Wednesday
Jul142010
Iran Through the Looking Glass: "Never Judge Enduring America by Its Cover"
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 7:16 
Yesterday a contact sent word that --- for the first time to our knowledge --- Enduring America had made an appearance in the leading Iran opposition website Rah-e-Sabz. True, the reference was only one line in an opinion piece, but still, it's a reference, right?Oops.
Turns out the article sets out to expose the motives and deceptions of US neo-conservatives. EA unexpectedly finds itself not along the Green Movement but as an uncomfortable bedfellow of former CIA operative Reuel Marc Gerecht, former Bush Administration official John Bolton, and Senator McCain. So here is our walk-on part in the article:
We must turn upside down the notion that neoconservative Americans "support" democratic movements and their people. The website "Enduring America" (meaning "Sustainable America"), with its Pentagon logo, pretends to support the Green Movement.
Well, about the name. We were probably being too clever by half when we came up with EA's title, but as Mike Dunn explained last November, after we had faced a series of questions as to whether we were pro- or anti-American:
Enduring America took its inspiration from Operation Enduring Freedom [the US war in Afghanistan]. We were struck by the ambiguity behind this name, with “Freedom” being both enduring and endured. This double meaning is also present in our feelings towards America and US foreign policy: is it enduring or endured? Or both?
And the logo? We also wanted something to capture the complexity of American power, not to endorse it but to think about it. So a colleague, Ryan O'Kane, came up with a combination of the Pentagon motif and a Coca-Cola/Pepsi bottle-top, all in red, white, and blue.
More importantly, I'm not sure the author of the Rah-e-Sabz piece got past our banner to read any of what we've written. If he had, he might have noticed that we're not fond of Mr. Bolton's approach to Iran and that we do not think Senator McCain and Mr Gerecht's simplistic representations of the regime and the opposition deserves priority over assessments by Iranians of their situation. Indeed, a quick search for "neoconservatives" on EA would turn up our open letter last December to "False US Friends of the Iranian People".
Indeed, the only direct reference by the Rah-e-Sabz author to any of our coverage and analysis came in an assertion earlier this year, posted in a comment on another website, on a different topic: "If it were up to William Lucas, there would not have been any discussion of the New York Times articles leading up to the Iraq invasion."
Hmm... Must be a different William (or rather Scott) Lucas who devoted a 324-page book to the "Betrayal of Dissent" by the US Government, media, and intellectuals in their justification of the 2003 Iraq War.
So, given this, how did EA wind up amongst the neo-con, CIA-affiliated bad boys in Rah-e-Sabz? The answer is a glimpse of how the post-election conflict takes perspectives on the Iranian government, the Green Movement, and activists through the looking glass.
For the author's attention to EA and William/Scott Lucas --- distilled into the comment on Iraq above --- was prompted not by our position on the Green Movement, the Iranian Government, civil rights, post-election events, or even "neo-conservatives". Rather, it was prompted by my criticism of the commentary on Race for Iran --- which eventually appeared on EA in this form when it tried to tear down the reputation of a New York Times reporter, Nazila Fathi, for her article on May's execution of five Iranians.
(So I criticised a website which supports the Iran Government for its attempt to put a reporter beyond the acceptable for her writing on justice and civil rights. The outcome is that an author on Rah-e-Sabz, which opposes the Iran Government, tries to put EA beyond the acceptable without considering its writing on justice and civil rights.
Just grabbing a dictionary to look up "irony".)
In the author's words, "It is not helpful to comment on [Race for Iran's]' 'intellectual honesty'...as Lucas does."
I beg to differ. It is always helpful to comment on honesty, be that the honesty of US neo-conservatives, the honesty of academics and intellectuals, the honesty of Iran's opposition movement, and the honesty of its regime.
But that critique should be done, well, honestly, not by guessing or speculating superficially on a logo or a name, but by considering evidence and analyses. It should be done with open mind and open hand rather than closed thought.
And, with that, back to today's news....
Reader Comments (21)
I think this is just a misunderstanding and a mistake on the part of the Rahesabz author for not actually reading much of your stuff. To be honest your blog name, color scheme, and logo do make it appear to new visitors that this website is intensely neo-con. I had precisely that mindset for a few days when I first got to know this site. I followed your blog for a couple of weeks until I was absolutely sure that it is exactly the opposite. The clever meanings in your blog name and logo are just too much for the attentionally deficient, modern day internet surfer.
Scott,
I think the author has lost his Rah (his way) in navigating Google translation! Or may be in Rah-e Sabz Liberal means Neoconservative! I am not, however, surprised; everything is backward in Iran. Innocents are in prison and criminals are roaming streets, idiots are president, leader, and law makers and intelligent people are unemployed, and left is right!
Scott,
This is a rather convoluted story, even for someone used to following Iranian politics! :-) What exactly was the connection between you/EA, the comments se`csection of Race for Iran and the Rah-e-Sabz story's author?
I beg to differ. To me the Rahe Sabz author has a very narrowly defined viewpoint, just dividing the world in black and white. After all he is a supporter of Mohajerani, who recently defined the benchmarks for "true" members of the GM, met by sharp criticism within the Green community and Mousavi's objection that the GM has no foreign representatives.
But this is not the only point, the author bashes nearly all sites reporting about Iran, be it Tehran Bureau or VoA, i.e. criticism and differing or even conflicting opinions are obviously unbearable to him -- no need to reflect, when you already know what's right and what's wrong ;-)
As to EA, I immediately recognised the allusion to Bush's slogan, when I discovered it last summer, but found the content too humorous to fit typical Neo-con hawks. I often disagreed with Scott, but was always extremely pleased by the atmosphere of sober and constructive discussion, prevailing on this site.
