Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures  |  Adult
Boston  |  Portland  |  Providence
 
Letters  |  Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  The Editorial Page  |  This Just In

March to war

Why isn’t the press paying more attention to a possible attack on Iran?
By ADAM REILLY  |  June 4, 2008

080606_iran_main

During the course of two weeks in May, America’s top-ranking military officer went from warning that war with Iran could cripple the US military to rattling his saber at Tehran.

That’s one interpretation, anyway. In an interview with Israeli TV that was broadcast on May 5, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, struck a glum note when asked about the possibility of preemptively striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I actually am very hopeful that we don’t get into a position where we have to get into a conflict,” Mullen responded, according to Reuters. “It would be a very significant challenge for the United States right now to get into a third conflict in that part of the world.”

But on May 20, testifying before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Mullen sounded far more combative. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the US designated a terrorist organization in 2007, is “directly jeopardiz[ing]” peace in Iraq, said Mullen, according to the Associated Press (AP). And then: “Restraint in our response does not signal lack of resolve or capability to defend ourselves against threats.”

That seems like a major shift — but what did it mean? Did Mullen really rethink his assessment of whether the military could handle a new conflict? Did he backpedal after concluding that his earlier remarks could undercut diplomatic efforts to limit Iran’s budding nuclear program? Or might one of the Bush administration’s most hawkish members — someone from Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office, perhaps — have pointedly told Mullen that attacking Iran was still very much an option?

Oddly, there didn’t seem to be much interest from the media in finding out — or even in asking the question. The AP report on Mullen’s congressional testimony didn’t note his change in rhetoric. Neither did the New York Times, which made only passing reference to Mullen’s testimony. (The Times story, which focused on the Jerusalem Post’s claim that the US plans to attack Iran this year, was buried on A13.) And the May 21 Washington Post didn’t mention Mullen’s testimony at all.

To be fair, this dearth of coverage didn’t come on a slow news day. The Times’ front page, for example, featured stories about Barack Obama winning a majority of Democratic delegates, Ted Kennedy’s brain-cancer diagnosis, and a fragile peace in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood. The top story in the paper’s “International Report” section, meanwhile, was a follow-up on the Sichuan earthquake.

That said, the muted reception to Mullen’s comments hints at the American media’s broader Iran problem. The good news is this: the press seems to have learned from its failings prior to the invasion of Iraq, when the media’s widespread credulity paved the way for war. The bad news, however, is that Iran poses its own journalistic problems — and these problems could lead, yet again, to the US launching a major attack in the Middle East without the Fourth Estate doing due diligence.

Crying wolf
The argument that we’re headed for a violent showdown with Iran is fairly easy to make. The Bush administration, which made Iran an honorary member of the Axis of Evil way back in 2002, has repeatedly claimed that Iran is undercutting US efforts to stabilize Iraq — by arming insurgents, training them, and giving them safe haven. What’s more, the administration has warned, time and again, that Iran’s nascent nuclear capabilities represent a grave threat — the same warning it made before invading Iraq. As President George W. Bush said in his recent speech to the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, just after comparing Iran to Hitler’s Germany: “Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” Put simply, the rationale for an attack on Iran has already been established and honed.

Then again, it’s also possible to come up with a number of reasons why military action against Iran isn’t imminent. With the exception of Cheney, the hawks who backed the Iraq War (Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith) are no longer in positions of power. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are seen as skeptics. Any attack on Iran could destabilize Iraq and Lebanon, and undermine Israel’s new engagement with Syria. The military is already overextended. Oil prices would go through the roof. And no president — not even this one — goes to war a half-year before leaving the White House. Right?

There’s also the awkward fact that an attack on Iran has allegedly been imminent for an awfully long time. In April 2006, for example, the New Yorker published a Seymour Hersh story that asked whether the president would go to war with Iran to prevent that nation from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In September 2006, Time magazine published a cover story on possible Iranian hostilities titled “What Would War Look Like?” And in August 2007, time.com intelligence columnist Robert Baer wrote: “Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on the [Republican Guard] maybe within the next six months. And they think that as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

1  |  2  |  3  |   next >
Related:
  Topics: Media -- Dont Quote Me , Michael G. Mullen , Iranian Politics , World Politics ,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print
Comments
Re: March to war
Sy Hersh, addressing last week's annual meeting of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, had some terrifying things to say about the prospects of a US attack on Iran. If you've read Hersh's recent pieces in the New Yorker, you know most of it: he's been repeatedly warning of a buildup to go get Iran. But Hersh said he's more convinced than ever ]that W. believes he's the only leader on either side of the aisle with the fortitude to attack Iran, and Hersh says that in spite of near-universal resistance from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he believes there's a pretty good chance Bush will take a shot at Iran before the end of his term. Scary shit.
By Carly Carioli on 06/14/2008 at 8:12:12
Re: March to war
What B.S.! So, by offering the Iranians a long opportunity to reconsider their folly, the Administration is now guilty of "crying wolf"?? Clearly, Bush, like every single Western government, is simply giving all other venues the necessary time. Military intervention is a last resort, but it will be exercised if need be. Of course, if a strike had occurred any earlier, these same pundits would attack Bush for failing to allow the necessary time. What a neurotic, no-win proposition from our media "elite"! And the NIE indicating that Iran had at one time suspended their nuclear ambitions is now widely dismissed (since nuclear development, if it ever was suspended, has now resumed -- WITH A VENGEANCE!). The West has always done its utmost to prevent proliferation, even amongst trusted friends (e.g. Australia). By what stroke of delusion should we now believe that the West's greatest enemy, the arch-supporter of terrorism, should now be trusted with WMD? And, NO, the current situation is not comparable to the (ultimately incorrect) accusations of Iraqi WMD's. In this case, we know that Iran has a program for nuclear power. Iran proudly says so. With the global oil situation, there is no reason on earth for Iran to seek nuclear know-how. Will Iran take the next step to nuclear refinement sufficient for bombs? If they have no fear of a Western response, the answer must be an unreserved YES. Clearly, Iran will respond to any attack on its nuclear sites. But it would be short-sighted IN THE EXTREME if the world allowed Iran to develop WMD's simply because we feared the counter-attack. If Churchill and Eisenhower thought that way, I'd be writing this response in German or Japanese! And, by the same logic, nobody would stand-up to gangs for fear of retribution! How pathetic! How weak!
By Shel_TR on 06/30/2008 at 3:37:06

election special
ARTICLES BY ADAM REILLY
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   BEATING THE PRESS  |  September 11, 2008
    Why McCain’s Machiavellian war on the media could cost him the presidency
  •   THE GOOD SOLDIER  |  September 03, 2008
    In Minnesota, Mitt keeps the faith
  •   RNC 2008 WRAP-UP  |  September 05, 2008
    Protest-to-podium coverage of the Republican National Convention from our reporter in St. Paul
  •   LAURELS FOR A BOSTON MEDIA VET  |  August 27, 2008
    Breaking down barriers
  •   FIEDLER ON THE SPOT  |  August 20, 2008
    Having taken the reins of BU’s contentious College of Communication, Pulitzer winner Tom Fiedler learns to navigate the thorny world of academia

 See all articles by: ADAM REILLY

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



Featured Articles in Media -- Dont Quote Me:
Friday, September 19, 2008  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2008 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group