The Washington Post’s Confusing (But Obama-Flattering) Coverage Of The New Iranian “Revelations”

I must be missing something (and that chorus in the background shouting “Not for the first time!” can pipe down now). It is not unusual for me to disagree with the Washington Post’s editorializing (both on its editorial pages and, not infrequently, in news articles), but I rarely find its coverage incoherent. But that is the only way I can describe its recent coverage of our response to the new “disclosure” and “revelations” of a second uranium enrichment plant in Iran (unless, as I said, I’m missing something, in which case someone should fill me in).

Here’s the beginning of yesterday’s front page story by Glenn Kessler, “For Obama, Focus Shifts From Engagement To Pursuit of Concerted, Tough Measures”:

The disclosure of a second uranium enrichment site in Iran has led the Obama administration to shift the emphasis in its dealings with the Islamic republic — away from engagement and toward building an international consensus for sterner action against Tehran. [Emphasis added for reasons that will become clear below.]

The effort to directly engage Iran was a hallmark of the early months of the administration…. Now, while not shutting the door on engagement entirely, the United States and its allies plan to forcefully press the case that Tehran has been caught, red-handed, in yet another violation of international rules.

I will largely (but not completely) resist the temptation to be snide here, avoiding such snarky comments as, “So, Mr. President, how did all that engagement work out for you?” followed by questions such as, “Now, Mr. President, who exactly is the judge or jury before whom you will now “forcefully press the case” that “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow” (quoted from another Post article I’m coming to in a moment)? What power does this mysterious judge and jury have, and what do we want them to do with it?

Let’s leave all this “petty bickering,” as the president would no doubt call it, aside. My more serious problem with the analysis here (or confusion, if I really am missing something) comes from revelations about the new “revelations” in a second article, this one by Karen DeYoung and Michael D. Shear, that also appeared on the Post’s front page yesterday. Let’s pick it up in the second graph:

“Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow,” Obama said, condemning what he described as a “covert uranium enrichment facility” that Western intelligence discovered years ago and has since been covertly monitoring….

In a hastily arranged appearance outside the Group of 20 conference in Pittsburgh, Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy outlined intelligence that Brown said would “shock and anger the whole international community, and it will harden our resolve” to force Iran to change its path…..

Friday’s announcement capped a week of behind-the-scenes action in which Iran and the United States each maneuvered to reveal the information on its own terms. U.S. intelligence officials briefing reporters in Washington declined to be precise, but they said they had learned about the facility by early 2007. They said it is not yet operational but may be capable in 2010 of producing enough material for at least one bomb per year.

The CIA, along with its British and French counterparts, spent the summer compiling a dossier of information that administration officials said they had not yet decided how and when to reveal. Their hand was forced, they said, by a letter the Iranian government sent to the IAEA in Vienna on Monday.

By now I’m sure you can see why I’m confused, or the Post is incoherent (or both). This startling new “revelation,” this “disclosure” that will “shock and anger the whole international community” has been known to western intelligence agencies for over two and a half years! President Obama was surely briefed about it as soon as he became president, if not before. Thus what has prompted the current confrontation is not any new discovery of Iranian perfidy but simply the forced “disclosure” of it now.

The New York Times has also revealed that we have known of Iran’s second plant for a long time. As John Hinderaker writes on Power Line:

The Times reports that President Obama has known about the secret Iranian site since the Presidential campaign, when he received a briefing from then-director of national intelligence Mike McConnell. This puts his various pronouncements about Iran in an even stranger light than we had realized.

Strange indeed. Consider again the headline of Kessler’s Post story: “For Obama, Focus Shifts From Engagement To Pursuit of Concerted, Tough Measures.” The obvious question: since we’ve known of this second plant since “early 2007,” why was Obama so studiously pursuing “engagement” until now, or why “change focus” now? Which is he more afraid of, what the Iranians are doing or that he would appear soft once the news got out that he has been pursuing “engagement” despite it?

The Post’s fawning over Obama, of course, was not limited to Kessler’s headline. Here is how DeYoung and Shear present our fearless leader’s response to the “disclosure” and “revelations”:

…. “We have offered Iran a clear path toward greater international integration if it lives up to its obligations, and that offer stands,” the U.S. president said, “but the Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.”

But Obama was stern-faced and grim, and the rapidly escalating confrontation provided him with a fresh opportunity to project toughness and success on the world stage.

That’s rather like saying Hitler’s invasion of Poland gave Neville Chamberlain “a fresh opportunity to project toughness and success on the world stage.”