Published on May 30th, 2017 | by Cliff Kincaid0
How Trump Hatred Is Designed to Save Iran
Under the Graham family, the previous owners of The Washington Post, it was always a liberal Democratic Party newspaper. Everyone knew that. Under Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, it has become a left-wing rag, running stories against the Trump administration that are so extreme as to be laughable. The paper’s descent is something to see, especially in regard to Iran’s aggressive and terroristic behavior in the Middle East.
Consider the story that ran in the print edition of the paper, “Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia incites conflicts in Middle East, analysts say.” Who are these analysts? The only one cited is Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle East studies at the London School of Economics who says that the Trump visit was “related” to the “tumult” that ensued.
So the word “incites” in the title—which implies deliberate intent—becomes “related” in the article, whatever that means. And the “analysts” is just one professor who doesn’t actually make the charge of incitement.
This is a case of a Post headline going far beyond what the story actually says. The word “incites” is another way to blame Trump for anything bad that happens around the world. It was just one of many anti-Trump stories in this edition of the paper. The bias is never-ending and only seems to get worse each day.
But this story was more unusual than most, since it pins the blame on Trump for problems in the Arab/Muslim world that go back hundreds of years. Trump’s crime is supporting Sunni Saudi Arabia against Shiite Iran.
Both regimes are noxious, and the case can be made to stay out of the Middle East and let them fight it out. But Trump has come to the conclusion that Saudi Arabia has to be supported at this time because of Russia-backed Iran’s desperate pursuit of strategic nuclear weapons and its export of terrorism.
Somebody at the Post apparently realized the headline blaming Trump for incitement was a vast overstatement of what was in the story itself, so it was changed in the online edition to “By backing Saudi Arabia’s vision of the Middle East, Trump may be sowing the seeds of conflict.”
Trump was supposedly inciting the Middle East, but now his pro-Saudi stand “may” be “sowing the seeds of conflict.”
How can any self-respecting journalist write for a paper that distorts the news in such a blatant partisan fashion to make a president look bad?
Here’s the critical paragraph in the story:
“‘Donald Trump now accepts the view of Saudi Arabia as a strategic bastion in the Arab and Islamic World,’ said Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle East studies at the London School of Economics. And his visit was ‘related’ to the tumult that ensued, Gerges said.”
So because Trump decides to stand with Saudi Arabia against Iran, the “tumult,” which has been going on for many years, continues. And Trump is to blame for this because his visit was “related” to the “tumult.”
The Post’s reporters, Kareem Fahim and Erin Cunningham, said that “…far from uniting the region, Trump’s words had only aggravated its divides.” Since when did Trump say he intended to paper over Iran’s pursuit of terrorism and nuclear weapons for some mythical unity in the Middle East?
This is not reporting, but left-wing pro-Iranian garbage.
Indeed, Trump’s anti-Iran comments in Riyadh were “vociferous,” the Post reporters said. They quoted a senior military aide to Iran’s supreme leader as saying the U.S. weapons deal with Saudi Arabia was “an attempt to destabilize the region.”
The only thing “vociferous” was the language in the Post article that was meant to convey support for Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states as divisive and provocative.
One of my favorite paragraphs in this “news” story was this one:
“And leaders in Iran, Saudi Arabia’s principal rival, where voters earlier this month reelected a reformist president, went on the offensive, condemning Trump’s announcement of billions of dollars in weapons sales to the Saudis while revealing the existence of an underground ballistic missile facility.”
A “reformist” president is running a regime pursuing nuclear weapons. The regime went “on the offensive” by “revealing the existence of an underground ballistic missile facility.” How about using words like “destabilizing the Middle East” and providing the rationale for U.S. support for Saudi Arabia? The Post can’t say those things because they would make Trump’s visit sound sensible.
Defense News points out that Iran has missiles that can travel 1,200 miles, placing much of the Middle East, including Israel, within range.
A small item in a “News Roundup” section in the Post mentioned the Iranian development. It said, “Iran has built a third underground ballistic missile production factory, the semiofficial Fars News Agency quoted a senior commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard Corps as saying. The development is likely to fuel tensions with the United States.”
But isn’t it Trump who is causing conflict and tumult in the region?
The Post is so determined to make Trump look bad that it blames Trump for “tensions” created by the Iranian regime and its pursuit of strategic nuclear weapons.
Who is this professor quoted by the Post? Not surprisingly, he’s also a favorite of The New York Times, which noted that Gerges had appeared on an Arabic talk show before the Trump visit to Saudi Arabia and said, “Donald Trump is a ridiculous man. He’s a childish man. This man is seen in the United States as a joke, as racist, a man who has nothing, no view, no vision, no values.”
Now we know why the Post and Times quoted this professor. He thinks and talks the way they do. And even when he does not say precisely what they think about Trump, they will distort his comments to make Trump look bad. Blaming Trump for bad relations between Arab/Muslim states is ridiculous, but nothing is beyond the pale for The Washington Post.
The media go to people like Gerges because he was a supporter of the unsigned and unenforceable Obama nuclear deal with the Iranian regime that is permitting the fanatical Mullahs to develop strategic nuclear weapons. Gerges had said about the agreement, “It’s a good day for diplomacy, it’s a good day for compromise, it’s a good day for a new beginning between Iran—a pivotal state in the Middle East—and the United States.”
It’s no wonder he’s a source for the liberal media in their Trump-bashing. They are desperate to save the Obama agreement propping up Iran’s nuclear weapons program.