Back to basics

Dealing with Iran: A countdown to confrontation

The Economist, February 10^th 2007, p25-27

When it comes to American foreign policy, The Economist often seems a paper at odds with itself. A case in point: this revered publication remains unrepentant for its support of the initial invasion of Iraq, despite the shortcomings of the facts used to support the invasion.

So it comes as a relief that The Economist is now approaching the subject of Iran with more caution.

In “A countdown to confrontation”, the correspondent discusses the prospect of Iran becoming a nuclear power, and what can be done to prevent this (The Economist’s line is that a nuclear Iran would be a very bad thing). The tone of the piece is powerfully internationalist: that is to say that the writer links over 11 other countries to the debate, and assesses their relationship with Iran. This broad political context provides the reader with a world view through which he or she is better able to understand the issues at stake.

The writer then describes how Mr Ahmadinejad, the “provocative president” of Iran, seems to be losing support at home, and that this negates the need for American military action. He goes on to suggest that a military attack could unite the people of Iran in support of its president. Thus, The Economist takes the view that military action against Iran would be wrong.

This article epitomises The Economist at its best. Clear, concise and well written, the piece informs as only the best journalism can. The Economist gained its reputation by taking its line according to analysis of the available facts. Adherence to these principles makes the paper’s line on Iran worthy of respect.

[271 words]

All quotes taken from The Economist, A countdown to confrontation, February 10 2007, p25-27