It has been revealed that Iran has hidden a large nuclear facility, too large for “energy resource production”. This morning prior to commencing the G-20 Summit, President Obama, flanked by French Presideny Nikolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, announced that Iran must be held accountable for this continuing violation, and putting Iran on notice that they must comply immediately.

     The Iranian President Ahmadinejad will meet the the UN Secretary General Banke Moon today. There has been no response as of yet from Russia regarding this latest revelation.

     Without fear, without trepidation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the world leaders that they must face the challenges posed by the likes of Iran’s Ahmedinejad. He made no apologies for the existence of Israel, nor for the demand that all nations recognize the State of Israel. In  no uncertain terms, the Prime Minister rebutted the naive and weak intonation of the Obama administration. Basically, he showed what it sounds like to be a true leader.

      The leaders gathered at the United Nations, including the leader who is supposed to represent OUR interests, could all take lessons from Netanyahu. He is a man of strong conviction, and is willing to accept the challenges that his position presents. He is well aware of the risks he faces, personally and politically, and his decisions, from all apearances, are not “flip-flop” in nature, as our leader appears to be doing with issues such as Afghanistan.

       Benjamin Netanyahu brought the face of the Holocaust before the United Nations, listing his family ties to those lost in the Holocaust. Mr. President (Iran), do not continue this denial charade!

Only one message this Christmas… you’re all crazy.
So Channel 4 screen an “Alternative” Christmas Message from Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad and with unwavering predictability, nobody gets it.

On Boxing Day the Express printed a page long comment piece by “columnist” Leo McKinsky, an outspoken individual at the best of times, he’s usually a credible journalist (not just by the Express’ standards) yet it seems even he has missed the point this time.

I don’t believe Channel 4 is priming us to believe Ahmadinejad’s words, that if Jesus were here today he would be “on our side” i.e. anti-west. I believe they’re fulfilling their role as informants, peddling facts as opposed to opinion; a role the mainstream media (especially the Express) could do with being reminded of from time to time.

Since coming into power in 2005, Ahmadinejad has made more oratorical clangers than Dubya himself; denying the holocaust and calling for the end of Israel, he often criticises the US and once claimed Iran should be moved to Europe.

The fact he enjoys the right to free speech may be perceived as a joke, but surely it highlights the fact his own people live in oppression and fear of their basic human rights much more than an NGO making the same claims.

Channel 4 have shown us something we need to know when they know we’re not in a rush to go to work, do the dishes, let the dog out.

They predict Ahmedinejad will be a major player in international affairs in 2009; he’s up for election in August 2009, the outcome of which will have impacts around the globe, and for this reason alone I am willing to learn everything possible about the man.

Channel 4 are not saying “listen to him”, “obey him”, “follow him”… no branch of the media should be saying that. The role of the press (and considering its easy accessibility, TV in particular) is to inform people; to empower them so they can make their own choices.

We can’t make our own choices based on what Jacqui Smith tells us to think, and neither should we want to. By the same token, we shouldn’t believe everything we read in the papers; we should take the information, put it into context and if need arises, question it.

Leo McKinsky, continued his rant by calling channel 4 “adolescent, left wing students… who challenge the establishment”. Well thank God someone does. Ahmadinejad’s previous speeches, and the speeches he wasn’t allowed to deliver, are well documented and this one only strengthens previous conclusions about his character and intentions.

All Channel 4 want us to do is put the facts together; facts which, in this era of instant communication, are out there for everyone to find.

The way columnists are shouting down Channel 4’s bravery for airing the speech is as good as saying “don’t do that, the viewers are too thick to get it”.

Channel 4 is far from anti-British or pro-extremist… does nobody remember the undercover mosque film, when Channel 4 was accused (and cleared) of “inciting racial hatred” for uncovering extremism in British mosques?

They investigative journalists and it’s investigation at its best.

Leo McKinsky, like many other columnists adopting the cookie-cutter view, goes on to say “Hitler would never have been broadcast on the BBC, so why does Channel 4 feel the need to dedicate airtime to Ahmadinejad?”

If we can’t learn from the mistakes of WWII then maybe we’re powerless to stop it being repeated. The BBC hardly championed Hitler, but ignoring him did little good for the rest of us. For the millions killed in battle and PoW camps and even in their own homes by Nazi soldiers, greater coverage of Hitler prior to his invasion of Poland, showing him in the light we came to see him in, could have sent things in a different direction.

If the world learned anything between 1930 and 1945, it was not to simply hope that evil will go away, but expose it and keep a very close eye on it.

Channel 4’s Christmas message wasn’t the only one to make the news. The Queen’s speech was concerned with the state of our finances (and no doubt our tax paying status), The Bishop of Blackburn, Nicholas Read, called for us to pray for abusers and Dr Rowan Williams said no single hero will come and save us from our greed and temptations… what, not even Jesus?

So thank you Channel 4, not only for believing the public has the intelligence to piece together the evidence (even if swathes of opinionated and published members of the public didn’t) but for taking an alternative approach to everything, on our behalf, and taking the risks and flack that come with it.

In today’s climate of manipulation and bias, people need a source of news and information they can trust.

So thank you again Channel 4, and Merry Christmas to you too.

From Pluto-Online.com

]]> http://kombizz.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/iranian-presidential-election-1388/ Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:51:41 +0000 kombizz http://kombizz.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/iranian-presidential-election-1388/

These images were taken in Iran during Presidential Election in Iran (year 1388)

Shahrokh, a green supporter

Where are they NOW?

Young Supporters

Change for iran

Where are they NOW?

"We don't want ...."

Cubism of Election

If they were able to vote, then ....

Future R us

"We are from above, and ...."

The Change

Only if ....

The Canvas

Another point of view

For little free air!

Mahvare's Fashion!

A grafitti of the hunter's supporters!

if we don't ...

Iran Vote, 22 Khordad 1388, The Election Day

Iran's tenth Presidential Election

"God help (us), (only) 2 steps remain to morning"

Morning Good News

All about Mehdi Karrobi

Ahmadinejad declared winner

Now, "what is your opinion?, Sir"

Surprised!

Reading Iran

"WE proved that WE CAN, and WE believed that WE made"

There is the world as-it-is, and then there is the world that-could-be. 

In Iran, this is the world as-it-is:  the disputed legitimacy of the recent re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad propelled enraged supporters of his opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, into the sweltering streets of Teheran.   Ahmadinejad (with the blessing of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) pushed back with increasing brutality, deploying riot police and the much-feared, violence-prone, Basij paramilitary forces against unarmed citizens. 

But what if, in a world that-could-be, Ahmadinejad chose, instead, an ethics of yielding?  Yes, an ethics of yielding. 

One must be careful how one draws lessons from the past (thanks to their variety and number, historical events lend themselves too easily to an unscrupulous defense of almost any ideologically-driven claim).  But we can, for the sake of discussing a world that-could-be, draw on the work of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), a French essayist who lived and wrote during a time of bitter wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics, and a time of violent political conflict between rebellious nobles and the crown.  

A heterodox Catholic, Montaigne believed that God leaves us free to work out our lives on human terms.  And in the process of working out his own life on human terms, Montaigne developed a new ethics of accommodation based on shared trust and on shared humanity.  Opposed to the zealotry of the warring parties, Montaigne pleaded for an attitude of yielding both on the part of the victor and of the vanquished.  He even argued that his ethics of passivity was the best way to preserve each side’s desire for respect:  “You can swallow your pride and have it too, provided you learn how to be a good loser” (this quote comes from David Quint’s Montaigne and the Quality of Mercy).

To return to the topic at hand–in a world that-could-be, if Ahmadinejad followed Montaigne’s recommendations, what effect, practically-speaking, would this have on Iran?  Having defeated the protestors with a massive and intractable show of force, Ahmadinejad could now preserve both his self-respect and that of the protestors by adopting a stance of clemency.  Toward those he formerly pursued, he could adopt a stance of flexibility, of softness.  And by choosing to identify with those he crushed and reduced to weakness, he would demonstrate courage.  Yes, courage–because he would allow his opponents to remain a threat to him and his government.  In the Iran that-is, Ahmadinejad has elevated himself to God-like status.  In the Iran that-could-be, Ahmadinejad would reclaim his humanity.

Montaigne’s ethics of yielding is not reserved for the victor.  The vanquished must also yield.  In the Iran that-could-be, the protestors would choose not to resist.  Instead, they would demonstrate the highest self-respect by acknowledging the power of Ahmadinejad, and by acknowledging the humanity and weakness they share with him.  They would disarm themselves, and trust in their foe.  A recent Newsweek image captured the difficult kind of clemency Montaigne had in mind; it showed a small group of protestors using their own bodies to shield a disarmed riot cop from the rage of their fellow protestors.  They had the courage to be merciful to their captured enemy even though they knew that he would probably try to harm them again on another day.

But even Montaigne, as much a skeptic in his time as most of us are today, dismissed the efficacy of preaching Christian humility.  He resorted, instead, to the ploy of promising the merciful victor an enhanced reputation.  After all, he pointed out, mercy aggrandizes the merciful one and the vanquished testify to the greatness of the one who has spared them. 

So, President Ahmadinejad, if you’re reading this post, will you show mercy, and yield to your countrymen and women’s longing for greater freedom and opportunity? Or will you maintain the course of the Iran-as-it-has-been and rely on fear and oppression to silence your opponents?  You have, after all, been handpicked by Ayatollah Khamenei to implement his dream of creating an Islamic caliphate.

But let’s try one last argument:  President Ahmadinejad, you miscalculated when you resorted to fraud to over-represent the election that you most likely won anyway.  Thanks to your miscalculation, you unleashed the greatest internal threat to Iran’s government since the Shah was toppled and you discovered the depth of your countrymen and women’s yearning for change.  Yield, Mr. Ahmadinejad, or you too might find yourself toppled.  If toppled you are, may your people yield and have mercy on you.

HNFFT:  Every day, we face situations where we have power-over others, or others have power-over us.  What could intentional weakness look like for you in those situations?  How could you practice an ethics of yielding?  

References:  Christopher Dickey, “The Supreme Leader,” 40-45, and Fareed Zakaria, “Theocracy and its Discontents,” 30-39, both in Newsweek, 29 June 2009; David Quaint, Montaigne and the Quality of Mercy (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1998).

