[mediawatch] The Nuclear Fanatic

A feature article appeared in the Sunday Times (of London) back on August 20. It was syndicated out to NZ’s Dominion Post, appearing on August 22, and I’ve hung on to it because I wanted to write about it. It is entitled “The Nuclear Fanatic”. You can find the online version here. No byline was given in the NZ reprint but it is attributed in the original to Sarah Baxter.
This article continues the theme of demonising Iran. This is something that has been going on for a long time, and I’ve written about it before. The propaganda line perpetuated by this article is that
Iran isn’t just an enemy state (itself a claim worthy of investigation) that may be on the road to nuclear capability, but that it is a clear and present danger to the world’s peace and security due to the irrational villainy of its leaders.
This kind of propaganda stands in the way of clear understanding; it most certainly stands in the way of any potential for peace.
It’s worth picking bits of it apart. You can see how the system operates – the premises underlying this piece aren’t examined, they’re taken as read, and these premises are what is truly communicated in the piece.
The article opens with:

If some Iran-watchers in America are to be believed, we could be 48 hours away from the day of judgment.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran�s president, has promised to deliver on Tuesday his response to international demands that Iran stop enriching uranium for nuclear use.
By the Islamic calendar, Tuesday is also a holy date: the night when Muhammad rose to heaven from the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem on a �buraq�, a fabulous winged beast with the body of a horse and the face of a woman, and reappeared in Mecca. Will Ahmadinejad seize the moment to unveil the possession of some new fissile material or weapons system � perhaps a nuclear-tipped one?
Bernard Lewis, the West�s foremost scholar of Islam, has even warned that on such a symbolic date it would be wise to bear in mind the possibility of a �cataclysmic� event such as a strike on Israel.

Why open with this? Well, obviously, it’s big and dramatic and exciting and gets you reading.
Unfortunately it’s also nonsense built on horrific prejudices. Nuclear armageddon did not descend on the Middle East on Tuesday 22 August. A bunch of premises of this article are revealed by this opening, however:

• Iran’s President has an “obsession with theology and numerology” (note that word, “obsession” – in other words, they’re irrational and superstitious)
• Iran’s leadership is ready and eager to begin a nuclear war, they’re only waiting until the time is right (there’s no suggestion that they might have any other agenda for the first third of the article, and even then it’s framed as ‘how immediate is the Iranian threat’)
• Iran is capable of responding to diplomacy with aggressive nuclear war (so, of course, diplomatic efforts and ‘inspections’ are a waste of time)
• Most experts believe Iran might launch a nuclear attack (after all, no other experts are mentioned in the first third of the article, so there can’t be another opinion worth mentioning)
• This is about Islam, not international politics (the only expert mentioned is an expert on Islam)

(An aside: who is Bernard Lewis, called here ‘the West’s foremost scholar of Islam’? In the NZ reprint this was amended to ‘an eminent scholar of Islam’. Over at Wikipedia we see he coined the phrase “clash of civilizations”, has been heavily criticised by Edward Said, founded his explanation of the backwardness of the Middle East not in colonialism but in Arab ‘cultural arrogance’, opposes calling the Armenian genocide a genocide, and has spoken out on Israel’s behalf in the context of Middle Eastern conflict there. He does look like an eminent scholar, but hardly a neutral one, nor one whose authority and insight has ever gone unquestioned.)
The goal of the article is baldly stated further on:

That is no idle boast. While all eyes have recently been focused on Israel and the Lebanon, the world may have been looking in the wrong direction. The most serious challenge to the West is not a resurgent Hezbollah but Iran, the guerrillas� oil-rich patron.
This week, to coincide with Ahmadinejad�s �judgment day� speech, Iran is launching a new round of sabre-rattling military manoeuvres. Nobody has stopped it on its path to nuclear power � and nobody looks likely to.

More premises:

• Hezbollah is probably the second most serious challenge to the West (Israel=”the West”, I guess)
• Ahmadinejad’s pending speech should only be considered in terms of its potential to destroy the world (it’s called a “judgement day” speech and that’s the only potential worth commenting on)
• Iran is being aggressive (sabre-rattling! The Bush administration have been openly announcing their desire to invade Iran and force regime change for months – and Iran’s military manoeuvres in response to this announced threat are sabre-rattling!)
• The correct way to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions is to stop them (I don’t see any mention of an alternative approach)
• Nuclear power = nuclear bombs (the only clarification that one does not inevitably mean the other comes about halfway through, dismissing as a deception the claim that it’s a peaceful energy programme)

Then we get this, a third of the way through the article:

How immediate is the Iranian threat?

Look at this question for a moment. Just stare at it, wonder at it, appreciate it. As propaganda goes, it’s a beautiful piece of work. “How immediate is the threat?”
If we can ask this question then we know there is a threat.
We know it is immediate.
The only things left to talk about are, how immediate is it, and what are we going to do about it.
Notice how the threat is to ‘us’, the reader, as well? See how that was done? “The Iranian threat is immediate.” That’s what we learn. That’s what we get. Of course there’s a threat! Remember that gigantic headline? “The nuclear fanatic”! He’s a nuclear fanatic, of course he’s an immediate threat!
Then, finally, we get some other ‘experts’. Check out how their opinions are presented to us:

Even those experts who say that Mr Ahmadinejad is no more apocalyptic than fundamentalist Christians (including Mr Bush himself)… agree that the Iranian president has his eyes firmly set on nuclear weapons. In their view, Mr Ahmadinejad will offer the West a few measly compromises or at best a temporary freeze, while playing for more time to build a nuclear bomb – and Western governments will again fail to stop him.

And that’s it. That’s all they get. “Even experts who don’t think he’s a nuclear fanatic agree with us, mostly.”
There’s a whole heap more of this stuff as it goes on, but by now the premises for discussion are laid out. There’s even a bunch more I’ve skipped because they’re relatively minor. The only other thing I’m going to point out is this – the experts they’ve chosen to reference:

• Bernard Lewis, “the West’s foremost scholar of Islam”: Iran might start a nuclear war NOW
• Ilan Berman, American Foreign Policy Council: Iran is in a clash of civilisations with the West
• Edward Luttwak, Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington: military action against Iran might be necessary
• “those experts”: maybe Ahmadinejad is no more apocalyptic than Bush?
• “some observers”: we must strike a grand bargain with Iran

This whole article is filled with a sophisticated technology of opinion-structuring. It’s difficult to find any kind of effective response. This certainly isn’t an effective one – a long rambling analysis like this isn’t much use to anyone except those who, like me, are already watching this stuff.
I wonder, how aware is its author? Does New-York-based Sarah Baxter understand what she’s done here? Are the premises of the article really her own, transferred seamlessly to the article and thence into the minds of readers? How much responsibility does she bear for the fear she is generating, the compliance she is facilitating?