Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

The best is by Roya Hakakian, appearing in the Wall Street Journal. She gets it correct, saying right at the start that what the Leveretts present is not a policy argument, but “a long and elaborate promotional brochure designed to sell Americans on the mullahs and their nuclear program.” They “dismiss as lies or misunderstandings,” she writes, “everything that would get in the way of such a trip [to Tehran by Obama]: the mullahs’ congenital hostility toward the U.S., their eliminationist rhetoric toward Israel, their illicit nuclear ambitions and terrorist activities, their brutality toward Iran’s women, minorities and dissidents — it’s all America’s fault, anyway.”

So kudos are due to Ms. Hakakian, who knocks apart all of their lies and fables. That these two people, Hillary Mann Leverett and Flynt Leverett, were once on our government’s National Security Council is indeed more than shocking. It is a disgrace.

As Ms. Hakakian notes, the two authors deny that Iran ever committed or supported terrorism, used suicide bombers, or did anything that interferes with their phony narrative.

The other review is by Laura Secor, and appears in this Sunday’s New York Times. As we have become used to from writers for this paper, Ms. Secor starts by letting its readers know that she too is no fan of U.S. policy. As she writes: “We make little sense of history, and less progress toward resolving our conflicts, when we demonize our adversary and ascribe to him dark motives and irrational thoughts.” Why would anyone do that when writing about the regime of the mullahs? Why would anyone dare to think that Ayatollah Khamenei or Iran’s chief executive, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would harbor irrational thoughts? How silly of us!

Ms. Secor seems at first to agree with the Leveretts that “American policy must not be blinded by sentimentality about Iranian human rights and democratic aspirations” — in other words, we must be “realist” and take Iran as it is, not as what we wish it to be.

Having established her bona fides for NYT readers, she proceeds to knock the Leveretts for writing not a realist book, but one “partisan” to the Iranian government. As she puts it: “Rather than delivering a corrective to the one-sided view from Washington, they deliver its mirror image.”

She continues to show that the Leveretts are indeed propagandists for the regime. They even accept that the video of the young woman killed by sniper fire in the 2009 widespread protests “was actually shot by provocateurs in a deliberate effort to frame the Iranian security forces and fan rebellion.” Their view is that any dissent is “marginal,” and that the regime has the support of the Iranian people.

Again, this is precisely what the Old Left consistently argued about world Communism and claimed whenever evidence was presented that made clear the people’s opposition of communism. Those of us from an older generation remember well how the Old and New Left responded whenever the people in Eastern Europe rebelled against Stalinist repression in countries like Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Ms. Secor writes:

Following the 2009 election, Iran’s government sent militias into the streets to beat demonstrators; it arrested reformist political figures en masse, beginning on election day before the polls were closed; it placed them on show trials with confessions clearly obtained under duress; it banned reformist political parties and continues to hold journalists, former government ministers and human rights lawyers in prison. Even if most Iranians truly did support these actions, it’s not at all clear that Western analysts should be in the business of justifying them. Nowhere do the Leveretts take account of the role physical intimidation, imprisonment and censorship have played in silencing critics of the Iranian regime. But they ascribe the ensuing silence to consent.

Like the old Soviet Union, we again have show trials, forced confessions, no free political parties, and dissidents and others in prison. And like the old days, we have journalists and writers devoted to gathering U.S. support for tyranny — this time not one whose leaders claim to be creating a new socialist man, but leaders seeking to create an Islamic state that would bring the world back to the Middle Ages.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (8)
All Comments   (8)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
So the Leveretts consider hanging homosexuals and stoning adulterers to be legitimate?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I still struggle to find the binding agent between the radical left and radical Islam. Other than toppling America and Israel, there really appears to be nothing in common between these two insane ideologies.

The verbal brothel that has become our mass media dissemination vehicle, allows its audience to pick from fetish rooms whatever their treasonous and depraved heart desires.

When the traitorism and treachery was confined to whitewashing away Communist atrocities, brutality and mass murder it was at least in line with theme of the masquerade. ("we are compassionate, tolerant, open-minded liberals who want peace, love and harmony...with our mass murdering partners at the helm")

But, the homosexual-hating, Jew annihilation dreaming, misogynist, religious fanatics...are polar opposites to the "anything goes, women are oppressed", Godless creatures of the radical left.

So, what gives?

Treason for treason's sake. Tearing down America yet another peg. It is the only conclusion.

And...every one of the traitors should hang for it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The commie left of the thirties at least had the motive of desire to be part of a new American nomenklatura when the socialists took over here (unfortunately for them it didn't happen until 2008), but what's the motive of these Iranophiles? It can't be anything but utter hatred of the USA maybe with a dash of antisemitism. With the vile Justin Raimondo on board that seems the likely explanation.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In any country where civil liberties are suppressed, it's impossible to really find out what the citizens want. Since they're afraid to say so.

