Iran Doesn’t Have a Nuclear Weapons Program. Why Do Media Keep Saying It
Does?
 |
by Adam Johnson When it comes to Iran, do basic
facts matter? Evidently not, since dozens and dozens of journalists keep
casually reporting that Iran has a “nuclear weapons program” when it does no…
|
19.10.2017
by Adam Johnson
When it comes to Iran, do
basic facts matter? Evidently not, since dozens and dozens of journalists keep
casually reporting that Iran has a “nuclear weapons program” when it does not—a
problem FAIR has reported on over the years (e.g., 9/9/15). Let’s take a look
at some of the outlets spreading this falsehood in just the past five days:
·
Business Insider (10/13/17): “The
deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aims to
incentivize Iran to curb its nuclear weapons program by
lifting crippling international economic sanctions.”
·
New Yorker (10/16/17): “One afternoon
in late September, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called a meeting of the six
countries that came together in 2015 to limit Iran’s nuclear weapons
program.”
·
Washington Post (10/16/17): “The
administration is also considering changing or scrapping an international
agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”
·
CNN (10/17/17): “In reopening
the nuclear agreement, [Trump] risks having Iran advance its nuclear
weapons program at a time when he confronts a far worse nuclear
challenge from North Korea that he can’t resolve.”
The problem with all of these
excerpts: Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. It has a civilian
nuclear energy program, but not one designed to build weapons. Over 30
countries have civilian nuclear programs; only a handful—including, of course,
the US and Israel—have nuclear weapons programs. One is used
to power cities, one is used to level them.
If you are skeptical, just
refer to a 2007 assessment by
all 16 US intelligences agencies (yes, those 16 US
intelligence agencies), which found Iran had “halted” its nuclear weapons
program. Or look at the same National Intelligence Estimate in 2012,
which concluded again that
there “is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.” Or
we can listen to the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, which concurred with
the US intelligence assessment (Haaretz, 3/18/12).
The “Iran Deal,” formally
known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is built on curbing
Iran’s civilian nuclear program, out of fear—fair or not—that it could one day
morph into a nuclear weapons program. But at present, there is no evidence,
much less a consensus, that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. JCPOA
cannot be used as per se evidence such a program exists today;
indeed, it is specifically designed to prevent such a program from developing
down the road.
A slightly less egregious
variant of this canard is when outlets suggest the JCPOA stopped an ongoing
existing weapons program—though they don’t make the mistake of saying it still
exists: The JCPOA “called for the elimination of economic sanctions Iran in
exchange for Tehran giving up its nuclear weapons program,” USA Today (10/13/17) wrote. US and Israeli
intelligence do claim that Iran once had a nuclear weapons program—but they say
it ended in 2003, not in 2015 as a result of the JCPOA.
The distinction between
nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is, of course, non-trivial. Every time the
media mindlessly report Iran has a “nuclear weaponsprogram” rather
than a “nuclear program” (or, better, a “nuclear energy” or “nuclear power
program”), they further advance the myth that Iran’s intentions or “ambitions”
are to build a nuclear bomb, which is something we have no evidence it is doing
or plans to do—at least since the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against
building nuclear weapons in 2003 (Foreign Policy, 10/16/14).
So why do some many reporters
keep mucking this up? A few reasons: It’s just a mantra repeated ad infinitum,
and journalists and pundits often mindlessly repeat an oft-repeated phrase.
Some, such as nuclear arms expert Jeffrey Lewis at the Center for
Nonproliferation Studies at Middlebury Institute, think it’s simply an issue of
reporters not knowing how to express a complicated idea.
“I often see this point [about
the civilian vs weapons program] mangled. I don’t think it’s malice, just a
writer or editor not knowing how to express an idea,” he said on social media. “The
JCPOA imposes measures that constrain Iran’s nuclear energy program to provide
confidence that the program remains peaceful,” he added, offering an example of
how that idea can be expressed.
Another major reason for this
recurring falsehood, as FAIR (7/6/17) noted after the New
York Times twice “mistakenly” accused Iran of carrying out 9/11 (one
of the smears going uncorrected for over three years), is that one can say
pretty much anything about Iran without any professional or public backlash.
Because Iran is an Official US Enemy, and its motives are therefore always
deemed sinister, the idea that it is plotting to violate the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and build a nuclear weapon is simply taken as a given.
The lack of hard evidence for this is irrelevant: Intentions of those in the
crosshairs of US power are always presented as cynical and malicious; those of
the US and its allies benevolent and in good faith.
Iran’s sinister motives are simply the default setting—no matter much evidence
points to the contrary.
Adam Johnson is a
contributing analyst for FAIR.org. Reprinted, with permission, from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
...................................
ERDOĞAN:
(Trump’ın İran adımları) ABD’nin İran’a yönelik tavrını İsrail destekliyor ama diğer ülkelerin
tavrının ne olacağını bilemiyoruz. İran’a karşı yaptırımları uygulayanların,
kendilerine de bakmaları lazım. ‘Bu iş benden başkasına haramdır, sadece baha
helaldir’ şeklinde bir anlayış olamaz. Meseleler iyi niyetle, diplomasiyle
çözülmeli
No comments:
Post a Comment