Via the AP we get word that Iranian’s real leader (i.e., Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as opposed to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) said some inflammatory things about a possible US attack: Iran warns U.S. it will retaliate if hit - Yahoo! News:
Iran stepped up its warnings to the United States Thursday, with the nation’s supreme leader saying Tehran will strike U.S. interests around the world if his country is attacked.Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s words were also likely meant as a show of toughness to rally Iranians, who are increasingly worried about the possibility of American military action as the two countries’ standoff has grown more tense.
Setting aside for a moment whether one likes Iran or not, or whether one thinks that Iran poses a threat to US national interests or to regional stability, isn’t this exactly what one would expect the leader of any given state to say? Further, wouldn’t we expect that the rhetoric would be particularly confrontative when coming from the mouth of an authoritarian leader?
That the leadership of a sovereign state would declare that they would fight back if attacked hardly qualifies as news. Nevertheless, the write-up by the AP has frustrated Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald, who notes, among other things, that:
I performed the meatball surgery on it necessary to make it moderately acceptable for the print edition of the Boston Herald.
The AP isn’t just opposed to a U.S. attack on Iran. It is actively on Iran’s side.
He goes on to cite the first three paragraphs as evidence. Two of those paragraphs are listed above, and here’s the third:
Days earlier, an Iranian diplomat was detained in Iraq in an incident that Iran blamed on America. The United States denied any role. The U.S. also says it has no plans to strike Iran militarily, but has sent a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf to show strength in the face of rising Iranian regional influence.
Can someone tell me how those three paragraphs amount to the AP actively siding with the Iranian government? The first paragraph is a pure statement of fact. The second paragraph some speculation (that is likely accurate) about Khamenei’s motivations. The third paragraph is a series of factual statements.
That the Iranians might feel threatened by the US, by the way, makes some sense, given that the President has made a number of rather clear statements about Iran that could be construed as threats. Indeed, it is fair to say that the President wants the Iranians to be concerned as a way of gaining leverage over the nuclear program issue and whether or not the Iranians are causing trouble in Iraq.
Really, if we don’t take a dispassionate and rational approach to the information out there about Iran and elsewhere, we are simply going to make more policy mistakes. Crittenden’s blog post certainly makes me wonder about his judgment in regards to coverage of Iran and makes me wonder about “meatball surger[ies]” he is doing to other stories that are hitting the pages of the Herald.
Sphere: Related Content
Now come on, this isn’t surprising. North Korea has been going on for YEARS about the imminent US attack. This is hardly something to get worked up about.
Comment by B. Minich — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 9:24 am
Let’s not overlook also that there is a significant internal power struggle underway in Iran. The LA Times had a good piece on that yesterday or perhaps the day before.
In this struggle, Khamanei is aligned with those who think Ahmadinejad (whos allies performed poorly in last December’s elections) is dangerously igniting an international conflict, as well as neglecting important domestic constituencies.
But if the US or Israel would attack, you can kiss those internal Iranian struggles goodbye for a while.
Comment by MSS — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 9:47 am
Both the over-the-top claims about Iran’s capabilities and intentions and the over-the-top claims about the Administration’s plans to attack Iran give me heartburn.
Let’s ask some substantive questions: what actions can the U. S. take to reduce the likelihood of war with Iran? What actions can the Iranians take? Do either of the sets of proposed actions put the legitimate vital interests of the country that we’re suggesting take them at risk?
I think that defusing the tensions between Iran and the U. S. is more within Iran’s power without violating Iran’s legitimate vital interests than it is within the U. S.’s without violating its legitimate vital interests but, then again, I’m just a provincial, prejudiced American.
Comment by Dave Schuler — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 3:06 pm
President Ahmadinejad’s real views are summarized on this website: ahmadinejadquotes.blogspot.com
Comment by Al — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 8:45 pm
I think I see the point made… A quick and simple makeover of the first paragraph:
“Iran launched more threats against the United States Thursday, with the Supreme Leader vowing that Tehran will attack U.S. interests around the world in the event of military action against his country.”
The second paragraph serves to effectively sandwich opinion and facts. This practice is common enough, often misleading the casual reader into thinking he is reading strictly factual statements - and would not be mentioned if reproducing an officially endorsed opinion. The very fact that Iranians may be concerned is off-limits too. America is always (I’m sure you’ve noticed) on the side of the people and against the ruling regime of its targets. Any concern that might exist should therefore be felt by Iran and not by the Iranians. By inserting this comment the reporter is putting people and regime in the same basket. Faux pas.
As to the third paragraph, the word “detained” should not have been used - better “kidnapped”. “Detained” and “arrested” are used only with direct involvement of American and Iraqi puppet forces (irrespective of rule of law). More intriguing is the way in which the series of facts is presented. We get an U.S. statement, followed by an “also says” and then a “but” - bringing into question the honesty of the U.S. with regard to the second statement, and also, consequently, the first. Maybe I’m reading too much into this paragraph, but I think that the insinuation is there.
regards
Comment by James — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 8:58 pm