Guardian in the Gutter: The Neocon Endorsement
March 21, 2007
At times the worst indictments take the form of praise. The plaudits garnered by the Guardian from Michael Ledeen, the far-right neoconservative who has been called “the most influential warmonger of our time”, is an instructive example. According to Ledeen, the best correspondent in Tehran is the Guardian‘s Robert Tait. Given Ledeen’s stated intention of regime change through violent means, one can of course be forgiven for being sceptical about the political motivations of a journalist; praise in such quarters usually is less about the quality of journalism (about which Ledeen couldn’t care less) than its serviceability to the cause, in this instance, establishing the pretexts for an invasion.
Many, like myself, have already been puzzled by the curious relationship between a liberal newspaper, such as the Guardian, and the Observer, a paper with its reactionary politics, and Britcon commentators.
Ledeen is also full of praise for “that terrific” Peter Tatchell, a known Islamophobe who is a frequent contributor to the Guardian‘s Comment is Free blog. For a self-proclaimed rebel, his foreign policy interests seem remarkably in line with the British Government. His preferred demons are also the Blair government’s: Mugabe, Muslims, Iran, Darfur etc. His writings also appear on Democratiya, an online journal that brings together members of Britain’s pro-war camp with apologists for Israeli oppression and US power, linking together the Euston Manifesto, Compass, Renewal and Engage with US apolgists of an older generation such as John Lloyd. Ledeen likes Tatchell for being “one of the few Western columnists constantly calling attention to the repression of women in the Middle East, above all in Iran”. Indeed — and in doing so, he has the assistance of the same organization that was combating the scourge of pant wearing goats in Iraq: the pro-Zionist Workers Communist Party which has branches both in Iran and Iraq.
Ledeen ends his eulogy with the following gem: “Eventually we will find several democratic revolutionaries on the Left, instead of only among the Neocons.“
The Gurdian has a wide range of opinions.
From Hamas’ wannabe suicide bomber Azzam Tamimi Who thinks Asians are unclean) to Peter Tachell.
So what.
[...] 26th, 2007 Neocon’s favorite British hack, Robert Tait, reports from Tehran again, and it appears he is quietly shedding his [...]
[...] neocon’s favorite journalist Robert Tait invites us to witness the spectacle of Iranian apathy, who are busy celebrating Norouz “in [...]
[...] Neocon favorite, Robert Tait, regurgitates American propaganda about the Iranian diplomats captured by US forces in Irbil on January 11 in suggesting that “the seizure of the Britons was intended as a stunt to restore the IRGC’s prestige after a string of setbacks, including the arrest of senior officers of the guard’s elite Quds force by US troops in Iraq and the disappearance of two leaders last month.” The claim about the diplomats being members of the Quds force is then echoed by the editors in their otherwise sensible, if rather obsequeous (towards Tony Blair), leader in a show of total contempt for the intelligence of its readership. Tait even finds an ‘Iranian expert’, Ali Ansari, at the tory bastion St Andrews University who supports his thesis. Against the backdrop of Iranian Revolutionary Guard power politics, according to Tait, ”Britain is trying to negotiate the release of its citizens using normal diplomatic channels” [notice the use of the word ‘citizen’] [...]
Hi,
I am Robert Tait, the Guardian correspondent in whom you seem to have taken an absurdly misconceived interest. Your blog is one of the stupidest and worst-informed attempts at a media critique I have ever read. You have the temerity to set yourself up as some expert pundit but plainly don’t even know the basics of how the newspaper industry works. You appear to be unencumbered by such minor issues as checking your facts before making unsupportable assertions and clearly know absolutely nothing about Iran. However, this is solely my opinion and, therfore, of little consequence.
More seriously, if you continue to associate me with the opinions of American neo-cons and those of Peter Tatchell – whose poorly-informed and inane gibberings about Iran I abhor – I shall have to consider suing.
