The Menace to Us All - Iran

[Spy Bee]

Great piece this

 

A MENACE TO US ALL - MAX HASTINGS AND IRAN

 

When the big fish of British journalism enter the much bigger pond of the American prestige press, they understand that success requires a willingness to massage elite American prejudices.

 

This kow-towing to claptrap is received all the more warmly because it represents an independent, second opinion from beyond America’s shores, thus confirming everything that is understood to be true about the world. This “truth” revolves around two key intellectual propositions. First, “we” are the good guys. Second, “they” are the bad guys.

 

Masters of the art include Niall Ferguson, Michael Ignatieff (Canadian-born but formerly a British media star), and of course Christopher Hitchens - keen supporter of US-UK war crimes, notably in Iraq.

 

Thus, also, in a recent New York Times article, Max Hastings - former editor of the Daily Telegraph and Evening Standard - works hard to push all the right anti-Iranian buttons.

 

Almost exactly echoing US-UK media commentary on Iraq in 2002-2003, Hastings gives the nod to the “people in Washington” who describe Iran as “one of the most reckless and erratic regimes in the world“, a country run by the “wild men of Tehran“, headed by “the Holocaust-denying President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad“.

 

With Iraq ablaze, Hastings is happy to repeat the kind of incendiary propaganda that set the fire:

 

“Iran represents a menace to the security of us all, not to mention what it must be like to live under that reprehensible regime.” (Hastings, ‘Iran, the vicious victim,’ The New York Times, March 30, 2007; http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/opinion/ 30hastings.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print)

 

Journalists have been demonising other countries in this way for so long, it seems they cannot stop. Always it is the 1930s, always Hitler is plotting our destruction, always we need to recoil in fear, disgust and horror. Is this the real world? Or is this journalism as pathology?

 

Objectivity and neutrality are not serious concerns. As discussed, the realities of career progression demand that journalists side with “us” against “them”. Thus Hastings observes of the latest “them”, Iran:

 

“The game they play with considerable skill is to project themselves at once as assertive Islamic crusaders, and also as victims of imperialism.”

 

This recalls reporter James Mates’ comments on ITN when he observed that Saddam Hussein was again "playing his favourite role of defender of the Arab people". (Mates, ITN, 10 O'Clock News, February 16, 1998)

 

No news reporter would ever describe George Bush or Tony Blair as "playing his favourite role of defender of the free world". And so the comment is an example of propaganda bias - we are being trained to feel contempt for the official enemy, to distrust their motives and sneer at their claimed values.

 

As for the idea that the Iranians are portraying themselves as “victims of imperialism” as a kind of “game”, we need only recall how Amnesty International described the regime brought to power in Iran by the US-UK military coup of 1953. This was a state, Amnesty reported, 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". (Martin Ennals, Secretary General of Amnesty International, cited in Matchbox, Autumn 1976) The motive behind US-UK violence was, very simply, control of Iranian oil.

 

None of this exists for Western journalists, for whom Iranian history began with the 1979 hostage crisis. A more complete chronology of events can be found here: http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_iran.html

 

Hastings continues of the Iranian regime:

 

“They crave respect and influence. Their only claims to these things rest upon their capacity for menacing the West, whether through international terrorism, support for Palestinian extremists, or the promise of building atomic weapons.”

 

That’s “them” - the “bad guys“, craving glory and power at any cost (as “bad guys” do).

 

As for “us”:

 

“We must keep talking to the Iranians, offering carrots even when these are contemptuously tossed into the gutter, because there is no credible alternative. Even threats of economic sanctions must be considered cautiously.”

 

That’s “us” - the “good guys“.

 

Our “carrots” include ringing Iran with military bases, sending nuclear-armed aircraft carrier battle groups to the Gulf to conduct “war games“, and broadcasting open threats to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.

