Latest Iran Video and Transcript: Haghighatjoo and Marandi on CNN (4 January)
Posted by Scott Lucas in Middle East & IranOn Monday CNN framed the Iran story by interviewing Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, a former member of Parliament who is challenging the system, and Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a Tehran University academic who defends it. The transcript below the video also includes the comments of former State Department official Ray Takeyh:
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, has Iran’s opposition movement crossed the point of no return? And is the Islamic republic struggling to survive? We’ll examine what is next for Iran.
Good evening, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour, and welcome to our program.
For the past week, Iran has again been plunged deep into crisis, with the outcome far from certain. On the holy day of Ashura last Sunday, Iranian security forces used bullets and batons to suppress the biggest anti-government protest since June. At least eight protestors were killed, including one who died when a police van reportedly ran over him, as you can see in these images.
Now, the government says that that van was stolen. Nonetheless, demonstrators vented their anger against Basij militiamen, burning their motorbikes, attacking their buildings, shocked that such a crackdown could happen on Ashura.
Government supporters, for their part, were also outraged that the opposition had turned Ashura into a day of political protests, and so hundreds of thousands of them came out three days later. We’ll talk with a former Obama administration official about what all this means for the U.S. in a moment.
But we start with some prophetic words from an Iranian woman, a member of parliament who told me 10 years ago that Iran’s conservative leadership was out of touch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FATEMEH HAGHIGHATJOO, FORMER IRAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER (through translator): The Koran gives us freedom of choice. If the conservatives want to disagree with the idea of personal freedom, then they are against the essence of the Koran. But unfortunately, the conservatives are doing this in order to maintain their own power.
AMANPOUR: What happens if you don’t get what you want?
HAGHIGHATJOO (through translator): The reform movement of President Khatami has started, and it cannot go back. How many people can the conservatives throw in jail? They can’t jail the whole population of Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: That was 10 years ago. Today, Fatemeh Haghighatjoo lives in the United States after being forced to resign for her outspoken challenges to the regime. And now a visiting scholar at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, she joins me here in our studios.
And from Iran, Mohammad Marandi, head of the North American Studies program at the University of Tehran.
Welcome, both of you, to this program.
Let me ask you first, Mrs. Haghighatjoo, what is your reaction to what you told me 10 years ago? You basically said then that the government can’t arrest everyone.
HAGHIGHATJOO: First of all, good evening, and thank you very much for having me here. As I said 10 years ago and still I am saying, the government is not able to arrest all population in Iran. People of Iran need fundamental change in the country, and I am so optimistic that they will see this change in the country in future.
AMANPOUR: And change for you means what exactly?
HAGHIGHATJOO: Change — change for me, that means people could see their freedom in the country. They — this diversity in the country, in the population could be seen inside the power structure in the country. And also the portion (ph) of the government is important for people of Iran.
AMANPOUR: Let me turn to you, Mr. Marandi. Thank you for joining us. It looks like the situation has really reached a turning point here, particularly with the events of Ashura and then the competing protests — or, rather, counter-demonstrations — on Wednesday. Many here in the United States are calling this a game-changer. How do you see it from there?
MOHAMMAD MARANDI, UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN: Well, I think that the — the so-called opposition — I say so-called, because there is no monolithic opposition, and there is no monolithic conservative or principlist movement. There are many different political groups in Iran that have different agendas.
But I think that the opposition that protested on Ashura made a very major tactical mistake by — by carrying out, by being very brutal towards the police on that day, and also by carrying out these protests on a day of public mourning.
And I think that there was a major backlash on Wednesday when probably the largest gathering of people in protest of Mr. Mousavi and the green movement in Tehran’s history, really, gathered on Wednesday. They were — I think that was a defining movement. I think Mr. Mousavi, his letter that was written the day after the anti-Mousavi demonstration, revealed that he, too, was a bit rattled.
AMANPOUR: OK, well, let me ask you this. You say that they were outraged, the government supporters, and yet the protestors — and as you know, very huge sections of the international public opinion were outraged that the Iranian forces used deadly force, gunfire, against the protestors. I mean, does this not really challenge now the authority of the government?
MARANDI: Well, first of all, the — the protest — the demonstration in Tehran, it was — was not necessarily pro-government. It was pro- Islamic republic. And many critics of the government but who are opposed to Mr. Mousavi participated. As I said, it was a huge rally. But they were not — it’s not a monolithic group on any side of the political equation that we can talk about easily.
But I think that the outrage here was that — that the MEK terrorist organization, which although officially banned by the United States, it is being supported by the United States under different names, they were involved in Tehran, according to their own statements, and they were — as you can see in the footage — they attacked police stations…
AMANPOUR: Which we’ll show right now.
MARANDI: … when a police officer was blinded — sorry?
AMANPOUR: We’re just showing that pictures as you speak.
MARANDI: Right. In any case, I can’t hear you very well, but they attacked police stations, they destroyed public property, and they attacked police officers. And at the same time, as I said, it was a day of mourning. Ashura is the anniversary of the martyrdom of the grandson of the prophet of Islam, and it’s a very holy day in Iran, and that didn’t go down well with a majority of Iranians who saw these protestors clapping and whistling and so on.
But I think that, in general, the protests — the counter-protests, the protest that was critical of Mr. Mousavi on Wednesday, was itself a turning point.
AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you then, Mr. Haghighatjoo, you are in the reformist camp, obviously. Do you believe that there are violent elements taking part in your demonstration and in your movement? Is that a concern?
