Omid Memarian published a long piece last week on the Huffington Post, "The Leveretts and the Accountability of the American Analysts on Iran". Ostensibly, Memarian writes to critique one of our recent posts, "Iraq Redux: 'Conventional Wisdom' and Accountability for Iran Analysts," in which we criticized a news story in The Washington Post for relying too heavily on the analysis of Green Movement partisans like Karim Sadjadpour and presenting that as "objective" analysis of Iranian politics--even though such analysts have been wrong on virtually every call they have made about Iranian politics since the June 2009 presidential election.
Memarian spends a good part of his post characterizing us as "America's most prominent, and abrasive, defenders of the Iranian regime and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" -- he even includes us on a "list of foreigners who unconditionally support the Islamic Republic of Iran," along with Sudanese President Bashir, Hizballah's Hassan Nasrallah, Hamas's Khalid Mishal, and Hugo Chavez -- and arguing that our writings are indistinguishable from those of Ahmadinejad's chief speechwriter or Hussein Shariatmadari, editor of Kayhan. To the extent that Memarian engages on substance, his arguments are weak and riddled with both factual errors and a self-serving rewriting of recent history. But, since these are precisely the traits over which Iran analysts should be held professionally accountable, we are compelled to respond to at least some of his arguments.
For example, Memarian seeks to rebut our analysis of the Green Movement's decline by arguing simultaneously that the Ashura protests on December 27, 2009 showed the Green Movement's strength and that the February 11th anniversary of the Islamic Republic's founding "was never meant to be the peak of the people's protests." Both claims are patently false.
As we wrote in The New York Times in January 2010, large crowds of people gather on the streets of Tehran every year for Ashura. On December 27, 2009, a relatively small number of protestors -- at most, "tens of thousands," perhaps as few as 2,000-4,000 -- "used the occasion to gather in Tehran and elsewhere, setting off clashes with security forces". Green Movement partisans in the West and sympathizers in the Western media widely portrayed this as a major threat to the Islamic Republic's longevity and stability. But "vastly more Iranians took to the streets on December 30, in demonstrations organized by the government to show support for the Islamic Republic (one Iranian Web site that opposed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election...estimated the crowds at one million people)."
The Ashura protests were hardly a show of strength for the Green Movement. After our Op-Ed was published in the New York Times, there was much tooing-and-froing in the blogosphere and in an article by Abbas Milani in the New Republic, using Google Earth pictures and testimony by Green Movement partisans to try to show that perhaps the numbers of Ashura protesters were larger than we recognized and that the December 30 pro-government demonstration was perhaps not as large as our sources claimed. But there was no getting around the empirically observable fact that the pro-government demonstration on December 30 was much larger than whatever number of "protestors" -- as opposed to people who were going to be on the streets for Ashura anyway -- actually turned out on December 27. Some hearkened back to the crowds that appeared in Tehran in the immediate aftermath of the June 12, 2009 presidential election as an indicator of the Green Movement's "real" strength. But that line of argument actually supported our analysis in January 2010, which has manifestly been proven right by subsequent events -- namely, that the Ashura episode was a clear indicator of the Movement's decline. Memarian may not like that, but it is reality.
Memarian implicitly acknowledges one of the subsequent events that has validated our analysis of the Green Movement's decline -- the February 11 anniversary of the Islamic Republic's founding -- by claiming that the Movement never wanted to use the 22 Bahman observances as a target for protests. This is a grotesque rewriting of history that should not be allowed to go unchallenged. As we pointed out on TheRaceForIran.com, "The most prominent establishment figures associated with the Green Movement -- Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Mohammad Khatami -- all called for their supporters to come out in February 11 to show the strength of their cause."
As we also noted,
"Many Western-based Iran watchers and Western journalists covering Iran anticipated that this would be the occasion for mass protests that would rock the Iranian government to its foundations -- marking as one journalist put it...'the beginning of the end' of the Islamic Republic."
As one example of this kind of advocacy journalism, fed by Green Movement partisans, being passed off as serious analysis, we would note that, on February 10, the New Republic's "Live Blogging the Iranian Protests" boldly asserted that "the Iranian opposition movement is slated to co-opt the state's annual rallies to stage another mass demonstration -- the largest since December's violent protests on the Shiite holy day of Ashura." No less than Karim Sadjadpour opined that
"The February 11 anniversary could be particularly significant as it is really the first time that the leadership of the opposition -- Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Mohammed Khatami -- have implored people to take to the streets...The opposition's goal is to recreate the massive demonstrations that took place in the immediate aftermath of the election, when an estimated three million people took to the streets in Tehran."
