Iran: What the Media Isn't Telling You

Former Presidents Clinton and Obama, German Chancellor Merz, and even the NYT show context is everything

As soon as the news broke of U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, I began hearing from listeners who said they’re not sure “how to feel” about it. I understand this. Ethical people want to see the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear threat weakened (or gone altogether), but also fear what some refer to as the possibility of “World War III.”

Plus, there are especially acute fears among those who recognize the world’s propensity to blame Jews for everything that ever happens. And given that many Americans also have reason to distrust Trump, the entire situation triggers a mess of confusion — and worse.

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

But remember: facts first, always. Let’s start with what we know. And send me your questions as I prepare the next episode of They Stand Corrected.

This is not the U.S. joining “Israel’s” war against Iran

Israel and the United States are leading the way in taking action against Iran’s nuclear threat. Many nations don’t want to admit this publicly, but some have — like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who recently said:

“This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us. We are also victims of this regime. This mullah regime has brought death and destruction to the world.”

Learn more about this, and about why the MAD doctrine (mutual assured destruction) does not work for Iran, in my latest episode:

Intelligence is unclear

Certain activists want you to think that Iran was somehow definitively years away from having nuclear weapons. But analyses conflict. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency recently said that while Iran “almost certainly is not producing nuclear weapons,” its recent actions reduced “the time required to produce sufficient weapons-grade uranium for a first nuclear device to probably less than one week.”

Austrian intelligence went further, saying, Iran’s “nuclear weapons development program is well advanced.” Iran, of course, is calling this “fake.”

Even The New York Times, which usually portrays everything in the most anti-Israel way possible, cited a report by “U.N. inspectors” with the International Atomic Energy Agency:

“The revelation of Iran’s production surge of uranium enriched to 60 percent, just below bomb-grade, was a vivid illustration of its effort to gain leverage in the negotiation. The increase gives Tehran the capability to produce the fuel for roughly 10 weapons, up from around five or six when President Trump was inaugurated in January.”

I try not to link to the NYT because it requires a subscription and the Times does so much so badly that I don’t want you to give them your money. But my paid subscribers can most likely find this article free using the tools I describe here:

A Free, Legal Way to Access Virtually Any News Article Without Paywalls

This is not Iraq

Intelligence reports can be wrong. We don’t know how close, or far, Iran actually is from nuclear weapons. Many of us remember the disastrous claims about weapons of mass destruction that the United States used as pretext for war with Iraq.

But this is not Iraq. No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran to oust its leadership. This is a matter of a specific set of strikes. The key question is: How much of a risk are nations threatened by Iran willing to take? How far does Iran get to go in defying inspectors and potentially building nuclear weapons?

That’s a calculation for any country to make. Not just Trump. The United States has been wrestling with this question for decades. Democrats and Republicans alike have considered this option.

Thirty years ago, President Clinton said evidence “supports only one conclusion: Iran is bent on building nuclear weapons.”

“The specter of an Iran armed with weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them haunts not only Israel but the entire Middle East and, ultimately, all the rest of us as well. The United States, and I believe all the Western nations, have an overriding interest in containing the threat posed by Iran. Today Iran is the principal sponsor of global terrorism… It seeks to undermine the West and its values by supporting the murderous attacks of the Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups. It aims to destroy the Middle East peace process.”

The authorization question

Some lawmakers have been quick to argue that Trump needed congressional authorization for the U.S. attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. But this isn’t clear. It’s a complex legal question.

In 2013, when President Obama threatened strikes against Syria, he said:

“As Commander-in-Chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security. I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress. But I did not take this to Congress just because it’s an empty exercise; I think it’s important to have Congress’s support on it.”

What counts as “war,” and therefore requires Congress’ approval, is a question for constitutional experts and, perhaps ultimately, the courts. Not armchair experts with zero actual expertise. And not lawmakers like Bernie Sanders who regularly get so much wrong about the Middle East that they’ve lost any credibility.

And no, “international law” is not clear either, despite what some people are claiming. In this episode, I explained that journalists use the term “international law” without having any clue what it even is.

Media Lies About 'International Law'

I can’t tell you how to feel. But I can tell you that over here at They Stand Corrected, I’m doing all I can to help you put facts first! Send your questions, concerns, etc. Paid subscribers do so here, the first place I look; others can find a form at my website.