Iran

Iran Cracks Down on Newspapers Opposing Nuclear Deal

Arguments against the deal are similar in the U.S. and Iran.

|

IAEA

While American opponents of the Iran nuclear deal tend to argue the United States and other negotiating countries made too many concessions to secure an agreement with Iran, Iranian opponents of the nuclear deal argue Iran made too many concessions in order to secure an arrangement too, accusing negotiators of crossing "red lines" drawn by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei.

Now, in its campaign to build support for the deal in Iran, the Iranian government has started cracking down on hardline newspapers that have criticized the deal. Reuters reports that Iran's Press Supervisory Board has:

suspended "9 Dey", a weekly newspaper that accused Tehran's negotiators of overstepping Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's red lines in the negotiations, and referred its case to a court, the ISNA news agency reported on Monday.

Censors also cautioned "Kayhan", an influential conservative daily, and the "Raja News" website, in a setback for critics who assert that Iranian negotiators made too many concessions to reach the historic deal on July 14.

Many of the arguments made by American critics of the deal are mirrored by Iranian ones. Critics in both countries believe their respective negotiating teams were unwilling to walk away from talks, thus weakening their bargaining positions and strengthening the other side's. Critics on both sides argue too many concessions were made, and that the other side made a better deal.

Khamenei has not endorsed the deal or opposed it. The hardline newspaper Kahyan has been observed to usually reflect the supreme leader's opinions. The newspaper's argued Iranian concessions in the nuclear deal are difficult to impossible to reverse, while the promise to lift sanctions is not. The newspaper also called the International Atomic Energy Agency a puppet of the U.S. and Israel.

As Reuters noted, Iran's press censors concern themselves mostly with social/moral matters. Their most recent ban was in April, of a magazine, for publishing an issue focused on the practice of cohabitation by unmarried couples, called "white marriage" in Iran.

Advertisement

NEXT: Kids Dig for Worms, Sell to Fishermen. Town Says Not So Fast: That's Illegal!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sounds like Iran has the enlightened policy towards journalism that our media would like to see implemented here.

  2. called “white marriage” in Iran.

    I’ve been in a white marriage. It’s no picnic.

  3. called “white marriage” in Iran

    Apparently a racist relationship, no wonder it was banned.

  4. What concessions has Iran made? Some really, super dubious arrangement about letting inspectors in – or not letting inspectors in if they don’t feel like it? They aren’t likely to follow the damn agreement anyway. The country just gets a bunch of sanctions lifted for letting Obama seal up his “legacy” or whatever the fuck you call it.

    1. They promised to stop making mean posters about Obama?

  5. If only Iran had their own Jon Stewart who could speak truth to power and take the media down a peg or two.

    1. They’d just stone Jon to death over there. Which sadly, makes Iran better than the US in at least one small way.

    2. Zing!

    3. I saw him referred to somewhere this morning as a “comic with a conscience”. I almost threw up.

      1. “comic with a conscience”

        Humor with a large dose of lecturing. Fun!

      2. The ‘with a conscience’ label is automatically tacked on to any artist that preaches heavy doses of Team Blue rhetoric.

  6. OT: I just saw an ad for a movie called “No Escape” that did not feature Ray Liotta. What’s it called when you instantly hate something with the fire of a thousand suns?

    1. At the theater yesterday there was an ad for a Julia Roberts movie called Secret in Their Eyes, which looked so stupid I called it a Lifetime movie, which is probably why I went home alone.

      There was also an ad for the Michael Bay-Benghazi movie, which looks promising, as well as a movie about this guy starring DiCaprio which looked fantastic.

  7. Also I see California is on fire. I hope all our left coast reasonoids are safe.

  8. How can any American be for or against the Iran deal? We’ve had little substantive reporting on it and much of it is “secret”?

    1. I’m for it for the sole reason that it lifts economic sanctions against Iran. I don’t give a shit if Iran gets da bomb, and America can cram its regional strategic goals up its butt.

  9. “Critics on both sides argue too many concessions were made, and that the other side made a better deal.”

    Well, obviously, that discredits opponents on both sides, then.

    Is that what I’m supposed to think?

    A village retard in Bufu Iran thinks the Iranians gave away too much, so that means I’m wrong about the U.S. giving away too much, too?

    Does not compute.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.