Iran - the politics & media of brinkmanship

"Only by compromise will we be able to avoid the threat of war and global destabilisation"
- Professor Igor Panarin of the Diplomatic Academy in Russia’s Foreign Ministry

Relations between Iran and the West have been in a state of heightened tension since mid-2005, when Tehran decided to resume uranium enrichment after the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hard-line populist who has labelled Israel a “fake regime” which should not exist.

While favouring talks, US President George Bush has refused to rule out the use of force to make Iran give up its nuclear programme. Ahmadinejad has said Iran will "cut off the hand of any aggressor" and refused to rule out using oil as a weapon if the UN Security Council decides on sanctions over the nuclear issue.
Iran’s government declined an EAMF offer to be represented at the session, which opened with Richard Perle, a former chairman of the US Defense Policy Board and a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, calling Iran’s rulers a “reckless regime” and supporter of international terrorism.

He said Americans were concerned by an apparent relentless drive towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a regime that has been “reckless in the way it has described the use of military power, including threats to eliminate a member state of the United Nations” and has “repeatedly deceived” the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“It is fair to say that Iran is the single most active supporter of terrorism around the world, lavishing cash on terrorism…There are too many suicidal maniacs in the world,” added Perle, who emphasised he was not speaking for the US government.

Professor Igor Panarin, of the Diplomatic Academy in Russia’s Foreign Ministry, said: “The conflict around Iran is unfolding against a background of global confrontation between the US and China.
“There are different positions in the US, with some calling for an attack (on Iran) and others calling for talks. There is a huge difference of opinion. I am concerned about Iran producing a nuclear bomb but they (Iranian leaders) have reiterated they are not going to produce nuclear weapons.
“The guarantee of Israeli security, that is a key issue. Iranian and Israeli security should be guaranteed at the same time. Only by compromise will we be able to avoid the threat of war and global destabilisation,” Panarin said.

Siamak Namazi, managing director of AtiehBahar Consulting in Iran, said he saw the main problem as foreign media reporting of Iran, including a “false underlying assumption” that the country was an irrational player.

Namazi, who said he was speaking as an “independent”, added: “I question what most people outside Iran take for granted; that Iran wants a nuclear weapon. Unless the regime in Tehran believes there is an outside threat, there is no reason for a nuclear weapon. Tehran knows a bomb would bring more threat than protection.”

He said the key to resolving the problem was “direct bargaining” between Iran and the United States. “The main incentive lies in Washington. There is a lot of mistrust on both sides of the fence and both have grievances.”

In answer to a question from the floor, Namazi said: “If Iran had a nuclear weapon today, the chances are that there would be an invasion tomorrow.
“If Iran has a nuclear weapon, you have to think who it is going to point it at. Is there any town in Israel they could hit and not kill thousands of Palestinians? But the president did emphasise that Iran would never invade another UN member.”

Perle, asked about reports of US-British war games in preparation for an invasion of Iran and the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the country, said: “I discount these stories. The official American line is that we are involved in a negotiating process.

“Britain, France and Germany have assumed some responsibility to ensure Iran would be better off without nuclear weapons. We can only pray they succeed.”
Returning to the media, Iranian businessman Namazi said there was a considerable amount of disinformation emanating in Tehran.
James Meek, a correspondent for Britain’s Guardian newspaper, said: “There is a large misunderstanding of the role of journalists, with the expectation that we will be experts. When I went to Iran in 2005 I did not leave as an expert but, I hope, somebody with an open mind after speaking to as many people as possible.

“It is always easy to find some crazy guy in Tehran shouting ‘Death to America’. It is much more difficult to show the subtleties of life there,” he added.
Referring to the Iranian media, Babak Ganji, a senior visiting fellow and reader in international security relations at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, said talks between the US and Iran had always taken place in the past 27 years but there were different perceptions on what talks should cover.
“In the pro-president Keyhan (newspaper), it is bluntly asserted that Iran might become a super-power by enriching uranium. But what is important about the Iranian media is that coverage reflects serious differences in internal events. Iranians are reluctant to say in English or Russian what they say in Persian.”
And what is the rest of the world saying?

One panellist put it succinctly. “Al-Jazeera claims the US is lying to justify its impending invasion, the Turkish media say ‘we understand Iran’s attempt to be friendly but we are staying out of this whole debate’. The North Koreans are surprisingly moderate. The South Koreans are saying the North Korea situation is being forgotten. The Japan media complains that China is being cool on the issue because it wants commercial advantages, while the Cubans have said, as ever, the US is the cause of it all.”