Mar
13

RE: Media perspectives on an Israeli preemptive strike

11 Comments

Posted by Phil

RE: Media perspectives on an Israeli preemptive strike

I wanted to reply to the article by my colleague Stephen, relating to the media coverage of a possible Israeli air strike on Iran, and the extent to which the media can be used to normalise the idea of a certain course of action. Stephen raises some interesting points regarding coverage of the possible attacks on Iran, arguing that the coverage has been skewed towards making a preemptive Israeli strike on Iran seem reasonable. What I would argue is that Stephen is pointing the finger at the wrong group. This is not a question of laziness in the media, this is about Israel having a highly effective and well organised Hasbarah organisation which knows how to operate in this media age.

Stephen put his position right up top, so it is only fair I do so too. As I have written in print, I passionately believe Israel should be taking out the Iranian nuclear threat. I have also worked for different Hasbarah groups, and spoken on behalf of the Israelis on numerous occasions. I am not however, officially employed or contracted by the State of Israel.

The media coverage and debate over an attack on Iran has been robust, but largely ill informed. This is not however because the media has some kind of agenda that is being forced. Rather, the Israelis are well trained from many years experience with persuading the world (and particularly the Americans) of their position. Those who believe the media has largely taken the side of Israel on the Iran debate are incorrect in my opinion, but the extent to which they are correct is informed purely by the enormous efforts of the Israelis to influence media opinion. This should not be mistaken for claiming some kind of control of the media by the Jewish state, far from it. What I am saying is that the Israelis have a well oiled and powerful media communications machine, which knows how to advocate for its position. It provides the media with enormous amounts of information, different sources, interviews both on and off the record, maps which show potential bombing routes. It is the nature of an open society that the Israeli Government engages with the media battle and debate.

Then consider the other side; the Iranian Government. Not famed for their high opinion of the Western press, nor for being trustworthy in their public statements, this greatly limits their ability to oppose the potential strike against them. Thus we are left with a highly trained and effective Israeli laying of the groundwork for a strike, and no proper media response from the Iranians. It is no surprise that the media become increasingly convinced of the merits of at least part of the Israeli case for airstrikes.

While this all explains why the media has expressed some support for the Israeli position, the reality is all sorts of wild speculations and downright lies have been oft-repeated against a possible Israeli strike on Iran. This has included suggesting this will immediately throw the region into World War III. This proposition is made with no evidence, and a sort of sick sense of excitement in the writing. It is unrealistic and most distasteful. Then is the continuous statements that Israel will not actually manage to take down the Iranian threat. A danger yes, but if you believe some of the reports the Israelis do not even know where Iran is on a map.

The Obama Administration is working just as hard as the Israelis with the media, strong-arming their loyal journalists to write against an attack. All sides play this game, unfortunately for Obama and his ilk the Israelis are better at it.

Stephen calls for the ‘facts to reign supreme’, and I fully support that position.

  • The fact is the Iranian regime is the largest sponsor of terrorism world-wide.
  • The fact is that the Iranian leaders have repeated called for the destruction of the State of Israel.
  • The fact is that the Iranian regime uses terror and violence against foreign missions on its territory.
  • The fact is that the Iranian regime has been found to be in violation of its IAEA enforced commitments.

These are the facts, and they are not in dispute. There is now only one responsible course of action that the Israelis can take. They must bomb, and they must do it now.

Related posts:

  1. Media perspectives on an Israeli preemptive strike
  2. Netanyahu is right, and Obama cannot be trusted
  3. What Is The Appropriate Response To Iranian Aggression?
  4. Mending Turkish-Israeli Relations Isn’t Simple
  5. Three Strikes Against a Three Strike Law

Posted in Phil
11 Comments Posted by Philip

11 Responses to "RE: Media perspectives on an Israeli preemptive strike"

  • Laurence says:
    March 14, 2012 at 12:09 am
    Reply

    You call accusations that an attack on Iran could result in a much bigger war than “simple bombing” (though I feel uncomfortable with giving bombing the monicker simple) as “unrealistic and most distasteful”. I’m not advocating the position that an attack would result in WWIII, but more just curious as to why you think this is such a crazy idea?

