IRAN, ISRAEL AND SYRIA

Anyone catch this John Humphyrs interview with William Hague on Today this morning. What fascinated me was how a discussion regarding what could be done to help those people suffering under the Assad regime in Syria suddenly was switched by Humphyrs into trying to get Hague to say that the UK would never support military action against…Iran. And in particular, should Israel move against the Mad Mullahs, would the UK ensure no support whatsoever would be afforded. To be fair to Hague he did repeat the line that NO options are off the table but it’s the way in which the BBC seems to have linked Assad’s butchery of his own people to that of Israel seeking to prevent the annihilation of their people at the hands of the thugs in Tehran. As I recall there was a similar attempted “gotcha” last week using the same trick and it makes me think the BBC worry more about Israel defending itself than Iran attacking it. I’ve had an exchange in the past day with New Statesman Editor Medhi Hasan and he articulates a defence  for Iran that I believe will become the narrative for the BBC as conditions deteriorate.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to IRAN, ISRAEL AND SYRIA

  1. Henry says:

    Humphrys is a fool. No 2 ways about it.

    He seems to think he’s a member of the opposition (under the completely dishonest pretext that the govt always needs to be grilled – particularly conservative govts apparently) Well we’re used to that

    His arguments – as he desperately tries to give the impression of lambasting an incompetant foreign secretary, were hollow. It works for people who already dislike the Tory party, but he’s feigning anger – a true politician. Dishonest scumbag

    I’m glad Humphrys has decided that war with Iran would be disastrous for the world, adn is more or less telling everyone so..

    Hague calmly batted all the hysteria back at the mad interviewer.

       0 likes

    • RCE says:

      Sorry Henry, but Hague equivocated and blustered. Not one principle to be seen. The irony is that I agreed with Humphreys’ lambasting of the govt’s pusillanimity, but it’s not the role of the national broadcaster to take this or any other position on the matter.

         0 likes

      • Henry says:

        Well he can’t give promises, and not just because we don’t police the world any more. But maybe I’m too forgiving with Foreign polocy-speak.

        Humphreys went on about our keeping an embassy there as though that were a national disgrace. I may not have the whole story but it seemed a little desparate – a huge effort to make the govt look feeble when there’s little else they can do..

           0 likes

        • RCE says:

          My ‘beef’ ( =-O ) with Hague is that he wrote a biography on Wilberforce; he must – must – therefore understand that things only change when principled indivduals go against the consensus and do what is right, not what is easy.  Humphreys was right about the emabssay schtick – it is truly pathetic.

             0 likes

  2. sue says:

    (Leo Panetta or Leon Panetta?) =-O

    “War with Iran would be utterly disastrous for the world” opines Humphrys.
    I wonder how disastrous for the world Humphrys supposes it would be for the world if Iran dropped a nuclear device ‘for-energy-purposes-only’ upon Israel? On a scale of 0 to 10?

    It will be fairly disastrous for the world when and if Iran succeeds in acquiring their nukes.
    If Israel has missed a window of opportunity to take them out ‘surgically’ because of everyone else’s dithering then it’s everyone’s fault.

    The Israelis are well aware of the huge risks to themselves, should they do anything rash, through Iran’s proxies as well as from Iran itself.

    If they do strike it will not be without weighing up the consequences carefully, and if they did succeed in destroying or delaying Iran’s nuclear progress everyone would benefit, except Israel Itself, because not only could they expect retaliation from all directions, they’d expect nothing but condemnation of the most hypocritical kind from the beneficiaries.

    I think this interview showed just how counterproductive the heckling interviewing style is. Small dog syndrome. Snapping at every single thing that’s uttered instead of listening merely interrupts the flow and does little more than make the interviewer look intrusive and annoying.
    Interviewees often condemn themselves out of their own mouths if they’re given enough rope, and most of the listeners are intelligent enough to spot that. And if they’re not, tough. 

    I don’t know how Mehdi Hasan can ever live down the ‘animals’ video.

       0 likes

    • Henry says:

      Very good point about the heckling interviewing style. I remember loving Brian Walden’s interviews in a programme called weekend world in the 80s, then in his own show. Hegave politicians a really, really tough time, but let them say their piece in full. What he was looking for was a constructive discussion.

      I noticed that a new bunch of BBC interviewers, in a wa inspired by him and by Robin Day, started this clever-clever, heckling interview style in the late 80s and 90s. Johnathan Dimbleby was one of the first, and obviously Humphrys is another big ego.

      As much as anything, it’s the example they set with their own bad manners. If you take an absolutely cynical view of the person you are interviewing, you’ll encourage a similar attitude in reply. Ad I don’t see why Humphrys shouldn’t just clean up his manners (or his desk.!…years ago)

      Paxman I find somewhat more sensible.

         0 likes

  3. matthew rowe says:

    Sources in Iran are reporting that the execution order for Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani may have been issued. An Iranian Court has convicted him of apostasy (despite never having been a Muslim:

    http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/

    So any BBC hacks  coments on this unfolding horror ? !

       0 likes

  4. cjhartnett says:

    I was amazed last night when Newsnights Gavin Esler DID NOT manage to link Syrias upheaval to Israel…that`s how endemic the BBCs ongoing war of attrition is, when it comes to Israel.
    Ther came a point in the interview as if it was getting set up just to mention the need for Israel to stop worring about Syria being backed by Iran, and just let itself be rolled into the Med…but to be fair to Gavins autocuer, the chance to slag off Israel yet again was missed.
    That said, if they hand that Christian pastor above; then Iran will deserve all that`s coming to it…no doubt the BBC are whistling ” Ebony and Ivory” and hoping that none of us will care too much about what the excitable Shias do to Christians.
    AS long as Israels actions don`t do Saudis/Iraqs dirty work for it eh?

       0 likes

  5. RCE says:

    It was classic BBC.

    Oh! The outrage now one of their own has met a sticky end! The spilling of journoblood is now a casus belli, it seems.

    Then the wilful urging to war (this script is hyperlinked to the ‘we are losing/getting bogged down/quagmire’ spiel when victory is not achieved within 24 hrs and with no casualties).

    And don’t mention the (Iraq) war!

    Rounded off with the timeless refrain: it’s all because of the Jews.

       0 likes

  6. Mo Grey says:

    There was an item on the news on Sunday, a BBC news bulletin, about the Iranian warships passing through the Suez canal. The odd thing was that the BBC voiceover said that this move may be viewed dimly by Israel, Iran’s ‘Arch Enemy’ I found this choice of words utterly ridiculous for a news piece, being as it did not involve people like the Lizardman, Doctor Octagon or Superman, sill there is the BBC for you.  

       0 likes

  7. Deborah says:

    Humphries was positively urging Hague for the UK to go to war with Syria throughout the interview.  Whilst I never forget Lady Isabel Barnett saying that the Syrians are the cruelest people on this earth I listened to Humphrey’s outrage thinking ‘Why didin’t he speak up in the same way for the 1 million kurds that Sadam Hussein murdered? ‘

       0 likes

  8. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Even if Hague is a useless equivocator, and the Government is unwilling to publicly commit to anything, the BBC is still trying to influence the situation.  It happens over and over again, and all the Beeboid hand-wringing in the world doesn’t change the reality that the BBC is a malign influence.  
     
    Much of the reason Hague isn’t coming out and saying that Britian would take military action against Iran if necessary is because he knows the BBC will vilify him for it, and knows just how much influence the BBC really does have on the national news agenda and public opinion.  
     
    If the Beeboids don’t think they have a huge amount of influence or potential influence, then Paxman wouldn’t be calling for the expansion of the World Service to spread influence.

       0 likes

    • RCE says:

      David – The reason Briatin won’t take military action is because it can’t.  You have states with National Guard forces bigger than the entire UK military!

      Completely missing from the entire analysis is that the likes of Assad can do whatever they want because western militaries have been so denuded; they have nothing to fear.

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        RCE, I didn’t mean that Britain would do a lone wolf action. I assumed any action would be taken in tandem with a coalition, like at Libya.

        The fact that European militaries have been emasculated is seen by Beeboids as a feature, not a bug. So such analysis as you suggest wouldn’t even occur to them. They’re happy to let Assad massacre away because Western Imperialsim is much worse in their minds. But of course they’ll still blame somebody other than the butcher himself in the end. Such is the insane hypocrisy of post-modern relativism.

           0 likes

        • RCE says:

          You’re right David. The cognitive dissonance of being a demilitarised nation but still capable of protecting human rights the world over was embodied by Humphries’ interview.

