{"id":151515,"date":"2020-01-13T12:00:44","date_gmt":"2020-01-13T12:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=151515"},"modified":"2020-01-12T11:09:23","modified_gmt":"2020-01-12T11:09:23","slug":"from-resistance-to-assistance-little-pushback-to-trumps-iran-assassination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2020\/01\/from-resistance-to-assistance-little-pushback-to-trumps-iran-assassination\/","title":{"rendered":"From Resistance to Assistance: Little Pushback to Trump\u2019s Iran Assassination"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Qassem Soleimani
\u00a0Photo: Sayyed Shahab Odin Vajedi<\/p><\/div>\n

9 Jan 2020 – <\/em>After Donald Trump\u2019s election, both the New York Times<\/strong><\/a> and Washington Post<\/strong><\/a> saw huge jumps in subscribers, all hoping that the outlets would hold the president to account. Both papers tapped into this sentiment: In February 2017, the Post <\/strong>adopted the motto<\/a> \u201cDemocracy Dies in Darkness\u201d on its masthead; Times<\/strong> ads have used the slogan<\/a>, \u201cThe truth is more important now than ever.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump has played his part, attacking<\/a> media that bother him as \u201cfailing,\u201d and reportedly telling<\/a> all federal agencies in October to cancel their Times<\/strong> and Post<\/strong> subscriptions.<\/p>\n

Yet when the president does indeed carry out dangerous, aggressive actions, such as the assassination of Iranian general and political leader Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on January 3, \u201cresistance\u201d turns to assistance from the corporate press. FAIR studied every editorial and opinion piece on Soleimani\u2019s killing published by the two newspapers, from the attack until January 7 (around three dozen articles), and found their pushback to Trump\u2019s actions to be distinctly limited.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Some of the millions of people (BBC<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>) who turned out for the funeral of Qassem Soleimani, whom no one thought \u201cwas a great guy the world will miss\u201d (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/7\/20<\/a>).<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u2018Indisputably an enemy\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

Opinion writers and editorial boards took great pains to emphasize the disgust and contempt they held for Soleimani, a \u201cterrorist mastermind\u201d (Washington Post<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>) \u201cas evil as Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Bahdadi\u201d (Washington Post<\/strong>, 1\/3\/20<\/a>). As Gail Collins wrote in the New York Times<\/strong> (1\/7\/20<\/a>), \u201cThere seems to be a wide range of opinions about Soleimani, none of which are that he was a great guy the world will miss.\u201d The millions of people<\/a> who attended his funeral may beg to differ; two-thirds of Iranians rated him \u201cvery favorably,\u201d according to a 2018 University of Maryland poll<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Some people in Lebanon<\/a> and Yemen<\/a> who received his support against foreign aggression, and citizens of Iraq and Syria who no longer live under the ISIS caliphate he helped defeat<\/a>, may also have a perspective on Soleimani that went largely unrepresented in leading US papers. As Noam Chomsky (Truthout<\/strong>, 1\/7\/20<\/a>) remarked of Iraqi Kurds:<\/p>\n

They have not forgotten that when the huge, heavily armed US-trained Iraqi army quickly collapsed, and the Kurdish capital of Erbil, then Baghdad and all of Iraq were about to fall in the hands of ISIS, it was Soleimani and the Iraqi Shia militias he organized that saved the country.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There was little deviation in the Times<\/strong> or Post<\/strong> from the idea that Soleimani was an \u201cevil\u201d (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/3\/20<\/a>, 1\/7\/20<\/a>; Washington Post<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>), \u201cblood-soaked\u201d (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/4\/20<\/a>) \u201cterrorist\u201d (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/3\/20<\/a>) who \u201chad it coming\u201d (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/4\/20<\/a>), a monster comparable to Nazi Holocaust leaders (Washington Post<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>). For New York Times <\/strong>columnist Bret Stephens<\/a> (1\/3\/20<\/a>), certain Nazis were, in fact, too good to be compared to Soleimani: \u201cTo think of him as a worthy adversary \u2014 an Iranian Erwin Rommel \u2014 is wrong,\u201d he wrote. Meanwhile, Thomas Friedman (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/3\/20<\/a>) labeled him \u201cthe dumbest man in Iran and the most overrated strategist in the Middle East.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Don\u2019t believe Iranian propaganda, says an employee of the US propaganda service (Washington Post<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>).<\/em><\/p>\n