Clearly, this did not happen. Even Karim Sadjadpour had to admit later that "it was perhaps a tactical mistake by opposition supporters to build expectations too high for this day." Another Green Movement partisan, Scott Lucas, tried to make the best of the situation by claiming that, "if the regime prevailed today, it did so in part because expectations of the opposition had been set so high" (emphasis added). Against this record, Memarian's claim that February 11 "was never meant to be the peak of the people's protests" should be considered outright dissembling on his part.
In the end, Memarian retreats, like so many of his allies, to criticizing our bad manners in pointing out the reality that the Green Movement's ability to mobilize crowds has for some time been in steep decline by blaming this state of affairs on a draconian response by Iranian security forces. As Memarian writes:
"The government has had to arrest thousands of people, and continues to do so, has killed dozens, and has sentenced at least ten protestors to death for 'throwing rocks' and similar bogus charges...Not to mention that the government had 8 months to get out of shock mode and to utilize its propaganda machine in order to show the world, and people like the Leveretts, that they have brought the protests under control and the movement is extinguished..With the government using execution sentences, rape and torture to prevent people from protesting, of course it is forcing the Movement to change its course away from street protests."
It is politically very incorrect to say this, but it needs to be said: compared to what the Iranian government is capable of doing, its response to the protests surrounding the June 2009 presidential election has been comparatively restrained. Every loss of life, especially a young life, is a tragedy -- but there is no "Tiananmen Square" here, with security forces wading into crowds and shooting down hundreds or protestors in a single episode. Not even close.
The vast majority of the people who were incarcerated after June 12, 2009 have been released. If the Green Movement really represented a fundamental challenge to the Islamic Republic, the response of the security apparatus so far would not have stopped it. Many more people died in clashes with Iranian security forces in the eleven months preceding the overthrow of the Shah's regime than have died in clashes with security forces in the period since June 12, 2009. In 1978-89, the crowds kept getting bigger, until the security forces and the Shah's government were overwhelmed. In 2009-10, the crowds have, effectively, disappeared. Surely that fact is relevant to an objective assessment of the Green Movement and its prospects.
Memarian also does not like our rejection of Karim Sadjadpour's claim that the Islamic Republic's foreign policy debate is too ideologically constrained to allow for a strategic opening to the United States on the grounds that such a claim is "simply not supported by the historical record." We have written extensively of that record, documenting Iranian cooperation with the United States on a number of specific foreign policy issues (e.g., post-9/11 Afghanistan) and demonstrating that, for more than 20 years, a critical mass of Iranian elites, cutting across the Islamic Republic's factional spectrum, has supported the idea of a strategic opening to the United States if that could be achieved in a way that addressed some of the Islamic Republic's most important national security and foreign policy interests. Memarian prefers not to deal with the reality of that record, instead falling back on well-worn stereotypes about "hostilities towards the United States" being "a major part" of the Islamic Republic's identity.
One particular sentence in Memarian's piece is especially outrageous. In this sentence, he writes about former President Khatami, "a moderate president that was not taken seriously by people like the Leveretts when he was in power, a miscalculation that contributed to the election of Ahmadinejad in 2005." This statement, as it pertains to us, is a flat-out lie.
The facts are that, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, we both risked our jobs to argue strenuously from our positions in the Bush Administration to engage Khatami's government, particularly over counter-terrorism and Afghanistan. We lost the argument about counter-terrorism to others in the Bush Administration, but we decisively won the argument about engaging Iran over Afghanistan. That engagement was extensive and sustained -- from 2001 to 2003. We have deep respect for President Khatami and his courageous decision to let Iranian diplomats engage with the United States over Afghanistan and al-Qaida. We believe that it was, in no small part, Khatami's decision to do this which protected Iran from becoming just another target on Secretary Rumsfeld's post-9/11 list of countries to punish for their support for groups that the United States considers terrorist organizations.
One of the things that distinguishes us from partisan commentators on Iranian politics is that we are not interested in picking Iran's leaders -- we are not Iranian voters, after all -- or choosing potential Iranian interlocutors for the United States. Rather, we believe that it is vital for the United States to establish a strategic rapprochement with the Islamic Republic as it is constituted and with the Iranian government as it is, not as some might wish it to be. The Islamic Republic is a system of government, and the United States should treat it as a system. In the end, President Ahmadinejad is term limited. There will be a new president of the Islamic Republic in 2013. We believe that the United States should do all it can to realign its relations with the Islamic Republic while Ahmadinejad is in office because the "price" that Washington has to pay for better relations with Tehran will only increase with time -- regardless of whether Ahmadinejad's successor is perceived as more "reformist" or "principalist."