The Rahe Sabz author has several options: to improve his English, to accept conflict as a productive base for discussion, or to stay in his small world with only two colours: black and white, pardon me, and green.
Catherine,
I realised, as I was writing, that I might be muddying rather than clarifying.
The starting point of contention is Race for Iran's projection that comment on Iran's internal situation by those working outside Iran is almost always on behalf of "foreign intervention", often written as intervention in support of the US Government. Thus their attack on Nazila Fathi of the New York Times.
My response was that Fathi's article on the May executions was the work of a good reporter, albeit one who made a couple mis-steps in the articles, who is not working on behalf of/in support of US-led "regime change".
The author for Rah-e-Sabz objected to my response, in effect reinforcing the notion that not only the New York Times but also EA were aiding and abetting a US campaign (here written as "neoconservative") to remove the regime.
S.
Arshama,
Thank you for elaborating and clarifying the connection with a dubious character like Mohajerani. To this group not only everything is either black or white but the green=black and they both are color of Islam.
I commented the other day, Iran Special: A Response to “The Plot Against Ahmadinejad” (Verde)), about what I believed was required for democracy to take hold in Iran and this is yet another example of whether we have the right frame of mind for it or if democracy in Iran still means Khomeini democracy; I know better, no debate is needed and you listen and follow.
Megan,
Don't you dare to talk like this about our holy SL! May piss be upon him ;-)
(sorry, found it on Twitter)
Arshama
Arshama!
Don't be so blasphemous. You know perfectly well that the SL is NOT an Imam like Hussein or Ali or a prophet like Muhammad or Jesus, so don't say "PBUH"!!!
:-)
Catherine,
" You know perfectly well that the SL is NOT an Imam like Hussein or Ali or a prophet like Muhammad or Jesus..."
Of course not, he is God or is it God’s reject! Same difference….
OK, Scott - now I get it! ;-)
Speaking of “Never Judge Enduring America by Its Cover”, when are we going to see the new one?
Catherine!
First of all the SL is already an Imam. And then he had a private meeting with the Imam Zaman (Mahdi), don't you remember? What's holier than that ;-)
Arshama
Holy Wishing Wells, Batman - you're right!
But - who is Imam Zam-Zam? :-)
(When Scott comes back from his breaks he's going to delete us! :-0)
Someone needs to recalibrate their irony filter. Or they're covering their backsides.
Of course, Arshama's information probably explains it best. :-)
Upon my first visit to this site I went straight to the explanation of the name just to clear things up.
I hope Rah-e Sabz does as well. They may well have differing views, but to brand this site neocon? Tsk, tsk.
I feel not only that they've impugned EA, but me and other posters as well!
Why not change the name completely, since it doesn't represent the content of this website very well.
You may have begun the site with the intention of focusing on US foreign policy, but the site has broadened to include the foreign policies of just about every country on the planet.
The title, "Enduring America" is no longer appropriate. Besides, it wasn't that clever to begin with.
Yeah, I've known a few Iranians who've been unwilling to accept that you're not a CIA shill, mainly because of the design and name of your blog.
I too had the first impression the site was Neocon, by the layout and name. I was relieved to learn the name was meant ironically, but at the same time it actually made me depressed that it's so believable that the neocons would seriously use a name like that.
Scott:
You and the EA have company: Tehran Bureau. TB, and in particular me, have posted a huge number of articles in support of democracy, human rights, Green movement, etc., yet just because there were a few articles that the author of Rah-e Sabz did not like, he claims that we are not what we say we are. TB stopped publishing articles of one author, and there was one recent article which the author of Rah-e Sabz article totally misunderstood.
Hello Prof. Sahimi,
I've read almost every article you have published on TB since I discovered the site in June 2009 after I returned from having witnessed the Iranian elections for myself. There cannot be the slightest doubt in any reader's mind as to your (and TB's) support for democracy, human rights and the Green movement. In fact, your support for these is made even more abundantly clear by the criticisms of those who disagree with you. :-). I sincerely hope that TB has not allowed the misguided opinion of one writer (who?) at one publication, Rah-e Sabz, to influence their editorial choices. Have you or the other TB writers in question tried to publish rebuttals in Rah-e Sabz?
RE the comments about the logo and name of this site making newcomers think it was a den of neocons, apart from never understanding what the name really meant, I was so compelled by the contents of the site that not one of these associations ever occurred to me. In fact I never noticed the similarity between the EA logo and the shape of the Pentagon until I read the comments in this thread! Seriously.
It just goes to show how website design can be very important for some visitors and completely irrelevant for others....
Catherine
I agree with you. In my early times at this site, I questioned Scott regarding the name. "Enduring" America could mean = "suffering" America or it could mean "everlasting" America.
But I see nothing in the web design itself that would indicate political persuasion.
I do believe that I detect a leftist orientation amongst the chief operators ( as opposed to the comments commentators ). But I would expect that as they are (I think) academics??
Barry
Hi Barry,
RE "Enduring" America could mean = "suffering" America or it could mean "everlasting" America.
You know, I never even got that far on my own. I just always understood "enduring" as "everlasting" and thus thought it odd for a blog that was following events that didn't always have much to do with the US. But as a newcomer I knew the site had a history (that I had no time to explore), and I figured the explanation for the name lay buried somewhere in the archives :-)
Content = King.