You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Iran’ tag.
A guest post by AKUS
A screaming headline over a January 11th article by Julian Borger in the Guardian once again casts Israel in the worst possible light:
In fact, as even Borger points out, the three worst countries for nuclear security recognized by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) were no surprise at all:
No surprises about the bottom three when it comes to the overall score. North Korea is worse, then Pakistan and Iran.
The next group from the bottom is more noteworthy. India is 28th out of the 32 nuclear material states, China is 27th and Israel is 25th, below Russia and other former Soviet republics previously thought to be the worst threats in terms of nuclear security.
Make of it what you will, but only Israel and Iran, by the way, are linked to in the Borger article.
The NTI provides what at first sight is an innocuous opportunity for the reader on its website to assign his or her own weightings to the five “categories” and see how changing a weighting changes each country’s score. You appear to have the opportunity to play “nuclear regulator” and see how a country you select does depending on changes in these weightings. Here’s a screen shot:
Each “category” has a number of sub-categories or “indicators” – e.g., “Security Personnel Measures” – with a value between 0 (lowest) and 4 (highest) and a weighting.
For the details on the “indicators” and how they are scored, you have to dig in to the spreadsheet you can download via a link by the NTI that lists the “Economist Intelligence Unit analyst qualitative assessment(s) based on official national sources, which vary by country” for a large number of weighted sub-measures of the sub-indicators of the indicators in each category. (Don’t worry about it – it’s easier to check the spreadsheet for details.)
The reader of the NTI website is not allowed to adjust the “indicator” scores and hidden indicator weightings found in the provided spreadsheet, only the “category” scores.
For example:
The “category” of “Security and Control Measures“, which I would rank the most critical, is weighted by the NTI as a 2.
The scoring is based on the four “indicators” shown above, each scored over a number of “sub-indicators” :
The following countries, listed alphabetically, have the highest score possible of 4 for Security Personnel Measures as shown in the spreadsheet:
On a measure of “Security Personnel Measures” NTI ranks Israel in the top league with the world’s best performers. Bringing up the rear are:
Norway, not known as a proliferator, gets 2 points, along with Uzbekistan!
But all is fair in politics and propaganda, so the NTI throws in an “indicator” it calls “Control and Accounting Procedures” intended to show how open a country is about revealing information about materials control and accounting. Israel refuses to release this information (which does NOT mean it does not have the controls or the information) so gets a score of 0, below even Iran with a 1, while Norway, of course, gets a 5 out of 5!
Thus, Israel’s score on the critical issue of security of nuclear material is distorted because information is not known on how it controls access to nuclear material.
Even worse, the categories of “Domestic Commitments and Capacity” and “Societal Factors” allow the authors of the study to stray from the possibly measurable to the utterly imponderable. Several of the scores awarded to countries for their Societal Factors “indicators” reveal the NTI’s biases. While their biases may be there for others of the countries the report covers, our focus is on Israel.
One of the 5 “categories” is “Societal Factors”, weighted by NTI at 1.5. In this “category” there is an “indicator” of “Political Stability” that has a maximum score of 20 and an indicator weighting of 1, as opposed to 4 for “Security Personnel Measures”, where Israel scores highly. The value of 20 is arrived at by assessing and summing 5 “sub-indicators” such as “sporadic conflict” and “orderly transfer of power”, each with a maximum score of 4.
How many would agree with the following? Israel, a democracy that has never had a revolution nor is it faced with one, brings up the rear by NTI estimates in the “indicator” of “Political Stability”, sandwiched between China and Iran!
Top of the list is – you could have guessed it – is Norway with 20 points:
By favoring bureaucratic issues and introducing what can only be political bias, and eliminating scores where countries do not provide data, the report over-weights areas in which Israel does poorly (e.g., where it won’t, for security reasons, release data). On the other hand, it under-weights more directly critical areas of security in which Norway, for example, (which has currently no security reasons to withhold information) does poorly.
The spreadsheet allows comparisons between countries. Here is a summary it can provide for Israel and Norway, showing Israel ahead of Norway in matters of nuclear security even if behind on various reporting and bureaucratic measures!
As a result the report presents an entirely false view of Israel as a greater threat than Norway (for example) from the point of view of nuclear proliferation. A moment’s thought should suggest that security-conscious Israel is far less vulnerable to theft of nuclear material than a laissez-faire Scandinavian country.
What we have from the NTI is a hodge podge of some genuine assessments of countries’ ability and commitment to safeguard their nuclear facilities mixed in with reports on, for example, compliance with UN resolutions and obviously biased assessments of “political stability”.
The false picture the report presents is reinforced by allowing readers to play with the “category” weightings on the NTI website, but not the critical “indicator” values. The “category” weightings barely move the countries relative to one another because the underlying biases are so strongly baked in to the scoring.
Contrary what the headline states, in the critical and measurable area of actual security of nuclear assets, Israel is ranked among the best.
Of course, it would be too much to expect the Guardian’s expert on Global Security, Julian Borger, to actually dig in and critique the report’s methodology rather than writing a fluff piece that opened the door for another “shocking Israel” headline.
In fact, the Israel-obsessed Guardian should have had this as the headline to Borger’s piece of unresearched fluff:
NTI report ranks Israel among the world’s best for nuclear security
Related articles
- Obama condemns Arab antisemitism in UN speech. The Guardian’s first reaction? Outrage. (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian describes Iranian blast, which killed missile program architect, as “dangerous Israeli escalation” (cifwatch.com)
- The anatomy of a Guardian smear against Israel (cifwatch.com)
- The Iranian Guardians: CiF readers come out in force to demonize Israel, & defend Islamist regime (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian’s continuing campaign to persuade the world of the benign nature of the Iranian regime and its nuclear programme (also, here and here) was augmented on January 11th with another article by ex-pat Iranian Saeed Kamali Dehghan which, in finger-wagging fashion, informs us that “[t]his covert war on Iran is illegal and dangerous“.
With all the integrity and accuracy of a tabloid gossip columnist, Dehghan lays the responsibility for a whole string of events – which he takes care to detail meticulously – firmly at the door of Israel, the United States or the United Kingdom.
Or, perhaps all three: he doesn’t seem quite able to decide and of course he has no real proof for any of his speculations beyond the usual knee-jerk official Iranian reactions.
But for the Guardian and Dehghan, it is enough that Israel “has refused to deny involvement” to make it the natural prime suspect of choice.
Apparently having fully embraced the traditional Guardian anti-Western stance, Dehghan appears not to have considered the possibility that the Gulf nations in proximity to Iran have just as much – if not more – of an interest in preventing its acquisition of nuclear weapons. Conveniently, he also neglects to mention that the various incidents were apparently carried out by Iranian nationals – a fact which opens up even more possibilities.
