Popular Journalism and Iran’s Ambitions

By Neil Earle

As Iran’s future as a possible nuclear state is debated it is possible to construct a file on how the issue plays out in American journalism. The consistency is fairly surprising.

Doyle McManus summarized the basic options in his Los Angeles Times column of February 22, 2009 titled “A Plan B for Iran.” In the end, MacManus gave three possibilities for the USA going forward: stricter sanctions, Cold War-style containment with Israeli help, or war.

Along the way, McManus offered the thought that “most (and maybe all) of Obama’s advisors see the costs of attacking Iran as outweighing the benefits.” This opinion leads back to the Bush administration-era cover story by Atlantic magazine (Fall, 2004). In “Is Iran Next?” the magazine war-gamed a session using war college experts and arms inspectors playing different roles from the U.S. president to Iranian officials.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

A Weak Analogy

The model in the back of everyone’s mind was Israel’s bombing of Saddam Hussein’s Osirik Reactor in 1981 (“Operation Babylon”). The analogy broke down in a realistic consideration of basic facts. Iran has three times the land area and five times the population of 1980s Iraq. The Iranian program is scattered and hidden which would necessitate some 300 “aim points.” It is unlikely Israel alone could sustain this kind of effort especially since their jets (or even American jets) would most likely need to fly over Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The war games presaged a brief report in Time magazine’s December 17, 2007 issue from the American Joint Chiefs. They concluded the US could accomplish “severe damage” rather than a successful repeat of Operation Babylon. Nevertheless, former State Department Director of Policy Planning, Anne-Marie Slaughter, told CNN on June 6, 2013 that she was 60% certain the US would bomb Iran in 2013. Time’s Joe Klein made the same missed prediction.

Now note Zbigniew Brezinski’s piece in the April 23, 2006 LA Times for his blunt synopsis “Been There, Done That: Talk of a U.S. strike on Iran is eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq War.” Brezinski was President Jimmy Carter’s rather hard-line national security adviser from 1977 to 1981. He did not waste time ticking off the possible consequences of a U.S. or even Israeli air strike against Iran’s nuclear program.

Zbig’s Cautions

First, the attack could be seen as a unilateral declaration of war, a possible impeachable offense.

Second, the consequences could undermine U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq seem trivial.”

Third, oil prices could climb steeply once again, especially if Iran cut oil production. (Brezinski did not mention the Iraian ability to block the Straits of Hormuz, one of the main arteries for oil exports from the Middle East.)

Finally, the United States homeland could become even more a target of terror and face more isolation and suspicion from the rest of the world. “In short,” says Brzezinski, ”an attack on Iran would be an act of political folly, setting in motion a progressive upheaval in world affairs.”

That almost nails the case against military strikes. An Iranian perspective was given on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria show “GPS” on November 16, 2014 by Maziar Bahari. Bahari is the Iranian-Canadian journalist who was imprisoned by the Iranian regime in 2009 and the subject of the Jon Stewart-produced movie “Rosewater.” An attack, warmed Bahari, would set back the moderate cause in Iran and lead to excuses for repression to be intensified inside the country.

In short, popular journalism has been remarkably consistent in showing there seems to be no viable military option against Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon. As McManus concludes, that leaves Cold War style containment as the only viable option.

Anthony Bourdain

Tragic Dilemma

This harmonizes with Anthony Bourdain's remarkably positive experience in his popular “Parts Unknown” CNN culinary documentary which featured his Iranian trip this fall. He was intrigued by the friendly greeting he received and how popular American ways are in Iran. He echoed the National Geographic report of August, 2008 featuring “Ancient Iran: Inside a Nation’s Persian Soul” and showing how the West and Iran are tragically talking past each other on most issues.

Trite Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, saw the problem the same way in the LA Times. “Iranian bluster” and a long-reaching national sense of pride is set against U.S. ignorance and the “collapse of statecraft” between the two countries. Parsi quoted former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael G. Mullen who summarized: “We are not talking to each other (officially) so we don’t understand each other. If something happens it’s virtually assured hat we won’t get it right.”

This is a serious conclusion perhaps only mitigated by the consistent trend in America’s popular journalism that, in the words of former Secretary of State Robert Gates, a military action against Iran would be “catastrophic.” Time will tell.