World Opinion Roundup

Online News From Around The World

In his weekly discussion, washingtonpost.com staff writer Jefferson Morley conducts a freewheeling tour of the best of Internet news sites from Afghanistan to Beijing to Mexico City to Paris to Zimbabwe.

Today Morley talks about international reaction to the Bush administration's refusal to rule out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and asks the question, "Is Iran next?"

Read Today's Column:Target Iran: How Likely Is a U.S. First Strike? (World Opinion Roundup, Jan. 25)

Roundup brings the diversity of the global online media to your screen, presenting today's news and views from journalists, pundits and commentators from every continent. We'll talk about America in the eyes of the world, compare journalistic practices, analyze politics and perspectives, examine the nature of news and debate styles of journalism.

A transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

_____________

Jefferson Morley: Welcome all,

I apologize for the slight delay in starting. I will skip the usual throat clearing and go straight to your questions.

_______________________

Portland, Maine: Where would the United States find the forces to go to war with Iran?

Jefferson Morley: That's a very good question. Basically, the U.S. has no ground forces to spare. That means that the U.S.'s options for attacking Iraq are: 1) special forces operations or 2) air attack. If anybody knowledgeable about military affairs has a different opinion, please let us know.

_______________________

Pacifica, Calif.: From the standpoint of Secretary Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and their group it seems perfectly reasonable that they would be preparing for possible air-based attacks in Iran. Given the fact that a ground invasion is totally out of the question due to the "situation" in Iraq, outside of diplomacy, I believe there is no other military option for the U.S.

Wouldn't any attack on Iran galvanize the Shia community against the U.S? And wouldn't this endanger what is left of our relationship with the Shia of Iraq, who have been remarkably restrained in the face of the constant attacks they have suffered?

Jefferson Morley: I think you are asking some of the same questions that Defense Department war planners and policymakers are asking themselves.

I think it is fair to assume that an attack on Iran would not go over well with the worldwide Shia. I think you are right that a U.S. attack on Iran would risk an ever deeper alienation of the already suspicious Shia of Iraq.

The Iranian leadership has gained confidence from this calculation. They believe that the political costs of attacking would so great and the possibility of ousting the current government so small, that the U.S. officials are bluffing when they talk about attacking Iraq.

Obviously, they could be wrong.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why is Iran's ability to get nuclear arms a direct threat to America? Their missiles would never be able to reach our country and Iran knows our missiles can reach them.

It looks like some of Europe would have a better chance of being reached by Iranian missiles and, yet the U.S. seems more frightened than Europe. Is this, once again, all about Israel's best interest? I get the feeling our entire middle east strategy is all about U.S. taxpayer money and U.S. lives being spent to secure Israel. All the neo-cons in this administration seem to put Israel's well being over this country's.

Jefferson Morley: Iran's would-be nuclear arsenal would not pose a direct threat to the United States but it would change the balance of power in the region. Iran has tested medium range missiles that could be engineered to carry nuclear weapons. These missiles could reach Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Europe and Russia. Thus Iranian WMD would affect, if not threaten, U.S. interests in those countries. The European nations, even France and Germany, regard the possibility as destabilizing and are hoping to prevent it.

Of course, Israel probably already has a similar nuclear delivery capabilities but, as a U.S. ally, is not regarded as a threat to U.S. interests.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: This is what Bush wants as a legacy? First Iraq, then Iran, and who knows who's next. Without the support of the world, which by the way, can be a very lonely place when we are the only country attacking other countries. Why does Bush use the label of "freedom" and "democracy" as a punchline for attacks instead of their true purpose, connecting the world?

Jefferson Morley: This clearly is what Bush wants as a legacy: to effect a political transformation of Middle East.

_______________________

Culpeper, Va.: After the Iraq disaster and the fact our military resources are stretched then, not to mention our lack of credibility due to Iraq, how can we honestly even say we are going after Iran? Has this nation gone insane?

Jefferson Morley: From the President's point of view, the war is on "terrorism." The battlefields are Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran, regarded as an "emerging threat," not simply because of its apparent ambitions for nuclear weapons but also because of the undemocratic features of its government.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: How much would an action against Iran cost ... Afghanistan is $900 mil/month Iraq is $5 billion/month ... where is the money coming from? Please give us a monthly estimate or range?

