MSM wants the spotlight on Iran

Documentary: IRAN (Is Not The Problem)

Ten years later and it still makes sense....

"We have heard that Iran is a nuclear menace in defiance of the international community, bent on "wiping Israel off the map", supporting terrorism, and unwilling to negotiate. This documentary disputes these claims as they are presented to us and puts them in the context of present and historical US imperialism and hypocrisy with respect to Iran. It looks at the struggle for democracy inside Iran, the consequences of the current escalation and the potential US and/or Israeli attack, and suggests some alternatives to consider."

Aleppo and the war on the right to know

Article published in Katoikos

Reporting in times of war reveals both the magnitude and the weakness of journalism. © Khalid Albaih

The ravaged battleground that replaced the once cosmopolitan city of Aleppo is at the centre of a major war of information and disinformation.

Biased journalism: a look at the media coverage of Aleppo

Over the past weeks Aleppo has been worldwide news after the Syrian Army regained control of the city, home to thousands of besieged civilians. The media coverage of this case has been quite diverse, so it deserves particular attention, avoiding excessive reliance on the mainstream Western media.

A quick anthology of Western reporting from Aleppo: The Guardian reported atrocities perpetrated by Assad forces within “moments” of retaking the city. CNN reported that “the regime and Russia — its most powerful ally — decimated neighbourhoods with airstrikes, leaving scorched earth where a bustling metropolis once stood”. The American news channel further stated that “those who remain in the city fear reprisals from Assad forces”.

While the West’s big hitters seem to be flooding the news with atrocities committed in Aleppo, the media outlet RT, formerly called Russia Today, has been sharing videos and images of Syrians celebrating on the streets after reporting that the Syrian army had retaken Eastern Aleppo.

Admittedly, I have not found any international news channel outside Russia reporting that civilians were returning to their normal lives in liberated and ruined Eastern Aleppo. It is, of course, unsurprising that RT should broadcast expressions of support by the Syrian people for Bashar al-Assad; the question here is why the Western mainstream media, which claim to provide objective reporting, chose to sweep out such politically significant social behaviour, even if it characterises only part of the Syrian population.

How can the two sides of the international media broadcast such different images from one reality on the ground?

Through “enemy” eyes

Ilya Yabolok authored the academic article Conspiracy Theories as a Russian Public Diplomacy Tool: The Case of Russia Today (RT) where he defends the claim that RT’s news agenda is aimed at counterbalancing the “information monopoly” of Western media. He explains that the main goal of its journalists is to “find the news that would be ignored by the so-called ‘mainstream media’ and bring it to viewers’ attention”.

Yabolok further claims that the Russian channel challenges “an elitist aspect of American politics through populist ideas”, vocalised by experts and show hosts; real people with real ideas that are often overlooked in the search for a balanced analysis of certain subjects.

Founded in 2013 by Jason Bassler and Matt Agorist, the Free Thought Project, a hub for “conversations about the promotion of liberty and the daunting task of government accountability”, delivered a compilation of reportedly fake news about the liberation of Aleppo. Patrick Henningsen and Shawn Helton characterised the Western media’s reporting of the Syrian government retake of Eastern Aleppo as “inverted coverage”.

Examining the terrain where journalism faces its biggest challenges will be crucial to determining the veracity of the reporting.

Vanessa Beeley, a British independent journalist based in Syria, who has been actively contesting the mainstream media, is reporting from the ground in the war-torn city of Aleppo. She denounced “the lies of the Western media”, particularly with regard to the White Helmets. This volunteer rescue NGO supposedly acts “neutrally, impartially and for all Syrians”. It was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and was awarded the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’.

Independent journalists have been speaking out against the Western's media coverage of the war in Aleppo, Syria. © Honest Reporting

Beeley has accused the NGO of being “no more than a support network for Al Nusra Front and associated extremist terrorist groups […] carrying out criminal acts alongside the recognised US coalition armed and funded terrorist factions”.

Further research on this topic has revealed that the White Helmets have been funded “to the tune of over $100 million [by] the UK and the US alone” and that these resources are channelled through a Dutch NGO registered as Mayday Rescue.

The 21st Century Wire media outlet – “news for the waking generation” – has denounced the work of the White Helmets, claiming they have “rescued the same girl three times in three months” and that “none of [the White Helmet] claims can be independently verified”.