From American Thinker:

An Iranian blogger (whose URL I will not publish) live blogging from Baharestan Square in central Tehran today captures but brief glimpses of the unimaginable horror that took place today. Bus loads of protesters were stopped and unloaded from their buses by “black-clad police” and literally herded. When the massing was sufficient, as the barely controllably distraught Tehran caller to CNN described first hand, hundreds of the regime’s Basij thugs poured out of an adjoining mosque and commenced a massacre with axes, clubs, guns and gas.

See the blogger account: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/in_iran_it_was_the_day_of_the.html

     The centerpiece of the foreign policy doctrine og President George W. Bush lies in the theory that if you plant the seed of a democratic free society in the middle of the MidEast, there will be far-reaching and long term changes. The uprising revolution growing in the streets of Tehran, Iran shows that for all the belittling and bashing that George Bush took, he was right. In complete opposite to this is the Obama doctrine- “let’s bear witness” to what is happening in Tehran!

     There were elections in Kuwait, and females were actually elected. The elections in Lebanon have brought slow changes. Iraq is trying to forge ahead with a democratic government. The seeds that were planted under the Bush Doctrine are clearly taking root, and the turmoil in Iran shows that their population is ready for reform, is ready to challenge the theocracy that has ruled for three decades.

I thought about explaining a lot of things in this post, but after reading a fantastic BBC article I decided I would simply post the link:

BBC Iran and protests of the past.

However, let me discuss some important developments:

1. Mohammad Asgari – the head of IT security for the Interior Minister and the man responsible for supposedly leaking the real election results and claiming that the government used software to rig the election, has been reported as having been killed in an “automobile accident.”

2.  Today, at least 100,000 people marched with Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad’s main rival in the elections, in a mourning procession for eight people killed in the protests the day after the election.

Mousavi is the man with white hair rising above the mass of onlookers dressed in black.

3.  The head of the Assembly of Experts, a man named Rafsanjani, who was president 12 years ago, has called an emergency meeting of this powerful group of clerics.  This meeting could have vast significance since Rafsanjani and his children are Mousavi supporters.   The Assembly of Experts is made up of 86 Islamic Scholars charged with electing the Supreme Leader and monitoring his actions.  Much of the protestor’s frustration is directed at Ayatollah Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader, and he may be forced to soften his stance.

4.  Tomorrow Ayatollah Khamenei will lead the Friday prayers at Tehran University and it is widely believed that he will order protests to cease and desist.  However, it could turn into a big day if protestors move towards the university.  More tomorrow about this.

Finally, I will end with another tidbit about Iranian History:

After Sattar Khan and his defense of the Parliament and the Constitution, came many years of rule by a poorly educated military man Reza Shah.  He came to power in a coup in 1921 with the help of the British.  The British provided support for Reza Shah to prevent Russia from getting near its jewel, India.  During his reign there was a degree of modernization, with the building of Trans Iranian Railway, but under the auspices of his strict despotic rule.  Yet, as his rule continued he became more and more hostile to the British who had helped him come to power.  This culminated in a declaration of neutrality during World War II, which both the Soviets and British refused to accept.  They attacked Iran in a massive air, land and sea assault and took over without any great resistence, owing largely to the army’s lack of loyalty to the despot (reminiscent of Saddam’s army).  This marks the second great external interference in Iranian politics in the modern era.  They conquerors allowed the Shah to save face by forced him to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had no qualms about replacing his father.  Reza Shah was exiled and eventually died just three years later of a heart ailment in South Africa.

Above:  Reza Shah on the left, with his contemporary Ataturk of Turkey on the right.

Facebook block ahead of Iran vote hampers youth

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran’s decision to block access to Facebook — less than three weeks before nationwide elections — drew sharp criticism Sunday from a reformist opposition hoping to mobilize the youth vote and unseat President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The decision, critics said, forces Iranians to rely on state-run media and other government sources ahead of the June 12 election.

It also appeared to be a direct strike at the youth vote that could pose challenges to Ahmadinejad’s re-election bid.

More than half of Iran’s population was born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and young voters make up a huge bloc — which helped former reformist President Mohammad Khatami to back-to-back victories in 1997 and 2001 but failed to rally strongly behind Ahmadinejad’s opponent, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, four years ago.

Young voters are now strongly courted by the main reformist candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, as the possible swing factor.

Full Story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_facebook

     This is why the legislation in Congress that would give the White House controls over “cyberspace” in case of emergencies CANNOT be allowed…………………. it is too much control come election time!!

     The Senate voted 90-6 to concur with the House of Representatives in barring any funding for the closing of the detention center at Guantanomo Bay, until the Obama Administration has a PLAN for the Closing.

     It is being reported that one of the detainees, involved in one of the bombings in the late 1990’s, will be taken to New York City and put on trial. The FBI had handled their investigation as a crime scene, and the evidence supports taking the detainee to trial.

    Late yesterday, 4 men were arrested in New York, based on a possible terrorist attack being planned on a synagogue in the Bronx, with an additional threat of the use of shoulder rockets to target the military planes that would have been flown in.

     Finally, Iranian President Ahmadinejad proudly acknowledged the test firing of a missile with a target capability of 1200 miles. This makes it able to reach Israel or any of our bases in the Mideast region. Further, the missile is said to have solid fuel, which is of great importance, because, unlike the Korean missile that was fueled on the launch pad, the Iranian missile could be rolled out on a moments notice.

      So, do we feel as safe today as we did 9 months ago?

Roxana Saberi blogburst

     As several Western nations boycotted the United Nations’ Conference on Racism, as a show of support to Israel, the Iranian President Ahmadinejad today addressed the conference. Two protesters, in clown wigs, yelled at the Iranian President. But it wasn’t the clowns that drew attention, it was the line of diplomats who rose from their seats and walked out of the meeting as Ahmadinejad began his diatribe on the racism of Israel becuase of its Zionism philosophy.

GENEVA – Dozens of Western diplomats walked out of a U.N. conference and a pair of rainbow-wigged protesters threw clown noses at Iran’s president Monday when the hard-line leader called Israel the “most cruel and repressive racist regime.”

The United States decried the remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as hateful — reinjecting tension into a relationship that had been warming after President Barack Obama sought to engage Iran in talks on its nuclear program and other issues.

Ahmadinejad — the first government official to take the floor at the weeklong event in Geneva — delivered a rambling, half-hour speech that was by turns conciliatory and inflammatory. At one point he appealed for global unity in the fight against racism and then said the United States and Europe helped establish Israel after World War II at the expense of Palestinians.

“They resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering,” he said.

Jewish groups had lobbied heavily for a boycott of the conference, warning it could descend into anti-Semitism or other anti-Israel rhetoric, which marred the last such conference eight years ago in South Africa.

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_racism_conference

Banks will issue more loans to help with the cost of marriage. Image: Shiva

In an attempt to ensure that young people find suitable spouses and avoid falling into unsuitable relationships, the Iranian government are to introduce a network of marriage bureaux across the country.

The centre aims to advise citizens on appropriate ways of finding a husband or wife, something which is difficult for many Iranians who have little opportunity of meeting the opposite sex socially.

A large number of Iranian marriages, whilst not arranged, are orchestrated by family and friends who look for suitable partners and matchmake. There are also private matchmaking agencies, some of which are run by clerics.

The government used the anniversary of the marriage of Ali to Prophet Muhammed’s daughter Fatima to announce the series of measures aimed at making marriage easier for Iranians, a message which was reinforced during Friday sermons across the country.

During the democratic primaries there were two very different candidates on offer when it came to Barack Obama v Hilary Clinton. One area where this was certainly the case was on foreign affairs. Voters were given two opposing view points. In debates and TV commercials Clinton tried to play herself up as a tough hardliner, loathe to give an inch to America’s enemies and those the country has uneasy relationships with. In contrast Obama famously said he would talk to likes of Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Castro, favouring dialog and diplomacy as opposed to threats of violence and sanctions against innocent civilians. The proposed stance was slated by Clinton, the media and some voters, however many foreign affairs experts at the time said the policy was a promising move, particularly after Bush’s disaster years.

Part of Obama’s popularity was due to his policy on dialog, especially outside of America. Obama has been given the mandate by the electorate to explore this avenue. If it was good enough for Nixon to go to China, Obama should go to Tehran. The last America or the world needs is the continuation of Bush’s failed policies on foreign affairs.  Considering Clinton was at pains early this year to cast herself as a hardliner, she is not the kind of Secretary of State American needs to get back onside with the world and would only further inflate current problems with “rogue” states. Her vote for the invasion also shows her lack of judgment in this area. Barack, look elsewhere!

.

محمود احمدی نژاد - عکس: ابراهیم حیدری

ارسال به: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Presiden Iran yang satu ini selayaknya patut dicontoh oleh pemimpin-pemimpin bangsa ini. Sosok kesederhanaannya mungkin yang membuat pemimpin ini dikagumi oleh rakyatnya, bahkan oleh orang lain di luar negeri Iran. Presiden yang satu ini telah banyak memberi perubahan di Iran, terutama dari segi protokoler kenegaraan. Menurut sumber, sosok Mahmood Ahmadinejad ini pada awal kepemimpinannya, ia telah mengumumkan kekayaannya yang bila diukur untuk seorang Presiden termasuk sederhana. Beliau hanya memiliki Peugeot 504 tahun 1977, sebuah rumah sederhana warisan
ayahnya di sebuah daerah kumuh di Teheran. Selain itu di rekeningnya hanya terdapat saldo minimum, satu-satunya rekening yang masuk adalah gajinya. Kesederhanaan beliau dapat tercermin dari kegiatan sehari-hari, keseharian beliau tidak mencerminkan sosok seorang Presden kebanyakan. Kebiasaan tidur beralaskan karpet, makan makanan sederhana sudah menjadi hal yang biasa bagi sosok seorang Ahmedi Najad. Untuk lebih jelasnya berikut gambar-gambar keseharian beliau sebagai seorang Presiden Iran :

Beliau hanya mengenakan kemeja dan jarang memakai dasi ataupun jas, meskipun untuk acara-acara formal.

Tidur hanya beralaskan karpet dan selimut.

