Comment

Iran

Jim Zackey

Holding a debate on Iran is timely but, instead of moving in circles or engaging in rhetoric producing heat, the exchanges should instead generate light, and facilitate clarity. What kind of questions needs to be raised regarding security and threat aspect concerning Iran? For example, the BBC Correspondent Justin Webb has quoted John Bolton - the former US ambassador to the UN - as previously saying that an attack on Iran would be justified under international law because it would be an act of self-defence.

Viewers may wish to know if the gunboat episode in the Persian Gulf is a prop meant to time with Bush's Mid-East visit? Is this incident meant to engineer a justification to breathe a new life to the earlier case that appears to be damaged by the recent National Intelligence Estimate, with its suggestion that so far there is no bomb to be concerned about and no evidence of an existing effort to make one?

Are there elements working to keep the Iranian 'threat' alive? A source to analysing war mongering over Iran could be Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films, who released a video, FoxAttacks: Iran last autumn. Another expert worth consulting is Dr. William O. Beeman, professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota and author of The 'Great Satan' vs. the 'Mad Mullahs': How the United States and Iran Demonise Each Other.

Those weaving a case for war resort to what Ira Chernus, professor at the University of Colorado, calls the 'Scheherazade strategy':

'When policy dooms you, start telling stories -- stories so fabulous, so gripping, so spellbinding that the king (or, in this case, the American citizen who theoretically rules our country) forgets all about a lethal policy. It plays on the insecurity of Americans who feel that their lives are out of control.'

Should the media advance 'form over substance, celebrity over ideas'? It is time to hear those most qualified to offer some substance rather than rehashed and redundant rhetoric just to spark debates. When it comes to representation of views and opinions, how prime are the considerations to have them even-handedly?