station, did a thoughtful interview with Flynt about our book for its “Conversations from Penn State” series, which was broadcast last night and is now available online. ››read more

Frederick Dahl writes for Reuters that IAEA inspectors can find incredibly minute traces of nuclear material at Parchin, if Iran had conducted secret nuclear experiments there as alleged. What Frederick Dahl leaves out is that the IAEA already visited Parchin, twice in fact in 2005, and at time such environmental samples were taken. Nothing was found. ››read more

The outlines of a nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran have long been obvious: Western recognition of Iran's nuclear rights in return for more intrusive monitoring and verification of Iranian nuclear facilities. With agreement so readily at hand, the Obama administration's refusal to take it is baffling to many international observers. But the reason for American obstinacy becomes clearer when one considers that that the Iranian nuclear issue has at least as much to do with the future of international order as it does with nonproliferation. ››read more

"Sometimes I wonder where the uproar is over "crippling sanctions" imposed on almost 80 million people? What has happened to all Iranian expatriates (activists, university professors, "experts", etc) who rushed to American and European television channels in the aftermath of the last, and disputed, Presidential election in Iran, vehemently objecting the Islamic Republic's brutal crushing of protesters, unleashing immense pressure on the Iranian state in the process?
Why aren't they exerting the same kind of pressure on the US and European governments? Why aren't they pointing out that Western-led sanctions are crushing those very same "people" in Iran? Is it that they are not invited back to make this point on FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC and all other broadcasters from which they received an open platform during the protests? Is it that they are interested in the "people" only in so much as it serves their own ambitions?" ››read more