We want to highlight a three-part exchange about our post, “Misreading Iranian Politics in Washington,” that took place recently on two other blogs. First, Andrew Sullivan, a frequent critic of our work, wrote in The Daily Dish on February 13 that we were gloating about the Green Movement’s rather weak display on February 11, the anniversary of the Islamic Republic’s founding, which most commentators and analysts thought would be the occasion for a major popular challenge to Iran’s political order. Sullivan elaborated,
“Obviously the argument that the Tehran junta is not going away is a legitimate area of debate. But there is a glee with which the Leveretts write about this that I find somewhat callous given the suffering and deaths and torture of so many young lovers of freedom in that imprisoned country.”
Second, Daniel Larison wrote on February 14 in Eunomia that Sullivan was being “extremely unfair”:
“The Leveretts are not expressing “glee” or anything like it when they say that the regime is not going anywhere. They are acknowledging a reality that far too many Westerners have had enormous difficulty acknowledging.
“Iraq war opponents were not gleeful when the political chaos and sectarian violence some of them predicted broke out. We were not pleased when the disaster we opposed unfolded. They were going to draw attention to the mistaken judgments of the people who up until the previous hour had denounced them as so many water-carriers for despotism and agents of foreign governments. The Leveretts are doing no more than re-stating their original arguments and pointing out that all those legions of pundits and bloggers who mocked them were rather impressively wrong on the main questions of the strength and potential of the Green movement and of the endurance of the current regime. Of course, the Leveretts know just as well as everyone else that there is no real accountability in foreign policy commentary. Their basically correct analysis will not make people more interested in their arguments, and the basically flawed analysis of dozens of others will not prejudice the reading public against their arguments in the future.”
We would like to make three points about this exchange.
First, we want to thank Daniel Larison for his many expressions of support for our analysis of Iranian issues and our arguments about an optimal Iran policy for the United States. His response to Sullivan was on the mark in terms of its understanding of what we tried to do in the “Misreading Iranian Politics in Washington” post.
Secondly, we want to thank Andrew Sullivan for presenting Larison’s criticisms of Sullivan’s February 13 post—and presenting those criticisms in a manner indicating that Sullivan thought they warranted a fair hearing, at least. This indicated an openness to genuine discussion that we respect and hope we can reciprocate.
Third, we would like to address the issue that Sullivan raised regarding our being “somewhat callous” in the way we write about Iranian politics. We do not intend to come across as callous in our work. We certainly do not take glee in anyone’s death, injury, or incarceration. Every death is a tragedy, especially when the life lost is a young one. But, in our view, our first responsibility as analysts is to be right. We would ask people to judge our work by its clarity, rigor, and whether the bottom-line judgments and supporting analyses stand the test of time.
The folks over at LobeLog took care of Wieseltier a few days ago. I agree that Sullivan did well to quote Larison at length. Sullivan, however, should have thought twice before writing his original piece. The level of discourse by the other side has been and remains shameful — personal attacks, shoddy reasoning, disrespect for facts. I don’t want to stoop to that level, but the fact is that reason and civility are largely absent from the other side’s arguments.
On administration policy and the pronouncements of Robert Gates: remember that we do indeed have a national interest in the Persian Gulf region. Given that the Iranians have basically spit on Obama’s (albeit tepid) overtures so far, we have to maintain a firm posture toward this regime. The Iranians are no different from any other people: they respect strength and have contempt for weakness. We are not going to achieve a rapprochement with Iran by having a flaccid policy towards a very tough and so far unresponsive regime. We are currently paying for a host of mistakes in our Iran policy going back to 1953. Certainly, given that history, we need to be rather more humble than we’ve been so far. But the Iranians will have to meet us halfway.
It looks like all the accusations of anti-Semitism against Andrew Sullivan have inspired the enfant terrible of the chattering classes to moderate his rhetoric. Flynt Leverett should get on the phone to Leon Wieseltier and thank him for mellowing Andrew out. Thanks to Wieseltier it looks like we have a kindler, gentler Andrew Sullivan.