It seems to us that what really bothers Memarian about our analysis of Iranian politics is that we have been consistently right, whereas he, Karim Sadjadpour, and others who share their enthusiasm for the Green Movement have been consistently wrong about Iranian politics over the last year. People are entitled to hold and espouse whatever partisan political positions they like. But the test for an analyst is to be right. If partisanship means that people are consistently wrong in their reading of a subject as important as contemporary Iranian politics, they should not be considered objective analysts of that subject.
Upon closer examinations of all the evidence, there were many surprising developments. Needless to say, the Leveretts' claim that "Ahmadinejad Won, Get Over It" is inadequately supported by the facts. No definitive answer is available, but their certainty in their position raises serious concerns about their legitimacy as objective analysts.
http://www.dissectednews.com/2010/05/who-really-won-the-disputed-iran-election.html
• Since the Leveretts are scientifically minded it would have made more sense for them to take advantage of being in Iran and conducting a scientific poll on what people think. Following up on this recommendation could put to rest the question of “what people think” and who best represents their aspirations; the government or the Green Movement. They could even prove or disprove with whose camp the hearts of the Ashura attendees lies with. Once that is established we can argue what better serves the longer term interests of the United States
"Most Iranians express acceptance of the outcome of the Presidential election. Eighty-one percent say they consider Ahmadinejad to be Iran's legitimate president, and 62 percent say they have a lot of confidence in the declared election results, while 21 percent say they have some confidence. Just 13 percent say they do not have much confidence or no confidence in the results. In general, eight in 10 (81%) say they are satisfied with the process by which authorities are elected, but only half that number (40%) say they are very satisfied."
From http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639&lb=
Given that reporters are carted off to jail for writing the wrong story, I don't see how foreigners asking intimate political questions (which is what the WPO abortion cited above did) in the form of a poll can result in anything scientific. It's the job of IRI's political brutality to combat information from getting out. Hence the absurdity of conducting polls while the state shuts down newspapers.
• As to the Leveretts belief that because the regime was able to mobilize huge crowds it is proof 1- That the regime is “strong” and 2- That this is additional confirmation of the regime’s legitimacy
o The regime was able to mobilize such large numbers because 1- They have ALL the resources available to them 2- Many people participated because of fear 3- Counter demonstrations were muted because of fear. The question is what % participated because of fear. The answer lies in the regime’s silence in the face of all the requests opposition leaders have made for permission to organize and demonstrate
o During my recent trip to Iran I interviewed many who had voted for Ahmadinejad and this is what I found out
Most in the countryside who voted did so because of financial incentives his government provided just before the election
Most who voted for Ahmadinejad thought cheating had taken place by the Ahmadinejad team
Most who voted would not vote for him if elections were held today Contributing factors are:
• News not sanctioned by the government beamed from satellites. Many people living in villages are exposed to such programming
• Increasingly unrealized expectations set by Ahmadinejad and inflation
• One does not get a sense of any acknowledgement by the Leveretts of the capricious and brutal techniques of the regime – Why? Is it irrelevant?
• If the Leveretts equate strength as the ability to mobilize in the face of a brutal regime or to “call the shots” they are right, the Green Movement is weak. They were allowed to be organized to get people out to vote. They were not organized to withstand and alter the brutality of the regime – It was erroneously hoped that through voting the change could be brought about . New and evolving organizational structures are needed to blunt and alter the character of the regime
• The Leveretts are right, the regime could have and still can be much more brutal. Some in the Green Movement believe that if the regime applies larger scale brutality and hangings it will backfire, hence they “can’t” be more brutal. This is not the case, the regime prefers to apply “minimum” brutality but can ratchet it up if needed
In my humble opinion, with all due respect, this is an appalling suggestion. The fact that the current leadership of America, which is constantly changing with each election, finds itself inextricably tied to countries that are currently doing human rights abuse is in no way a justification for deliberately and openly seeking out a relationship with one of the very worst human rights abusers on the planet at this time.
Iran isn't being singled out. It's not the kind of thing where being "no worse than so-and-so" is good enough. The only thing that is good enough for the people of Iran is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and America has no business normalizing relations with a regime that explicitly rejects that declaration as being a violation of their interpretation of Islamic law.