Dehghan choses to lump attacks on various nuclear scientists together with the two explosions at military bases last year, despite the fact that there is no proof of connection and the explosions took place at sites later shown to have nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, what little information there is may even suggest that at least some of the past year’s incidents may have more to do with internal factors than cunning covert warfare.
But the cherry on the cream comes in the form of Dehghan’s appeal to international law in defence of a totalitarian regime which (as he well knows) violates human rights laws in its domestic arena on a daily basis, and arms its Syrian dictator ally (currently engaged in the murder of innocent civilians), as well as terrorist groups in Gaza and Lebanon.
“But no matter who is responsible for the extrajudicial killings and apparent sabotage, one thing should be considered above all: these are illegal actions under international law.
Whether it’s an individual simply murdering people or a foreign state inflicting injuries upon the nationals of another state and violating the territorial sovereignty of the Islamic republic, international laws and human rights conventions prohibit such activities.
Supporters of covert war against Iran see it as an alternative to aerial bombing raids or full-scale war. They believe it’s a better approach (even though it is illegal) since there are fewer civilian casualties and public confrontation with supporters of Iran, such as Russia and China, can be avoided.”
Until reaching the final paragraph, it is difficult to ascertain from this article what Dehghan would prefer: the upholding of his (unsourced) version of international law or the mass-killing of civilians on both sides. But then we read this:
“But illegal action will only ruin any chance of dialogue with Tehran. It will encourage Iran to be less prudent and become more radical about its nuclear activities and – most importantly – will encourage Iran to react in a similar fashion with its own covert operations. The covert war against Iran, if not stopped, could escalate out of control.”
So in fact, Dehghan is conveying a not so veiled threat – but the question is, on behalf of whom?
Has he merely spent too much time in the company of Seumas Milne – a supporter of the Stop the War Coalition, which frequently collaborates with the Khomenist Islamic Human Rights Commission and has embraced the approach of the ‘Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran‘ (CASMII)?
Of note, CASMII was founded by Abbas Edalat, a professor connected to the inner circle of the Iranian regime whose primary mission appears to be the defense of the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions. As such, it was interesting to see Dehghan’s ‘Comment is Free’ piece featured prominently on CASMII’s website.
Or is Dehghan – an Iranian national who openly champions LGBT rights, and has family still at the mercy of a regime which executes gays - subject to other pressures?
One sincerely hopes that the former is the case, but nevertheless, his analysis indicates that there is no room for the proverbial cigarette paper between the approach of the Guardian and that of the repressive theocratic dictatorship in Tehran.
That fact should be of profound concern to any Left-wing liberal still reading Comment is Free.
Related articles
Perhaps to fill their quota of CiF essays not viscerally hostile to the U.S., and Israel’s very existence, the Guardian published “A covert campaign is the only way stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions“, by Andrew Cummings – an adviser on the Middle East and US affairs in the UK cabinet office national security staff.
Cummings argues that a negotiated settlement needs a comprehensive strategy, including covert action, increasingly robust sanctions, along with a credible threat of military action.
The author also pointed out the following politically inconvenient fact:
“Through the Revolutionary Guards, “Iran has been responsible for increasing the efficacy of insurgent improvised bombs in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It has helped to prop up Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime in Syria and has a track record of attempting to assassinate or imprison its enemies – both at home and abroad.”
True to form, the merry band of Iran defenders whose Guardian-style politics can be pretty much summed up as “the enemy of the US and Israel are by definition deserving of sympathy”, immediately pounced on Cummings’ heterodox pro-Western views, often leveling clear ad hominem attacks on the author which have curiously not been deleted.
(I’ve read the first 202 comments posted thus far, and would gauge those militantly opposed to Cummings’ views in the 90-95% range, many of which are openly hostile to any suggestion that the West should challenge Iran’s aspirations for regional hegemony.)
Cummings is a Mossad agent who should be imprisoned or exiled (12 Recommends, not deleted)
Another accusation that Cummings is a Mossad Agent (10 Recommends)
U.S. and Israel are terrorists and war criminals (41 recommends)
The U.S. and Israel are a blight on the human race (22 recommends)
Iran should be seen as a check against the bullying and hegemony of the U.S and its allies. (23 Recommends)
Cummings is closer to an al-Qaeda terrorist than a civilized human being (25 Recommends)
Israel is an aggressive, jingoistic country which constantly murders innocent civilians (6 Recommends)
Cites conspiracy theory, including the suggestion that Israel lobby is behind assassinations
Perhaps Israeli leaders should be assassinated (8 Recommends)
And, finally, for some comic relief, here’s Berchmans, on the secret war mongering agenda of the “buffoons” at (multiple?) anti-CiF sites!
Related articles
- On CiF contributor Jonathan Guyer’s “chilling relations” with truth, context, and proportion (cifwatch.com)
- CiF piece by Brian Whitaker on “why media believes worst about Iran” draws on conspiracy blog (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian welcomes back Ben White, tireless campaigner for the end of the Jewish State (cifwatch.com)
- Tin-Pot Pravda: Guardian editorial scolds Israel for taking Iranian nuclear threat seriously (cifwatch.com)
- How Guardian writers file stories about life in Gaza without mentioning Hamas, without really trying (cifwatch.com)
- CiF contributor characterizes Israel’s relationship with India as an alliance based on Islamophobia (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers claim leading Zionists during WWII rooted for Hitler. Comments not deleted by CiF Moderators (cifwatch.com)
This is cross posted by Tom Wilson, and originally published at The Jerusalem Post.
When Iranians stormed the British embassy in Tehran, it was reported that they had burned the British flag, yet the truth is that they actually burned the Israeli and American flags along with the British one. This should have told observers something.
It should have alerted them to the ideology at work there, an ideology that singles out Western democracies less for what they do and more because of what they are and what they represent in the world. And, just as the British media has so often gotten it wrong on Israel’s attempts to defend its civilians, so too this error of judgment seems to extend to Britain’s own international efforts.
Seeing members of a mob brandishing a portrait of England’s Queen Elizabeth II as they stormed her embassy in Tehran, with the Iranian police initially appearing pretty impassive, you would have thought it would be clear to the British media which side they ought to be on. After all, with the Iranian parliament having voted to downgrade diplomatic relations to the sound of some of its members chanting “death to Britain,” many suspected that the ‘student’ riot was anything but spontaneous and, indeed, far from independent of the Iranian authorities’ influence.
Yet for some, this was not an occasion to rally to Britain’s defense, but rather to chastise its government for its policy on Iran and its nuclear program. A flurry of opinion pieces appeared, mostly in the liberal press, arguing that Britain had brought this on itself through its harsh dealings with Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s regime. This reaction, however, only reveals the extent to which some commentators in the West refuse to recognize that people in other cultures also have agency in their actions, that they are not simply reactive to our alleged geopolitical mismanagements.
