Deconstructing the Mullahs

These days, some high-profile opinion-makers are throwing around an image of Iran as an irrational, ideologically driven power bent on destruction. Behind the depiction of Iran as a country that seeks to kill Americans and do away with our way of life, are figures like Michael Ledeen of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (also author of The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots' Quest for Destruction) and End-Times prophecy "expert" Michael D. Evans, author of Showdown with Nuclear Iran: Radical Islam's Messianic Mission to Destroy Israel and Cripple the United States. These writers base their analyses and policy prescriptions on a set of questionable, if not laughable, assumptions.

Needless to say, Iran is a nation ruled by interests and not blind ideology. One need only cruise the streets of Tehran to see turban-clad mullahs driving their top-of-the-line cars into their mansions or luxury condos, to get a sense of how much the regime has to lose from a confrontation. In fact, the theocratic state left behind by Ayatollah Khomeini after his death in 1989 is run by wealthy and well-entrenched elites that yearn to maintain the status quo. Connected to powerful business conglomerates, and enjoying sizable real estate holdings, the clerical elites do not seek destruction, but regime stability.

Understandably, people in the United States view the anti-American murals and staged parades in Iran as a threatening sign of intent. It is the duty of scholars, however, to be well informed and dig beneath the surface and help the rest of us arrive at rational conclusions. Had more opinion-makers looked carefully at Iran, Americans would already know that after the success of the revolution in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini harnessed anti-Americanism as a regime identifier, using extremism to tell his supporters from his detractors. Much like being a member of the Communist Party in China, taking an anti-American or pro-theocracy line in Iran has served as a calling card to show one's allegiance to Khomeini and the revolution. This "cult of anti-Americanism," as I call it, continues to serve as a sign of regime affiliation, rather a literal declaration of the regime's foreign policy.

This explains why the Iranian regime has been willing to work with the United States in the past, not only during the Iran-Contra Affair, but more notably in Afghanistan after coalition forces toppled the anti-Iranian Taliban. In Iraq too, Iran had a policy of regime change, and today could do much more to help America stabilize the country if we would only ask. Rather than focus solely on how to win a war or organize a revolution against an "unappeasable" enemy, as Ledeen calls Iran, our government should focus on quelling the violence in Iraq by engaging Iran in diplomacy, as the bi-partisan Baker-Hamilton Commission suggested.

Even more troubling than the alarmist descriptions of the Iranian regime, however, are the neoconservative and fundamentalist ideas for confronting it, which range from dropping a type of nuclear weapon called a "bunker-busting bomb," as the neoconservative Iran Policy Committee suggests, to supporting opposition groups like the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, as espoused by the IPC and even some members of Congress. Michael Ledeen, while not a blind supporter, considers the Mujahedeen a reliable source for his research.

Unfortunately, the Mujahedeen make Ahmad Chalabi look like a selfless patriot. Currently designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization, the Mujahedeen actually took sides with Saddam Hussein during the bloody Iran-Iraq War, leading to their universal repudiation inside Iran. Hardly a democratic organization, the Islamic-Marxist Mujahedeen (also called the National Council of Resistance of Iran) have been led by the same husband and wife team of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi since the revolution. Rather than a viable opposition group, the Mujahedeen are little more than an unpopular cult.

When speaking to Iranians in and outside of Iran, and when listening to respected reformists like Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi, the consensus is clear: Iranians want reform on their own terms, not revolution or overt foreign interference. They certainly don't want a war.

As we seek solutions for our current dilemmas in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the greater war against al-Qaeda, it would serve us well to reject the superficial readings of eager neoconservative and religious activists. Americans need to understand that relations between the United States and Iran are largely within our control, if and when we begin to see Iran as a nation-state with interests, rather than an irrational, self-destructive entity longing for Armageddon or the demise of America for its own sake. If we are to avoid yet another unwarranted military adventure, let's hope that reasonable debate finally prevails.

