The Iranian Threat and the Media's Love of it

The announcement of Iran's second uranium enrichment plant seems to have the western media in a frenzy over Tehran's alleged plans to build an atomic bomb. But how founded are these claims? Just two weeks ago, a US state department employee said when questioned: "We have no concrete evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programme, the ambiguity is in the uranium enrichment which can be used for weaponry... eventually."
The New York Times has been particularly biased about its coverage on the Iranian nuclear file. It blasts Tehran for its "deception" but fails to mention anything about Israel's mass nuclear weapon pile. Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and allows UN inspectors into its plants unlike Israel, which has still not signed the NPT and refuses to.
When is Israel going to get the same attention that Iran has with regards to its nuclear armaments? And when will the western press inform the world that Israel breaks international law everyday that it is not signed up to the NPT.
It's widely believed that Israel has up to 200 nuclear warheads, but continuously refuses to confirm or deny these claims. Chemical warfare is also used by the Israeli army, evidence of white phosphor bombs dropped on Gaza in January this year was aired live on television channels as they were deployed for the world to see.
Pakistan is also a neighbour to Iran, the two share a border, and has a nuclear weapons programme. Is it so surprising that Iran may want to possess the same capability as its neighbours? Especially when it is isolated from the rest of the world and pushed into a place where the issue of Iran's sovereignty and protecting it at all costs has become part of a daily reality for most Iranians, even to the point where the Iranian people suffer from this type of policy.
Enrichment
The uranium enrichment and its purpose. Yes, uranium enrichment is the first step to a weapons programme, but let's look at the numbers and the report of the official UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). To produce atomic weapons, a 90% enrichment is needed. The IAEA say that Iran is currently enriching to levels of between 3 and 5%. Are we now to believe that UN inspectors are wrong?
The IAEA even said in its report in February this year "With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran." The watchdog also said in that report Iran's enrichment programme had slowed down.
The problem here seems that those who write about Iran's nuclear programme by quoting a group of western leaders at the UN general assembly, don't have enough technical knowledge of what it takes to actually build a nuclear  weapon. Is this a new prelude for war that the media are now promoting, not unlike the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam was said to have a mobile bio-weapons factory that was stored in trucks and moved around to out smart UN weapons inspectors. Unfortunately a lack of technical knowledge by the media lead support for the war as the scare mongering took control of most newsrooms in the US. It was a US news channel that first stood in front of a truck in Iraq and claimed that it was the bio-warfare mobile unit. Later it was discovered that it was just a truck used for seed distribution for Iraq's agriculture.
Disarmament
While the news that a new weapons treaty for disarmament will be worked out between Russia and the US in the coming months came as good news to many - Russia and the US own almost 90% of the world's nuclear arms stock pile - why is it that the western media didn't do more to promote disarmament of other nuclear armed countries. Surely the media should pressure and promote all disarmament without discrimination. A nuclear free world will benefit everyone's security.
The New York Times on Saturday 26th of September states with regards to the new plant quoting an Obama aid:  "Its location, deep inside an Iranian Revolutionary Guards base about 20 miles from the religious center of Qum, strongly suggested it was designed for covert use in weapons."
Why should it surprise anyone that a nuclear site would be built in a secure place? And why is that being built close to "the religious centre of Qum" makes it all of a sudden a danger.  This type of language will only infuriate Muslims as it is laced with religious connotations which pits this as an ideological plot.
Iran reported the new plant to the IAEA on September 21st, which Tehran says is inline with the NPT. So was it a coincidence that this news broke while world leaders were chairing a UN-security council meeting in New York on September 25th - four days later.  And why did it take the media 5 days to report the news of a new enrichment plant?
The reports that are circulating in the western press, are leading with the rhetoric of their leaders. Isn't it time that these newsrooms question this game play, perhaps if they had asked more questions the war on Iraq could have been prevented. And if the US really had wanted to take out Saddam they would have been forced to do it in a much cleaner fashion perhaps with one of their many state of the art real time intelligence "predators" which scan the skies and are able to so aptly find their targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern Iraq.
 
When will the media wake up to these games. Or have we really become the slaves of our leaders? As George Orwel said: "ignorance is strength". This is a worrying point we have reached.

Let's hope that the upcoming meeting between the P5+1 in Geneva diffuses the tensions and paves the way for some serious negotiations that may end this cold war mentality.