Last week, ForeignPolicy.com published a set of seven (that’s right, seven) articles by prominent, pro-Green Iranian-Americans (e.g., Reza Aslan, Haleh Esfandiari, Nazila Fathi, Abbas Milani, Azadeh Moaveni, etc.) on the anniversary of the Islamic Republic’s June 12, 2009 presidential election. The series was entitled “Misreading Tehran”, and was presented as a retrospective and self-critical look at what the American/Western media and commentariat got wrong in their assessments of Iranian politics over the last year.
This is ironic, to say the least, as several of the authors go to great lengths to point out that they and their pro-Green media colleagues did not really get anything wrong. Furthermore, it remains unclear why Foreign Policy thought that only pro-Green (and, in some cases, explicitly anti-Islamic Republic) Iranian-Americans should be included in this project. However, Foreign Policy allowed us to publish today a rebuttal to some of the major themes, claims, and arguments in the seven-part series. In this rebuttal, we address what we believe are some of the most important (and, unfortunately, sill chronic) flaws in Western coverage of Iranian politics. We also highlight the risk that willful misreadings of Iranian politics can once again take the United States down a path culminating in an unnecessary military confrontation–just as manufactured “intelligence” and incompetent analysis paved the way for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Those who are interested can read our rebuttal on Foreign Policy.com, entitled “Who’s Really Misreading Tehran?”, by clicking here. There is also a comment section there at the end of the article.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Chris,
I think Hillary Clinton can do a fairly good job, rushing around Latin America, and going here and there in Asia and elsewhere, but she clearly is a captive of her ambitions for a possible bid for another bid for the White House.
What is interesting is that Clinton was chosen at a time Obama seems to have thought he was trying to reach out to Iran, Syria, and other countries vital to the best interests of the American people. Was a deal made with Haim Saban and other highly important funders of Democratic political campaigns?
Clinton seems to have no understanding of Iran or the Iranian people. None.
James Canning
I dare say that she lacks an in-depth understanding of the politics in the Middle East. This in turn makes her susceptible to powerful lobbies in the US who play an important part in US politics and are bent on demonizing Iran. She may very well think she is pursuing just and fair policies for Iran and Palestine.
I think the president’s decision to give the top diplomat job to her underscores the president’s own turn around: To throw Palestine, Iran, diplomacy, etc under the bus because the dynamics of US politics demanded that he did so and he was not prepared to challenge it.
James Canning:
China is whole different story. Its economy is dominated by multi-national corporations, and those guys have enough of transparency in their structure to make sure the “capital oner” knows what investement goes where and where the profit goes to (ie. their own pocket).
Nuclear issue is a completely different subject from what you asked me in the thread of “Hooman Majd’s postcards from Iran”. You were kind enough to ask me what my opinion was regarding the state-ownership of the major enterprises in Iran and its effects on the economy; and I tried to explain “my own humble opinion” to the best of my ability, I hope I was successful in explaining myself clearly.
We can discuss the nuclear issue some time in the future because sadly right now I am a bit occupied.
Eric,
I just wondered. I knew Steve years ago. He was with Hill & Knowlton in Washington, then branched out on his own as something of a free lancer.
James,
“Did you ever run into Steve Martindale?”
No. I’ve never heard of him. Should I have?
Pirouz_2,
Transparency is the key issue, I agree, and of course it is something seen too infrequently. The “west” does a much better job, agreed.
On the other hand, in places like China, fairly efficient production etc can be accomplished even where trasparency is largely absent. Each country presents its own issues, etc.
A bottom-line question is: What is it costing Iran to produce LEU that will not be emplyed in powering a nuclear power plant for years to comee? And what is lost to the Iranian economy, by lack of adequate investment in industrial infrastructure, oil and gas production facilities, etc.?
Eric,
The gal who testified before Congress, of course, was a Kuwaiti princess who had not even been in the hospital where the events took place. But that was no impediment to getting the story before the American people. Brilliant work by a PR firm that had wonderful offices down on the Potomac River in Georgetown.
