How the corporate media alienate Iran: Prof. Mojtahedzadeh

by Kourosh Ziabari

April 7, 2009

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “How the corporate media alienate Iran: Prof. Mojtahedzadeh”.

1 2 3 Single Page

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian journalist and media correspondent. He regularly writes for Press TV, Tehran Times, Media Monitors, Salem News, Opinion Maker, Intifada Palestine, Ramallah Online and Strategic Culture Foundation. He has received the National Medal of Superior Iranian Youth from the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Read more articles by Kourosh Ziabari.

4 Responses to How the corporate media alienate Iran: Prof. Mojtahedzadeh

MH
April 7, 2009 at 8:04 pm
This was one of the best articles I have read on all matters that concern Iran-U.S. relations; Israel’s Iranophobia, Arab hostility towards Iran and the medias continuous demonization of Iran. Dr. Mojtahedzadeh also responded to many of the questions that I have had for example why Iran is not responding to all of the Arab hostility towards her.
Thank you for this very informative and excellent article. I hope that this article can be published and distributed widely in other journals to educate the masses and U.S. government officials.
Dian Van Deuren.
April 9, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Its all about oil.
The US wants to control the world’s oil.
They used 911 as an excuse to bomb Iraq.
Read PNAC (Project for a New American Century) & you’ll see what I mean.
Paul Coleman
April 10, 2009 at 2:50 am
Can you say paranoid? This guy is obsessed with Jews. Yeah right, 14 million people out of 7 billion on the planet pull the strings of the Western governments and press. If he is representative if Iranian thinking, we all better hope these nuts never get the bomb.
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  April 10, 2009 at 4:47 am
  You’re arguing against a strawman. Prof. Mojtahedzadeh didn’t argue that Jews “pull the strings”, which would mean direct control. He argued that Israel has a strong influenced on U.S. policy. That’s an incontrovertibly observable fact. He supports it with a few examples — the neocon influence in the Bush administration, Bush’s willingness to grant Israel extra leeway to violate international law, etc. — but certainly could have given others. Take the instance when the Security Council passed a resolution calling for a cease-fire during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead. The U.S. had managed to block the effort for a while, giving Israel more time to destroy Gaza. But it couldn’t hold off the rest of the world forever. When it came down to it, nor could they cast a veto. By then, such a vote would have been politically unacceptable. Rice was set to vote in favor of the resolution. But Olmert called up Bush and complained. So Bush called Rice and instructed her at the last minute to abstain from the vote. In that instance, Israel actually did “pull the strings” with regard to a U.S. position in the U.N. Security Council. Examples of mere influence certainly abound. Although I don’t agree that this is due to the “Israeli lobby” so much as its just that perceived U.S. interests, as defined by policymakers in Washington, happen to coincide often with Israeli perceived interests.