In one opinion piece for The Guardian, former British Minister of State Mark Malloch-Brown argued that Britain had acted as a “ringleader of efforts to squeeze Iran” and, as such, has made itself an American proxy in the eyes of the Iranians, a cardinal sin in the view of Britain’s liberal circles.
The Independent’s Middle East editor Robert Fisk went further still, arguing the case that the recent sanctions are just a small part of a long history of reasons “that makes Iranians hate the UK.” Fisk has dismissed former Bristh prime minister Tony Blair and British governments for “raving” about “the necessity of standing up to Iranian aggression” and what he calls “the supposedly terrorist nature of the Iranian government”. These commentators seem to possess short memories, choosing to ignore the Iranian kidnapping of three British naval personnel in 2007.
Perhaps none of this should surprise us since the IAEA report was published last month, which provided the clearest evidence yet that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, sections of the British media rushed to Iran’s defense, either calling into doubt Iran’s activities or warning that all intervention, military or otherwise, would be futile and damaging.
Predictably these writers tended to chastise Israel and the US for allegedly risking an escalation in the situation and a leading article by The Independent went so far as to allege that “America’s Jewish voters” were driving US policy on Iran. More startling still was British journalist Simon Jenkins’ Guardian piece in which he coldly stated that “No one seriously supposes that Iran, under whatever ruler, would seek to wipe out Israel – and anyway that is Israel’s business”.
All of this appears to indicate a stark failing in moral judgment on the part of sections of Britain’s media. The automatic assumption seems to be one of an irredeemable West committing unceasing aggression against the ever innocent developing world. Ultimately, it has been the very same people who fail to recognize the values that the Jewish State stands for who have similarly proved unable to maintain any kind of moral clarity when it comes representing the dealings of liberal and democratic Britain with the belligerent and terror sponsoring Islamic republic.
The writer is a researcher and analyst at the Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy where he heads the Centre Transatlantic Affairs project. Tom currently lives in London where he is completing a Doctorate at UCL.
This is cross posted by Richard Millett
New Statesman Editor, and CiF commentator, Mehdi Hasan
Last Friday Luke Bozier, a Labour blogger, said of Mehdi Hasan, the embattled Senior Editor (politics) at the New Statesman magazine:
“Wouldn’t it be good if he just buggered off to Tehran.”
It was in response to Hasan’s ['Comment is Free'] article the previous day If you lived in Iran, wouldn’t you want the nuclear bomb? which some commentators have interpreted as a call by Hasan for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb.
Yesterday Hasan posted a response to the criticism of his article and made the following curious remark about Bozier:
Can you imagine the media reaction if a British Jew wrote a column about Israel which prompted the response of “bugger off to Tel Aviv”?
I can’t see the parallel myself. Hasan isn’t Iranian and neither does Bozier’s remark seem to be an attack on Hasan’s Muslim identity.
It might be in dispute as to whether Hasan’s article amounts to a call for an Iranian nuclear bomb, but what is not in dispute is his coming to the defence of the vile Iranian regime, describing it as “surrounded on all sides by virulent enemies” and he doubts whether Iran is looking to create a nuclear bomb when he gives credence to the regime’s rhetoric that its “goal is only to develop a civilian nuclear programme, not atomic bombs”.
And so Bozier’s comment is not so different from those by people who tell apologists for Hamas to move to Gaza if they love Hamas so much. It’s the same with telling Hasan to go to Tehran. It isn’t a racist slur.
And in reality, and Hasan must know this, the equivalent far-left racial slur against British Jews is for us to bugger off to Russia. I, myself, was once told to go back to Poland at an anti-Israel event in London.
So what a nice change it would be for British Jews to be told to “bugger off to Tel Aviv”.
Implicit in such a suggestion would at least be a recognition of the Jewish connection to Israel, a connection which both the Palestinian leadership and the far-left refuse to make.
But it wasn’t like that before 1948 when the common refrain of racists in the UK was for Jews to go back to Palestine. After 1948 it became politically inconvenient for the racists to suggest Jews go back to Israel, so Poland and Russia are now the new hot spots designated for us by the far-left, irrespective of the fact that Jews got slaughtered there in their millions by the Nazis.
And how ironic that Hasan now chooses to employ British Jews in his defence when he has previously shown us such disregard with his casual attitude to anti-Semitism.
In an echo of Ben White’s article in 2002 Is It Possible to Understand the Rise in Anti-Semitism? in which White wrote “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are” Hasan wrote in his article Does Israel “cause” anti-Semitism?:
“Nothing justifies anti-Semitism…But I do find it both tragic and ironic that the state of Israel…through its actions today…provokes such awful anti-Semitic attacks against diaspora Jews who have nothing to do with the actions of the IDF or the policies of Netanyahu, Olmert and Sharon.”
As The CST‘s Dave Rich wrote in the comment section of that post:
“The people who are primarily responsible for racist hate crimes are the racists who perpetrate them; the “cause” is their bigotry and hatred for a chosen ‘other’…You would not write an article lamenting that fact that Muslim immigration “caused” the recent arson attack on the Luton Islamic Centre…Don’t make excuses for racists, and don’t use racism as an excuse to score political points.”
And anyway, Hasan and President Ahmadinejad do have similar ideas which suggests that Hasan might actually feel at home in Tehran. For example, they both wish for Israel to be wiped off the map. In his article I’ve changed my mind about a two-state solution Hasan describes his own solution as being:
“a single, secular and binational state for Israelis and Palestinians. No longer ‘two states for two peoples’, but ‘one person, one vote’.”
And in mid-July 2009 he wrote of the Iranian regime’s Press TV that “not a single critic so far has claimed that his or her views were ever censored”.
However, two weeks earlier Press TV interviewed Hossein Mousavi in his prison cell in Iran asking him questions prepared by the Iranian regime with Mousavi reading his answers from a script also prepared by the regime. (OFCOM recently upheld the complaint of unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy in making the programme containing Mousavi’s interview.)
So, Mehdi, by all means hate Israel, excuse anti-Semitism and support the Iranian regime if you are that way inclined but please don’t try to use British Jews in your defence when it suits you politically.
And if anyone does tell me to “bugger off to Tel Aviv” I will be happy that, finally, they will have stopped trying to force me back to Poland.
Related articles
- CiF comment, justifying antisemitism as normal reaction to Zionism: 74 “recommends” & not deleted (cifwatch.com)
- Jews, Israel, & the Atavistic British Left: A response to Bob from Brockley (cifwatch.com)
- Deborah Orr’s Disgusting Excuse For an “Apology” (cifwatch.com)
- Fight or flight? CiF Watch, David Yehuda Stern & Ben White (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian Left comic moral equivalence watch: CiF’s Medhi Hasan shills for Iran (cifwatch.com)
- Arab-Israeli Conflict: A continuation of the Jews’ struggle, 70 years after Transnistria (cifwatch.com)
We may, of course, never know with certainty if Israel was behind the recent explosion at Alghadir missile base at Bid Ganeh, Iran which killed seventeen of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, including a man described as the “architect” of the country’s missile programme, Major General Hassan Moghaddam.