Jefferson Morley: That's a good question that doesn't have a good answer. I have not seen any estimates about what an attack on Iran would cost.

It would probably not be anywhere near as expensive as the ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. simply is not capable of invading Iran with a ground forces, holding territory and resupplying those forces.

On the other hand, special operations or air attacks on Iran would not be prohibitively expensive and are within the capabilities of the U.S. military.

_______________________

Washington, D.C. : Good afternoon, sort of. I continued to be alarmed, shocked, and dumbfounded by the news regarding Iran. Please explain to me how one could envision ANY chance of this administration being able to enter into a military action of ANY sort against Iran considering:
1. Military being stretched too thin
2. Congress will not support another preemptive military action, right!?
3. The American people will not support any action, when Iraq has been left undone, which left Afghanistan undone.
4. Britain has the ability to learn a lesson, and will not be our greatest allay.
5. Reporters and the "media elite" are not going to be fooled again, right!?

Am I crazy to think it is impossibility? Or am I just naive?

Jefferson Morley: I will leave aside any judgment on your sanity, Washington DC, and just say that in my view would not be prudent to think that a U.S. or Israeli attack is an impossibility.

In response to your specific points.

1. Air attacks and/or special forces operations are not beyond U.S. capabilities.
2. Congress would probably be notified, not consulted. Republican leaders are unlikely to buck the President. If Israel decides to act, Congress will be irrelevant.
3. The president will ask the American people for their support in continuing the fight that began on Sept. 11.
4. Britain has made its views known. But, unlike in Iraq, the British are not needed militarily.
5. Once the deed is done, reporters and the media elite will report what the administration has done. They will only be in a position to second guess a president who just got reelected.
I regard a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran in the next four years as more likely than not.

_______________________

Vancouver, Canada: When I watch American television news (mainly CNN) I am surprised at how often ‘terrorism' is mentioned. It seems that this concept can be applied to almost any news story, even if its just to say that ‘authorities do not suspect terrorism to be the cause of the crash, the explosion, the laser beam, etc.' Do you think this continual mention of terrorism is driven by viewer interest, or is it a media-led obsession? Does the media in countries that suffer from continual terrorist threats, (such as Sri Lanka, Spain, India, etc.) deal with the discussion of terrorism in a similar way to the U.S?

Jefferson Morley: I don't know how to answer your question except to say the discourse of terrorism among the general public does not differ a whole lot from the discourse of terrorism among TV newsrooms. Newspaper staffs, I think, understand the varieties and causes of terrorism better than TV reporters or the general public.

I think the U.S. media discussion of terrorism is different from other countries such as India, Sri Lanka, and even Israel. The discussion of Palestinian terrorism in the Israeli press, for example, is certainly more nuanced than American TV's coverage of the same subject.

_______________________

New York: De Borchgrave mentioned in a Washington Times article a few weeks ago that Iran might be persuaded to stop backing terrorism in exchange for less argument over its nuclear program.

(Coming geopolitical quakes (The Washington Times, Dec. 15))

Any reaction to this idea?

Jefferson Morley: Arnaud de Borchgrave is a journalistic legend and not just for his reporting, which has proven unfortunately inaccurate in some cases. He was a great admirer of Jonas Savimbi, the Angolan rebel leader adopted by the Reagan administration in the 1980s as a "freedom fighter" with a political useful African-colored skin. Arnaud loved the guy and touted him as the strong right arm of democratic revolution in Africa. Unfortunately, Savimbi was a bloodthirsty killer without scruples or political principals. When one of his men finally did the world a favor and assassinated him, his passing was not lamented. Even Arnaud has given up on him.

