Iran - The Media Fall Into Line

[Guest guest]

Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:14:46 UT

" Medialens Media Alerts " <noreply

Iran - The Media Fall Into Line

 

 

 

 

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

 

February 9, 2006

 

 

MEDIA ALERT: IRAN - THE MEDIA FALL INTO LINE

 

 

Writing in the Guardian last month, Timothy Garton Ash observed:

 

" Now we face the next big test of the west: after Iraq, Iran. "

 

Garton Ash thus blithely ignored the fact that every last scrap of

evidence coming out of Iraq has pointed to only one conclusion - that

Iraq's " big test " was in fact the West's big lie. Iraq was offering a

threat to precisely no one outside its own borders.

 

Nevertheless, Garton Ash warned: " we in Europe and the United States

have to respond. But how? " (Timothy Garton Ash, `Let's make sure we do

better with Iran than we did with Iraq,' The Guardian, January 12, 2006)

 

The Guardian's Polly Toynbee joined the propaganda chorus demonising

Iran:

 

" Now the mad mullahs of Iran will soon have nuclear bombs, are we all

doomed?... Do something, someone! But what and who? " (Toynbee, `No

more fantasy diplomacy: cut a deal with the mullahs,' The Guardian,

February 7, 2006)

 

Gerard Baker provided the answer in the Times:

 

" The unimaginable but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are

going to have to get ready for war with Iran " . (Baker, `Prepare

yourself for the unthinkable: war against Iran may be a necessity,'

The Times, January 27, 2006)

 

Why might this be?

 

" If Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a

threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the

Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler. "

 

Readers will recall near-identical propaganda ahead of the assault on

Iraq. Baker continued with some fearsome predictions:

 

" Iran, of course, secure now behind its nuclear wall, will surely step

up its campaign of terror around the world. It will become even more

of a magnet and haven for terrorists... Imagine how much more our

freedoms will be curtailed if our governments fear we are just one

telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload away from

another Hiroshima. "

 

This is the same Gerard Baker who wrote in the Financial Times in

February 2003 that " victory [in Iraq] will quickly vindicate US and

British claims about the scale of the threat Saddam poses " .

 

Baker was positively gleeful:

 

" I cannot wait to hear what the French, Russians and Germans have to

say when the conquering troops begin to uncover the death factories Mr

Hussein has been hiding from inspectors for 12 years... And do not be

shocked if allied liberators discover all kinds of connections between

Baghdad and terrorism around the world " . (Baker, `Defeating prejudice

with persuasion,' Financial Times, February 20, 2003)

 

A year later, Baker had airbrushed his own justification for war from

history:

 

" Saddam Hussein asked for the benefit of the doubt. But that was not

something a wise leader could possibly have given him. His actions had

shown again and again the threat he represented. This threat lay not in

vats of chemicals or nuclear centrifuges but in his ambitions. " (Baker,

`Freedom from fear is a worthy goal,' Financial Times, March 18, 2004)

 

In his February 2003 article, Baker had predicted: " it will become

clear, even to the most rabid of anti-Americans just how much better

off Iraqi people will be without their current president. The lifting

of the yoke of Saddam Hussein will be an act of humanity far greater

than the unseating of the Taliban. " (Baker, op. cit)

 

The New York Times' Paul Krugman describes the current state of Iraq

sans " yoke " :

 

" In fact, reconstruction has failed. Almost three years after the war

began, oil production is well below prewar levels, Baghdad is getting

only an average of 3.2 hours of electricity a day, and more than 60

percent of water and sanitation projects have been canceled. So now,

having squandered billions in Iraqi oil revenue as well as American

taxpayer dollars, we have told the Iraqis that from here on in it is

their problem. " (Krugman, 'State of delusion,' New York Times,

February 3, 2006)

 

According to the Los Angeles Times, America's would-be Marshall Plan

in Iraq " is drawing to a close this year " with " much of its promise

unmet and no plans to extend its funding " . (Cited, ibid)

 

Baker is a signatory to the Statement of Principles posted at the

website of The Henry Jackson Society. Patrons include mild-mannered

neoconservatives like former US assistant secretary of defence Richard

Perle, William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, and James

Woolsey, former director of the CIA. Other signatories include former

head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, Colonel Tim Collins, Oliver Kamm,

Andrew Roberts and Jamie Shea.

