Posted by The Crux |
U.S. Allies are "concerned" about President Bush's increased pressure on Iran (Washington Post-1).Wednesday, the Bush Administration said that it may label Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (a 125,000 member military force) as a "terrorist group," so the Administration can interfere with the RGC's funding ( Washington Post-2).
Aside from crashing borders or dropping bombs, I can't think of a more provocative gesture against another nation. Given that I'm not a high-ranking military official, I'm not in a position to know whether Iran deserves U.S. hostility -- and neither are most journalists.
The key question is whether the Iranian government is arming our enemies (as opposed to some people living in Iran). This is an important distinction: some of the 9/11 terrorists lived in the U.S while planning the attack, but that doesn't mean that the U.S. government was in on it.
Unfortunately, the media isn't making clear distinctions and doesn't seem to be questioning the Administration's statemetns. In Wednesday's WaPo article, for example, writer Robin Wright refers to the U.S.'s toughening its stance not against the Iranian government but against "Tehran" (Iran's capital city). Ms. Wright also did this in a June 21 Post article, when unquestioningly stating as fact that "Tehran" was arming insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Incidentally, Wright's website may shed light on why she writes about Iran as she does.
A February Post article cited Joint Chiefs Chairman General Peter Pace a saying there was no evidence that the Iranian government was arming terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'd like to be able to believe the Bush Administration's assessments (because they could be accurate), but information is only as reliable as its source.
Unfortunately, the Administration cast doubt on its own credibility by mishandling, ignoring or twisting information to build its case to invade Iraq. Members of the press should remember this when reporting on the Iran situation.
Comments