Monday
Jul262010
UPDATED Iran Media Follow-Up: War, War, War. Blah, Blah, Blah. No Facts. More War. Blah.
Monday, July 26, 2010 at 17:23 
UPDATE 26 July: Today's surprise winner of the War Drum? It's the BBC....Paul Reynolds, in a special analysis "Iran Sanctions: Last Throw of Diplomatic Dice?", falls for the CNN interview with former Bush Administration official Michael Hayden (see Update 25 July) as Very Important to proclaim, "Already, the distant drum beats heralding war talk are beginning to sound."
UPDATE 25 July: Here We Go Again....
CNN, apparently short of significant news coverage, whipped up the war talk in its Sunday interview with General Michael Hayden, head of the National Security Agency and then Central Intelligence Agency during the George W. Bush Administration:
CNN'S CANDY CROWLEY: When you left the CIA about two years ago, you said the two biggest problems facing your successor would be the Iranian nuke program and the drug smuggling and the violence from Mexico. Would you change either one of those?
HAYDEN: No, no. To be accurate, counterterrorism was job one. Beyond counterterrorism, I would put counterproliferation as job two. And within counterproliferation, it is inarguably Iran....
CROWLEY: Do you think, though, there is any answer?
I mean, Iran doesn't seem to be paying much attention to the sanctions. As far as we know, they are still trying to get nuclear capability. If it should, is there any alternative to taking out their facilities?
HAYDEN: It seems inexorable, doesn't it?
We engage. They continue to move forward. We vote for sanctions. They continue to move forward. We try to deter, to dissuade. They continue to move forward.
My personal view is that Iran, left to its own devices, will get itself to that step right below a nuclear weapon, that permanent breakout stage, so the needle isn't quite in the red for the international community. And, frankly, that will be as destabilizing as their actually having a weapon.
When I was in government, what we would used to mystically call "the kinetic option" was way down on our list. In my personal thinking -- in my personal thinking; I need to emphasize that -- I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.
Look, Michael Hayden is no more than a hanger-on in Washington these days, his main function to show up in places like The Wall Street Journal to give a weak defence of the Bush Administration's dubious and possibly illegal programmes in "enhanced interrogation", rendition, and surveillance. He has next to no influence in any discussions over Iran policy.
CNN, however, will big this up as a definite sign of possible War, War, War. And The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post and Associated Press are already helping by running this as featured news.
UPDATE 24 July: Oh, this should be helpful....
Republicans in the US House of Representatives, the lower body of Congress, have introduced Resolution 1553 supporting Israel's recourse to "all means necessary" against Iran "including the use of military force".
Nearly a third of the 178 House Republicans have signed the resolution, publicly promoted by its lead sponsor, Louie Gohmert of months.
Iran's Press TV is already circulating and exaggerating the news, "House OK's Possible Israeli Raid on Iran".
UPDATE 1750 GMT: Unfortunate Juxtaposition of the Day....
Sometimes you just have to smile. The National Iranian American Council posts a concise opinion piece, "War is Bad for Democracy", knocking back thoughts of military action against Iran because of "the damage it would do to the indigenous democracy movement".
The Google Ad at the bottom of the page?
It appears that some journalists have missed our coverage this week --- in a dissection of Joe Klein's lightly-sourced hyperbole and in Marc Lynch's comment on the danger of hyperbole becoming received wisdom --- over the hyping of Israeli military action against Tehran.
First, Bret Stephens put out the question, "Why Hasn't Israel Bombed Iran (Yet)?" and then offered four "theories", all of which were void of any information on Israel's current planning and strategy.
Fair enough. Mr Stephens is a staunch defender of Israel over all, and the real point of his piece was to bump any Obama official who might be reading into support of military action:
There is now talk that the Obama administration may be reconsidering its military options toward Iran. Let's hope so. Israel may ultimately be willing to attack Iran once it reckons that it has run out of other options, as it did prior to the Six Day War. But its tactical margin for error will be slim, particularly since an effective strike will require days not hours. And the political risks it runs will be monumental. As Mr. Doran notes, in 1956 it could at least count on the diplomatic support of two members of the U.N. Security Council. Today, the U.S. is its last significant friend.
