An Analysis: Media Coverage of Israel During Iran-Contra

The government corruption bug thought gone with the Nixon administration was merely wallowing in latency. Nearly ten years and three presidents later, political scandal and government distrust was back on the front pages—the vice of corruption was alive and kicking.
Irangate, as many wittingly nicknamed it—a just parody to the fraud and secret undertakings of the Nixon administration—was the largest scandal since Watergate. The Iran-Contra scandal revealed political corruption in the 1970s still had its progeny in the Reagan administration. The modus operandi of winks and nods in high ranks of government were clearly still in effect.
The Iran-Contra scandal broke in November 1986, when it was revealed that the U.S. was selling arms to Iran and subsequently transferring money to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. The event brought many hidden interactions between Israel and the United States to the forefront. Lurking underneath the close relationship between Israel and the U.S. was an alliance privy to an arms, hostage and money laundering deal that extended to Central America.
But how did our truth bearers, public informants and civic mediators fare in the whirlwind of controversy and political finger pointing of the Iran-Contra scandal? With Israel as our strongest ally in a region devoid of pro-American sentiment, could the press coverage of Israel’s involvement truly be categorized as journalistically admirable, adhering to the principles of comprehensiveness, independence from faction, verification of truth and a watchdog of the powerful?
A look into the coverage of major U.S. dailies, spanning from November 1986 to February 1987 revealed a passive and meager approach to analyzing Israel’s role in the affair. The coverage was indeed extensive and duly held the U.S. government accountable for its covert operations abroad but for the most part, failed to analyze the deeper implications on U.S. foreign policy and Israeli relations. It was not until January 1987, when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported that Israel suggested funding the Contras that publications began to investigate the details and consequences of Israeli involvement more profusely. What was embedded in editorials and the back pages of newspapers was eventually, by the end of January, slowly emerging in primary stories and frontal pages.

A Past Not Easily Compromised
When the state of Israel was officially established in 1948, the United States was the first to knock on its door—a foreign power committed to grandfathering a newborn child. It was a convenient partnership fostering democratic hope in the Middle East. But it was not until the height of the October 1973 war that Israel’s fate became intertwined with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and the U.S. began its generous outpour of economic and military aid. By the 1980s, the U.S. had provided a total of $31 billion in aid to the struggling new country.  Sixty percent of which was grant money.
The sale of U.S. arms to Iran, using Israel as a mediator, began in the summer months of 1985. The U.S. sold arms to rebel groups against the Iranian regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, and in exchange won the release of some American hostages. By November of that year, money from the arms-for-hostage sale was being diverted to the anti-Sandinista, anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua, the Contras, whose record was spotted with human rights violations. Congress limited U.S. funding of the Contras in The Boland Amendment of 1983.   At the same time, the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 stated that “exports are prohibited to a country if it increases the possibility of outbreak or escalation of conflict, or prejudice the development of bilateral or multilateral arms control or nonproliferation agreement.” Thus the funding of the Contras through Swiss bank accounts and Israeli mediators, if not borderline illegal was completely unethical.   The sirens couldn’t have been louder: the United State’s greatest ally in the Middle East was secretly funding Iranian rebels and was suspected of laundering proceeds to human rights violators in Nicaragua, but to the media this was all just white noise.
For the most part, major coverage of the affair refrained from directly implicating Israel, painting a passive and often ambiguous description of Israeli participation. Journalists were too busy digging up the deceit of American politicians and did not do enough truth digging behind Israel’s stream of denials in the Contra funding conflict or further investigate what was known—their shipment of arms to Iran.  What about analyzing Israel’s own controversial past and motives for its involvement like “the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the Israeli crackdown on the Palestinian uprising and the rise to power of an Israeli Likud Government driven by a religious-nationalist agenda”?   Or examining their deeply seeded interest in Iran’s victory in the Iran-Iraq war? Much of the early coverage focused on the personal shortcomings and sensationalist aspect of a U.S. government in decadence. It was not until the later months following the scandal that the media shifted their attention to U.S. foreign policy and power relations with Israel.

Early on: Confusion in the Pack
The pack of watchdogs seemed to have only one target in mind—United States government officials—and with that, dismissed Israel as a victim of U.S. interest. The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor and The Washington Post all circulated the same phrases. Israel was “acting primarily as a service, ” was “in no position to refuse, ” “simply wanted to help the Americans, ”acted in “bequest of the U.S ” and was “a scapegoat. ”
Coverage in November and December lacked original reporting, often extensively quoting Israeli officials defending their involvement. Yet reporters merely took these quotes at face value, failing to verify the validity of the statements. For instance, an article in The Post, “Israel Denies Meese claim That it Handled Money from Iran Arms Sales,” extensively quotes Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and unnamed Israeli officials defending Israel’s singly role in selling arms, and denying financial involvement with the Contras. However the article relies on several quotes of anonymous sources, “sources indicated,” “sources contend,” “the official noted,” but it never incorporates the direct statement by Meese or even any sort of direct quote from US officials that implicates Israel.  The article is littered with quotes in defense of Israel and is not a transparent, balanced approach to evidence.
Much of the early reporting tended to be unclear and ambiguous. Clear and comprehensive reporting was lacking in early coverage. One exception seemed to be The Wall Street Journal. In “Israel, the Debate on Iran Arms Sales Also Focuses on Political Fallouts in U.S” clearly lays the facts in the third paragraph, “Israel now disclosed that the decision to sell arms to Iran was made by the country’s three most senior leaders: Prime Minister Shamir, Foreign Minister Peres and Defense Minister Rabin. ” This was a November 28th article. Meanwhile, an article in The Post two days later confuses readers as to Israel’s role in the affair. “Iran-Contra Connection Tipped Scale” talks about “a blizzard of revelations to the press,” but does not clearly present them to the public.  Similarly, a November 28th article in The Christian Science Monitor, “Israeli Role in US-Iran Deals Spawns Two-Edged Credibility Crisis,” embarks on the “credibility crisis” of Israeli leaders and their defense of their involvement, yet never directly states the accusations made against the ministers. Through long rhetorical questions, the article continues to confuse its readers.  However, early reports of the affair in the editorial pages or in contributed reports were more direct and thorough. The Los Angeles Times, for instance in “Rogue Operation Leaves Many Policies in Tatters” said, “U.S. policy in the Middle East is sorely damaged, and our best friend, Israel is left holding the bag.”  It was a November 28th article that, in contrast to hard news reports published in the same week, right away stated Israel’s role was far from passive. The article continued to question U.S. foreign policy and called for a more coherent strategy in the region. It was an editorial on page B7.

