Sueddeutsche's US Correspondent: Biased and Malinformed

You can't make this up.

Here is Christian Wernicke, U.S. correspondent of left-wing daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, asking questions to Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, during a press briefing about "U.S. Policy Toward Iran" at the Foreign Press Center Roundtable of the State Department on November 13, 2006.

No need to comment on the apparent bias in the questions of the malinformed Sueddeutsche correspondent:

QUESTION:  [Christian Wernicke, with Sueddeutsche Zeitung] Ambassador, you mentioned in your introduction that the U.S. is not seeking a regime change, what we are seeking is a change in behavior.  Is that totally in line with all parts of the government or even Congress legislation, which kind of asked -- not by military means, but by political and diplomatic and communication means -- to change the mullah regime in Iran?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY:  I would have to know the specific piece of legislation you're referring to.  The --

QUESTION:  Especially in the House.  I mean --

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY:  But once again, there are certainly voices.  You know, I mean, America is, like many other societies including your own, a very pluralistic place.

The last legislation, the renewal of what we call the ILSA legislation against Iran and Libya, only this time Libya was dropped off thus we can't call it ILSA anymore -- I think we can call it ISA -- certainly did not go as far in calling for a change in regime as the -- what was it, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998?  I would say -- I would cite that as a good example of regime change legislation.  I don't see the same thing. 

In fact, the ISA legislation was quite remarkable.  While it urged the promotion of democracy in Iran, it was very, very careful in stating explicitly that this is not to be done by military force.  And I mean, as one who has worked with European Union diplomats extensively in the Balkans, in a way we were looking for what amounts to regime change or deep-seated changes in both institutions and behaviors and policies that amount to something approaching regime change.  Part of the European Union accession process is something that I would consider regime change.  So I think that part of the concern about regime change and the fact that I mentioned it is tied to this idea of regime change through lightning* military strikes.

QUESTION:  Ambassador Jeffrey -- sorry, I didn't introduce myself.  Christian Wernicke, Sueddeutsche Zeitung.  Coming back to the two questions of my friends, you mentioned the parallel situation when -- in Afghanistan, which leads me to the point that a colleague of yours, or former colleague of yours, Jim Dobbins, is always citing this period, even including 2002, that there's a lot of missed options. 

It all boils down to the question that has been raised:  How do you weigh the different interests?  I mean, if there is -- you like it or not, there is a tradeoff between the nuclear program and security and Iran's help in -- for security in Iraq.  So is the -- is the U.S., for example, willing to give in to the Iranian demand or at least consider the Iranian demand for a kind of security guarantee for this regime?  That's what they're asking for.  They want to have the security that the big power of the world -- and that's your government -- is not interfering there.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY:  If I could shape that into a question as opposed to a debating point, I would say have -- has Iran asked for a security guarantee?  I don't really know where they have actually asked for that.  A lot of people both here in Washington and Europe assume that that's what they want, but I think that assumption needs to be, you know, questioned until someone comes up with an authoritative statement of the Iranians that that's what they want.  I haven't seen it.  But you know, maybe I missed it.  I've only been doing Iran now since June.  But you know, but that doesn't preclude the fact that maybe that's what they want but they haven't said it. 

We have said, as part of the dialogue that was placed on the table by Mr. Solana discussions on regional security.  That's the most we do.  We don't give regimes security guarantees.  There are good reasons for that.  If a regime is well-behaved, such as Switzerland, it doesn't need a security guarantee.  And if a regime is a bad actor,  there probably are good reasons why you would not give it a security guarantee, because you would then be basically saying that no matter what it does nothing will happen to it.  And we have friends, we have allies, we have interests in the region that we have responsibilities to defend and protect in a variety of ways. 

Comments

[Gabi]

I wonder, why Mr. Wernicke said in his first question "what WE are seeking", when he talked about the US in indirect speech. Does he really feel it as "WE"?

[Mir]

I don't see this as an exceptionally outstanding example of the anti-American bias in our German MSM. I have read and seen much worse. Even the American MSM likes to ask this kind of questions, where their own statement included in the question seems to be more important to them than the answer.