Your most serious allegation is over the “political motivations of a journalist” (i.e. me) whom you accuse of being engaged in “establishing the pretexts for an invasion”. This is straight-forward defamation. To state the obvious, you do not know me and can know nothing of my “political motivations”. Furthermore, there is not a scrap of evidence to support the allegation you make. For the record, I am not, never have been and never shall be a neo-conservative. Totally without foundation, you tar me with support for an endeavour – western/US military action against Iran – to which I am 100% unequivocally opposed.
Your basis for doing so seems to rest largely on complimentary comments made about me by one Michael Ledeen. I have no connection with Ledeen and have never met him. I know him only by reputation. His commendation was was neither sought nor welcomed and, indeed, I was in total ignorance of it until stumbling across your blog. But using it to label me as a neo-con is guilt by the most tenuous of associations. If this is an example of your intellectural rigour, it bodes ill for your future academic studies.
Understand something. Stupidity comes in all forms, ethnic groups, religious denominations and nationalities. I happen to be based in Iran and therefore in a position to report on the liberal helpings often served up by the authorities here. The fact that the Ledeens of this world choose to try and use the results of this to justify their political aims is an occupational hazard. But it is hardly my fault.
Your other tool for attacking me is the out-of-context attribution of phrases and words that were either written by others or, alternatively, are about as far from being consequential as Strathclyde university is from Tehran. In one instance, you accuse me of “shedding me caution and whole-heartedly embracing neo-con terminology” or some such, and quote as evidence a HEADLINE – of all things – over one of my stories describing the detentions of the British sailors (and yes, that is a military term) as “kidnapings”. A headline! Has no-one ever told you that reporters and correspondents do mot write headlines and have no control over them? You are presuming to set yourself up as a media commentator, but this is the most basic of the basics. The description is not repeated in the copy, which in fact begins by suggesting that the Iranians may have been technically in the right. Go through all my stories during that two-week event and you will never see one reference in the copy to these sailors being “kidnapped”.
Likewise your criticism about a piece with my byline about the revolutionary guards. None of the terms you quibble with add up to a row of beans when it comes to enstablishing neo-con sympathies. But for the record, this was a piece put together in the office after I had supplied a large amount of information about the revolutionary guards and their involvement in Iran’s politico-economic life. That is the way busy newspapers often work. The phrases that so offend you were not in fact penned by me, though I am perfectly happy to stand by them. Nor did I “find” Ali Ansari at St Andrews University. He was in fact interviewed by my colleague, Julian Borger, whose name was also on the piece. But since Julian has not earned the double-edged distinction of praise from Michael Ledeen, why let that minor detail inconvenience you?
As for the other things you mention, what’s your beef? I did not “invite” anyone to sample Iranian apathy. I did, up against the kind of sharp deadline which I doubt you have experienced, attempt to interview eight Iranians outside or near the British Council about the sailors’ arrests. Guess what? Six hadn’t heard about it and the two who had thought there were other more important things to be concerned with. Hardly suprising, is it? Why should Iranians who are deeply sceptical about their own government and celebrating the country’s biggest annual holiday care about the fate of a bunch of low-level foreign sailors? I fail to see how reflecting this indicates neo-con tendencies. Ditto, your other complaint about a senior MP criticising Ahmadinejad’s grandstanding stunt in meeting the sailors in person. How would prefer Iran to be depicted? As a totalitarian monolith where everyone blindly obeys the president? That really would help the neo-cons, wouldn’t it.
You are guilty of seeing things through the inverted lens of Michael Ledeen. You even admit as much on the front page of your blog, which doesn’t say much for the sophistication of your critical faculties.
But here’s some advice. When you’re working in the media, think twice and – above all – CHECK before you start branding people with accusations you can’t substantiate, unless you want to end up in court. There may well be journalists out there who are happy to lend their weight to a course of action that will cause mayhem, destruction and loss of countless innocent lives. I just don’t happen to be one of them.
Robert Tait
Hi Robert,
Thanks for dropping by — and for the kind words. I wish you luck with the defamation suit, although you may have a better chance against Michael Ledeen than me, since association between you and Tatchel is implied by him for in his opinion both of you are rendering valuable service presumably towards his stated goal of regime change in Iran.
