Al-Alam and Iran's Expanding Media Influence (don't underestimate Iran's influence)

Iran’s assertiveness goes well beyond military posturing and defiance of the West. The Islamic Republic is trying to win Muslim hearts and minds through its well-financed, expanding array of media outlets targeting the Middle East, Caucasus, and Central Asia. Tehran is attempting to counter the ‘global media stranglehold’ of the West and present its own view of world events. To the detriment of others, this retaliation seems to be making an impact.

In the early 1990s, Ayatollah Khamenei decided that the West had changed its tactics. Instead of confronting the regime militarily, he thought Western leaders were planning to corrupt Iran’s youth through a cultural invasion. In such a climate, Khamenei pushed for an overhaul of the country’s media outlets. The government started to pour in money into the media, adding channels, languages, and a diverse menu of programming. The Supreme Leader has maintained close control of the system, personally monitoring programs and appointing managers.

All of Iran’s radio and television stations are controlled by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), or known domestically as the Voice and Vision of the Islamic Republic. Khamenei pays especially close attention to the selection of the IRIB leadership because of the tremendous influence the position holds. Since the 1979 revolution, only a few people have been selected to run the IRIB. Ali Larijani, the present national security chief, headed IRIB from 1993 to 2004; after Larijani, his deputy Ezzatollah Zarghami was appointed to the post for a five year term. Zarghami is a former member of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and his appointment strengthens the position of the young conservatives who are taking a more radical, hardline approach to preserving the Islamic Republic.

Former president Mohammad Khatami put a heavy emphasis on building a global public relations network during his eight year term. His goal was to improve the image of the Islamic Revolution among Muslims and the international community. During his tenure, a large number of news agencies and newspapers surfaced and were linked to the government broadcasting system. Despite Khatami’s ambitions for more open and diverse news sources, the conservative clergy prohibited him from having control over the domestic side of Iran’s media operations. As a result, Iran’s foreign broadcasts grew and diversified while IRIB’s domestic media remained under the strict control of the religious establishment. The current administration inherited this well established foreign network and effectively took advantage of it to forward policy goals in an aggressive manner.

The IRIB world service broadcasts radio in over 30 languages including, Arabic, Dari, Azeri, Kurdish, Pashto, Russian, Uzbek and Bosnian, and satellite television in all major regional languages. Since 2003, IRIB has continued its policy of phasing out shortwave broadcasts to some parts of the world (except Africa), while expanding international TV broadcasting in foreign languages. While the total budget of the IRIB is unknown, the scale of the project can be ascertained by the government’s 2007 allotment of $250 million for satellite transmissions alone.[1]

The centerpiece of Iran’s broadcasting empire is its 24-hour Arabic news channel Al-Alam. Launched in 2003 in response to the U.S. invasion in Iraq, the satellite channel targeted Iraqi viewers and presented them with an anti-U.S and anti-coalition perspective. Al-Alam’s first managing director, Hassan Beheshtipour, described the channels intent: “The purpose of the channel is to present the viewpoints of the Islamic world and counter the monopolization of news channels by western countries.”[2]

At first, Al-Alam focused on southern Iraq, particularly the Shia areas of Najaf, Karbala, and Basra, and succeeded in getting viewership almost immediately after its inception. Much of that had to due with the channel’s accessibility. A TV and electricity are all Iraqis need to watch Al-Alam, making it easier to watch than Al-Jazeera, which requires satellite connection. Iran transmits Al-Alam 150 km across the border and capitalizes on its proximity to edge out the competitors.[3] This was especially important in the early stages of the war when most Iraqis did not have satellite dishes. Al-Alam quickly established a niche and gained the trust of many Iraqis.

Al-Alam offers an attractive alternative to the Iraqi television channels, which many see as the product of U.S. psychological operations. The U.S. carried out a media assessment poll in Iraq and discovered that Al-Alam was the most trusted and watched television station in Iraq, behind the Iraq Media Network (IMN) and the religious Najaf channel.[4] Another study by Iranian Student Analytical News claimed the 80% of Iraqis in Baghdad watch Al-Alam programming while 56% get their main news from the channel.[5] Iran even hires local anchors and correspondents with Iraqi dialects to make the channel more trustworthy to Iraqi viewers.

