In a recent article published by the Tehran -Washington Times, Cheryl K. Chumley presented Iran’s one -dimensional depiction and framed the world as a permanent enemy at a global stage.
Her work is full of claims, rooted in artificially built stereotypes, and is looking for a critical investigation.
This article falls into a TRAP that repeats the topic of long -standing Zionists and anti -Iran without much support.
A record of unfounded claims, such as an article in 2020, entitled “Coronavirus’s largest political hoax”, which irresponsibly rejected the severity of the illness, is a journalist who committed to the de facto report. It impairs her reliability.
She repeats Iran and repeats labels as “a country that provides funds for the world’s fears”, so her biased approach is revealed from the beginning.
The History of the Washington Times anti -apartheid leader Nelson Mandela has a labeling history as a terrorist reminiscent of a one -sided story.
When Mandela himself wrote about this in his book, when a reporter in the dissertation visited him in prison, he said, “I found my opinion rather than prove that I am a communist and terrorist. All of them were inclined in that direction.
It’s no wonder that Mandela was on the US government’s terrorist list until 2008. The struggle with apartheid was related to the contradictory resistance to the hegemony of the United States.
The depiction of Iran’s Iran reflects this heritage and gives priority to ideology consistency over journalists.
Furthermore, this article strongly attacked Iran’s vice President Mohamad Javad Zarif, described him as a “hypocrite and double dealer”, and sent Americans from the Iranian government. I was.
However, this simplification ignores the subtle role of Zarif in public diplomacy.
His participation in the World Economic Forum in Davos was not a negotiating strategy, but an effort to present Iranian perspectives on the global stage.
Iranian foreign policy is determined at the highest level of the government, and the national position is often reflected in the official statement of the Islamic Revolution leader.
In addition, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has supervised the official diplomatic engagement.
It is noteworthy that Mohammad Javad Zarif is no longer the Minister of Foreign Affairs. So his recent actions are part of public diplomatic efforts.
Zarif is an economist, “I write this not only as a representative of the Iranian government, but with my personal abilities.”
His goal at a recent global economic forum event held in Davos, Switzerland was to compete with the wrong story and accusation of Iranian, a Warming Robby.
Chamly’s story also ignores the fact that West Asian resistance exercises have the origin of the 1979 Islamic Revolution promoted by Israel’s atrocities and occupation for many years.
The appearance of Zarif’s Davos effectively refut the anti -Iranian story by emphasizing these historical roots and the sustainable crime of Israel. Thus, he was constantly attacked by Wormers and the Israeli administration’s mouthpiece, for example, Chamley.
He also emphasized Iran’s powerful deterrence, challenged that Iran was weak or deceived, and strengthened his role as a legitimate resistance and justice supporter.
Chamley’s advertising story also ignores Iran’s willingness to engage in negotiations, as shown in the 2015 comprehensive action plan (JCPOA).
Rather than Iran’s actions, the withdrawal from the US agreement impaired the achieved diplomatic progress.
Furthermore, Chumley’s article is trying to not trust Zarif’s diplomatic efforts by neglecting his statement in the World Economic Forum, but has not acknowledged the important impact of his involvement.
His interview on the Forum’s YouTube channel broke the two -year viewer record and emphasized the effectiveness of public diplomacy and the global interest in Iranian stance.
Davos’s comments in Davos revealed the scope of the viewpoints in Iran, because some of his views caused internal criticism.
This emphasizes the true diverse opinions in Iran and challenge the national articles as a unique and aggressive power.
To strengthen her debate, Chumley relys on speculative claims, such as “Trump takes a harsh attitude toward Iran” without providing evidence or robust analysis.
Such hearings rarely contribute to the meaningful discussions on international relations.
The support of the aggressive military behavior of this article quoted by the U.S. Representative Lindsey Graham, a call for a strike for the Iranian nuclear plan, and the straightforward rhetoric of her shameful warming. An example.
Chumley’s statement about the attack on Iran, “Yes, it will be a good start,” reveals her social pathological curiosity that rejects the possibility of diplomatic solutions.
She also states, “If both sides want peace, diplomacy works.” Obviously, the band of her and her Zionist Hawks has no such peaceful intention.