Makan di tempat sederhana (ruang makan)

Sholat bersama jamaah lain (presiden tidak harus di shaf depan jika datang terlambat)

Wawancara dengan wartawan

Tidak pernah meninggalkan sholat

Untuk lebih jelas tentang beliau dapat mengunjungi websitenya di http://www.ahmadinejad.ir

Semoga saja pemimpin bangsa ini dapat mencontoh kepribadian beliau, pemimpin bukan untuk dilayani tapi pemimpin adalah pelayan bagi rakyatnya. Setidaknya mereka malu kepada rakyatnya yang miskin, malu karena mereka tidur di rumah besar lengkap dengan fasilitas mewah. Sementara rakyatnya……

Jika Iran memiliki Mahmood Ahmadinejad, bagaimana dengan Indonesia? kapan kita memiliki sosok pemimpin sekarang ini yang dapat dibanggakan rakyatnya? Semoga saja pada Pemilu 2009 kita memiliki pemimpin seperti ini. Semoga……

Every time tension in the Middle East increases oil prices rise. Recently we’ve had the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the Hezbollah-Israel conflict and now tensions over Iran and Israel. Am I wrong, or is the only country who is threatening pre-emptive strikes Israel? Iran has increased the tension too, but have only, as far as I am aware, said they would strike Israel in retaliation to any future Israeli strikes. Please don’t refer to the famous “wipe Israel off the map” Ahmadinejad comments, because I know they were taken out of context. The country which has nuclear weapons is Israel, the country which is talking about attacking another state is Israel and the country which has recently engaged in conflict is Israel. Iran does not have nukes, and by most reliable accounts is not in the process of acquiring them. It is Israel who is stirring the pot. Leave the pot alone! Every time an Israeli official engages in more ridiculous warmongering comments, I have to spend more at the pump. So please, stop with the propaganda and stop wasting my money!

In the Western corner, nestled between the Mediterranean and half a dozen hostile neighbours, with a population of over 7 million, now 60 years young, with a nuclear arsenal believed to number 150 warheads, defender of Zionism…. ISRAEL!!!

In the Eastern corner, wedged between terrorist havens of Iraq and Afghanistan, with a population of over 65 million, with controversial nuclear programme claimed peaceful, defender of Theocracy… The Islamic Republic of IRAN!!!

Let’s get ready to RUMBLE!!!

All right, enough hype. Let us be serious for a moment. Iran versus Israel. Both are religious states, both have substantial military capabilities, and both are guilty of crimes against minorities in their population. Yet both are viewed very differently in the eyes of the Western media and politicians. Let us look at both countries, and how the media depicts them.

Iran is by no means a model example of a perfect peaceful democracy. Apparently the home to the earliest charter of human rights, Iran is now a well-publicised abuser of the rights of its citizens. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution Sharia law is in place, and executions have increased as a result. According to political historian Ervand Abrahamian, “whereas less than 100 political prisoners had been executed between 1971 and 1979, more than 7900 were executed between 1981 and 1985. In 2004, a 16-year-old was executed for “crimes against chastity”. Homosexuality is also a crime punishable by death, with over 4,000 men and women having been killed for the offence since 1979.

However, there are claims by some of the sizeable Jewish residents that they co-exist peacefully in the Islamic state.

“Whatever they say abroad is lies – we are comfortable in Iran – if you’re not political and don’t bother them then they won’t bother you” Hersel Gabriel, BBC News

In fact surprisingly, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the entire Middle East. Rightly or wrongly, the media focuses less on this reality, and more so on the rhetoric of its leaders and their alleged nuclear weapons programme. Regardless, more focus should be placed on the human rights abuses, that is, the things we know to be occurring, rather than those we do not and can only speculate.

Supporters of Israel claim the Jewish state gets an unfair portrayal in the media. It is claimed Israeli attacks on Palestinians receive undue coverage, whereas Palestinian suicide and rocket attacks are ignored. The good things about Israel are believed to be neglected by critics and the media. It is popular for supporters to point out that it is the sole democracy in the region. The rights of Palestinians, it is argued, are respected within Israel, and the rights of women, homosexuals and other minorities are respected as greatly as in a Western democracy, and much more so than any of Israel’s Middle Eastern Muslim neighbours.

What are shied away from are abuses by Israel. No one with a conscience can honestly defend the shelling of a busy beach in Gaza in 2006, which ended a 16-month truce with Hamas or the disgusting use of cluster munitions against Lebanon (90 per cent of which were dropped in the last 72 hours, as a ceasefire was approaching). So try as one might, no one can sincerely and rationally absolve Israel of its share of guilt in the atrocities of the Middle East. And when international law deems Israeli settlements to be illegal, how can Israel been seen not to be provoking hostilities? If it were not for America’s veto in the Security Council, Israel would have certainly faced greater condemnation from the international community. Whether its supporters would humble themselves and join the chorus of criticism is unlikely. There clearly is a double standard.

To silence debate, anyone who criticises Israel is labelled an anti-Semite. The association is made between critics or opponents of Israel and the European persecutors who drove them from Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Critics are discredited as racist, and the atrocities committed by Israel can be swept aside. This tactic is used by everyone from Israel supporters on the street to US government officials.

“The distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that – whether intentionally or unintentionally – has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonising Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel’s perceived faults to its Jewish character,” US State Department report to Congress.

So no one can criticise this sovereign democratic state, for fear of being smeared as racist. The ridiculous thing about this slander is that Palestinians are also Semites. But don’t let facts get in the way of this foolproof tactic to silence critics and stifle debate.

I have no problem with there being an Israel. And I do believe that an Israeli state could coexist alongside Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese and Egyptian states. But this will never happen if world leaders and the media maintain a racist bias because they don’t want to be labelled anti-Semitic. Is it not also then anti-Persian to criticise Iran?

Zionism maintains that Israel is Jewish land. Judaism also maintains that Jews are God’s chosen people, an idea that can only resemble racial superiority. Hence comparison’s between Zionists and Nazis are to be expected, and although are certainly not fair and are based largely on conspiracy theories (yes, people still believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!) and true anti-Semiticism, the comparisons should not be dismissed outright. I have nothing against Jewish people, only Judaism, in the same way that I have no problem with Christians, only Christianity. And I have a problem with anyone who deem themselves superior to others. I think the religious aspect of this issue is for a large part the biggest problem. In the same way that religion is used to justify Islamic “terrorist” attacks against Israel, Israel justifies its own crimes as part of the Zionist goal. Israel is not a secular democracy; it is a religious state, with Judaism as its foundations. The occupation is justified because many Israelis believe the land to be their religious homeland and they will act militarily in defence of this belief. Palestinians and Israelis believe that the land is their god given right. And as religious disagreements cannot be resolved and compromises cannot be meet, not until Israel becomes secular and reject Zionism, and Palestinians do likewise with fundamentalist Islam, no resolution can be met. The same applies to Iran, where the root of their human rights auses is religious fundamentalism. However, arguably the root of the rise of religious fundamentalism is Western interference in the region, which is perhaps best left to another blog post (or read War for Civilisation by Fisk to see how religion was at the forefront of resistance to Western exploitation in the region).

The tension has been cast as battle between good versus evil. The propaganda from all sides has overwhelmed rational debate. Iran has depicted Israel as a “stain”, the “regime of occupation” and the “filthy Zionist entity” and the United States as the “great Satan”. Iran, on the other hand has been described as the “greatest threat to the Israel and the US”. The media’s role in twisting the debate is immediately recognisable when one compares the relative treatment of two similar comments made by two prominent officials in Iran and Israel.

In his 2005, “World without Israel” speech, Mahmood Ahmadinejad was translated to have said Israel must be “wiped off the map”. It has been argued that correctly translated he said the “regime occupying Jerusalem” must be removed not Israel itself. This correction has been made repeatedly to defend the President’s comments, but has been ignored by Western media. Although Ahmadinajad’s hostility towards Israel is real, his comments have been twisted for propaganda purposes. It cannot, of course, be denied Iran does pose a threat to Israel, but it is disingenuous to paint Iran as the sole agitator. He has since confirmed the statement that he does not believe Israel has the right to exist and his questioning of the holocaust illustrate not only his animosity towards Jews, but his complete ignorance and stupidity. However, the media and the West’s politicians have been less than equal in their criticism of similar aggressive comments by Israel and others.

Israel’s Deputy Defence Minister, Matan Vilnai, warned Palestinians would face a Shoah, the Hebrew word used for holocaust, if rocket attacks on settlements did not cease. Considering the horrifying loss of life in the Jewish Holocaust, it is utterly mind-blowing he would make such a threat, and even more unbelievable that the media would fail to follow up the statement with criticism or further inquiry. Yet Vilnai was still able to criticise one of the country’s Deputy Prime Ministers of trying to boost his own political standing by threatening Iran after Shaul Mofaz said military strikes to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons looked “unavoidable”. Israel is positioning for war against Iran, and it has been alleged they are considering striking to provoke a retaliatory attack to validate war.

To further illustrate the hypocrisy of the coverage of Ahmadinajad’s stupid yet misquoted comment, one can only look at former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who threatened to obliterate Iran, in her quest to appear tough on foreign policy to the electorate. George W Bush is also guilty of similar aggressive comments. Such moronic threats should be dismissed as irresponsible war mongering, and not tolerated from anyone, friend or foe.

At the heart of the tension is Iran’s alleged nuclear programme. Ahmadinejad vehemently denies his country aims to obtain nuclear weapons:

“We’re fundamentally opposed to the expansion of nuclear-weapons arsenals. This is why we have proposed the formation of an unbiased organization and the disarmament of the nuclear powers. We don’t need any weapons. We’re a civilized, cultured people, and our history shows that we have never attacked another country.” Ahmadinejad to Der Speigel

The West is not convinced. Although Iran claims their plans to enrich uranium are for peaceful energy producing purposes, critics argue the Islamic state aim to produce nuclear weapons. Israel characterises Iran’s nuclear program as an “existential threat”. The IAEA has not settled the dispute, having stated that it appears the programme finished in 2003, yet also stating that the country is not cooperating with inspectors. Considering the threats surrounding the programme, the stakes are high. It should be vital to establish facts from fiction before acting. The misinformation that lead to the Iraq invasion of 2003 is testament to the power of propaganda. Ensuring this does not occur again does not appear to be the priority of an international media that laps up the chest beating of warmongers.

The obvious hypocrisy of this is that not only does much of the West possess thousands of nuclear weapons, but Israel undoubtedly also has such weapons of mass destruction. Despite the hard line being taken with Iran and North Korea, and the volatility of the region, Israel has not even the courtesy to inform the international community of their arsenal or be party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Despite their denials, their nuclear capabilities are the world’s worse kept secret, exposed by Mordechai Vanunu in 1986, confirmed by a slip-up by Prime Minister Ehud Omert in 2006 and confirmed by Jimmy Carter in 2008.