The chief reason for Soleimani\u2019s nefariousness, the Times<\/strong> editorial board (1\/3\/20<\/a>) explained, was that he was \u201cindisputably an enemy of the American people\u2026and an architect of international terrorism responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans.\u201d The claim that Soleimani had killed hundreds of Americans was repeated, word for word, in many articles in the papers of record (e.g., New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/7\/20<\/a>; Washington Post<\/strong>, 1\/3\/20<\/a>, 1\/3\/20<\/a>) as well as across the media (e.g., Boston Globe<\/strong>, 1\/3\/20<\/a>; Fox News<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>; The Hill<\/strong>, 1\/7\/20<\/a>).<\/p>\n

These \u201chundreds of Americans\u201d were US forces killed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) during the Iraq War, supposedly made in Iran and planted by Iranian-backed Shia militias. As professor Stephen Zunes pointed out in the Progressive<\/strong> (1\/7\/20<\/a>), the Pentagon provided no evidence that Iran made the IEDs, other than the far-fetched claim that they were too sophisticated to be made in Iraq\u2014even though the US invasion had been justified by claims that Iraq had an incredibly threatening WMD program. The made-in-Iran claim, in turn, was the main basis for pinning responsibility for IED attacks on Shia militias\u2014which were, in any case, sanctioned by the Iraqi government, making Baghdad more answerable for their actions than anyone in Tehran. Last year, Gareth Porter reported in Truthout<\/strong>, (7\/9\/19<\/a>) that the claim that Iran was behind the deaths of US troops was part of Vice President Dick Cheney\u2019s plan to build a case for yet another war.<\/p>\n

Even if one is inclined, against all experience, to take US claims about an official enemy on faith, the language that Soleimani killed \u201chundreds of Americans\u201d is a deliberately nebulous. American what<\/em>\u2014children? Civilians? Indeed not. The allegation is that he targeted US troops or \u201ccontractors\u201d\u2014i.e., mercenaries\u2014stationed not at home, but in a region on the other side of the world that the US illegally attacked and has occupied for most of this century. \u201cSoleimani provided effective military resistance to foreign occupying forces,\u201d though, sounds very different from \u201ckilled hundreds of Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>In a characteristic formulation, the Washington Post<\/strong> (1\/3\/20<\/a>) argued that Soleimani was \u201can implacable enemy of the United States\u201d responsible for \u201ccountless atrocities\u201d\u2014but complained that Trump \u201chas yet to offer any explanation\u201d of why his killing was \u201cin America\u2019s strategic interest.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Minor quibbles about protocol<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the papers studied, the majority of articles carried a similar, cookie-cutter structure: agree that Soleimani was a bad guy and deserved to be killed, but worry about the consequences and criticize the president on technical grounds. The Times<\/strong>\u2019 editorial board (1\/3\/20<\/a>) wrote that \u201cthe real question\u201d wasn\u2019t whether Soleimani\u2019s killing \u201cwas justified, but whether it was wise.\u201d Meanwhile, the Post<\/strong> (1\/3\/20<\/a>) made exactly the same point: \u201cYes, Soleimani Was an Enemy,\u201d the editorial board declared. \u201cThat Doesn\u2019t Mean Trump Made the Right Call.\u201d<\/p>\n

Criticism of the government\u2019s actions was largely limited to worrying it might escalate tensions and spark a hot war\u2014something for which US corporate media have been laying the groundwork for months (FAIR.org<\/strong>, 7\/2\/19<\/a>) if not years (Extra!<\/strong>, 3\/12<\/a>). Complaints included that the US lacked a clear grand strategy (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/7\/20<\/a>), that it was a \u201crash and shortsighted\u201d (Washington Post<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>), that there were \u201cno more adults in the room\u201d (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>), that it would \u201cbolster\u201d the Iranian regime (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>) or could \u201ctrigger a bigger conflict\u201d (Washington Post<\/strong>, 1\/3\/20<\/a>) that risks \u201censnaring\u201d the US in a wider encounter (Washington Post<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>). (In corporate media mythology, the United States is always an innocent party getting accidentally trapped into going to war, rather than actively pursuing it\u2014FAIR.org<\/strong>, 6\/22\/17<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The Times<\/strong> and Post<\/strong> offered some meager objections based on congressional technicalities. \u201cWhy didn\u2019t the White House alert senior Democrats in Congress, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi?\u201d asked the Times<\/strong> (1\/3\/20<\/a>). The Post<\/strong> (1\/6\/20<\/a>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>) made similar criticisms, as if had Trump done so, there would be no legal issues with killing a foreign leader in another country.<\/p>\n