 

The Society declares that it: " Supports a `forward strategy' to assist

those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so.

This would involve the full spectrum of our `carrot' capacities, be

they diplomatic, economic, cultural or political, but also, when

necessary, those `sticks' of the military domain. "

(http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/)

 

Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq know all about the " 'sticks' of the

military domain " .

 

Four of the Society's eight " Principles " refer to military

intervention and military power - another notes that " only modern

liberal democratic states are truly legitimate " .

 

Everyone else, we can presume, is fair game.

 

 

Ten Years From A Bomb

 

When officialdom targets a new `deadly threat', journalists often

embarrass themselves in their rush to be `on side`. The January 20,

2005, BBC 1 Lunchtime News saw diplomatic correspondent James Robbins

declare that US relatios with Iran were " looking very murky because of

the nuclear threat " . (BBC1, 13:00 News, January 20, 2005)

 

Four days later, Robbins responded to Media Lens emailers:

 

" I accept that it would have been better to have said `alleged nuclear

threat`. I am sorry that my wording was not as precise as it could

have been. " (Email to Media Lens, January 24, 2005)

 

Similarly, in a front-page article this week, the Guardian reported

that Iran's foreign minister had threatened immediate retaliation over

a move to refer its " nuclear weapons activities " to the United Nations

security council. A correction was printed in the paper two days later:

 

" We should have said `nuclear activities`, not `nuclear weapons

activities`. " (Corrections and clarifications, The Guardian, February

7, 2006)

 

Although Iran has removed the seals it put in place at its nuclear

fuel research sites, experts say it is at least a decade away from

being able to produce a nuclear bomb. Consider the current media

hysteria in light of the basic facts below.

 

Atomic weapons can be produced in two ways - either by using highly

enriched uranium, or plutonium. Iran is known to have produced

reconstituted uranium, " yellow cake " , at its conversion facility at

Isfahan.

However, according to a September 2005 report by The International

Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), this material is contaminated

and not currently useable. If Iran were able to overcome the problem

of purification, it would then need to enrich the uranium.

 

Whereas uranium used in nuclear reactors requires only a small amount

of enrichment, weapons-grade uranium must be highly enriched. This can

be done using gas centrifuges, of which Iran has 164 installed at its

plant at Natanz. But this constitutes just 20 per cent of the number

required to produce a bomb. Frank Barnaby, of UK think tank The Oxford

Research Group, comments:

 

" They don't currently have enough centrifuges working - so far as we

know - to produce significant amounts of highly-enriched uranium or

even enriched uranium. They would need a lot more. " (Sarah Buckley and

Paul Rincon, `Iran " years from nuclear bomb " ,' www.bbc.co.uk, January

12, 2006)

 

Given these and other problems, the IISS believes it would take Iran

at least a decade to produce enough high-grade uranium to make a

single nuclear weapon. Dr Barnaby agrees:

 

" The CIA says 10 years to a bomb using highly enriched uranium and

that is a reasonable and realistic figure in my opinion. "

 

Alternatively, Iran could use plutonium to produce a bomb. But the

IISS notes that Iran would need to build a reprocessing plant suited

to the fuel used in its Bushehr nuclear reactor - an extremely

challenging technical task. Iran is also constructing a heavy-water

research reactor at Arak. But, again, this will not be ready until at

least 2014, and probably later, according to the IISS.

 

The West's hypocrisy and double standards could hardly be clearer but

they are off the media agenda. The United States is estimated to be in

possession of no less than 10,600 nuclear warheads. Its leading ally

in the region, Israel, also has nuclear weapons, as do Russia,

Pakistan, India and China. Britain has recently sold nuclear-capable

bombers to India, while the United States has sold nuclear-capable

bombers to Pakistan. Iran's is indeed a " tough neighbourhood " .