With one exception: Nationalism.

Regardless of how they feel about their country's regime, most citizens are proud of their respective countries--and don't want foreign intervention even "for their own good." Hitler found that out the hard way when he tried to invade Russia.

Rarely do citizens of a dictatorship welcome a foreign army on their soil, even if that army removes the dictator from power.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That's true, people will circle the wagons and rally around a gov't they're not crazy about, or religion, because it's part and parcel of who they are.

I think where Westerners are having a hard time in regard to Islam is separating out conservatism from religious conservatism - from a distance the first can blend into the second. So much so it's sometimes difficult to say what they are precisely rallying around. I think sometimes the language barrier is part of the problem.

For example, we often use the word "sacrifice" in expressions about what we would be willing to do. How does that play out to someone in the ME who hears we are a Judeo-Christian country? Do Muslims think we're all Christians in the same sense we think they're all Muslims?

What then do they make of that word "sacrifice" in religious terms and "sacrament" and Sacramento, CA and Corpus Christi, TX, etc.? What then do we make of the word "jihad" and "martyr?" One can make an easy case about "jihad" cuz I'm pretty sure ME soccer teams don't use it in a sports context, for example. I don't think they say this season is going to be a "jihad." But "martyr" is different. Alongside that are conservative actions that may or may not be religious. I don't think every Egyptian man who wants an obedient wife is an Islamist or even religious, nor that every secular Egyptian man is for women's lib.

There have been obviously secular groups of young men protesting against Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. They're not salafis, or Islamists. The words they use about the lengths they're willing to go is reported as "martyrs" in English. The newspapers in English there translate the men killed in the Port Said soccer massacre as "matryrs," though there is absolutely no religious element to the story. I can't help but thinking there's some wires crossed somewhere about what wagons are circling around what.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, Flynt and Hillary Leverett, I'm not a polemicist. I can believe Iranians support having gov't based on Islam but do they support satellite TV being against the law and censored state TV? Why does a legitimate gov't need such things? That raises much broader points. Who votes for that? Even in conservative Egypt last night they broadcast a regular show by a comedian who went after Morsi, who awarded Morsi an Oscar on air for dissimulation. Can they do that in Iran?

When one talks about America's "quest to dominate the Middle East" how does that jibe with reality? America is not occupying countries in the ME with the intention of holding on to them, though we could clearly steal oil for free if we wished - who would stop us? However, is there any doubt that, without the U.S., Kuwait would be a part of Iraq or Bahrain a part of Iran, Lebanon a part of Syria - permanently? Is there any doubt the entirety of the ME would kick the entire Jewish population out of Israel if they could?

You are confusing intent with the ability to carry out that intent. Just because mad cults like the Wahabbis in S. Arabia aren't raiding Italian cities doesn't mean they wouldn't. Have you read your history? There was no voluntary withdrawal of Islam from the Med. littoral, or Spain. Islam didn't end slavery in their own polities, the West did.

Just because a country doesn't do a thing doesn't mean they wouldn't. If Iran were the U.S., do you seriously believe they wouldn't enslave the entirety of Mexico and Canada? America is the only superpower in world history that has not expanded with naked aggression and piracy to the extent of its limits. Deal with that fact. Deal with the fact that Iran is CONSTRAINED, not peaceful, and that America is peaceful, not CONSTRAINED.

That's not to say America hasn't made plenty of bonehead moves, but at least it was in the hope of making the world free of empire, fascism and larger war, such as Viet Nam, stupid and criminal though that turned out to be. Nevertheless, it wasn't naked piracy such as everyone knows ME countries would engage in if they could.

The only reason the ME even has some nations that give a nod to democracy is because of us if you haven't noticed. Take away America's example and culture and what would Egypt be longing for exactly? When has an Islamic entity during their hey day ever established a democracy, outlawed slavery or even thought about it? Do you think the entirety of the Pacific Rim would enjoy being today in a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, where Indonesian women are forced into prostitution? The sad truth is that you are rejecting the very values that keep an Iranian, or other, boot off your neck. The world is not an "I'm okay, you're okay," proposition. The only reason you are yourself engaging in polemics rather than sitting in a slave pen somewhere is because the world is not a place where only S. Arabia and Iran have nukes. Imagine that world, and think about the words "intent" and "constrained."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
excellent...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So, according to the Leveretts, we should dismiss all of the remarks by the Iranian Islamists about Palestine stretching from the west bank of the Jordan to the Mediterranean? That Israel would be wiped off the map? What about the missiles being installed in Venezuela? All American paranoia and misunderstanding?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All