UPDATED Iran Media Follow-Up: War, War, War. Blah, Blah, Blah. No Facts. More War. Blah.

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.

Iran Follow-Up: Dealing with the Media's "War, War, War" Drumbeat (Lynch)

UPDATE 0815 GMT: Matt Duss also has posted an effective challenge to the cries of those promoting a military option against Iran.



---
On Friday, we took apart the overblown, thinly-sourced "report" by Joe Klein in Time Magazine of preparations for a military strike on Iran. This, of course, won't stop those agitating for bombing: the latest egregious example is the preaching, posing as analysis, of former CIA operative Reuel Marc Gerecht in The Weekly Standard.

Writing in Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch exposes the campaign and highlights its. (I would only add that this is not just a case of a weak argument. It is also one of manufactured "information". There is little if any evidence that the Obama Administration has modified its point-blank warning to West Jerusalem against a military adventure.)

UPDATED Iran Analysis: When “War Chatter” Poses as Journalism (Step Up, Time Magazine)

....Why the latest round of commentary about an attack on Iran? It isn't because there are new arguments out there. Gerecht's long Weekly Standard piece is typical of the genre, and could have been written any time in the last decade (and in the case of the Weekly Standard has been, repeatedly): we must bomb Iran because there are no other policy options which guarantee success; the risks of an attack are exaggerated; the benefits of an attack are great; and Iranians and Arabs secretly want us to do it. Nor have the rebuttals changed: other policy options are available, which at least slow down Iran's progress towards a nuclear weapon even if they do not provide the kind of epistemic certainty which hawks crave; the risks of an attack are many and real; the benefits of an attack are likely to be less than advertised; and it is exceedingly doubtful that Arabs or Iranians will in fact rally to support an Israeli or American attack. These arguments are now as familiar as wallpaper, from the arguments over Iraq from the 1990s-2003 through the long years of arguments about Iran.

I suspect that the real reason for the new flood of commentary calling for attacks on Iran is simply that hawks hope to pocket their winnings from the long argument over sanctions, such as they are, and now push to the next stage in the confrontation they've long demanded. Hopefully, this pressure will not gain immediate traction. Congress can proudly demonstrate their sanctions-passingness, so the artificial Washington timeline should recede for a while. The Pentagon is now working closely with Israel, it's said, in order to reassure them and prevent their making a unilateral strike, which should hopefully push back another artificial clock. That should buy some time for the administration's strategy to unfold, for better or for worse. An attack on Iran would still be a disaster, unnecessary and counterproductive, and the White House knows that, and it's exceedingly unlikely that it will happen anytime soon. But the real risk is that the public discourse about an attack on Iran normalizes the idea and makes it seem plausible, if not inevitable, and that the administration talks itself into a political corner. That shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Read full article....

UPDATED Iran Analysis: When "War Chatter" Poses as Journalism (Step Up, Time Magazine)

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.