 

The media never mention the military coup organised by Britain and the

United States to overthrow the democratically elected government of

Iran in 1953 to secure the country's oil. No mention is made of the

massive military support subsequently sent to the Shah dictatorship

before it was overthrown in 1979. Britain and America were thus

directly responsible for a country that had the " highest rate of death

penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a

history of torture " which was " beyond belief " . It was a society in

which " the entire population was subjected to a constant,

all-pervasive terror " , according to Amnesty International. (Martin

Ennals, Secretary General of Amnesty International, cited in an

Amnesty Publication, Matchbox, Autumn 1976)

 

All of this is waved away as inconsequential by journalists.

Objections to military action are usually raised on grounds of

possible negative consequences for the West. The likely cost in lives

to the Iranian people is rarely even discussed.

 

Last month, the journalist Felicity Arbuthnott described the cataclysm

generated by the US-UK 'liberation' of Iraq:

 

" For Iraq watchers, the daily carnage of liberation, the searing,

wailing grief of the bereaved, bombed, bereft, haunt. Neighborhoods,

evocative ancient homes reduced to rubble by the 'liberators', the

surviving, bewildered, standing on shattered bricks, mortar, toys,

belongings, liberated even from home's secure warmth.

 

" In the distorted horrors of today's Iraq, many never make it home:

disappeared, kidnapped, shot by the occupying forces for driving,

walking, and playing, in familiar venues. Iraqi lives are the earth's

cheapest. 'Government' or occupying troops kill 'insurgents' (even if

baby or toddler `insurgents') and few questions are asked. " (Felicity

Arbuthnott, `Death of Humanity,' PalestineChronicle.com, January 18, 2006)

 

Despite even this, despite everything that has happened, Western

journalists are once again falling obediently into line as the British

and American governments begin the long, arduous process of demonising

another oil-rich target.

 

 

SUGGESTED ACTION

 

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and

respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly

urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive

tone. Write to one or more of the journalists and editors below. It is

more effective to write in your own words.

 

Write to the Guardian's Timothy Garton Ash

Email: tga

 

Write to the Guardian's Polly Toynbee

Email: polly.toynbee

 

Write to the Times' Gerard Baker

Email: gerard.baker

 

Please also send copies of all emails to Media Lens:

Email: editor

 

The first Media Lens book has just been published: 'Guardians of Power:

The Myth Of The Liberal Media' by David Edwards and David Cromwell

(Pluto Books, London, 2006). For further details, please

 

http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php

 

This is a free service. However, financial support is vital. Please

consider donating to Media Lens: www.medialens.org/donate

 

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

[Guest guest]

It perplexes and distresses me, that there can be such widespread knowledge,

among the well informed, of the complicity of media in manufacturing a bogus

justification for continued agression against Iraq, and, unless something can be

done to prevent it, Iran, etc., but in the face of this immense deception, have

no plans, no stragegy for dealing with media except to bemoan their actions, and

complain. We have no media strategy. We have no way of confronting media with

their blatant bias in favor of the right, and of the wealthy and powerful. I

have heard people say, repeatedly, " that there's nothing we can do? " " It's a

hopeless situation. " Why does this attitude exist? Why do we have strategies

for dealing with " all " other forms of corruption, in and out of government, but

are helpless when it comes to media?

jp

 

-

califpacific

 

 

" Medialens Media Alerts " <noreply

Iran - The Media Fall Into Line

 

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

February 9, 2006

 

MEDIA ALERT: IRAN - THE MEDIA FALL INTO LINE

 

Writing in the Guardian last month, Timothy Garton Ash observed:

" Now we face the next big test of the west: after Iraq, Iran. "

 

Garton Ash thus blithely ignored the fact that every last scrap of

evidence coming out of Iraq has pointed to only one conclusion - that

Iraq's " big test " was in fact the West's big lie. Iraq was offering a

threat to precisely no one outside its own borders.

 

Nevertheless, Garton Ash warned: " we in Europe and the United States

have to respond. But how? " (Timothy Garton Ash, `Let's make sure we do

better with Iran than we did with Iraq,' The Guardian, January 12, 2006)

 

The Guardian's Polly Toynbee joined the propaganda chorus demonising

Iran:

 

" Now the mad mullahs of Iran will soon have nuclear bombs, are we all

doomed?...

(snip)