- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Glenn appropriately cites Fred Hiatt's "Rogue Regulator" attack on ElBaradei. It is certainly the most egregious example of Hiatt's willingness to pimp for the neocons, but there were many other examples as well. Hiatt and the Washington Post editorial board repeatedly asserted as fact the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, a journalistic breach of principles of the first order. Regardless of the Post's opinion of ElBaradei, its editorial writers should have been careful to observe the practice of its own reporters (like Robin Wright), who were generally careful to qualify their references to Iran's purported nuclear weapons program with words like "suspected" or "alleged."
Three weeks after Hiatt's "Rogue Regulator" disgrace the Washington Post published another editorial on the subject of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, entitled "The Iran Impasse" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502037.html). Here are some passages:
The only way to avoid facing that terrible decision is effective diplomacy -- that is, a mix of sanctions and incentives that will induce Mr. Ahmadinejad's superiors to suspend their race for a bomb.
Even if Tehran provides satisfactory answers, its uranium enrichment -- and thus its progress toward a bomb -- will continue.
Robin Wright, the covers the Iranian situation for the Post, was asked about Hiatt's editorial in a WaPo chat later that same day.
Stamford, Conn.: I read in this morning's Post editorial "The Iran Impasse" that Iran is engaged in a "race for a bomb." Is that true?
Robin Wright: Many of you have asked about Iran's nuclear program. I wish I knew more first hand. I share the concern of many that the US could make the same mistake we make in Iraq. I try to use the terms "alleged" or "suspected" nuclear program and I usually also try to point out that Iran is not in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty in enriching uranium for a peaceful nuclear program. The problem of course is that Iran had a secret enrichment program for 18 years and that has undermined any trust among the international community.I often ask senior officials if they have seen any tangible, concrete, reliable intelligence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program since 2002 when Iran admitted it had been lying. I have yet to get a fully satisfactory answer. At the same time, there are a lot of reasons - given Iran's neighborhood surrounded by nuclear powers, its history of being attacked or occupied by neighbors from the Soviet Union to Iraq - that Iran might want the technological capability to develop a bomb.
But I'm the first to admit, I don't know the answer and wish I had more concrete information.
If the Post's own reporters couldn't get a "satisfactory answer" when asking for "tangible, concrete, reliable intelligence", on what basis did the Post's editorial board repeatedly refer to a "race for the bomb" and "progress toward a bomb"?
The editorial board's recklessness in asserting as fact the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program was brought to its attention by various WaPo readers who commented on this editorial at the Post's website. Commenters had similarly alerted the Post to its unjustifiable presumption of an ongoing Iranian nuclear weapons program when it published Hiatt's "Rogue Regulator" editorial, which warned "[b]y the time the IAEA and Iran are done talking about past questions, Iran will almost certainly have enough working centrifuges to produce a bomb within a year." But the Post's editorial board continued its refusal to acknowledge that claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons program were nothing more than allegations made on the basis of little or no reliable intelligence.
As I emphasized at the beginning of this letter, even if the Post's editorial board found ElBaradei's approach to Iran flawed, it had a journalistic obligation to carefully characterize allegations made by bush admin. officials regarding an Iranian nuclear weapons program, particularly given the Post's failure to regard with skepticism similar claims made by the same officials about Iraq in 2002 and 2003. The Post's editorial board instead chose to assert as indisputable fact the existence of an Iranian weapons program, thereby repeating the same egregious error they made in reporting allegations of Iraqi WMD, one the Post subsequently admitted in its own review of its Iraq reporting.
That this NIE may have slowed the bush admin.'s rush to war with Iran should not obscure the fact that the Post again committed the same unforgivable error it made in reporting on alleged Iraqi WMD: it repeated - unquestioningly, and with a complete lack of journalistic integrity - unfounded claims regarding foreign WMD threats, and failed to acknowledge that such claims were allegations rather than fact.