So who is a threat to whom? Who is the bad guy? Is there a good guy?

But where does the truth lie? Is it possible, as perhaps the respected Independent reporter Robert Fisk would have as believe, that each side is in the wrong. Despite many on the right slandering him as biased against Israel and the United States, anyone who has read a great deal of his work and is honest would acknowledge he is critical of all sides in the quagmire that is the Middle East. However, with all the hyperbole and propaganda, it is understandable why people might view Fisk and others’ equal treatment of all guilty sides with suspicion. With this in mind, how should we approach the situation? Should anyone be taking sides, or should the world aim to involve all concerned nations in dialogue and attempt to defuse the tensions? Have the world’s media distorted the debate to ensure conflict is inevitable?

Iran is dangerous, but so is Israel. The actions of Israel should be held to the same critique as Iran or any other nation. Let us not be deceived by propaganda, political point scoring, or by racist ideology. Let us call a spade a spade.

War, Propaganda and the Media

How can the media be used to peddle propaganda in a liberal democracy?

The notorious Nazi Party Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, once said, “it is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion” (1948). He also likened the press to a “great keyboard on which the government can play.” Goebbels was a master of manipulation and is largely credited with selling the Nazi cause to the German populace.

In her 2007 book A Russian Diary, Anna Politkovskaya wrote of the overwhelming influence President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin had over all aspects of Russian society, from business, to individual lives, to the media. A journalist writing for the Russian newspaper Novaya gazeta, Politkovskaya described the pro-Putin stance of the media: “As election day approaches, the television news bulletins increasingly resemble heartening dispatches on Putin’s achievements”(2007, p. 67). She recalls occasions of press censorship, threats from political leaders and an occasion where journalists were even detained for filming an anti-Putin demonstration. Those in the media that do not apply self-censorship and question the Kremlin risk losing their jobs. “Where freedom is, there is low pay, irregularly paid. The big time is the mass media that play ball with the Kremlin”(2007 p.154). Politkovskaya made a name for herself as a journalist who would tell the truth no matter what, reporting on the situation in Chechnya and the Caucasus, and the truth behind scandals such as the Dubrovka theatre siege in 2002 and the Beslan school siege in 2005 (2007, p. 44-45). Refusing to be silenced ultimately took her life; Politkovskaya was murdered outside her Moscow apartment in October 2006.

However, in liberal democracies the overt propaganda of the sort Goebbels used to great effect in Germany, or the political pressure placed on journalists like Politkovskaya in Russia would not be possible. But it would naïve to believe democratic governments are unable to use the media to sell their policies to the voting masses. And as we have seen in recent years with the “War on Terror” and the Iraq War, the media can be as complicit as their governments in deceiving the public.

In the new introduction to their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky present the “propaganda model” as “an analytical framework that attempts to explain the performance of the US media in terms of the basic institutional structures and relationships within which they operate” (2002, p. xi). They argue the media “serve, and propagandise on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them”(2002, p. xi). This situation has arisen though changing social, political and economic factors that influence what news reaches us and how this news is presented. According the Herman and Chomsky: “The raw materials of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print”(1988, p.2) There are five of these filters: The size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass media firms; advertising as the primary income source for the mass media; the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business and “experts funded and provided by these primary sources and agents of power; “flak as a means of disciplining the media; and “anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism (1988, p. 2).

Herman and Chomsky argue the gradual centralisation and concentration of the ownership of the media has assisted the propaganda model. Ben Bagdikan notes in the 1983 edition of Media Monopoly that 50 giant firms own almost all of the United States media, which decreases down to only 23 firms in the 1990 edition (1983 & 1990, as cited by Herman and Chomsky, 2002, p. xiii). Now there are only really nine; Disney, AOL Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation, Bertelsmann, General Electric, Sony, AT&T-Liberty Media and Vivendi Universal (Herman & Chomsky, 2002). These large media companies have also diversified beyond the media field and non-media companies have established a strong presence in the mass media industry (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). For Herman and Chomsky, the ownership of the media by these large corporations poses a problem of conflict of interest. Considering media corporations are usually owned by larger parent companies who diversify and have interests in many different sectors, how do news outlets impartially and fairly report stories that involve or influence their parent companies? NBC is given as an example of this conflict, as the network is owned by RCA, which in turn is owned by General Electric. GE is a large multi-national corporation, with interests across the globe in several fields, including the nuclear power and arms industry. The corporation also contributes funding for the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank that supports intellectuals who promote pro-business messages (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). However GE need not be the only corporation singled out; all businesses are interested in tax rates, interest rates, labour policies and business laws, so the media owned by these companies will push the ideas that favour their interests. In essence, it is as though the business effectively lobbies the media.

The second filter is the use of advertising as the primary funding for mass media. Newspapers need advertiser to be able to sell newspapers under cost, without the support of advertisements, a paper would have to raise the price of their product and therefore be unable to compete with cheaper competition. So it is an imperative for newspapers to appeal to advertisers. Advertisers want to know there will be an audience for their advertisement, but not just any audience will do, they want an affluent audience who have the income to purchase their products. Working class and radical papers are therefore at a disadvantage (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). Herman and Chomsky provide an example from post World War Two Britain of how the advertising imperative can undermine the quality of the media. Despite having a readership of almost double that of The Times, the Guardian and the Financial Times combined, left wing paper the Daily Herald, as well as the News Chronicle and the Sunday Citizen, folded due to a lack of advertisers (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). When media require support from the business sector it is inevitable that social democrat and worker’s papers will lose out. The media risk losing their advertising if they broadcast or print something critical of multinationals. Herman and Chomsky argue this explains why there is, in their view, a lack of media attention and criticism of environmental degradation and war profiteering.

The third filter that determines what product news consumers receive from the media is sourcing. Herman and Chomsky state the media “need a steady, reliable flow of the raw material of news” (1988, p. 18). They argue media centralisation and the reduction in resources committed to journalism, through cost cutting, have made the news media “more dependent than ever on the primary definers who both make the news and subsidise the media by providing accessible and cheap copy” (Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p. xvii). In other words, press releases. As the media accepts it cannot afford to have reporters at all places where important stories break, they rely on press releases to fill the gap. To consolidate their position as sources of news, government agencies, business and lobby groups make a great effort to make things as easy for news organisations as possible. It is believed the use of press releases reduces the expense of investigative work, as information from government, corporate or established organisational sources is respected as credible (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). This information is then repackaged as a story, without the critique that is arguably required. They say this is common practice, arguing a significant proportion of news originates from public relations releases. As Herman and Chomsky cynically put it, “there are, by one count, 20,000 more public relations agents working to doctor the news than there are journalists writing it” (2002, p. xvii).

Criticism of the media is the fourth filter of the propaganda model: “Flak refers to negative responses to a media statement or programmes” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 26). These “negative responses” could be letters, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits or political criticism. If produced on a large enough scale, flak can become both uncomfortable and costly for the media, particular when businesses may pull their advertising. As Herman and Chomsky put it: “If certain kinds of fact, position, or programme are thought to elicit flak, this prospect is a deterrent” (1988, p. 26). They note the ability to produce flak, especially threatening and costly criticism, is related to power; in order to influence the media a critic must come from a privileged position, either in politics, business or a wealthy lobby group. Legal groups conservative media watch dogs have arisen, highlighting any criticisms of right wing economic or foreign policy to support the unfounded allegation of left wing bias within the media. Herman and Chomsky provide several examples of these conservative media lobby groups, including Freedom House, the Media Institute, the Centre for Media and Public Affairs, and Accuracy in Media (AIM). AIM was financed in the early 1980’s by corporate sponsorship, including at least eight separate oil companies (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). The annual income of AIM rose from $5000 in 1971 to $1.5 million in the early 1980’s. Herman and Chomsky believe this support explains what they argue is the function of AIM and other media lobby groups “to harass the media and put pressure on them to follow the corporate agenda and hard line, right wing foreign policy” (1988, p. 27).

Possibly the most effective way to silence and discredit left wing and anti-militarist ideology in the media is the final filter of the propaganda model, anti-communism. According to Herman and Chomsky: “Communism as the ultimate evil has always been the spectre haunting property owners, as it threatens the very root of their class position and superior status. The Soviet, Chinese and Cuban revolutions were traumas to Western elites, and the ongoing conflicts and well-publicised abuses of communist states have contributed to elevating opposition to communism to a first principle of Western ideology and politics” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 29). It is argued this helps to demonise the left, uniting the populace against not only those who support communist regimes abroad, but even those who advocate policies that threaten property rights or redistribution of wealth and resources. As a result the left has become fractured and discredited, as any party from the left can be written off as communist. And the accusation of being communist carried a cost during the Cold War, when a black and white mentality existed between the evil and oppression of Communism and the freedom of capitalist societies, a conflict of good and bad. The mass media reinforced the dichotomy of communism versus capitalism and “rooting for ‘our side’ was considered an entirely legitimate news practice” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 31). Herman and Chomsky believe the media were central to mobilising the public against communism using any information that was critical of the left. “Defectors, informers and assorted other opportunists move to centre stage as “experts” and they remain there even after their exposure as highly unreliable, if not downright liars” (1988, p. 30).

Written during the Cold War, Manufacturing Consent reflects the fears that existed during this period. However, with the fall of the Berlin Wall the “red scare” is no longer so persuasive, but perhaps the threat of international terrorism fills this void. Instead of allegations of sympathising with communists discrediting those on the left, now we see arguments the left are “soft on terror”, for example. Just as anti-communism could be argued to influence what gets media attention, anti-terrorism is just as persuasive in our post 911 world. Although referring to communism, Herman and Chomsky could easily be referring to militant Islam when they argue: “If the triumph of communism is the worst imaginable result, the support of fascism abroad is justified as a lesser evil”(1988, p. 29).

The result of the propaganda model is the status quo is reinforced. The media successfully pushes pro-business conservative ideology, whilst maintaining the illusion of impartiality, balance and fairness. They believe the dissent that is allowed is “kept within bounds and at the margins, so that while their presence shows the system is not monolithic, they are not large enough to interfere unduly with the domination of the official agenda” (Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p. xii).

