Sunday
Dec272009
Iran: The False US Friends of the "Iranian People" (An Open Letter to Charles Krauthammer)
Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 6:50 
Mr Krauthammer,I never thought I would open an letter to you with a word of thanks. To be honest, I have almost never agreed with your past quarter-century of syndicated polemic in US newspapers and magazines. I respect your right to hold an opinion and your skill in writing. However, I find that your analysis is more often propelled by rigid belief rather than evidence, whether that belief is a specific objective (the unbending advocacy of Israel, whatever the circumstances) or a general aspiration, such as your call for an American “unipolar era” in which all others would bow to the dominance of the United States.
The Latest from Iran (27 December): The Day of Ashura
Yet I must note that, in your column on Friday, “2009: The Year of Living Fecklessly”, you ostensibly recognised the post-election demonstrations in Iran as a “new birth of freedom”. I am not sure exactly what a “new birth” is --- I have found that most Iranians with whom I communicate have a long-held desire for freedom --- but any acknowledgement of the public calls for justice and rights is to be welcomed.
So, thank you. And now a request: Go Away.
Please go away now and do not return to Iran as the setting for your political assaults. For --- and let this be acknowledged widely, if not by you than by others --- the “Iranian people” whom you supposedly praise are merely pawn for your political games, which have little to do with their aspirations, their fears, and their contests.
Let us recognise that your column begins with an attack on the “feckless” Barack Obama. The Iranian case, and specifically the US negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, is the platform for another front in your continuing assault on the President. So if I agree with you that the nuclear-first approach gives “affirmation” to an embattled Iranian Government --- and I do --- that agreement starts from a desire not to bolster President Ahmadinead in the current domestic crisis in Iran, rather than your own domestic crisis with an American leader from a political party you do not like.
Let us recognise that your own supposed defence of the Iranian people is propelled by your own nuclear conceptions, bolstered by your emphasis on Israel: “Iran will dominate 2010. Either there will be an Israeli attack or Iran will arrive at -- or cross -- the nuclear threshold.” For, if this piece was completely honest, you would have informed your readers, and the Iranian people, that you have supported Israeli airstrikes. In the columns offering that support, you made no reference to how “a new birth of freedom” would be affected by missiles fired upon Iran. Your frame of vision was limited, as if this was a journalistic smart bomb, to the target of the Iranian regime.
Let us recognise that, if there is a context for you beyond this nuclear arena, it is a supposed geopolitical struggle in which an “Iran” confronts the American presence in the Middle East and Central Asia and participates in the regional battle with Israel. Thus, your support of a “revolution” is not for what it brings Iran's people --- who, incidentally, may not be protesting for a “revolution” or, more specifically, a “counter-revolution” against all the ideals of 1979 --- but for “ripple effects [which] would extend from Afghanistan to Iraq (in both conflicts, Iran actively supports insurgents who have long been killing Americans and their allies) to Lebanon and Gaza where Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, are arming for war”.
(Had I the time and patience to dissect your geopolitical construction, I might note that US officials have been quietly talking to Iran about co-operation in the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan --- strange behaviour indeed if Iran is allied with the Taliban and the Sunni Al Qa'eda in Mesopotamia ---- or that Hezbollah and Hamas cannot be reduced to puppets of Tehran masters. I know, however, that this would be logic falling on your stony ground of politics and ideology.)
Let us recognise, therefore, the slip of the pen in your sentences, when you refer to the apparent silence of Washington to the call of Iranian demonstrators, “Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them”: “Such cool indifference is more than a betrayal of our values. It's a strategic blunder of the first order.” The slip is not your implicit confession that it's the “strategic” that really concerns you --- if these protesters were far removed from your strategy for American power, you wouldn't hear a word they were saying --- but in “our values”.
Assertion of “our” values does not mean acceptance of “their” values; it ignores them or, at most, wedges them into the framework of power that you find acceptable. Simply putting out the word “freedom” as if it were a universal umbrella for any proposal that follows does nothing to acknowledge, let alone, consider the complex negotiation of religious, social, economic, and political beliefs that has propelled movement inside Iran not just for the last six months but for decades.
