Now that Ben Rhodes has confessed that the Obama administration’s narrative about an Iran in which “moderates” wield significant influence was “largely manufactured” for the purpose of selling the nuclear, you might think that the mainstream media media would stop peddling this narrative. You might think that at least the New York Times, which broke the story of Rhodes confession, would stop doing so.
You would be wrong. Cliff Smith of PJ Media describes how the Times “continues to insist on the centrality of this fictional ‘moderates/hard-liners’ dynamic in understanding Iran’s behavior.”
For example, following the re-election of Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani, the Times reported that his landslide victory was a “mild surprise” since “reformists” had done so well in February elections. This development might be surprising if one swallows the moderate/hard-liner narrative.
But if you recognize that the narrative is, as Rhodes told the Times, “largely manufactured” it makes perfect sense that the so-called reformists elected earlier in the year would overwhelmingly elect the “hard-liner” Larijani. As Smith says when “moderates” win in Iran, they either aren’t actually moderates or are not allowed to hold power.
The point is not that there are no moderate voices or genuine would-be reformers in Iran. The Iranian people’s spontaneous organization during the “green revolution” and the ongoing saga of the frequently imprisoned but irrepressible filmmaker Jafar Panahi are just two examples that demonstrate moderate, reformist sentiments do exist there. But the idea that a moderate/hardliner conflict affects how the current Iranian regime behaves toward the U.S. is false.
Further, the Times knows it is false based on its own reporting.
However, it just keeps reporting it as fact. . . .
Shocking, but not surprising.