HAGHIGHATJOO: You know, what I am going to say is the people of Iran (inaudible) Green movement wanted, you know, requested, demand peacefully without violence. Unfortunately, the government forces try to pull people toward violence. And I would consider (inaudible) scenario by the government, they try to make these crash between — clash between people in both sides.
And if you look at, since disputed election in June 12 to now, we will see that this protest was silent protest, and that shows that people wanted to do — to request (inaudible) demand peacefully. But, unfortunately, the government, you know, especially on day of Ashura, you know, acted very violently, bloody against people and protests.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let’s move — since we’re trying to figure out what’s next, let us ask now about these steps that Mr. Mousavi has put out towards resolution. Now, I’m going to read them off here on our screen. He says, “First of all, the Iranian administration should be held accountable. Secondly, there should be new and clear election laws. Then, there should be the release of all political prisoners, free and informed media, and finally, recognition of legal demonstrations.”
Mr. Marandi, do you think there’s any chance the government is going to agree to those five ideas that Mr. Mousavi has put forward?
MARANDI: Well, I think the problem is that the government sees things in a different light from Mr. Mousavi. And as I said, there are very many different political factions at play, both in the government and in the opposition.
AMANPOUR: Right, but these seem to be — this seems — these seem to be clear requests that seem to manifest themselves under, in fact, the Iranian constitution. Is there any feeling that the government is willing at all to meet Mousavi halfway? Or is this going to be a continued confrontation?
MARANDI: Well, I think that after the anti-Mousavi protests throughout the country on Wednesday, Mr. Mousavi’s position has been severely weakened, and I think that is partially reflected in his letter. But I also think that the government is not going to release people, for example, who’ve blinded police officers or abused police — police officers and so on.
I do think that there are moves to, let’s say, move — go back to more openness, but I think that the major problem, really, is that Mr. Mousavi has affiliated himself with a more extreme faction within the reformist movement. Even people like Mr. Sahobi (ph) have spoken about how the green movement is moving towards violence. And I myself have experienced death threats every time I come on television to talk about these issues. So it is a reality.
But a lot of the more mainstream reformists, they are moving away from Mr. Mousavi, for example, Mr. Tabesh (ph), who is the head of the reformist faction in parliament.
So there are very sharp internal debates in Iran about policy, about politics, about many issues in the country, but I think that the government and many political factions in the country are no longer willing to discuss serious issues with Mr. Mousavi anymore.
AMANPOUR: OK. We want to show some pictures that we have up on our wall, pictures of Mr. Mousavi receiving condolences when his own nephew was gunned down on the day of Ashura. And I want to ask you (OFF-MIKE) is there, do you believe, a split inside the factions in — in Iran? Mr. Marandi has talked about people moving away from the reformist movement. Is this true?
HAGHIGHATJOO: No. I wanted to say that, if we have really — if the government (inaudible) for green movement, then we will see people would side with Mousavi or would side with government. I disagree with Mr. Marandi’s analysis regarding weakening Mousavi’s position, because the government, you know, try to bring (inaudible) by paying money in some place, by bringing paramilitia to the city, by bringing student from school to the (inaudible)
And I would say this is not pro-government demonstration. Let’s see. If the government allow…
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: So you’re talking about competing rallies to see whose are bigger?
HAGHIGHATJOO: Yes, yes, and then we will see what we’re going on. And then the second issue, unfortunately, I — unfortunately, I don’t think so the government and the supreme leader is going to accept Mousavi’s fair position, because, you know, they think they can control issue. Unfortunately, their — their solution is wrong solution. And this is not real answer to the crisis.
AMANPOUR: One final question to Mr. Marandi. You know, so much has been made and so many fears raised about the actual security of the reform leaders, the opposition leaders, such as Mr. Mousavi and Mr. Karroubi. I’ve been told that actually a decision has been made to step up their security by the Iranian government. Does that ring true to you? Do you think that they’re going to try to make sure no harm comes to those principal figures?
MARANDI: Yes, I think so, especially since his nephew was killed under very suspicious circumstances. He was not killed in the demonstrations themselves. And the fact that he was singled out and assassinated, I think, is something that the many people in the political establishment find suspicious, and they — they believe that perhaps terrorist organizations were behind it to increase tension in the country.
I also believe I — I should add one final point, and that is that, within Iran itself, there are — we shouldn’t be speaking about the government and the opposition, because within the, let’s say, the conservative groups or the principlist movements, there’s no consensus. And the same is true with the reformists. Many key reformists have come — distanced themselves completely with Mr. Mousavi and the green movement, especially since Mr. Mousavi has more and more aligned himself with — or at least silently accepted the support of Western, American-backed television stations being broadcast into Iran, as well as former shah supporters and the MEK terrorist organization.
AMANPOUR: OK, Mr. Marandi. What do you say as a final word against – - you know, many people in Iran, obviously, are trying to discredit the reform movement, saying that they’re agents of — of — of foreign countries. What do you say to that?
HAGHIGHATJOO: Unfortunately, this is analysis of the government and pro-government, you know, people. This is not…
MARANDI: I didn’t…
(CROSSTALK)
MARANDI: … for the government or Mr. Ahmadinejad.
HAGHIGHATJOO: Sorry. No reformists in the country will, you know, take (inaudible) Mousavi (inaudible) everybody support Mousavi. After Mousavi’s statement, we see many people outspoken to support Mousavi’s statement and all reformists, such as (inaudible) Mujahideen and also outside of the country, opposition and Iranian people who just (inaudible) for the country support Mousavi’s current position.
AMANPOUR: All right. And we will talk to you again another time. And you, too, Professor Marandi. Thank you both very much for joining us.