Now on to your question. Arnuad has a theoretical point here. A just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would remove a source of hostility from Iranian foreign policy. It is perhaps possible that the Bush administration will someday pursue such a settlement. But there is no sign that the U.S. or Israel has the slightest interest in meeting the minimal demands of Palestinian president Abu Mazen, which is a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel as it existed on June 4, 1967. Right now, the U.S. government seems content to offer the Palestinians what Ariel Sharon is offering: limited sovereignty over various patches of land. The Palestinians call them "bantustans" after the homelands that the apartheid government of South Africa offered the black majority there in the 1980s. It is safe to say that no Palestinian leadership will ever willingly accept such an arrangement. With an Israeli-Palestinian settlement so far off, Arnaud's dream of a pacified Iran is, I'm afraid, but a dream.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How are the Brits not needed in the event of an Iran invasion? We'd need 20,000+ more troops in Iraq without them, why would Iran be different?

Jefferson Morley: Because the U.S. is not going to invade Iran. If the U.S. or Israeli strikes it will be via the air or via small groups of special forces on the ground. Or both.

_______________________

Ann Arbor, Mich.: Mr. Morley, a few months ago you took me to task for stating, in a question, that U.S. forces were poised to leave Iraq. Obviously they certainly AREN'T, and will not be leaving anytime soon. But ... do I recall correctly that a statement was made by our administration that if the Iraqi government 'wanted' them to leave, the troops would be removed?

There's a huge economic consideration here: shouldn't the Iraqi government be willing to help fund its own security? Witness today's WashPost article Army Plans To Keep Iraq Troop Level Through '06 (Post, Jan. 25) on war spending and our deficit.

Jefferson Morley: I don't recall your question Ann Arbor and I apologize if I replied brusquely.

You are correct that the U.S. officials have said the U.S. will leave if asked to by the new government. They really have no choice but to say that, especially now that President Bush has said that the U.S. does not seek to impose its system on anybody else.

But what happens if the new government actually makes this request? That's really an unknown. Given the opaque nature of the Iraqi Shiite leadership it is very hard to know what their plans are.

On the one hand, they certainly want the U.S. out, or at the very least out of sight, meaning out of the cities. On the other hand, the new government will not have much of an army thanks to the decision of U.S. proconsul Paul Bremer to abolish the Iraqi Army in May 2003.

As my colleague EJ Dionne points out that decision had to have been made with the full knowledge that it would render any Iraqi government dependent on the U.S. military.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Just speculating here. If the U.S. or Israel does indeed carry out any kind of military action against Iran, what kind of response would it elicit?
Does Iran have the will and force to act against the U.S?

Jefferson Morley: It would be very interesting to know how U.S. war planners are addressing your question, as surely they are.

Iran has medium range missiles that could be targeted on U.S. military bases in the region, Israeli cities or military bases.

Iran also has proxy forces in Lebanon and Afghanistan. These well-armed militias could take action against U.S. targets.

Finally, Iran has allies inside Iraq's Shiite community. These allies have refrained from violent action against U.S. forces out of the belief, probably accurate, that they can gain more--and get the U.S. out faster--by winning the elections later this month.

So the Iranians have many ways to respond.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: I'm thinking that Iran is different from Afghanistan (which was and is tribal and technologically undeveloped) or Iran (whose people are generally highly educated but culturally heterogeneous) in that we've got a population that is mostly Shia, and generally very well educated. I also have been reading reports (which might be a little suspect, but we can always hope) that the Iranian people are generally favorable toward democracy and Western intellectual ideas (if not cultural ones).

If that's true, wouldn't we have a far better chance of effecting real change by appealing directly to the people in Iran? It worked in eastern Europe, didn't it?

Jefferson Morley: Iranian public opinion is a fascinating area. You are correct that Iranians are probably the most pro-American people in the Middle East. And the analogy to Eastern Europe is appropriate. But the bitter history of relations between the two countries (the CIA coup in 1953; the taking of American hostages in 1979) makes communication very difficult. Iran's nuclear ambitions and Western threats of attack make it even more difficult for any American leader to speak effectively to the Iranian people.

Which is not to say it would not be worth trying.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: In any attack on Iran, wouldn't regime change be President Bush's ultimate goal? It seems dangerous to strike to take out the country's nuclear capabilities, but then leave the current power structure in place. Wouldn't that just be begging for some form of retribution?

Jefferson Morley: Yes, it would. The Iranians are so confident in their ability to ride out any U.S. attack that they cannot believe American officials are serious about attacking.