Eva Bartlett, a Canadian independent journalist, delivered an interesting and rather marginalised speech during a press conference at the United Nations in December 2016. Having visited Syria several times during the war herself, she condemned the non-existence of Western broadcast news reporting from the ground in Aleppo and found it astonishing that the mainstream media in the West had created a deceptive image of the liberation of Eastern Aleppo.

Diplomatic accusations and geopolitics in Syria

Speaking at the United Nations Security Council on 14 December 2016, the US Ambassador Samantha Power accused the Assad government of “conquest and carnage” in Aleppo, rhetorically asking the Syrian government whether they were ashamed of their actions.

Her Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin retorted by reproaching the power of cynicism, indirectly alluding to the wars waged by the US. “The speech by the US representative is particularly strange to me; she gave her speech as if she was Mother Teresa herself. Please, remember the track record of your country,” Churkin said.

Since Russia’s decision to intervene militarily in Syria in support of Assad’s forces, the US has vehemently condemned its presence in the country and the blame-game of “who bombed who” has become routine. Yet, it seems difficult for the American government to accept the fact that Russia and Iran are effectively combating the rebels in Syria, many of whom belong to terrorist organisations that the West too wants to bring to heel.

Mainstream media: a weapon of disinformation?

In his book The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, Daniel Estulin points out that “the world media are part of the global elite”. Estulin further states, “A free press is a myth because it is property of the powerful. Only when ownership is shared by many private citizens will a truly free press come about, based on our ‘right to know’.”

According to Estulin, the media act as a powerful tool to shape public opinion, while representing primarily the interests of the rich and influential. Here too, the problem is the concentration of ownership in a few powerful hands.

The mainstream media in the US are “very” dishonest, said Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, in a recent interview to Fox News.

© robinhoodrevival

The documentary film The War You Don’t See by the Australian journalist John Pilger denounces the ghastly circumstances in which the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Vietnam were carried out by the US and British governments and largely ignored by the Western media. The film is based on documented statements, which reveal the indisputable relationship between the media and the political sphere, particularly in periods marked by war.

In yet another documentary, entitled Orwell Rolls in his Grave, the American Robert Kane Pappas presents additional evidence that portrays the media as an “antidemocratic force in the United States”.

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the classic by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, provides a strong theoretical basis to the idea that the media, by their very nature, serve the ruling power. Applying the “Propaganda Model”, which is essentially a conceptual theoretical model explaining how propaganda and systemic biases function in mass media, the authors claim that the North American media are at the service of large corporations and the state.

In times of war there is a wide range of contradictions and they all have the same goal: to become part of the “reality of the media” by entering people’s houses and hence becoming part of their realities, shaping their opinions. The interests of the warring factions, the moral value of the reporters and the different strategies of media companies play a very important role in establishing different versions of the truth.

The media do not only report on military conflicts, they play a crucial and increasingly active role in them. The reporting on the military conflict in Syria reveals both the magnitude of the task for journalism in wartime and its structural weaknesses, if not its complete inability to get to grips with events in a fair and balanced manner.

Iran Nuclear Deal, a Win-Win Solution?

Article published in Cafebabel

Iran nuclear negotiations were tough but constructive. © European External Action Service

After ten years of negotiations, a historic nuclear deal has been sealed between six world powers (USA, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany) and the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the 14th of July. What’s behind this agreement? 

Despite all efforts, the agreement is still subject to long discussions as President Barack Obama’s words have indicated, “this agreement is not made in trust but in verification.” Iran will dismantle much of its nuclear infrastructure while the UN, US and EU will take down a range of sanctions that were imposed on Iran over the past nine years. 

Among the conditions determined by the agreement, Iran will: reduce its enrichment capacity by two thirds while closing its underground facility at Fordow for enriching uranium; Iran’s accumulation of low enriched uranium will be reduced by 96%; the core of the heavy water reactor in Arak will be removed and redesigned in a way that will not produce significant amounts of plutonium; Iran will allow a UN inspector to enter in certain places, such as military sites, should the inspectors have any doubts regarding Iran’s nuclear activity. Once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified that Iran has moved forward in order to reduce its programme, the UN, US and the EU will lift the sanctions. 

Reactions to the Nuclear Agreement 

In his declaration, Barack Obama has said that this was the best agreement in order to prevent Tehran developing a nuclear bomb. He also promised to veto any attempt of the Republicans who are opposing the nuclear deal. Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif defined the outcome of the negotiations as a “win-win” solution, though not perfect. 

