The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
From the first pass of the documents, it really seemed to be a lot of cheerleading for a war with Iran though. So it's no wonder, as the NYT headline put it: Iran Calls Leaked Documents a U.S. Plot.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the documents as American psychological warfare that would not affect his country's relations with other nations... "Some part of the American government produced these documents," he said. "We don't think this information was leaked. We think it was organized to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals."
"Some part of the American government produced these documents," he said. "We don't think this information was leaked. We think it was organized to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals."
And you know, the selectivity and war cheerleading could make a person outside of America's ruling elite pause and say hrmmm just as you have done.
If the leak had contained documents from Iran itself, that would have been another matter. But for that, Wikileaks would need people who could read Farsi. They would also need to have advertised that they had such people, in order to encourage leaks.
New York Times, Around the World, Distress Over Iran.
His plea was shared by many of America's Arab allies, including the powerful King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who according to another cable repeatedly implored Washington to "cut off the head of the snake" while there was still time.
Fifteen paragraphs later:
To some extent, this Arab obsession with Iran was rooted in the uneasy sectarian division of the Muslim world, between the Shiites who rule Iran, and the Sunnis, who dominate most of the region. Those strains had been drawn tauter with the invasion of Iraq, which effectively transferred control of the government there from Sunni to Shiite leaders, many close to Iran.
So one paragraph of context out of 70 paragraphs saying America really needs to do something about Iran's nuclear program.
NPR, Leaks Reveal Arab World's Concerns About Iran. Note how the guest (Goldberg) mentions the Sunni-Shi'ite divide, but yet that is not pursued by the host (Siegel)?
Mr. GOLDBERG: Right. No. This is a very interesting moment because the issue has been framed by many people as a kind of a binary: Israel and Iran. One wants nuclear weapons; one wants to prevent the other one from getting nuclear weapons. But now we see really, fully, the masks are off. The Arab world, and really most moderate Arab regimes, live in the same sort of existential fear that Israel does of this Iranian program. And it reminds us that the Jewish-Arab - the Jewish-Arab dispute has been going on for 100 years, but the Shiite-Sunni split and the Persian-Arab split, they've been going on for 1,000. I mean, this is a deep, deep, deep issue that's just now really surfaced because of these leaks. SIEGEL: There's an irony here, which is the State Department is furious that their confidential cable, that is cables based on confidential conversations, have been made public. And yet we read in one of the cables the anxiety at State that Arab leaders won't say publicly what it is that they're saying privately about Iran. Mr. GOLDBERG: Right, well, that's not a new aspect of life in the Middle East. Everything is a double game, as you know. And this is the problem, and American policymakers know that this is a problem. The Arab leaders have been lobbying pretty insistently for the last couple years, or even before a couple of years, in the Bush administration, too, for America to take some sort of dramatic action against Iran. The Americans, and certainly the Israelis, see that and say, well, that's great, but when it comes time to vote to condemn this action in the U.N., where are you going to be? So the Arab countries would like America, or even Israel at this point, to deal with their mess. But there's no guarantee that the Arab states would do anything to help America.
The Arab world, and really most moderate Arab regimes, live in the same sort of existential fear that Israel does of this Iranian program. And it reminds us that the Jewish-Arab - the Jewish-Arab dispute has been going on for 100 years, but the Shiite-Sunni split and the Persian-Arab split, they've been going on for 1,000.
I mean, this is a deep, deep, deep issue that's just now really surfaced because of these leaks.
SIEGEL: There's an irony here, which is the State Department is furious that their confidential cable, that is cables based on confidential conversations, have been made public. And yet we read in one of the cables the anxiety at State that Arab leaders won't say publicly what it is that they're saying privately about Iran.
Mr. GOLDBERG: Right, well, that's not a new aspect of life in the Middle East. Everything is a double game, as you know. And this is the problem, and American policymakers know that this is a problem. The Arab leaders have been lobbying pretty insistently for the last couple years, or even before a couple of years, in the Bush administration, too, for America to take some sort of dramatic action against Iran.
The Americans, and certainly the Israelis, see that and say, well, that's great, but when it comes time to vote to condemn this action in the U.N., where are you going to be?
So the Arab countries would like America, or even Israel at this point, to deal with their mess. But there's no guarantee that the Arab states would do anything to help America.
Most Americans don't do context and the American media certain doesn't hit the public over the head with it.
As you first wrote, "the documents prove nothing about Iran". Again, I agree the leaks weren't about Iran. They are about beating the drums of war with Iran.
Dodo suggested the drumbeats would not sound so loud if context was provided. But, I think when the American establishment is busy selling a war with Iran to the American public, then context is either non-existent or deeply discounted, and objectivity is not important. And since when has facts been part of Americans' decision to go to war? Certainly they played little or no part with the decision to invade Iraq or even Afghanistan. This is about ginning up emotion and lining up excuses.
That these nations haven't said anything against Iran publicly fits within the narrative. If the facts supported a war with Iran, then the war would sell itself.
For the most part, I think the American news coverage of the leaked U.S. diplomatic posts regarding Iran can be generally characterized as 'see everyone thinks Iran is a problem and have been secretly okay with the U.S. or Israel attacking them'. The implied suggestion is then those in the ruling class who may have been questioning the wisdom or legality of such a war, should cease their objections and the general public should support the start of such a war.
They are about beating the drums of war with Iran.
This is some serious pattern fitting. There is nothing in there that is going to sell a war with Iran to the American public. If it were a false flag operation, it's a hilariously poor PR / propaganda campaign. I mean, given the level of nationalism and exceptionalism in this country, the fact that other countries want the US to go to war with Iran is very much a strike against said war, not a selling point.
you are the media you consume.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 41 comment
by Oui - Dec 2
by Oui - Dec 117 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2712 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments