European Eutelsat and the British satellite telecoms operator Arqiva have stopped broadcasting through their satellites the signal for 19 Iranian TV and radio stations. The decision was made on October 15 right after the EU approved the new set of economic sanctions against Teheran.
The measures introduced by the Europeans fit well into the framework of the information war between the West and the Islamic republic. In the past, however, it was Iran who was blamed for limiting the spread of information as it reportedly jammed the signal of several Western broadcasters. But the fact that Europe, who prides itself on its freedom rights, is introducing similar measures is something new.
In any event, the broadcasting tension around the Islamic Republic is growing and one has to admit that the information cold war between Iran and its opponents is reaching its peak.
And it is a very worrisome fact. Here is the opinion of Vladimir Yevseev, a military expert and the head of the Russian Center for Social and Political Studies:
“It is no secret that the escalation of propaganda and counter-propaganda as well as increased activity of psychological pressure on the potential enemy can be a sign of preparation for actual military action. That is the way it happened in the XX century and the way it will be in the XXI century. Let's recall the beginning of World War II. The authorities of the opposing sides took away radio sets from their population, created all sorts of shields against the enemy's propaganda by jamming the enemy's radio broadcasting by technical means. The ideological leadership of potential opponents directly prepared their nations for a victorious war, while the opponent's population for moral degradation and losses.”
Similar events took place after World War II. We can recall the Cuban missile crisis around Cuba in 1962, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. Back then both in the Soviet Union and in America the mass media did their best to blame the potential opponent for all sins. One could conclude that they can substitute the term opponent with a more direct word “enemy”. Fortunately, back in 1962 reason prevailed both in Moscow and in Washington.
A similar situation, but on the regional and not global level, is currently taking place around Iran. And it is hard to get rid of the impression that the world is on the brink of yet another crisis, which has yet to be named. Crises have one thing in common – they get named after they break out. One has to hope that we can still avoid the appearance of a potential Hormuz crisis, or a crisis with a similar name.
(Source : Voice of Russia)