If you want to understand the U.S.-Iran controversy, know this: It is not about nuclear weapons.

You're thinking: Of course it's about nuclear weapons. Everyone says so.

Well, not everyone does. But it isn't a numbers game. As William O. Beeman points out in the Huffington Post:

"There is a strange irony in President Obama's announcement of the temporary agreement. He mentioned the term 'nuclear weapon' multiple times in his announcement, implying that Iran was on a path to develop such a weapon. One wonders if he actually believes this or if his repeated implied accusation was a rhetorical device designed to placate his hard-line critics.

"The president must know by this time that there is no evidence that Iran has or ever had a nuclear-weapons program. Every relevant intelligence agency in the world has verified this fact for more than a decade. U.S. National Intelligence Estimates that were made public in 2007 and 2011 underscored this. The International Atomic Energy Agency has also consistently asserted that Iran has not diverted any nuclear material for any military purpose.

"Even Israeli intelligence analysts agree that Iran is 'not a danger' to Israel."

The 10th anniversary of the start of America's illegal and aggressive war against Iraq should not pass without recalling that the mainstream news media eagerly participated in the Bush administration's dishonest campaign for public support. It is no exaggeration to say that most news operations were little more than extensions of the White House Office of Communications. Abandoning even the pretense of an adversarial relationship with the government, the media became shameful conduits for unsubstantiated and outright false information about Saddam Hussein's alleged threat to the American people. Included among the falsehoods were reports that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, had trained al-Qaeda fighters, and had attempted to obtain uranium ore and aluminum tubes for nuclear bombs.

Put bluntly, the disastrous invasion of Iraq - which was sold on the basis of lies told by President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and others - might not have happened without the enthusiastic help of the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and others. The blood of more than a hundred thousand - perhaps more than a million - Iraqis and 4,500 Americans is on their hands, too.

A growing group of individuals and organizations has designated Saturday, February 4, as a "National Day of Action" aimed at preventing a war against Iran. The manifesto is simple: "No War, No Sanctions, No Intervention, No Assassinations."

Nothing is more urgent than stopping the march to war now underway. Economic warfare has begun already. Sanctions and embargoes are belligerent acts under international law; such policies goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor in 1941. The U.S. State Department recently reassured Israeli leaders, who along with their American lobby are in a bigger hurry for war than President Obama is, that the sanctions will devastate the Iranian economy - more precisely, the Iranian people.

The spreading Occupy Wall Street movement, despite a vague worldview and agenda, properly senses that something is dreadfully wrong in America. The protesters vent their anger at the big financial institutions in New York's money district (as well as other big cities) for the housing and financial bubble, the resulting Great Recession, the virtual non-recovery, the threat of a second recession, and the long-term unemployment - which averages more than 9 percent but hits certain groups and areas far more severely than others.

The protest is understandable, even laudable, but there's something the protesters need to know: Wall Street couldn't have done it alone. The protesters' wrath should also be directed at the national government and its central bank, the Federal Reserve System, because it took the government or the Fed (or both) to:

• create barriers to entry, for the purpose of sheltering existing banks from competition and radical innovation;

• then regulate for the benefit of the privileged industry;

The most offensive claim made during the debt-ceiling controversy is that there's a moral equivalence between cutting government spending and raising taxes. President Obama asks for "shared sacrifice" to reduce the budget deficit. In his view, if the government spends more than it takes in - it currently borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar spent - the "balanced" approach is to "cut" spending and raise taxes.

There are quotation marks around "cut" for a good reason. No one - Republican House Speaker John Boehner included - wants to cut spending in the commonsense meaning of the term: namely, reducing government spending from today's level ($3.8 trillion). No, in Washington-talk, to cut a budget is merely to reduce the rate of increase that would have occurred in the future if current law were left unchanged.

If the politicians were honest - and reporters committed to telling the public the truth - they would talk about smaller increases in spending, not "cuts," but even that wouldn't be entirely truthful, because in many cases the reduction in future increases itself is an illusion. It involves merely canceling the authority to spend money that no one expects to actually be spent.

The medical system does need reforming -- radical reforming. It's more expensive than it ought to be, and powerful interests prosper at the expense of the rest of us. The status quo has little about it to be admired, and we shouldn't tolerate it.

Thus, the American people should be fed up with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid for insulting our intelligence with their so-called heath-care reform. It is nothing of the sort. What they call progressive reform is little more than reinforcement of the exploitative system we suffer today.

Whether intentionally or not, Obama and company have misdiagnosed the problem with the current system and therefore have issued a toxic prescription as an alleged cure. They essentially say that the problem is too free a market in medical care and insurance; thus for them the solution is a less-free market -- that is, more government direction of our health-care-related activities.

Yet if the diagnosis is wrong -- which it is -- the prescription will also be wrong.