 

Our “carrots” also include the fomenting of terrorism within Iran. Stratfor, a research institute formed of former US security officials, claims of a recent attack inside Iran against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC): "this latest attack against IRGC guards was likely carried out by armed Baloch nationalists who have received a boost in support from Western intelligence agencies". ('Iran: Bombing in Zahedan,' Stratfor, February 14, 2007; http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=284341)

 

Stratfor added: "the United States has likely ramped up support for Iran's variety of oppressed minorities in an attempt to push the Iranian regime toward a negotiated settlement over Iraq". (Ibid)

 

Hastings suggests that “even” the use of sanctions “must be considered cautiously” - not because sanctions resulted in the deaths of one million civilians in Iraq, but because the most likely consequence would be “to strengthen the hand of Tehran’s extremists”. The obsession is with “us”, “our” needs, “our” costs. The portion of the brain that deals with empathy for the suffering we might cause “them” - real, live, loving human beings like us - is inert, silent, a slab of dead grey meat in the skulls of mainstream journalists.

 

And who actually makes up this alliance labelled “we” when Hastings writes: “We must keep talking to the Iranians“?

 

Obviously, he has in mind the British and American governments. Obviously, too, given the Iranian “menace”, he means the British and American military. But he is also proposing a further component - himself, a journalist - as well as inviting the readers of the New York Times to identify themselves as “us“.

 

One could hardly find a clearer example of how professional journalism openly allies itself with elite power. Nobody notices this bias when it endorses the view of an establishment pulling together in time of crisis. Why? Because the establishment media determine the full range of relevant opinions worth discussing. What could be more balanced than affirming what everyone (who matters) believes? There might be odd squeaks and squawks sounding from beyond the establishment spectrum, but they can be ignored. Why? Because they are “silly”. Why are they “silly”? Because they are voiced by people without influence. As Channel 4 presenter Jon Snow recently told a reader:

 

“I am relieved to see that media lens... [is] 'growing up'... I have not been bombarded with adolescent look-alike emails now for more than six months!” (Jon Snow, forwarded to Media Lens, April 3, 2007)

 

For the mainstream media, an opinion barely exists if it doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t matter if it is not voiced by by people who matter. The full range of opinion, then, represents the full range of power. In that sense the mainstream media is indeed balanced.

 

Destination “Rational Universe”

 

There is not even a glimmer in Hastings’ article of journalism’s ostensible duty of holding power to account, of promoting scepticism of government claims, of military warnings and alleged threats. That, in itself, is reprehensible. But when you think of what Hastings, like the rest of us, has witnessed over the last five years on Iraq, it takes his commentary to an altogether different level. Of Iraq, Hastings comments merely:

 

“The United States and Britain have suffered a disastrous erosion of moral authority in consequence of the Iraq war.”

 

He makes clear that he means by this that many nations now have little sympathy for the US and British position in the Gulf region. But what he is careful not to suggest is that this opinion reflects an +actual+ erosion of US-UK morality - that would not do. Instead, his view is made very clear:

 

“No matter how it ends, the seizure of the British sailors is likely to be viewed by most of the world as an Iranian victory. Thus it is unlikely to be Iran’s last affront to us. It is not the American way, but only patience, statesmanship and a refusal to respond in kind to outrageous behavior offer a chance of eventually persuading this dangerous nation to join a rational universe.”

 

Just think about what is going on inside Hastings’ head when he talks of Iran joining “a rational universe“. Because he means, of course, the “rational universe” populated by the West, with Britain and America very much included.

 

But anyone who has been analysing politics over the last five years knows that Britain and America invaded Iraq on a set of spectacular lies: that non-existent Iraqi WMD posed a threat to the West, that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda.

 

We know from former US treasury secretary Paul O’Neill that Bush decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein on “day one” of his administration, long before the September 11 attacks, and that oil was a central concern. O'Neill reports seeing a memorandum preparing for war dating from the first days of the administration. He also saw a Pentagon document entitled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which discussed dividing Iraq's fuel reserves up between the world's oil companies, as is now happening. (Julian Borger, 'Bush decided to remove Saddam "on day one"', The Guardian, January 12, 2004)

 

We know from the leaked Downing Street memos that conquest of Iraq was always the goal; that the UN process, including weapons inspections, was a test the Iraqis were meant to fail. Michael Smith, who broke the story, concluded in the Los Angeles Times:

 

"The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the UN to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress." (Smith, 'The real news in the Downing Street memos,' Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2005; http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe- smith23jun23,0,1838831.story)

 

But there is more that has emerged from Hastings’ “rational universe”. Last month, former NATO commander, General Wesley Clark, told Democracy Now:

 

“About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, ‘Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second.’ I said, ‘Well, you’re too busy.’ He said, ‘No, no.’ He says, ‘We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq.’

