Humans--the Learning Species

Here's the deal: in this post, as in most others here, I'm focusing on media coverage of the story, rather than the underlying story itself (New Orleans is a glaring exception).

So, what we're being told in the official statements about the Iranian nuclear program may well be true. Obviously, the Iranian government is ginning up the furor with its President's provocatively incendiary anti-Israel, Holocaust-denying statements. But, as with the old Saddam, provocative words can be interpreted as hiding weakness, instead of projecting a threat. In any case, it all may be true: Iran may be a "gathering threat"--note, in years later, I'll be able to deny saying "imminent", just like the big boys--but we have all gone down this road in the stunningly recent past, and learned--or do humans learn?--that it led to an emtpy cupboard.

So, why are the major media so bereft of skepticism as the Iranian nuclear drumbeat starts increasing in volume? Why are prominent members of the opposition party, from whom the media draws its sense of the safe zone for skepticism, so unable to frame a skeptical question on this issue? Is the unanimity of allies a good enough reason to suspend skeptical questioning? What is the name of the fear that keeps the very people who hopped on the skepticism train about Iraq long after it had left the station sheepishly silent or cooperatively unquestioning now? The least we can get from a skeptical examination of this issue is a better sense of what we do, and don't know, about Iran's capabilities and intentions. The most we could get is saved from another humiliating military rush into the darkness.