Then, however, The Atlantic Wire --- positioning itself as the mediator of all stories Great and Good and Very Important --- paid tribute (ripped off?) Stephens by turning his question into a Fact, "4 Reasons Israel Hasn't Bombed Iran". Sweet irony: the summary actually had no Facts, only a series of other speculations from other writers.
Then the paradox: Marc Lynch, who had carried out valuable service with his knock-down of the war chatter, did his part to validate the war chatter, "Atlantic Wire: 4 reasons Israel hasn't bombed Iran, rounding up yesterday's debate".
No, this is not a debate. It's a media cluster --- the Daily Show has a Not-Suitable-for-Work term for it --- that feeds off each other's hopes, fears, and thoughts off the top of the head.
And sometimes I fear that this cluster --- pretty much closed off to outside consideration and, yes, inconvenient Facts --- will carry on oblivious to any consequences.
Reader Comments (37)
Time once again for a plug for:
Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effects
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/military_action_against_iran_impact_and_effects" rel="nofollow">http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publicati...
Judging by your title, it appears as if you're just as annoyed as I am, though I deal with it not from journalists, but from those whom echo them in frenzied certainty.
If anything, *were* there were any thoughts of such a strike, I would hope this furor dissuades any such actions.
Hey Scott, I'm confused. What is the Daily Show's secret word, a "cluster bomb?"
The good thing, for now, is that there seem to be few politicians banging the war drum. The real hawks are the people who haven't been elected yet, like Sarah Palin, who are trying to paint Obama as Carter-esque. The other good news is that Iran, for worse or for (in this case) better, is still an enigma to the American populace, and bombing Iran is not a common water-cooler discussion.
Yet. The amazing thing about the American neocons is that the more things change the more they stay the same. I think you're doing a good job of staying one step ahead of the hawks by keeping the media in check, and so will I.
Because, let's face it, the media blew the coverage of the last two U.S. wars, so let's hope we don;t have to read any more "What Went Wrong" books, but about Iran.
If you're curious, my newest exploration of the racist remarks by some GOP leaders, chiefly Sarah Palin, surrounding Muslims and a mosque at Ground Zero, can be found here:
http://www.dissectednews.com/2010/07/sarah-palin-says-what-many-in-gop-think.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dissectednews.com/2010/07/sarah-pali...
James -
My concern is as this type of discussion becomes more and more frequent in the media, it will become water cooler discussion. Given the lack of balance in reporting, present companies excluded of course, as we saw with the Iraq invasion and other instances in history, if a population is fed enough "truths" they will begin to believe them. My personal opinion is that public sentiment is the greatest impediment to any action by the US against Iran, however as noted the discussion is focusing on Israel. I do not share the sentiment of the authors referenced above that the US will leave Israel to themselves if Israel does take any action, rather at the first sign of Iranian retaliation, the US will be pushed in by Israel...so I do not see any way that if Israel takes military action this will not evolve into a regional conflict where the US is right in the middle.
Regards,
Hi Bijan,
I think that you are correct in many ways. However, without use of Turkish airspace, and with the further decay to Israel's relations with its Muslim neighbors, I wonder if they would take such a risk right now.
Like I said, I think it is good to keep one step (or more, hopefully) ahead of the debate on this. From what I've seen, a war in Iran would severely hurt prospects for the long term success of the Green Movement, but it would also be a military disaster for the U.S. and Israel, potentially much worse that Iraq or Afghanistan.
Salam,
James
I agree James it does seem an unlikely scenario in the near future...if ever, for the reasons you mentioned and others.
For curiosity, if you don't mind sharing...what is it you have "seen" that would hurt the prospects for the GM? There is much discussion on this and of course I have my opinions but interested in yours if you are willing to share.
In that same course, I fully agree it would be disaster.