However, the manner in which Julian Borger and Saeed Kamali Dehghan framed the issue, in “Iranian missile architect dies in blast. But was explosion a Mossad mission?“, Nov. 15, was classic Guardian.
Though assigning blame for the blast on Israel is more than plausible, to characterize such an act, as Borger and Dehghan do, as “a dramatic [Israeli] escalation in a shadow war over the Iranian nuclear programme” is a classic Guardian style moral inversion. And, it is thoroughly consistent with a recent Guardian editorial lecturing the Jewish state on the folly of not only a pre-emptive missile strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities but even against covert action, cyber attacks, and economic sanctions.
Of course, opining that Israeli responsibility for the explosion is a “dangerous escalation” represents either remarkably myopia or willful blindness in the face of undeniable evidence regarding Iran’s role as one the biggest exporters of terrorism on the planet.
In addition to the Islamic Republic’s role in “continuing to fund, train, and provide weapons and ammunition to Shia extremist groups that carry out attacks against Iraqi and U.S. forces,” Iran, primarily through the efforts of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, continues to employ a sophisticated arms smuggling network through Syria to Hizballah in Lebanon, and to Hamas in Gaza – representing an Iranian proxy war against the Jewish state.
In fact, Iran has been so successful at re-arming Hezbollah after the 2nd Lebanon War that Israeli authorities estimate the Shiite terror group to have a rocket arsenal of over 50,000, many which could strike almost anywhere in Israel.
Further, experts believe, in the next Lebanon war, Hezbollah could fire 400-600 rockets at Israeli towns per day.
Yet, strangely, Iran’s arming of terrorist groups who fire rockets at Israeli towns is, for some reason, not considered a “dangerous escalation” by the Guardian.
Further, evidently the moral and political experts at the Guardian are unmoved by an Iranian regime which both denies that the Holocaust, while inciting for another one against the Jewish state – what Irwin Cotler, former Justice Minister of Canada, terms “incitement to genocide. Said Cutler:
“[We are] witnessing s incitement to genocide, we can see the unfolding of one case where there is a responsibility to act. This incitement, dramatized by parading in the streets, promotes the wiping of Israel off the map and religiously sanctioned genocide. The inflammatory epidemical metaphors used by Iran, are reminiscent of the Metaphors used by Nazi Germany. These metaphors are used by Ahmadinejad along side the denial of the Holocaust.
These calls of Ahmadinejad and other senior officials are also reminiscent of Rwanda government’s incitement to the elimination of the Tutsi.
The failure of state parties and the United Nations to act is a fatal blow to the corpus of international law and the United Nations, especially to the Genocide Convention. The international community must promote preventative action, accountability and not impunity for the sake of international peace and security.”
Not only don’t Guardian editors and journalists even marginally share Cotler’s concern, but a recent Guardian editorial decried the Israeli notion that it can, or should, engage in efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear aspirations as the foolish belief that “they can stop history.”
Israel, it seems, should listen to the sage advice from London, let history take its course, and just meekly accept their fate – a moral formula which, I assume we are to believe, has worked so well for the Jewish community throughout history.
Related articles
A guest post by Oded Ben-Joseph, a Tel Aviv-based freelance writer
Fizzle – industry jargon for the failure of a nuclear device to fully detonate.
The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) seems to be rising from the ashes of its reign by Mohammed ElBardei.
Finally, it is unequivocally recognizing that Iran isn’t merely interested in nuclear fission for reducing its utility bills. This resounding yet belated IAEA affirmation of the existential threat on Israel relieves somewhat its decade long isolation on this issue, enduring many a call to be patient, have faith in partial sanctions and refrain from acting militarily. Understanding the roots of the international climate belittling the danger shows how the pursuit of nuclear disarmament fails miserably and even predictably, when trying to apply cold war paradigms – that had some success in the past – to today’s realities.
A few weeks before the new IAEA report, the British-American Security Information Council (BASIC) released its own study of global nuclear developments. BASIC is a think tank based in the US and UK which admirably seeks to promote a nuclear weapon free world, by transforming the “[nuclear] debate into a cooperative search for global security”.
In its report, BASIC chronicles the forecasted multi-billion dollar investments and developments amongst the “widely accepted” nuclear powers, in a warning against a rising global danger of nuclear catastrophes and weapon proliferation. Its main conclusion warns of an impending, dangerous “New era of global nuclear force modernization and growth”.
If one accepts the underlying assumption that the nuclear genie can be bottled back, this worthy initiative would be quite in its element, but for leaving one or two major protagonists – Iran is not mentioned anywhere in it – and mis-prioritizing others.
Curiously, the US seems to be at the top list of BASIC’s worries, as its planned $700bn nuclear forces upgrade budget leaves the statistics of all other countries in the dust, a fact that seems to impress BASIC’s researches no end. Russia, (or its report figures, at least) trails behind with a mere $70bn figure. Despite the attempt to convey “The story behind the numbers”, the report fizzles* out completely in this regard.
The US and its western allies lead the world not just in nuclear investments, but nuclear transparency, down to reporting the number of warheads. The same can hardly be said for most of the Eastern nuclear powers where transparency tends to remain exclusively in the jargon of opticians and fashion designers rather than government officials, particularly concerning military matters.
While the report does touch on this point, it could be blunter in making the comparison – however easier it is to vilify the US and other democracies than places where critics are an endangered species; where tradition has swifter means of plugging leaks than with investigative congress committees.
“Because nuclear accidents happen, and can kill millions” (A tag from the BASIC website).
The unasked question remains: what is more dangerous, storing 10,000 warheads under a rational, relatively scrutinized and secure chain of command, under the executive powers of elected officials, or having a mere 5 bombs running amok in a rogue state with terror group connections, their millions of intended victims at the mercy of a tyrannical leader’s many sided prophetic soul?
In the post-cold-war era, it sometimes seems only an accident will save humanity. Can the quantitatively obsessed BASIC researches honestly not get the difference between nations that will use the bomb only in a desperate situation – those that celebrate the end of wars, from those that celebrate their beginning?
Taking refuge behind the eminent academic cloak of remit, by claiming that their study was limited to declared or widely believed nuclear weapon holding states, does not hold (heavy) water anymore; one wonders what proof would satisfy the report to increase its girth to include Iran in the “widely believed” category – the latest IAEA report or a million bodies?
