Monday
Nov022009
Iran: A Response to an American Who Asks, "What if the Green Movement Isn't 'Ours'?
Monday, November 2, 2009 at 10:58
LATEST Iran: A Response to “What If the Green Movement Isn’t Ours?” (The Sequel)
Iran Nuclear Talks: Tehran’s Middle Way?
Latest from Iran (2 November): The World Takes Notice?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
I want to be careful here. I don't want to be too emotive, and I don't want to be seen as taking a cheap shot at a US journalist. However, I have just read an opinion piece which is one of the most unsettling I have encountered since 12 June.
In today's Washington Post, Jackson Diehl frets about "Iran's Unlovable Opposition". This is his opening:
What has disturbed Diehl to the point where he rejects the Green Wave? Apparently it is a single encounter "with one of the leading representatives outside of Iran of the 'green revolution', who seemed determined to convince would-be Western supporters that they were wasting their time".
That representative is Ataollah Mohajerani, a Minister of Culture in the Khatami Government and an ally of Mehdi Karroubi. In mid-October, Mohajerani was a speaker at the annual confernence of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where --- in Diehl's words --- "the mostly pro-Israel crowd was primed to cheer what they expected would be a harsh condemnation of Ahmadinejad and his bellicose rhetoric, and a promise of change by the green coalition".
Unfortunately, Mohajerani didn't deliver what many in his audience wanted. He condemned the US for its involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran. He said "the green movement has no expectations whatsoever" on Western support for its cause. Most importantly, he refused to concede that Iran should not have a nuclear programme, pointing instead at Israel's undeclared atomic weapons, and "asked whether Israel had a right to exist, he refused to respond".
The point here is not to defend Mohajerani on these hot-button issues. Instead, it is to ponder how this one speech can be re-framed as a make-or-break movement for Iran's opposition when it comes to American support.
I knew at the time, from discussions with colleagues and contacts, that many in Washington were disturbed by what they saw as the former Minister's brusque and undiplomatic approach. But I couldn't see how Mohajerani was a spokesman for the "Green movement". I especially did not see him as an envoy asking for the endorsement of WINEP, given that the agenda of that organisation can often be seen as Israel-first and that some of its leading members have endorsed regime change, rather than reform, in Tehran.
And Diehl's article doesn't change that perception. It is based on two and only two people. There's Mohajerani. Then there's Mehdi Khalaji of WINEP, who dismisses the speech's importance, "The true leaders of this movement are students, women and human rights activists, and political activists who have no desire to work in a theocratic regime or in a government within the framework of the existing constitution." That's an argument Diehl immediately dismisses:
I'm not sure how Diehl knows that, since he has not spoken to Karroubi or Mousavi or Mohammad Khatami or Alireza Beheshti or Ayatollah Dastgheib or Mohammad Ghoochani or anyone involved inside Iran. I'm not sure how Diehl knows that because there is no evidence that he has read any of the political positions of the post-12 June movement apart from "statements last week by green-movement leaders attacking the uranium swap plan".
But I don't think Diehl wants to spend all his time dealing with complexities such as Iran's judicial system and the abuses of detainees or the concept of clerical leadership under velayat-e-faqih or accountability for Iran's economic policies or even rights to free expression and assembly.
Because even though Diehl positions himself as a staunch advocate of "democracy", often criticising the US Government for putting other political and economic interests ahead of the promotion of freedom, in this case his priority has nothing to do with the concerns of the Green Movement. Instead he is fixed on 1) Iran's position towards Israel and 2) Iran's nuclear programme. All else for him is window-dressing.
I don't think Diehl is as well-connected with the US Government as his fellow columnists David Ignatius or Jim Hoagland and he is not as influential as a Thomas Friedman. Yet he is still writing for one of the weather-vanes of the American political mood.
And doing so, he brings out all my fears about those who feign concern for what happens inside Iran but who seem --- forgive me here, but I must be honest --- to have an apparent lack of knowledge, understanding, or even appreciation about and for Iranians. I worry that these writers of opinion, who are not "neo-conservative" activists but self-styled "liberals", reduce all that has happened before and after 12 June into a little box that fits political agendas far removed from Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, and Mashaad.
I worry that, for these defenders of freedom, Green is only a distracting colour.
Iran Nuclear Talks: Tehran’s Middle Way?