Regards,
I'm a little tired of hearing the "military strike will hurt the green movement" canard. The Green Movement has not aimed for any near-term regime change nor does it pose any direct threat to the nuclear program. Hopefully democracy will win out in Iran but that is quite a different matter from the short term need to prevent holocaust-denying student-murdering lunatics from developing nuclear weapons. The international community has a right to defend itself by any means necessary.
Stop Hyperventilating: Obama Will Not Choose War with Iran. An interesting analysis (from a very American point of view...) of Steve Clemons, publisher of 'The Washington Note'.
"I think that there are many things that can yet be done to change the incentive structure of the Iranian political leadership and either seduce or cajole its leaders into a more internationally acceptable course -- and all of these should be tried and put on the table before the potentially cataclysmic course of adopting the Iran War option.
While there are individuals in the Obama administration who are flirting with the possibility of military action against Iran, they are fewer in number than existed in the Bush administration. They are surrounded by a greater number of realists who are working hard to find a way to reinvent America's global leverage and power -- and who realize that a war with Iran ends that possibility and possibly spells an end to America presuming to be the globally predominant power it has been."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/stop-hyperventilating-oba_b_657096.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/sto...
Whether the talking heads are hyperventilating or not, the US Congress is discussing this bill. We can all (also from outside the US) send a ready-made letter demanding that House Republican Leader John Boehner denounce the Iran War Resolution:
https://secure3.convio.net/niac/site/Advocacy?c...
I just did - it was very easy and you can edit the prepared letter if you want.
Catherine, just followed your example (with a lot of editing...) Thanks for the tip!
Your call is strongly endorsed by Juan Cole as well :-) "Repubs Plot Israel-Iran Apocalypse and the Collapse of the US Economy"
http://www.juancole.com/2010/07/repubs-plot-israel-iran-apocalypse-and-the-collapse-of-the-us-economy.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.juancole.com/2010/07/repubs-plot-isr...
Hi WitteKr,
RE Juan Cole - Good on him! I hope the letters rain on down. And this is also the reason I've been pushing Paul Rogers's Oxford Research Group report 'Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effects' for several days now, which is also what Cole draws on, I think, for all the points he makes under "The likely outcome of an Israeli military strike on Israel is as follows:"
http://www.juancole.com/2010/07/repubs-plot-israel-iran-apocalypse-and-the-collapse-of-the-us-economy.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.juancole.com/2010/07/repubs-plot-isr...
The LA Times looks at what's on the table:
The military option against Iran's nuclear program always seems to be discussed in the context of one table or another. On the table, off it or under it, the possibility of a strike lurks in the background, a semi-abstract code for something potentially awesome -- and not in the cool sense of the word.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/07/israel-possible-iran-scenarios.html" rel="nofollow">http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2...
Barry,
Thank you for describing possible developments, none of them we want to be realised. If ever this regime is going to do something "silly", it will be not tomorrow, but perhaps in four or five months, when sanctions are going to be felt within the country. Even then it will only happen in the case of rising popular protests against inflation.
At the moment the regime appears to play another card, i.e. causing trouble in the Middle East via its radical supporters or terrorist groups to keep the west busy, be it in Lebanon, Yemen or other hot spots. "Silly" actions thus would be rather the second step.
Apart from that the domestic political situation is rapidly deteriorating with different factions mutually denying their authorities, be it government and Majlis, or the SL and the clergy. At the moment the delicate balance of power is still working, but what if it breaks away? A military putsch by the IRGC is conceivable, but even this group is divided, not to mention the fact that a majority of its members has no access to the fortunes made by its commanders. Just remember that the regime had to pay thugs to oppress popular protests at the end of last year.
Another indication for growing disintegration are AN's cancelled province tours, especially after the fiasco in Qazvin, where his cronies did not manage to gather even a crowd of 500 supporters. Unconfirmed news, but in a way validated by the fact that none of the usual "million" supporters reports were published by his media.
As such there is still some hope that this regime collapses before being able to do real "silly" things.