Herman and Chomsky provide several examples of the propaganda model in action. Comparing popular media outlets in American, Herman and Chomsky compared the coverage of several different conflicts and human rights abuses around the world. They look at the use of language and the amount of coverage given to opposing sides in several respectable US newspapers and magazines: The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek and Time (Herman & Chomsky, 2002). If the propaganda model is to be credible, they must be able to identify examples of the way a conflict is framed in the media reflecting America’s relationships with the countries involved and whether any US businesses have interests in the region. Those countries America is friendly with, one should expect the media neglect to recognise their crimes, whereas one should expect the media to concentrate its efforts into criticisms of abuses by enemy countries.

Herman and Chomsky contrast the way the media approached human rights violations in Turkey, a US ally, and in communist Poland. The American government backed the Turkish martial-law government from its inception in 1980 and the business community supported the anti-communist movement in the country (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). Media attention to the torture of political prisoners and attacks on trade unionists in Turkey was hard to find, the issue only pressed by human rights activists and groups with little political influence. According to the propaganda model, if the media had chosen to cover the Turkish torture on its own people, it would have had to go to an extra expense to find and fact check its own information sources, as the US government was not obliging, they would receive flak from government, business and organised right-wing lobby groups and risk losing favour from their vital financial supporters, corporate advertisers (Herman & Chomsky, 1988).

Herman and Chomsky contrast this with similar abuses that occurred in Poland and the media coverage that followed. As the Reagan government saw protests over political prisoners and the violation of the rights of trade unionists as a noble cause and a great propaganda tool, the media expectedly followed suit. Official sources and Polish dissidents provided adequate information for the media to cover the stories with minimal effort. Applying the propaganda model, Herman and Chomsky argue sources did not receive the same scrutiny and the criticism of Poland did not receive the same flak criticism over Turkish abuses would have (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). And as Poland can be used in the propaganda war of the anti-communist era, the Polish abuses had more political use than those in the constitutionally secular Turkey.

As a result, Herman and Chomsky say there are worthy and unworthy victims as far as the media are concerned. The suffering of some people can be used as propaganda against unfriendly countries, whereas abuses against others are best neglected as they challenge the prevailing myth. If reported, unworthy victims are often dehumanised, reduced to statistics, on the other hand the human face of worthy victims is shown to suit the official agenda.

America’s special relationship with Turkey has led to other examples of selective reporting of abuses and the difference between worthy and unwanted victims. Bordering Iraq, Turkey and their southern neighbour share a tradition of persecuting their Kurdish minorities. A strategic ally for the West in the Middle East, Turkey’s has killed more than 30,000 in its conflict with the PKK, who seek an independent state (O’Toole, 2005). The PKK has been listed by the United States as a “terrorist group” so their persecution by the Turkish forces is easily justified by Western governments and the press. Saddam, although once a key ally for the US against the Ayatollah’s Iran, has been portrayed as the Hitler of our time, and was charged with gassing 5,000 Kurdish civilians to their deaths in 1988 (Penketh, & Verkaik, 2005). Saddam was executed in December 2006 for this crime. Despite Turkey’s treatment of its Kurds being in no way less barbarous than Iraq’s, its ethnic cleansing is categorised as “repression”, whereas Iraq engages in “genocide”. The ridiculous nature of this hypocrisy is summed up with a quote by former US Ambassador Peter Galbraith stating, “while Turkey represses its own Kurds, its cooperation is essential to an American-led mission to protect Iraq’s Kurds from renewed genocide at the hands of Saddam Hussein” (Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p. xx). Herman and Chomsky argue the word is used to demonise US enemies, but rarely applied to the Americans or their allies.

Like their support for apartheid South Africa, Saddam Hussein and the Afghani Taliban, America supported the military dictatorship of President Suharto in Indonesia because it suited their agenda, most notably anti-communist policies. Reaching power after massacring the popular communists, Suharto maintained a reign of terror over 30 years, persecuting Indonesian dissenters and the people of East Timor. With US support over 100,000 people are believed to have been killed in the conflict (Curtis, 2003, in Pilger, 2005), however the killings received minimal coverage in the media. Herman and Chomsky attribute this to Indonesia’s special relationship with the US, the strong ties the South East Asian nation has with American businesses and its position as a model for capitalism in the region.

This can be contrasted with the coverage of the Serbian killings of ethnic Albanians. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavian was in the media spotlight during the middle of 1990’s as the region disintegrated into conflict. With NATO planning air strikes against Serbia, Slobodan Milošević was accused of killing around 2000 Albanians in Kosovo (Herman Chomsky 2002). Although not belittling the horror of the crimes, it has been argued the death toll was over inflated in the media. Herman and Chomsky accuse the media of using the deaths to prepare the country for war. Both countries suppressing an ethnic minority in a similar manner, yet they are portrayed in the media in completely different ways, because of the interests of Western governments and multi-national corporations.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq presents an excellent case study in the propaganda model and the media’s ability to deceive. The propaganda model argues the media relies heavily on press releases, particularly from government departments. The carefully spun ‘truths’ disseminated from White House press secretaries were lapped up by a lazy media, who failed in their role to keep the United States Government accountable. This was evident during the build up to the invasion in March of 2003, with the media toeing the official line and not challenging the dubious claims made to justify the war, as they really ought to have.

It can be shown the media does report conflict with bias and reinforce the status quo through reporting propaganda as fact and this is bought about by corporate and political pressures, but what influence does this have on the media’s audience? Although Manufacturing Consent stressed the propaganda model describes the force that shapes what they media does and not the effect this has on the voting populace (Herman & Chomsky, 2002), it can be shown that such an effect does occur. Research conducted on the public’s knowledge of the war and the relationship this has with their support for the war, perfectly illustrates the ability of the media to corrupt debate with misinformation and undermine democracy.

The Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press has commissioned surveys into the media’s coverage of the Iraq War and the effect their coverage has had on the voting public. Released in October 2003, the Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War survey asked what unfounded beliefs Americans held about the conflict, the media’s role in propelling this misinformation and the impact these beliefs had on whether voters supported or opposed the war. Focusing on just those myths that may have influenced people’s decision to support the invasion, the survey asked participants whether they believed “weapons of mass destruction” had been found in Iraq, whether there were links between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and whether Saddam was linked to the September 11 attacks.

In February 2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations General Assembly and accused Iraq of deceiving the international community about its weapons programme (Guardian, 2003). Maintaining the belief Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, despite UN weapons inspectors finding no evidence of the purported weapons; Powell made the case for a military solution. However several years later no such weapons have actually been found, and the Bush Administration has acknowledged the information may have been flawed (The Age, 2004). Yet, the survey found 34 per cent of people believed weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found, with another seven per cent not sure (Kull, 2003). A substantial minority (22 per cent) even believed these weapons had been used during the recent war with the Americans (Kull, 2003).

It is not surprising this misperception remains. The first result that comes up if one Googles “WMD’s in Iraq” is a June 2006 Fox News story on two US Senators who claim “hundreds” of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the 2003 invasion (Fox News, 2006). In fact, survey respondents were far more likely to believe the weapons had been found if they watched Fox News as their dominant news outlet; 33 per cent of viewers compared to the next closest 23 per cent for CBS News (Kull, 2003). Long after the invasion, conservative bloggers and websites still maintain the elusive weapons have been proven to exist or even found (Procter, 2007). This is despite the lack of weapons actually found, and the Bush administration conceding the information “proving” the existence of the weapons was flawed as early as mid 2003 (CBS, 2003).

Another claim made to help garner public support for the invasion was the myth Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda. Despite it being well known Osama bin Laden hated the Baathist Iraqi regime and the fact that both parties had contrary worldviews, the myth was well supported in the media, and therefore held by the public. Fox News reinforced this myth by dishonestly displaying a “war on terror” banner across the screen whenever broadcasting a story on Iraq, despite there being no relationship between Saddam and Osama. The September 11 Commission concluded there was no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, despite assertions from Vice President Dick Cheney only days before the release of the Commissions findings that links did exist (Milbank & Pincus, 2004). The administration has a history of making such ridiculous allegations; one need not look further than Bush’s “Axis of evil” 2003 State of the Union speech for another example. However, the media should be expected not to report such as allegations as the truth, although ideally the media should be able to rely on the authorities for credible information.

Even the accusation that Saddam was in some way responsible for the September 11 attacks in 2001 has been made in media. This myth has also been dismissed by the September 11 Commission stating, “we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States” (Milbank & Pincus, 2004). Remarkably, this was the misperception most commonly held by respondents. Only seven per cent believed (rightly) no connection existed, with the remaining respondents believing Iraq was either directly involved (22 per cent), gave substantial support to al Qaeda but was not involved in September 11 (35 per cent), or believing a few al Qaeda individuals met or contacted Iraqi officials (30 per cent) (Kull, 2003). Some respondents even claimed to have seen “conclusive evidence” of the link, despite the US intelligence communities back down on the allegation (Kull, 2003, p. 1).

Those who got their news from public broadcasters PBS or NPR were the most likely not to hold any of the misperceptions, with only 23 percent of PBS viewers and NPR listeners believers in the any of the myths. Those who watched Fox News (80 per cent) or CBS (71 per cent) were the most likely to believe one or more of the unfounded myths (Kull, 2003). The survey found that those who held one or more misperception were more likely to support the war; of those who had no misperceptions only 23 per cent supported the invasion of Iraq, whereas 53 per cent of those with one, 78 per cent of those with two and 86 per cent of those with three misperceptions supported the invasion of Iraq (Kull, 2003).

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has recently admitted the reasons to wage war against Iraq were flawed and the war should not have been declared, although stops short of accusing the Administration of deliberately misleading or deceiving the public (Fox News, 2008). A recently released report is not so kind; a US Senate committee report found the Administration repeated exaggerated what was known about Iraq’s weapons programme and intentionally made the erroneous link between Saddam and al Qaeda and September 11 to push the case for war (Pincus and Warrick, 2008).

In a debate over whether the media failed the public, prominent evening news anchors Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and Brian Williams disagreed over the charge the media had not asked the tough questions prior to the war (Celezic, 2008). One problem noted by Williams was the inability of the media to verify or challenge the government’s claims. Both Couric and Williams also cited examples of pressure from the administration to report the correct angle, or else face difficulty getting information in the future. They each acknowledge that in post-September 11 America, there was an overwhelming sense of patriotism and conformity.

