|
by Jerome a Paris
The Economist has its front page and a full 25-page report on Iran this week, and it's not pretty.
Update - I forgot the link to their main editorial which I'm quoting here
It is vital to understand that this [Iran with the nuclear bomb] is not a nightmare dreamt up by editorial writers. After the false intelligence that led America into Iraq, and the mayhem that followed, it may seem hard to believe that America or Israel are pondering an attack on a much bigger Muslim country. But they are—and they are not mad. For as long as the so-called "serious" media will encourage the neocons in their delusional, and deadly, policy adventures, the probability of a catastrophic war of aggression on Iran will remain a reality. Neo-cons are still given ample space in editorial pages to spew their hate-filled dreams of domination of the world; and their ideas are still given ample, and most often supportive, consideration by the self-appointed pundits that decide what is "reasonable" in policy land. As long as this lasts, we are not safe. The neo-cons themselves may be largely discredited, but as long as the media keeps on parroting their ideas, the problem will remain. That editorial by the Economist - supposedly the voice of the serious power-brokers and money makers in London (a shortcut for Europe as seen from America) - is a case in point. Update: the foreign editor of the Economist responds in the comments
“THE Iranian regime is basically a messianic apocalyptic cult.” So says Israel's once and perhaps future prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. If he is right the world is teetering on the edge of a terrifying crisis. Because, of course, Israel's most prominent extreme-right leader (remember, this is a guy to the right of Ariel Sharon) is the most objective analyst of the Iranian regime and his extremist opinion should be the one that shapes this whole editorial, and thus what passes for "reasonable" conventional wisdom amongst the Anglo-American power classes. The Economist, as a European magazine with an explicit pro-free market bias and a reputation for excellent, irreverent writing providing both facts and opinion that used to be deserved, and a mostly American readership these days, is the ultimate place to identify what passes for that conventional wisdom which will shape debate and policy making in Washington and Brussels (headquarters of NATO). So it is absolutely relevant to note that their first words are those of Netanyahu - it gives them weight and significance much beyond Israel.
The upshot, say Israel and some American experts, is that Iran may have a bomb by the end of 2009. Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA's director-general, is more cautious. But even he says that if Iran really wants a bomb it could now build one within three to eight years. That the Bush administration feels no scruples using the argument of illegallity towards another country after having illegally invaded a country (remember: no UN resolution for the Iraqi invasion), continuing to occupy it and presiding over the worst refugee crisis in 50 years and an ever growing death toll is one thing. We know they have no shame and no restraint. That any publication that deems itself influential can repeat the same self-serving and hypocritical arguments with a straight face today only shows that the are part of the same problem: power corrupted and run amok.
So what next? This story could have at least three unhappy endings. In one, Iran ends up with nuclear weapons, bringing new instability and a hair-trigger face-off with nuclear Israel into one of the world's least-safe neighbourhoods. In another, America or Israel take pre-emptive military action and manage to stop it, even though such an attack would almost certainly have very dangerous consequences of its own. In the third ending, Iran is attacked, and enraged, and retaliates—and still ends up with a bomb anyway. Implicit in all this (except that the notion was given a not-so-discreet boost via Netanyahu's initial screech) is that Iran having the nuclear bomb will bring instability in the region. No actual argument is given to justify it, except an appeal to fear, and to the unconscious image of Iran-as-the-bogeyman, the evil regime that dared get rid of friend-of-America-Shah-Pavlavi and keep US diplomats prisoner for many months. Any country that dared humiliate Americans and forfeit its privileged position as large vassal can only be evil. Full stop. That it is actually a country more open to Western investment in the oil sector than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, and a reliable exporter, is never deemed worthy of a mention. That it had good reason to be unhappy with US interference in its politics, starting with the CIA-run coup to get rid of its democratically elected leader in 1953, is never mentioned. That the situation between India and Pakistan (another "least-safe neighbourhoods" of the world) is actually more stable since both countries are in their very own nuclear "hair trigger face-off" is conveniently forgotten. That it has trouble coping with domestic oil demand, and is aware that its oil resource may run out, and is looking for alternative energy sources, is not even given consideration. That it is the most democratic and open country in the region, with complex politics and an even more complex social evolution is ignored. No, it's a "messianic apocalyptic cult." Hey, it's easier to generate hate and fear that way. So... let's forget that the current regime in Washington has zero credibility in matters of war, foreign affairs, intelligence or international stability, and stick to their line.
The succinct answer of Senator John McCain is that although attacking Iran would be bad, an Iran with nuclear weapons would be worse. He is not alone: most of America's presidential candidates would consider military force. Again, let's quote the most extreme position as it if were representative of anything. A man still arguing that the occupation of Iraq should be continued, whose electoral campaign is plummeting precisely because of that delusional (oops, sorry, "principled") stand, a darling of the media since he was labelled, on a earlier whim of that same media, a "straight-talking" "maverick" despite his almost perfect hard conservative record, he is more representative of that media's follies than of any relevant sane opinion on Iran. A perfect match for that article, of course. So, attack?
Even if it delayed or stopped Iran's nuclear programme, it would knock new holes in America's relations with the Muslim world. And if only for the sake of their domestic political survival, Iran's leaders would almost certainly hit back. Iran could fire hundreds of missiles at Israel, attack American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, organise terrorist attacks in the West or choke off tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the world's oil windpipe. How could any Western leader in his right mind risk initiating such a sequence of events? Iran's leadership would only defend its country to ensure their "domestic political survival". How evil of them. And choking off tanker traffic in the Gulf is just a minor consequence that the West could survive, of course. How could any newspaper editor in his right mind risk writing such tripe? One thing is certain: the Economist's editors and journalists will have blood on their hands if Iran is attacked, and I hope to be around to remind them if that happens.
|
Menu
. Home
. About . Contact . New User Guide . FAQ . ET Editorial Guidelines . Search . Search (Google) Login
|
||
|
Iran: the media is still delusional and complicit | 102 comments (102 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Iran: the media is still delusional and complicit | 102 comments (102 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
| ||||
| ||||
