Today, the Atlantic Council of the United States sponsored a debate, “Iran: Engagement or Regime Change?”, between Flynt and Michael Ledeen. David Ignatius of The Washington Post moderated. Needless to say, Flynt argued for strategic engagement with the Islamic Republic, while Michael Ledeen made the case for regime change. The Atlantic Council has already posted a transcript and audio of the debate; these are available here. We hope to post a video of the debate in the next day or two. We are also pleased that David Frum has already written about the debate on his FrumForum .
We want to thank the Atlantic Council for organizing the debate and David Ignatius for moderating it. We also want to express our gratitude to Michael Ledeen and David Frum. Even though both Michael and David disagree with many of our analyses and policy recommendations about Iran, we deeply appreciate that they address our arguments on substantive grounds, in a thoroughly civil and constructive way, and without anyone’s motives ever being subjected to ad hominem attack. We are learning from experience that those qualities are altogether too rare in contemporary policy debates. We want to commend those we encounter who reflect those qualities in their engagement with us, and hope that we reciprocate.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Interesting to see how the Atlantic Council moderator framed the Leverett/Ledeen debate:
“Should the United States try to reach a grand rapprochement with Iran in the manner of our opening to China under Nixon? Or should we instead overtly support domestic reformers and try to topple the regime as we did with the Soviet Union under Reagan?”
In other words, if Ledeen can persuade his audience that a “grand rapprochement” is pie-in-the-sky dreaming, then it follows that trying “to topple the regime” is the only alternative. I happen to agree (for now, at least) with the first part, but I fail to see that the second part necessarily follows from that premise.
People like Hillary and Flynt should not be intimidated by such people.
It’s interesting to see how some people fear the idea of Americans actually visiting Iran. They intimidate and threaten them, probably because they fear that such exchanges could weaken the impact of their anti-Iranian propaganda. These people and their green allies seem to have a vested interest in increasing tensions between the United States and the Islamic Republic if Iran.
Apologist? Certainly you jest! Mr. Leverrett is actually a de facto AGENT! How else was he able to gain diplomatic access to Iran’s highest officials and bring back a package of their messages? Mr. Leverett is actually their MESSENGER. And this debate was not for the public, it was for the U.S. government.
Mr. Leverett uses veiled intellectual arguments instead of just making accusations outright. His “couched” accusations word for word ape those of the blood sucking islamic regime. Such As:
He said several times that Jundullah blew up several IRGC officers RIGHT before the Iranians were going to agree with the 5+1 group on a nuclear agreement and Jundullah was not on the terror list, etc. He did NOT come out and connect the two events. He wants us to do that so we can’t blame HIM for saying such accusatory remarks. Mr. Leverett, do you believe the U .S. is supporting Jundullah? What is your point? Are you accusing the U.S. of something that you are afraid to just come out and point out?
And I think your “China” analogy is not so much an intellectual comparison as a platform for you to send more Islamic Republic messages not to the PEOPLE, but to the U.S. government: Such as:
“Get your navy patrols out of the Persian gulf.” You did not come out and say this, you just said that’s what Nixon said about China.
Do you think we should get our navy out of the Middle East? If so, then COME OUT and say it! And if you Do, then we know for SURE you are a de facto diplomatic messenger for the Iranian government.
your red carpet status with the Islamic Republic is a patent violation of your position at the New America Foundation, and greatly endangers their IRS / tax status at a not for profit Washington think tank. If you want to lobby, just go become a lobbyist.
Oh, and next time you are given the red carpet treatment by the Islamic republic, take note that THAT carpet is drenched with the blood of thousands of young iranian dissidents you and your beloved Hillary are trampling on.
Oh, and instead of a tour of Tehran so-called University’s so-called American Studies department – how naive of you – you should ask to be given a tour of Rajai Shahr prison, where you can visit Mr. Osanloo, the labor leader, and Evin prison, especially ward 209, where Iranian dissenters are being eleectrocuted, raped and beaten as we speak. Really.
Leedeen said US and Iran did not have a common enemy. Well I disagree. The Taliban is Iran and America’s common enemy.
The Leveretts wrote:
“Even though both Michael and David disagree with many of our analyses and policy recommendations about Iran, we deeply appreciate that they address our arguments on substantive grounds, in a thoroughly civil and constructive way, and without anyone’s motives ever being subjected to ad hominem attack.”
I think comments like this – and more so the genuine conviction which I presume underlies them – add and will continue to add a great deal of weight to what the Leveretts have to say. Needless to say, over the years there have been many opponents of Michael Ledeen and David Frum who have said some not-very-nice things about them after a debate, or in a review of their written works, and the appearance of a comment such as this – praising both of them for civility and attention to substantive arguments, in a single sentence – may well be a historical first.
