2008 Woodie Awards
Thinking clearly on Iran
Daniel Black
Issue date: 9/13/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
As the United States approaches completing five years of an unpopular and seemingly endless war against the people of Iraq, the beginnings of another ill-conceived conflict are observable.
Our forces and our people are being primed for military action against Iran. The forthcoming campaign is being sold on the same distortion, propaganda and lies scarcely modified since their use to justify the Iraq war. We hear more fairy tales of WMDs, alleged connections to international terrorist organizations and various other shameless fear-inspiring media tactics designed to prepare us, the people, for advancing the imperial project.
The entire spectrum of ideas one gleans from mainstream media sources share the same fallacious premise: that any independent state (such, by way of example, as Iran) has the right to expand its own domestic security apparatus in the face of an increasingly hostile, proximal, and unpredictable threat (such, by way of example, as the United States) is simply too outrageous to even suggest.
Of course, Iran is different from the United States. Two neighboring countries, Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east, have been occupied by an aggressive foreign power for years. Is Iran's expansion of defenses justified in this light? Media consumers are not likely to pursue this path of inquiry; there's little hope that CNN or Fox News will provide insight into questions that are never asked.
Amidst this rather restrictive breadth of news coverage, what is notably lacking is a clear-eyed assessment of the nuclear threat. Iran's nuclear ambitions have not been substantiated by sound evidence; we only hear frightening scenarios proposed by self-styled "experts" with conflicts of interest in place of neutrality. Nuclear development and the desire to project nuclear capabilities abroad, it is important to realize, are not the same thing. It's dismissed as irrelevant that Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its facilities subsequently open to surprise inspections. While it is certainly possible to violate a treaty, at least this precedent opens doors to pragmatic, non-violent solutions.
Our forces and our people are being primed for military action against Iran. The forthcoming campaign is being sold on the same distortion, propaganda and lies scarcely modified since their use to justify the Iraq war. We hear more fairy tales of WMDs, alleged connections to international terrorist organizations and various other shameless fear-inspiring media tactics designed to prepare us, the people, for advancing the imperial project.
The entire spectrum of ideas one gleans from mainstream media sources share the same fallacious premise: that any independent state (such, by way of example, as Iran) has the right to expand its own domestic security apparatus in the face of an increasingly hostile, proximal, and unpredictable threat (such, by way of example, as the United States) is simply too outrageous to even suggest.
Of course, Iran is different from the United States. Two neighboring countries, Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east, have been occupied by an aggressive foreign power for years. Is Iran's expansion of defenses justified in this light? Media consumers are not likely to pursue this path of inquiry; there's little hope that CNN or Fox News will provide insight into questions that are never asked.
Amidst this rather restrictive breadth of news coverage, what is notably lacking is a clear-eyed assessment of the nuclear threat. Iran's nuclear ambitions have not been substantiated by sound evidence; we only hear frightening scenarios proposed by self-styled "experts" with conflicts of interest in place of neutrality. Nuclear development and the desire to project nuclear capabilities abroad, it is important to realize, are not the same thing. It's dismissed as irrelevant that Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its facilities subsequently open to surprise inspections. While it is certainly possible to violate a treaty, at least this precedent opens doors to pragmatic, non-violent solutions.
Be the first to comment on this story