Did you ever run into Steve Martindale?
M.Ali,
“The best example which I like to always bring up is the great Jew Yellow Badge lie of 2006.”
I remember the response of the Jewish member of the Iranian Majlis, who pointed out that, being a member of Iran’s legislature and all, he’d probably have noticed if that alleged bill had actually been presented for adoption. Somehow, he said, it had slipped his attention.
But if you extend the competition to countries outside Iran, and backdate the time frame a bit, it’s very tough indeed to beat the story during the first Gulf War that Iraqi soldiers were yanking Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and shipping the incubators back to Iraq. I’ll put my money on that one.
Again, as I said before, the solution to corruption in the state owned enterprises is by democratizing the government, by making it transparent and accountable directly to the people not by privatization.
In fact the process of privatization is the hand-over of national property to the “corrupt” elements who have accumulated their wealth by swindelling the state owned institutes.
If you look at the level of corruption in the state-owned sector in the West and compare it the corruption in the state-owned enterprises in for example Latin American countries, you’ll see that corruption is much less in the West. Why? Because COMPARATIVELY speaking the government in the west is more transparent and accountable than say Argentine or Mexico.
M. Ali,
The gullibility of so many readers of US and UK newspapers, regarding events in Iran, is in large part due to the systematic effort to exclude coverage of events in Iran that reflect well on the Iranian government and on Iran itself. I think most well-informed observers of the situation would agree that it is a tacit conspiracy, promoted by interests trying to “protect” Israel (in the sense of allowing permanent retention of East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank).
Chris,
I also thought Obama was making a mistake in choosing Clinton for State, and the poor performance of the US in reaching out to Iran owes not a little to Clinton’s shortcomings. Is it fair to describe her as a stooge of Haim Saban?
Is Clinton’s position simply this: Jewish supporters of the Democrats insist that Israel be “protected”, and Iranian support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and Syria, is in opposition to Obama’s pledge to Democrats in the US Congress that he will “protect” Israel?
Pirouz_2,
I thought I saw a statistic not too long ago, that “bad loans” on the books of Iranian banks were up five times over the past five years. This situation is tiny compared to what happened in Ireland over the same period, for example.
The problem of corruption obtains whether enterprises are private or state-owned, but I think most observers would agree that corruption tends to be worse if the enterprise is state-owned. State-owned enterprises also are more often to suffer from bad managment generally, than private companies, because people are put into management positions due to their political connections.
@Everyone:
I am sorry to make a post completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread. I just noticed that James canning had asked a question to me in an older thread, which I had not answered back so here I will do so:
From the thread: “HOOMAN MAJD’S POSTCARD FROM TEHRAN”
Re: James Canning’s post on May 11, 2010 at 5:34 pm:
JAMES YOU WROTE:
“Pirouz_2,
[1]Do I understand correctly that Ahmadinejad played a role in obliging Iranian banks to make loans to poorer Iranians, even if they could not provide security for the loans? And that the banks now have huge bad loan problems as a result?
[2]Do you think the Iranian economy benefits if state ownership of major enterprises is reduced?”
James:
Regarding the first part of your comment: I have heared that too. And “as far as I know” he has indeed done so for at least some part of the “poorer Iranians”. Is that what has caused some “huge debt problems”? I have to admit I don’t know. In fact “I” don’t know even if there is any “huge debt problems” facing the banks or not. Opposition claims a lot of things which are basically unsubstantiated, whether this is one of them or not I don’t know. However, I must say that at least from the perspective of the IMF Iran’s economy is doing “ok”, it has had some real growth of 2.5% during a time when most of the world was suffering from a bad recession.
It may also be that -JUST A POSSIBILITY- he has provided “obnoxious” loans to his own “buddies” to make them rich and then they have defaulted on loans just to avoid paying back (basically swindelled the state-owned banks).