Regards
Arshama
A Letter to John Boehner ??? Do you guys live in 8th congressional district in Ohio? If you do not, I have some bad news; he will put it n the trashcan unopened. John Biehner is accountable only to voters and tax payers in his districts and not even to other voters in Ohio let alone to Dutch citizens.
Both the U.S. Congress and Obama administration work for us, the U.S. citizens. They both have constitutional duty to protect the security of American people and the U.S. homeland. They may try to sway electorate toward their personal political agenda but at the end people (majority) prevail. In addition, access to non-traditional media has made it harder for politicians to fool people today. Whichever direction, therefore, the American public moves on dealing with Islamic Republic that will be the direction the elected officials will be cognizant of.
Unfortunately, Americans do not have a favorable view of Islamic Republic; the hostage taking at U.S. embassy in Tehran is the way every American, unless she or he lived under a rock during those 444 days, identifies Islamic Republic with. Americans added another F to Islamic Republic report card in 2009 and this one was painted red with the blood of Iranian democracy seekers and their ingenuity to let the world know of their plight under the occupation of Islamic Republic.
I hope we try to get our terminology in order for example not to mix Iran with Islamic Republic and Iranians with goons of Islamic Republic. We Iranians are offended by being identified by our occupiers. If you want to write letters to elected officials in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world, let’s try asking them to make a distinction between Iran and Islamic Republic. And why Iranians should not be identified by occupation force, Islamic Republic.
Irrespective of whether there is or there is not a war that “War” will not be “with Iran”; that war (if there is one) will be a “War with Islamic Republic”. Yes, I am fully aware that we Iranians and our home, Iran, will be in the cross-fire but what else is new we have been in the cross-fire for 31 years. There is hardly any Iranian family that has not lost a loved one in this 31-year of cross-fire. My family lost two and the third one is half alive.
Megan
Unfortunately it is all too easy for people to identify "Iran","Iranians" and the "Islamic Republic of Iran" to be within the same Genus. This is because, for 31 years, we have seen so many Iranians (inside Iran) obviously supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran. For 31 years, we have seen the large crowds of Iranians shouting "Death to ....". Now, there is undoubtedly a much larger Resistance within Iran than there has ever been - and a large diaspora, but for the average westerner it is difficult to differentiate these groups. After 31 years, all they can see (burnt into their memory) is a scowling Khomenei and the massings of people supporting the Regime and all they can hear is "Death to ...."
Unfortunate - but true.
Barry
Oops, correction is needed. Occupying and not occupation.
Barry,
Those images etched in our memories belong to paid servant of Islamic Republic. They are the lowest of the low; people who could not amount to much in life without Islamic Republic. Every society has its hoodlum and those are Islamic Republic louts. Many of these folks cannot even speak correct Farsi just like their gang leader, Khomeini. All I can tell you Iranians I knew are not the people we see on Friday prayers sitting on their butts, staring in daze and on cue shout death to America. Iranians I knew were sophisticated, cultured and politically savvy.
who needs to look to Tehran to find extremists (although in my humble opinion the nutters are all in Tel Aviv like Liebermann and unfortunately they have their fingers on possibly 200-300 nuclear warheads which could destroy the whole world many times over), but quite honestly, which world does Megan live in and it shows contempt on her part for the majority of her people who freely voted in a referendum to found their Islamic Republic and who have had over 30 presidential and parliamentary elections electing presidents of various hues from Bani Sadr to Ahmedinejad. For a patriot to call for a war against her own country especially after seeing the disastrous effects of one war wherein chemical weapons were used by Iraq, supplied by the same European countries that now harass IRI, the US - neocons who aided and supported the war and got its chief Arab ally, Saudi Arabia together with its gulf allies, to fund the war.
Rgrassroots
I asked you this questions elsewhere - and you didn't answer me. It is important - because it is an indication of the genuineness of Iran's intentions since 1979.
The question is - what is the correct term or name for the Revolution that occurred in 1979 - the Iranian Revolution or the Islamic Revolution??
