BBC's Jim Muir: Enriching The Truth About Iran

Four years ago, one of the most stupid and offensive excuses offered by the BBC on behalf of their beloved Islamopaths came from one, Jim Muir. In an article which followed the tried and tested formula of blaming 9/11 on America's support for Israel, and which raised eyebrows at both CAMERA and Honest.Reporting.com, Muir tried his hand at Explaining Arab Anger:

Now, he [Ariel Sharon] is Israel's prime minister, and he's eagerly signing up to take part in America's new crusade of good against evil.
The above was one of many such incidents during Israel's adventure in Lebanon, in which uncounted thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians were killed.
They died unmourned and largely unnoticed by the American public, whose largesse - financial, military and political - made it all possible.

This slice of nastiness made its appearance on the BBC's servers eight -- eight -- days after 9/11. We mention it because, unlike the BBC's John Simpson (who makes an appearance in yesterday's Telegraph in order to complain that he's now expected to turn the terrorists he interviews over to the police), Jim Muir's name might not be immediately recognisable. On the strength of his latest performance, it ought to be:

There is a strange-looking building alongside the headquarters of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation, in its spacious compound in north-central Tehran.
It looks like an early attempt at a modernistic mosque. There is a big, rather flat dome, with a tall, square column sticking up beside it, that could be a minaret.

This is, of course, the place where swarthy, bearded Islamopaths handle the public face of Iran's plot to acquire nuclear weapons. This is a point worth stressing because Muir's about to insinuate something else. Watch this move, because it's worthy of Goebbels:

But this is, in fact, the Tehran Nuclear Research Reactor - and there is nothing particularly secret about it.

... And this is supposed to mean -- What exactly? That there's nothing secretive about the Mullah's attempts to go nuclear? No hidden bunkers miles under solid rock? No evasiveness when it comes to inspection teams getting access to them?

In fact, I was allowed to film there several times, though we had to make sure the call to prayer was not going on at the time, otherwise people would have thought it really was a mosque.

Now, let's assume that Jim Muir isn't a completely stupid person. He must know that even people as deranged as the Mullahs aren't dumb enough to put their nuclear secrets on display and invite the BBC over to take pictures. So why is he trying to sell readers on the same protestations of transparency that the Iranian government pumps out? This isn't journalism, it's propaganda.

The reactor was the first foundation-stone in Iran's nuclear programme. It was constructed back in the 1950s.

Meanwhile, the facilities for enriching weapons-grade uranium are very modern indeed. They're also well-hidden, just in case anyone thought the illegal stuff goes on in a mosque-like building in downtown Tehran.

By now, you have probably guessed who built it. That is right - the Americans. They even gave the Iranians some highly-enriched uranium to experiment with as well.

Well, doubtless people who get all their news from the BBC would find it unsurprising that the U.S. kick-started Iran's nuclear programme, though this is only because the likes of Jim Muir have nattered incessantly on about the U.S.'s 'arming of Saddam' for the past four years. For those of us who don't take anything the slimes in big media say at face value, however, the truth has long appeared very differently.

Of course, things were very different then. Iran was ruled by the Shah, and the Islamic revolution was still in the distant future.

Twenty-nine years in the future, to be precise ... Though if this doesn't strike everyone as sufficiently 'distant' (and, let's face it, sections of the left are still wailing about the British Empire), it's also worth bearing in mind that Iran's current nuclear technology has far less to do with America's actions half-a-century ago than it does with the inability of Pakistan to keep a tight enough grip on its nuclear secrets.

The point is that there is so much geopolitics and hype surrounding the Iranian nuclear issue, that it is hard to get an objective perspective on it.

What Muir seems to be doing here is planting the suggestion that since Iran has possessed a nuclear reactor for fifty years without trying for a bomb, we should all relax. If that is his point, then, for a second time, he's trading on what he hopes is the ignorance of his readers. See, as Muir well knows, there's a world of difference between possessing the ability to produce electricity and the ability to produce weapons-grade nuclear fuel. Since the Mullahs are trying to do just that, the 'hype' surrounding their actions is very justified: to put it simply, there is no legitimate reason for enriching uranium unless you intend to use it for making bombs.

It is of course the Americans who are now prodding the campaign to pressure the Iranians into giving up their nuclear ambitions. The US and Iran have been bitterly at odds since the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran.