Let us recognise, therefore, that you can throw out supposed solutions for “them”, not because they are considered measures but because they fit a model of “regime change” which is yours, not necessarily “theirs”. You advocate, “Cutting off gasoline supplies”, even though that cut-off might do far more harm to the “Iranian people” than to the regime you are condemning. You merrily think of “covert support to assist dissident communication and circumvent censorship”, even though overt calls of covert support play into the hands of an Iranian Government invoking the spectre of “foreign intervention”. (Far better to be open, in the name of the values of freedom and communication, in proposing overt funding of anti-censorship and anti-filtering programmes, as well as the encouragement of unrestricted media.)
Let us recognise, indeed even find common ground on, “robust rhetorical and diplomatic support from the very highest level: full-throated denunciation of the regime's savagery and persecution”. Let us do so, however, not because that denunciation supports your strategy of regime change for the sake of American power --- just as your denunciation of Saddam Hussein merely propped up your campaign for years to extend a US economic, political, and military presence through the “liberation” of Iraq --- but because that denunciation fulfils a morality and ethics beyond “your values”.
Let us recognise that I could have written this letter not only to you but to a legion of others who, in recent weeks, have embraced the “Iranian people” as their vehicle for regime change. Outlets like the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard put forth former Bush Administration officials and former activists for the Iraq War who now see a new platform for a US power which was not fulfilled in the military ventures of 2001-2009. Let us recognise that, in those calls, the “Iranian people” serve as pawns in a game beyond their own concerns.
After all these recognitions, let me conclude by returning to my thanks to you. For --- I am certain unwittingly --- you have re-affirmed this central belief:
This is not “our” regime change, “our” revolution; “our” values. This is “their” movement.
Please respect it as such. If you cannot, move on. Thank you.
Reader Comments (89)
@Scott --
Thank you Scott for a well crafted and solidly arumented response. Krauthammer, to us non-NeoCon Americans, has always been marginal. His use of one (and just one) Green Slogan ("with/against us") is certainly not smart as its reminds us of the damage done by W's "axis of evil" thingy. Without Bush's primitive and stupid oratory and policies, it's quite probable that Ahmadinejad would NEVER have been elected. So, between the two Presidents, I prefer by far Obama's coll headed and not-taking-the bait stance to the kiss of death Bush delivered.
As to Drgarym's question "what should Israel do", I think that answer is simple: make peace with the Palestinians as that alone will fundamentally pull the rug out from under AN's arguments for militarizing Iran (with or without nuclear weapons). But, as one Israeli friend told me recently, when was it that a Middle Eastern government (he meant Israel but I expand that to Hamas and IRI) did anything lastingly constructive for their people?
To Bill
As I said USA like any other countries, US made great things and great mistakes. What pisses me off is this ideology of "American exceptionalism" : USA has been chosen to lead the world, USA has a divine mission, blah blah blah... The arrogance of some americans like Krauthammer (Glen Beck, WSJ, FoxNews,etc...) has no limit. A little bit of humility would actually be beneficial to your country.
Thx
As an American, who voted for Obama, I was beyond thrilled to read Krauthammer's article. Considered it part of a Christmas gift.
We have been fighting against a very influential US based mullah lobby, well rooted in American politics, mainstream media and top tier American Universities as professors. Everone supporting sanctions or negative commentary toward the regime is labeled a neocon by this mafia-like group. The true American-Iranian community in US has been silenced by this Iranian lobby and applauds any journalist, politician or citizen who has the guts to speak the truth. I accept the fact that non-Americans are ill-informed about what is going on in the US with our expat community. If you were aware of the political attack we are constantly under via this Iranian lobby, you would be shaking Mr Krauthammer's hand rather than slapping it.
FYI- we started an extensive Iranian-American letter writing campaign last night, to thank Mr Krauthammer for his strong rhetoric, putting our self-serving politics aside.
