By Steve Hues, Researcher, Professor of History
A first glance at Salon’s Home page, September 24 – “war room” – misleadingly lead me believe that I have clicked on a wrong link for the “Fars News Agency” run by affiliates of the notorious Iranian revolutionary Guards.
The above statement may seem over-exaggerated and odd since neither the vocabulary nor the writers are the same. Nevertheless, I managed to relieve the shock by explaining to myself that the site management is being mislead and misused by the “NIAC” and Co-ops.
The past week has been one of a continuous “tornado” of unraveling events for journalists or analysts in a variety of political subjects that have historical attributes and are determining for the world.
The Palestinian battle for “Statehood;” the Syrian peoples’ striving to topple the dictator; the Egyptian youth new round of protests over a concerning rift in their revolution; the new Libyan flag hoisted at the UN; the MEK resistance trying to sway slander in a court file to defeat the FTO list and the worldly attention over Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s controversial presence at the UN General Assembly with his repetitious hate speech against world order and law.
While the world is appalled at having Iran’s despicable appointed president Ahmadinejad at the UN, the Salon.com article’s tone is in favor of the Ayatollahs of Iran.
The writers involved and the content of the page used a ‘Mise-en-scene’ style which would insert a conclusion: The Iranian Ayatollahs are not what they seem to be.
The pundits even go further than providing the “big bad wolf” a legitimate mask by promulgating a sense of division and feud between the parties involved. (In this case the Republicans and Democrats who have a difference of opinion over the failed Iranian Policy)
Overplaying of lobbying on behalf of the site is where Trita Paris – Known by Iranian Diaspora outside and Inside Iran as the hired “beaurocratic thug” of the Iranian Mullahs, strikes the US president through the “Republican stick” only hard enough to make sure the message is sent off:
“Appease the Mullahs and do not engage in a firm policy.”
In the article Flawed poll hypes threat of Iran written by J.Elliot, the writer defends the Iranian Mullahs’ prestige and writes that the poll organized in Politico unjustly asserts that “Americans view Iran as the country that poses the biggest threat to the United States,” “probably trying to make an issue of President Obama’s supposed weakness on Iran.”
The old tactic of smearing the source to juxtapose one’s delusions and apprehensions used by J. Elliot may work for some, but since the deduction leads one to believe the opposite – that the butchers in Iran with a historic involvement in State sponsored terrorism, meddling in Lebanon, Iraq and recently the Middle East, hostage taking, killing of Americans, and being the established God father of terrorism in the region, is not as bad as the faked polls are portraying.
Unfortunately Mr. Elliot has missed the mark.
Unlike his deduction, anyone displaying any form of repulsion towards such a regime, is not weak at all but should be rewarded.
Protests and deepening infighting and clashes and wilting away of the Iranian Supreme leadership influence and rank in itself, is proof that the one who is week is Tehran and not the US President, and therefore the excuse does not work in this case.
The next in line of the articles is one written by A. Dariani “reporting from Iran“!
For anyone having at least a onetime experience of genuine reporting from Iran, it is almost impossible to carry out a hundred percent ‘untouched’ piece, under the spotlight of Islamic Republic of Iran’s multimillion controlled censorship, without playing a tune for Tehran first. It is no wonder that the story coming out by the former has a tint of sympathy for Tehran:
The “Street theatre” shunned by US former Ambassador at the UN Bolton, is prized and the most hated president, Ahmadinejad, gets the credit for the “bail-out” by Dariani;
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was first to mention last week that the Americans could be released”.
The reality behind the bail-out has not gone unnoticed by the media during the past weeks.
The use of the “bail-out” by factions in Tehran to show-off “strength” for wilting supporters in Iran has no relevance to Ahmadinejad’s good will gesture.
Obviously until the end of the second article, the reader is lead to believe that “Iran” is somehow brutally being weighed down by extensive gossip about its potential threat to the rest of the world. This would obviously pour ice on the hottest reactions towards Ahmadinejad.
The same notion was created some weeks ago by NIAC, which is known for its close ties with Revolutionary Guards front Company Atieh Bahar, to portray the Mullahs as victims of the warmongering “Hawks” on Capitol Hill.
The third article in line has the glowing mark of “Iranian Intelligence” since it has been written by Trita Parsi a despised Iranian – American, known to many in Iran as “a traitor” titled : “The coming republican push on Iran.”
The “art of camouflage” taught by the Iranian intelligence and used for at least 15 years by its agents and affiliate is well styled in his article.
At first glance, words and expressions are used to debunk the Iranian president, but later – and clumsily – boost support for the tyrants in Iran.
Tactics are centered to incite division among Republicans and the Democrats. He even goes further to instigate a reaction by the Whitehouse through projecting a weak point by President Obama:
“On Iran, however, there is unity. The Republican remedy is simply to up the ante and get tougher – no matter what. Whatever hawkish line Obama adopts, the Republicans will find a way to ‘out hawk’ him”.
It is widely known that “anti-sanction” content are characteristics of Iranian government run lobbies and fronts.
In this article, the mullahs’ spokesperson Trita Parsi, again proves well that he is still intent on deluding US State Department policy while at the same time indulging in a pressure campaign on the Whitehouse to retract “sanctions.”
The author who used to get his line of conduct from the Iranian Ambassador *, digs deep into differences over US policy on Iran trying to instigate more confrontation, and writes:
“part of the reason Obama’s engagement with Iran was so short-lived (beyond all the challenges the Iranians themselves presented) was the pressure he faced early on from the Democrat-controlled Congress to abandon diplomacy and pursue sanctions.”
He then balances his one sided argument that might give him away by asserting that the Iranian regime is bad after all :
“much of it was a reaction to the Iranian government’s brutal human rights abuses following the 2009 election debacle.”
Parsi at one point undermines the US president’s robust decision making and digs into differences which usually appear in any administration;
“The Republicans believe that Iran provides an opportunity to portray Obama as weak. Glossing over the many differences between Iran, on the one hand, and Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Libya on the other, the Republicans will accuse Obama of abandoning the Iranian people by not taking sides in the 2009 election dispute.”
All the glamorous comment above is to juxtapose the following message:
“President Obama can be tricked and should not listen to facts!”
In this way, he is portraying the US president as “Weak” in order to irritate sentiments and deliver them on to a more lenient policy towards the butchers in Iran.
Parsi who is famous in voicing the hardliners in Iran finally spits out his true ‘mandate’ which has always been at the forefront of his indiscriminate lobbying:
“Appease the Butchers in Iran for Pete’s sake”.
The Iranian mullahs’ spokesperson this time is trying to display a more low profile image of “defending the mullahs in Iran” by using the “per se” of Republican analysts to implement the Islamic Republic of Iran’s needs and writes :
“Republicans will present a narrative that states that diplomacy was tried and failed, sanctions are tough but insufficient, and the only remaining option is some form of military action. Yet, Obama has been too weak to pursue that option. According to this (false) narrative, the president’s weakness jeopardizes not only American interests, but also the security of Israel. This narrative, it must be noted, is not so much to provoke military action but to portray Obama as too weak to order it.”
In simple words: Iran is using disputes over US policy towards Iran in Congress and the Whitehouse to show the US President weak and irritate a wave of reaction that would serve the Clerical regime.
The role Tehran pundits play by attributed articles should make Salon.com more aware of being used by Tehran.
This undermines all credibility of journalistic ethics and principles and hence Salon.com credibility and authenticity