Liz,
Larjani it is — thanks (I knew he looked familiar). I understand that is Rafsanjani on the other side of Khamenei. Not sure much of a conclusion can be drawn from a mandatory photo-op, at least as long as they’re out of swinging distance from one another with the Leader in between. My hunch is that Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad didn’t go out for a beer after the photo.
The Atlantic Council is a prestigious F/P think tank on a par with the CFR or Center for Strategic & International Studies. The fact the Leverett’s have been invited to defend and in the prospect proselytize their F/P views in a debate & Q&A period, proves the respect and measure of interest the F/P making community are digesting the Leverett’s policy proscriptions regarding Iran.
Its also very interesting that Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew Brzezinski is launching and heading up a new Iran project at the institute. I may be peeking in more often. I also find it very interesting that Hillary allowed herself to be seen at the University of Tehran, with someone who is 180 degrees opposed to her views regarding Iran, or more accurately what the US main stream media presumes to be her views. Wonder what the Iranian leadership is thinking about that?
Mr. Ledeen is wrong about reparation of a woman killed in accident in Iran. the law has changed (I think it was changed last year). that itself shows how Mr.Ledeen is informed about Iran’s internal dynamics. it’s true, however, that there are some discriminatory laws for women in Iran (and Iran’s rulers are responsible in changing them, in particular the parliament), but those are not the ones this gentleman is trying to take advantage of.
Interesting talk.
So Ledeen is still a great liar. Still calling for other to spill blood in his revolutionary dreams. “No change” there either.
Flynt, your argument was very strong and straight and presented well formed.
Thanks.
FYI, hysterian rather than historian, Michael Ledeen was the one who approached Reagan with the idea of an overwhelming Soviel threat, something he had taken from Claire Sterling’s “The Terror Network”. In short: The book stated that the USSR had been behind virtually every terrorist attack in the world, even in Northern Ireland.
So, Reagan urged his Director of National Intelligence, William Casey, to turn to his analysts and have them prepare a paper on the problem. The head of the Soviet Union department fell about laughing, stating the book had been a piece of CIA black propaganda from his own staff. He knew too well what Casey was talking about. Somebody tell Ledeen about it, please.
A nice documentary on those neocons can be found here: http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Eric:
That’s not Mousavi, that’s Larijani. To the other side is Rafsanjani though (who is more important than Mousavi). Mr. Rafsanjani and Dr. Ahmadinejad have not been seen together in public since the elections and this is pretty significant news.
Talking of ad hominem attacks, what’s become of WigWag? Has he been banned from the site, or is he just off taking a refresher course at Mossad headquarters?
I look forward to reading or listening to the debate in the next couple days; no time today.
Liz,
I see — you’re talking about Ahmadinejad and Mousavi (both to Khamenei’s left).
I didn’t realize this was the first time they’d been together — and they look so happy!
This is the first time that they’ve been seen together since the elections.
Liz,
Yes. Not clear what your point is.
This is a picture taken today:
http://www.farsnews.com/plarg.php?nn=M602091.jpg
Does anyone recognize the two men sitting to the left and to the right of Ayatollah Khamenei?
Arnold – yes, I agree, we need to know more about that if it existed. In 2006, the UNSC were passing resolutions against Iran, Seymour Hersh was reporting US meetings to contemplate nuclear attacks aginst Iranian facilities, the Israelis were bombing the hell out of Lebanon, and the US were blaming Iran for it.
I cannot see a planeload of Iranians landing in New York to celebrate a deal against that backdrop.
About Ledeen’s claim that the US has not helped the Greens, Hillary Clinton says “we did a lot behind the scenes“.
Ledeen claims that Nick Burns had nearly reached an agreement with Iran in which Larijani had agreed to suspend enrichment. That is very unbelievable, but if it is true, and I can’t imagine it could possibly be true, we need more details about what Washington offered Iran.
It was a very good debate.
It’s wonderful that neocons no longer occupy such a preeminent position that they can simply refuse to engage their enemies. For them, the mere fact of acknowledging their lack of hegemony in foreign policy opinion represents a defeat.
More debate can only lead to a further weakening of their position, since their dubious assumptions will receive increasing scrutiny.
No longer can they make the circular argument that since a regime is evil, it is evil. Soon they will have to shown evidence of what a regime has actually DONE to merit its being considered evil. In the case of Iran, that will be a very high bar to meet.
I have read the transcript of the debate.
There are interesting remarks by Mr Leverett some of which are as follows:
We need to drop fantasies that internal political change in Iran is going to solve our foreign policy problems in the Middle East.
Some of the ideas that might fit that bill – if the Obama administration would reaffirm the Algiers accord that ended the hostage standoff in January 1981. There is an explicit commitment in that document by the United States not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic.
I am confident the Obama administration went through an exercise, last year, of whether or not to put groups like Jundallah and PJAK on the list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the case of Jundallah, they decided not to do that for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. However, if there could be some clear indication that the United States is not involved with groups that are carrying out what the Iranians see as terrorist campaigns inside their country, I think that would be enormously beneficial.