If the answer is the Iranian Revolution - then that means something. If it is the Islamic Revolution, then it means something entirely different. I am sure that I have heard Ahmadinejad refer to it commonly as the "Islamic Revolution". If I am correct, then I believe this makes him ( and others in Iran ) very dangerous people.
But I can only await your answer to be able to discuss the matter further
Barry
Hey Barry,
Don't you guys have Wikipedia down under? :-)
Sorry to butt in - I had never even thought about the "real" name of the event and I had to find out the answer to your question for myself. Here's the Wikipedia entry you get, curiously, NO MATTER whether you type Islamic Revolution or Iranian Revolution: "The Iranian Revolution (also known as the Islamic Revolution or 1979 Revolution;[1][2][3][4][5][6] Persian: انقلاب اسلامی, Enghelābe Eslāmi or انقلاب بیست و دو بهمن) refers to events involving the overthrow of Iran's monarchy (Pahlavi dynasty) under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and its replacement with an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
Also on Google, all the results for 'Islamic Revolution' refer to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, unless the term is part of a sentence like "Could there be an Islamic revolution in Djibuti next year?"
Interesting.
Catherine
Of course, we have Wikipedia :) - but I want Rgrassroots to tell me whether the Revolution of 1979 was an Iranian revolution or an Islamic Revolution. It is really important. As I said , if it was "only" an Iranian Revolution , that implies one thing - BUT if it was an Islamic Revolution, that implies something else.
A similar situation in past history take us back to the early part of the Russian Revolution ( or should we call that the "Communist" Revolution. ) Back then, there was disagreement as to whether the Revolution should be kept within Russia - or whether it should be exported to the world as a Communist Revolution.
Many countries have Revolutions - but the Revolution is kept within the country - there is no desire to export it elsewhere. I believe there has always been the desire to export the Iranian Revolultion outside of Iran - that is why it is commonly referred to as THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION. That is what makes it and Iran so dangerous to the rest of the world.
Barry
Okiedokie,
I hope Rgrassroots is up to being promoted to historian-in-chief :-) If he isn't,, check this out - especially chapters II and IV: http://islamic-fundamentalism.info/index.htm" rel="nofollow">http://islamic-fundamentalism.info/index.htm
Btw - Now that you're still online, I must tell you how much I love your Roo-Icon!
RE: Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced Resolution 1553 supporting Israel’s recourse to “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of military force”. Nearly a third of the 178 House Republicans have signed the resolution, publicly promoted by its lead sponsor, Louie Gohmert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something I didn't realise about these House Republicans is that they are actually the Tea Party Caucus in the House.
"Now that the congressional supporters of the Tea Party movement have formed their own caucus, their policy positions are becoming easier to track. Expanding their foray into foreign policy, 21 members of the new caucus have now come out explicitly endorsing Israel's right to strike Iran's nuclear program.
Almost two dozen Tea Party-affiliated lawmakers cosponsored a new resolution late last week that expresses their support for Israel "to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force."
The lead sponsor of the resolution was Texas Republican Louie Gohmert, one of four congressmen to announce the formation of the 44-member Tea Party caucus at a press conference on July 21. The other three Tea Party Caucus leaders, Michele Bachmann, R-MN, Steve King, R-IA, and John Culberson, R-TX, are also sponsors of the resolution. In total, 21 Tea Party Caucus members have signed on, according to the latest list of caucus members put out by Bachmann's office. "
More: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/26/tea_party_caucus_members_endorse_israeli_attack_on_iran" rel="nofollow">http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07...
MJ Rosenberg (Senior Foreign Policy Fellow, Media Matters Action Network) reports on the HuffPo that In late August, Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic will be coming out with a cover story urging the United States to attack Iran so that Israel doesn't have to. Rosenberg adds that Goldberg, an American, served in the Israeli army as a guard at a Palestinian prison camp and was a key advocate of the Iraq war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/neocons-ready-fall-campai_b_660179.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/neoc...