 

“This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, ‘We're going to war with Iraq? Why?’ He said, ‘I don't know.’ He said, ‘I guess they don't know what else to do.’ So I said, ‘Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?’ He said, ‘No, no.’ He says, ‘There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.’ He said, ‘I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments.’ And he said, ‘I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.’ (‘Gen. Wesley Clark Weighs Presidential Bid: "I Think About It Everyday,"’ Democracy Now, March 2, 2007; http://www.democracynow.org/ article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234)

 

We know that US-UK policy has resulted in Iraq being torn to bits at the cost of more than 655,000 lives, according to a study published in the Lancet last October.

 

We know from papers obtained by the BBC World Service's Newshour programme under the Freedom of Information Act last month that senior government officials lied when they dismissed this study as flawed, with the Foreign Office commenting that it was a "fairly small sample... extrapolated across the country". (Sarah Boseley, ‘One in 40 Iraqis “killed since invasion”,’ The Guardian, October 12, 2006; http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1920166,00.html)

 

One of the documents obtained by the BBC is a memo by the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, dated October 13, 2006, two days after the Lancet report was published. Anderson wrote:

 

"The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to 'best practice' in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq." (Owen Bennett-Jones, ‘Iraqi deaths survey “was robust”,’ BBC Online, March 26, 2007; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/ hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm)

 

When these recommendations were sent to Blair’s advisers, they were appalled. One person briefing Blair wrote: "are we really sure that the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies?"

 

A Foreign Office official was forced to conclude that the government "should not be rubbishing The Lancet".

 

The prime minister's adviser finally accepted the conclusion. He wrote: "the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".

 

And yet, speaking six days after Roy Anderson praised the study's methods, British foreign office minister Lord Triesman said:

 

"The way in which data are extrapolated from samples to a general outcome is a matter of deep concern."

 

In response to these revelations, the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, has accused Blair of “shameful and cowardly dissembling” in rejecting the study when he had been told it was robust. Horton added:

 

“This Labour government, which includes Gordon Brown as much as it does Tony Blair, is party to a war crime of monstrous proportions. Yet our political consensus prevents any judicial or civil society response. Britain is paralysed by its own indifference.” (Horton, ‘A monstrous war crime,’ The Guardian, March 28, 2007; http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/ story/0,,2044157,00.html)

 

Despite all of this, Hastings can talk of Iran as the “dangerous nation”, as the “rogue state”, and of the US-UK powers as constituting the “rational universe”.

 

He notes “... there is little prospect that [iranian] people committed to normal relations with the West will gain power any time soon”.

 

But how exactly does Iran engage in “normal relations” with such abnormal, mendacious and awesomely violent states?

 

What is amazing about Hastings’ article is that it is ostensibly a call for “patience, statesmanship and a refusal to respond in kind to outrageous behavior”. And yet, by reinforcing the usual patriotic delusions and ignoring even the obvious truths of Iraq, restraint is ultimately made even less likely.

 

[bri]

so iran are bad then

[Spy Bee]

so iran are bad then

You are either double bluffing sarcasm or you really didn't read that article did you?

[CrouchieBoy]

Adam. great post mate. I think this is an issue that many people are sleeping on around the world. I think we can all agree that Iran is a bunch of fucking nutters. What makes me see a ray of light in this whole issue is this article in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2051971,00.html dunno if you saw that, but I think for all of Tony Blair's well.... fuck ups, he and the UK hit this situation right on the head.

 

It is causing such an uproar here in the states with Bushies wingnuts blowing them selves over the fact that Blair basically told Bush to fuck themselves. Adam, Iran for me is a new area so i don't want to even pretend to know everything, but i think we can all agree that Iran and the middle east will be decided with diplomacy. Think our speaker of the house going to Syria for fucks sake.

 

Whadya think

[Red Mist]

Hastings can go suck a cock. When Iran start bombing and invading another country, in another continent from their own, for no reason other than wanting its rich resources, then I may share his view. Or if Iran does actually build a nuke and bomb a civilian population. Twice. Then perhaps I would see things his way. Or maybe invade another country because it opposed its idealogical beliefs, burning and raping villages and napalming civilians. Then perhaps Iran can be considered truly evil.