  • Philip says:
    March 14, 2012 at 12:24 am
    Reply

    I think its a crazy idea because the nature of the Iranian response can only be very limited. Iran does not have conventional capabilities that can match Israeli capabilities, as well as being far removed from the State of Israel physically. Thus it has to go unconventional.

    It could use ballistic missiles, but this would risk a cataclysmic response from the Israelis. Famously after Saddam Hussein launched missile attacks against Israel, he was informed through intermediaries that a sustained campaign would provoke a response of ‘Biblical proportions’. He quickly stopped. I don’t find it likely that the Iranians would risk that.

    The other option for Iran is persuading its terrorist proxies to attack Israel, as well as carrying out terrorist attacks itself on Israeli and Jewish targets. This is the likely Iranian response. While these attacks will likely cause loss of life, and undermine Israeli security, it is unlikely to develop into a wider regional conflict.

    Iran does not have any friends at the moment, certainly not any that will fight with it. The one it could rely on was Syria, which is crumbling and collapsing in its civil war. There is no appetite or capacity from the Iranians to make this a wider, more general conflict, because if they do it will lead to their greatest humiliation on the battle field in their history.

    They cannot beat the Israelis, so they won’t try.

  • Stephen says:
    March 14, 2012 at 12:44 am
    Reply

    As a quick response to this, I’d like to point out that my article made almost no claim regarding a media “consensus” on the preemptive strike issue. On the contrary, I was trying to point out that it’s really unclear if there is a bias, despite some people’s claims. I apologize if that’s not clear in the article.

    On a further point, I will bring this into a separate issue: you CANNOT claim that your “facts” are, as you say, “not in dispute.” This is a mislabeling of your information, and is an example of irresponsible journalism. I agree wholeheartedly that there are plenty of good cases of Iranian aggression, as well as good arguments for a preemptive strike. Ignoring the counterpoints to your “facts” seems like a fingers-in-your-ears “I can’t hear you” type of argument, and it does not help your case.

    As for the actual counterpoints:
    Iran is the largest sponsor of terrorism: (Citation needed?) That seems like a murky statistic at best, a subjective guess at worst. Many would claim that the US is the largest supporter of terrorist tactics due to its use of predator drones. In fact, Iran has NEVER invaded Canada, Mexico, Cuba, or any other country near the US. Can the US make the reciprocal claim?

    Iranian leaders have called for Israeli destruction: This is very nearly objectively false. I point you to politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-iran-has-threatended-launch-/
    I accept the full reality of Iranian idiocy and possible hostility, but claiming there is “no dispute” is untrue.

    I’m sure you don’t need a lecture, and certainly not from me. Modern journalism is moving away from the policy of “equal time to equal sides” and more towards the policy of objective reporting, Politifact style. (See changed NPR style guide for example.) An opinion piece obviously only seeks to display the merits of one argument. However, an argument cannot and should not be made by ignoring its flaws, but rather should concern itself with the whole truth.

    • David says:
      March 14, 2012 at 11:31 am
      Reply

      Iran is the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism – source: Department of State (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8028064.stm). If you want to go into the argument of “terrorism” versus “freedom fighters,” so be it, but by American standards of terrorism Iran is the worst of the worst. Also, when you discuss invading other countries, make sure to distinguish between imperialism and terrorism, between unwanted intervention and terrorism, etc.

      Iran has called for the “Zionist regime” to be destroyed. Unless you believe Iran is referring to some other state or entity as the “Zionist regime,” then I’m not sure how Iran hasn’t called for Israel’s destruction. If somebody says they want to kill you and they actively try to build the weapons necessary to kill you, I suggest you take them at their word.

