Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

As for Ms. Secor’s realism, I ask only one question: Why is it wrong for the U.S. to do what Michael Ledeen and others have argued for a long time — give aid and support to the regime’s democratic opponents? Just as our nation did during the Reagan years, when it came to the aid of Poland’s Solidarity movement, which eventually was able to topple the Communist government without violence and without war?

Ms. Secor accurately exposes the Leveretts’ apologia; what she does not do is advance any ideas of her own on how the U.S. should address the issue of dealing with Iran. She chastises the Leveretts for their naiveté about what would come out of diplomacy and negotiation; yet she does not say what is wrong about hoping or working for “regime change.” She just implies that because unnamed neo-conservatives support such an option, it must be wrong.

At least, for the time being, the Leveretts are being torn apart by the reviewers of their new book. Let us be happy for small things.


No sooner than I posted this column, I received an e-mail sent out by the Leveretts. It follows:

From, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett,

Predictably, a number of mainstream media outlets have assigned their reviews of Going to Tehran to pro-Green (if not outright anti-Islamic Republic) polemicists. These writers can hardly pay attention to any of our arguments and analyses save for those that deal with Iran’s 2009 presidential election and our case that the Islamic Republic is, for the majority of Iranians living in their country, a legitimate order. In the end, reviewers of this sort don’t even really deal with our arguments and analyses on Iranian politics, preferring simply to dismiss us as “apologists” — or, put marginally more politely, “partisans” — for the Iranian government.

We are writing our own piece on the charge of “apologetics” and what it signifies about the warped U.S. debate over American policies toward Iran and the Middle East more broadly. In the meantime, we want to highlight Gareth Porter’s review of Going to Tehran, which was published this week by IPS, see here, and is getting picked up by other online sites (including, see here, Consortium News, see here, CounterPunch, see here, and Truthout, see here). It deals with our book in its totality — with our evaluation of the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy as well as its domestic order, and with our arguments about America’s grossly counterproductive quest to dominate the Middle East as well as our analyses of Iranian strategy and politics.

Their words are evidence for my argument about the connection between the Old Left, New Left, and the current pro-Iranian writers: all their support, as they cite in their message, comes from current major left-wing papers and websites. The review by Gareth Porter, an old anti-Vietnam War veteran, appears on the site of the Institute for Policy Studies, the far left, pro-Soviet, and old pro-Cuban think tank.

<- Prev  Page 3 of 3   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (6)
All Comments   (6)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
So the Leveretts consider hanging homosexuals and stoning adulterers to be legitimate?
2 years ago
2 years 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.
2 years ago
2 years 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."
2 years ago
2 years ago Link To Comment
2 years ago
2 years 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?
2 years ago
2 years ago Link To Comment
View All