After all, it was only a short eight months ago that we had this post from Andrew at “The Daily Dish,”
14 Jun 2009 06:58 pm
Ahmadinejad’s Useful Idiot
“Stephen Hayes tackles Flynt Leverett”
In this post, the Leveretts have told Andrew that they don’t intend to come across as callous. I wonder what their response is to Andrew’s characterization of Flynt as the “useful idiot” of the Iranian regime.
regarding Doha summit:
1. it is sponsored by Saban Center: www dot huffingtonpost.com/amb-marc-ginsberg/dateline-doha-engaging-th_b_461480.html#postComment
2. Saban Center was established by Haim Saban, billionaire Israeli American communications tycoon www dotynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3268868,00.html, who is also a major donor to the Clintons and was especially supportive of HRC’s New York senate campaign. Martin Indyk is a neocon Australian Israeli American. Both Saban and Indyk have strong ties to Israel.
3. Speeches at Manama Dialog are useful tools for assessing US intentions and designs in the Middle East. In 2007, Robert Gates reminded Dialog participants that US had acted against Iran during Iraq’s war on Iran, and reaffirmed that the Carter Doctrine was still firmly in place:
After a full-throated blast at Iran that painted Iran in colors more appropriate to certain other hyper-aggressive Middle East (and Western) states, Gates donned his salesman’s hat:
In subsequent Dialogs, Robert Gates and David Petraeus assumed the role of salesmen-in-chief for the military-industrial-congressional-Israeli complex, attempting to gin up an arms race on the Arab peninsula.
2008: At the 2008 Manama Dialog, Gates told the assembly:
with the next breath, Gates continued:
www dot defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=52314
2009: Following up on Gates’ 2008 sales pitch, David Petraeus spoke to the same group last December in Bahrain:
www dot npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121498041
After at least three years of alternately stroking and scaring Gulf States treasurers with the boogey-man threat of Iran, Petraeus was pleased to announce that the cash had started to flow into US defense industry coffers.
Mission accomplished.
Don’t be dillusional. The Demonstrations in Iran have shown that the bulk of Iranians are supporters of the Islamic Republic.
The back of the US ambassador was pinned down to the ground and the Turkish advisor just did not let go. It took three Qatarians to separate them while one was asking the US ambassador if he was all right. Hillary just laughed hilariously! The Prime Minister Erdogan took it in stride. Nobody felt bad except for the ambassador whose ego was badly bruised.
round one goes to Turkey
Looks like great diplomatic advances are being achieved by Hillary’s latest trip to Middle East, the Americans side has decided a hand in hand dialogue with the Muslim world, and the ambassador was trying “the reaching hand “ but unfortunately it punched the PM’s aide in chin. Good jab
Fight broke out at Erdogan-Clinton meeting
An ugly incident occurred at Erdogan-Clinton meeting on February 14, CNNturk reports.
When the scheduled 20 minutes ran out, U.S. Ambassador to Qatar entered the room and warned U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton it is time to close the meeting, as she would be late for the meeting with Emir of Qatar. In responde to this, adviser to Turkish PM said: “It is not for you to judge the importance of our meeting, you offend our country.”
Thereafter, the high-ranking officials fought hand to hand and were hardly pulled apart. The infuriated Ambassador left the room slamming the door.
As NEWS.am reported previously, Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met in the capital of Qatar-Doha. The officials discussed Iran’s nuke program, Armenia-Turkey relations, Cyprus dispute and Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Erdogan noted that Turkey fulfilled the assumed commitments, however RA Constitutional Court’s judgment on the Protocols might negatively affect the process. He outlined that Armenia-Turkey reconciliation is possible with establishment of peace in Caucasus, consequently, it is necessary for OSCE MG to intensify its efforts. Despite the difficulties, Armenia-Turkey normalization process is very beneficial, Clinton emphasized.
“The fact of the matter is that the Greens are primarily an upscale, priviliged phenomenon.”
The “previliged” in Iran are the Bassij/IRGC who are guaranteed entrance to Universities, jobs, loans, and recently, free car, pay for beating up people with chains and clubs.
“previliged” are the Mullahs, IRCG generals and their children with astronomical bank accounts.
“Previliged” are the Bazaris (rich upscale residents in the North)with connections to the regime and the money to “oil the gov’t’s mustache”.
