The Guardian beats the drums

06Nov07

It seems The Guardian is once again preparing the ground for an illegal war. Saturday’s editorial described a prospective attack on Iran as a “disaster” (for strategic, not moral or legal reasons, you understand), before proceeding to legitimise all the false assumptions and allegations that would in fact make this “disaster” more palatable. For example, we have the bizarre assertion that,

“letting Iran pursue its nuclear ambitions would be no less cataclysmic [than an attack on Iran]“.

Is that so? I guess the first question to ask must be, what exactly does The Guardian mean by Iran’s “nuclear ambitions”? The implication is promptly explicated: “[t]he arrival of the Iranian bomb”. Naturally, no evidence for this accusation is provided. Indeed, significant evidence to the contrary – for example, IAEA reports concluding that there is no evidence whatsoever of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme – is simply ignored. Even President Bush now restricts himself to warning of Iran gaining the “knowledge” and the “capability” to build a nuclear weapon should it choose to at some point in the distant future. The Guardian is evidently so confident that Iran is developing nuclear weapons that it does not feel the need to provide any supporting evidence. One is reminded of Martin Woollacott, writing in the same paper in early 2003:

“Among those knowledgeable about Iraq there are few, if any, who believe he [Saddam] is not hiding such weapons. It is a given.” (‘This drive to war is one of the mysteries of our time – We know Saddam is hiding weapons. That isn’t the argument’, Martin Woollacott, The Guardian, January 24, 2003)

The only “evidence” we appear to have for an Iranian nuclear weapons programme is plain common sense – we suspect that if we were in Iran’s position, surrounded by hostile nuclear powers and sitting atop energy resources openly coveted by the aggressive military superpower, the acquisition of a nuclear deterrent would be our top priority. Of course, The Guardian’s editorial acknowledges none of this, because to do so would suggest solutions to the “crisis” that are unacceptable in polite society. For example, instead of illegally threatening to bomb Iran, we could attempt to make the Middle-East a nuclear weapons-free zone, or partake in serious efforts towards global nuclear disarmament, or commit to the rule of law, as opposed the current doctrine of unilateral aggression. But enough of the crazy talk – The Guardian invites us to think only about the very narrow question of how to get Iran to follow orders.

In any event, let us suppose for a moment that Iran is attempting to develop a nuke: what then? Well, says The Guardian, a nuclear weapon would give Iran’s “unstable populist regime untold military and diplomatic clout”. The Guardian’s fears are expressed more bluntly by military historian Martin van Creveld:

“as one country after another joined the nuclear club, Washington’s ability to threaten them or coerce them declined”.

Even so, would a more assertive Iran (now an inevitability anyway, as a consequence of the invasion of Iraq) really be “no less cataclysmic” than an aggressive strike on Iran, which would likely result in a “a protracted military confrontation that would probably grow to involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the USA and Iran”? Even though most serious analysts, including the Israeli Foreign Minister and the former head of the Mossad, have acknowledged the fact that Israel (never mind the U.S.) possesses more than enough firepower to deter an Iranian attack, nuclear or otherwise? This is sheer hysteria from The Guardian, dressed up in superficially anti-war guise. It seems they haven’t learned a thing.

Filed under: Iran, Media, News and politics, UK, US, WMD   |  8 Comments
Tags: "Iran crisis", propaganda, The Guardian, War