Al-Alam presents a direct challenge to American media efforts by emphasizing Shia solidarity and Islamic unity, and the plight and despair of the Iraqi people under U.S. occupation. The channel routinely focuses on the growing weakness of the U.S. by pointing to “occupier” setbacks. In contrast to Western media statements that focus on ‘investigations’, Al-Alam immediately declares helicopter crashes as the result of enemy fire.[6] Al-Alam also highlights Iraqi policymakers who speak out against the U.S. In an interview, Iraqi parliament member Ali Almiali told the station, “The U.S. occupation forces refuse to listen to the Iraqi people's voice and demands to withdraw the forces from Iraq.”[7] Al-Alam also recently presented a roundtable of experts discussing the evidence of an alleged U.S. plot to assassinate the "patriotic Arab Islamic leaders” in Iraq in order to maintain control of the government.[8]

Although Al-Alam’s original target was Iraq, it has broadened to the wider Middle East and Muslim world with bureaus in Tehran, Beirut, and Baghdad and over two dozen correspondents in key areas.[9] The station has remained committed to the anti-U.S. pro-Shia agenda, but has developed a comprehensive world new service and is now a direct regional competitor of the media giant, Al-Jazeera. Events on Al-Alam portray Iran’s foreign policy favorably and present the country as a regional leader and ‘defender of Islam.’ Al-Alam interviews Iranian policy makers and presents commentaries to clarify Iran’s stance on many issues for an Arab audience. For instance, President Ahmadinejad was interviewed on Al-Alam touting Iran’s influence stating, “It must be taken into account that the Iranian people, from cultural, economic and political points of view are a force that cannot be ignored and have international influence.”[10] The network also tries to impress the Arabs with Iran’s military strength by frequently broadcasting IRGC maneuvers and interviews with Guard commanders.

The news channel actively covered the Lebanese-Israel conflict last summer. One program emphasized Hezbollah’s “victory” and “dignity” and claimed that such a movement should arise in Iraq to confront the U.S. An Iraqi politician on the program Iraq Today said “Now that we had gained power in Iraq, a true resistance, similar to that of the Lebanese Hezbollah, is bound to rise.”[11] The impact of Al-Alam in Lebanon during the war was assessed in a poll conducted by Iran. An Iranian poll claimed that 22% of Lebanese watched Al-Alam for their news and 49% of them said the most attractive reason for watching the station was for “real and honest news.”[12]

The channel also drew international attention during the U.K. sailor crisis, by the sailors’ “confessions” to a Middle East audience. In fact, footage of the sailors was provided by the IRGC public relations department and was initially broadcast on Al-Alam and not on any Persian-language stations. The channel’s coverage of their release emphasized their graciousness towards Iran, as one caption stated, “The Iranian president [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] meets the British sailors who thanked him for deciding to free them.”[13] Presenting Iran as the victim in the UK sailor crisis, an op-ed on Al-Alam’s website wrote, “Western powers are sailing on some of the most impudent waves of their bigotry in modern history in ganging up on Iran simply because of the country's legitimate move in defending its territorial waters against an intruding army.”[14] More recently, Al-Alam highlighted the scandal in Britain over the selling of the sailor’s stories to British tabloids.[15] Reports have emphasized the incompetence of British military in handling the issue.

The issue of Israel and Palestine, a unifying subject in the Islamic world, is constantly discussed on the channel by President Ahmadinejad and other commentators. The objective is to position Iran as the major opposition to Israel in the region. Ahmadinejad often downplays Israel’s power and even asserts that the country is not likely to survive, recently stating, “They are on their way to disintegration. They cannot survive.”[16] The Holocaust Conference was also a part of this strategy. In fact, Al-Alam and Al-Jazeera were the only two channels allowed to cover the conference.[17] The two aired lengthy reports and interviews with participants, highlighting the event for an Arab audience of over fifty million.

A sub-strategy of Al-Alam is to counter Saudi influence in the region. Besides the popular satellite channel Al-Arabiya, Saudi controls two widely disseminated newspapers, Al-Hayat and Asharq Al-Awsat. Al-Alam’s Shia-based foreign policy contrasts the traditionally dominate dialogue of the Saudi supported Sunni-driven perspective.

The Al-Alam television station is complemented by sophisticated Arabic and English websites. The English version was only just launched in the summer of 2006. [18] Interestingly, Al-Alam’s Arabic version of its website states is mission as: “to reenergize and maintain the foundation of the culturally-unified identity of the Islamic nation against the Western cultural invasion.” The English version, on the other hand, has no mention of a “Western cultural invasion” and instead says it is “trying to disseminate news in a sincere and impartial manner by keeping up a moderate line.” Despite the conflicting mission statements, Al-Alam has decided to take the Western world head-on. In March, IRIB launched of an all-English satellite news channel called “Press TV” that covers North America, Europe, and Asia to “respond to the [Western] propaganda against the country.”[19]

In addition, Iran uses the Arab satellite TV to reach to the Middle East audience with the message of promoting Islamic solidarity and resisting Western activities in the region. Recent guest appearances on Al-Jazeera included interviews with President Ahmadinejad, and a debate between the Expediency Council Chairman, Hashemi Rafsanjani, and a well known Sunni Scholar, Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the International Union for Muslims.

