Iran: A Threat Ignored

In the dispute between the US and Iran it seems that the international community has shown little or no decisiveness. Iran has stated its dangerous intentions time and again yet most of the media seems too busy, too comfortable, and perhaps too confused to ask the hard questions regarding Iran. President Ahmedinajad has written an open letter to President Bush threatening, or at least claiming, that Islam will replace democracy. No media outlet or any leader at the UN has asked Iran’s leader to comment on this or other threats, comments or visions.

President Ahmadinajad stated that when he visited the UN he had a vision in which he saw a light, and all the world leaders “did not blink” for 27 minutes while he delivered his message. It would have been reasonable, if not a duty, for media outlets to publish such statements and perhaps ask some explanations about the light Mr. Ahamdinajad saw. Especially since the light he saw might one day turn into a nuclear explosion. It is no secret that the Iranian leader believes in bringing on the end of times so as to hasten the return of the Twelfth Imam – in his latest speech at the UN he stated openly his prayer for the “return of the most perfect one”. Yet the media never asked Iran‘s leader about his visions. No leader or media personality asked him if he subscribes to Khomeini’s doctrine, which dictates the destruction of the Western world.

Given the belligerent position of Iran, it is worthwhile exploring why the media pays little or no attention to the philosophy that drives Iran’s leadership especially in the dispute over nuclear technology. There is no doubt that the ambitions of the leading mullahs and of Ahmedinajad will not stop without taking a shot at attaining some degree of world power — they stated this repeatedly and in no uncertain terms. Since the Mullahs have little or no chance in conventional warfare to conquer or at least terrorize the Middle East the nuclear option is certainly a highly probable scenario.

In light of these realities the inevitable question arises: why is the media reluctant to present the philosophy behind Iran‘s ambitions? The explanation is most likely twofold. First the Iranian leadership is successfully outmaneuvering the media by always claiming that it has the right to peaceful nuclear technology, that it wants peace, and that the US is an aggressor. Secondly the Iranian leadership, by mounting an intensive attack on what it calls “Zionist regime”, it has succeeded in neutralizing the Arab world and even to bring it to its side.

There are other reasons that can explain the reluctance of the western media to present a more critical view of Iran. Perhaps the most influencing factor is the concept that permeates the public psyche in our times. This might be summarized, simply as might-is-wrong. Therefore the dispute with Iran is reduced to a friction between the mighty US versus weaker Iran where the US is trying to impose its will on a weaker country.

The tendency of the public opinion is to root for the weak first and ask questions later.  A complicated conflict is often judged by the unspoken motto: the strong is wrong and the weak is right. This tendency can be noticed when rockets are sent from Gaza to Israel. Somehow the shelling of Gaza by Israel receives the vast majority of the coverage. The fact that this is in response to unprovoked rockets fired from Gaza terrorizing Israeli towns is hardly mentioned. Often the BBC never mentions the Kasam rockets at all. In this scenario the mighty Israel is presumed to be in the wrong versus the weaker Palestinians.  

Most of the more sophisticated media outlets tend to be influenced by the might-is-wrong motto even while insisting on presenting the events without taking sides. A simple example, outside the Middle East conflict, can be noticed with issues such as the Immigration debate in the US. The issue is often referred to as Immigrants Rights when the true issue is really Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants – legal immigrants have no relation whatsoever to the debate yet they are bundled together with the illegals. Is the word illegal omitted from Immigrants Rights by mistake or by a tendency to root for the weak? It seems that the instinct of the media is to favor the helpless (illegal) immigrants facing the all-powerful US government.

The more powerful an institution or a government is, or appears to be, the more likely to be perceived as the wrong, or unjust party in a dispute. Perhaps the media might do more justice to the illegal immigrants by labeling their plight by its complete name. In the same light the media might do more justice to the dispute with Iran by presenting the complete reasons which make a nuclear Iran dangerous.

Whether the media itself is biased towards the seemingly weaker side or it is the public that is looking for news where a weaker side is being imposed on by a stronger side, the list of biased reporting is longer than it seems. In other words it is the stories where the stronger side can be blamed for being unjust, that make the most savored news material. Should the media have a greater responsibility in informing the public that it may be facing a situation not unlike in the decades prior to WWII?