Perhaps not even that will suffice for that kind of myopic scrutiny, as the Iranians might use one of the many terror factions under their influence to carry out the holy task deniably. In a 2004 interview with Al-Ahram, ELBardei expressed concern of nuclear weapons “leaking” to terrorists, but said: “Such groups cannot be deterred by any deterrent, nuclear or other.” ElBardei misses the point – terror groups can so far only get nuclear weapons from states, and those most emphatically are deterred by a variety of measures; and imposing a “nuclear weapon free” Middle East, as he wanted, will only play into the hands of those regimes that aren’t accountable to anyone (least of all to their citizens), because on the ground it would really only apply to Israel.
There is also a prejudiced, disproportionate attitude towards Iran and Israel. Israel was held by the media as “known to have nuclear weapons” for many years even when the evidence available was only circumstantial, such as CIA reports citing “Israeli acquisition of large quantities of uranium, partly by clandestine means” to support a conclusion that “Israel already has produced nuclear weapons.”
By contrast, in Iran’s case, the world seemingly insists on conscientious, immaculately researched proofs – Could it be that because Israel’s detractors know that if Israel has nuclear weapons, they don’t have to do anything about it, while if Iran does, they would?
While Israel’s main Dimona nuclear plant is located in its most barren area – the Negev Desert, the Iranian regime’s dispersal of its own facilities, mostly not exactly in the remotest areas of Iran, increases the risk to local population in an event of an attack, which would have to be devastating indeed to succeed.
The Hezbollah apple seemingly doesn’t fall too far from the tree here.
What then, can the world do now, to put the glowing toothpaste back in its tube? The type of sanctions attempted until now, doesn’t seem to be working. What might have an effect is vocally supporting Israel’s right for self defence (dreaming here), or at least totally refraining from cautioning Israel and pleading for its patience – which it has already shown.
Airtight international isolation – a severe trade and military blockade, and implicit support for an Israeli strike – doesn’t have to be public, “just as long as everybody knows”, a phrase so immortalized in the TV series ‘Yes Prime Minister’ – might actually convince Iran that the cost of constructing and testing its weapon are too high, and will then, at least temporarily, prevent an Israeli attack.
Related articles
- CiF piece by Brian Whitaker on “why media believes worst about Iran” draws on conspiracy blog (cifwatch.com)
- Tin-Pot Pravda: Guardian editorial scolds Israel for taking Iranian nuclear threat seriously (cifwatch.com)
- Jonathan Freedland to Israel: I love you, I love you not. (cifwatch.com)
- Pat Condell on the endemic antisemitism which informs the Palestinian cause (cifwatch.com)
- At the Guardian’s online bookshop, antisemitism is shipped within 24 hours! (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian warns of dangerous saber rattling by anti-Iranian Sunni-Zionist Alliance (cifwatch.com)
- Why weren’t these deleted? CiF essay about Rosh Hashana elicits antisemitic comments (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian reader comment of the day: On the prospect of a few million dead Israelis (cifwatch.com)
There has, for some time, been something of a concerted effort by Guardian writers to dismiss the whole issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme as something unnecessarily hyped-up by reactionary neo-cons in Jerusalem and Washington.
Israeli motives are framed as deliberately bellicose and US understanding of Israel’s concerns is interpreted as a product of magical Israeli influence in the White House alongside confirmation of what the Guardian always suspected to be ‘redneck’ qualities.
And so we have seen, among others, Brian Whitaker chastising the American media for spreading ‘scare stories’, Simon Tisdall declaring Barak Obama ‘beyond redemption’ should he opt for military action against Iran, a rather hilarious Observer editorial accusing Israel of ‘posturing dangerously’ and Simon Jenkins reprimanding the UK for even thinking of supporting an American ‘itch to brawl’.
But perhaps the best example of all came on November 9th in the form of a surreal Guardian editorial urging us to just get used to the idea of a nuclear armed Iran. On the same day it also published a letter from representatives of the ‘Stop the War Coalition’, including the famous ‘pacifist’ Hamas operative Mohammed Sawalha.
Guardian antipathy towards Israel and the United States is not new, although that does nothing to make the fact that such antipathy is allowed to colour analysis and judgement any the less unfortunate. What is interesting, however, is the manner in which the Guardian is dealing with the wave of ever louder opposition (which mirrors Israeli and American concerns) to the Iranian nuclear programme from the direction of the Gulf States over which it so often fawns.
This week’s release of the IAEA report has had the effect of making previously fairly low-key objections from the direction of the Gulf States more audible. These objections are nothing new; the Guardian itself published examples of them in the Wikileaks cables. However, a recent article by Mubarak al Hajri in the leading Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai reflects the worries of the states neighbouring Iran with previously rare frankness.
“Iran is close to gaining nuclear weapons, something which threatens the peace and security of the world.
The mentality controlling the policy in Tehran is an archaic, sterile one which looks further afield. Iran aspires to rule the Arab Umma (nation) as a whole.
Iran will not rest until it sees its flag flying above the capitals of the Arab world.”
But Simon Tisdall’s November 8th article seems to indicate that the Guardian has decided that rather than address the concerns of the Gulf States in a serious manner, even they will be defined as drama-queen hysterics if they express a stance similar to that of Israel and the US.
“While Perry and the pacemakers play drums, the Gulf’s Sunni-led monarchies, historical enemies of revolutionary Shia Iran, are on acoustic guitar. Their lament, orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, is music to the ears of tone-deaf neocons and oil executives everywhere: Iran is the snake skulking under every stone – backing Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the blood-drenched Alawite regime in Syria. An Iran armed with the bomb, they warn, would terrorise the region, threaten energy supplies, and provoke a pan-Arab nuclear arms race. Their solution? By “cutting off the head of the snake”, Washington would defang these troubles and maybe get Syria (and pro-Tehran Iraq) thrown in for free.”
It is probably very easy to be so wittily scathing about the environmental and security fears of the 90% Sunni majority in the Middle East from the safety of London.
Tisdall’s glib comments are, however, indicative of his and many other Guardian writers’ cultural handicap which becomes evident when they try to analyse Middle East affairs through their own limited blinkers.
The Sunni majority countries in close proximity to Iran understand very well that the ideology which drives Ahmadinijad and others in the Iranian regime does not answer to Western-style reason or logic. They know only too well that the Shi’ite version of Judgement Day includes the slaughter of all Sunnis and that the messianic Hojatieh Society cult to which Ahmadinijad subscribes adheres to the belief that the Mahdi, or Hidden Twelfth Imam, will only appear during a time of war and mayhem in the world and that his followers can speed up his coming by creating such a situation. They have also no doubt noticed the interpretations of the ‘Arab Spring’ by some Iranian leaders as heralding the coming of the Mahdi and the attempts to propagate that belief.
Click to see video at PJTV
Of course Ahmadinijad’s messianic beliefs seem ridiculous to a Western secular mind. That, however, does not justify the adoption of a position of normative relativism which leads to factoring them out of any analysis of current events in the region. Post Ghaddafi, Western journalists should also have learned by now that a whacky persona with comic elements and entertaining dress sense is no guarantee of benign actions.
