Intelligence
Services, The Media
And Anti-Iran Propaganda
By Paul Ingram &
Mehrnaz Shahabi
30 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Paul Ingram is Senior
Analyst at the British American Security Information Council. His subject
areas include nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament (with a focus
on Iran and the UK); defence economics, particularly subsidies of exports
in the UK; and transatlantic security. He is the Chair of Crisis Action,
and co-teaches systems thinking and practice on the Top Management Programme
at the National School of Government alongside Prof. Jake Chapman.
Mehrnaz Shahabi is on
the Editorial Board and CASMII UK Board member. She has interviewed
Paul Ingram on the role of the intelligence services in the anti-Iran
propaganda in the Western media.
Mehrnaz Shahabi:
In the months preceding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the mainstream
media in Britain played an instrumental role in softening the public
opinion for war by disseminating the US Neo-Conservative propaganda
against the Iraqi regime. The key allegations against Saddam Hussein’s
regime of harbouring Al-Qaeda terrorists and possession of a clandestine
nuclear weapons and other WMD programme were unfounded at the time and
all proved to be false after the invasion. The incriminating stories
of the infamous UK Iraq Dossier and the supply of uranium yellow cake
from Niger to Iraq were shown to be total fabrication.
However, despite these revelations,
these same key allegations of harbouring terrorist groups and running
an active nuclear weapons programme are now being systematically repeated
to pave the way for a military attack on Iran. The media is waging the
same relentless propaganda bombardment to clear the path to yet another
war, using the same tactics of anonymous sources, distortions and unsubstantiated
claims to manufacture consent in a population that predominantly has
no appetite for war. What is the mechanism for utilising supposedly
independent media in the service of black propaganda? How can journalists
and the newspapers get away with this sort of unethical and potentially
criminal reporting, in particular, after the illegal invasion of Iraq?
Paul Ingram:
They are finding it a little more difficult than in 2002/3. When the
official US briefing on the supply of Iranian weapons eventually took
place in Baghdad in early 2007, it was greeted by most news agencies
with some doubt and even derision. It was clear the promised proof was
hardly that. Nevertheless, it is still shocking how the reports of Iranian
supply into Iraq, and even to the Taliban in Afghanistan have stuck
in so much of the media, so that it is largely reported as background
fact.
There are various mechanisms
that explain this. Firstly, background briefing by intelligence services
and military officials who make access conditional upon favourable reporting.
Secondly, it is the nature of the media to generally take their home
government policy and statements as mainstream, particularly if the
main opposition groups support government policy in this area. Thirdly,
there is the power of groupthink – assumptions rapidly take hold
and become unquestioned fact, to build up a general picture of the situation,
for which, facts that are not consistent are discarded. It is this tendency
that means it is so important to question the basis of misleading propaganda
continuously. Fourth, some journalists are simply gullible. Fifth, the
media is driven by sensation and entertainment.
Mehrnaz Shahabi:
The use of anonymous sources and unsubstantiated allegations has been
a key feature of the reportage on Iran by the right wing pro-war media,
such as the Daily Telegraph, which was behind the most crucial lie used
as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq, that is, Saddam’s 45 minutes
missile capability to hit European cities. However, this use of black
propaganda has now moved on to a higher pitch and taken a substantially
dangerous twist, in that, now the so called respectable liberal press,
such as the Guardian and the Observer, are churning out highly incriminating
and unfounded propaganda against Iran. A recent full front page report
by Simon Tisdall of May 22nd accused Iran of “Secret Plan for
Summer Offensive to Force US out of Iraq”, using an unnamed US
official alleging Iranian links with AlQaeda in organising such an offensive.
Again, The Observer front page on 10th June published a story by Mark
Townsend alleging a nuclear conspiracy uncovered by the Customs and
Excise detectives and the MI6 in which highly enriched uranium from
Russia is transhipped through Sudan “destined” for Iran,
for its “nuclear weapons programme”. There is reference
throughout to claims of anonymous “investigators” without
any supporting evidence to substantiate these claims. There is also
the open reference to “Iran’s nuclear weapons programme”
which is remarkable in the absence of any such evidence by the IAEA
inspectors. How can this new development of the active involvement of
the Guardian and the Observer in promoting war propaganda be viewed?
What forces propagate these allegations to the media? What type of pressure
or temptation, and at what level is exerted that causes journalists
of more respectable papers reporting stories without posing basic journalistic
challenge for substantiation of truth, particularly so when the consequences
of such distortions are still unfolding in the bloodbath in Iraq?
Paul Ingram:
Even the Guardian and Observer journalists are looking for a sensation
to sell their papers. I have to admit though to being a little surprised.
It shows the limits of reliability even of some of the better organs
of news. The best way to find out would be to ask some trusted journalists.
I have not yet had the opportunity.
Mehrnaz Shahabi:
The story in the Observer reportedly comes from MI6. The role
of M16 in covert domestic and foreign operations and its infiltration
and manipulation of media is well documented. One such example is 1953
coup and the overthrow of the popular nationalist government in Iran.