Follow Nathan Gonzalez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/engagingiran

Comments

[bethinCary]

How ironic that Reagan beat Carter based on info that gave credit for Reagan getting the hostages released. Now that should have been a clear violation of the Logan Act-yet becasue of mainly CIA-GOP backed ops inside Iran-Reagan holds it as a trump card for the elections.­......

How would reagan have had info as a Gov. to this info from Iran?

'cause the fix was in.

[bethinCary]

Halliburton had an office in Iran all through the 90's-early 2000.

[bethinCary]

Ledeen has not been privy to any info on Iran since the 90's-yet he bases all of so -called "expertise" on this. This needs to be questioned as well-since Ledeen & Cheney have been connected to working with the Iranian Guard. They are trying to use the info they got 15 years ago-as fact now.

[Durango]

A "surgical" strike on Iran to "punish" the Mullahs in power would be like an Iranian attack on US Special Forces bases and nuclear facilities to punish the Republican party. All that would do is make Republicans sympathetic.

Do we really need to unite the Iranian people behind the most fundemntalist factions of their country?

Iranians showed their patritiotism in the bloody Iraq/Iran War. They will (lke Americans) support thier government if it comes under foriegn attack.

An American attack would set back the liberalization movement for at least a generation.

And that movement is the single most promising event in the modern Islamic world.

Also, Do we really want to convince not just the Mullahs and the government leaders, but the people of Iran that developing nuclear weapons is the only way to secure their security?

Because that will be the obvious conclusion on the streets of Tehran, along with every other country in the world who might have reason to fear American interference.

[outnow]

Let's hope cooler heads prevail. The escalation of the rhetoric from both sides fuels the controversy. Denying the Holocaust may win friends in Iran but does not serve the interests of the Iranian people.

There are people in the United States who make money on wars. Iran is in grave danger.

Iranian officials should act accordingly. Fighting words are not in anyone's interests. A review of the wrongs to Iran at the hands of the United States would be more appropriate and to the point.

[MagisterLudi]

...people in the United States view the anti-American murals and staged parades in Iran as a threatening sign of intent..
----------­----------­----------­-
1.Should Americans view the vile Anti-American propaganda in the patronizing spirit of:" Boys will be boys? or rather "obnoxious mullahs will be obnoxious mullahs?"

2.In the entire post no mention of frenzied nuclear weapon development in Iran.
Has this poster heard about it? Seems not.
Sign of bias. You'd better believe it.
Isn't this the bone of contention between the world and Iran????

(Reuters) - France called for wider European sanctions to rein in Tehran.

Diplomats said Iran had installed close to 3,000 centrifuge machines, enough to start refining usable amounts of nuclear fuel..."
---------------
RE "....liste­ning to respected reformists like Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi, the consensus is clear: Iranians want reform on their own terms, not revolution or overt foreign interferen­ce."

3. I agree.Iran should have the time and freedom to develop their own reforms or stay as totalitarian as they wish...WIT­HOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

[FearlessFreep]

Washington can tell Tehran, "You can't have nuclear weapons unless you're Israel."

"These days, some high-profile opinion-makers are throwing around an image of Iran as an irrational, ideologically driven power bent on destructio­n." Totally unlike the US, I hope?

[gardengoddess]

I have 2 longtime friends who are Persian (their preferred term for those we now call Iranians). Both still have family living in Iran.

I can tell you in no uncertain terms that Iran is a far smaller threat to U.S. security than the Bush Administation is. The vast majority of Iranians would like nothing more than to be on good terms with America. They are pro-Western far more than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, evey Egypt. They are more European than Arabic; even their language is different than Arabic.

Ahmadinijad was put into power (and put is the correct word, not elected) because the mullahs became fearful of America after we invaded and occupied Iraq. Once again, we are our own worst enemy. According to family information given to my friends, the more moderate, pro-Western candidate in Iran's last election was touted by everyone as the winner. The exit polls showed him winning by a large margin (much like our own exit polls in the last presidential election), but somehow the other guy was declared the winner.