But first, I’ll admit that you have some valid points. There is no reason I should have extrapolated your political motivations from someone elses endorsement. I’ll edit my comment. Your second point about the headline is also valid; my criticism ought to have been directed at the editors. Thirdly, I should not have singled you out when the byline also included Julian Borger. For all of that I apologize.
Other than that, the criticisms stand. You say that you never used the word ‘kidnap’ in the article but the statement is only partially correct. While you did not use it in the context of the British soldiers, you did mention Iranian claims about their diplomats being “kidnapped” [your quotation marks] — perfectly understandable, since you are only quoting someone else. That is, if you were consistent. It appears you find such circumspection unnecessary when it comes to the British government’s claims; in this article (and here), you — or perhaps Borger — refer to the “hostage crisis”, but no quotation marks this time.
Your (co-authored) articles include gems such as, “Whitehall sources disclosed that the parading of Turney had backfired on Iran in the Arab world, costing it the support of Muslim countries”, and then you fault me for finding them amusing? Isn’t that where we all go when we want guage public opinion in the Arab world — to Whitehall?
The article then ends with: “The agency [IAEA] acknowledges it has no proof that Iran is seeking to make a bomb, but says Tehran has not been entirely forthcoming with information in many areas.” Once again, this presents a misleadingly skewed picture of the nature of IAEA’s invovlement in Iran. The agency has already been going beyond its remit in imposing on Iran the same conditions which facilitated the war in Iraq — to prove a negative, namely, to prove that it is not developing a nuclear weapon. Iran is well within its rights as a signatory to the NPT to enrich Uranium, whereas US and UK have both been in manifest breach of the treaty, which enjoins them to disarm, while at the same time facilitating the transfer of peaceful nuclear technology to non-nuclear states. Perhaps it would be a good idea every time you mention the IAEA to also mention the fact just how “forthcoming” the agency itself has been about the fact that, according to Scott Ritter, it has been turning over data gathered during its inspections to Israel and the US which have been used to prepare detailed target lists for a planned air attack. Sounds to me like pretty legitimate grounds for non-cooperation (which was voluntary in the first place, since Iran is not legally obliged to sumbit to these inspections).
Then there is your repot from Tehran, people celebrating Norouz are apparently oblivious to political developments around them, “unlike the political mood in London”. Well if you are comparing political moods, why not speak to those that represent the “political mood” — the politicians? Maybe you’ll find that the political mood in Tehran is as charged as in London. But maybe you are talking about the mood in London in general, in which case, you have clearly overestimated the political awareness of the average Londoner.
Regarding the IRGC, isn’t it curious that you picked them up to make them the most powerful political force in the country, only to drop them as quickly once the government spin changed? I also find curious the conspicious absence of those ubiquitous quotation marks when describing the view that “the seizure of the Britons was intended as a stunt to restore the IRGC’s prestige after a string of setbacks, including the arrest of senior officers of the guard’s elite Quds force by US troops in Iraq and the disappearance of two leaders last month.” Is it a claim, or have you confirmed that they were members of the “elite Quds force”. Why is this not a “hostage crisis”? And then you (or Borger?) end by writing: “Against this backdrop, Britain is trying to negotiate the release of its citizens”. Right, and I presume the backdrop doesn’t at all include more than 3 years of direct Israeli threats, the sale of bunker busting bombs to Israel, the threats from its various military chiefs, present and former leaders, bolstered by equally belligerent rhetoric from Washington and London?
Finally, I am happy to hear that you are opposed to military intervention in Iran. I look forward to reading your future reports from Iran, and I sincerely hope that there is an attempt to better understand the country’s history, its politics, its people, their aspirations, the threats that they are faced with, and the unique role played by your own country (assuming you are British) in setting the conditions that have led to the present impasse. Until then, I don’t see why you should be offended at being reminded who exactly is delighted with your reporting?
M.I.A
[...] Iran with with a follow up on Simon Tisdall’s frontpage propaganda piece with a new one by neocon favorite, Robert Tait. In classic eco chamber approach, Tait follows the usual banalities about political repression in [...]