The Americans who favor such an attack think that the population is eager for regime change and would welcome the Americans as liberators. There is actually more reason to believe this in Iran than in Iraq but neoconservative theorists are reluctant to say this publicly, for understandable reasons.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Hi, Jeff:

Does Iran have the capability to attack Israel if Israel destroys Iran's nukes (similarly to previous action against Iraq)?

From your column: "The Israeli government, which hopes to maintain its position as the only nuclear power in the Middle East, has not ruled out a similar attack on Iran.

The Bush administration, wrote Amir Oren in the Tel Aviv daily Haaretz, "is using the possibility of an Israeli operation against Iran to threaten Tehran, while shaking off American responsibility for that kind of escalation."

Oren argued that Washington wants "to remind the Iranians that their bluff in the nuclear poker game is liable to fall apart in the face of a card not part of the European deck -- the Israeli joker. " Thanks.

Jefferson Morley: Yes, Iran has test-fired its Shahab missiles which could reach Isreal. Israel has anti-missile defense systems which could theoretically intercept these missiles.

_______________________

Vancouver, B.C.: Please explain to the world how revealing the existence of secret Pentagon "spy" teams improves America's chances of winning a global war. Is it treason or the vindictive lunacy of the left?

Jefferson Morley: The story of the secret Pentagon spy teams was leaked to American journalists by current and former U.S. officials, not "vindictive leftists." Their actions do not fall under any legal definition of treason. So the answer to your question is "Neither."

These officials leaked the story because they believed the American people and their elected representatives have the right, indeed, the obligation to know what its armed forces are doing in their defense.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: To follow up on your response to an earlier question: Iran also has a network of sub-national and terrorist client groups to whom it could provide nuclear arms. Such groups could then conceivably smuggle the weapons into Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Europe or possibly even the U.S.

Jefferson Morley: This is the concern of Europe and the United States. It is a legitimate concern.

_______________________

Winnipeg, Canada: A recent article in le Monde Diplomatique
(Final edition for the press (Le Monde diplomatique, Jan.)) highlights what author Ignacio Ramonet calls a crisis in the world press. It describes reduced circulation in dailies around the world, and posits that a major factor is lack of public confidence in the press caused by incurious reporting and editing, resulting in public scandals such as Jayson Blair's. Some of this lack of curiosity might be willful (serving corporate or political masters), or it might be implicit (being too close to the current corporate worldview to see other sides of the story).

In many stories that have broken recently, whether it is Jessica Lynch heroically defending herself before being captured, or CBS running a news story with inadequately checked documents (when other, more credible documents were available to back up the same story), the press seems to have been too willing to take "news" at face value.

What role do you think lack of credibility has played in declining newspaper readership?

Jefferson Morley: Newspaper readership is declining mostly because of the rise of the electronic media which is superior in terms of timeliness (the Internet) and vividness (cable news). The electronic media (both Internet and TV) is, in my view, inferior in expertise and independence. But the gap is closing. The rise of bloggers and independent online news fora suggests the possibility of independent expertise in the electronic media. This is a competitive threat that the print media ignores at its own peril.

Thanks for the link!

_______________________

Vienna, VA: Jeff, you read more international newspapers than most people in this country. Do you have the sense that ANY other countries in the world are comfortable with Mr. Bush's recent election and with the expressions he voiced in his inaugural speech?

Jefferson Morley: Bush's rhetoric plays best in Poland, the Czech Republic, the Kurds, Kuwait, and some sectors of Britain and Australia. Even in those countries, the positive response is hardly universal.

As for his inaugural speech, many people thought his sentiments were fine. They just doubt that he is serious about applying them. People seeking a more democratic system in Pakistan, for example, do not think Bush's policies will do anything to advance the ideals articulated in his speech. Ditto for Palestinian reformers.

_______________________

Lexington, Ky.: Your definition of "traditionally Palestinian lands" interested me. You defined this as any place Arabs have lived within Israel yet you ignore the fact that Jewish people have lived in Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem thousands of years longer than the Arabs. A very one-sided "tradition", don't you think?

Jefferson Morley: No, I don't think that.