Latest from Iran (2 November): The World Takes Notice?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
I want to be careful here. I don't want to be too emotive, and I don't want to be seen as taking a cheap shot at a US journalist. However, I have just read an opinion piece which is one of the most unsettling I have encountered since 12 June.In today's Washington Post, Jackson Diehl frets about "Iran's Unlovable Opposition". This is his opening:
Iran has been controlled since June by a hard-line clique of extremist clerics and leaders of the Revolutionary Guard who believe they are destined to make their country a nuclear power that dominates the Middle East. It follows that their opposition -- a mass movement that has been marching to slogans such as "death to the dictator" and "no to Lebanon, no to Gaza" -- is bound to be a more plausible partner for the rapproachement that the Obama administration is seeking.
Or maybe not. The enduring nature of Iran is to frustrate outsiders who work by the usual rules of political logic or who seek unambiguous commitments.
What has disturbed Diehl to the point where he rejects the Green Wave? Apparently it is a single encounter "with one of the leading representatives outside of Iran of the 'green revolution', who seemed determined to convince would-be Western supporters that they were wasting their time".
That representative is Ataollah Mohajerani, a Minister of Culture in the Khatami Government and an ally of Mehdi Karroubi. In mid-October, Mohajerani was a speaker at the annual confernence of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where --- in Diehl's words --- "the mostly pro-Israel crowd was primed to cheer what they expected would be a harsh condemnation of Ahmadinejad and his bellicose rhetoric, and a promise of change by the green coalition".
Unfortunately, Mohajerani didn't deliver what many in his audience wanted. He condemned the US for its involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran. He said "the green movement has no expectations whatsoever" on Western support for its cause. Most importantly, he refused to concede that Iran should not have a nuclear programme, pointing instead at Israel's undeclared atomic weapons, and "asked whether Israel had a right to exist, he refused to respond".
The point here is not to defend Mohajerani on these hot-button issues. Instead, it is to ponder how this one speech can be re-framed as a make-or-break movement for Iran's opposition when it comes to American support.
I knew at the time, from discussions with colleagues and contacts, that many in Washington were disturbed by what they saw as the former Minister's brusque and undiplomatic approach. But I couldn't see how Mohajerani was a spokesman for the "Green movement". I especially did not see him as an envoy asking for the endorsement of WINEP, given that the agenda of that organisation can often be seen as Israel-first and that some of its leading members have endorsed regime change, rather than reform, in Tehran.
And Diehl's article doesn't change that perception. It is based on two and only two people. There's Mohajerani. Then there's Mehdi Khalaji of WINEP, who dismisses the speech's importance, "The true leaders of this movement are students, women and human rights activists, and political activists who have no desire to work in a theocratic regime or in a government within the framework of the existing constitution." That's an argument Diehl immediately dismisses:
The fact remains that, were Karroubi and fellow opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi somehow to supplant Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the main changes in Iranian policy might be of style.
I'm not sure how Diehl knows that, since he has not spoken to Karroubi or Mousavi or Mohammad Khatami or Alireza Beheshti or Ayatollah Dastgheib or Mohammad Ghoochani or anyone involved inside Iran. I'm not sure how Diehl knows that because there is no evidence that he has read any of the political positions of the post-12 June movement apart from "statements last week by green-movement leaders attacking the uranium swap plan".
But I don't think Diehl wants to spend all his time dealing with complexities such as Iran's judicial system and the abuses of detainees or the concept of clerical leadership under velayat-e-faqih or accountability for Iran's economic policies or even rights to free expression and assembly.
Because even though Diehl positions himself as a staunch advocate of "democracy", often criticising the US Government for putting other political and economic interests ahead of the promotion of freedom, in this case his priority has nothing to do with the concerns of the Green Movement. Instead he is fixed on 1) Iran's position towards Israel and 2) Iran's nuclear programme. All else for him is window-dressing.
I don't think Diehl is as well-connected with the US Government as his fellow columnists David Ignatius or Jim Hoagland and he is not as influential as a Thomas Friedman. Yet he is still writing for one of the weather-vanes of the American political mood.
And doing so, he brings out all my fears about those who feign concern for what happens inside Iran but who seem --- forgive me here, but I must be honest --- to have an apparent lack of knowledge, understanding, or even appreciation about and for Iranians. I worry that these writers of opinion, who are not "neo-conservative" activists but self-styled "liberals", reduce all that has happened before and after 12 June into a little box that fits political agendas far removed from Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, and Mashaad.
I worry that, for these defenders of freedom, Green is only a distracting colour.
