Iraq Redux? Media Parroting Dubious IAEA Iran Claims


In a remarkable column in the Guardian, Brian Whitaker points out both the uncritical way in which most of the press is merely parroting the accusations in the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear technology and how this process feels very much like the propaganda campaign that led to the invasion of Iraq:

“One of the oldest tricks in the run-up to a war is to spread terrifying stories of things that the enemy may be about to do. Government officials plant these tales, journalists water them and the public, for the most part, swallow them.” I wrote this paragraph in December 2002, some three months before the US launched its invasion of Iraq, but it seems just as applicable today in relation to Iran.

The Iraq war of 2003 followed a long media build-up in which talk about Saddam Hussein’s imaginary weapons of mass destruction, simply by virtue of its constant repetition, led many prominent journalists to abandon their critical faculties. The Washington Post, for instance, devoted an extraordinary 1,800 words to an extremely flimsy (but scary) story suggesting Iraq had supplied nerve gas to al-Qaida. The paper later conceded that its coverage of the Iraqi WMD issue had been seriously defective, but by then it was too late to undo the damage.

Whitaker then goes on to cite a number of media stories that breathlessly cite the IAEA allegations without any meaningful evaluation of the claims therein.  He cites b’s work at Moon of Alabama on the nanodiamond alternative to the claims of an explosive trigger device as an example of how one would go about critically examining the claims in the report.

He then closes with this:

Of course, these are extremely murky waters and I’m not at all sure who to believe. There is probably a lot of deception taking place on both sides. But what seems to me extraordinary is the reluctance of journalists – especially in the US mainstream – to acknowledge the uncertainties and their willingness to accept what, as far as Iran is concerned, are the most incriminating interpretations.

In addition to the examples Whitaker cites in his column (please read the entire column), I would offer the video above, where Christiane Amanpour interviews David Sanger.  In this interview, as in most other media reports, there isn’t even acknowledgment that the report itself admits that there is no proof that an active nuclear weapons development program has indeed been restarted in Iran after it was halted in 2003.  Instead, Amanpour and Sanger go into speculative details of how the US can intervene and prevent full development of a nuclear weapon.  They do stop short of war, but certainly point out how it would not be surprising.

There is one more sadly ironic parallel between the current buildup of rhetoric over Iran and the buildup to war in Iraq.  Throughout this process it should be kept in mind that the CIA’s WMD program took a very big hit when Robert Novak Dick Cheney outed Valerie Plame on July 14, 2003 as the Bush administration madly tried to to justify the faulty intelligence it fabricated and spread prior to the March, 2003 Iraq invasion.  Had Plame not been outed, the CIA’s capability in gathering WMD intelligence could have continued unabated, rather than needing a major regrouping after one of its major operatives was outed.  Perhaps the current state of intelligence on what is happening in Iran would be much better had that not happened.

There are a number of posts at Moon of Alabama providing chapter and verse on the debunking of the IAEA report, so I won’t repeat those details and links here.  Instead, I would just note that the credibility of the report has been brought into question by a number of independent observers, but that is a very difficult piece of information to obtain if one is exposed only to the traditional media outlets.  Let’s hope that the Iraq 2003 parallel isn’t so complete that traditional media only realize the low quality of the current “intelligence” after a war has started.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

11 Responses to Iraq Redux? Media Parroting Dubious IAEA Iran Claims

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @Nick_Hentoff While they go about getting rid of him for good.
30mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Nick_Hentoff Looks like they have 4 judges in that circuit. County ought to remove all crim cases immediately from Weill.
31mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Nick_Hentoff Yeah, they have a problem there. The local DA's office should be joining in effort to oust hime. Bad form crim justice.
39mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @Nick_Hentoff: .@bmaz Judge Jeff Weill filed 700-page misconduct report on PD w/ highest win rate in his court; 699 pages on theft of s…
40mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @Nick_Hentoff: What a battle between a Miss. judge & public defenders tells us about the state of indigent defense https://t.co/4QbIrj9b
51mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz This judge has to go----> Hinds County Circuit Judge Weill faces new abuse allegations http://t.co/89GCO1qdeQ https://t.co/pMqv0ODELN
53mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dcbigjohn @adamsteinbaugh @nycsouthpaw You are a law reporter now John, you are one of us now. Get with the program!
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @adamsteinbaugh @PogoWasRight @CathyGellis @marciahofmann @BillMcGev Like I said earlier, good luck with that.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PogoWasRight @CathyGellis @marciahofmann @BillMcGev I don't have a lot of love for Assange, but credit where due, this won't phase him.
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @biasedreporter Not so good on those issues either.
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PogoWasRight @marciahofmann @BillMcGev Good luck with that.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @RickDeVos: HBO or Netflix: Please make a high quality period serialization of The Count of Monte Cristo.
9hreplyretweetfavorite
November 2011
S M T W T F S
« Oct   Dec »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930