Jews and Arabs have both lived in Jerusalem and Hebron for thousands of years. For most of that time, there were many Arabs and few Jews. Those lands inhabited by Arabs over those centuries fit any common sense definition of "traditionally Palestinian lands." This does not exclude the possibility of traditionally Jewish lands in the area.

_______________________

Frederick, Md.: What would be your guess as to the Iranian response to an air strike by the U.S? What do you think the ultimate scenario would be, including responses of Europe, Israel and other mideast countries? Play it out for me please.

Jefferson Morley: I wish I could play it out, Frederick but it is very difficult to. The Iranians have given no hint about the nature of their response, only expressed certainty that it would prove punishing.

I would speculate, and this is only speculation, that they would use their missiles on selected U.S. targets so as to hinder U.S. capabilities without provoking a massive U.S. response.

In response to an Israeli attack, they might get the Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon to massively fire their small rockets at Israeli targets.

Has anybody out there seen informed commentary in the press or in the academic/policy/think tank world on what Iran might do in response to a U.S. attack?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What would be the fallout to the U.S. if Israel did, in fact, strike Iranian nuclear facilities themselves? Iran may strike back at Israel, but I doubt they'd try to attack the U.S. troops in Iraq, thereby creating a second front against a world power.

Cheney sounds as though the U.S. better do something before Israel does, but I think it would be better if Israel did strike themselves since Iran is a much greater threat to Israel than to the U.S. Why is the U.S. always expected to fight all of Israel's battles for them? We don't get any oil from Israel, so I'm not really sure how it, strategically, is in our best interest.

Jefferson Morley: The Israelis regard Iran as an international problem, not an Israeli problem. They feel that the United States and the international community has to act. Israel will not strike unless it thinks that 1) all other options have been exhausted and 2) the White House does not object.

I think the political reality is pretty close to meeting those two conditions.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: You answered the question about revealing Pentagon spy teams as being part of U.S. citizens' right and obligation to know what's going on. How will the U.S. conduct covert activities if self serving officials are allowed to leak any information they choose?

Jefferson Morley: The U.S. government conducts many, many, many covert operations that are never leaked to the press. This particular Pentagon operation was leaked, I believe, because its secrecy prevents the Congress from having oversight and the American people from having accountability. Covert operations conducted under democratic norms are much, much less likely to be exposed.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: It appears that the only thing stoping Iraq from falling into a bloody civil war with a potential result of a terrorist supporting government is the American military.

If we destroy the Iranian gov't and infrastructure via an air attack, what will prevent an Iranian war (especially with so much secular vs. religious turmoil now) or an even more extreme gov't?

Jefferson Morley: You make a point that I suspect some generals in the Pentagon are making: Yes, we may be able to destroy any targets we want in Iran. Then what? This question was never seriously addressed in the Iraq war planning, save with wishful thinking that we would be "greeted as liberators." I suspect, the uniformed armed services, if not civilian policymakers, are demanding better planning on Iran.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Would Iran be within its rights, according to the logical precedent set by Pres. Bush, to send its missiles in a pre-emptive attack on American forces in Iraq? They have more proof that we are about to attack them than we had about Saddam. Or is there a double standard?

Jefferson Morley: Depends on what you mean by "rights" Bethesda.

If you regard the Iranian regime as an illegitimate, terror sponsoring regime that is loathed by a majority of its own people (as top Bush policymakers think), then Iran has no justifiable "rights."

If you regard the Iranian government as a sovereign entity with a right to self-defense, then it has the right, under international law, to protect itself from aggressors.

_______________________

Anonymous: The Iranians have mentioned U.S. bases in Iraq as potential targets in the case of attack. I'd expect some form of terrorism within the U.S., personally.

Jefferson Morley: I actually do not expect Iranian-sponsored terrorism in the United States in response to a U.S./Israeli attack on their nuclear facilities.

_______________________

Jefferson Morley: Whew, we've gone a half an hour over our allotted hour and still the questions keep coming. Thanks.

I have to end our discussion now.

If you would like to receive the World Opinion Roundup via email, just send a message to jeff.morley@wpni.com and put "subscribe" in the message line. Your address will not be shared with anyone else.

See you next week.

_______________________