It is reasonable to assume that the peoples and leaders of the Gulf States are, like the Israelis, very realistic with regard to the dangers of Western military intervention in Iran: they know that any such action would put them in immediate danger.
Instead of dismissing the concerns of the Middle East’s Sunni majority with precisely the same flippancy as it dismisses the concerns of Israelis, it is therefore appropriate for any journalist seeking to provide useful and relevant analysis rather than mere ‘progressive’ platitudes to understand the background to the Sunni call for foreign intervention in the crisis.
A good place to commence would be the corner-stone assumption in the latest Guardian editorial urging us to embrace a nuclear armed Iran which states that “Neither [Iran nor Israel] wants to disappear in a cloud of nuclear dust.” Logic would dictate that statement to be true, but logic plays no part in end of times messianic beliefs and will also play no part in the crucial ongoing power struggles within the Iranian elite.
Related articles
- Moral abdication as principled thought: How the Guardian learned to love the bomb (cifwatch.com)
- CiF piece by Brian Whitaker on “why media believes worst about Iran” draws on conspiracy blog (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian reader comment of the day: On the prospect of a few million dead Israelis (cifwatch.com)
I posted yesterday on an essay by the Guardian’s Brian Whitaker which cast doubt on the “question” of whether Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and cited, as his sole source for what he believes may be Iran’s peaceful intent, a marginal, far left conspiracy blog called “Alabama Moon”.
While I’m still amused at Whitaker’s evidently serious suggestion, per the blog he linked to, that what appears to be an Iranian nuclear weapons program may actually be the Islamic Republic’s benign efforts to manufacture nanodiamonds, there were some reader comments beneath the line which are anything but humorous.
Following a commenter who asked folks on the thread who were defending Iran to consider the fact that an Iranian nuclear attack could wipe out millions of Jews – a comment which, inexplicably, was deleted by CiF moderators – a Guardian reader using the moniker “rodent”, asked the following:
And, no, if you follow the comment thread you’ll clearly see that this reader was not being in the least sarcastic.
And, yes, his/her skepticism that Iran has actually ever threatened Israel with annihilation, and seeming indifference at the prospect of millions of dead Israelis, garnered 30 recommends, and has not been deleted.
Related articles
- Guardian readers claim leading Zionists during WWII rooted for Hitler. Comments not deleted by CiF Moderators (cifwatch.com)
- CiF piece by Brian Whitaker on “why media believes worst about Iran” draws on conspiracy blog (cifwatch.com)
- ‘Comment is Free’ Land: Here be Jews… (cifwatch.com)
- When CiF commentary about the Holocaust elicits contempt for Jews by Guardian readers (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers note CiF Watch’s presence, & object to our suggestion that blood libel against Jews is false (cifwatch.com)
- Anti-Zionist CiF commenter accuses CiF Watch of the insidious tactic of trying to “sway” opinion (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers come to the defense of the tragically misunderstood Islamic Republic of Iran (cifwatch.com)
- Why weren’t these deleted? CiF essay about Rosh Hashana elicits antisemitic comments (cifwatch.com)
Here’s a headline, from Roy Greenslade blog in the Guardian, Nov. 5, about the latest flotilla propaganda stunt which could have been written by spokesmen for the Free Gaza Movement:
A “peace flotilla”.
I guess that’s the term for anti-Zionist activists intent on violating the legal blockade of a sovereign country established to prevent the flow of weapons into a terrorist controlled territory.
A few highlights from Greenslade’s propaganda communique.
A Scottish TV reporter was among a group of journalists arrested earlier today when Israeli soldiers boarded two ships sailing toward Gaza. Hassan Ghani who works for Iran’s Press TV, was detained
Sure, Ghani may be an apparatchik for the state controlled propaganda tool of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but who is Greenslade to judge?
Then this:
The ships were forced to sail into the Israeli port of Ashdod, where all 27 passengers were handed over to the authorities.
They were aboard the Canadian vessel Tahrir (Arabic for liberation) and the Irish boat Saoirse (Irish for freedom), which were reputedly carrying medical equipment from Turkey to Gaza.
I don’t know how you say Guardian Left Dupe in Arabic or Irish, but, as we posted on Friday shortly after the flotilla was intercepted, and as the media has subsequently reported, the vessels were not carrying medical supplies or cargo of any sort.
Finally, this:
“The flotilla, meant to be a symbolic and non-violent peace gesture,
Truly remarkable. Thousands of tons of supplies flow freely into Gaza daily by land – the IDF even has a page on its website with instructions on how people can donate additional goods to the Hamas controlled territory – and a ship carrying absolutely no cargo is a “peace gesture”.
On a daily basis, Israel transfers approx. 6,000 tons of goods and materials into Gaza via the Kerem Shalom Crossing
Moreover, in 2009 alone more than 10,000 patients and their companions left Gaza for medical treatment in Israeli hospitals.
That is, Israel treats thousands of Palestinians – citizens of a country with whom they are at war – free of charge each year.
But, who can be concerned with such quotidian concerns as food, medicine, and humanitarian aid when you can manufacture a publicity stunt and be assured of favorable coverage by the world’s leading liberal voice?
Related articles
- The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade, Ha’aretz and the political pathos of the radical left (cifwatch.com)
- IDF makes contact with crew of flotilla near Gaza, who admit they “have no cargo”! (cifwatch.com)
- Great comment by Guardian reader in reply to Greenslade blog post about limits on journalists covering flotilla (cifwatch.com)
- Radical Terrorist Chic on the high seas yet again (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian moderators inexplicably delete comment beneath post by Roy Greenslade (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian and Independent coverage of second flotilla omits key facts (cifwatch.com)
- Next Hamas-supporting stunt by Western ‘activists’: the ‘Flytilla’ (cifwatch.com)
A guest post by Oded Ben-Joseph, a freelance Tel-Aviv based writer.
Once again, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regales us with his annual view of the world, using the always willing UN General Assembly as a platform. One can only surmise from its content that those righteous souls in the UN must be in increasing despair, clinging to the several scraps of his political rhetoric which seem in tune with their charter.
Perhaps those UN policymakers are committing Neville Chamberlain’s error, thinking more about those charter terms that vow to practice “tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good Neighbors,” conveniently setting aside the further clauses meditating on what ideals those neighbors should subscribe to, or even (considering the state of most of the UN member states today) merely aspire to aspire to:
“Reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small…”
Unlike many other critiques of Ahmadinejad, there is no hint intended here of a comparison with Hitler. Chamberlain was only mentioned as a point of thought about his modern counterparts, not alluding to his historical foe. The said comparison would be absurd, if only for the reason that Hitler was Nazism and Nazism was Hitler. Without him, Nazi Germany would either not have materialized at all or would crumble much earlier.
Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, more than a leader, is a faithful representative of a wildly popular movement of thought (whether through choice or fear), which either directly supports or fails to resist certain, shall we as neutrally as possible say – inconsistencies – common in the Mideast, where inconsistency kills.
Perhaps it is dishonorable for the millions of living and dead victims to use the word “inconsistency”, but I’m trying to use language as neutral as possible, hoping that facts will shine forth even more brightly this way.
War commemorations vs. celebrations
In his speech, Ahmadinejad recognizes that “despite the general longing and aspiration to promote peace [Glad to hear it], progress, and fraternity, wars, mass-murder, widespread poverty, and socioeconomic and political crises continue to infringe upon the rights and sovereignty of nations, leaving behind irreparable damage worldwide…”
He later asks, “Who provoked and encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade and impose an eight-year war on Iran, and who assisted and equipped him to deploy chemical weapons against our cities and our people” [?]
Well said! So good of him to mention the Iran-Iraq war, “the longest conventional war of the twentieth century”.
Ahmadinejad’s doublespeak knows no boundaries here. If indeed the war was forced on his country, the most neutral observer might find it curious why Iran actually celebrates the war’s beginning - as they have been doing annually for the last 31 years - rather than the end.
Again, repeating: in Iran they mark the start of the Iran Iraq war – the bloodiest conflict in the history of the region, which resulted in about a million dead, suicide brigades of Iranian children marched to clear battlefield mines, long bouts of ballistic missile battles between Iranian and Iraqi cities, and widespread chemical weapons use that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands.
In short, one week of this war produced more suffering to its hapless participants than 10 years of the Israeli-Arab conflict (pick any decade or even the whole lot of them).
It's not Star Wars, just wars: An Iran-Iraq war anniversary parade in Teheran
Most countries that celebrate wars (an admittedly questionable practice, I’m sure even non-pacifists would agree) nevertheless commemorate their end, their result: peace, or at least the beginning of the end - an indication, perhaps, that although nationalistic militaristic sentiment exists, there is also a wish that it would have attained its goals peacefully.
Iran didn’t even clearly win, at all: the war concluded in a stalemate. What, then, might the most neutral postmodern live and let live liberal thinker ask, are they celebrating over there? Not all questions have to be answered, I hope. Another one: what concepts, about war and violence, are likely form in the mind of millions of Iranian children taken to watch such parades?
WWI? think again. Chances are you were already born when this image was taken, during the Iran-Iraq war , 1980-1988
On slaves and salvos
Onwards to slightly happier matters, Ahmadinejad begins a series of questions meditating on the topic of world evil, all which seem to have the same answer, such as:
“Who abducted forcefully tens of millions of people from their homes in Africa and other regions of the world during the dark period of slavery , making them a victim of their materialistic greed [?]“
Is Ahmadinejad hinting that slavery in Africa is over and done with – at least the kind perpetrated by his favorite Satans?
Today, others, and some not so others, continue the tradition. And one must be thankful for that mention of “other regions of the world”, in some of which slavery didn’t exactly abate into the pages of history, either. Where is it that women get death sentences for adultery? Happily, Iran promises not to execute people under the age of 18.
“Who imposed colonialism for over four centuries upon this world. Who occupied lands and massively plundered resources of other nations, destroyed talents, and alienated languages, cultures and identities of nations?
There are so many any eligible contenders from East and West, that only from reading elsewhere in the speech one gets the gist that Ahmadinejad is not talking about the Ottoman Empire.
“Who imposed, through deceits and hypocrisy, the Zionism and over sixty years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian people and on countries of the region”?
Ahh, Zionism.
Ahmadinejad’s humanitarian solution to it was not referred to in his recent speech for some reason, as perhaps he was apprehensive that it might stretch his luck with the UN’s moral elasticity, which might have its limits (if only there was some indication of what they were.)
In any case, the explanation by the Iranians and their western apologetics that the phrase “erasing a country off the map” doesn’t exist in Farsi can’t erase certain slogans vividly painted on long-range missile launchers in Teheran military parades.
Who governs the governors?
The speech continues in its Q&A format:
“It is as lucid as daylight that the same slave masters and colonial powers that once instigated the two world wars have caused widespread misery and disorder with far-reaching effects across the globe since then.”
“Do these arrogant powers really have the competence and ability to run or govern the world [Better than the way the speaker runs his backyard, evidently]. Is it acceptable that they call themselves the sole defender of freedom, democracy, and human rights, while they militarily attack and occupy other countries?”
Ahmadinejad really should have named “they”, otherwise it is rather confusing as to whom he is referring in some paragraphs – perhaps to Iran’s terror attacks on other countries, or its Hizbullah columns occupying Southern Lebanon and potentially all of it?
Eventually the culprits are named more closely: “Can the flower of democracy blossom from NATO’s missiles, bombs and guns?”
A very good question!
Perhaps the insinuation here is that this flower can flourish in light of Iran’s leading humanitarian projects (centrifuges for peace?), persecution of gays or legal luminosity of its “civil justice” system, with Sharia judges so omniscient that they arrive at the correct verdict in 120 seconds per case?
Even military tribunals in Israel take at best months to conclude, sometimes years.
Ahmadinejad also complains that “They tolerate no question or criticism…”
Indeed. One can only hope that the next time someone dares poke fun at anything that annoys the Iranian regime, he won’t have to get bodyguards or go into hiding.
The speech closes with sentiments everyone should agree with, hopefully even the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
“The idea of creation of the United Nations remains a great and historical achievement of mankind. Its importance must be appreciated and its capacities must be used to the extent possible for our noble goals.”
“Let us salute love, freedom, justice, wisdom, and the bright future that awaits humankind.”
Well said. One can only hope that, in the future, the UN will start advancing towards those liberal goals by insisting on harboring in its midst only member states whose regimes show the barest minimum of inclination towards them.
But, if you really think all of the above has been regurgitated here just as a smokescreen to distract you from Israeli crimes, I gladly offer you this deal: you support throwing out the ten worst human rights offenders out of the UN, and I’ll support throwing Israel out. Israel has little or nothing to lose (the end of prejudiced UN resolutions perhaps), and the UN has a lot to gain – such as the moral credibility of its founding charter.
Iran, seen here not exactly honoring their own political activists
The Guardian/AP story on Aug. 11th regarding Iran’s decision to name a street after Rachel Corrie is, as with many such wire service stories, brief and not explicitly polemical.
However, what they said about both Corrie and the Islamic Republic of Iran speaks volumes about how even such a dry account can be terribly misleading.
First, the story (Iran names street after Rachel Corrie) characterized Corrie’s death, by a military bulldozer, as happening as the result of her efforts to help prevent the “Israeli military [from] demolishing nearby Palestinian homes.”
