Hot Air » Blog Archive » BBC happy that Iran wants to talk

BBC happy that Iran wants to talk

posted at 10:00 am on June 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Sometimes reporters like to sneak in a little bias in what should be straightforward reporting. Most of the time, they have the skill to make it subtly, but Jon Leyne lets his slip show a little more than usual — although he waits until the last line of his report on the latest EU incentive package to the Iranians to do so. Javier Solana will travel to Iran to give the mullahcracy an offer Solana thinks they can’t refuse to stop their uranium-enrichment program:

Mr Solana will present the Iranian government with a “generous” offer of incentives designed to encourage it to suspend the enrichment of uranium.

The West fears the enriched uranium could be used to make nuclear weapons.

If Iran refuses, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany have threatened further sanctions.

So far, so good, even if one thinks that the likelihood of Russia and China actually agreeing to further sanctions approaches zero. Leyne makes it all the way to the end, when we get this:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already repeated many times that Iran will not change course, so the chances of success are not good.

But Iran does seem at least to want to continue talking.

And that means what, exactly? They haven’t budged an inch despite five years of talking. And one can understand why, with Javier Solana crawling out to Tehran with an even bigger set of incentives than the last new-and-improved offering. The longer Iran talks and refuses to stop enrichment, the better the package gets. Iran has no incentive to stop that process.

The longer Iran talks, the harder it becomes to get other nations to take action. The longer Iran stalls, the closer they get to building nuclear weapons, at which time it will be the Iranians dictating terms. Of course the Iranians want to continue talking. They don’t want to do anything else but talk.

And why does the BBC and Leyne go out of their way to add this sentence? Is it news? Is it even supportable analysis, let alone useful? No — it’s just Leyne and the BBC trying to minimize the standoff between Iran and the West. It’s opinion disguised as reporting, and foolish opinion at that.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Foolish indeed.

Without concrete actions to go with the talks, the bombs will eventually fly. Either nuclear tipped missiles from Iran, a suitcase type nuke supplied to terrorists by Iran, or a few bombing runs from Israel to preempt it all.

Talk without requiring Iran to stop enrichment = calm before the storm.

Ordinary1 on June 14, 2008 at 10:11 AM

At least Iran is still talking!

And why not? At this rate, they can still make nuclear weapons and every year the West offers a bigger bribe. If I were Iran, I would finish making my nukes, but pretend like I didn’t have them yet. That way the payout from the idiot West would keep getting bigger even while I wasn’t doing any work.

Watch them nuke Israel the minute the check clears, while the EU shrieks “You promised you were still 3 years away from a bomb!!!”

Lehosh on June 14, 2008 at 10:19 AM

The BBC; making other news outlets seem fair and competent.

Grayson on June 14, 2008 at 10:19 AM

So, so happy, yakity-yak: New Incentives for Iran Rejected before Reception

In his recent joint press conference with Yemeni Foreign Minister Abubakr Abdullah El-Qorba, Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister said that during visit with his British counterpart David Miliband in Kuwait, he has asked 5+1 not to cross the red lines in the packaged incentives they offer Iran.

What Iran means by “red lines” and violation of its national rights, is the cornerstone of 5+1 incentives; halting uranium enrichment.

Do you understand what the Mullah’s mean? I understand what the Mullah’s mean and I’d bet money the Russian’s & Chinese understand what the Mullah’s mean.

We appear to have some extremely challenged Fwench, British, German & US officials – to the point where they are an embarrassment.

Earlg on June 14, 2008 at 10:30 AM

The EU knows the danger. They know what the end result will be. They just don’t have the grit to confront it. Simple as that.

The MEDIA, on the otherhand, are invested in quite a different way. They (lefties) believe that once Iran aquires the bomb then:

1. The U.S. will have it’s hands tied because they believe nobody would attack a nation with nuclear arms.

and

2. Isreal will then be FORCED to return to the magical 67 borders, and flowers and frankincense will fall from heaven.

Madness.

Limerick on June 14, 2008 at 10:48 AM

In Debate Over Permanent Bases In Iraq, U.S. Seeks Authorization For War In Iran

Think Progress | June 11, 2008

The ongoing negotiations between Iraqi leaders and the Bush administration over the future role of the military occupation “have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate.”

The Bush administration’s demand for 58 permanent bases in Iraq — a near doubling of the current 30 bases — are causing Iraqis to warn that the status of forces agreement would be “more abominable than the occupation.” The administration is reportedly holding hostage “some $50bn of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement.”

The reason the White House is so hell-bent on signing a long-term agreement may have less to do with Iraq and more to do with Iran. According to press reports of the ongoing negotiations, the Bush administration is seeking the “power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.” Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party, confirmed:

The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq…if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.

The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.

Other details from press accounts confirm that the Bush administration has one eye on Iran in the course of its negotiations with Iraqis. The Washington Post explains that the administration is seeking “the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.” Moreover, the U.S. wants control over Iraq’s airpsace:

The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, according to [Sami al-Askari, a leading Shiite politician], positions he said added to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.

Since the administration is unlikely to get an Iran war authorized through Congress, it’s instead trying to sneak it through the Iraqi parliament.