Reader Comments (31)
Another take on this is a post by Daniel Luban:
American Hawks Feel Betrayed By Iranian Opposition
By Daniel Luban
Today’s Washington Post features an unusually honest column by hawkish deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl, in which Diehl confesses disappointment at the fact that the Iranian opposition’s goals do not match up precisely with those of American neoconservatives. It is slightly odd, however, that Diehl is only arriving at this revelation now. After all, there was never any indication during this summer’s protests that the bulk of the “Green Movement” shared the goals of Iran hawks in the U.S. and Israel, most notably the overthrow (rather than reform) of the Islamic Republic itself and a total halt to Iranian nuclear enrichment. As I discussed during the June turmoil, many of the goals attributed to the protesters in the U.S. media simply reflected the projections of hawks in Washington.
Diehl’s column is also a reminder that, despite the Iran hawks’ over-the-top expressions of solidarity with the Green Movement, in actuality nothing would have been more disastrous for them than for Moussavi and the opposition to have triumphed. If Moussavi had taken power and announced that Iran would continue uranium enrichment - which seems extremely likely, given his record of repeated public pronouncements in support of the Iranian nuclear program - this would have put the hawks in the politically untenable position of calling for military action against the same people they had been hailing as saintly voices of freedom and democracy all summer. The same logic that made neoconservatives like Daniel Pipes support Ahmadinejad prior to the election suggested that few were genuinely hoping for a Moussavi victory.
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=305
Scott,
You presented this in a very respectful tone and I would encourage you to shoot this out to Diehl and others in the MSM. Diehl's position, unfortunately, exemplifies the true political priorities of those opposed to Iran. Namely the nuclear issue trumps any humanitarian concerns of the Iranian people. What I think many miss is the fact that the nuclear issue breakthrough was heavily influenced by the internal discord due to the elections. If Iran was talking from a position of internal strenght there is no way they would have relented on the Nuclear issue. They only did so because it 1) Distracted the masses 2) Bought some legitimacy for the regime and 3) most importantly allowed to avoid a two front conflict. It is my ardent belief the regime saw the nuclear issue as tool to stay in power. It is sad that the Western side has largely fallen in this trap. I would like to say they fell in unwillingly but the words of the politicians clearly show the nuclear issue has always been their focus. From a selfish standpoint I can understand this but like you it infuriates me to see the "objective" press pushing the same agenda. What ever happened to the people of Iran?
Thx
Bill
Dear Ange,
Thanks. To Kevin: Thanks, but I am also sad, this tells me that the 30 years rule of fundamentalist Islam has so isolated us from the world that when one of us makes a statement that makes sense you are impressed. There are hundreds of thousands like us, and we all strive for justice and for what you have in the West. We see through the lies of the IR and we have now been shaken to our core this summer. This has given birth to a delicate new life, and we know we must cherish it and nurture it. You can certainly give us moral support, you can inform your pundits to see the reality and not to dwell on their own outdated guilt-driven sentiments that call for total surrender of the West against Islam. Believe this will not get us anywhere. Bowing to the IR, for example, and repeating thousands of times how sorry the U.S. and GB must be for what the did in 1953 and so on and so forth. 1953 is long gone, please inform your intellectual friends that your guilt driven apologies are outdated, they don't serve anything anymore, and that is NOT what we want. We want you to recognize our new birth, that we are not different from you in aspiring for democracy and for decency and for truth and for, yes, morality. The "enemy" invoked by the IR and by the Leader is NOT you. We know that. Pass it on. In fact your views on democracy and your ways of bringing about a judicial system that works in the great majority of cases are among the top most list of things we want. We are learning that the West has a lot to offer us beyond the cliche Coca Cola and Jeans and now rock and punk, etc., the IR and all other obscurantist ideologies want to emphasize solely. We want the same moral base in your system that teaches people to tolerate differences and to uphold the law, and yes that justice has meaning and democracy works for the benefit of all of us, even the minority.
