The strange case of the Iran "dossier"
Well I'm sure no one needs telling that in the wake of Hersh's report (see last post) and the proposal of the "Iran Freedom and Support Act" in US congress (see Guy Dinmore, FT, Jan 18, "White House remains wary as neocons turn their attention to Iran") there has been much speculation and chatter about a possible attack on Iran, even to the point of overshadowing coverage of preperations for the elections in Iraq now only a week away (a laudable exception in this case has been the New York Times).
This morning, the Sunday Times leads on a very strange story indeed. "Straw snubs US hawks on Iran" the headline reads. The story says that "The foreign secretary has produced a 200-page dossier that rules out military action and makes the case for a “negotiated solution” to curbing the ayatollahs’ nuclear ambitions amid increasingly bellicose noises from Washington."
So what am I finding so very strange? Well first of all, it was published on Wednesday. "The dossier, entitled Iran’s Nuclear Programme, was quietly issued in the Commons on the eve of Bush’s inauguration last week for fear of provoking a public rift with Washington" write David Cracknells and Tony Allen-Mills, as though the lack of a press release absolves them of any responsibility for having failed to notice this in the last 4 days. Why is it that the Sunday Times have only realised last night that this dossier even exists, and why has it passed the rest of the media by completely? A quick Google News search produced two results - a BBC review of the Sunday papers, and an AFP (wire) report taking all its info from the Times piece.
Well despite the technology available to them, sometimes the media don't pick up on things. Fair enough. But there's something else very odd indeed about this story: the "dossier" is not at all what the Sunday Times says it is. Rather than "putting the case against a military attack on Iran" it is actually a document collection which sets out how the IAEA and the British French and German governments have been investigating Iran's nuclear programmes over the last two years and the agreements that have been reached. The only new part of it is Straw's forward, which quite vacantly concludes:
"A negotiated solution, in which both sides have a feeling of ownership, is in the
best interests of Iran and of the international community. It gives stronger
guarantees of future behaviour than an imposed solution, and is more likely to build
the long-term confidence and trust which can enable the broader relationship to
develop positively."
The Times is right to say that this dossier does not "make the case for war" in the sense that the Sept 24 2002 dossier did, but not even the most hawkish republicans expect attacks in Iran to begin within six months.
If anything explains this dossier's absence from the British media in the last 4 days, it is its insignificance. Its presence on the front of the Sunday Times on what is by no stretch of the imagination a slow news day, baffles me.
This morning, the Sunday Times leads on a very strange story indeed. "Straw snubs US hawks on Iran" the headline reads. The story says that "The foreign secretary has produced a 200-page dossier that rules out military action and makes the case for a “negotiated solution” to curbing the ayatollahs’ nuclear ambitions amid increasingly bellicose noises from Washington."
So what am I finding so very strange? Well first of all, it was published on Wednesday. "The dossier, entitled Iran’s Nuclear Programme, was quietly issued in the Commons on the eve of Bush’s inauguration last week for fear of provoking a public rift with Washington" write David Cracknells and Tony Allen-Mills, as though the lack of a press release absolves them of any responsibility for having failed to notice this in the last 4 days. Why is it that the Sunday Times have only realised last night that this dossier even exists, and why has it passed the rest of the media by completely? A quick Google News search produced two results - a BBC review of the Sunday papers, and an AFP (wire) report taking all its info from the Times piece.
Well despite the technology available to them, sometimes the media don't pick up on things. Fair enough. But there's something else very odd indeed about this story: the "dossier" is not at all what the Sunday Times says it is. Rather than "putting the case against a military attack on Iran" it is actually a document collection which sets out how the IAEA and the British French and German governments have been investigating Iran's nuclear programmes over the last two years and the agreements that have been reached. The only new part of it is Straw's forward, which quite vacantly concludes:
"A negotiated solution, in which both sides have a feeling of ownership, is in the
best interests of Iran and of the international community. It gives stronger
guarantees of future behaviour than an imposed solution, and is more likely to build
the long-term confidence and trust which can enable the broader relationship to
develop positively."
The Times is right to say that this dossier does not "make the case for war" in the sense that the Sept 24 2002 dossier did, but not even the most hawkish republicans expect attacks in Iran to begin within six months.
If anything explains this dossier's absence from the British media in the last 4 days, it is its insignificance. Its presence on the front of the Sunday Times on what is by no stretch of the imagination a slow news day, baffles me.
posted by UK plc at 10:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home