New York Times Fronts Anti-War Reporting Against Action in Iran: 'Could Leave Hundreds of Americans Dead'
The New York Times, perhaps laboring under the false impression it participated in George W. Bush's "rush to war" in Iraq, is pushing back hard against the prospect of preemptive action against Iran's nuclear threat, raising the specter of another Middle East quagmire for the United States.
Reporters Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker in Tuesday's lead story, "U.S. Simulation Forecasts Perils Of Strike At Iran."
A classified war simulation held this month to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran forecasts that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials.
Omri Ceren responded at Commentary Thursday morning with "NY Times Simulates Journalism on Iran," calling the article part of "the paper’s unsubtle front page campaign to brush back Israeli action against Iran."
The paper's war against action against Iran has been running for weeks. Times reporter Scott Shane's February 22 front-page "news analysis," “In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers Echo,” was written in the style of an anti-war activist, complete with questioning the "new whiff of gunpowder in the air." Shane quoted four scholars, all of whom were dismissive of the Iranian nuclear threat and against intervention, and even noted criticism of his own paper for overstating Iran’s threat.
Downplaying the Iran threat was also the focus of Monday's front-page story, "Hawks Steering Debate on How To Take On Iran." The text box read: "Differences among pro-Israel groups on Iranian policy." Commentary's Jonathan Tobin responded with "Jews Divided on Iran? Not Really." Tobin pointed out: "The only organizations that the Times could find to back up that headline were J Street and Tikkun. While the former claims to be 'pro-Israel' even the latter’s adherents do not attempt to play that game. But however you wish to label them, the idea that disagreement from these two left-wing outliers constitutes any sort of a Jewish debate is comical."