MARANDI: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And when we return, is the turmoil in Iran an opportunity or a challenge for the U.S. president, Barack Obama?
…
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What’s taking place within Iran is not about the United States or any other country. It’s about the Iranian people and their aspirations for justice and a better life for themselves. And the decision of Iran’s leaders to govern through fear and tyranny will not succeed in making those aspirations go away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So that was President Obama just a few days ago. We’re joined now by Ray Takeyh, former Obama administration official on Iran and now continuing with the Council on Foreign Relations, joining me from Washington.
Mr. Takeyh, thank you for joining us. You probably heard our other two guests, and we’re just particularly playing that sound bite from President Obama. Has he stepped up his rhetoric? And why is he doing that now?
RAY TAKEYH, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, SENIOR FELLOW: Well, I think it’s inevitable as the situation in Iran deteriorates and as you have a greater degree of human rights abuses and government forceful suppression of the dissent movement that the United States and the president would react in this such manner. It’s inconceivable for me — for the president not to have done so, particularly strong language in terms of depicting Iran as — as a tyranny.
AMANPOUR: What does that mean, then, for his desire to continue or to try to hold the door open for negotiations?
TAKEYH: Well, I’m not quite sure if the two are incompatible. You can have negotiations with Iran, as the United States has had negotiations with many adversarial countries, while also at the same time disapproving of the internal practices of those regimes, now, whether that was the Chinese government or — or other such non-representative states.
I — I think you can do both of them, but the president and the United States will have to stand up and declare that some of the behavior of the clerical regime is unacceptable, but also be open to negotiating some sort of a restraint on Iran’s nuclear program, which also violates Iran’s international obligations.
AMANPOUR: So you talk about the nuclear program. A deadline has come and come for Iran to respond to the — to the proposals of the West. Iran is now putting its counterproposal.
TAKEYH: Right.
AMANPOUR: Where do you think this is headed in the — in the immediate term?
[15:20:00]
TAKEYH: Well, I suspect, in the immediate term, the United States and its allies will try to ratchet up economic pressures on Iran, particularly targeting the Revolutionary Guard organization and its business — business enterprises, maybe even some aspect of the Iranian petroleum sector, so you begin to see intensification of economic pressure on Iran in the hope that external pressure, combined with internal pressure, will cause Iran to adjust its behavior…
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: This is a tried and true — Mr. Takeyh, this is a tried and — some would say — not so true method, that sanctions and pressure haven’t really worked. Why would it be different this time?
TAKEYH: Well, it may not be different this time, but the idea is that you have a greater degree of international cooperation, particularly with a greater degree of assistance from Russia. That may be more hopeful than real, but that’s essentially what the — what the assessment is today.
Now, second of all, is the Iranian government internally is rather weak and vulnerable and it may seek some sort of an agreement abroad to at least mitigate international pressures.
I mean, as I said, this is — this is a theory. And like most speculative ideas, we’ll see how it pans out in practice.
AMANPOUR: You wrote an analysis on what was going on, and you basically compared the revolutionary situation back in ‘79 to what’s going on right now, in that both seem to have, let’s see, uncertain responses to the challenges of the regime. Do you think the government — go ahead.
TAKEYH: Well — well, it’s important to suggest that history doesn’t always repeat itself, actually, as a matter of fact, seldom repeats itself. Some of the challenges that the Islamic republic faces today are not dissimilar to the challenges that the monarchy faced. But the situations are also different.
I think the Iranian government at this point, for instance, if the supreme leader was receptive to some of the proposals made by Mr. Mousavi, you could perhaps see some sort of a peaceful resolution for this. But however it comes about, in terms of internal compromise, the supreme leader would have to accept that his power will be diminished, and I’m not quite sure if he’s ready to do that.
AMANPOUR: Now, you heard what Mr. Marandi, who supports the Islamic republic, said in terms of saying that it’s — you know, the reform movement is fractured, that, you know, they’re agents of the — of international entities. What is the analysis inside the — inside the U.S. about the strength of the reform movement?
TAKEYH: Well, in my view, that — the — the opposition movement is somewhat incoherent. It doesn’t have a central nervous system. It doesn’t even have an identifiable set of leaders or even a coherent ideology. It is a protest movement.
But it’s been a peculiar protest movement in a sense that it has sustained itself. And the longer it sustains itself, the more ideology and so forth and even leadership will suggest themselves.
And whether they’re agents of the West and that sort of a thing, that’s just obviously nonsense. And I’m not sure if that rhetoric really impresses anyone. It certainly convinces no one.
Entries (RSS)
I don’t think you’ve noticed yet, but the video itself was pulled from YouTube.
Here is a link to an earlier interview of Harandi by Fareed Zakaria. Unlike Amanpour, Zakaria is knowledgeable and quick enough to cross examine Harandi’s statements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3SIQs4D5hY
Re: Marandi: “It was a day of mourning, Ashura is the anniversary of the martyrdom of the grandson of the prophet of Islam. And it is a very holy day in Iran, that didn’t go down well with the Iranians who saw the protesters clapping and whistling and so on.”
I have heard reports that government agents dressed in Green, attend various Ashura gatherings around town. While there, they disrupted the mourning by cheering and disrespecting the ceremony. Those agents successfully disillusioned religious people, whom have no other information input beside the state media, that the Greens don’t respect religion and Islam.
The same propaganda technique, which they used to paint Mousavi and Karroubi, two people that were very close to Khomeini and personally worked with him, as anti-Khomeini.
I feel sorry for the religious crowd which believes the spin doctors of the regime. Can’t they ask themselves, “Why would the Greens bother to insult Islam or Khomeini”?
