The World Media Goes Bonkers: An Israel-Attacks-Iran Case Study
By Barry Rubin
For the second time in a few months we have seen a crazy global Israel-About-to-Attack-Iran Story. I don’t want to go into all of the details but this tale is an example of how the media has just lost it completely due to a combination of laziness (reporters don’t really do research or check sources); agenda; ignorance; and good old sensationalism. Partly, too, it arises from the difficulty of the mass media in dealing with the Internet media era and the difficulty of the Internet media in achieving decent journalistic standards.
A couple of months ago a level of hysteria was reached on the basis of three stories:
–A Jerusalem Post article, which could have been published just about any time in the last five years, saying that the Israeli air force was practicing for an attack on Iran.
–An interview with a former Israeli intelligence official who opposes attacking Iran saying that Israel had decided not to attack Iran but worrying that the prime minister might want to reopen discussion of the issue.
–A sensationalistic article in an Arab newspaper with no Israeli inside sources speculating that an attack was going to happen.
Out of this was built a worldwide story claiming something was going to happen that wasn’t. It was quickly shown to be wrong but no lesson was learned.
Now we’ve just been through phase two. A Washington Post columnist, not known for his accuracy, claimed that the U.S. defense secretary said that Israel was about to attack. This was immediately accepted as if the cabinet member had said so publicly when the supposed statement was completely unproven. The man in question, Leon Panetta, denied the story.
In addition, a few hours later President Barack Obama said he knew Israel was not going to attack Iran. Think of what that means. Israeli leaders and American intelligence assessments have been daily reporting that no attack was imminent. If Obama knew it, Panetta knew it.
It is true that a respected Israeli journalist wrote an article based on interviews that he concluded there would be an attack. But my reading of the article concludes that they are clearly expressing concern and trying to influence Western policy. If Israel was about to attack, he wouldn’t have written the article at all. And consistent Israeli statements to the contrary were simply ignored. The most important was by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak who said what everyone knew: Israel would only attack if Iran had deliverable nuclear weapons, no decision had been made, and that was well in the future.
I could go on but what is lacking here is the equivalent of common sense. There are many good reasons why Israel won’t attack Iran now which I have presented already. To its credit, the Los Angeles Times finally came up with a story noting that Israelis were “bemused” by all the hysteria that ran totally contrary to what they knew.
People have written about why Israel should not attack Iran but very few have written about why Israel would not attack Iran at this time. There has been indifference to all of the totally knowable factors involved regarding this decision.
In the end, the issue is one of fact. It is easily observable that Israel has not attacked Iran and still has not done so on any given date in the future. Yet what does this say about media coverage and public debate over other stories, especially international ones?
It is quite clear the journalists are under all minimum professional requirements in that matter; now it is also flagrant that the BHO administration has shown very little teeth in its opposition to the Teheran nuclear race. The Teheran regime has a toll-free road since 1995. So once we look back and rewind all the film of those last 16 years we are confronted with some evidence: The USA has left the road open for North Korea and Iran to reach nuclear capability : The koreans could even conduct a real nuclear test, and the iranians are on the same path..Up to now the USA are a paper tiger and the butchers of Teheran, Damascus, Pyongyang are definitely happy to deal with BHO weak character. But when does BHO weakness morph into complicity with those foes ? That is a question which does not require some secret documentation, any LUCID analyst can observe that BHO is doing its best to disarm Israel, to neutralize an eventual israeli strike; We hear Panetta stating in Quebec that an israeli strike on Iran nuclear installations would create ” serious economic problems for the world ” ( of course Panetta does not even one second thinks of the consequence of an iranian nuclear attack on Israel ).We hear the same Panetta stating ( through a US miltary source ) that the MOP ( the 13 tons bunker-buster ) are NOT EFFICIENT to destroy the iranians bunkers.( this is a military secret leak of gigantic proportion much more dangerous than wikileaks ). We hear that the economic sanctions are taking place only from july 1st therefore leaving ample time for Teheran to set up a network of front -triangular oil deals. We hear that BHO is just avowing that the USA will not attack Iran nuclear facilities unless israeli cities are attacked . The conclusion is simple : 1) for BHO Iran can achieve nuclear armament, he will not budge 2) Israel must stay neutral 3 ) BHO will not interfere unless Israel is destroyed . How do you qualify this policy ? I call it open complicity of BHO with Iran’s policy. Please do show me the contrary.
Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, because:
a)Israel considers Iran’s possesion of nuclear weapons technology an existential threat. Israel believes that in the aftermath of an Iranian nuclear break out, Gulf states and Egypt will also rush to nuclear weapons thereby making MAD strategy infeasible with Iran. Moreover, Israel does not currently have the second strike capacity to make MAD credible.
b)Israel knows that with targeted military strikes it can not halt Iran’s nuclear program. Since Iran has the resources to restart its program anew, Israel is reconciled to strike whenever to deny Iran the opportunity to gain weapon capacity.
c) Sixtyfour thousand dollar question is how Iran will respond. Israel thinks that it has the advantage in escalating the conflict. If Iran as it threatened closes the Hormuz passage, it will surely draw the US in the fight with Israel. So, Iran won’t close Hormuz. Indeed Iran will refrain from retaliation against gulf arab states or NATO for fear of widening the conflict. Israel also thinks that Iran will not hit Israeli population centers in which case Israel can hit Iran’s oil infrastucture which would definitely set back Iran’s nuclear program. Saudi Arabia has already promised to supply any short fall in oil production.
Conclusion:Israel think Iran is about to become nondeterable. Israel also thinks it can hit Iran without being hit. Thus, Israel will attack Iran.m
+1 Brother
The attack will come before the next US Presidential elections.
It is almost like media diversion crap.
From a simple grunt point of view with info on the net, Syria appears to be the key to anymore military action in the Middle East. Russia appears to be helping Syria stay in power. If America is helping the majority tribe in Syria, They seem to be losing.
The American troop build up written about in the news means what? A blocking force? Security? For what? This whole thing smells bad to me. From Egypt, to Libya, and now Syria. One can not, or should not leave an enemy in it’s rear when attacking forward.
Syria, Hammas, and Hizboallh can not be strong if Israel is going to hit Iran. The U.S. can do it, but Israel better be ready for an attack.
We are at war now. How much this war grows is anyones guess. I think it will get much worse.
I think that the American journalists were reacting to a number of Israeli speakers at the Herziliya Conference, who all chose to speak about the threat from Iran. None of the speakers said anything new, but all of them together created a certain “buzz”.
I do know one thing – if Israel decides to strike it won’t talk about it in the media first.
i was wondering if you could comment on the recent article in the Atlantic by Michael Hirsh regarding the advantages to Israel in attacking Iran.
Do you have a link to the LA Times article? Would be refreshing to read.
The only people who know for sure whether Iran is dangerous or not are its leaders, but it is not easy to understand what they believe, know and intend.
Does Iran mean nuclear peace of nuclear war?
You decide.
Iranuclear.wordpress.com, #nuclearpeace or #nuclearwar.
Thought you might care to comment on the following piece by your colleague David Goldman:
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/02/17/logistics-of-an-israeli-strike-on-iran-an-informed-view-from-germany/
Hi Barry,
Is your book in ebook (kindle) format? Also – I hope you are wrong, I think Israel must do all it can to stop Iran.
Obama is worried Israel might take ANY action. “Attack” is probably off the table from all concerned but that’s not what has Obama in a frenzy. He’s worried of ANY Israeli response at all because if truth were told, he’s reached a quiet detente with Iran that nothing should happen before his inauguration and with day one of his lame duck Presidency he’s signaled in a very unsubtle way that Iran is free to either declare they’re a nuclear state then or conduct a semi-nuclear test much like North Korea has. Obama will use this as a lever to bolt from Afghanistan in advance of the 2014 mid term election season. He’s said before Afghanistan would be over in 2014 but its clear from the past year of relatively no comment from the White House, no stated plans or strategy or goals that’s got to be much sooner than that. Probably US will start to wind down Afghanistan in March or April 2013.