Wny? Because of us and our stupid, stupid invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[MajorKong]

You mean "Bomb 'em until they love us" isn't going to work?

[mommadona]

I would suggest an pillowfight match between Mohammed and Jesus...

[uj]

MEK isn't part of the proxy war with Iran, they're supported in Iraq purely because the US didn't want yet another highly trained paramilitary group fighting the occupation.

If you're looking for western backed terrorists, check out the Kurds and PKK, or the Balochs in southern Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

http://www.readoralive.com/2007/09/scoffing-points-ahmadinejad-and-drums.html

[Kansas Evans]

Another great post, Nathan. Thanks!

[PADDYWHACK]

It all sounds reasonable except the Neocons are going to destroy Iran before Halfwit leaves office.The problem with all this aggression we show towards Iran is that a permanent state of opportunistic terrorism is generated and we have a lot more to lose.Bette­r to work out a deal with them,but in halfwit's world of absolutes,the Baker-Hamilton report is toilet paper.We can be slowly bled to death in the Middle East and we're looking a little anemic.

[Plowboy]

I will ignore the braindead comment above and point out ther long held desire Iranians have had for a democratic state, thwarted for much of that time by the USA. Reform now is pushed back because of the impossibility of the people to act in the face of constant deadly threrats by the same USA and by Israel.
Should the USA really wish for a democratic Iran, the best thing to do is to stop breaking the laws on nations by threatening war, stop the false accusations and demands for sanctions (for nonsubservience) and to allow the people there to do as they will.
Iran has not invaded another couintry in centuries. Has America? Has Israel?
Iran threatens no other nation wiooth invasion. Does America? Does Israel?
Iran occupies no other country. Does America? Does Israel?
Iran has expressed a desire to resolve troubling issues through open discussions and negotiations, seeking faair annd equitable solutions. Has America? Has Israel?

[JudyGee]

The good Iran cabal and their diatribes have become alarming. Their fictional reality,rabid anti-jewish hatred (oops. anti-Zioni­st)ranting­s, are stinking up the environment. Quite unfair, to those of us who choose to go green.

[mommadona]

"In fact, the theocratic state left behind by Ayatollah Khomeini after his death in 1989 is run by wealthy and well-entrenched elites that yearn to maintain the status quo. Connected to powerful business conglomerates, and enjoying sizable real estate holdings, the clerical elites do not seek destruction, but regime stability.­"

OH! I see - they have their own JAMES DOBSONS, TIM LEHAYES AND PAT ROBERTSONS AND MORMON 'ELITES'who have taken over their nation's government­....OH!...­NOW, THAT makes sense (and their but for a group of very dedicated 'NON'-faith-based zealots, goes OUR US of A...)

[jpshotwheels]

I believe it was Dan Rather that did special on Iran not to long ago, our perception of this Country is nothing like our media portrays to us. In fact many of your perceptions are exactly what was shown in this Special.

The President has no power, he is like the P.R. man for the Country, the real powers are behind the scene. The majority of the Country's people, are highly educated, quite young, and very modern. I have read that somedays the people walk down the streets and hear very loud booms or noises, and think America is attacking them. They are living in a conscienceness of the moment when America is coming. Hoping that this does not happen, they don't want War and they have repeatedly asked to talk.

A Country that asks to talk does not seek War. One thing that makes no sense to me, is why would the Revolutionary Guard want to supply weapons to the Iraqi's and kill American soldiers, there is no benefit to Iran by doing so. The U.S. has put Iran in a better position, by establishing a Shiite power in Iraq, this is the main power in Iran, Shiite Muslims. Why would they jeapardize that????? The Hamilton Baker Report is exactly right engage them, don't start a war with them. This will be the ultimate disaster for America, so whom is provoking Armageddon????