We have full (and precise) coverage of the case at Enduring America. After a further exchange with the Leveretts, I stand by the assessment that they used the attack on Fathi to "defend Iranian state media's account of the sudden execution of five political prisoners" and "deny any substantiation of issues of human rights in this case, even though evidence of the deprivation of those rights is abundant and easily obtained".
The Leveretts, with reference to well documented lies that were told about Iraqi WMD, and with reference to their earlier critique of a WashingtonPost article picked the following bones with Nazila Fathi:
She refers to accused 'terrorists" as "activists".
She mentions PJAC, but does not inform her readers that organization is regarded by US as a terrorist org.
She does not square her source's claim that the 5 were hanged to frighten the Greens from protesting on June 12, 2010, when they were sentenced to hanging in 2008. (Iran, like Texas is not known for not carrying out death sentences)
In short, the Leveretts are questioning the style of reporting, which portrays Iran in as negative a light as possible based on little more than unsubstantiable hunches a mere 7 short years after that same NYTimes indisputably contributed to the war fever that strayed this nation from her manifest interests.
Well, even before 5th grade I'd like to think I used to ignore vapid arguments such as this. Thanks Scott for preempting my wasting time reading Enduring America.
If this is NPR's fair and balanced view and balance meeting of minds, then what we expect from Faux NoUse and CNN?
Anyway is this Farideh Fathi sister of Nazila Fathi?
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10861
What is your problem ? can't you read ?
What is your problem ? can't you read ?
1. Move as quickly as possible to reduce our dependence on oil. Without oil money, most countries in the Middle East would collapse financially.
2. Pull all troops out of the area. Without the US as a guarantor of security, counties would be forced to make tough choices.
3. Stop all foreign aid to the region. Including Israel, we get nothing for our dime. Let them take care of themselves.
4. Withdraw from the UN. We are unwelcome in much of the world, so let's return the favor.
5. Most importantly, we need to force Congress to reject all money coming in from countries that lobby it. If need be, there needs to be campaign ads that name names. USA for the USA.
I second your ideas.
One thing that is missing from our view of the middle east is their people's number one wish: "leave us and our oil alone!!!!"
Implementing your plan is difficult because it is the western nations who want to be there, not the other way around.
I also think the alternative energy will really get here fast, much faster than people think, and that this decade is the last one where oil is a strategic commodity.
I notice the Leveretts have just defended Sunday's sudden execution of five political prisoners....
http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-new-york-times-misleading-its-readers-again—this-time-on-iran
I replied:
Thanks for the link. I read it. I cannot find a single word that even with a squint I could interpret as the Leveretts defending Sunday's "sudden" execution of five political prisoners....
Could you explain your take is based on what exactly, please?
Scott, should I assume you were peddling innuendos?
They deny any substantiation of issues of human rights in this case, even though evidence of the deprivation of those rights is abundant and easily obtained.
They do not deny deny any substantiation of issues of human rights in this case. And where in this particluar case do you find evidence of the deprivation of those rights, which you claim is abundant and easily obtained.
You do not need to answer, unless you are willing to quote specific passages that shows "guise", and denial of human rights, etc.
Otherwise, you have peddled innuendo again. It is becoming a habit.
Could you please quote Leveretts exactly?
Murder is a murder even if you have a political goal committing it!
Capital punishment is wrong, but these people were executed because of the murders they committed not because they were political activists!
I know that somebody else feels that these people are freedom fighters etc, but Iran has some laws and if somebody kills others because of politics, he should expect the consequences when authorities catches him!
http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=126079§ionid=351020101
From the link below:
"Indeed, the US will face an even greater dilemma by the time of the next NPT review conference if the Iranian nuclear issue is yet unresolved. In 2015, when the next conference convenes, Tehran will chair NAM -- the largest bloc of common interest and solidarity in the UN General Assembly and international community."
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/997/eg1.htm
US has a problem with his past policies toward Iran, hostility toward the correct positions of Iran in international arena is causing US political defeat after two huge military defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan!
The world in general and Arab countries in particular want a nuke free ME!
US has tried to avoid to talk about the main obstacle, Israel and wants to make Iran the subject of discussion.
US has only one little problem! How to hide 120+ counties standing behind Iran on this issue in UN!
Now every single third world country is facing this question:
When and if we decide to use peaceful nuclear energy does US will do the same thing it has done to Iraq and Iran to us?