Sincerely
Apranik
apk, I love how some claim to be the underdog after all these years of trying to torpedo any US engagement with Iran. In fact for 30 years they have been in the mainstream. They have supported sanctions for many decades against Iran. Some even advocated forced regime change and/or military campaign.
The likes of Krauthammer are grade A hypocrites. He attacks Obama in one article for not supporting Iranians enough, in another op-ed he advocates military strike on Iran. Their mindset are a disease to our society. It's such a sad reality that they are the most influential.
To apk
I see... If we don't agree with this rightwinger Krauthammer then we must be part of a mullah mafia-like lobby! What a subtle argumentation... I cannot imagine what you would have said if you had voted for McCain/Palin!
Most of us have no interest in US politics. I shared my vote for Obama to drive home the point that US politics is a NON issue at this time in history. You are all turning this into a political dog fight, when you should be focusing on the real story - Iran.
Instead of attacking, we should be rising above our differences and using our energy to support the Iranian people. Stop whining about the past. Focus on the amazing history unfolding before our eyes. Be inspired to be better, stronger and more united human beings- that is what is happening in Iran. Let them be your guiding light.
Apk
Gloumdalclitch,
Couldn't agree with you more. The unfortunate thing is in the Middle east the US has a bad rap for a lot of good reasons(ie Iraq among many others) but alot of false reasons attributed to propoganda(ie Ahamadinejad saying the unrest is the fault of the US.) As an American i can say it is quite frustrating how the US media and the administration has so completely missed the real issue in Iran. Its always nukes, nukes, and more nukes. Hey stupid(the US) the real issue is the people of Iran!!!! What idiots they are only legitimizing the current regime by falling into the nuke trap. When are these nitwits in my country ever going to realize the only long lasting solution to the nuke issue is with the people of Iran not the current coup regime. I will tell you most people I know realize the real issue is the people of Iran and you do see it in the media--just not as much as we would like. All the best to you.
Thx
bill
APK
Unfortunately, the hatred between US left and right goes much deeper, and is much more important to them, than anything happening in Iran. Don't even think about talking logic - just think deep emnity. It consumes them.
Barry
Folks,
APK has a point. As much as the article pissed me off with its tone lets not forget that Scott even thanked him. Scott thanked him because his article was a clear example of the shift occuring in the American media that is now placing more focus on the people of Iran. Yes it is an arrogant article but at least it gets to the core of the issue everyone else seems to ignore. APK plea is simple--lets move above petty grievances of the past and recognize the growing recognition of the movement for freedom in Iran. I think we all want the same thing. Lets not let our differences distract us from the goal that being the freedom for all in Iran!
Thx
Bill
Bill-
You are 100% right. To repeat Bill's comment, almost 90% of the news about Iran, in the US, is about the nukes. It's as if the Iranian citizens don't exist. That's why I am greatful for any report on the Iranian people (i.e. Krauthammer) because it's just not happening that much in America. If you want to get a glimpse of the root of the reason for the "sealed lips" US policy, start googling NIAC and the Iranian American lobby.
Apk
Barry-
To me - the left and the right in US are the same. Just a bunch of egomaniacs who care more about being important and power than about the issues. As I mentioned- I don't know what annoys me more- politics or politicians??
Apk
To Bill
I think Obama can walk and chew gum at the sane time. He can deal with the nuke issue and discreetly help iranian opposition. In fact a lot of iranians (Maziar Bahari, among others) think Obama's cautious approach is right. Given the history between the two countries I tend to agree.
True it's all about nukes, but why? Because Iran and Israel are waging an intense PR war which involves US, Europe, Russia, China, UN, the Atomic Energy Agency, etc... and it makes a lot of noise in the media. Netanyahu and Ahmadinedjad are unlikely allies : Netanyahu needs the nukes as a pretext to postponed any real peace deal with palestinians (which would involved the dismantling of West Bank colonies). He knows very well that a military strike would have a limited impact on Iran's nuclear capaciy. Ahmadinedjad, looking for legitimacy, uses nukes as a "Falklands War", to rally the people behind a national (thus sacred) cause : Israel have nukes, so why don't we have nukes?