Well, we're sure that Israel is doing some Mullah-prodding as well. What with the threats to wipe them off the map and all. We're also sure that although the 1979 hostage crisis didn't exactly warm relations between Iran and the U.S., Washington's opposition to the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism going nuclear has less to do with sour grapes than it does with common sense.

Today, American forces practically encircle Iran. They are on warships in the Gulf, in bases on its Arab side, and all over the place in neighbouring Afghanistan to the east, and Iraq to the west.

Damn those American Imperialists! If only they would stop spreading freedom and representative democracy, then head-hacking, medieval tyrants wouldn't feel so threatened.

Hard-liners in Washington clearly hope, that after the Taleban and Saddam Hussein, the Islamic regime in Tehran will be next to go.

Well, to be fair, there are very few (read zero) countries who wouldn't like to see the back of the Mullahs. That the U.S. and Israel are the ones pushing hardest to remove them isn't to say that the rest of the world thinks Islamofascists bristling with nuclear weapons is an ideal situation ... But you see how Muir's line of attack is working? What he wants to do is create the impression that the U.S. is isolated in its dislike of the Iranian regime. This simply isn't true.

So it is not surprising that they should seize the nuclear issue as a stick with which to beat Iran - and equally unsurprising that Tehran should see the mounting international pressure as an American-orchestrated campaign to force an independent nation into submission.

Oh my. Those poor Iranians. First they're 'encircled' by 'hard-liners' and now the Americans are 'beating them with sticks'. What's an evil dictatorship ruled by madmen sovereign nation to do? Well, threaten to wipe other sovereign nations off the map, obviously.

That is an argument that goes down well with many ordinary Iranians, including some who are not fans of the Islamic regime. It is hard for them not to agree that there is a double standard at play.

Well, this much is true enough. Whereas British citizens like Jim Muir can say whatsoever they please, ordinary Iranians do, indeed, find it 'hard not to agree' with the line their deranged leaders take. They also find it hard to dress themselves, choose whether or not to wear beards, worship something other than the Moongod, and, in the case of 18-year-old rape victims who fight back, hard to keep breathing. Isn't theocracy wonderful, Jim?

Everybody knows, they say, that America's closest regional ally Israel, has basements full of nuclear weapons, but nobody says a word about it. Nearby Pakistan and India both have the bomb too. So why not us?

No news, though on who, exactly, the 'they' doing this saying are. While we're sure Jim Muir isn't just lazily using the fact that some Iranians must, indeed, think such things as an excuse to push his anti-American line, still, it's a fair bet that the sort of people who make such utterances are more likely to be found leading 'Death to America' chants in a mosque than, say, sitting on death row for the 'crime' of being raped.

The authorities, of course, insist that they are not after nuclear arms, just peaceful power. But there is a nationalist streak in most Iranians.

As, indeed, there is in most people ... Though just what this has to do with telling bald-faced lies about attempts to build illegal WMDs is anyone's guess. Jim Muir, you see, doesn't really get around to explaining the logic he's using here.

Many would be proud if they did join the nuclear club, and assume that is what their leaders are trying to do, though some would not want the bombs to be in the hands of the current regime.

Which is a roundabout way of saying -- What? That although Iranians love their country as much as anyone else, and although they'd like to see their country get ahead, the thought of nukes in the hands of President Wacko scares them as much as it does the rest of us? Because, as an endorsement of President Bush's position, you'd really have to go a long way to beat that one, wouldn't you?

Whether the West likes it or not, it has become an issue of national pride, which is why there is not much audible dissent across the normally fractious political spectrum.

Well, the 'lack of audible dissent' might have more to do with, you know, the religious police dragging bloggers off to torture chambers ... And as for the 'fractious political spectrum', well, where to begin? Perhaps by stating that 'spectrum' is a poor descriptor for a police state which only allows politicians to run in elections if they can demonstrate their commitment to Islamofascism.

But that is not to say that there no different approaches. Until late 2003, it looked as though the nuclear issue might just act as a bridge to draw Iran out of its isolation.

This was certainly the diplomatic line the so-called EU Three (Britain, Germany and Fwance) ran with, but let's be quite clear about this: this 'drawing out' of Iran was supposed to happen if, and only if, the Mullahs agreed to give up their nuclear ambitions. Somehow, Jim Muir manages to make it sound as though those nice diplomats weren't really trying to disarm Iran, when, in fact, the opposite is true.

While insisting on their right in principle to develop their own nuclear fuel, a combination of reformists and pragmatic conservatives agreed with Britain, France and Germany to suspend Iran's enrichment activities.