             0 likes

        • RCE says:

          You’re right David. The cognitive dissonance of being a demilitarised nation but still capable of protecting human rights the world over was embodied by Humphries’ interview.

             0 likes

    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      ROBERT BROWN; We could not intervene in any case. Our,meagre, armed forces are stretched now. Oh how i envy the Americans and their magnificent Navy, heaps of ships, battlegroups galore, huge carriers and the USMC. At least they can see the worth of our wonderful harrier, they love it. We had a wonderful Royal Navy once, now we could barely cover the English Channel. Our politicians are utterly worthless.

         0 likes

  9. dave s says:

    I am still waiting for a beeboid or guardianista to explain the roots of Iranian hostility to Israel. It is never mentioned because it is totally irrational and not subject to analysis.
    In other words it is just pure anti Semitism.
    The situation is very dangerous. Israel has to decide whether Iran is in the grip of a form of madness -the 12th Mahdi and the end times – or a rational nation state that will not risk destruction if it looks likely as a result of it’s policies.
    I would not like to have to make these sort of judgements. If the former then Israel has no choice but to pre empt any situation because Iran will not be stopped by sanctions or words..If the latter then Iran has to signal that it is not in the grip of a collective lunacy in the leadership.

       0 likes

  10. Teddy Bear says:

    Following the assassination of one of Iran’s nuclear scientists recently, the slain man’s wife has now admitted that her husband’s ’Ultimate Goal Was the Annihilation of Israel’.
    This, 
    along with a few other instances where Iran leaders have made similar threats, was reported by Yahoo newsIt’s impossible to understand what is going on in the world, and what is likely to happen if this news is not made clear. It’s definitely something that puts actions concerning Iran into a true perspective. As the Yahoo article makes clear
    The combination of these calls for annihilation along with the prospects of the Islamic Republic being one day armed with a doomsday weapon is at the core of the debate over whether Israel should attempt a military attack to thwart Iran’s nuclear progress.

    Yet the BBC prefers to ignore this story. Though in its latest story concerning Iran today it makes sure to insert Tehran insists its nuclear intentions are purely peaceful.

    Here’s what Yahoo has to say about it. Decide yourself if you think its ‘newsworthy’.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The BBC doesn’t take Iran’s threats seriously. The soft racism of lowered expectation, combined with their visceral revulsion at the very idea of white Western action against anyone, means that they just roll their eyes at the latest calls for the destructin of Israel the same way the likes of Dez or Scott or David Gregory roll their eyes at our charges of bias at the BBC. The threats to Israel mean nothing, just part of the show that these lesser beings make, and all-powerful Israel with their massive secret nuclear arsenal need not every worry.

      It’s all “there they go again, bless”. And in any case, the mad mullahs only hate Israel, so Beeboid thinkng goes, because the nasty Joooos are just waiting for their chance for another land grab and domination of the Middle East. Iran really needs nuclear weapons to protect themselves from nasty old Israel, you see. Who woudn’t support that, eh?

         0 likes

      • Teddy Bear says:

        The leftist mindset, typified by the BBC, disguises its cowardice to itself, by believing itself to appease the evil scum regimes and groups is because they are multicultural, non-judgemental, or whatever they consider makes their motive appear like a good thing.  
         
        That these excuses are pure self deception is most apparent when they display their bullying, cruel and unethical behaviour at those they don’t consider to be a real threat.  
         
        Truth will out, we’ll see how it manifests.

           0 likes

  11. ian says:

    The BBC reminds me of the Labour Party, minus the oil lobby. This explains its attitude to Iraq and Iran. If the ex-chairman of BP – a Labour bigwig – was on the board of trustees, the beeb would have been happy about the invasion of Iraq, and warmongering towards Iran. 

    Without the oil lobby, however, the beeb merely restates the left’s hatred of the west in its support for Saddam, Al-quaida, the Taliban, the mullahs etc. An oil influence would make the beeb more balanced.

    There are however signs that oil money is starting to trickle into Broadcasting House, as everyone knows that the fall of Syria – demanded by the beeb – will mean the loss of an important Iranian ally, thus paving the way for the Iranian oil war.

       0 likes

  12. B G says:

    William Hague = Foreign Secretary

    Foreign = Countries outside the UK.

    That’s another mystery I’ve solved for you. Any time.

       0 likes