This trick is EXTREMELY common place in countries where a larger part of the economy is dominated by the state-owned banks and companies and when based on neo-liberal policies, the government tries to accumlate wealth in the hand of an elite and create a “capitalist class”. One example of this would be Turkey in the late 80’s and 90’s, where the right wing governments gave generous loans from the STATE OWNED banks to their own “buddies” without any security and they all defaulted on the loans and swindelled the state out of huge sums and in the mean time they got “filthy rich”.
Has this happened during the time of Ahmadinejad in Iran? It is a possibility… I personally have no first hand information.
And as for your second question:
No I DO NOT think that Iran will benefit from a reduction of state ownership of the major enterprises. IMHO the solution to the problem of “corruption” in the management of state-owned companies and banks -in general for any country and not just for Iran- is by making the government “democratic”, transparent and most important of all “accountable” directly to people and NOT by privatizing state owned enterprises to vultures whose wealth already comes from swindelling the government!
In fact doing privatization to avoid “corruption” and “swindelling” is like a case where you hand over all your jewellry to some band of thieves, because you know that they are finding clandestine ways to steal your jewellry little by little! So that would be like the thieve has made some money by stealing some of your jewellry and then comes to you and tells you: “Sell me all of your jewellry to me, see? I am stealing it anyway, you cannot hold on to it, you have not been “made” to control “jewellry, you are not a good owner of Jewellry! so sell me all of your jewellry for the price of ’some of’ the money that I have made -all of which are from the jewellry that I have already stolen from you!)”
I don’t know if I am making my point clear or not?
Eric,
You mentioned:
“That struck me as obvious from the get-go. What caused me discomfort was my recognition that whoever planted it was either extremely naive (which I doubted) or had persuaded himself that the story would be sufficiently plausible to Times readers that no one would suspect the story had been planted.”
One thing I have noticed during the years is that readers will believe anything negative when it comes to Iran.
The news could mention that Iranian government officials are raping babies and western readers would go, “Hmm…makes sense…mullah thugs!”
The best example which I like to always bring up is the great Jew Yellow Badge lie of 2006. Please read on it,
http://smileiran.com/propaganda-against-iran/great-jew-yellow-badge-lie-pinned-iran/
The area where candidates Obama and Clinton differed most was on US foreign policy, especially on Iran. So, for the president to appoint Clinton as US top foreign officer is most telling.
In the political dealings that went on, someone had to give in…and it certainly was not Clinton.
The results is the continued retirement of common sense in US Middle East policy
World now supports Iran and Palestine as well as Turkey. Azerbaijan gained huge dividends, declaring that its stands in solidarity with its Turkish brothers over the attack on humanitarian cargo ship in the Mediterranean which resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians. This step makes Azerbaijan one of the independent players on the world political arena”.
Ali Ahmadov, the executive secretary of the ruling New Azerbaijan Party told journalists on June 12: “‘As a peace-loving nation, Azerbaijan supports the resolution of problematic and contentious issues peacefully through negotiation. A solution to the Iranian problem by any other means is unacceptable to Azerbaijan. Iran and Azerbaijan are not just neighbouring countries, but share historical roots. I hope common sense will prevail in further decisions on Iran”. As if that was not enough salt on Benjamin Netanyahu’s wounds – Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is scheduled to visit Baku on June 16, where he would discuss gas price deal, visa deal and Nagorno-Karabakh and of course the Tehran’s nuclear program and US-Israel new sanctions against it.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/from-washington-to-baku-with-love/
An interesting post to go through. Find more world political news
Eric,
I too suspected the story had to have been planted, and I was dismayed at the prospect this ploy would go unnoticed by too many readers of The Times.
Rehmat,
The US squanders its wealth and power, in idiotic adventures in the Middle East. By comparison, the British pursued economic advantage with their commitments.
Rehamt,
That the common people of Iran would find it easy to identify with Ahmadinejad is readily understandable. Some might argue that the true interests of the common people would benefit from a president with a better comprehension of economics, banking, etc., but this of course can be debated.
I think it is altogether too kind to characterise US foreign policy in the Middle East as “imperialist”, because this harkens back to the days of the British Empire when imperialism sustained the global power of the governments (in London and Calcutta). The squanders its wealth and power in idiotic adventures in the Middle East.
James,
“Was the story planted in The Times (that the Saudis had agreed to allow Israel to use Saudi airspace to attack Iran)?”
That struck me as obvious from the get-go. What caused me discomfort was my recognition that whoever planted it was either extremely naive (which I doubted) or had persuaded himself that the story would be sufficiently plausible to Times readers that no one would suspect the story had been planted.
The REAL Ahmadinejad – Please stand-up
The ordinary citizen in Islamic Iran – and they constitute the majority of population – considered Ahmadinejad to be one of their own. And he pretty much said what was on their minds. Ahmadinejad comes across to the average person in the Republic as honest, modest, and free of artificiality. His body is slim just like theirs; his face is not puffed up with the layers of affluence that come from being a “president”. One could easily confuse Ahmadinejad with any worker or craftsman in a field or in a shop.
The majority of people in Islamic Iran knows Ahmadinejad’s simple lifestyle well. He comes from a blacksmith family in the small town of Aradan – which has about forty families – a place so vague and remote that it barely appears on the map!
Like all country people, Ahmadinejad is very meek and “religious”. He is not known for being ostentations – he is not a man who likes to attract notice and impress others. And during the past four years when all his citizens were watching he was not contaminated by the disease of aristocracy and of the ruling class: vanity. On the people’s watch – during these past four years – he was working long hours (even his adversaries and political enemies confess) 16 to 18 hours a day. He was doing all this to improve the lot of the poor people; he wanted to improve their conditions. His aim was to alleviate their hardships and be their public servant. He raised the minimum wage as well as retirement pensions. Does it come as surprise to anyone that poor people all over the country would vote for him as president for the next four years? Is anyone surprised to see the elites, the upper classes of society, and the power-hungry annoyed by such a humble person and his populist policies?
Unlike his opponent (Mousavi) Ahmadinejad is more closer to Imam Khomeini’s foreign vision of folding back imperialism and zionism. He, like the Imam is not hesitant when it comes to full liberation from the evil schemes of imperialism and Zionism……
Ahmadinejad beyond the Zionist propaganda
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/ahmadinejad-beyond-the-zionist-propaganda/
Eric and Riza
FYI- I just noticed Houssein-Zadeh has referenced your papers on election, in his new article in AT that I posted the link earlier
The Saudi embassy in Tehran today issued a statement underscoring that the Saudis will never allow use of Saudi airspace, by Israel, to attack Iran.
Was the story planted in The Times (that the Saudis had agreed to allow Israel to use Saudi airspace to attack Iran)?
How many stories have been planted in the western press to dupe the gullible American public into believing Iran is the enemy of democracy trying to destroy “democratic” Israel?
Excellent rebuttal. Ahamdinejad has a number of times commented on how poorly he is covered by “western” media, and he correctly sees that an unfair presentation of what Iran does or does not do, in the Middle East, is deliberate.
To what extent is poor journalism, etc., rewarded, if that poor journalism pertains to Israel and Iran? To what extent are those who intentionally deceive the American public benefiting from their activities? A very large extent, clearly.
b,
You have put your finger on the key element of the entire situation: To deceive the American public about what actually is going on in the Middle East, and to encourage and enable further foolish foreign policy choices by the US regarding the Middle East, and incessant chatter is emitted from Israel and the Israel lobby, that Israel is a “democracy” threatened by a “democracy-hating” Iran.
The American public is poorly informed, and extremely lazy about taking in information regarding foreign policy (or history, or georgraphy), so the message is kept short and sweet: Iran bad (anti-democracy); Israel good (democracy).