You are not Iranian. let me educate you who greens are: The bulk of Greens are Iranians under 30 who see no future for themselves in their own country. Inflation, No jobs, no freedom to live or think, and no respect. For most young Iranians it is harder and harder to make ends meet, start your own family, shelter and feed your kids and buy or rent them a house. There is no future for them. All they have is an economy that looks bleak as far as the eye can see, and a gov’t cares more for palestinins and Lebanese than its own people.
And they want change.
They were determined to avoid a similar embarrassment on the biggest day on the Islamic Republic’s calendar. The anniversary of the revolution should be a show of unity. It should send a message that Velayate Faghih is alive and thriving, despite efforts by the opposition and foreign media to show otherwise.
First, numerous officials and religious leaders called for blood. They demanded that protesters and political activists be treated as enemies of God and put to death. That would send a chilling message that the regime would not hesitate to kill its critics even for non-violent protest. And two weeks before 22 Bahman, Rahmanipour and Alizamani were executed and another dozen or so received the death sentence, and await final decision. Meanwhile more moderate newspapers were shut down, several more activists and potential trouble makers were arrested, and massive efforts were made to encourage hardcore religious followers to show their loyalty with their presence on 22 Bahman.
But the biggest preparation was on the security front. Thousands of riot police were deployed in a massive show of force (don’t say martial law). This time they would not make the mistake of moving in small units, which made them vulnerable to attacks by rock-throwing protesters, but instead in intimidating groups of hundreds.,,more
http://iranian.com/main/blog/jahanshah-javid/22-baatoon
Iranians’ average income in 2001 was 40% lower than it was in 1976!!!!! What other countries’ income has fallen 40% from 1976 to 2001??? If you can name me one such other country, I would very much like to hear it (and bear in mind, Shah’s regime enjoyed high oil prices only from 1973-1978; Iran made more oil money in the 4 years of Ahmadinejad, the cutthroat Man of the People, than the 8 years under Khatami, phony Turbaned reformer. The murderers running Iran killed an exponentially greater number of Iranians in the years 1981-1982 alone than the Shah did in the years 1941-1979. You want to discuss red herrings? I’ll remember that the next time Ahmadinejad predicts the fall of the US, the imminent collapse of Israel or boasts about Iran joining the ranks of elite countries.
8:14 AM
Post-Imperialism in Iran
by AKBAR GANJI
The 1979 Iranian Revolution took place during the Cold War, when Third World societies were deeply affected by anti-imperial ideologies. The Revolution’s politicized Islamic movement was influenced by the leading “progressive” ideology of those days — Bolshevik Marxism. In broad terms, Iranian revolutionaries wanted independence from foreign control and were critical of Western intervention in support of despotism. The Shah of Iran was considered to be the regional gendarme of American imperialism in the Middle East. The popular slogan “After the Shah, it is America’s turn” captures the spirit of those who opposed him. Anti-Western sentiment at the time involved two distinct impulses: anti-imperialism in Leninist terms, and a critique of modernity in the Heidegerrian sense of philosophical critique. While there were also popular demands for social justice, what was missing from political discourse during the era was a serious consideration of the ethical requirements of democracy and human rights.
Other events quickly followed: the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, Saddam Hussein’s military invasion of Iran, a cultural revolution, and the crushing of Marxist and other opposition groups. The revolution that Ayatollah Khomeini led was a populist one with little concern for fostering political pluralism and and little respect for diversity. Populist economic policies and the nationalization of economic assets and resources made the state the key actor on the scene, while the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s further enhanced the new regime’s efforts at social mobilization. Oil revenues led not only to state autonomy from civil society, it allowed the regime to expand its repressive apparatus and tighten its control over many aspects of society.
Thirty years of Islamic fundamentalist rule, however, have generated significant political opposition throughout Iran. This has gradually coalesced into the Green Movement that has been on display since the June 2009 presidential election. In contrast to the Revolution of 1979, what the world has been watching for the past eight months is a movement that seeks a democratic transition to a government that respects pluralism and human rights. While this has been taking place, the focus of the U.S. government and most of the media remains on Iran’s nuclear program and the possible dangers it poses for the world….