Missing from this narrative is the fact that Corrie was working for an extremely radical organization with a record of aiding and abetting Palestinian terrorists, and that that the home being demolished was part of Israeli efforts to uncover part of an underground tunnel network used to smuggle weapons.
These tunnels had been built under civilian Arab homes and structures in order to smuggle weapons and explosives into Israel - a fact her ISM handlers no doubt neglected to inform her.
Regarding Iran – whose leaders recently condemned the UK, while reportedly maintaining a straight face, for their “brutal” crackdown of rioters, and whose decision to pay tribute to Corrie is the basis of the AP/Guardian story – we’re informed:
“Iran and the US have not had diplomatic ties since militant students occupied the US embassy in Tehran, holding American diplomats hostage for 444 days from 1979 to 1981.”
Yeah, that and the fact that Iran has been characterized by the U.S. State Department as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism – one of only four countries designation as state sponsors of terror.
In addition to providing arms, training, and financial support to a wide array of terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, they are also currently engaged in something of a proxy war against the U.S., by arming, and providing personnel, to its terrorist allies operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Finally, while the Iranian nuclear issue is alluded to in the last paragraph, the piece includes nothing on Iran’s wretched human rights record, and any supporting information which would put in proper context how horribly cynical the Islamic Republic’s decision to honor Rachel Corrie truly is: a nation which egregiously discriminates against women and religious minorities, and summarily executes gays and political dissidents, yet is moved beyond description by the story of one American pro-Palestinian activist?
Perhaps some mention of the pesky little fact that Iran, in addition to being a state sponsor of terror with one of the world’s worst human rights records, also openly calls for the Jewish state’s destruction would provide just a bit of context for the casual reader in determining Iran’s motivation.
An appalling lack of context? A paucity of relevant background information? And, ideologically inspired omissions of fact and history?
Or, as we like to say, just another day at the Guardian.
Related articles
The Guardian posted the following video (click on any of the images to go to the clip at the Guardian’s site), providing Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson the opportunity to espouse the following lunacy. (No comments were permitted)
Get it? We can thank the despotic Baathist regime (who has murdered nearly 1,400 protesters since January) and the Iranian government who’s been assisting them, for keeping Israel from straying into the abyss of inhumanity, and can only pray for Bashar al-Assad’s political survival.
Meanwhile, here’s recently released first person footage of a Syrian sniper firing at a civilian cameraman in the city of Homs.
Related articles:
- Guardian readers come to the defense of the tragically misunderstood Islamic Republic of Iran (cifwatch.com)
- On the “Guardian Hamas support network” (cifwatch.com)
- On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian grants licence to voice expressing alarm over the injurious effects of organized Jewish community in U.S. (cifwatch.com)
- Hope & Change in the Mid-East: Guardian selected Egyptian Twitterer expresses joy about her new freedom to vilify Israel (cifwatch.com)
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
Guardian’s Simon Tisdall fears Romney’s belligerence (& Israel’s obsessive fears) may push U.S. to war
January 16, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Brian Whitaker, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Iran, Mehdi Hasan, Mitt Romney, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, Simon Tisdall, Terrorism | by Adam Levick | 9 comments
Simon Tisdall
His moral instincts are so refined, so sophisticated, and so unburdened by conventional thinking that he was able to see past the universal enmity towards Sudan’s tragically misunderstood leader, Omar al-Bashir, charged with genocide for acting with intent to destroy non-Arab ethnic groups in the Darfur region.
Al-Bashir’s unimaginably bloody campaign resulted in up to 400,000 dead and resulted in 2.5 million refugees.
Here’s the money quote from Simon Tisdall’s Dec. 27, 2010 apologia for Omar al-Bahsir.
That final sentence should be placed in a museum of intellectual thought as a perfect representation of the Guardian Left’s capacity to synthesize anti-Americanism, post-colonialism and a perverse understanding of anti-racism in order to defend the morally indefensible.
Such background should help partially contextualize Tisdall’s latest “analysis” of the foreign policy implications of the American elections, “You’ve been Romney-ed! Obama must beware of GOP foreign policy vortex“, Jan. 15.
Tisdall’s broad argument is that Obama should keep to his principles and not be pushed unwillingly into a regional war with Iran, as both the result of a political pressure (to be more hawkish and, thus, win re-election) from Mitt Romney’s increasingly confrontational and belligerent foreign policy positions regarding Iran – pressure partially caused by “Israel’s obsession ”with eliminating the Iranian threat.”
Tisdall blames Romney for his ”uncompromising hostility to the Tehran regime” – such as his support for an “increase [of] US military presence around Iran, stepped up covert warfare, support for Iranian opposition groups, and beefed up military co-operation with Israel” – which, he argues, would play right into Netanyahu’s hands.
Tisdall:
In this passage Tisdall demonstrates his moral divide: a militaristic Israel which fears the specter of a “peacemaking agenda”, and is irrationally obsessed with the Iranian threat, versus an Iran (“pondering war and peace”) which understandably views such American and Israeli belligerence as “provocative”.
Tisdall’s empathy for the legitimate concerns of the Mullahs in Tehran, and condemnation of Israeli measures meant to thwart the Iranian threat, represents pretty much conventional wisdom at the Guardian.
Such moral reasoning has included:
Of course, strangely missing from any of these essays and editorials warning about the dangers of provocative acts by Israel and the US is any mention that Iran’s military is not only already engaged in routine belligerence acts, but routinely foments terrorism around the globe, and engages in proxy wars as a component of their foreign policy aims of exporting their Islamist revolution.
Iran is widely recognized as the world’s leading state sponsor of international terrorism. Both directly and indirectly, Iran funds, trains and arms groups that share the regime’s stated goal of destroying Israel and the West, as well as overthrowing moderate Muslim regimes. Groups who have received the Islamic Republic’s largess include Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
Iran also provides support to Islamist insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have inflicted casualties on American, British, Australian and other multinational forces.
In fact, Iran is attempting to expand its terror network beyond the Middle East, using Hezbollah and splinter groups of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to recruit and train sleeper cells in foreign countries.
The manner in which Tisdall and his Guardian colleagues almost uniformly contextualize the regional tension in a manner which frames Israel and the West as the warmongering aggressors and Iran as the victim of such (imperialist) aggression represents another instructive example of Guardian Left ideology.
The anti-imperialism which inspires such moral inversions, and informs their journalistic activism, is one of the more salient factors in properly understanding the institution’s near universal lack of moral sympathy for the Jewish state and the very real dangers the country faces.
The Guardian’s anti-Zionism doesn’t occur in an ideological vacuum and, as such, their coverage of the Iranian nuclear issue should necessarily be seen as part of their broader perverse understanding of what stances their “liberal” political package demands.
Related articles
Share this: