April 10, 2007
Iran, nukes and public opinion
Britain is in a self-flagellating mood today. It is generally felt that “our boys” (and girl) did not exactly cover themselves in glory, after being captured by the Iranians while on naval duty. For a nation brought up on tales of heroic deeds by taciturn British prisoners-of-war, the garrulous and fearful behaviour of today’s captives was hard to take. And the discomfort has only been increased by the fact that the government allowed a couple of the former prisoners to sell their stories to the papers – a decision that has now been belatedly reversed.
The letters page of today’s Daily Telegraph – the paper of choice for retired colonels – is a good read. However the Sun, which bought the rights to the story of Faye Turney, the sole female captive, is naturally casting her in a much more forgiving light. It even offers its readers a ludicrous discussion forum on whether “hostage Faye” should get the Victoria Cross – Britain’s highest award for gallantry. I think the Telegraph’s readers would prefer to see her shot.
In Britain the “hostage” furore has overshadowed the more serious news from Iran – the Iranian claim that their country is making rapid progress towards industrial-scale enrichment of uranium. But the two issues do overlap – because they are both forcing Iran up the political agenda. The problem of Iran has been vexing specialists for years – but it is now becoming a real subject of public discussion.
When the British naval personnel were still being held in Iran, Bicom, (the British Israel Communications and Research Centre) commissioned a poll from Populus on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This found that 84 per cent of the British public think it would be dangerous for Britain if Iran gets nuclear weapons, with 41 per cent thinking such a development “extremely dangerous”. As a result there is 69 per cent support for economic sanctions and 43 per cent support for “military action by a multinational force”. But there is only 26 per cent British support for military action by the US alone; and only 24 per cent support for unilateral Israeli military action.
Opinion in the US has been turning against military action. A Fox news poll in early March found 47 per cent against military strikes to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, with 43 per cent in favour. Back in October there had been a majority (48 per cent - 40 per cent ) supporting military action. Doubtless the turn in opinion reflects growing American disillusionment with the Iraq war. But President Ahmadi-Nejad seems to have a near genius for stirring up hostility towards his country. Perhaps his latest breast-beating about Iran’s nuclear prowess will provoke a new bout of hawkishness in the US.
For god’s sake! How gullible is this author? Since Lebanon’s destruction at the hands of Israel, the Bush administration has been desperately trying to vilify Iran in the international press exactly to build public support (specifically arab and european) for an attack on Iran. Starting with the creation of a special agency (under the supervision of Cheney and with help from Mossad) to undertake this task using exagerated and/or fabricated information, the US has unleashed a relentless and irresponsible propoganda war on Iran resulting in mass hysteria and delusions about the reality of Iran’s nuclear abilities, much to the delight of the real masters of American foreign policy, AIPAC. Everything we hear and see in the media is evidence of this. Example: A) comparing Ahmadinejad to hitler - Hitler rounded up and murdered jews in his own country. Ahmadinejad does neither as has contributed personally to jewish charities in Iran. Also, he never called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”. That was a blatant lie, but perfect for the international press
Posted by: Baz | April 11th, 2007 at 3:06 am | Report this commentB) Warning of a new persian “empire”- a winner in the arab press. Iran found a new stature among the arab street after Israels folly in Lebanon, but with Bush’s effort, that stature has now been reduced to contempt and hatred
C) British “hostage” crisis - the most obviously staged and blatant propoganda piece i have witnessed in my life. It was not surprising to see the 15 sailors wisked away by secret service after landing in London to be prepped on their comments to the press with tales of “rape, torture and coffin measurements” to be printed in the Sun of all places. No doubt the British public is now calling the Tehran to be Nuked
D) all that remains now is to convince the more “lefty” continental bunch who still would oppose military force. Perhaps a terrorist attack in Paris or Berlin blamed on Iran would seal the deal for Cheney and his friends to get the war they desperately want
Iran is sleepwalking into a disaster entirely of its own making, no need to invent conspiracies, just continue defying UN Security Council resolutions and all the international community, including Russia and China, will agree that for the good of the world, including their own terrorist infested backyards, the extremists in Iran, that have been aiding and arming terrorists like Sadr in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon and the revolutionary guards within Iran, have got to be reined in and stripped of power, and prevented from pursuing the war they are desperately trying to foment. This international action to stop the extremists in Iran will happen soon, since their recent “successes” have emboldened them into crossing the red lines they should have not crossed: the Non Proliferation Treaty will be respected and enforced, no ifs or buts, the destiny of the future generations worldwide depends on the international community upholding the law.
Posted by: John Fitzwilliam | April 11th, 2007 at 9:16 am | Report this commentIf Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons, whether we want or not, whatever iranian goverment says, in the long run there is possibility of another Cold War. The nightmate of the Cold war was the possession of nuclear weapons in the hands of irrational people. Long term costs from the Cold war are greater than many short term ones.
Posted by: John | April 11th, 2007 at 12:08 pm | Report this commentIf Iranian goverment is ’so nice’, perhaps it should release opposition including students from the prisons.
“nuclear weapons….in the hands of irrational people.” By whose measure of rational? Yours? Mine? George Bush’s? Tony Blair’s? Some of these people are proven liars and fabricators, and have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation – against UN judgement. They will never be tried, never be called to account for their actions, despite that it is proven that they lied in order to attack. What is the measure of rationality? It is important to note that Iran has done no such thing. And indeed it now becomes clear that the British Navy was most likely in Iranian waters – or ‘disputed’ waters at best. They also do not appear to have been there for some UN reason. So in the flurry of the tabloid blizzard of frankly stupid claims of torture etc, why are we not asking what exactly they were doing there in the first place? We are irrational in that we believe whatever crock the Sun decides to bleat at us from the front pages (sorry, do I need an exclamation mark to get attention?!!!!!)
Posted by: Colin | April 11th, 2007 at 1:29 pm | Report this commentOf course we don’t want all nations arming themselves with nuclear weapons, but who do we (…’the West’) think we are, dictating to everyone else who can have what?!? If another country was to attempt to tell Britain it could not have something, how would Britain react? “Oh OK, I’m not responsible enough? OK, got you, thanks for that. I’ll leave them alone, then.”
Tony Blair and Bush claim to be “answerable to God”. He has spoken to them… By what measure is this ‘rational’? The truth is, none of us can realistically make a call on who is rational and who is just defending themselves against the most volatile and wanton cabal of war-mongers since mid last century (a cabal in which Britain features prominently). Who can blame Iran for wanting to defend themselves against these religious fanatics, who seem hell-bent on wiping them off the map? The rhetoric works both ways, you see.
What are the Iranian people saying? What is their public opinion about a war with the West? Do you really think they want a nuclear war?
We need a rethink, from everyone. And with the current crop of irrational, god-inspired fanatics who believe they are answerable to the voices in their heads, I’m afraid it looks like any future problems will be shaped by our very own fruitcakes.
Dear John,
Posted by: Baz | April 12th, 2007 at 5:34 am | Report this commentI am afraid to say that you are a victim of your own countrys propoganda. First of all, Iran has abided by the non proliferation treaty. The US is spearheading an effort to make special cases for Iran, including frezzing of enrichment (which is not forbidden). I suggest you get your facts straight. Also, the accusation against Iran about arming and aiding iraqi militants is another propoganda tool. Where is the proof to support this? The US is merely trying to incriminate Iran for their war and also to take the focus off their own failures in Iraq. I suggest you ask the state department for all the proof they have of IRan supporting terrorists and i wil be surpised if you get ANY!. Please be sure that everything the US says is not necessarily true. The Bush administration is not a beacon of truth. Let it also be known that if they Iranians wanted WMD, why did they not use them in the 80’s in retaliation to saddams use of American made chemical and biological weapons against Iranian civilians? Hmmm? And If the US is so determined to diffuse the spread of WMD, why did they veto a 1986 security council resolution demanding that Iraq stop gassing Iranians? Hmmm? Your ignorance and racism are outstanding my dear. Please learn some history
Dear Gideon,
I very much like you quoting a poll commissioned by British Israel Communications and Research Centre. But why did you choose this particular institution? Could we have some non-Jewish opinion in that matter? One might venture to say the sample group/perspective is unrepresentative, because imagine their responses to question like “Do you agree that Jewish neoconservatives pushed America to war in Iraq?” - and push they did, as we can find from one of your essays of approx. 2 months ago :))
Posted by: Peter | April 12th, 2007 at 10:38 am | Report this commentIrrational regimes - those who don’t care about other countires. For example Colin you criticise Bush and Blair. If Iranian did it in the Iran he would be prosecuted. There is no famine, diseases, mass unemployment in the US or UK, but people in Iran are much more poorer.