The Media Watchdog Poodles
Coverage in The Washington Post and The New York Times in the month of the Iran-Contra break did not invest much space to Israel and was cautious and dismissive of Israeli involvement. In one NYT’s edition, on November 26, out of eight stories regarding Iran-Contra, only one directly pertained to Israel’s assistance in the affair. And the article, titled “Israel Now Says it Sent Arms at Request of US” emphasized Israel’s role as marginal. They were acting “upon the request” and “at the behest” of the US.  Similarly, The Post was careful in laying the blame on Israel’s shoulders. The fact that Israel had indeed shipped arms to Iran was uncontested, and side noted in the most of the coverage. What was disputed was to what degree Israel was linked to the Contras.  Yet the media cautiously approached both topics.
The press seemed content with the standalone fact that Israel had sold arms to Iran but did not further inquire into the details. What about mentioning the Arms Export Control Act of 1976? Neither was Israeli participation in the Contra funding investigated or analyzed. A November 26th article in The Post, “Israel Denies Funding Contras”; a November 27th article “Israel Denies Meese Claim that it Handles Money from Iran Arms Sales”; and a November 28th article, “Israelis Say US Lags in Probe of Iran Deal: Sources Say CIA Channeled Contra Funds” all stood behind claims by Israeli officials denying money laundering to Nicaragua.  These statements were repetitive and contradicted statements by U.S officials. Yet the press did not delve into the histories or these officials—many who were unnamed—or go into the meaning and implications of its contradiction to U.S. officials. Israelis were quoted extensively but where was the investigative reporting, the truth behind these blanket statements or even an ounce of analysis on what was already confirmed—Israel’s shipment of arms to Iran?

As the Dust Settles, the Truth Comes Out
The Wall Street Journal did have clear reporting and looked at the greater issues of foreign policy and Israel’s special treatment by the U.S. early on into the scandal. It was not until the months of January and February that other publications followed suit with coverage of Israel’s involvement becoming more analytical and probing.
While The Post and the NYT were caught in the frenzied he-said-she-said exchange of government officials, the WSJ had a pretty firm grasp on the facts. A November 28th article, (about the same time The Post and the NYT were sidelining their reporting) “In Israel, the Debate on Iran Arms Sales Also Focuses on Political Fallouts in US,” straight off the bat states how Israel’s role is “being played so far in a lower key.” The article continues in the next paragraph, “For the moment, the dispute is focused more on the way that Israel’s government decided to participate in arms shipments to Iran—that is, who made decisions and how—rather than on the broader policies being pursued.”  The WSJ did what other dailies should have emulated early in their reporting: taking a step back and contextualizing Israel in the greater occurrences of the Middle East. It links Israel’s motives to the Iran-Iraq war and even goes far enough into an analysis of whether Israel’s support of Iran is truly beneficial. By thinking outside of the frame strictly provided by US and Israeli officials—Israel’s arms sale and US puppet—the WSJ makes interesting and refreshing points that add to rather dry discussion of Iran-Contra.

Is it Ever Too Late?
The early press coverage of Israel’s role in the Iran Contra scandal was inconsistent and lacking. During the beginning months of the scandal, not many articles were dedicated to investigating Israel’s part. Here and there intriguing articles would dot the scene, like a November 27th NYT article that included a small paragraph detailing Israel’s history with Washington, the spy scandal and the cover-up of two Palestinian murders.  Otherwise the press remained circulating bland regurgitations from Israel’s government.
It was not until the end of December and into 1987 that the media was suddenly jerked awake. By 1987, the pack too seemed bored by its own coverage.  After the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, according to The Post, was “told that the first suggestion to divert money from the Iran arms sales to aid the Nicaraguan rebels was made by…then Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres,”  much of the coverage was redirected towards Israel and the watchdogs were let out of their cage. Israel was increasingly mentioned in most Iran Contra coverage and even The Post began publishing fresher reporting pieces. A December editorial by Richard Cohen, “The Press Overslept” called the media out on their lack of shrewdness and quickness. Cohen writes,
“Take the element of Israeli complicity. That should have come as no surprise. Twice in the months before the entire arms operation was revealed…Israeli officials were asked here in Washington about rumored Israeli shipments of arms to Iran…They both said no, and that it seemed, was more than enough to turn off any inquiry….the clues were there for all to see and the press needed only to connect the dots.”

Fast forward twenty years and three presidents later. With coverage of events like the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, has the media really learned its lesson?