Iran also exports Jaam-e Jam and Al-Kawthar/Sahar TV, which focus on Islamic and Iranian programming. Jaam-e Jam has been a Persian-language satellite network aimed at Iranian ex-patriots since 1997.

The Sahar satellite network is broadcast in Turkish, Azeri, Arabic, Dari, English and many other languages. In February, 2006 Sahar TV 1 changed its name to Al-Kawthar and offers now exclusively Arabic language Shia programming. Iranian news agency ISNA noted the reason, “It intends to compete more than the past with the international Arab media, which unfortunately are mostly set up to mar Islamic and human identity.”[20] The channel broadcasts general programming, such as dramas, children’s shows, Iranian films and a few political programs. The deputy director of Al-Kawthar notes that the channel is not a news channel like Al-Alam but rather, “operates as the Islamic Republic of Iran's only Arabic TV station that is mainly dedicated to cultural programs, religious teachings and the ideas of the Ahl-al-Bayt [Household of the Prophet; reference to the Shi'i Imams].”[21] The deputy director also claimed that during the Lebanon war last summer, 55% of the Lebanese Shia watched the channel.

Sahar TV also targets Azerbaijan and the Caucasus region via Azeri programming. Besides spreading Iranian influence in the region, Tehran uses the channel to combat Azeri broadcasts into Iran. Sahar TV attempts to shift propaganda away from encouraging Iranian Azeris to support Azerbaijan government. Despite Iranian assertions that there is no intent to interfere in Azeri affairs, the channel is known to be critical of the Azeri government. When an Azeri official met with Israel last week, a report on Sahar TV concluded that such conduct was against the will of the Azeri population.[22] Azeri media has accused Sahar TV of encouraging ethnic secessionist movements (specifically the Talis population). Iranian diplomats responded to the allegations by claiming the channel was independent and that analysts on Sahar TV “express their own opinion.”[23]

As far as Sahar TV Kurdish, the Iraqi Kurdish newspaper, Chawder, points out, “They [Iran] also want to tell the Kurds from other parts of Kurdistan that since Sahar TV serves the Kurdish nation, culture and language, there is no need to form opposition parties against the central government of Iran which has preserved the rights of the Kurds.”[24]

Iran also beams Mashhad radio and TV into Afghanistan and Central Asia. Mashhad carries much the same anti-U.S. message as Al-Alam in Iraq. Mashhad programming is transmitted in Dari, Uzbek, Turkmen and Persian. The broadcasts are a mix of religion and anti-west propaganda emphasizing that the American presence in Afghanistan is destabilizing and no better than the Taliban. Broadcasts routinely assert that the U.S. and NATO are not interested in creating stability in Afghanistan, but rather “The role of the U.S. in the region is not peace-keeping but adding fuel to fire.”[25] Mashhad commentaries include observers who highlight the warm relations between Iran and Afghanistan and Iran’s investments in the country. In an interview last December, a reporter said, “I believe that Iran has made huge investments in industries and in rehabilitation of the infrastructure in Afghanistan.”[26]

Iran’s foreign policy is clear: Tehran is flexing its muscles. Increased military spending, bellicose rhetoric, a growing nuclear program, and the recent UK incident depict Iran’s new found confidence. But Tehran’s strategy is not simplistic and over-reliant on strength of arms. In fact, Iranian efforts are calculated and multi-faceted, as public opinion is now a part of Tehran’s new strategy.

Iran’s foreign broadcasts are promoting Tehran throughout the world as an Islamic power with prestige and benevolence. This gives Iran the opportunity to shape its own image and counter media that presents the country in a negative light. Through direct satellite news programming, Iran highlights the country’s achievements and explains its viewpoints on various subjects while emphasizing Islamic unity and Shia solidarity. The broadcasts also bring Iran closer to its neighbors as programs show politicians, experts and observers who emphasize the benefit of Iran’s activities in the region.