      I think this is a really interesting post, from a slightly different (public relations, rather than mainstream media) perspective than Stephen’s. Very well written. I do disagree with the last two sentences, based on my limited knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program. There is a good Washington Post piece I suggest you read (entitled “Will Iran Be Obama’s Cuban Missile Crisis?”). It discusses how Kennedy was faced with two intolerable options regarding Cuba, so he found a very challenging and imperfect way to invent a third option, enabling him to resolve the conflict without (much) military action. Perhaps that is a possibility with Iran’s nuclear program. Perhaps it’s not and a preemptive strike is necessary though… I really don’t know.

  • Laurence says:
    March 14, 2012 at 12:46 am
    Reply

    It sounds like your presumptions all assume an Iran that is more concerned with its own safety than with its principles. I think some might argue that Iran will disregard its own safety if it feels its sovereignty is challenged by a people they deem evil. In this way, they might operate and think differently from a Saddam Hussein. What do you think of this line of thought?

    • David says:
      March 14, 2012 at 11:33 am
      Reply

      This is a really interesting point, Laurence. Phil, it seems in that argument that you are assuming an Iranian rationality that many supporters of a preemptive strike argue doesn’t exist.

      If I may add one more question to Laurence’s comment, “Do you believe Iran is a rational actor (in the international relations sense)?”

  • Stephen says:
    March 14, 2012 at 12:50 am
    Reply

    And while I’m still arguing the actual points of an Israeli preemptive strike, I’ll defend my previous position against your points made above in your comment:

    You specifically pointed out that Iran would not want to risk attacking Israel, especially considering historical precedent and Israel’s military capabilities. What makes you consider Iran a threat, then, and why is a preemptive strike then necessary?

    I would also be interested to hear your citation for the use of ballistic missiles, since all sources I’ve read have acknowledged that Iran does not have such capabilities.

    You said specifically that Iran has terrorist proxies. Once again, citation needed. It couldn’t be allied states, since you yourself claim later that Iran has none. Israel has possibly the best developed espionage and counter-terrorist force in the world, and would respond quite quickly and easily to threats of state-sponsored terrorism if it were a threat. (Which again, I find difficult to believe)

    You conclude your comment by saying that Iran won’t attack Israel. Why, then are you proposing that Israel preemptively strike Iran? For fun?

    • David says:
      March 14, 2012 at 11:46 am
      Reply

      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qFjXH6L9p0w/Tjt5HqxeUgI/AAAAAAAADbU/K354597LjOA/s1600/Iran+Missiles2.jpg Iran has a pretty scary missile arsenal already. However, if you’re discussing ICBM’s for the purpose of carrying a nuclear warhead, I wouldn’t doubt for a moment that if Iran can develop a nuclear warhead it can find a few ICBM’s to launch them.

      I think very few people will dispute that Iran actively supports terrorism. I’d like to see some sources supporting that argument if you can find any. Iran supports Hizbullah and Hamas to great extents. The al-Assad regime is an Iranian proxy; however, it is currently preoccupied massacring its own people and preventing democracy from taking hold. Iran has supported insurgencies in Iraq, which not only kill Americans, but also destabilize the Iraqi government. I could go on…

      The case for a preemptive strike is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran could provoke a MENA nuclear arms race, beginning in the Gulf. It represents an existential risk for Israel, and a grave risk for the rest of the world. It’s worth noting that Israeli preemptive strikes have had a very successful track record. Conversely, the US has dropped the ball on intelligence (at least to some extent) with North Korean, Indian, Pakistani, and other nuclear developments. Public discourse – like between Meir Dagan and the Netanyahu Administration – is commonplace in Israel. Again, I don’t know whether a preemptive strike right now is necessary. I do respect the opinions of Meir Dagan, as I do those of Ehud Barak. It’s really a tough question, which is why I like the examination of the media analysis as a different perspective on the issue.

  • Philip says:
    March 14, 2012 at 7:51 pm
    Reply

    Wow, sorry to only be getting back to you all now, thanks for the many interesting and engaging comments.

    I feel like David has done a lot of the explaining for me (thanks buddy!). I am surprised to be questioned on Iran as the number one sponsor of terrorism, it was my understanding this was relatively common knowledge. I would add to David’s list their funding of militants in Afghanistan, but Hezbollah remains the most commonly cited example.