[...] Read more from the original source: Latest Iran Video and Transcript: Haghighatjoo and Marandi on CNN … [...]
Marandi has the academic credentials of an teachers assistant at a community college but he makes it on CNN cause thats the best the [edited by moderator] government can provide.
All,
While I have my views on the line taken by Dr Marandi, I need to declare that I have worked with him as a fellow academic since 2000. He completed his doctorate at the University of Birmingham with an excellent consideration of “orientalism” in the works of Lord Byron and then took up a post at Tehran University in the new Institute of North American and European Studies, where I have been an Adjunct Professor. I have continued to follow his academic scholarship, which moves between and links Iranian Studies and American Studies.
For me, therefore, politics should not stand in the way of recognising Dr Marandi’s academic standing. Indeed, to evaluate his position on the current conflict fully and fairly, I think it is essential to do so.
S.
Dr Marandi has been making the rounds for the last 2 years on more English-language news channels than CNN. He is one of several Iranian academics that regularly appear on various Aljazeera English programmes and was on one of the panels in the Doha debate on BBC World in December 2009. I’ve noticed a distinct pre and post-election shift in his positions and his willingness to say things that are blatantly at odds with credible journalistic, audio and visual evidence to the contrary. He used to express much more neutral stances vis-a-vis the Iranian government, and I strongly suspect that his current tendency to tow the official government line, especially on CNN, is what allows him to keep the privileges and safeguards he obviously enjoys. Scott, have you noticed the same shift?
Catherine,
I cannot speak for Dr Marandi who, in the early days of EA, was a contributor to posts and comments; however, I would suggest that his post-election position is genuine and not from the interest of maintaining privileges. As I understand it, he is vigorously defending the Iranian system as one in which velayat-e-faqih is to be respected and in which legitimacy for its President was confirmed by the election. I believe he, as a firm advocate that criticisms, let alone changes, of the system are a matter for Iranians alone and not for outside entities, contends that the persistence of protest is due to those outside entitities rather than due to a large section of the Iranian public.
S.
Thanks for your swift and enlightening response. I was starting to wonder whether he was still sincere. However, what I was getting at is not that he’s defending the current government just in order to keep his position at the TU and freedom of movement in the western media, but rather that this defensive postion 1) is a shift from his pre-election greater neutrality towards the government, 2) has led him to be much more economical with the truth than he used to be, and 3) is probably protecting him from the dismissals and arrests suffered by other Iranian professors and researchers.
Marandi may be intelligent or may have rightfully earned his academic credentials. He is, in my view, intellectually dishonest. I do agree with others that Marandi says what he needs to say to keep his lofty job and raise his profile in foreign media.
Catherine,
I have no reason to believe that Dr Marandi’s points of view are not heart-felt and what he sees as the truth.
S.
I have not worked with his Marandi as closely as Scott, but I have met him at least a dozen times- going back to 2005.
Marandi is a true believer- strongly influenced by his military service in the Iran-Iraq war. He comes from an extremely (politically) well connected and staunchly pro-regime family- his father was health minister and is reportedly Khamenei’s personal physician. As a scholar, in his field, his work is intellectually solid. Face to face he is a persuasive communicator. As far as academic publications, however, he has not written much of significance on US-Iranian relations or US foreign policy.
His views are heartfelt- that is why the regime is happy for him to be its spokesman. He is a very safe pair of hands. Anti-regime academics would certainly not see their career prospects improve by giving interviews to CNN (if they could get a satellite feed- which they prob couldn’t). That doesn’t mean that pro-regime academics are simply trying to protect or improve their career prospects.
I have little time for his analysis- but balance is crucial and reputable stations must give a platform to both sides. Just trotting out a procession of govt opponents is no better a foundation for objective analysis than state controlled Iranian media. Indeed, the pro-regime perspective is almost seldom seen in the western media. We must be aware that there are millions who share Marandi’s view- all else is delusion.
That said, Amanpour does a very weak job of challenging Marandi on this video.
I expected more from Amanpour as a renowned journalist. Anyone awake during the past 7 months knows clearly this fellow Marandi is merely a mouth piece for the repressive regime/gov’t and much like them, his words are lies, twisted and at best half-truths.
So what exactly was she trying to extract from a person who stares at you in the eye and says “snow is black”?
Next time, plz interview me. I’m sure I can come up with plenty of lies and false claims that would raise the dead even
Dear Scott,
Allow me to give you couple of reasons to believe that Dr Marandi’s points of view are not heart-felt and what he sees as the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j036ToBL0JM
Re: 6:50 Marandi says “The western countries are advocating mob rule in this country [Iran]. If you look at the Persian television channels being broadcasted in to the country, they are funded by the United States and the British. Ineffectively, what they are trying to do, is to steer up tension in the country and advocating mob rule.”
Marandi said twice that western countries are “advocating mob rule” in Iran. I have watched those channels (e.g. Voice of America and BBC Persia), and never seen an instance of them “advocating” people taking justice in their hands. It has always been the message of non-violence, patience and keeping citizen eye on government’s actions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVZGREqdfZ8
During the Doha Debates, In response to the claim that Iran an Islamic Monarchy, Dr Marandi says that the Assembly of Experts has the power to remove the Supreme Leader. While his statement is true if we just read the constitution, however we know that is not an accurate representation of the situation and is dishonest to say the least.