As for Netanhyahu, he described the moment as a “bad mistake of historic proportions.” The Israeli President was clearly dissatisfied with the agreement and has even demanded the US Congress kill it. The sense of insecurity has grown in the Zionist country, as the hypothesis of the end of the Iranian sanctions might canalize billions of dollars to militant allies like Hezbollah and sectarian battles in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, is now on the table. 

On the European side, French President François Hollande has manifested optimism before this historic step but warned, “we must be extremely vigilant on what Iran will be.” Both Frans Timmermans and Federica Mogherini have shared words of optimism, congratulating the historic agreement and all the efforts involved. 

When did this all begin? 

Shortly after World War II, in 1953, an orchestrated plan from the CIA overthrew Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, in a coup that defeated a democratically elected Prime Minister. Mossadeq, just like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002, had sought to nationalise Iran’s oil industry. The US didn’t like it. 

Later on, in 1979, the Iranian revolution began when the Shah of Iran, an American puppet called Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, was obliged to leave the country. This revolution happened following months of protests and strikes against his policies. Once Pahveli was exiled, Islamic religious leader Ayatollah Khomeni returned from exile. The Iranian people then voted a referendum and on the 1st of April the Islamic Republic of Iran was proclaimed. In 1979/1981 the US Embassy hostage crisis determined the loop of bad relations between the two countries that seemed not to have an end. After 444 days, the final 52 hostages were released. A few years later, in 1985/86, under Reagan administration, the US secretly shipped weapons to Iran in exchange for help in liberating America hostages taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as to illegally head off profits from these sales to the Contra rebels fighting to takeover the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. This ended up in a major political crisis for President Reagan. In 1988, an American warship shoots down an Iran Air flights in the Gulf, killing all people on board. The US claimed that the Iranian Airbus was mistaken for a fighter jet. 

After these consecutive attacks towards the Islamic Republic of Iran and its people, still, in 1997, Mohammad Khatami was elected President and has called for a dialogue with the American people, which never really happened. 

George Bush’s allegations towards Iran 

Nevertheless, the major accusation concerning Iran came in 2002, when president George Bush, in his State of the Union address, denounced Iran as part of an “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea. This claiming with no real evidence had full support from the mainstream media across the United States. Speculation had been implanted in the American citizens’ minds and Iran was set to be the next target. From 2002 onwards all nuclear fears and sanctions began, when an opposition group reveals that Iran was developing nuclear facilities including a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz as well as a reactor at Arak. Naturally, the US accused Iran of clandestinely developing a nuclear weapon programme, which Iran vehemently denied. 

More than a decade of talks and discontinuous attempts of engagement between Iran, the UN and the US, a big pack of sanctions over the nuclear issue was imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran, between 2006 and 2010, by the UN. The US and the EU have also imposed sanctions on Iran, extending its measures in 2012 to the financial sector. Bilateral sanctions were applied in several other countries. 

Ahmadinejad’s allegations towards the US 

In 2005, when Ahmadinejad was elected President, the relations between Iran and the West got worsen. During his speech at the UN in 2010, the former Iranian President claimed that most people believed the US government had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Since 2013, when Hassan Rouhani became Iranian President, the relationship between the West and his country turned a lot smoother. Thirty years later, an Iranian President held a phone call with the US head of state, Barack Obama. 

Conclusion 

Following a historic and political timeline of the US and Iran, the big winner of this agreement is the US. Iran will visibly win as well, primarily by expanding its financial sector through negotiations with external investors once the sanctions are lifted. Also, Iran represents the fourth largest oil reserves in the world. However, due to international sanctions, Iran’s ability to export became seriously restrained. If the nuclear agreement passes in the Congress and the sanctions are lifted, the country could increase its oil production by approximately 50% and consequently lower oil prices. 

But the main question remains: why was Iran submitted to sanctions in the first place? What legitimacy has a country like the US, or some other country with a history of invasions and plotting, to impose sanctions in a sovereign state? Real evidence was never found, just like in Iraq, but a single suspicions from the West, namely from the US, seems to be enough to dictate deals and agreements as if the other part had any choice. 

As I have mentioned in previous articles, I am totally against political and military interference in other states, be it directly or indirectly (via coup attempts). By sanctioning Iran, the UN, US and the EU kept on impoverishing the Islamic country, based on political fears. Iran is not being given anything new because much of its chance of generating wealth was taken away nine years ago, and yet the US, not directly, still wins the legitimate control of Iranian facilities. Nevertheless, this was indeed a memorable deal, considering the past relations between Iran and the West, and Iran’s geographical position in the world, as Iran has the capacity of fueling prosperity throughout the Middle East.

