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)
Catherine
Thank you for that link.
Barry
Paul Rogers, author of the the report 'Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effects' (see first comment in this thread) analyses the the emergence of a possible third theatre of war (besides Iraq and Afghanistan) over Iran and its presumed nuclear ambitions.and how a drift towards war with Iran could entangle the Barack Obama administration.
A tale of three wars: Afghanistan, Iraq...Iran
Start at heading 'The third war' if you don't have time for the whole article
http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/tale-of-three-wars-afghanistan-iraqiran" rel="nofollow">http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/tale-o...
The revolution in Iran was both Islamic and Iranian. No contradiction in that. It was Islamic in the sense that the majority of Iranian people are Muslims, and devout to boot, and were inspired to revolt against the Shah's tyranny and dictatorship by the symbols of the Shi'ite discourse and in particular that of Imam Hussayn against the Omayyad ruler Yazid. Every nation and human being who has something valuable and good to offer others will of course want to share the 'good news' with others. Was that or did it not become the pretext for the West's war in Iraq and Afghanistan - to bring 'democracy' and 'female emancipation' to backward Muslim countries. Discounting the fact that Iraq, apart from having a US supported and sponsored dictator in Saddam, actually had a much more liberal social culture with women occupying high positions of office and not having to submit to some of the US sponsored Taliban and their Wahabi extremist friends in Saudia of keeping women backward and terrorising them from attending educational institutions, of course all in the name of Islam. As the late Ayatullah Khomeini used to say there is a distinction between the Islam of Mohammad (the Prophet) which is progressive and forward looking and the 'American' Islam which is there to take Muslim peoples backward and fearful of their own identity and potential.
Rgrassroots,
There is a lot of contradiction between Islamic and Iranian, because Iranians made the revolution for liberty, not for your backwarded mullahcracy, looting Iran's national resources to their own benefit, while it has established its barbaric Sharia by cutting off the hands of poor thieves, stoning women, raping women and men in prisons in the name of Allah, and killing protesters on Ashura!
Apart from that your holy Islamists have constantly denied Iranian history by renaming every street in the country with a Shahid such-and-such, praising Islamist killers like Navab Safavi, and deleting all Persian dynasties from schoolbooks. Instead of promoting Persian language and literature your Islamist cronies spend millions on mosques and a bunch of idle mullahs, whose main job it is to hammer their outdated, superstitious beliefs into the heads of Iranians.
Mr Khomeini was the first to protest against women's rights during the Shah time, and all he has brought to Iran is his Islamist theory of velayate vaghih, the rule of the shameless, who have robbed and killed to stay in power for 31 years.
I suggest you to go to Gaza and establish your Islamic Republic there, Iranians do not need traitors like you.
Arshama
The rabid Islamist rapists of Iran are the ones that enable Libermann and his ilk to gain power and press their equally barbaric worldview. The Islamist regime has been a disaster for Palestinians, the region and Iranian civilization.
Rgrassroots
My understanding is that the Islam practised by Muslims in Iran is different to that practised elsewhere - and in fact, the Iranian practices are for only a very small proportion of all Islamic people. Hence - to identify the Iranian Revolution as an "Islamic Revolution" is not valid. It is fairly obvious to me that the vast majority of Islamic people across the world reject the religious practices of Iranian people and reject the Iranian Revolution.
The reason that the Iranian Revolution has been called the Islamic Revolution is not because the Iranian Regime wishes to spread "good news" - but because they wish to spread their revolution to other Islamic sects.
Barry
Barry -
While your question is directed towards Rgrassroots, I can't avoid an interesting dialogue. Conceptually I agree with Arshama, however I would add the answer depends on your audience (my guess is this is the intent to your directed question). While I am not a "historian-in-chief" to use Catherine's term, I do believe the many groups that came together during the revolution did so more in terms of an "Iranian revolution". I say this given the common goals shared by the religous, secular, young, old, rural, educated, etc and this was not transform the face of Iran as it existed at the time. There was also a common enemy which allowed ties to deepen towards the common goal. In my opinion, the Islamic Revolution is a term used to justify and support the regime as it exists (and to your point also as a term to associate to the goal of "exporting" the revolution to other countries). We see some effect of these efforts but an Islamic empire as may have been envisioned never came to exist. While religion was a unifying them during the revolution, I do not sense many would have supported the use of religion in politics as it is today.
Bijan
I agree with all you have said. The "Iranian Revolution" of 1979 has been morphed into an "Islamic Revolution" in later years - and it has been done for a reason. It could be that this was Khomenei's intention all along.
Some may think I have just been pedantic in trying to highlight the difference between these two terms - but I think it is important. It could also help to explain the reason as to why western countries/their people/ media/their politicians appear to be more concerned about the nuclear issue than they are about the Iranian internal affairs/human rights issue. In simple terms - and considering that all nations primarily worry about their own interests - an "Iranian Revolution" is considered to be an internal matter not directly affecting western interests - - but an outward looking so-called "Islamic Revolution" is a definite concern. And today, the use of the term "Islamic Revolution" by the Regime and it's supporters is very common and evident.
Barry
Barry -
Good observation regarding western perceptions and is worth pointing out for
consideration.
Regards,
Hayden's people can't even speak straight when they're issuing corrections about the war talk.
Fine, "inexorable" might refer to Iran's nuclear programme but this was the key paragraph in the answer:
"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.
S.
arshama - with due respect around 95% of the Iranian electorate did vote for an Islamic Republic systems based on the Velayat e Faqih system. The ballot papers did allow them the right to say no and no one has ever claimed that this referendum did not happen or that the results were fraudulent. The BBC reported 2 million people attended the Ayatollah Khomeini's funeral, although other sources claim some 10m attended. The only other funeral that attracted substantial numbers maybe a million, in recent times, was that of Princess Diana. People will only attend funerals of a public figure in such large numbers if the person is well liked. Arshama - you need to take a more impartial view of Iran's history as an Islamic Republic than you might be better able to challenge some of its failings.
Cyber Army Capable of crashing through US defenses!...
This was a really good post I mentioned it on my blog...