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 10:59 AM

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 10:59 AM

newsflash: we can go to war with Iran without any congressional authorization, just like your boy Bill did in Kosova.

right4life on June 14, 2008 at 11:07 AM

But Iran does seem at least to want to continue talking.

thats very nice of them….while they wait for their messiah to be elected president, then they invade israel, along with Russia…

the ezekial option

they’re in for a nasty surprise….

right4life on June 14, 2008 at 11:09 AM

The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.

My goodness, there is already a mound of evidence that Iran is supplying training and weapons that have and are killing American servicemen and women. We have every right this minute to start the bombing runs!

Since the Bible says that Iraq will be very prosperous in the end times, I’m thinkin’ we will end up leaving Iraq in very good shape.

Ordinary1 on June 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM

But Iran does seem at least to want to continue talking.

The world can’t wait to be rid of Bushco. All Hail the Messiah!

dmann on June 14, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Iran’s just waiting for The Obamassiah to go to Tehran. He’ll talk to them and everything will be fine then. Of course Iran will still continue to develop it’s nuclear weapons, but the Anointed One will have gone to talk to them and that’s the important part.

rbj on June 14, 2008 at 12:10 PM

The Iranians are stalling for time, just as Hitler did in the 30s, and the ‘diplomats’ are willing to give them that very time. Again.

bikermailman on June 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Thank goodness Hitler wanted to talk.

Maquis on June 14, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Actually Ed it is a fact rather than editorial. Iran is open to more discussions… a fact. Get over your knee jerk paranoia of anything BBC… it’s tiresome when you cry over stuff like this.

BBC remains the world’s most trustworthy news source. Name one better… Hot Air?

lexhamfox on June 14, 2008 at 7:10 PM

The BBC has now updated the story linked in the post…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7454970.stm

Jon Leyne remains optimistic (last two paragraphs). Cough-hak-gag

lexhamfox on June 14, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Open to more discussions? Like what? Full our ears with the Iranian talking points. Please confine it to what Iran is actually putting on the table and not whatever daydream you are having.

Thanks.

Limerick on June 14, 2008 at 9:08 PM

Peace in our time.

Johan Klaus on June 15, 2008 at 12:38 AM

Ooopsy! Tehran doesn’t want to play, no matter how big the carrot.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25160269

a capella on June 15, 2008 at 1:58 AM

Limerick, Perhaps discussions would include inspections, access to scientists, and a range of other things. You don’t seem able to read Limerick.. the Leyne’s article is not in fact optimistic at all. He suggests that the discussions are coming to an end and point out that Iran has stated clearly that suspension on enrichment is not up for discussion or ‘debate.’ Your lack of comprehension expends to my own comment which was not about the state of play between Iran and the EU but it was rather specific about Ed’s unwarranted tantrum over BBC bias because they said that discussions were going to continue (again, a straight up fact).

lexhamfox on June 15, 2008 at 2:06 AM

I can’t blame Iran. I would keep talking too if I was a dangerously deranged man like Ahmedinejad. Keep talking while building my weapons. Stockpile them while I showed mild willingness to talk. Then take the incentives package once I had a couple thousand hidden warheads and then nuke the hell out of Israel and anyone else I didn’t like since that was my intention to begin with.

MannyT-vA on June 15, 2008 at 2:18 AM

Iran is open to more discussions… a fact.
lexhamfox on June 15, 2008 at 2:06 AM

You don’t seem able to read Limerick..
lexhamfox on June 15, 2008 at 2:06 AM

Ok…whatever you say lexhamfox.

Now about my question regarding Iran wishing to continue the ‘discussions’…..What are they offering up to move the discussions forward?

Limerick on June 15, 2008 at 9:02 AM

BTW….the original article linked by Ed has been CHANGED by the BBC.

The original article, that Ed quoted, was posted by the BBC on the night of June 13. It seems to have gone down the memory hole.

Limerick on June 15, 2008 at 9:07 AM

The BBC is strongly aligned to muslim world opinion, strongly aligned to the prevailing ‘wisdom’ of the EU, and virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli. This has been extensively documented by many bloggers and the BBC’s own internal report into bias confirmed these facts…

It is hard to argue against the supposition that the BBC is pro-Jihad and acts against the interests of the western world. The crushing irony of course is that the organisation also considers itself ‘progressive’ – they think they are very fond of pluralism, democracy, human rights, women’s rights, gay rights, the right to abortion, and so forth whilst the side they have chosen to nourish with their support would sooner see them dead than allow them any of these liberties. They seem to think that these liberties are their birthright and that no-one would take them away.

In short, the BBC is riven with mendacious fools. Never a good combination, mendacity and foolishness.

Ares on June 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM

LOL BBC is pro jihad…. you are funny. You should read the reports from correspondents reporting directly from Iran, Zimbabwe, and other repressed places. It is about the only time you do see some personal input from the correspondents and none of it is pro-regime as you suggest.

Limerick… I saw the original article and didn’t think it was optimistic or ‘happy’ that Iran was open to further talks. You seem to be upset that talks are continuing or might continue. Your anger is best directed at the EU rather than the BBC which reports the news. Understand Limerick… the BBC doesn’t have a position on talks with Iran.. they merely report what the Iranians and the EU are saying.

lexhamfox on June 15, 2008 at 8:07 PM

Comment pages:

You must be logged in to post a comment.