His eerie calmness as his being the English speaking mouth for the regime, gives me the impression that he feels it is a necessity to skew facts and persuade opinions for a bigger purpose than the current debate he is engaged in. As pressure builds, I foresee him creating a separate metal state than reality by convincing himself that “the end justifies the means”.
theali
A little note to all the non-Iranians and Americans here, to demonstrate the travesty of even listening to the likes of Marandi, let alone actually believing him:
Imagine Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/… appear on TV days after invasion of Iraq and say “we have defeated Alqaeda, killed Osama, Saddam personally piloted the planes into the twin towers, ….” and drivel like that, and me, as a non-American come and say; “I have no reason not to believe the heads of the gov’t.” and “they are intellectually sound” and … etc etc etc (while the rest of you, enlightened folks bang your head against the wall at my naivete and simple-mindedness).
just a tiny sample of what we go through as the world listens to the rubbish this regime’s lackeys blurt out on world media.
ponder on that a bit.
theali- those are points to suggest that Marandi is wrong. You have no evidence that he knows he’s wrong. The fact that he is not sweating profusely and unflustered is not evidence either. Believe me, if you met the man, it is obvious he believes what he is saying.
davood, to be honest I don’t really see your point. Outside Iran, 99.9% of the perspective is tacitly or overtly pro-opposition. Look for example at the amount of coverage the anti-Mousavi rallies received compared to the opposition. For every Marandi interview there are 50 interviews with the opposite perspective. Would you have the western media censor all those who support the regime?
Plus, Marandi, if anything, discredits himself and his argument- I very much doubt he is affecting the debate in a manner detrimental to the opposition.
We have had to endure years of ridiculous neo-con analysis of events in Iran- almost as baseless as the view you caricature. I sometimes wish I could censor the constant distortions and calls for sanctions and bombs- but all we can do is present a counter argument.
“I have no reason to believe that Dr Marandi’s points of view are not heart-felt and what he sees as the truth.”
In past history, there have been millions of “true believers” of a number of evil causes. Their thoughts and opinions of these causes were absolutely sincere and those who were educated and articulate enough were able to espouse their causes in a very “heart felt” manner.
As for the use here of the word “truth” — “And what is ‘truth’? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours? ” (from a famous Broadway musical)
Barry
@ChrisE:
You are right about that the western media’s coverage is not balanced. But the pro-regime view is much more present (and in a less biased manner) in western media, than the protester view is present in Iranian media.
@Scott Lucas:
Dr. Marandi is without any doubt a very intelligent person. And therefore I’m pretty sure he has picked up the inconsistence in what the regime/pro-regime media do and says. He is intelligent enough to ask himself: “Why is the pro-regime coverage (Seda va Sima, Presstv, FarsNews and so on) so biased and full of propaganda? Why am I among the few people allowed to say anything?”.
I’m sure he is intelligent enough to wonder about these issues. Therefore the fact that he is trying to sweep things under the rug, an indication of he may not be sincere.
@Heidar: I agree, but the objectivity of Iran’s media is a fairly low base level to which we should compare the west’s.
Re Marandi: I cannot speak for him, but I know for a fact that his view is that the western media maliciously misrepresents Iran and is essentially ‘biased and full of propaganda’- he would make the point, for example, that his appearance on Zakaria’s show was cynically edited.
Some people are so convinced that their perspective is self-evidently correct that they project their view of what is rational, true and defendable onto others. Marandi doesn’t conform, so we conclude he is duplicitous. I think this is a non starter- you will not persuade Marandi that the western media is less biased than the Iranian. You will not persuade him that America has not tried consistently to destroy the revolution and is supporting the opposition to this end.
He also makes much of the fact that he is not a supporter of Ahmadinejad and didn’t vote for him. He states (without a hint of irony) that he is a critic of the regime!
Instead of labelling him, we should simply stick to the facts. For example, when he says the opposition broke a taboo by rioting on Ashura, Amanpour should have countered that the Basij had broken an equal or larger taboo by attacking mourners at Montazeri’s funeral. Ask him to elaborate on his theory that Neda may have been killed by agent provocateurs. Ask him about judicial reform- give him enough rope to hang himself…
Maybe I am imagining, But I did not find Dr. Marandy as convinced , confident and eloquent as he usually is – despite an easy going Amanpour.
He really insisted on the fact that there are no monolithic conservative or principalist movement and further emphasized that the Wednesday rally was in support of the Islamic republic and NOT the government .
“in support of the Islamic republic and NOT the government .”
Is there a difference?? Certainly, in theory, there is a difference – but in practice over the past 30 years??? Exactly what constitutes the Government of Iran anyway? – there are MANY players. I prefer to use the term “Iranian Regime” – which includes (almost) all the controlling elements of the Islamic Republic
Barry
I would suggest that the distinction is critical to people like Marandi. If the time comes when they are forced to dump AN to pacify the opposition- they will justify it as a sacrifice for the greater good of the Islamic Republic. Preserving Khomeini’s visision is their overiding goal. Mousavi obviously recognises this and has made no attempt to distance himself from Khomeini’s patronage- quite the opposite.
Chris E
It is unfortunate that you and Scott (to whom I am indebted for his tireless effort in giving voice to voiceless) are allowing your collegial associations with Marandi cloud their judgment.
Marandi’s support of criminal Islamic Republic regime is inexcusable. The fact that his words are heartfelt does not lessen the pain the system he believes in continues to inflict on Iranians.
There are similarities between Marandi and the Plainclothes militiaman roaming streets of Iran; they both believe in Islamic Republic and defend it, they both are true believers, they both get paid by the same master, and they both inflict pain one by sticking a knife in your chest and the other one by a virtual knife (words) in your back. The difference is the plainclothes militiaman may not know any other way to feed his family and Marandi does. You tell me which one is more despicable.
