-----
As befitting Rivero's worldview, he is indulgent of Iran, seemingly based on the principle of support for one's enemies' enemy. Iran is Israel's enemy, thus Iran gets Rivero's support.
In early October '09 Rivero pushed a very positive view of Iran's position in negotiations over proposals Iran allow foreign rather than domestic uranium enrichment. Before the negotiations had concluded, Rivero was asserting Iran was going to agree to the proposals, and that such agreement would cast Israeli and American policy into disarray, as Iran's agreement was the last thing Israel and USA policy actually demanded, intent on war at any cost as they are, or so Rivero believes.
However, now we are further down the road, late November, and Iran still has refused to agree to the proposals. So, not only was Rivero wrong in fact - Iran did not (and still has not) signup to the proposals - but also the Rivero's entire scheme of Israel and USA being "hellbent on war no matter what" is undermined. But does Rivero even notice? No.
Surprisingly Rivero hasn't deleted some of his earlier comments, so we get a good chance to see how his position on Iran and the proposals has shifted, as the facts have changed. As the facts have changed, we can see Rivero yet holds to the same basic premise - but that premise - of (Jewish) aggression Iran is now justified by the new facts (even though the new facts contradict the old facts, which back in October Rivero had used to justify the same premise.) So, two seemingly contrary sets of facts - what Rivero thought would happen but didn't (Iran accepting the propsals) and what Rivero thought wouldn't happen but did (Iran refusing to accept the proposals) - are both rationalised by Rivero as justifying his wider premise of Jews conspiring in aggression against Iran.
Here's Rivero back October 24th:
As I predicted yesterday, Israel is trying to find some way to scuttle the Iran deal and proceed with the war.And here's Rivero, more recently, writing after it became clear Iran still hadn't signed up to the proposals: Rivero, October 30th:
------------------
Israel is cornered here. For that matter so is the United States. When this Iran deal goes through on Friday, the primary excuse for war with Iran evaporates.
....the Iran enrichment deal ends the possibility of a new war with which to distract from the old war.
It isn't a deal until ALL sides agree to it.Ahem. On October 21st Rivero had written:
The big lie here is the attempt to claim that Iran did agree to the original deal, which they did not, then to portray Iran as having broken the agreement which was never agreed to.
"Iran agrees 'in principle' to compromise on nuclear programmeRivero seemed certain Iran would sign, he said Israel and USA warmongering was "cornered" by the prospect of Iran signing the proposals. But late November, and Iran still hasn't signed, and there's been a subsequent UN motion censuring Iran.
Crisis over.
War is called off!
Now on to Israel's war crimes trials!!!!
If "the Iran enrichment deal ends the possibility of a new war" as Rivero claimed, why didn't Iran go for it? If the deal had "ended the possibility of a new war", why did Iran refuse to sign, and doesn't that mean anything? The interpretation is just changed, so that the new facts can renew the attack on Jews.....err....Israel. Whoops.