This is true. The Mullahs did, indeed, agree to this, at least on Saturdays, Mondays and Wednesdays. On Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, of course, they rattled their sabres and asserted their 'right' to enrich uranium -- Anyone following the story closely would know this, so why is Jim Muir trying to sell his readers on the idea that the diplomatic route taken by Europe was anything other than a complete failure? (Oh, and in case anyone thinks our weekly schedule for Mullahs is running a little light, Fridays in Iran are reserved for the serious business of standing in a mosque screaming, 'Death to America. Death to Israel'.)

At one moment, it even looked as though Tehran had driven a considerable wedge between the three big European powers, and the US.

Um ... no. What actually happened was a bunch of credulous dhimmis in MSM tried running with this line for a while, in spite of strenuous denials from both Washington and the EU. Now, doubtless Muir and his cohorts would dearly love there to be a rift between America and Europe over this (or any) issue, but the fact of it is that wishful thinking on the part of BBC journalists doesn't make a story true.

But then two years ago came a lurch towards the hard line, when the conservatives won general elections, and then took the presidency last year.

Certainly, it's true that President Ahmadinejad is even crazier and more fanatical than his predecessor, but, please, can we have less of the 'general election' stuff? Iran isn't a democracy, and its people aren't free to choose their leaders. Alright, they get a little more wiggle room than the 'vote for me or go through the shredder' system Saddam operated, but, for the sake of decency, could Muir please just call a police state by its proper name?

The detente fostered by former President Mohammad Khatami has gone down the drain, along with the goodwill of men like British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who made more trips to Tehran than to anywhere else. The European carrot has become a stick.

Did Khatami have Jack Straw's 'goodwill'? Really, we mean? And was there 'detente' between Europe and Iran? Much as we're sure Jim Muir longs for a return to the good old days when the Iranians did their brutal theocracy with a handshake and a smile, the only substantive difference between Khatami and Ahmadinejad (apart from the latter's obvious insanity) is that the new boy can't be bothered to dance the diplomatic two-step with Euroweenies. This isn't so much an end to detente as a dropping of pretence.

At the moment, it looks as though Iran has gone into reverse, on a course that may lead to greater isolation and diplomatic and economic pressures.

It might also lead to airstrikes, Jim. Don't forget the airstrikes. We're sure Israel and the U.S. haven't.

It is not yet certain that it will face international sanctions after referral to the UN Security Council.

True, but somewhat beside the point. See, maybe Jim Muir wasn't paying attention in 2003, but if the liberation of Iraq proved one thing, it's that international law is exactly what the U.S. says it is. The real question, then, is whether President Bush is prepared to let the Mullahs get their greasy paws on nuclear weapons or not. The BBC, of course, keep running with the line that military action against Iran would be 'unthinkable'. Strangely, though, they don't say the same thing when the Mullahs threaten to wipe Israel from the map. Funny, that.

It always used to slip off the hook at the last moment, though the new hardline leaders, especially the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is less inclined and less adept at that.

Translation: the Mullahs have arrived at the conclusion that if they're going to build some nukes, they might as well just get on and build them. After all, it now looks unlikely that the U.S. will cut them a break in the region by failing in its mission to democratise Iraq, so if they don't act now, all that frightful freedom and democracy stuff might actually start spreading in their direction.

If it does come to the crunch, Iran will not be an easy nut to crack - especially on this issue, where there is not likely to be a big split between the regime and the people.

And, of course, Iran's religious police are always on hand with the electrodes and boiling water, just in case anyone does decide to 'split' with the Mullahs' genocidal ambitions. This, as Jim Muir just keeps on forgetting to point out, is one of the principal joys of living in a police state -- People live their lives in so much terror that getting one to actually stand up in front of the nice BBC man and declare their opposition to Islamism is about as likely as getting Jim Muir to do the job he's paid to do and produce unbiased news.

A few years ago, some Iranians were tempted to think that the Americans might be able to bring them a better life. But now, looking at the chaos just next door in Iraq, they have had second thoughts.

Yes, yes, yes. It's all about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Only, the calculation here doesn't involve what the Iranian people want, leastways not most immediately. Instead, the issue before us is whether or not we are prepared to let a madman get his hands on nuclear weapons. If we decide not, then it is increasingly likely that force will be the only way we have to end this. Iran's President Ahmadinejad can plead the insanity defence for not acknowledging this reality, but what on earth is Jim Muir's excuse?