There is alot of stories in the media at the moment about the meeting between Iran and the US which is taking place in Baghdad tomorrow. the two countries have had very limited contact since Washington broke ties after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The coverage has been world wide and the stories are about the two countries meeting to primarily discuss Iran’s involvement in Iraq but may slip to talks about Iran’s defiance to suspend nuclear production. the talks could also extend to other subjects such as recent kidnappings.

firstly, i should also include the recent accusations (in the last two days) against America, with Iran claiming the west has set up spy networks in their country. The Associated Press Newswire (27 May) has a good background story

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – Iran said Saturday it has uncovered spy rings organized by the United States and its Western allies, claiming on state-run television that the espionage networks were made up of “infiltrating elements from the Iraqi occupiers.”

The Intelligence Ministry has “succeeded in identifying and striking blows at several spy networks comprised of infiltrating elements from the Iraqi occupiers in western, southwestern and central Iran,” said the statement, using shorthand for United States and its allies.

At the moment there is little known about these accusations, with claims that more information will be available in a few days…it is unclear how these claims will impact on the talks to be held.

Now about the meeting with Iran and US, It is interesting to note that the articles in the Observer (27 May) actually focus more on American politics, claiming:

The meeting, the second between US and Iranian officials in recent months, signals a subtle change in the Bush administration.

The talks – which officials on both sides insist will focus exclusively on the security situation in Iraq – are the most obvious sign of an increasingly bitter struggle for control of US policy over Iran between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Cheney has let it be known that he is deeply unhappy with President Bush’s swing towards a more diplomatically led approach, after months of increasingly bellicose noises.

The feud over policy on Iran has seen the Central Intelligence Agency’s director, Michael Hayden, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Rice’s deputy, John Negroponte, and Under-Secretary Nicholas Burns line up against Cheney and hawks in the Pentagon and in the neo-conservative think-tanks who have been insisting that the US should be preparing for war against Tehran.

The article can be accessed at the following site, http://global.factiva.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au:2048/ha/default.aspx

The Oregonian,a paper in the US, said in an editorial on the 26 May, that the outcome on the talks between the two countries will depend on how Iran’s nuclear reactor program proceeds. This article was quite entertaining to read because it was so obviously bias,

One of the inconvenient truths of international politics became news again this week when the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon within three years.

 The IAEA’s Mohamed ElBaradei also offered the disturbing news that the Iranian government has limited the access of international nuclear inspectors to the extent that their ability to understand the unexplored aspects of Iran’s nuclear program is “deteriorating.”

Iran first denied it was doing any nuclear development. When that lie became impossible to sustain, Russia offered a plan under which other nations would process and supply the nuclear fuel for Iran’s peaceful uses. Iran rejected that, arguing it had a right to its own peaceful program. This standoff ultimately resulted in a loose set of sanctions against Iran enacted by the U.N. Security Council last year.

As things have progressed, or regressed, inspectors in Iran have discovered diagrams showing how to form uranium into warheads, unexplained contamination at a research facility linked to the Iranian military, information on high-explosive experiments with nuclear weapons applications, and a design for a missile re-entry vehicle.

How good is that! From the outset it was apparent that the article was not going to talk about the meeting with Iran and America -named Iran’s ambitions hurt peace prospects - it is clear that the editorial would defend American and attempt to justify why the US is concerned about Iran’s nuclear production.

Another United States paper, The Plain Dealer,(26 May) published an opinion piece – very opinionated i might add. the article conveys the idea that unless Iran is stopped, they will wipe out the world.

I ran’s calculated defiance of its nuclear obligations must not stand.

A new U.N. report makes clear that Tehran continues to thumb its nose at the international community by accelerating its nuclear weapons program, instead of freezing it as required. Even more worrisome, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency report, Iran is putting more barriers in the way of lawful U.N. nuclear inspectors by withholding required information and putting more sites off-limits.

The article then goes on to talk negatively about Iran and reiterating that sanctions must be imposed after negotiations between the two countries. a great sentence was in the final para of the story

With Iran now self-sufficient in nuclear weapons work, it’s only a matter of time before it has the technical capability to make a bomb.- great sentence to instill fear into the public. I know this is an opinion piece, but i think its a bit full on. Iran has done nothing as yet and it is somewhat unjustified to try to sway others to believe they will use the nuclear production for war. If Iran wasnt thinking about creating nuclear weapons, after all the “bullying” from the West, they are probably considering it now.  

speaking of bullying, The BBC Monitoring the Middle East  had a good article based on the president of Iran, saying that political activities of bullying powers would not prevent Iranian nuclear programme.

Bullying powers know the era of bullying has ended. Their psychological warfare and sanctions will inflict no damage on Iran’s nuclear path,” he said.

He added, “The Iranian nation has made its decision and will pass the way and defend its rights.

“Nuclear technology to produce industrial fuel belongs to all Iranian people.”

it will be interesting to see if he maintains this perception after the talks with the US in a couple of days from now. i will have to wait until the media coverage comes out…

 i looked at some Australian papers and got an objective view on the situation. The Sydney Morning Herald told they story how it is, that the two countries will meet and discuss Iraq, possibly the UN sanctions imposed on Iran and maybe kidnapping issues. it was interesting however that i didn’t find a specific article in SMH about the meeting to occur. this issue was weaved within the recent allegations about spy networks. – this seemed to be the case with other Australian news organisations.

i think its quite obvious who is more interested in this story – and the story gives people, such as American journalists an opportunity to voice their opinions (as you can see above.) As the story is still developing and the main event is yet to happen, there isn’t a great deal to report on, so i think news organisations are just setting up the stage for a flood of media articles when the event actually occurs. it will be interesting to see the opinion articles released after the talks.  

the news values evident in this story

impact/consequence- because the story hasn’t actually happened yet, it is suggesting impact and consequence in the next couple of days, I&C for America and/or Iran.

conflict- the always present conflict between the middle east and the west. and in this particular case between Iran and the US

timeliness - hmmm not so much, it isn’t really a breaking story, but like i said before it is setting the scene for a major news story which will appear in the next few days

proximity - a biggie – this is apparent in the opinions and editorials that i found with American papers. Also the Aus papers are quite distant from the story as their coverage was very brief. The UK paper i checked out was interesting as they focused on American politics, and not on the talks – perhaps because they don’t have the emotional attachment that America has because they are involved in the talks? I’m not completely sure the reason for that actually?

currency -   at the moment, this story is in line with the Iran nuclear fuel debate, however i think this story is the initiation to a whole new range of stories that will emerge from the talks and create their own currency.