Posted by: John | April 12th, 2007 at 12:12 pm | Report this commentProof that Iran involves in Iraq is that militias weapons are produced in Iran. What other proof can we have?? Iranian leaders admitting it?? By the way, political dissidents from Iran claim that Iran is suporting militias in Iraq. If Iran doesn’t supply weapons, where do they get them??
Iranian regime is nationalistic. It claims that ‘iranian people are more intelligent than others’. Its racist and nationalistic. US goverment is against Iranian goverment, not Iranian people, whilst Ahmedinejad says ‘Israel must be wiped of the map’ and ‘I can see the World without the United States’, that means he wants to kill ordinary people. Why doesn’t Iranian goverment reduce unemployment or increase education??
As everyone else is commenting on Iran getting nukes, I want to rant about the complaints about your sailors.
Posted by: DILBERT DOGBERT | April 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pm | Report this commentAs a judge once told me when I was outraged about a jury decision: You weren’t on the jury - you weren’t the judge - you did not hear the testimony - you did not hear the judges charge to the jury. You don’t know JACK! So sit down and shutup!
Your sailors are home safe and that is the most important thing not some high faluting idea of National Honor. The man who has lost your National Honor is your Mr Blair. It was he that help con the American/British public into this foolish intractable and endless mess.
If the sailors want to sell their stories to the press, that’s just great. The press wants to make money off them so it is O.K. for them to make money off the press. End of Rant.
Dilbert
Palo Alto
In response to Peter’s comment on April 12th, while the poll was commissioned by a pro-Israeli lobby group, it was carried out by Populus who are a reputable and mainstream polling organisation - and the people polled were a cross-section of the British population. Mind you, polls of Jewish opinion might surprise you. Look at the Lexington column in The Economist on March 17th, which points out that American Jews are substantially more likely to regard the Iraq war as a mistake - and to vote Democrat - than the American population as a whole.
Posted by: Gideon Rachman | April 13th, 2007 at 9:49 am | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
With great respect, I find your answer to Peter to be rather disingenuous.
It is true that Populus is a reputable organisation but the way the question was phrased is troublesome. They simply assume that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support the accusation after stringent inspections by the IAEA and despite the previous track record of extensive deception by the “Israel-first” NeoCon lobby that has caused the tragedy in Iraq and is seeking a repeat performance in Iran.
May I invite you to spend a little time reading the enclosed article by two US-based Iranian scholars?
The enclosed precis (with link to the full article) articulates what
most Iranians feel in their bones about the nuclear issue.
The study examines the attitudes of 3 major US newspapers (NYT, WSJ
and Washington Post) to Iran’s nuclear programme over a 20 year period
(1984-2004). I am sure that the conclusions would have been even more
stark if the last two years had been included too.
Here is an extract from the concluding section:
Quote
Orientalist depictions of Muslim countries and their political issues
concentrate around the idea that Islam is a source of threat. This study also finds that in the case of Iran’s nuclear program, the issue of trust plays a more central role than the actual existence of evidence for Iran’s possession of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
The present critical discourse analysis also reveals how the three
elite newspapers’ editorials selectively framed the issues
surrounding the Iranian nuclear dispute by employing linguistic, stylistic, and argumentative maneuvers. Despite their differences in their policy recommendations, none challenged the underlying assumptions that Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapons program, that the Islamic nature of its government is a threat, and that it should not be trusted with
sensitive nuclear technology. Their inattention to the inconsistent
non-proliferation policies of the United States and other European
nuclear powers shows the limits of media criticism of official policies.
Unquote
Best regards
B Aram
==============================
Journal of Communication Inquiry
April 2007; Volume 31, Number 2: pages 140-165
A Discourse Analysis of Elite American Newspaper Editorials
The Case of Iran’s Nuclear Program
By Foad Izadi & Hakimeh Saghaye-Biria
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
This study employs Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism and Teun A.
van Dijk’s concept of the ideological square to analyze three elite
American newspapers’ editorial coverage of Iran’s nuclear program. A
critical discourse analysis of The New York Times, The Washington
Post, and The Wall Street Journal editorials from 1984 to 2004
identified six Orientalist themes. The study finds that The Wall
Street Journal and The Washington Post more predominantly drew on
Orientalist arguments than did The New York Times.