There were some exceptions. Law scholar Karen Greenberg (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>) wrote that the general\u2019s killing was illegal and an \u201cinevitable outcome of our dangerous \u2018war on terror\u2019 policy.\u201d Iranian-American writer Azadeh Moaveni worried about the effect of war on Iran and noted that Soleimani was considered a \u201cwar hero\u201d inside the Islamic Republic (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/6\/20<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Opposition to war from the Times<\/strong>\u2019 regular columnists was more about who was carrying it out. Michelle Goldberg (1\/6\/20<\/a>), condemning Trump\u2019s \u201cunstable\u201d actions, presented Gen. James \u201cMad Dog\u201d Mattis<\/a> as a moderating force, although she did note that, \u201cTo Iranians, after all, America is the aggressor.\u201d Paul Krugman (1\/6\/20<\/a>), meanwhile, acknowledged that Iranians would not accept Trump\u2019s right to kill their leaders, but also claimed that before Trump, the US was \u201crelatively trustworthy\u201d and \u201cclearly stood for global rule of law,\u201d always behaving as \u201cno more than first among equals.\u201d<\/p>\n

But across the spectrum of dozens of articles in America\u2019s two most influential newspapers, there was little difference in outlook. Contempt for the commander in chief? Sure. But scrutiny of the state? Not so much. As Stephens reminded<\/a> Times<\/strong> readers, \u201cWhat shouldn\u2019t be in doubt is the justice.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>America\u2019s most overrated columnist was not impressed (New York Times<\/strong>, 1\/3\/20<\/a>).<\/em><\/p>\n

Embarrassing predictions<\/strong><\/p>\n

With all the confidence of White Star Line Executives in 1912 proclaiming HMS Titanic<\/em> unsinkable, opinion columnists in our most influential media made a number of utterly terrible predictions or assertions that were immediately disproven.<\/p>\n

The Times<\/strong> editorial board, echoing official claims, wrote<\/a> that Soleimani likely \u201chad come to Iraq in part to plot the next move against United States military personnel or civilians.\u201d In reality, he had been invited to attend regional peace talks<\/a> with Saudi Arabia by the Iraqi prime minister, who had personally asked Trump for permission for Soleimani to attend. Trump agreed, then used the opportunity to assassinate him.<\/p>\n

Less than two days later, the Iraqi parliament voted overwhelmingly to expel all US forces from Iraq, which made Times<\/strong> top columnist Thomas Friedman\u2019s assertion<\/a> that protests against the US embassy in Baghdad were staged to \u201cmake it look as if Iraqis wanted America out when in fact it was the other way around\u201d seem distinctly foolish.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, both the Post<\/strong> (1\/3\/20<\/a>) and the Times<\/strong> (1\/3\/20<\/a>) published articles confidently predicting that \u201cthe killing will have the effect of deterring further Iranian attacks on Americans, such as the rocket strike that killed a US contractor at an Iraqi base last week,\u201d and that Iran \u201cwill prefer to tread lightly,\u201d with the assassination \u201cbring[ing] a sense of realism to the Islamic Republic\u2019s thinking.\u201d Needless to say, the dozens of Iranian rockets raining down on US bases in Iraq have proven these predictions woefully incorrect.<\/p>\n

While corporate media like to present themselves as holding the current administration to account, in reality they offer little meaningful resistance to its foreign policy adventures. As with Trump\u2019s efforts to overthrow the governments of Venezuela and Bolivia (see FAIR.org<\/strong>, 1\/25\/19<\/a>, 11\/15\/19<\/a>, 11\/26\/19<\/a>), media are essentially lining up shoulder to shoulder with the president. When it comes to opposing or even questioning an aggressive foreign policy, the resistance\u2122 is useless.<\/p>\n

________________________________________________<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Alan MacLeod @AlanRMacLeod<\/a> is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. His latest book, <\/em>Bad News from Venezuela: 20 Years of Fake News and Misreporting, was published by Routledge in April.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 fair.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

9 Jan 2020 – The allegation is that he targeted US troops or \u201ccontractors\u201d\u2014i.e., mercenaries\u2014stationed not at home, but in a region on the other side of the world that the US illegally attacked and has occupied for most of this century. \u201cSoleimani provided effective military resistance to foreign occupying forces,\u201d though, sounds very different from \u201ckilled hundreds of Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":126750,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[62],"tags":[742,378,234,70,1365],"class_list":["post-151515","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-media","tag-iran","tag-journalism","tag-media","tag-usa","tag-war-journalism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151515","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151515"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151515\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/126750"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151515"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}