An article in the British Journalism Review in 2000 by David Leigh,
the respected investigative journalist, the then editor of the Guardian’s
comments page and the assistant editor of the Observer, refers to the
use by MI6 of “Information Operations” to manufacture consent
in public opinion for foreign policy adventures. He details attempts
at recruiting journalists, MI6 agents masquerading as journalists, using
media pseudonyms to promote stories, and media links to disseminate
convenient stories or black propaganda. It is noteworthy that this report
names Con Coghlan, the Daily Telegraph author of incriminating stories
about Iraq and now Iran, as one such link. However, this knowledge did
not hinder Con Coghlanis ability to successfully pedal misinformation
that led to the invasion of Iraq, and his current insinuations in relation
to Iran. Considering the secret nature of these operations and the use
of the Official Secrets Act, how is it possible to pursue such links
and uncover the sources behind these stories?
Paul Ingram:
I don’t think it would be possible to uncover the sources. Journalists
are notoriously careful to cover their sources. The best one can do
is to track their previous histories, as CASMII does, and highlight
their role in the past, and the role of the security services in using
the media to distort opinion in favour of intervention.
Mehrnaz Shahabi: What action
can CASMII take now to attempt to ameliorate this situation? How might
other organisations, such as Stop the War and the CND, for example,
be enlisted effectively to act in this very worrying and cynical use
of propaganda?
Paul Ingram:
I would contact the Editors of the papers, particularly Alan Rusbridger
(Guardian), in a non-hostile manner (expressing incredulity, given the
facts etc). My understanding is that the Guardian usually has an unofficial
policy on things like this (for example, they have a ‘policy’
against Trident replacement), and it may be possible to have a civil
and informative conversation about this. Contact the Press Complaints
Commission and ask for a file to be opened that accumulates these stories
rather than focusing just on one, as it is the accumulation that CASMII
is most worried about, and that demonstrates manipulation.
Other organisations should
write letters to the Editor, letters to Press Complaint Commission.
Mehrnaz Shahabi:
The Press Complaints Commission, in its recent verdict in favour of
the Daily Telegraph’s use of unnamed sources in propagating incriminating
stories against Iran, ruled that the burden of proof, for invalidating
the claims of these unknown sources, was on CASMII. Clearly this stance
opens the floodgates for promoting further unsubstantiated claims which
can never be invalidated, as is exemplified by the problem of proving
a negative, as in the case of Iraq demonstrating the absence of WMD.
It also sets the conditions for the impossibility or great difficulty
that any group would have in contesting that an article was black propaganda.
In what way might the Press Complaints Commission be brought to account
and challenged?
Paul Ingram:
Ultimately, it has to be through an MP or Parliamentary group.
Mehrnaz Shahabi:
In what way might members of parliament be usefully involved in all
the issues above, particularly with respect to MI6’s accountability
to the parliament? And, in view of the fact that much of this must be
in the domain of the politically aware public, and this must include
MPs, do you have any views on the forces that may be rendering concerned
MPs helpless, for example, could MPs be caught in a double bind with
respect to a conflict between truth and the Official Secrets Act, or
foreign policy?
Paul Ingram: The
accountability is minimal, and through the Security and Intelligence
Liaison Group, a highly select and elite group of MPs. I think you’d
have more joy using MPs for their public role, and to get them to instigate
campaigns through Parliament. Ultimately, most MPs, even those who may
be concerned, will probably think that it’s difficult to know
one way or another about Iran’s involvement within Iraq or Afghanistan.
Putting one’s neck out if one isn’t clear is a risky game.
Last night I watched the film ‘Good night, and Good luck’
by George Clooney (2005), about a courageous CBS team that took on Sen
Joe McCarthy. It highlighted almost exactly what we are experiencing.
It struck me that George Clooney clearly understands these issues we
are talking about, and may be willing to play a role highlighting them.
Celebrities are a great way of cutting through to the public –
they are trusted much more than politicians!
Mehrnaz Shahabi:
Apart from the possibility of some progressive celebrities standing
against the American war propaganda, what can the antiwar organisations
like CASMII do in the US to expose the role of the CIA and the American
military not only in propagating false and distorted stories against
Iran but also in their covert operations to destabilize the Iranian
government?
Paul Ingram: Ultimately
we are engaged in battle over 'hearts and minds' globally, in building
support for an alternative perspective of how nations can relate to
one another and build justice. The media, in the broadest sense of that
term, is the battleground for these ideas. This means providing honest
and balanced comment in such a manner that trust is built up with the
people. It means being critical of any and all governments where such
criticism is appropriate, highlighting their hypocrisy, challenging
those that claim the moral high ground while abusing their positions;
but also recognising the danger that comes from promoting a truly cynical
view of the world … because that in the end only benefits the
powerful and undermines justice. This means embracing the positive aspects
of the values promoted by the powerful: freedom, equality, democracy,
etc., and highlighting to US and European citizenry the ways in which
these values are undermined. We need to rebut stories rapidly. We need
to probe the inconsistencies, highlight the uncertainties, the complexities,
the mess. US and European populations are already tiring of the rush
to war in the Middle East, when the costs are high. If the blame is
spread and the complexities recognised, it is more difficult for them
to pin it all on Iran.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.