Using critical discourse analysis, this study attempts to elucidate
the ideological representation of U.S. policies toward Iran’s nuclear
program in the editorial positions of three elite U.S. newspapers. The
study focuses on whether these representations contribute to the
formation of in- and out-group identities based on Orientalist images
of Islam and Muslims.
Ideology is defined here as “the mental frameworks, [i.e.] the
languages, the concepts, categories, imagery of thought, and the
systems of representation” (Hall, 1996, p. 26) that different groups
use to understand and explain the workings of society.
More significant, ideologies function as symbolic systems of thought
to organize, maintain, and stabilize particular forms of power
relations (Hall, 1996; van Dijk, 1998a).
Orientalism, as an ideology, is defined here as a “discoursive
conception of the Orient . . . [that] involves a binary opposition
that finds the West as central in modern, enlightened thought, and the
Orient as the mysterious and often dangerous Other” (Hartley, 2002, p.
170).
Studying editorials is of special significance when analyzing the
ideological role of news media because editorials are expressions of
“the broader ideological stance of the newspaper’s owners and
managers” (Henry & Tator, 2002, p. 93). Unlike news discourse,
editorials are conversations among a society’s economic and power
elites, with the public being less of an addressee than spectators
(Henry & Tator, 2002).
Such significance is more pronounced in the case of editorial coverage
of the less familiar, yet more complex area of foreign policy because
such coverage influences how the public and policy makers perceive
other peoples and regions of the world and “define the parameters of
the global political environment” (Malek, 1997, p. 225).
This research follows the guidelines set out by van Dijk (1988), who
who recommends that an analysis of media texts include three parts:
“the description of argumentative structures; the explication of
presupposed (tacit) assumptions, norms and values; and an analysis of
style and rhetorical features” (p. 126).
The analysis focuses on the argumentative structures used to promote a
certain perspective on events, players or agents, and policy
recommendations. Van Dijk (1995) writes, “The study of numerous
argumentative fallacies has shown that powerful arguers may manipulate
their audiences by making self-serving arguments more explicit and
prominent, whereas other arguments may be left implicit” (p. 29).
Because of the style and rhetorical features of editorials, arguments
and themes form two more elements that make up the findings.
The following questions are advanced:
Research Question 1: How are events, players, and policies about the
Iranian nuclearprogram portrayed in these three U.S. elite newspapers?
Research Question 2: Are Orientalist arguments used as premises for
advancing policy recommendations?
Conclusion
This study supports Karim H. Karim (2000) and Melani McAlister’s
(2001) findings that, today, Orientalist depictions of Muslim
countries and their political issues concentrate around the idea that
Islam is a source of threat. This study also finds that in the case of
Iran’s nuclear program, the issue of trust plays a more central role
than the actual existence of evidence for Iran’s possession of a
clandestine nuclear weapons program.
The present critical discourse analysis also reveals how the three
elite newspapers’ editorials selectively framed the issues surrounding
the Iranian nuclear dispute by employing linguistic, stylistic, and
argumentative maneuvers. Despite their differences in their policy
recommendations, none challenged the underlying assumptions that Iran
has a clandestine nuclear weapons program, that the Islamic nature of
its government is a threat, and that it should not be trusted with
sensitive nuclear technology. Their inattention to the inconsistent
non-proliferation policies of the United States and other European
nuclear powers shows the limits of media criticism of official
policies.
Despite the uniformity of their ideological positions, the extent to
which elite media’s different policy recommendations affect policy
makers is an area worthy of further investigation.
In addition, future studies could use a comparative approach to
investigate the interdependence between news and editorial discourse
about Iran’s nuclear program and the discourse of policy makers. Also,
using grounded theory, future studies could use in-depth interviews to
arrive at a clearer understanding of the lay theories of editorial
staff of elite newspapers with regard to the Iranian nuclear program.
These studies could investigate whether these lay theories conform to
tenets of Orientalist thinking.
Download the full text
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/apr/JCI-Iran-Foad-Izadi.pdf [PDF -
120KB]
http://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/2/140
Posted by: Borzou Aram | April 13th, 2007 at 5:29 pm | Report this commentIn Iran there is an ‘Anti-american museum’, in the USA there isn’t ‘Anti-Iran’ museum, during the Cold war US didn’t have anti USSR museum, if Iran is not a threat, why they have these things??
Posted by: John | April 13th, 2007 at 6:04 pm | Report this commentJOhn, to answer your question above. We have these “Things” because the US has been the source of much of our country’s depair since 1953 when the CIA staged a coup from the US embassy against our hard won democracy in favour of the tyrant and murderer Shah. When the shah started becoming more independant however, your government, operating secretly again from the US embassy in Iran, staged another coup to bring in Khomeini and resume the original oil consession. Khomeini, however, finally rid our country of your sabotage and manipulation. The price we paid for that was to be invaded by Saddam with FULL support from the US, including Chemical and biological weapons. Twice the US vetoed security council resolutions calling for all states to refrain from selling Iraq WMD and for Iraq to stop using them against Iran. TWICE! 700 thousands Iranians DIED in that war that surved no purpose except to destroy our country. Now you threaten us with another war?? YOu are the threat sir and not us. Our goverment is not perfect but they are the strongest and most independant regime that has ruled iran in 3 centuries. We are sick of foreign meddling in our country, and if the US had honoured its part of the Algiers accords in 1981, to stop meddling in our internal afairs, the US-Iran relationship would be quite different today.
Posted by: Baz | April 16th, 2007 at 3:07 am | Report this commentDear Baz.
Posted by: John | April 16th, 2007 at 11:43 am | Report this commentFirst of all, originally I am from the ex-USSR, not the USA.
Second. What about Iranian Revolution and Americans being hostage for 400 days?? Iranian muslim extremist took hostage US citizens first before the Iraqi war.
Third. If you don’t like foreign meddline in your country, why Iran meddles into Iraqi affairs now and Lebanon sponsoring Hezobllah?? Why there is no tolerance from iranian regime to other religions??
Iran is a great country with great cultural history, it is not its people that are threat but Iranian regime. Iraq would have had much more chances to peace without militias acquiring weapons.
Its alright that you don’t like American goverment, but when people in Iran say ‘Death to America’ it becomes scary because its against normal American people.
P.S. Accodring to wikipedia, much less than 700 thousand people died from WMD in the war with Iraq.
Many American people like Iranian people and culture, but I cant say the same about Iranian people.
US is likely to change its attitude towards Iran (possibly allowing it to develop peaceful nuclear technology) if Iran doesn’t teach its people from school age to hate Israel, America, and other religions apart from Islam.
To john.
It has to be said, however, that Iran is in fact the most tolerant country in the middle east despite what the US and British media present. Most Arab countries (specifically saudi arabia) are fiercly anti shiite and have horrible horrible human rights records. They treat their women like dogs and have no justice system to speak of. In Iran, there is a justice system, although imperfect, and iranian women have much more dignity (they are educated, hold public office, etc etc.) whereas in arab countries they are covered head to toe and must walk behind their husbands. And then there is Israel. Despite being labeled a democracy by the west, Israel is far from. It is a racist aparteid state, where the local arab population is not only persecuted, but being forced out of the country to Jewify the whole state. And how can we forget the palestinian situation. A holocaust being perpetrtated by the very people who claimed to be the victoms of one. Absolutely horrendous
Posted by: Raul | April 17th, 2007 at 12:52 pm | Report this commentDear readers,
Early this morning we removed two comments from this post because they breached parts of our comments policy.
We’d like to remind you all of our the policy, which can be found here:
http://www.ft.com/commentspolicy
You can also find there our contact addresses for reporting inappropriate comments and for corresponding about our comments policy.
Kind regards,
Posted by: FT.com moderators | April 17th, 2007 at 3:19 pm | Report this commentKate Mackenzie
Interactive editor, FT.com
Dear Raul. According to my own experience, international human rights agencies like Human Rights Watch, the situation in Iran with regards to human rights it not very good. It may be better than Saudi Arabia, but it is far worse than Israel, Europe, and USA. Iranian GDP per capita is number 71 by PPP measure and 91 by nominal measure, despite its oil reserves. Opposition goes to jail.
Posted by: John | April 19th, 2007 at 11:15 am | Report this commentHave you seen the movie ‘Bruce ALmighty’ with Jim Carrey?? Iranian goverment changed the plot completely, The appearance of Morgan Freeman’s character at the end echoes the prophesized return of the 12th Imam.
Women are not allowed to visit football matches. Saying Iran has good human rights record is lie, if Iran was a nice place people would go and imigrate to Iran rather than Europe or the USA.