Friday
Jul162010
UPDATED Iran Analysis: When "War Chatter" Poses as Journalism (Step Up, Time Magazine)
Friday, July 16, 2010 at 16:49 
UPDATE 1945 GMT: Gosh, couldn't have predicted this. With Western "analysts" playing up the it-could-be-war line, Iranian authorities are responding with we-will-repel-you. Revolutionary Guard Deputy Commander General Hossein Salami said, "The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps is ready to confront arrogance on both national and global levels....[Missiles] are being produced locally and without any limitations and are ready to strike regional targets with any quantity and quality."I generally try these days to avoid slaps at US pundits because --- however ill-informed or ill-judged the commentary --- the effort is a diversion from the important issues.
Unfortunately, there are times when superficial, speculative ponderings are puffed-up as important revelations, and there are times when those supposed revelations can do political harm as well as causing unnecessary agitation. And on those occasions, a take-down is needed to get a bit of balance and to damp down the media hysteria.
Today Joe Klein of Time is pushing a piece, "An Attack on Iran: Back on the Table". The title says it all --- Reader, Reader, Come to Me, I Will Enlighten You on Dangerous Times! --- and unfortunately it has worked with even normally-shrewd outlets such as the influential Daily Dish blog.
Unfortunately because when you peel away the onion skins of Klein's claims posing as evidence, there is no onion, let alone a likely war, left.
Here are the sources for Klein's supposed discovery: "a recently retired U.S. official" offering his personal opinion ("I began to think...."), "an Israeli military source", and....that's it. There is not one US Government official at any level, let alone a level which would have access to such sensitive discussions.
Klein tries to cover this by stretching a quote from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, "I don't think we're prepared to even talk about containing a nuclear Iran. We do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons". You'll note that this quote doesn't actually translate into "military action" and, if you check both the interview and the context, you'll find that Gates was pushing the US-led sanctions regime against Tehran.
Then there's this beauty of a piece of straw making a haystack: "Other intelligence sources say that the U.S. Army's Central Command, which is in charge of organizing military operations in the Middle East, has made some real progress in planning targeted air strikes — aided, in large part, by the vastly improved human-intelligence operations in the region."
Leave aside that "other intelligence sources" does not necessarily mean "US Government" --- Klein immediately skips to a quote from his Israeli official. Militaries make contingency plans all the time for operations. You see, that's what you do in the military: you don't sit without any provisions for land, naval, and air operations since, you know, there's something called "preparedness" if a conflict does arise.
Klein takes refuge in the one public event that has been unsettling in recent weeks, when "United Arab Emirates Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba said on July 6 that he favored a military strike against Iran despite the economic and military consequences to his country". There has been the question as to whether al-Otaiba realised he was "on the record"; more importantly, there's the larger question of whether al-Otaiba is speaking for his Government, let alone any other Arab state, let alone the United States.
So what's the big deal about one jacked-up, macho, doom-laden column? Why not let it fade into cyber-oblivion?
Well, the problem is that, in Washington circles, Joe Klein is a loud voice --- hey, did you know he was the Anonymous author of the novel Primary Colors about the Clintons? --- and others respond to the call even when the voice is saying very little that is productive. So this column might get played up as a smoke signal of what is really happening.
And even though this is not what is really happening, the beat-beat-beat of war talk will be picked up by Tehran, which will echo it as proof of Western perfidy in its attempt to maintain some vestige of internal legitimacy. If the Iranian people are scared of "them", the logic runs, then they may not interrogate why they are disillusioned with the Government.
So let's call this column now. It is not empty, even if it is near-empty of evidence. It is filled with political exaggeration which can cause nothing but trouble: Joe Klein's attention-seeking comes at the expense not of calm consideration. It also comes at the expense of recognition of the Iranian people and their concerns.
Reader Comments (38)
They all lie and they do it in the name of Allah.
What a waste of time to read his crippled logic and laughable arguments. Mr. or Ms. PAK -or is it KASIF - is filling in for M. Ali (Mullah Ali) and Ramin is filling in for Rezvan. Remember them? They all are part of cyber Basiji network who are trolling these blogs on rotational bases.
Why is this character asking for 15 more years? How the heck did he come with 15? How many more thousands are they planning to murder in next 15 years? I guess they need 15 more years to get their dirty paws on nuclear weapon. Well, here is my response to Mr. P or Mr. K. HELL NO. Islamic Republic is dead, dead dead this time.
So let me get this straight.
I am a regime apologist - a dirty regime apologist, in the words of Megan - for advocating a peaceful, domestic civil challenge to the regime; a challenge that would not only remove the regime, but would also involve the necessary homegrown political evolution needed by Iranians to attain a mature, stable democratic government.
The likes of Arshama and Megan - self-proclaimed human rights activists - are advocating a war led by foreign forces to remove the regime, leaving behind death, destruction and fertile conditions for a consequential power struggle/civil war.
Funny that.
You can accuse me of anything you wish, be my guest. But your accusations and generic responses mean nothing.
Since when has this become an area to sling accusations on nothing more than conceptual differences?
Arshama my friend, as mentioned above I have come to respect your insight but the attacks to Pak are unwarranted. No where has he/she made comments that I think would be taken as showing they are regime supporters unless your assertion is that if you question war is the fix, question reports by the West on Iran's progress and believe the Green Movement is a progressive/long term movment (which has also been stated by many others including "leaders".
Personally it is disheartening to see the allegations and name calling being used so readily on this site. I love the vigor, thoughtfullness and vigor in the comments but please leave the name calling off site. It takes away from the dialogue and debate that is better suited to educate readers of this site. We are better than that.......
Understood.
after catching up on the discussion thread your independent view needs to be refreshed my friend...=)!