In March of 2003, as America and its “Coalition of the willing” prepared to enter Iraq, public support for the war was remarkably high in the United States. According to Pew Research, 71 per cent of respondents believed the decision to use military force in Iraq was the right one, compared to 22 per cent who saw the decision as the wrong one. Since then the popularity of the war was on a gradual decline, although the capture of Hussein in late 2003 did momentarily boost support for the engagement. By late 2005, those who opposed the war and believed the troops should be withdrawn exceeded those who still supported the war.

As reports of how the Administration had deceived the public and their reasons for entering Iraq were gradually discredited in the media, support for the war declined. Coupled with scandals such as prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in 2004, studies illustrating international animosity towards the United States and increasing casualty numbers reported in the media, the support for the war subsequently plummeted, as did George W Bush’s approval rating as Commander in Chief.

As all the initial reasons for invading Iraq have been dismissed, the proponents for the war have turned to “regime change” and “liberation” as the justification for the invasion and subsequent occupation. However the accusations levelled at the Bush Administration as to the real reasons behind the invasion have retained their credibility. Critics of the race to war have cited oil profits and reconstruction contracts as the real reasons for the conflict, allegations that have recently gained credence with a recent report. Dick Cheney’s former company Halliburton obtained lucrative contracts in Iraq under dubious circumstances, as have other businesses with military and administration connections (Corbin, 2008). Accusations are also abound private contractors have been misappropriating billions of money earmarked for reconstruction (Corbin, 2008). This reinforces the propaganda model’s assertion that business interests drive the media agenda, and war is big business.

If it can be argued the media’s reporting of Iraq ultimately made it possible for the invasion of Iraq to receive public support, it does not bode well for Iran. As Western governments continue to accuse Iran of a nuclear programme that has not ultimately been proven to exist, the media appear to be making the same faults it did prior to the Iraq War. Much has been broadcast and published on the suspected nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, although it appears much is merely speculation. The media is selective in what is considered news worthy; Ahmadinejad’s oft repeated “wipe Israel off the map” comment is frequently referred to, to illustrate the Iranian President as a madman, despite the comment being taken completely out of context (Celalifer, 2005). On the other hand, Israel’s Deputy Defence Minster, Matan Vilnai, threatened the Palestinians with a “shoah” the Hebrew term for Holocaust, if rocket attacks did not cease, a comment that received very little coverage compared to Ahmadinejad’s threat (BBC, 2008). Again the coverage is hypocritical, especially considering Israel’s alleged 150 nuclear missiles, and arguably reflects not reality, but political and economic interests (Maddox, 2008).

The propaganda model is not without its critics, and many potential flaws can be found in some of its premises. Watergate affair is often admired as a case of remarkable investigative journalism, as the revelation that Richard Nixon was involved in a break-in at the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel complex, eventually resulting in his departure from office. This could certainly be held up as an example against the propaganda model, as the scandal targeted the pinnacle of the established elite, the President of the United States of America. Not so, says Herman and Chomsky.

“Powerful groups are capable of defending themselves, not surprisingly; and by media standards, it is a scandal when their position and rights are threatened. By contrast, as long as illegalities and violations of democratic substance are confined to marginal groups or distant victims of US military attack, or result in a diffused cost on the general population, media opposition is muted or absent altogether”. (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 300).

Nixon could do what he wanted, until he threatened the powerful. Break-ins also occurred at socialist political organisations during this era, but there was no scandal. It was not until the Democrats were targeted did the media take note, because the Democrats themselves also represent powerful elements of American society. Herman and Chomsky believe the argument actually reinforces the core idea of the model, of the overwhelming influence of power on the media, and state “the very examples offered in praise of the media for their independence, or criticism of their excessive zeal, illustrate exactly the opposite”. (1988, p. 301).

Does the propaganda model account for all the coverage of the Iraq War? How will the propaganda account for the coverage of recent human rights abuses by the American military? Surely the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, the accusations of torture surrounding Guantanamo Bay detention centre, as well as various other cases of violations of international and American constitutional law, cast doubt on the validity of the propaganda model. Herman and Chomsky do argue dissenting opinions are allowed to reinforce the illusion that the media is fair and impartial, however media criticism of US abuses has gone beyond simply being a dissenting voice. It appears the model still applies well to the Iraq War, although it looks as though there are times it falls short.

Arguably the internet has changed the situation, as mainstream media no longer has a complete monopoly over news. Although independent websites and bloggers have credibility issues, they do place pressure on the conventional media to cover all the stories. Perhaps the Bush Administrations waning influence at home and abroad, and the apparent failure of the Project for a New American Century, the rising influence of the internet and emerging superpowers China and India, all conspired to ensure the Administration has not the same influence over the media it had immediately after September 11.

Herman and Chomsky successfully apply the propaganda model to conflicts, scandals and dodgy elections from across the globe, from Africa, to the Middle East, from Europe to Asia, and across South and Central America. Although Herman and Chomsky do not ague the model means the public is always deceived by the propaganda, the Iraq War proves a well-reported lie can persuade the public to support an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Considering this, I think we can assume, with some confidence, that other examples given also led to misconceptions amongst a misinformed public, which in turn means democracy is undermined. As a result of the propaganda model, the role of the media is seriously thrown into question. Arguably, democracy can only work with an informed public, or else the system risks being corrupted by something akin to what Plato termed the “tyranny of the majority”. Herman and Chomsky posit the media as a tool for those who have influence to obtain more influence, which shockingly mirrors the view of Joseph Goebbels. Perhaps the author of the ever-relevant Nineteen-Eighty-Four, George Orwell, put it best: “The people will believe what the media tells them they believe” (1949).

Bibliography

The Age, (2004), US admits no WMD in Iraq, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089452364.html

BBC News, (2008), Israel warns of invasion of Gaza, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7270650.stm

Carruthers, S. L., (2000), The Media at War, London: Macmillan.

CBS News (2003), White House admits WMD error, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/09/iraq/main562312.shtml

Celalifer, A., (2005), Ahmadinejad did not say “wipe Israel off the map”, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12763.htm

Celezic, M., (2008), News Anchors differ on Iraq War coverage, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24855902/

Chomsky, H., & Herman, E. S., (1988), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, New York: Pantheon Books.

Corbin, J., (2008), BBC uncovers lost Iraqi billions, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm

Fisk, R., (2008), The Age of the Warrior: Selected Writings, London: 4^th Estate.

Fox News, (2006), Hundreds of WMD found in Iraq, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Fox News (2008), White House Officials decry McClellan claims about Administration, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359600,00.html

Full text Colin Powell’s speech (2003), US secretary of state’s address to the United Nations Security Council, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa

Goebbels, J., (1948), The Goebbels Diaries, London: Double Day.

Hirst, M., & Patching, R., (2007) Journalism Ethics: Arguments and Cases, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Kull, S., (2003). Misperception, the Media and the Iraq War, Baltimore: University of Maryland.

Maddox, B., (2008), Jimmy Carter says Israel had 150 Nuclear Weapons, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4004300.ece

Milbank, D., & Pincus, W., (2004), Al Qaeda-Hussein link is dismissed, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Orwell, G., (1949), Nineteen Eighty-four, London: Penguin Books.

O’Toole, P., (2005), Plight of Turkish Kurds continues, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4540535.stm

Penketh, A., & Verkaik, R., (2005), Dutch court says gassing of Iraqi Kurds was ‘genocide’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-court-says-gassing-of-iraqi-kurds-was-genocide-520599.html

Pilger, J., (ed.), (2005), Tell me no lies, London: Vintage.

Pincus, W., & Warrick, J., (2008), Bush inflated threat from Iraq’s banned weapons, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html

Politkovskaya, A., (2007) A Russian Diary, London: Harvill Secker.

Procter, A., (2007) New proof emerges that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction ambitions, http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2007/8/31/new-proof-emerges-that-saddam-had-no-wmd-ambitions.html

Seib, P., (2004), Beyond the Front Lines, New York: Palgrave.

Said Ahmadinejad of the American presence, “Their only achievements are that regional nations further dislike them, it adds to the regional nations’ hatred. No one likes them.”

Der iranische Präsident verkündet stolz, daß der Iran jetzt insgesamt 3000 Gaszentrifugen zur Anreicherung von Uran in Betrieb genommen hätte und jede Woche würde eine neue Kaskade von 164 Zentrifugen hinzukommen. Mit 3000 Gaszentrifugen im Dauerbetrieb, wäre der Iran in der Lage, innerhalb von einem Jahr genug hochangereichertes Uran für eine Atombombe herzustellen. Das Regime in Teheran missachtet durch die weitere Inbetriebnahme von Gaszentrifugen mehrere Resolutionen des UN-Sicherheitsrats, der damit gedroht hatte, die Sanktionen gegen den Iran zu verschärfen, falls dieser die Anreicherung von Uran nicht einstelle. Jedoch muss man doch davon ausgehen, daß die beiden Vetomächte China und Russland härteren Sanktionen gegen den Iran, aus ideologischen und ökonomischen Gründen, ihre Zustimmung im Sicherheitsrat verweigern werden.

Ob man dem Präsidenten der islamischen Republik Iran glauben kann, daß wirklich schon 3000 Zentrifugen in Betrieb genommen wurden und einwandfrei arbeiten, kann man ja durchaus bezweifeln, denn die Internationale Atomenergiebehörde (IAEA) schrieb in ihrem jüngsten Bericht vom 19. August, daß der Iran in Natans bisher 1968 Zentrifugen in Betrieb genommen hätte und 656 sich kurz vor der Inbetriebnahme befinden würden. Wobei man hier beachten muss, daß es dem Iran in der Vergangenheit vortrefflich und erfolgreich gelungen ist, die Inspektoren der IAEA hinters Licht zu führen und sie über das wirkliche Ausmaß und den Charakter des iranischen Atomprogramms, dessen Natur, laut den Aussagen der Mullahs, ziviler Art sein soll, zu täuschen. Auch könnte der iranische Präsident einfach nur ein schäbiges Großmaul sein, daß sich wichtig machen will, aber warum sollte man ihm nicht glauben? In der Vergangenheit hat man oft genug den deutlichen Ankündigungen und offenen Drohungen totalitärer Machthaber keinen Glauben geschenkt und dadurch wahrhaft unmenschlichen Ideologien erst die Möglichkeit gegeben, ihre mörderische Wirkung zu entfalten und Millionen Menschen in den Tod zu reißen. Soll die freie Welt wirklich wieder so lange warten, bis es zu spät ist?