The Arab and Muslim world has experienced immense population growth, far greater than its economic growth. As a result millions of young unemployed are suffering. Thus far the main outlet for this suffering seems to be hatred and blame. It would be beneficial and constructive for populations both in the West and in the Arab and Muslim world to discuss the significance of high population growth combined with low education and limited economic growth. In the Arab and Muslim world the failures of the states and the economies is blamed on the West instead of demographics and lack of investment. The belief that the West is the cause of the misery and poverty in Muslim countries is so widespread that it might have reached a point of no return. 

The same economic insecurity and misplaced sense of injustice reigned over Nazi Germany in the years prior to WWII. In today’s scenario megalomaniacs like Mahmud Ahmedinajad and Hugo Chavez are craving to capture the vacuum of discontent in order to elevate themselves to the irresistible pinnacles of world power. Hitler made the same efforts to stir his people to fury against what he called the slaughter of Germans in Poland and in Czechoslovakia and the conspiracies of the Jews and the West. This was the fuel needed to move the German people and others into the belligerent state Hitler coveted.

The same script is played out today with propaganda about Muslims being “slaughtered” in Iraq and in Palestine. Often the Arab leaders talk about Islam being under attack and Muslims abused all over the world. Yet the same enraged Islamic leaders seem to have no problem with Muslims slaughtering one another in Iraq or the genocide in Darfour. In the minds of those who fall for the propaganda of Islamic Fundamentalists it is the Americans who commit slaughter.  The fact that it is in the US’ greatest interest to bring security and prosperity to Iraq is of no consequence to dictatorial logic.

The vicious attacks of Ahmadinajad against Israel are not random, nor coincidental when compared to the WWII scenario. By vilifying the Jews the Iranian dictator creates the environment of fear and hate which all dictators need to instill in the public before starting a war. Ahmadinajad deceives the media about his anti-Semitism, or more correctly anti-Jewish feelings by referring to the Jews as Zionists.

Ahmadinajad and others may or may not know that Zion to Jews is the same asMecca to Muslims. To be a Zionist is really not much different than for a Moslem to adhere to the belief that Mecca is the spiritual center of Muslims. A reporter may ask the Iranian dictator if Muslims have more right to claiming Mecca as their religious center then Jews have to claiming Mount Zion in Jerusalem.  Ahmadinajad demands the deportation of the Jews from Israel "back" to Europe. An interviewer may also ask: should the Jews who came from the Arab world (and Persia) – about half of the Jews in Israel – also be sent to Europe? These and other crucial questions fail to be brought to light to confront the dictator of Iran.  Thus far he has the upper hand simply because there are no responses to his vicious attacks. 

Ahmadinajad is currently conducting psychological warfare which is usually the precursor to actual war. Sadly there is no counter offensive to these attacks. The Israelis themselves have no eloquent leaders to speak up at the UN. Nor does the US have leaders to confront the attacks that vilify American society and democracy. Perhaps if Reagan did not take on the Soviet regime with courage and articulate language the Cold War might not have ended as it did. I rather believe that the ex-communist countries would look today more like North Korea. The dictatorships and the terror would have most likely continued until an outside force would intervene. A revolution would have been no more likely than in Cuba, Korea, Iraq or Iran.

Thus far the media and the leadership of the West are failing to take on the threat from Iran. The apathy of the media and provides the greatest, albeit unintended, contribution Iran‘s ambitions. Iran’s leaders stated clearly their visions of warfare against the West and their dedication to replace democracy with Islam – and by Islam they mean power for themselves. Iran’s president spelled it out to President Bush. Yet there was little outrage about what actually was a declaration of war. Instead Iran continues to be a full member at the UN, it participates in the World Cup and has relations and embassies in all western countries except the US.

Would the world be different today if countries refused to go to the Berlin Olympics before WWII, if leaders of the democratic world called Hitler a deceiving demagogue instead of negotiating with him and making countless concessions? Would the course of events have been less tragic if the media presented Nazism as a frenzy of mass hysteria and narcissism well before WWII started? Was the media also striving to be objective when it reported, or failed to report, Hitler’s belligerent intentions and grand plans spelled out in his Mein Kampf? Will the scenario of WWII repeat itself in the coming years with Iran making alliances with similar regimes, as it already does with Syria and the Hizballah in Lebannon?

If the current tendencies continue countries like Pakistan, as well as Central Asian countries might be overtaken by likeminded Islamist regimes. The same applies to African countries where Sudan and Somalia are taken or about to be taken. There is the possibility that Hezbollah might rule over Lebanon and the domino could roll on as it once did over the map of Europe with countries overtaken by fascist regimes moving to Hitler’s side. This scenario seems far-fetched today but so did the events that brought WWII.