If Marandi is a true believer of his own rubbish so is Ahmadinejad who truly believes that there was no holocaust and U.S. military is in Iraq to prevent the coming of 12th Imam. Why does anyone want us to accept one is rational and the other is not? Indeed the more Marandi speaks the more I see reflection of English speaking and somewhat better groomed Ahmadinejad.
Megan- you couldn’t be further from the truth. I cannot elaborate further on a public forum, but those that know me will understand that there is little love lost. We have, as they say, previous…
However, I refuse to compromise my intellectual integrity in order to simply grandstand to the crowd. The assertion was that Marandi doesn’t believe what he says and is an agent of the regime. That is a false or at best unproven assertion. Regardless of his opinions- which I happen to strongly oppose.
Nor is it right to silence him. I am prepared to listen to both sides and urge the western press to continue to seek out those who are willing of defending the regime. It is my judgement that there are many more who share Marandi’s view than is apparent from western coverage of the post-election crisis. If we are to analyse events in Iran, then we need to understand that. If you need to make him a bogeyman, good luck to you. But it doesn’t help me understand the crisis any better.
On another analytical point, Marandi is not really like Ahmadinejad at all. Other than that they both passionately pro IRI. That’s almost like saying that Cameron and Brown are the same because they are both passionately pro-NHS. You think they are the same because you simply hate both. I condemn both, but can see the difference in their style, background and on some policy issues.
I remember in my first guardian article, I argued that Khamenei was waiting to see what Obama would offer in support of engagement. I was called a communist appeaser for attempting to rationalise Iranian foreign policy.
I’ve been watching Dr Marandi closely since he first appeared on AJE, then much more recently on CNN INT. If those here who know him personally hadn’t vouched so strongly for his sincerity, I would have continued to see him – whether I think he’s right or wrong – as a disarmingly soft-spoken debater, highly skilled in the art of sophistry and false argumentation, who adroitly switches from truth to distortion of the truth to outright falsehood wrapped in apparent logic whenever convenient, especially when these manoeuvres throw other debaters, programme guests or the interviewer off track. All without showing disrespect for his interlocutors. Basically a brilliant act.
However, after Scott’s and ChrisE’s protestations of his sincereity as a ‘true believer’, I guess I’ll now be watching him with much more incredulity, thinking ‘How can he be so smart and talented and actually believe his own BS?’ :-). That is, of course, when *I* know enough about the topic to realise he’s pulling the wool over our eyes! And I agree with ChrisE tht he must not be silenced.
BUT – if you’re sick of Dr Marandi, try out this other perhaps even more ubiquitous Iranian academic: Tehran University political science professor Dr. Sadegh Zibakalam. How this man has managed to maintain his position, satellite feed, telephone line, foreign media contacts, physical integrity and freedom to this date baffles me. He must be very well-connected. Professor Zibakalam has been a major go-to-expert for Aljazeera English, Radio Farda and Roozonline, he is openly critical of AN and the conservatives and sympathetic toward reformists, he wrote an open letter to the then head of Iran’s Judiciary Ayatollah Shahrudi in support of Roxana Saberi, in May last year during a debate on Iranian TV he criticized Iranian foreign policy toward United States with this pithy remark: “Even If Obama Had Registered Planet Earth in Its Entirety in [Iran's] Name, We In Iran Would Still Be Saying: ‘There Has Been No Change’”….. and yet he LIVES! He has also been consistently positive about President Obama. Following Obama’s Cairo speech, he called in to Radio Farda and contrasted Obama’s rhetoric with Ayatollah Khamenei’s: “The Supreme Leader’s views of the US and the West is the usual radical and aggressive fare, while President Obama has extended his hand to others, including Muslims. When one listens to Obama, one can see light at the end of the tunnel” (see link below – you can also listen in Persian). Here’s a selection of his opinions in news articles and an interview (2007- 2009).
+++++
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/20091226172444793250.html
Police clash with Tehran protesters
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Sadegh Zibakalam, a professor at Tehran University, said the opposition had defied security forces’ warnings against using Tasoua as an occasion to stage anti-government demonstrations.
“It appears that the opposition is not something that we can say has disappeared or been reduced. The opposition has used every occasion to register its voice,” he told Al Jazeera.
++++++
http://www.insideiran.org/news/q-and-a-professor-sadegh-zibakalam-on-iran%E2%80%99s-confrontation-with-the-west/
Q and A: Professor Sadegh Zibakalam on Iran’s Confrontation with the West
December 15th, 2009
Sadegh Zibakalam, who is a political science professor at Tehran University and a respected public intellectual, has been outspoken about the Iranian government’s reluctance to embrace overtures from President Barack Obama. This is a candid interview insideIRAN.org conducted with him from his home in Tehran.
++++++
http://www.roozonline.com/english/interview/interview/article/2009/october/04//iran-g-5-1-talks-will-be-inconclusive.html
October 4, 2009
Sadegh Zibakalam in Interview with Rooz:
Iran – G 5+1 Talks Will be Inconclusive
Respected Tehran University professor Dr. Sadegh Zibakalam argues that Iran’s nuclear negotiations with Europe and the United States will not be conclusive. He explains, “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has an ideological view of the Iranian nuclear program and does not take economic or national security considerations into account.”
++++++
http://www.roozonline.com/english/news/newsitem/article/2009/september/08//ahmadinejad-is-after-obedient-people.html
September 8, 2009
Ambassador Recall in Conversation with Sadegh Zibakalam
Ahmadinejad is after Obedient People
In a conversation with RoozOnline, Tehran University political science professor Sadegh Zibakalam mentioned the massive recall of Iranian ambassadors from key European and Asian states and said that it did not really matter who was at the embassies because Ahmadinejad had the final say anyway.