Nun bleibt also, unter der Voraussetzung der Iran besitzt wirklich 3000 aktive Gaszentrifugen, nur noch ein Jahr Zeit, vielleicht ein paar Monate mehr oder weniger, um einen möglichen nuklearen Holocaust im Nahen Osten abzuwenden und den Islamofaschisten das nukleare Massenmordwerkzeug aus der Hand zuschlagen, denn auch ein „moderater“ iranischer Politiker, wie der Vorgänger des heutigen Präsidenten, vertritt die Ansicht, daß eine Atombombe, in der Nähe von Tel Aviv gezündet, ausreichen würde, um Israel zu vernichten. Der iranische Präsident hat nie einen Hehl daraus gemacht, daß er Israel, was von Ahmadinedschad stets nur als „zionistisches Gebilde“ diffamiert wird, das Existenzrecht abspricht. Vor dem Hintergrund, daß ein Mitgliedsstaat der UNO einem anderen das Existenzrecht abspricht und mit dessen Ausradierung droht, mehrere sanktionsbeladene Resolutionen des UNSR vollständig ignoriert, dabei seit Jahren ein geheimes Atomprogramm am Laufen hat, jeglichen Kompromiss zur vertraglich abgesicherten Urananreicherung für zivile Zwecke im Ausland ablehnt, weil dadurch ja das militärische Atomprogramm nicht mehr realisierbar wäre, massiv aufrüstet und dabei ein ausgefeiltes Programm für Mittel- und Langstreckenraketen betreibt, sowie neue Bündnisse mit antiwestlichen Regierungen, wie der chavistischen Diktatur, sucht und überdies noch Terrorbanden wie die Hamas oder die Hisbollah bewaffnet, finanziert und mit Beratern unterstützt, sollte eigentlich bei dem letzten Befürworter einer Beschwichtigungspolitik gegenüber totalitären Staaten die Alarmglocken schrillen lassen und die Einsicht reifen lassen, daß vor einem nuklearen Holocaust gehandelt werden muss.

Welche Maßnahmen wären nun angebracht, um sicherzustellen, daß der Iran nicht in den Besitz von Kernwaffen gelangt und diese bei einem denkbaren Erstschlag einsetzt? Die bisherigen Sanktionen des UNSR gegen den Iran blieben vollkommen wirkungslos und die Mullahs zeigen sich davon gänzlich unbeeindruckt und betrachten diese Handlungsweise als eine Politik der Schwäche, die dem Iran erst ermöglicht, sein erfolgreiches Spiel auf Zeit zu betreiben. Im Moment brennt ein Zimmer, einer Wohnung, in einem Mehrfamilienhaus lichterloh und zahlreiche Bewohner geben nun zu bedenken, daß durch das Löschen mit Wasser, ja auch ihre Wohnungen durch das Löschwasser in Mitleidenschaft gezogen werden könnten. Der Bewohner, Herr A., bei dem es brennt und der Tag ein, Tag aus, mit einer brennenden Fackel schreiend durch das Treppenhaus rennt, beruhigt zudem jene besorgten Nachbarn, die fürchten, daß das Feuer bald auch ihre Wohnungen erreichen könnte, dadurch, daß er dreist behauptet, daß es gar nicht brennen würde, sondern er nur die Heizung etwas zu hoch eingestellt hätte und sich nun alle einbilden würden, daß es brennt und sich insgeheim diebisch darüber freut, daß man ihm auf den Leim geht. Weil Herr A. sagt, daß es nicht brennt, sei es auch vollkommen unnötig die Feuerwehr zu rufen, damit diese löscht und viele Bewohner schenken ihm leichtfertig glauben. Man kann jedoch ein Feuer nur bekämpfen, indem man es sofort und schnell löscht, soll der Schaden begrenzt bleiben. Die Feuerwehr muss bei Zeiten zur Tat schreiten.

Es brennt sowieso schon gewaltig unter dem Dach, auch wenn gewisse Kreise das nicht sehen wollen oder können und sollen nicht Millionen Menschen innerhalb eines Wimpernschlages im nuklearen Feuer, von religiösen Fundamentalisten entfacht, verglühen, dann müssen jetzt eindeutige Entscheidungen getroffen werden und vor allem sollte ein allerletzter Versuch unternommen werden, um den Irren in Teheran deutlich machen, welche Konsequenzen die Weiterführung ihres Programms zur Anreicherung von Uran haben werden. Die Frage von Krieg und Frieden wird ganz alleine von und in Teheran beantwortet werden. In den westlichen Ländern, wird nur die Entscheidung getroffen werden müssen, ob man teilnahmslos dabei steht, wie die Shoa 2.0 zur grausamen Realität wird und man gleichzeitig vor dem islamischen Faschismus, schiitischer Ausformung, kapituliert oder ob man sich entschieden gegen diese Verbrecherbande stellt und eine Barrikade gegen den Faschismus errichtet, die nicht einmal eine aufputschte Armee von Gotteskriegern zu überwinden vermag und an der die Weltzerstörungsphantasien einer Clique gewissenloser Fanatiker zerbrechen werden. Sollte „der Westen“ und insbesondere Europa zu einer Kapitulation gegenüber den islamischen Faschisten bereit sein, dann bitte ich darum, daß das möglichst bald geschieht, denn jetzt kann man vielleicht noch günstige Bedingungen gegenüber den Mullahs herausschlagen. Als Botschafter des Friedens eignen sich da eigentlich nur Horst Mahler oder Oskar Lafontaine, der ja in der letzten Woche bewiesen hat, daß er sich bei unmenschlichen Diktaturen sehr gut einschmeicheln kann und das er „die Menschenrechte nicht wichtigtuerisch instrumentalisiert“ und daher, in einem Land, in dem Homosexuelle an Kränen aufgehängt werden, ein für Europa günstiges Ergebnis erzielen sollte und da Lafontaine ja auch einen guten Draht zu Hugo Chavez besitzt, der sich als „Trench Mate“ von Ahmadinedschad bezeichnet hatte, sollte einem Erfolg eigentlich nichts im Wege stehen.

Die Beschwichtiger und „Friedensfreunde“, von den antiimperialistischen Verbündeten der islamischen Faschisten will ich erst gar nicht reden, werden jetzt stöhnen und jammern, aber ihre Lösungsansätze und Vorschläge zur Konfliktvermeidung haben sich in diesem Fall bisher als untauglich erwiesen und werden letztendlich nur dazu führen, daß die Welt es am Ende mit einem faschistischen Staat zu tun haben wird, der über Atomwaffen verfügt und diese auch einsetzen wird, um einen nuklearen Völkermord zu begehen. Nicht wenige meiner „pazifistischen Freunde“ würden sicherlich eine innere Befriedigung verspüren, wenn es dazu kommen würde, denn sie hassen und verachten Israel und sie hassen und verachten die USA, jenes Land, daß Deutschland die Demokratie mit der Waffe in der Hand bringen musste, weil ein überwältigender Teil der Bevölkerung ebensolche Fanatiker und Fundamentalisten, faschistischer Prägung, waren, wie jene mit denen es wir heute im Iran zu tun haben. Seien wir nicht so egoistisch und gönnen auch den Iranern ein großes Stück Freiheit und Demokratie damit diese nicht auf ewig in der Dunkelheit der Unfreiheit und Unterdrückung auf das strahlende Licht der Freiheit warten müssen. Sollte es zu militärischen Auseinandersetzungen kommen, so wird man nicht gegen das iranische Volk an sich Krieg führen, sondern nur gegen die faschistische Führung und deren treue Anhängerschar, die ihr blind folgen, weil sie dem Wahn anhängen, daß sie durch den Märtyrertod ins Paradies einziehen können.

Es ist der Zeitpunkt gekommen, sich einmal ein paar Gedanken über die kommenden Ereignisse zu machen, denn die Frage, wie es am Persischen Golf und im gesamten Nahen Osten weitergehen wird, ist eine der brennendsten Fragen der heutigen Zeit und vielen Menschen ist es noch gar nicht bewusst, aber es geht schon längst nicht mehr um die Frage Krieg oder Frieden, sondern darum, wann den iranischen Faschisten Einhalt geboten wird. Lassen Sie mich das ganz deutlich sagen: In meinen Augen gibt es keine Möglichkeit sich friedlich mit einem faschistischen Regime, wie es im Iran nun mal besteht, zu einigen. Es ginge zwar schon, und ich bin mir da ziemlich sicher, daß viele in Europa dazu bereit wären, aber der Preis ist so hoch, daß er zwangsläufig mit einer Aufgabe aller Werte verbunden wäre, die ein freies Europa, ja eine freie Welt, ausmachen. Die Geschichte hat gelehrt, daß sich faschistische Regime durch Verhandlungen und Kompromisse bestärkt fühlen und Dank der aktuellen Schwäche und hesperophoben Beschwichtigungspolitik europäischer Regierungen gegenüber den Mullahs in Teheran, schöpfen die Fundamentalisten neue Kraft und neuen Mut. Die Entführung der 15 britischen Marineangehörigen stellt eine weitere wohldurchdachte Stufe der Eskalation seitens der Hardcore-Hardliner, in diesem Fall durch die iranische Neuauflage der Waffen-SS, den Pasdaran, dar.

Die britische Regierung reagierte so, wie es von den staatsterroristischen Anführern angedacht war: Nämlich gar nicht. Jetzt befinden sich die 15 Briten schon 5 Tage in Geiselhaft und Tony Blair bleibt nun bald nichts anderes mehr übrig, als die Daumenschrauben anzuziehen oder mit Schimpf und Schande aus dem Amt zu scheiden. Die Geiselnahme von 15 Angehörigen der Royal Navy, die innerhalb irakischer Gewässer und im Auftrag der Vereinten Nationen unterwegs waren, stellt nach dem Völkerrecht einen Akt des Krieges dar. Andererseits ist es durchaus möglich, daß jene Kräfte innerhalb des Iran, die die Entführung in Auftrag gegeben haben, doch noch in letzter Minute einknicken und die Geiseln freilassen, bevor es zu einer militärischen Auseinandersetzung kommt. Doch selbst eine diplomatische Lösung des aktuellen Konflikts, wird die Gesamtlage nicht sonderlich beruhigen, denn der Iran arbeitet weiter an seinem Atomprogramm, ungeachtet aller Resolutionen, die der Weltsicherheitsrat bisher beschlossen hat. Für alle Beschwichtiger und selbstverliebten Hesperophoben sei es noch einmal zusammengefasst:

• Ein faschistisches Regime verhindert umfangreiche Kontrollen seines angeblich zivilen Atomprogramms und schlägt alle Resolutionen des UNSR in den Wind.
• Es ist dabei Raketen mit großer Reichweite zu entwickeln, in Zusammenarbeit mit einem Schurkenstaat wie Nordkorea.
• Die politische Führung des islamofaschistischen Regimes fordert die Ausradierung Israels, leugnet die Shoa und veranstaltet eine Konferenz auf der diese Lüge einen pseudowissenschaftlichen Anstrich bekommen soll.
• Die iranischen Faschisten unterstützen andere faschistische Terrorgruppen, wie die Hisbollah und die Hamas, mit Waffen und Geld. Dazu werden Terrroristen im Irak mit Waffen und Sprengstoff versorgt.