[RSM]

Hastings can go suck a cock. When Iran start bombing and invading another country, in another continent from their own, for no reason other than wanting its rich resources, then I may share his view. Or if Iran does actually build a nuke and bomb a civilian population. Twice. Then perhaps I would see things his way. Or maybe invade another country because it opposed its idealogical beliefs, burning and raping villages and napalming civilians. Then perhaps Iran can be considered truly evil.

 

fucking ace post!

[BatChainPuller]

Hastings can go suck a cock. When Iran start bombing and invading another country, in another continent from their own, for no reason other than wanting its rich resources, then I may share his view. Or if Iran does actually build a nuke and bomb a civilian population. Twice. Then perhaps I would see things his way. Or maybe invade another country because it opposed its idealogical beliefs, burning and raping villages and napalming civilians. Then perhaps Iran can be considered truly evil.

 

Funnily enough there hasn't been much publicity about the alleged US attempt to capture a top Iranian intelligence officer a few weeks before the sailors were seized. It doesn't fit the 'mad muzzies' stories that people love to hear. More about it here: http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick04032007.html

[theghost]

His first name is Max. That should tell you a bit.

[bri]

maybe it's a tripple bluff.

[BatChainPuller]

His first name is Max. That should tell you a bit.

 

And his surname is Hastings - a run down little seaside town full of smackheads.

[theghost]

And his surname is Hastings - a run down little seaside town full of smackheads.

 

Ace. He's a shitbag.

[CrouchieBoy]

Hastings can go suck a cock. When Iran start bombing and invading another country, in another continent from their own, for no reason other than wanting its rich resources, then I may share his view. Or if Iran does actually build a nuke and bomb a civilian population. Twice. Then perhaps I would see things his way. Or maybe invade another country because it opposed its idealogical beliefs, burning and raping villages and napalming civilians. Then perhaps Iran can be considered truly evil.

 

Scathing post there Red Mist. And what you say is so undeniably true. I think there is a large problem in the quality of reporting all across the board. The problem with this bunch of reporters is that they are too afraid to actually check fact and let the rhetoric from downing street and the house write their stories for them.

all in all great post mate

[Strontium]

The Americans are clearly spoiling for war with Iran; it's a good job the Ayatollah forced Ahmadinejad to release our sailors or shit could be hitting fans pretty soon.

 

The US is definitely twisting the media to prepare people for war with Iran. Remember when it was reported that Ahmadinejad had called for Israel to be "wiped off the map"? Turns out that was a mistranslation; what he actually said was "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". A subtle difference that changes the meaning entirely.

 

The funny thing about Iran is that an invasion could quite reasonably be justified, as it pretty undeniably has a WMD program. However, an invasion would be a tremendously bad idea, not least because Iran actually has a pretty strong reformist opposition (it is, nominally, a democracy, unlike the dictatorship of Saddam's Iraq). I can't help feeling that military action, though far more justifiable than the Iraq war, would be counter-productive in the long run, and that we really ought to be encouraging democratic and liberal reforms instead.

[Red Mist]

The Iranian leadership is a bit loopy but no worse than many others the US happily dealt with in the past and present. Their buddies Saudi Arabia are the biggest exporters of terrorism by far. Egypt, which gets more financial aid from the US than any other country, is ruled by a corrupt dictator who laughably claims he's democratically elected.

 

Much of Iran is a modern metropolis, with extravagant buildings being built regularly that rival the west in appearance. It's not a nation of cave dwellers where the ancient ruins outdate its present infrastructure. Its economy is diversifying, not totally reliant on oil exports like its neighbours. It has a very young population, something like 70% of the population is under the age of 35.

Liberalism is sweeping through the youth and many of them yearn for freedom like we have, and break off the shackles of the clergy. Within a generation or so Iran will have weakened the grip the Ayatollah's have over the country and we'll see a more liberal, western-friendly country like no other Muslim nation.

The US knows this and that's why they are preparing for war, for they know they must grab Iran's gas and oil before they run out of excuses, i.e. if Iran becomes democratic and friendly to the west, the yanks won't have any legit reason to invade.

 

Iranian folk are friendly and football crazy. Don't believe the US propaganda of Iranians being evil fanatics who want to slaughter us all. They are proud Persians and adore their history and have fantastic looking women who can't wait for the day they tear off their burka's and embrace the hedonism that is intrinsically linked with Persia.

