Site icon Iran Times

Fars makes US writer conform

That appeared to be the case last week.

A few weeks ago, the Fars news agency embarrassed itself when its English language service lifted almost word-for-word a story that appeared in the Onion, a satirical weekly.  Fars didn’t seem to know that nothing in the Onion is true, and treated the story about Americans likely President Ahmadi-nejad more than President Obama as fact.

This week, the Fars English news service carried another story from the United States.  This time, however, it didn’t lift it word-for-word.  In fact, it re-wrote it so completely as to twist the original beyond recognition.

Fars wrote:  “A US think tank said there is no reason to fear an Iran with an advanced nuclear technology as Tehran is a peaceful country which would never initiate war with any other state.  The American Enterprise Institute in an article by Michael Rubin wrote that even if Iran goes nuclear, the Iranian leadership will not order an attack on Riyadh, Tel Aviv or American facilities in the Middle East.  It reiterated that the vast majority of Iranians are moderate, cosmopolitan and forward-thinking.”

Now let us look at the original text from the AEI website.  Its brief commentary by Rubin says:  “It will be almost impossible to contain a nuclear Iran.  Command, control and custody over any future Iranian bomb will rest not among Iranian pragmatists, but rather within the most ideologically pure unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGA).  The vast majority of Iranians are moderate, cosmopolitan and  forward-thinking, but the concern of American policymakers must focus upon those whose fingers are on the button, who may actually believe the messianic rhetoric spouted by their leaders.  Should Iran go nuclear, it is doubtful the Iranian leadership will order a first strike on Riyadh, Tel Aviv, or regional American facilities.  But, overconfident behind its nuclear deterrence, the IRGC will lash out.”

Now go back and read the paragraph from Fars.  The words quoted are accurate.  But it certainly doesn’t convey the meaning of the Rubin piece at all.

Exit mobile version