When reading news coverage of the Iranian "crisis", it is very difficult to know where media starts and where the government propaganda ends. Everything from the article title, to its pictures, to its content seem to have been designed to condemn Iranian position.
Readers are suppose to read the articles and learn about the events and make up their mind. Just as a judge would have done so. In the media, the coverage is similar to a court room where only the state prosecutor can speak, and the defended is not able to air his defense. Take for example this article: Iran's Rogue Rage.
The article title speaks for itself. It also republishes what must be at least 6 month old picture (if not more) of a few technicians moving a barrel of "Yellow cake" and posing for a picture with it. It is interesting that this article, just like many of the other articles covering the issue, have either anonymous sources, US and IAEA officials. You would be hard press to get the response of the Iranian officials on the matter. There are Iranian negotiators that are involved in these, most likely no one has heard any of their arguments.
The articles generally has a statement like: "....even the atomic weapons the Iranian government officially says it doesn't want...". Followed by a defiant message like: "If they want to destroy the Iranian nation's rights by that course," he said, "they will not succeed.".
It rarely covers the issue from the Iranian perspectives. They negotiated for two years with Europens to come up with a agreement that solves their concerns yet recognizes Iranian right to have nuclear energy as it sees fit. Instead you have "anonymous" comments such as:
Thus far, "the tactic of the Iranians is to give you half of what you need, then when you ask for more, half of the half, then, again, half of that," says a Western diplomat familiar with the inspection process, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the matter.
After what we know from the run up to the Iraq war, the Iranian side can say that "the US tactic is to ask for Iranians to provide them documents, then after they hand in the documents, double the requirements."
Where is the real meat of the negotiation? What was offered, what was the counter offer?
The ending is rather interesting:
The mullahs see this fight as one to ensure the survival of their regime—with American assurances. Would Washington cut that deal? A lot of bargaining remains. But Rice was right; the Iranian people deserve better.
The conclusion might be right, this is really about Iranians ("regime" and its people) being worried about possible US intervention in internal Iranian affairs. Regardless, what Iranian people deserve or don't deserve is really up to Iranians to decide. One thing is certain, we deserve better media than what we are getting.