But thanks to the Green movement, we now have a whole new situation.
For there to be peace with Israel you need two willing partners. Even Hamas can't make peace within itself. When the regime in Iran changes and hopefully for the better, than the nuke issue will be a lot smaller problem. The Palestinians have been exploited by their leadership, in the past Arafat who became wealthy at the expense of the people. The entire Palestinian political infrastructure is more like a bunch of Mafia clans trying to get to the top. Hardly the environment for peace talks. The current regime cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and taking out their facilities would only strengthen the regime's hand. Understood. Now you have the unmovable against the unstoppable.
I tend to agree with apk regarding the left and right in America and so do many Americans. We as a country are watching our freedoms slip away before our eyes due to the currupt politicians who only care about their own lust for and keeping power. They are the progressives who are on both sides of the isle. Obama is a Marxist and we are in the middle of a Marxist coup that is beginning to unravel.
APK reflect the opinion many of the LA based Iranian TVs carry. Those opinions tend to claim that (1) Khomeiny's advent was planned by the West and (2) "smart" (no one agrees on what that means except that it shouldn't include any dialog with the IRI) US policies can force a "regime change" in Iran. This thinking is certainly closer to the NeoCons' than to what one can read in Foreign Policy magazine (the views of which are easily shrugged off under multiple excuses such as being tools of the Obama administration or paid off by the mullahs).
As to our good Mr. Krauthammer, Iranians are just tools to his political vendetta and it's not surprising that he and Netanyahu both claim that there are no "partners" on the IRI or Palestinian sides, a ridiculous argument that historically holds no water.
younger americans support iran out of real belief in freedom and democracy, nevermind the neocons they are an old dying breed who will never be in power again.
All Americans support Iran and their fight for freedom. Don't try to define all of us into one sort of political paradigm as opposed to another. I never met a person who called himself a Neocon. It is a label used as a pejorative to label Bush. A lot of Conservatives have issues with Bush as do I. We are not a monolithic block of mind numbed sycophants. I have big issues with Obama as he didn't come down hard in support of the Iranian people after the election. Ronald Reagan would have the same way he confronted Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. Supporting the people with the endgame of regime change (not reform as some of the Friend face people I have talked to in Iran suggested) would have been a winner for the Iranian people and the International Community. The regime will fall, and those who have put their eggs into the same basket with the present regime (North Korea, Russia, and China) will be dealing with a different set of faces shortly down the road. America, or rather the current administration has been extremely nearsighted in their approach to Iran. The Iranian people have demonstrated a courage not seen since the American Colonies won independence over Britain 200+ years ago. I hope and pray that when they win their freedom they learn from the mistakes of others including ours.
The people of Iran have been and will be in my prayers.
Hamid-
There must be a strong correlation between the "opinion of many of the LA based Iranian TV's" (stations) and their viewing audience. Based on your comments, the fact that roughly 50% of the diaspora live in LA area, it must mean that nearly 50% of Iranian-Americans are political neocons? I think you need to understand that your generalizations do not help this situation. We are all after the same hope- a free Iran. Let go of the name-calling. It's wierd how I never heard the term "neocon" used in US until Trita Parsi started routinely using it to hide behind. Please don't fall into same trap.
Apk
Dear friends,
I have occasionally read Enduring America and I enjoy the updates. I travel to Iran every few months and have been beaten and shot at by the 'guarde vijeh' and basij, and I have first hand news of Iran before it arrives here. Yet, I very much appreciate everyone's work here. I would like to thank Scott for sending off Krauthammer into the new year with a spanking. The neocon view of Iran's opposition can be described as follows: "use them strategically to enforce the expansionist policies of Israel" (which in my view are self-destructive, but I digress). Incidentally this is also how they see the evangelical movement in the US. Otherwise, would it make sense to make friends with those who consider Jewish presence in Israel as an instrument of the Second Coming? Is it not immoral to think of a people as instruments? Jesus aside, what would Kant say?