This is the main reason US has a very though time to sell Iran as a security threat to the third world countries, including Egypt and other Arab countries!
At the same time these issues are used to condemn Iran because Iran is a rising power. Iran is at the brinck of something powerful. They want to stop it. If it was not the nuclear issue, it would something else. That's is why they have no problems with the obediant Saudis, Jordanians, or Egyptians.
Thanks for the link. I read it. I cannot find a single word that even with a squint I could interpret as the Leveretts defending Sunday's "sudden" execution of five political prisoners....
Could you explain your take is based on what exactly, please?
http://www.raceforiran.com/is-the-new-york-times-misleading-its-readers-again—this-time-on-iran
You have to question yourself two questions.
1. What would US do if arrested a terrorist responsible for planting bombs in public places?
2. What was Rigi doing in American base one day before his arrest?
This is not a political issue, when somebody get so emotional and kill innocent people he should expect to be executed in Iran or in US.
I am against death penalty but it is common practice even during Obama in US!
Both Iran and US are far from civility of Europe to condemn death penalty!
When you look at Rigi's interview you can see that he was aware of this fact, but he never thought that he would be caught! Now when he is in custody he has accepted the fact that he will face the logical consequences of his deeds!
There is a theory that people who's recent history has included bouts of official censureship are more informed than those who's recent history hasn't included such, because they learned the skills to look at what they are being told, and figure out what they aren't being told, whereas those who haven't learned that skill from necessity will read a story, and not realise there is a lot that they're not being told, because it doesn't fit in with what is popular.
One thing dealing with drug addicts for years taught me is to listen as hard to the silence as to the noise. Both together tell a much more complete story than just the noise.
Also these naive Iranians who bought Faux NoUse and CNN version of the story, do not realize that after all options like Sanctions and political pressure is exhausted, the only option left on the table for Zionist Media to sell to drugged out masses in America is the military options.
These naive rich Iranians are pushing their own country toward total destruction and war and are nor even aware of what they are doing!
They are so eager to show that Green movement has a pulse by repeating western media propaganda, that they do not realize this will be justification for another Iraqi Freedom Operation.
These people go beyond the ignorance to not hear the noises, these people do not hear when Obama loud and clear threaten their country with Nukes!
After reading all your comments I find myself inundated with buzzwords lacking any real substance.
In fact, all of it could be written in a few sentences, but you choose to spam.
My dear Katty, such uncivil arguments can only lead to people opposing you and your viewpoints even if you have a legitimate point, which you may have, under all that bigotry and hate.
1) Under what justification do you say that the airwaves were 100% "anti-government" in Venezuela, when from day one, Chavez went on TV every Sunday night for 4 hours--required on all channels--and he would take to the air other times at his every whim?
2) Funny how you use the term "anti-government," because that's simply a lie. The independent media has been anti-CHAVEZ, and that, my friend, is quite a different story.
3) You are defending censorship? Wow. You really ARE off the charts!
Your belief system is just plain ill.
You really need to get a grip, stop that steady diet of swallowing whole what the right wing feeds you, and learn to chew (you'll find that you can seperate out the bones that way)
I guess you think the US election had nothing to do with reaction against Bush, too.
The struggle between Greens and Ahmadinejad is struggle between rich elites and really poor people.
Reason the election outcome was like a shock to the rich elites in Tehran and specially in LA, was that lower class poor people came out in droves to vote for Ahmadinejad in power. Why?
The reason is there was huge corruption inside Iran's political elite and Ahmadinejad came out very bravely against all of them. He came out against giants like Rafsanjani, Khatami and Mousavi and accused all of them of theft and abuse of power! This courageous man came out a few days before election in debate between him and Mousavi and said that all governments before him were all thieves! He came with documents and he looked honest and courageous. Mousavi looked like a loser in that debate and could not answer Ahmadinejad accusations and even had a lot of extra time over at the end of debate and had a hard time to find anything to say.
A government that has put electricity in every village in Iran with more than 20 households gets votes from unexpected places. When a candidate becomes messenger of change, people will come out in droves to support him the same way people of US came out to support Obama!
Political progress should come within a country and exported democracy will not so often work.
So let's give Iran the time it needs to introduce a new system of governance to the world. It looks that Iran is much more successful and is progressing than western countries despite the sanctions. At least Iran has a bright future if she goes forward like the last 5 year! That should be easy to agree upon despite a lot of disagreement on this thread!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DNmR15Lui8