    I am afraid that calling the Israeli a ‘cancerous tumour’ that must be ‘removed’ is to me relatively black and white. It isn’t the only example of Iranian leaders making such comments and I fear it will not be the last, again not something that is usually disputed.

    I don’t understand the criticism of my four facts, (that statement, done for dramatic effect ONLY refers to the bullet points), they are all clearly accurate. Assuming you accept the rebuttal offered by David and I regarding the first two, the third and fourth are quite clearly accurate too. See 1979 and 2012 with the US and UK Embassies respectively, and the two most recent IAEA reports.

    I am well prepared to acknowledge and respectfully disagree with the arguments against my general argument. My argument however is the opinion I form after recognising the bullet points. The rest is my opinion, not necessarily the Gospel truth (though I hate to admit it!).

    Regarding the points raised by Laurence/David on Iran as a rational actor I think it is a complicated answer. There are aspects of rationality (in so far as self-preservation) and irrationality in the Iranian regime.

    I believe that with nuclear capability the Iranians represent an existential threat to the survival of the State of Israel. I take this position from their numerous public statements to that effect, their support for groups who currently seek to destroy Israel, and their failure to comply with international obligations relating to the potential development of nuclear weapons. I believe that Iran could possibly use the bomb on Israel if it had it, or radical elements who took control (even more radical than the current lot) could take control of it. It could also extend a nuclear umbrella defence to the proxies of Iran in Lebanon. If the Israelis take out the threat before the maximum insurance policy is developed, then the Iranians will not have public backing (through nuclear-inspired confidence) to carry out a protracted war against Israel.

    Above all, the Iranians have no carriers, no long distance air force, and a massive distance exists between them and the Israelis. How on earth can they engage in a ground war against the Israelis and hope not to be defeated? They cannot.

    That is they will rely on an unconventional response, in my opinion.

    The best way to describe the Iranian regime is violent, irrational, and fundamentally concerned with its own preservation. If you were the Israelis, would you wait to find out which was the strongest motivation that day?

  • Anonymous says:
    March 14, 2012 at 9:11 pm
    Reply

    Thank you David, for the sources, I’ll accept the points as facts- Iran sponsors terrorism, has the will to destroy Israel, and has ballistic capabilities.

    Even with those in mind, I still consider the gulf between will and intent to be massive, certainly massive enough to preclude immediate action. Not only is Iran currently not capable of nuclear warfare, it would have to be SO irrational as to entirely sacrifice its own self-preservation in order to attempt an attack on Israel.

    I could draw comparisons here to North Korea- North Korea has shown in the past that it has weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and chemical, with an enormous degree of irrationality and will to destroy others. However, to think that North Korea would ever use such weapons (considering the implications of using them) is ridiculous.

    To convince me that a nuclear Iran is a truly serious threat to Israel, one would first have to demonstrate that Iran is so irrational as to disregard its own safety in order to bring about Israeli destruction. This would be a hard case to make, especially after Meir Dagan’s claim that they do have some rational sense.

  • Philip says:
    March 15, 2012 at 1:02 pm
    Reply

    I don’t think it is fair to say North Korea is as crazy as Iran, though they probably run them fairly close. With Iran they believe their political process and everyday political decisions are ordained by G-d through their Ayatollah. At least with North Korea it is just hereditary Stalinism…

    The extent to which the North Korea analogy is useful is how the North can now behave towards the South. Whenever they feel like it they shell South Korean towns or military positions, causing damage and loss of life. Sometimes they just sink a ship. The ability of the South to respond is hugely reduced because they know in the escalation they are dealing with a regime that just might pull the trigger on a nuclear weapon. The North having a nuclear weapon provides a nuclear umbrella that prevents people from being able to attack them. There is a reason it is called the ultimate insurance policy.

    Even if you don’t accept the Iranians might use the weapon aggressively against Israel, the extension of a nuclear umbrella from Tehran across its terrorist allies represents a simply unacceptable threat to Israeli, or for that matter US, capacity to respond to attack.

Leave a Comment