Merry Christmans and wishing all a more peaceful 2010.
I cannot tell you how many times I had to refute Krauthammer columns on Iran when I visited friends and family in the US during my 4 year stay in Iran. This post is much more eloquent than I was, so thanks for that.
To drgarym
You forgot to specify that Obama is not just a marxist, he is also a nazi AND the Antchrist
Another deserved drubbing for another belicose bomb, bomb Iran Op-Ed. The NYT obviously hasn't learned its lesson from cheerleading the Bush admin into invading Iraq:
NYTimes Floats the Case for Attacking
by Jim Lobe (source: Antiwar.com)
Friday, December 25, 2009
There are so many substantive reasons why Thursday’s op-ed in the New York Timesby Alan Kuperman was just awful that one hardly knows where to begin. (There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kuperman.html) ....To me, a key question, one that should be addressed to the Public Editor at the Times, is why the newspaper, which has opposed military action against Iran, is devoting such an unusually large amount of space (1500 words) to this argument by this particular author at this time.
Rest: http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9118
Piling on the NYT:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9121
Here's the beginning of the article:
Mainstreaming the Mad Iran Bombers
by Marc Lynch (source: Foreign Policy)
Friday, December 25, 2009
Today's New York Times runs what I believe is its first op-ed explicitly advocating a military campaign against Iran. Such agitation for war isn't new -- John Bolton and friends have been obsessively demanding such an attack for a long time, adapting the argument for war as the only solution to whatever the current situation may be. It's one thing when the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Fox News or other conservative outlets advocate such a war. You expect that, and discount accordingly; an op-ed in Fred Hiatt's Washington Post demanding war on Iran is like a DC-based blogger complaining about the Redskins... it happens constantly, nobody takes it very seriously and it doesn't accomplish anything. But the New York Times doing so is a serious step towards mainstreaming the idea, akin to how Ken Pollack and Tom Friedman's support for the invasion of Iraq persuaded a lot of centrists and liberals. It's as if we as a country have learned nothing from the Iraq war debate. ......
Scott - pls don't let the WPO off the hook. See at the bottom of this article how many others have pushed back at Alan Kuperman. Please do the same with Krauthammer - after all, you are the author of the piece. Or send it to the editors of http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php
Babak,
"The neocon view of Iran’s opposition can be described as follows: “use them strategically to enforce the expansionist policies of Israel” (which in my view are self-destructive, but I digress). Incidentally this is also how they see the evangelical movement in the US. Otherwise, would it make sense to make friends with those who consider Jewish presence in Israel as an instrument of the Second Coming?"
First of all, I don't know how one defines a neocon and secondly, I don't understand what you mean by the expansionist policies of Israel. Please enlighten me on both these points. Again, expound on the neocon's view of Evangelical Christianity and how Israel is PROACTIVELY an instrument for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and not how Israel is traditionally viewed as shall we say a sign of the times. Me thinks you have the cart before the horse so to speak.
Gloumdalclitch ,
Hitler did a stupid thing and opened the war on a second front. The winter defeated him and yes, many Russians died defending the homeland. No argument there. There is no question that if America didn't enter the war (an unpopular idea at the time until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor) Europe would be ruled by a despotic regime. We also developed the atomic bomb and could have used it to further geopolitical ends. We didn't. Stalin was himself a despot who murdered millions of his people and it could have been argued we should have pushed eastward and kept him from enslaving Eastern Europe. 20/20 hindsight we didn't have. Don't ask me to apologize for the US policies toward Iran that brought the Shaw to power in 1953. We can both assume it was a stupid move, but don't presume to know the outcome of history if we didn't act the way we did. Same for the other despots you mentioned, though I don't think Marcos is going down in the history books as the Great Satan. You seem to have the gift of 20/20 hindsight. What if the Shaw was never in power? What would the relationship between Iran and the USSR have been? How would the last 50 years of Iran history played out? What if...........