Are we living a new Cold War?

Article published in Cafebabel

Relationship between West and East are getting colder again. © Talk Android

As we follow the recent worldwide developments we can’t help but ask ourselves: is History repeating itself? We witness now the biggest tensions between the West and East since the Cold War. But the similarities have become even bigger, if we look at the other side of the Atlantic, as well as to the Middle East, with the United States sending troops to Iraq. 

The relationships between Russia and the West are freezing, with the European leaders condemning Putin’s order of sending tanks to Ukraine and his motionless stance. In fact, following the G20 Leaders’ Summit last weekend (15-16 November), in Brisbane, Australia, Putin was strongly criticised and once again, he turned his back away saying that he was going back to Moscow, “we have completed our business,” said Putin justifying his departure. 

Putin threats the United States 

A few weeks ago, Russian jets were seen and immediately intercepted over European airspace, raising doubts and suspicions about what Putin is up to. Later, four Russian warships entered international Australian waters, close to the northeast coast, immediately attracting three Australians warships to ascertain. The peak of this ideological war happened when President Putin condemned the United States and its meddling position as an international actor. The Russian President has clearly left a hostile message to the United States. “Is it the exceptionalism of the US its way of leadership beneficial for everyone? And its constant interference on the world’s affairs brings welfare, progress, democracy? Should we stand still and watch? I allow myself to say that it’s not like that. Not at all,” threatened Putin, during the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

If we put all the puzzle’s pieces together, we know that something very fishy is going on and that Putin’s speech was definitely a threat. The international community has been sanctioning Russia over the Ukrainian invasion led by Russian troops that began in March 2014. Putin’s desire to control the Eastern regions of Ukraine is so hefty, that is leading towards a new “iron curtain” which can have terrible repercussions for Europe and the world. 

European Reactions 

European leaders are not being mild towards Putin. In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron tried to adopt a more diplomatic way of approaching stubborn Putin by saying "if Russia takes a positive approach towards the Ukraine's freedom and responsibility, we could see those sanctions removed.” 

France is also in this amalgam. At stake is a Mistral-class assault warship retained by Holland’s government over concerns about Putin’s involvement in the situation in Ukraine. Russia has demanded the handover of the war machine by the end of November. 

Meanwhile, Russian Ilyushin transport plane was seen, once again, flying into international airspace in Estonia and Lithuania, without an official flight plan. They were intercepted by two Dutch F16 fighter jets. As a reaction to the growing military activity in Ukraine, Britain’s defense ministers, as well as the three Baltic States and four Nordic countries, have all agreed to enlarge intelligence and air force cooperation. 

Analogy with the past? 

Cold War Map. Jeroen Elfferich © Flickr 

This is not the end of this two-sided hostile and defensive history. Similar to the alliances created during the Cold War, strategical pacts are being made today, in the XXIth century. Strategical pacts or defensive alliances, the truth is that recently the United States has reinforced its partnership with China and Iran (yes, Iran). 

With China, Obama is about to make a deal concerning a trans-Pacific trade which would eliminate tariffs on goods and services and change labour regulations, government procurement, intellectual property, as well as environmental protections. "What we are seeing is momentum building around a Trans-Pacific Partnership that can spur greater economic growth, spur greater jobs growth, set high standards for trade and investment throughout the Asia-Pacific," said the US President. Moreover, the two world’s largest economies have agreed to grant visas to each other's citizens valid for up to a decade in a deal that aims to fortify business ties with China. 

Meanwhile, Iran and the US are getting closer to a historic nuclear deal, following Vienna talks, which could determine the end of 12 years of deadlock over Iran’s nuclear programme. However, this alliance is making too many waves, as France, one of the six nations involved in the negotiation (US, UK, Germany, Russia and China) is more opposed to nuclear concessions and Iran itself has said that the deal is possible but "excessive demands" by the west could derail chances of an agreement. 

Nevertheless, the US has already secured its alliance with China and relies on the European Union for any possible cooperation as well. If the deal with Iran won't be fruitful, then the scenario will be grey. Moreover, we should pay attention, once again, to America's moves in Iraq. Was Putin right on his condemning statement towards the meddlesome US?