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/02/akbar-ganji-on-post-imperialism-in-iran.html
IRI apologists are tickled pink knowing that after mass arrests, public threats on TV, executions, threatning texts, calling people up and actually threatning entire families after putting hundreds of thousands of heavily armed thugs on the streets and after closing off the entire capital, its pathetic regime could finally put on a dog and pony show.
http://iranlaborreport.com/
Why North Tehranis Don’t Revolt
by CORRESPONDENT in Tehran
14 Feb 2010 23:1825 Comments”So what’s the talk among your colleagues?” a repatriate friend of mine asks, a reminder that he uses me as a measure for the sentiment among everyday Iranians.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/02/why-north-tehranis-dont-revolt.html
No one assumed the regime is going to be toppled anytime soon. I certainly didn’t.
The revolution of 1979 some say started in 1973.
For the first time in 31 years, the government had to build a fortress and celebrate its own existence inside that fortress while beating people outside the walls.
The only thing in ruins is any semblance of support for the regime and any claim it has to legitimacy by any measure- even its own. Yesterday was a victory for the Iranian people.
Defeat only for the unrealistic ones
by Mammad on Thu Feb 11, 2010 01:42 PM PST
Today’s events do not represent a defeat for the Green Movement. If on the anniversary of the revolution, that brought to power a political system that is supposedly supported by the majority of the people, the government must blanket Tehran with tens of thousands of security forces, intelligence agents, Basij militia, and plainclothe officers just to prevent expression of opposition, what kind of “victory” it is for the government? It is, in fact, a great victory for the GM.
This was a defeat only for those who exaggerate things, who claime that the hardliners’ demise is imminent, etc. I have always said, and repeat again:
1. The struggle for democracy, including the struggle of the GM, is not a project that starts on a certain date and ends on a certain date, but rather a process; it is not a sprint, but rather a Marathon.
2. The hardliners and their supporters do not have any place to go, unlike the Shah’s supporters who moved to Europe and US. Therefore, these guys will not give up power easily. The plitical structure will change ONLY when even they become convinced that the present power structure is no longer tenable, and it is not even in their interest and survival for the system to continue. If the premise is correct, then the struggle will necessarily be long and tough.
But, we will get there.==Mohammad
The Independent UK
February 16, 2010
Leading article: A policy of desperation on Iran
There is a certain irony in the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, touring the authoritarian regimes of the Gulf in order to gain their support in confronting Iran for its “drift towards military dictatorship”. But then that is a sign of just how far the Obama administration in Washington is now reverting to the policies of President Bush where Iran and the Gulf is concerned.
Mrs Clinton’s jibe is a calculated one. Faced with an obdurate regime in Tehran on the nuclear issue and under pressure from Congress and the Iranian opposition to show more support for the democratic forces in Iran, the White House is now becoming more openly critical of the Iranian government. At the same time, it is also pushing for tighter sanctions against the country specifically aimed at hurting the Revolutionary Guard and its multifarious commercial operations. The intention is clearly to penalise the regime itself rather than its people. The aim of Mrs Clinton in her current tour of the region is to raise Arab support for those sanctions and add to the pressure on the Iranian government.
It’s a policy born out of desperation as much as rational policy-making. The reality, as Mrs Clinton admitted right at the start of her tour, is that President Obama has failed to deliver on almost all his hopes in the Middle East. A settlement of the Palestinian question is further away than ever. The nuclear negotiations with Iran are frozen and the issue has now been clouded by the internal disputes there.
Targeted sanctions may prove more painful for the country’s elite military but they are most unlikely to change the government’s view or make it more amenable on the nuclear issue. Iran’s ambitions have certainly aroused fears among its Arab neighbours but whether they are ready to confront it more directly, openly on behalf of the United States, is a moot point. Upping America’s military aid will only increase the corruption and popular resentment of regimes already held to be too much in thrall to the West.
What Washington needs, and what the Arab world wants from it, is some fresh thinking on the Middle East. Trying to revive President Bush’s old plans of setting Arab against Iranian and Sunni against Shia isn’t that.