Dear Kevin, indeed inform people we don't want outdated guilt of how a long time ago westerners oppressed people in the ME. This is a new day. We want to be equals in all domains starting with education and morality and so on. Did you ever stop to think why it is that people in the IR lie more than say in GB or U.S. or Swedan? I will tell you. It is our Islamic upbringing now intensified in folds by the Islamic revolution. I can say this. Firstly I was brought up in a Muslim home, devout at that, secondly I am a strong opponent of political correctness. We must state the facts as we see them. T he amount of lies in the IR is more than anywhere in the western world by folds. We must recognize this and we must stop this. Your guilt trips of yesteryears and western distorted political correctness will not get us anywhere. There is no way to justify the harsh and violent nature of fundamentalist Islam. We must recognize the roots and we must teach our children to avoid it. To learn to tell the truth no matter what. This we must learn and must teach our children. We must not white wash it. Violence has roots in basic Islamic teachings where there is no tolerance for non Muslims, so called kafer. This is amoral, and we Muslims must put an END TO IT. This radical behavior by especially Muslims in GB, e.g., must stop. Ther eis no way for British leftist radicals to justify the nonesense uttered by Muslim leaders asking for the death of kafers. No. This must end. And her is the glimmer of hope. We have observed the birth of a new life in Iran this past summer. A precious new life. We must nourish it. FOr it has gret potential. THis may turn out to be the very esswence of what we need. End of the culute of death, end of hate mongers. End of the ideology of kill this and throw that ot hte ocean. And, certainly the end of the culture that does not allow any right sof "minorities"; just look at he horrible behavior of Muslims in this and the past century against minorities. This is awful. We are learning that this is not what we want. The Green is all this and more. Dear Kevin, this is what we request of you. Inform your western thinkers and intellectuals and journalists and the common folk that the Green has been born to end the culture of hate and seeks to do way with the slogan of "death to!" Our slogan is "love to!" and in fact what a long time ago did define Islam, SALAM! (peace!), but Muslims have forgotten this and are clinging on to the formal side while they are being fooled by false meanings, such as "kill!"; "infidel!" "western immorality"; and all such false meanings that have taken over the life of all Muslims. The Green, at least in Iran, will replace our ancient mythos, the culture of tolerance and of compassion and of truth. I am passionate about all of this. So, PEACE! now.
Dear florence achard:
Indeed we do not adhere to the ideology of death and the other terrible ones hatefully put out by Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qa'ida, Taleban, and Islamic Republics. We adhere to the ideology that calls for freedom, for justice, and for equality across the board for everyone. We detest the ideology that calls for the destruction of a nation, e.g. the Jewish nation of Israel, and we believe in reason and the rule by majority concenses as in democracies.Do let your friends know this.
Anthony
I know a lot of iranians, who stood for "shah" and after looking at what has happened in the streets in Iran they are for "people" and we don't care if it dosen't match up with the american neoconservative; it's not because our country is less developped than yours that you are rights, even to claim, that iranian people aren't able to 'think" and to choose their president, ; if there are millions in the streets and risck their " life ", it means they want to "CHANGE" the system but it will be step by step; as you have seen, in this kind of regime it's very difficult to overthrow the regime in once even though everybdoy wish it ; it's our right to have all the technology of civil nuclear , but when a madman, like AN wants absolutly to bomb Israel, another wise man , Moussavi says : " we wont say : death to ...." because we are the "life, love and frienship"; he wants to use country's money for the well being of the iranians instead of sending it to palestinians and hezbollahs; it's why iranian people cry " NO LIBANON, NO GAZA ".
I hope ameicans will change their opinion towards iranians !
Best wishes
Hossein,
Yet again another very profound statement from you. I have to admit I check this site constantly now for your comments. Like you I believe many in the West are unware of what many Iranians like you think. The sad fact is because of the media control in Iran we are only presented with the hate, death, and blame the other propoganda. Many in the west miss the fact that the Green movement is based on ideals almost identical to the ideals we take for granted in the West. I wish people would wake up.
My two best friends happen to be Shia Iranians. One just came over in the past decade and she has educated me on the situation in Iran. She has told me how the younger population has been quitely rebelling for years. She even recounted her story how she cut her hair into a mowhawk and died it purple under her Hijab. The picures are quite funny when you see her in the drab black coverings with this smilling bald head on top sporting a purple mowhawk. It is a stark contrast to the forced reality in Iran but it speaks volumes to what Iranians want. It was her silent and very personal protest. Her brother happened to work for a reform paper that was closed years ago yet the basiji paid him a visit during the protests and they believe he is still in Evin prison.
While I am frustrated at the lack of response from America on Iran I can understand it on one level. Obama was right to not try and get involved. For us to get involved would only allow the regime to crack down more with real evidence of outside involvement. When the Soviet union fell it was largely done from within. I believe for the Green Wave to be succesful it also has to come from within. I often look at Moussavi and Karroubi as your "Gorbachevs" that are dismantling the totalitarian rule you are currently under. It won't happen overnight but I believe it will with time it will. After all 60% of the population is under 25 and I have to believe most are not happy with what is going on.
We in America may be somewhat silent but that does not mean we don't care or have negative opinions of Iranians. Most I know love the people of Iran and trully want to see you free. Our struggle is how to help without damaging your cause. All the best to you and no to death but yes to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUITE of HAPPINESS!
Thx
Bill