 

The Yankees only seek Iran's riches and see it as a black spot on their own Middle East map – it's the only major oil-producing Middle Eastern country that does not have US troops or bases located within.

Ignore the claims the US makes about Iran – the US has allies every bit as scummy – and see their plan for what it is – complete domination of the richest land on the planet.

[Strontium]

Funnily enough there hasn't been much publicity about the alleged US attempt to capture a top Iranian intelligence officer a few weeks before the sailors were seized. It doesn't fit the 'mad muzzies' stories that people love to hear. More about it here: http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick04032007.html

I'm intrigued to know how the US attempting to kidnap two Iranian security officers could possibly justify UK sailors being kidnapped. It'd be sort of like bombing Saudi Arabia because Iran pissed us off.

 

Methinks it more likely that elements of the Iranian government just wanted to deflect a bit of attention away from all the troubles they have at home and thought a bit of Brit-bashing would play well to the audience.

[cochyn]

To all intents and purposes, Iran is asserting itself as a true nation after years of puppet regimery. It misses 'the mark' with its declamatory remarks. However, its aim is true: Why should Iran's scientists be denied the opportunity to develop nuclear technology? (provided they are bound by the protocols of the IAEA where every gramme of nuclear matter is accounted for).

 

America is on a truffle-hunt of every oil-field in existence and is actively confronting everyone that stands in their way. More power to Iran I say: they've seen the future and are equal to its challenges. The momentum of progress is with them, let's at least ensure that progress is tempered by propriety, rather than a will to counter America's bully-boy internationalist tactics.

[Strontium]

Why should Iran's scientists be denied the opportunity to develop nuclear technology? (provided they are bound by the protocols of the IAEA where every gramme of nuclear matter is accounted for).

I imagine because they're considered too great a risk to own nuclear technology. Iran itself has a bizarre power hierarchy, and of course, they're also all theocratic lunatics, which doesn't help.

 

I'm also not so convinced American imperialism is driven by the greed for oil. I think it's rather more complex than that.

[Spy Bee]

I imagine because they're considered too great a risk to own nuclear technology. Iran itself has a bizarre power hierarchy, and of course, they're also all theocratic lunatics, which doesn't help.

By whom?

[bri]

by anyone in that area

[Spy Bee]

by anyone in that area

 

What area?

 

I think the answer you were looking for is the west. And the west have no fucking right to go around dictating whether Iran can or cannot develop their nuclear resources.

[tokyojoe]

The main reason Iran wants nuclear technology is to power it's own (rapidly growing) infrastructure. It exports most of it's crude oil output to earn revenue, and imports some things like gasoline and jet fuel as it's own refining capability is relatively small.

 

I don't think they really are a threat, despite the nutjob of a president saying he wants Israel obliterated. He'll be gone sooner or later, it's Rasfanjani (sp) who seems to pull the strings, and the Iraniam people are a pretty intelligent lot.

[DJLJ]

Lets look 30 - 50 years into the future, when all the oil is gone. How should the worlds energy be generated, if not by nuclear power? If we (the west) are to decide countries cannot start to establish nuclear power, to have a sustainable way of "powering" their countries, we (the west) need to provide a way of generating all the energy needed, or the technology to generate the energy. So far, we have seen nothing which looks like it will be able to do this, except for nuclear power.

But lets make sure no country can start planning for what to do when the oil runs out.

[bri]

anyone in the middle east basically will be bolloxed if any of em get nuc'd up. I completely understand the western media spin on the whole situation but in some respects were right.

 

For me you've only got to look at how they treat their women to see how rational they are.

[Spy Bee]

anyone in the middle east basically will be bolloxed if any of em get nuc'd up. I completely understand the western media spin on the whole situation but in some respects were right.

 

For me you've only got to look at how they treat their women to see how rational they are.

Yeah. Righto.

 

In Afghanistan before the West funded the Taliban Russia had very liberal womens rights, they had free healthcare and education. But the western funded taliban then had oe of the most oppressive regimes ever. Don't be kidded into thinking that the western governments actually give a fuck about women's rights in the middle east. They only do when it suits them.

[bri]

ok adam how many people from the middle east do you deal with day to day.