Um einmal einen Blogger von der anderen Seite der Straße zu zitieren: Es gibt gegen Faschisten nur eine einzige erfolgreiche Methode, und die heisst: Schlagt sie, wo und wie ihr sie trefft. Auch deshalb scheint eine militärische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Iran unvermeidbar. Jedenfalls solange, wie sich der Iran gegen umfassende Kontrollen seines Atomprogramms wehrt. Im Internet kursiert mittlerweile das Gerücht, daß am 6. April, um vier Uhr Ortszeit, der antifaschistische Luftschlag gegen die Mullahs und ihre Atomanlagen durchgeführt werden soll. Dieses Gerücht wurde von einer russischen Wochenzeitung verbreitet und findet in den Reihen diverser hesperophober Zeitgenossen große Aufmerksamkeit. Wobei: je früher den iranischen Faschisten das atomare Massenmordwerkzeug aus der Hand geschlagen wird, desto besser. Denn das Zeitfenster ist recht eng bemessen und aus mehreren Gründen kommt nur dieses Jahr in Frage, um einen Luftschlag erfolgreich durchzuführen. Einerseits beginnt im Herbst der amerikanische Präsidentschaftswahlkampf und andererseits hat der Iran gegen Ende des Jahres eine so große Menge Uran angereichert, daß der radioaktive Fallout größeren Schaden anrichten würde.

Wie würde eine solche Aktion aussehen? Eines scheint sicher: Eine Invasion mit Landstreitkräften, wie bei der Befreiung des Iraks vom Faschismus, wird es diesmal nicht geben und so wird ein Großteil der iranischen Bevölkerung weiter auf eine Befreiung von außen warten müssen. Es werden, abgesehen von geheimen Special Force Kommandos, ausschließlich Angriffe aus der Luft durchgeführt werden. Auch wird der Iran keineswegs in die Steinzeit zurückgebomt, wie man es bei einigen hesperophoben Schreiberlingen lesen kann. Am Anfang werden Tarnkappenbomber und Cruise Missiles die iranische Luftabwehr schwächen und dafür sorgen, daß die Kommunikationsverbindungen zwischen der militärischen Führungsebene und den faschistischen Sturmtruppen gekappt werden. Parallel dazu werden jene Anlangen angegriffen, die im iranischen Atomprogramm eine entscheidene Rolle spielen, wie die Anlagen in Arak, Ardekan, Bushehr, Isfahan, Natanz oder das Nuklearforschungszentrum in Teheran. Desweiteren ist mit Schlägen gegen die iranische Marine zu rechnen, die unter der Kontrolle der Pasdaran steht. Sie erinnern sich? Das sind die Waffen-SS Adepten, die die 15 Briten entführt haben. So soll verhindert werden, daß die Pasdaran den Schiffsverkehr im Persischen Golf behindern. Sei es durch Seeminen, Selbstmord- oder Raketenangriffe auf Tanker, Frachter oder Schiffe der antifaschistischen Flotte.

Die Luftschläge dürften einige Tage andauern und es erscheint natürlich etwas grausam, wenn man Einrichtungen bombardiert, die ganz bewußt in Wohngebieten errichtet wurden und natürlich wird es Opfer geben, so bedauerlich wie das sein mag, aber viel bedauerlicher wäre ein Iran, der über Kernwaffen und weitreichende Trägersysteme verfügen würde. Wird jetzt nicht entschieden und vereint gehandelt, dann wird es über kurz oder lang zu einer weltweiten Katastrophe kommen, die von den iranischen Faschisten ausgelöst werden würde.

Doch auch ein Militärschlag in diesem Jahr birgt gewisse Risiken, denn es ist zu vermuten, daß die faschistische Führung im Iran Israel, das “zionistische Gebilde”, wie es im Iran auch genannt wird, mit Raketen angreifen wird, um so Vergeltung gegen den Erzfeind zu üben. So wie es Saddam Hussein während des zweiten Golfkriegs 1991 tat und sollte es dazu kommen, dann werden sicherlich wieder jede Menge Palästinenser auf den Dächern ihrer Häuser stehen und den anfliegenden Raketen zujubeln. Ein Raketenangriff auf Israel würde dazu dienen, daß der Iran nach innen und noch mehr nach außen das Gesicht wahren kann. Trotz oder gerade wegen der zu erwartenden deutlichen Niederlage der iranischen Faschisten.

Parallel dazu werden die Iraner versuchen auch in anderen Regionen der Welt Unfrieden und Terror heraufzubeschwören. So ist damit zu rechnen, daß die schiitische Bevölkerung zu Anschlägen gegen alliierte Truppen im Südirak aufgehetzt werden könnte und auch die Hamas und die Hisbollah werden nicht vergessen, wer sie bezahlt und ausrüstet. Sollte man bei diesen Aussichten nicht von einem Militärschlag gegen den Iran absehen? Sollte man nicht mit diplomatischen Mitteln versuchen eine friedliche Lösung zu erreichen? Sollte man nicht der Beschwichtigungspolitik eine erneute Chance geben? 

Das würde durchaus vernünftig erscheinen, wenn man es mit vernünftigen und rationalen Menschen zu tun hätte. Selbst mit der Sowjetunion war während des kalten Krieges eine Beibehaltung des Status Quo möglich, aber mit dem Iran scheint das unmöglich, denn im Gegensatz zu der Sowjetunion, die an irdischen Dingen hing und keinerlei Interesse an dem Ersteinsatz von Kernwaffen hatte, da man sich im Kreml sehr wohl bewußt war, daß ein solcher Einsatz die völlige Auslöschung der UdSSR zur Folge gehabt hätte, ist die iranische Führung vollkommen von der schiitischen Erlösungideologie erfasst, die von der Wiederkehr des Mahdi (“Kein Volk einer anderen Religion wird übrigbleiben, das sich nicht zum Islam bekennt“) überzeugt ist.

Noch ist Zeit zu handeln, aber sollte der Tag kommen, an dem die Mullah über Kernwaffen verfügen, dann wird die Welt keinen einzigen Tag mehr ruhig schlafen können.

Die Krise um die 15 britischen Matrosen und Marinesoldaten, die von den iranischen Revolutionsgarden (Pasdaran) verschleppt wurden, verschärft sich mehr und mehr, denn nun sollen sie wegen “Spionage” angeklagt werden und auf Spionage steht im Iran die Todestrafe. Im Gegensatz zu der “Festnahme” britischer Seeleute im Jahr 2004, deren Geiselhaft nur drei Tage dauerte und die auch der Spionage beschuldigt werden, ist in diesem Fall wohl nicht mit einer baldigen Freilassung zu rechnen, denn die 15 Briten wurden von den Revolutionären Garden entführt und fünf deren Mitglieder wurden im Januar im Nord-Irak von US-Truppen festgenommen, weil sie irakische Terroristen unterstützt haben sollen. Die Pasdaran operieren unabhängig vom iranischen Präsidenten und unterstehen dem iranischen Revolutionsführer Chamenei, der zu den Hardcore-Hardlinern in Teheran gehört.

Die Geiselnahme hat nicht nur eine internationale Komponente, sondern auch eine wichtige innenpolitische, denn das Regime ist in den letzten Tagen immer stärker unter Druck geraten. Kürzlich verkündete Russland, daß es keinen nuklearen Brennstoff an den Iran liefern werde und zog zusätzlich noch den größten Teil seiner Atomexperten aus dem Iran ab. Am Freitag kam es dann zu der Geiselnahme der britischen Matrosen und sollte dieser kriminelle Akt als Druckmittel gedacht gewesen sein, um die Resolution 1747 des UNSR zu verhindern, dann ist dieser Versuch gescheitert.

Dieser Vorfall und vor allem auch die hilflosen Reaktionen der westlichen Welt auf diese Geiselnahme zeigen, daß der Iran, trotz seiner aggressiven, ja kriegerischen, Methoden, fest auf die europäische Beschwichtigungspolitik setzen kann. Ein Großbritannien zu Seiten der Eisernen Lady hätte sich nicht so vorführen lassen und jetzt muss sich zeigen, ob Blair als Chamberlain oder als Churchill abtreten wird, denn wenn die Regierung ihrer Majestät erneut dem Appeasement den Vorzug gibt, dann erhalten die Mullahs in Teheran erneut ein Signal, daß Europa weder bereit ist, für seine Werte, noch für seine Prinzipien und schon gar nicht für die entführten Matrosen einen Finger zu rühren. Das britische Matrosen und Marinesoldaten als Geiseln genommen wurden, ist sicherlich kein Zufall, denn bei einer Geiselnahme amerikanischer Soldaten wäre die Reaktion sicherlich eine ganz andere gewesen, als den Botschafter einzubestellen und einen lauwarmen Protest zu verfassen.

Die Pasdaran haben sich ihre Opfer mit Bedacht ausgewählt und selbst Tony Blair redet jetzt davon, daß die britischen Soldaten gezielt entführt wurden. Dieser offen kriegerische Akt, der eine krasse Verletzung des Völkerrechts darstellt und einer Kriegserklärung an Großbritannien gleich kommt, kann und darf nicht unbeantwortet bleiben. Die britischen Marineangehörigen handelten im Auftrag der Vereinten Nationen, denn sie sollen den Schiffsverkehr überwachen und den Waffenschmuggel in der Region des Shat el Arab unterbinden. Damit stellt diese Geiselnahme eine Provokation der gesamten Weltgemeinschaft durch das faschistische Regime in Teheran dar. Wie lange will man noch zusehen, wie erneut ein faschistische Regime, daß von der Fortsetzung der Shoa im Nahen Osten träumt, die Welt an der Nase herum führt?