P U L S E

Richard Silverstein has an interesting piece in The Guardian regarding the two-faced US-Iran foreign policy positions of certain neocons like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Silverstein points out the blatant hypocrisy of figures like McCain, who prior to the Iranian election was pushing for more sanctions and  military strategies which would endanger millions of Iranian lives, but has recently been criticizing President Barack Obama for not taking a hardline approach to the country in solidarity with the “Iranian people.”

Referring to the tragic murder of Neda-Agha Soltani which was caught on videotape and has since repeatedly appeared almost everywhere from social networking sites to mainstream news outlets, McCain attempted to reinforce his new-found compassion for Iranians:

“I’m on the side of the people. I’m not on Ahmadinejad’s side or Mousavi. I’m on the side of the Iranian people and I’m on the right side of history. And I’m not going to walk on the other side of the street while people are being killed and beaten in the streets of Iran.”

This is the same man who was jokingly singing about bombing Iran less than a year ago when he was running for president of the United States.

While Silverstein makes some interesting observations – especially about a certain “Mohammad” who was allegedly interviewed by CNN about his experiences but used his time to reinforce Israel’s interests in the region — he also seems to believe that the only positive outcome for Iran is tied to the success of Mousavi and his supporters’ goals.  This has been a common theme among the majority of reports we get out of the West on the situation on Iran.  Indeed, while the goal of the neocons may be to out the Islamic Republic in its entirety, the goal of the vast majority of the conservative, liberal and progressive news media seems to be focused on outing Ahmadinejad from the presidency.  Even asserting that Ahmadinejad could have won the election is next to unacceptable these days even though we still lack hard evidence (as opposed to what may be justified speculation) that he was defeated.  Further, many of the commentators that have actually dared to point this out have prefaced their statements with a declaration of non-support for Ahmadinejad, which should be irrelevant anyway if we are really talking about the importance of the presence of concrete evidence when making these kinds of assertions.

Let me put it another way.  During the campaign phase of the Iranian election the majority of Western coverage reports included images of young Iranians exhibiting green, their youthful faces bright and vibrant with sincere support for their candidate of choice: Mir-Hossein Mousavi.  After the election results were announced more images of more youth still clothed in green dominated the press, this time determined with defiance against a president who they did not want to accept from the beginning.  Then there was the bloodied, the bruised and the battered “revolutionaries” (according to some) who while still exhibiting green were actively resisting state authorities in the streets, destroying public property and voicing their right to protest.  Outside of Iran protests all over the world, attended by thousands of Iranian expatriates, where shown exhibiting green banners, green clothing, green face paint, green ribbons, balloons – all in solidarity with their people.  In other words, almost every report about Iran since the election process began has had Mousavi and his supporters at the heart of each story, as if they represent the majority of Iran, the best of Iran, the only worthy part of Iran.  But the question of who represents that majority has yet to be answered, or has already been answered if one accepts the election results — so why does the press continue to sidestep this question?

In the end, regardless of what the outcome of this election ultimately boils down to, one result is at least guaranteed: Ahmadinejad will never be accepted as Iran’s legitimate president by the West no matter what new evidence emerges in his favor — he was never the pick of the press anyway.