Bijan,
"Understood.
after catching up on the discussion thread your independent view needs to be refreshed my friend...=)! "
Which friend are you addressing in the above post?
I totally agree with Bijan's post that begins: "Since when has this become an area to sling accusations on nothing more than conceptual differences?"
The comment was to Arshama...does it not show this above my comment? It does when I view the site.
Please forgive my poor writing...I just realized I used vigor more than once in the same sentence. Problem w/posting while at work!!
Bijan,
: "Since when has this become an area to sling accusations on nothing more than conceptual differences?"
I let Arshama speak for him/herself. The following is my response to your above statement.
I do not like equivocation and do not like those who speak in riddle or use a lot of “buts” and “ifs” to hide their thoughts. In other word I prefer to deal with Ahmadi(s) of this world who wear their empty skulls on their sleeves; it is easier to deal with them. I do not like and do not trust Rafsanjani(s) of this world because you can never size them and you will never know when or where they stab you.
I certainly am fine with supporters of Islamic Republic who are upfront with their loyalty, e.g. people like Samuel or Rezvan. I do not agree with them but I appreciated their straightforwardness. I have major problem with people who are Islamic Republic closet supporters, those who troll the Net pretending they are supporters of opposition when their words say otherwise.
For some truth is painful, for me is Oxygen. I am direct and communicate my views and feeling with no ambiguity. If a person wants to call me names and characterize me because I called it as I saw it I am okay with that. Any mud they throw at me I will throw it right back them.
Catherine, Bijan,
“I totally agree with Bijan's post that begins: "Since when has this become an area to sling accusations on nothing more than conceptual differences?" “
1.. May I then ask why you and Bijan were silent when this individual, the individual you believe has been the subject of accusations, in his/her previous comments accused yours truly as extremist, etc and called me an idiot, etc. Please go back and take a look http://enduringamerica.com/2010/07/04/iran-thought-maybe-the-robot-can-be-president/#comments" rel="nofollow">http://enduringamerica.com/2010/07/04/iran-thou...
2. With all due respect do you not think it is inappropriate to lecture other readers how to conduct themselves or what to says or not to say??? Do you not think that should be left to the person who owns the blog?
3. Since when calling someone an agent of Islamic Republic has been banned on EA?? Did I not get the memo?
4. I do not come to this blog to read headline news or post links. I come to this blog to debate issues. In the process of a debate some who air their positions honestly and openly becomes the subject of contempt by some readers who see the matter differently. I do not see anything wrong with that as long as remarks are not profanity laced. Why do you?
5. Is this the world of Islamic Republic where you receive jail time and 75 lashes if you insult (so you say) someone? If so, I must have died and gone to Khomeini and Khamenei Hell.
Megan
I'm happy to explain where I'm coming from. I don't intervene on your behalf when someone calls you an idiot in a discussion during the course of which you do the same to them. You can give as good as you get, and often much much more. I don't like to get involved in other peoples' personal fights and I have tried to refrain from lecturing individuals on the way they treat others. On a few occasions, however, I have made a comment on the tone of a discussion, or agreed with one made by another reader as in this case, but these were general in nature and addressed to the entire comments section. I have come to know the regular readers here and assiduously avoid entering into the type of discussion with some of them, you included, that would make me a target of unwarranted viciousness and bile. Should that ever happen, I would be out of here in flash. It's just not my style. I agree wholeheartedly with Bijan's point: "it is disheartening to see the allegations and name calling being used so readily on this site. I love the vigor and thoughtfulness in the comments but please leave the name calling off site. It takes away from the dialogue and debate that is better suited to educate readers of this site." When posts devolve into name-calling devoid of substance, there's no point reading them. What's worse is that fruitful - if vigourous and lively - discussions in which we all learn and even evolve in our positions (something that your less intemperate posts have helped me do), are brought to a grinding halt.
On the other hand, I do admit that too much civility can lead to marathon debates with people like Eric Brill that occupy multiple threads and seriously compromise the ability of blog owners to run their sites and blog readers to honour their committments to their employers or get enough sleep to function! :-)
Anyway, that's how I feel.
Catherine,
I expected a lot more from you. Oh, well silly me.
“I'm happy to explain where I'm coming from. I don't intervene on your behalf when someone calls you an idiot in a discussion during the course of which you do the same to them.”
Where did I call the reader in question an Idiot? Can you please point to that?
“……. assiduously avoid entering into the type of discussion with some of them, you included….”
I cannot speak for all whom you reference as “some of us” but I can speak for myself- I thank you for the favor.
“I have come to know the regular readers here and assiduously avoid entering into the type of discussion with some of them, you included, that would make me a target of unwarranted viciousness and bile.”
Not a bad decision- If we cannot take the heat we ought to stay out of the kitchen. But I would like to know when have I made you the target of my viciousness and bile, warranted or otherwise? Which part of my post to you and Bijan is viciousness and bile?
“On the other hand, I do admit that too much civility can lead to marathon debates….”
Let’s make that “marathon and frivolous debates” in which case I am in complete agreement with you. Those are the debates I skip. The situation in Iran is much too serious to debate irrelevance or those who are afraid of bile.
Catherine, for some folks crisis in Iran is a game for me and other Iranians this is and has been a fight and struggle to survive; something you would never understand and you would not be able to find it or feel it in news links you post on this blog- bile and viciousness are child play in comparison.
“..to honor their committments to their employers or get enough sleep to function! :-) “
Only people who lack courage sneak in a jab. I do not hit below the belt; like you did; I say it to your face, direct and concise.
Hi all, just a quick request for everyone to cool things down a notch or two on this thread. It's veering way, way off topic anyway.