Recent polls suggest a growing support for Iran in the Arab street. A recent poll by the University of Maryland found the majority of Arabs in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were supportive of Iran’s right to pursue a nuclear program. When asked which country posed the biggest threat, 85% said Israel, 72% said the US and only 11% said Iran.[27] Average Arabs seem impressed with Iran’s defiance of the West and its ability to pursue a bold foreign policy. However, Arabs leaders have a historic skepticism of Iran and its intentions in the region. For instance in Saudi Arabia, the majority actually considered Tehran’s influence in Iraq more harmful than Washington’s.[28] To calm these long-held fears, Tehran will have to increase its efforts to win Arab hearts and minds.

This use of ‘soft’ power demonstrates Iran’s growing sophistication and its realization that military power is only one component to its long-term ambition of becoming a regional leader and the flagship country of Western resistance.

Recent statements by Nancy Pelosi, the United States Speaker of the House, and Tom Lantos, the head of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, regarding their willingness to travel to Iran added a new dimension to the ongoing debate over possible talks with the U.S. While Iranian ultra-conservatives are vehemently against any direct contact with the U.S., both reformists and the dominant conservatives (who have recently changed their minds on this issue) seem to have no fundamental objection to talks with the U.S. The reformists welcome negotiations without any major reservation, while the conservatives are more cautious and have preconditions that range from Americans being on a "listening and not lecturing tour," and the release of the Iranians held by the American forces in Iraq.

Mohammad Reza Bahonar, the conservative deputy of the Majlis, said that the Americans want to talk to Iran because they have concluded that Iran is a "big and influential country and without it none of its objectives in the region can be achieved." He added that U.S. officials can travel to Iran only if they want to "listen to Iran's position," and not to "lecture Iran and talk like a godfather."[29]

Kazem Jalali, a member of the Majlis National Security Commission, said that those members of the U.S. Congress who are interested in traveling to Iran, have to "submit an official request" and also "clarify the goal" of their trip.[30]

However, Noreddin Peer-Moazzen, a reformist member of the National Security Commission whose party is in the minority, has welcomed the idea of a meeting with his American counterparts and said that "in the third millennium, there is no weapon sharper than the logic of negotiation." He accused "some" political groups (i.e. the ultra-conservatives) of "beating the drums of war" in order to "continue their political life" and added that both the reformist minority and the conservative majority of the Majlis should be "be ready for direct negotiations" with the U.S. "whether in Iran, in the U.S., or in a third country."

He pointed out that "the U.S. is the only country outside of Iran in which about 3 to 4 million Iranians live and if [Iran's] diplomacy machine puts the realities together, [we will see that] we have nothing in common with Russia, China, or the used-up European countries."

Peer-Moazzen argued that since the Iranian and American administrations have limitations on direct contact, "the real representatives of the two nations" can pave the way "for direct negotiations and the removal of the wall of mistrust between the two countries."[31]

Iraq is clearly a sore subject between the Iranians and the Americans. Tehran expects Washington to acknowledge Iran's role and interests in Iraq. Broadening the next Iraq conference and holding it in Egypt, which is not one of Iraq's neighbors, has insulted Iranians to the point that some officials have expressed doubt as to whether or not Iran should attend. Some members of the Majlis believe that the meeting in Egypt is the latest manifestation of the U.S. trying to bypass Iran.

Heshmatollah Falahat-Pishe, a conservative member of the Majlis National Security Commission, has stated that "since the U.S. is more influential internationally than regionally (and therefore needs to recognize regional actors such as Iran), it wants to internationalize the Iraq conference and that is why they [the Americans] have moved the meeting to Egypt."[32]

This perception makes it more difficult for Iranian MPs to meet their American counterparts regardless of how interested they are. One thing is clear, the Iranians do not want to repeat previous experiences in which Iran supported the U.S. and in the end was branded a member of the Axis of Evil. The Iranians might need assurance that any direct contact with U.S. officials will not be followed by further demonization of Tehran.

"He pointed out that "the U.S. is the only country outside of Iran in which about 3 to 4 million Iranians live and if [Iran's] diplomacy machine puts the realities together, [we will see that] we have nothing in common with Russia, China, or the used-up European countries."

TRANSLATION: Islamic Republic has already manipulated and conquered, directly and indirectly, the hearts and minds (not to mention the pocketbooks) of "those who count" in Russia, China and the "used-up" European countries (especially 'old' Europe). It is now America's turn, including 2 to 4 million Iranians there, to be thoroughly brainwashed and brought on-board under the pretext of "diplomacy machine" i.e. how wonderful, tolerant, accommodating, caring and generous IR really is.

Every time the reformists open their mouths, they say volumes, but only if one isn't gullible enough to believe them. As the article says, their party is in the minority and they want to make in-roads vs. the hardliners. But, it doesn't change anything, they both equal Islamic Republic at the end of the day.

Good article and thanks for the post.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.