Classic example of selective media: practically nothing on a working-level EU official’s defense of sanctions, while word of another imminent Ashton-Jalili session covered all over the place.
According to this report, EU sanctions coordinator Francesco Fini recently told a Brussels audience:
when Iranian negotiators meet with world powers to discuss the international community’s desired changes to their nuclear program, as in the last two rounds of EU-headed negotiations in Kazakhstan, “what they are asking in return is sanctions relief.”
Not surprising that sanctions are giving diplomacy a fighting chance– after all, the Iranians have been pleading for more talks for some time now. It is therefore untenable that this event was ignored by the same media reps who’ve been gushing all over the anti-sanctions activities elsewhere (here and here).
The Brussels panel wasn’t the only development lately ignored by the anti-sanctions crowd. The CSIS recently issued two interesting reports on the Iranian crisis, but while its military balance document enjoyed quite a bit of media attention, another report examining possible alternatives to sanctions was by and large ignored.
For readers’ benefit, Anthony Cordesman and colleagues have determined that:
“While the US should pursue sanctions and diplomatic options, it must also begin to make hard choices regarding the possibility that sanctions and diplomacy may fail within the next one to three years. This means choosing between containment and preventive strikes […].”
A different way of thinking.
Media reps have personal twitter accounts to promote The Iran Project’s William Luers. As for Anthony Cordesman and Michael Singh – who criticizes Luer’s report for drawing a false distinction between “diplomacy” and “pressure” – the media has a responsibility to provide them with equal, mainstream time and space.