++++++
http://www.roozonline.com/english/news/newsitem/article/2008/february/18//eight-majlis-to-be-more-obedient-than-current-majlis.html
February 18, 2008
Eight Majlis to be More Obedient than current Majlis
In an exclusive interview with Rooz, political analyst Sadegh Zibakalam calls the eighth Majlis elections a “show,” and insists that “this Majlis must be more obedient than the Seventh Majlis.”
Rooz (R): Mr. Zibakalam, what is your analysis of the oversight committees’ handling of the qualification process and the mass disqualification of candidates
Sadegh Zibakalam (SZ): I think that these disqualifications were fully predictable. In any case, the right wing has consolidated its power following the 2005 presidential election and naturally does not want a Majlis which has an opposing independent faction ?that can cause trouble for the right wing.
++++++
http://www.roozonline.com/english/interview/interview/article/2008/september/20//ahmadinejad-will-not-say-anything-new.html
September 20, 2008
Ahmadinejad Will Not Say Anything New
Sadegh Zibakalam is a professor of political science at Tehran University. In a talk with Rooz, he predicts that in his latest trip to New York to attend the UN General Assembly ?annual meeting, he will merely stress on his old theme.
R: Three years have passed since Mr. Ahmadinejad became president. What do you think are the lessons of his three consecutive trips to the UN?
SZ: The most important lesson for him should be that he should refrain from calling for the destruction of another country. He should respect other people, even if their ?government is inimical towards Iran. He should also not be so dogmatic and prejudice against other countries. He should really stay away from language that creates tension, is radical or harsh.
++++++
http://www.roozonline.com/english/news/newsitem/article/////the-remarks-of-irgc-the-wishes-of-neocons.htmlJuly 3, 2008
The Remarks of IRGC: the Wishes of Neocons
Sadegh Zibakalam is a well-known Tehran University professional in political science. He spoke with Rooz about commander Jaafari, the commander of the Pasdaran Revolutionary Guards Corps (PRGS) about the possibility of a US attack on Iran. He believes that what the commander says is precisely what the American neocons wish Iranian leaders to talk abut.
R: Commander Jaafari has spoken about Iran’s reprisal measures, including closing the ?Straits of Hormuz or hitting at Israel. What are the consequences of such remarks?
SZ: Saying that we would attack Israel with our long-range missiles if the US attacks us is precisely the kind of language that American neocons wish Iranian authorities to raise so that they can further mobilize the world against Iran.
++++++
http://www.roozonline.com/english/news/newsitem/article/2008/march/31//doubts-over-40-percent-participation-in-tehran.html
March 31, 2008
Doubts Over 40 Percent Participation in Tehran
Tehran University professor and political analyst Sadegh Zibakalam told Rooz in an exclusive interview that he doubted the truth of the official reports placing Tehran’s participation rate at 40 ?percent, but believed that reformists performed better than expected in other cities.
Rooz (R): What was the effect of the mass disqualification of reformist and independent candidates on the elections, and what picture of the election officials did that portray to the public?
Sadegh Zibakalm (SZ): I believe that the issue of disqualifications as implemented by the Guardian Council and Interior Ministry … contradicted the basic principles of democracy. I mean, you cannot see that we have democracy and respect people’s votes and then have the phenomenon of disqualifying candidates on ideological and political basis.
++++++
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/04/how-did-geneva-play-out-in-tehran.html
How did Geneva play out in Tehran?
22 Apr 2009
Iranian reaction to Ahmadineja’d speech at the UN conference on anti-racism. …..
Sadegh Zibakalam, a political scientist at Tehran University, disagreed with many supporters of Ahmadinejad who thought his performance was a victory. He thought the commotion caused by his speech was tantamount to an insult to the Iranian people.
“This was not a successful move to have European diplomats leaving and a few Arab envoys clapping along with the president’s entourage,” said Zibakalam. “The important thing is to decide whether we want Iran’s foreign policy to be ideological or to serve the national interest. It appears that the Ahmadinejad administration wants our foreign policy to be of an ideological persuasion, even sometimes at the price of our national interest. It doesn’t appear to bother them that our people and our diplomatic corps pay the price.”
Furthermore, Zibakalam said he was afraid Ahmadinejad’s speech may have had the opposite effect, rallying support in favor of Israel. “When Mr. Ahmadinejad goes on the attack,” he explained, “it may make the Zionists look like the victims. This clouds the real issues, which is Israeli crimes against Palestinians in Gaza.”
++++++
May Headlines
31 May 2009
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/05/may-headlines.html
Debate on Iranian TV [via MEMRI] Tehran University Political Science Professor Sadegh Zibakalam harshly criticizes Iranian foreign policy toward United States: “Even If Obama Had Registered Planet Earth in Its Entirety in [Iran's] Name, We In Iran Would Still Be Saying: ‘There Has Been No Change’” watch: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2114.htm
++++++
http://www.rferl.org/content/Heard_In_Iran_Farda/1752367.html
Heard In Iran: A Choice Between Bad and Worse in Election
June 11, 2009
Iranians React to Obama’s Cairo Speech
June 4 — Following President Obama’s speech in Egypt, Radio Farda’s listeners in Iran called in with comments. A Tehran University student [sic] named Sadegh Zibakalam contrasted Obama’s rhetoric with that of Ayatollah Khamenei: “The Supreme Leader’s views of the US and the West is the usual radical and aggressive fare, while President Obama has extended his hand to others, including Muslims. When one listens to Obama, one can see light at the end of the tunnel” [listen in Persian http://www.radiofarda.com/audio/ondemand/FRD_60_21_20090604143000_15.html ]
++++++
http://www.rferl.org/content/Former_Iranian_President_Turns_To_Supreme_Leader_To_Deal_With_Ahmadinejads_Lies/1751216.html
Rafsanjani Turns To Iran’s Supreme Leader To Deal With Ahmadinejad’s ‘Lies’
Rafsanjani writes that Ahmadinejad’s “unfounded and irresponsible” remarks during the debate were reminiscent of the actions of “antirevolutionary groups“ in the early years of the revolution. He says the accusations have targeted the “achievements” of the Islamic establishment.