A perfect picture of the green’s base support,
One should call them Louis Vuitton revolutionaries of northern Tehran, completely and hopelessly disconnected with the rest of Iran, living in isolated cocoon and refusing to understand the real Iran
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/what_we_got_wrong
Iran’s Greens deserted
By Ismael Hossein-zadeh
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/printN.html
b…
I am surprised you quoted Ha’aretz instead of MEMRI or Daniel Pipes as your source. But then some credit do go to Ha’aretz for criticizing the planned building of “Museum of Tolerance” over a Muslim cemetery in West Jerusalem.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/museum-of-tolerance-over-graves-of-jew-liberators/
A very courageous article.
“I think the media hype about the ‘green revolution’ started before the election, and exploded virtually instantly, the very day of the election as I recally, and came off like something ‘ready to roll’.”
You are certainly right. As Haaretz reported before the Iran election:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-diplomats-told-to-take-offensive-in-pr-war-against-iran-1.277025
/quote/
Israeli diplomats told to take offensive in PR war against Iran
Foreign Ministry says goal of the campaign ‘to show the world that Iran is not a Western democracy.’
Organizing demonstrations in front of Iranian consulates worldwide, staging mock stonings and hangings in public, and launching a massive media campaign against Iran – these are just some of the steps Israeli diplomats have been told to take in the coming weeks. The goal, according to a senior Foreign Ministry official, is “to show the world that Iran is not a Western democracy” in the run-up to the country’s presidential election on June 12.
About a week ago, the head of the ministry’s Task Force on Isolating Iran sent a classified telegram to all Israeli embassies and consulates, titled “Activities in the Run-up to Iran’s Presidential Election.” It detailed things Israeli representatives should do before, during and after the election.
The telegram noted that hundreds of journalists from around the world will go to Iran to cover the election. Therefore, Israeli representatives must try to give background briefings to various media outlets before the journalists depart, and to the host country’s foreign ministry officials.
…
/endquote/
So yes, it was all ready to roll. Well prepared by you-know-who …
I think the media hype about the ‘green revolution’ started before the election, and exploded virtually instantly, the very day of the election as I recally, and came off like something ‘ready to roll’.
It’s also instructive to compare media response to other elections. The 2006 election in Mexico might be an instructive comparison. Obrador challenged the results. Large crowds, in the millions, turned out to support his claims. In fact, Obrador’s claims were probably much stronger than Mousavi’s. He had led in the polls and may in fact have won, though he may also have stumbled at the end of the campaign; he was clearly either ahead or in striking distance. Also, there seems to have been considerable evidence of problems in the election, problems that hurt Obrador and that pointed to possible manipulation, and cheating by Calderone in the campaign had already been substantiated; though Obrador does not seem to have been able to come up with anything difinitive, that might be explained by the inherently hostile nature of the ‘court’ overseeing the election.
How did the US mainstream media react to the MExico election? They minimized the signifigance of the extremely powerful popular movement against the election, and called on Obrador to do the ‘responsible’ thing and give in. In other words, they handled the Mexico election in 2006 in exactly the opposite way to the 2009 Iran election.
One criticism of your point of view on the election: I don’t think it is legitimate to suppose that Obama ever intended any real change of direction vis a vis Iran, which the Green Revolution hype torpedoed. I think the Green Revolution hype gave Obama political cover for his hard line. We have to remember that Obama never showed any indication of giving substance to his ‘engagement’ talk, and if he had ever intended to, he would have stopped talking up the Iran ‘threat’, which he never did.
But perhaps most obviously, he would not have appointed Clinton as secretary of state.
Clinton’s harsh attitude towards Iran has been the stuff of legend. I heard part of the speech where she talked about ‘obliterating’ Iran on a car radio. What she said and how she said it almost made me hurl. Her visceral hatred for Iran was truly shocking.
Were Obama any other politician, folks would have picked up right away that his words were self-contradictory and not backed up with substance. But with Iran, most folks STILL don’t seem to get it. There seems to be something like an affect opposite to the ‘teflon affect’.