Sadegh Zibakalam … tells RFE/RL’s Radio Farda that Rafsanjani’s letter is an expression of concern over the undermining of Iran’s ruling system. “He’s warning Ayatollah Khamenei that the branch that is cut is the one we’re all sitting on,” Zibakalam says.
++++++
http://www.rferl.org/content/If_Roxana_Saberi_Is_A_Spy_Then_I_Should_Be_Judged_As_Her_Accomplice/1614643.html
April 23, 2009
Sadegh Zibakalam, a well-known professor of political science at Tehran University, has issued an open letter to the head of Iran’s Judiciary Ayatollah Hashemi Shahrudi in support of jailed U.S. journalist Roxana Saberi, who has been sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted of espionage.
In the letter to the head of Iran’s judiciary Zibakalam wrote: “If Saberi is really a spy, then I should be put on trial in the same court as her accomplice because she interviewed me a number of times and translated some of my columns from different newspapers and sent them to foreign websites.”
When asked by RFE/RL about the possible motivation behind the case, Zibakalam speculated that it could be an attempt “to sabotage” Obama’s engagement efforts with Iran.
++++++
http://www.rferl.org/content/Former_Iranian_PM_Musavi_Enters_Presidential_Race/1508249.html
Musavi’s Candidacy Enlivens, Complicates Iran’s Presidential Race
March 11, 2009
By Golnaz Esfandiari
Sadegh Zibakalam, a professor of political science at Tehran University, says Musavi could generate broad support from moderates, conservatives and older, former revolutionaries.
“[Musavi’s candidacy] will be welcomed by reformists, but at the same time it will make others happy or maybe even happier than the reformists — those are the forces that are faithful to the Islamic republic and to the line of the late Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini,” Zibakalam says. “The policies of the past four years have worried those who are concerned about the future of the establishment.”
++++++
http://www.rferl.org/content/Irans_Supreme_Leader_Appears_To_Endorse_Ahmadinejad/1194074.html
Iran’s Supreme Leader Appears To Endorse Ahmadinejad For Another Term
August 26, 2008
By Golnaz Esfandiari
Who will be Iran’s next president?
On August 24, Khamenei, … was quoted as saying that President Mahmud Ahmadinejad should plan on remaining in power for a second term. The remarks were published on Khamenei’s website and also by Iran’s official state news agency IRNA. Yet just a few hours later, some of his comments … were mysteriously removed from both websites. ……..
Tehran-based analyst Sadegh Zibakalam believes the comments were censored following an order by the leader himself.
“Even if Ayatollah Khamenei would want deep down in his heart Ahmadinejad to be the winner of Iran’s future presidential elections, he wouldn’t express his wish so clearly and publicly,” Zibakalam says. “Government officials, officials in charge of Iran’s official news agency, were probably so happy about Khamenei’s comments that they didn’t realize the way they published his comments was not in the interests of the Islamic Republic.” …….
Zibakalam says even some hard-liners are now criticizing Ahmadinejad.
“The problem Ahmadinejad’s government is facing — and to a certain degree, Khamenei — is that gradually, significant numbers of hard-liners have turned into Ahamdinejad’s critics because of his economic policies and his performance on the international scene, which has put Iran under the shadow of sanctions, isolation and even military attack,” Zibakalam says. “The problems that exist in Iran cannot be ignored by those living there.”
++++++
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1079621.html
Iran: Hard-Line Students Announce Bounty On Israeli Leaders’ Heads
March 11, 2008
By Mohammad Zarghami
A group of hard-line Iranian students, the Justice-Seeking Student Movement, has offered rewards totaling more than $1 million for the assassination of of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Mossad spy agency director Meir Dagan, and military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin. following recent military strikes by Israel in Gaza.
Sadegh Zibakalam, a professor of political science at Tehran University, said the government has never officially recognized groups “like the Justice-Seeking Student Movement.” He added that he thought such organizations should be banned. “When a group of women gather in the streets to collect signatures in support of women’s rights, they get arrested for threatening national security,” Zibakalam said. “But amazingly, when there are other gatherings in which groups openly act against the interests of the country, the system doesn’t react at all.”
++++++
http://www.iranreview.org/content/view/3665/41/
Obama’s New Iran Envoy Met With Skepticism
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Omid Memarian
The appointment of Dennis Ross as a special advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has found a cool reaction in Tehran and some U.S. policy circles. ….
Sadegh Zibakalam, a political analyst at Tehran University, said he was not surprised by the appointment. “You will find few political figures within the U.S. foreign policy establishment who have a background of friendship or a positive outlook toward Iran,” Zibakalam told IPS in a telephone interview. “This is only natural, just as you will not be able to find a single public figure, either fundamentalist or reformist, among Iranian politicians who may have publicly defended the idea of establishing dialogue with the U.S. or one who may have declared that animosity with the U.S. is detrimental to Iran’s national interests,” he added.