Tuesday
Nov032009
Iran: A Response to "What If the Green Movement Isn't Ours?" (The Sequel)
Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 9:18
Iran: A Response to an American Who Asks, “What if the Green Movement Isn’t ‘Ours’?
Iran: More 13 Aban Videos
The Latest from Iran (3 November): 24 Hours to Go
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
UPDATE 1030 GMT: Interestingly Daragahi is now singing a somewhat different tune on Twitter, quoting a "Tehran analyst": "Youth seem determined 2 show up for 13 Aban. May not be huge number but significant and agile walk of youth will turn up. Numbers will be enough to make BBC Persian and VOA other news agencies [notice]. The way every official is warning the young [against gathering is going to be counterproductive."
Again, with apologies in advance, I am reacting to an article in a US newspaper about the Green movement in Iran.
I do not want to do this. It is only 24 hours since I wrote about themisinformation and (in my opinion, misplaced) priorities of Jackson Diehl's opinion piece in The Washington Post. And the focus, not only for 13 Aban but on every day, should be on what is happening in Iran rather than the diversions of the "Western" media.
However, this morning there is an analysis by Borzou Daragahi in the Los Angeles Times which is so partial, so distorting, so wrong that it verges on sabotage of the demands, aspirations, and ideas of the Green movement.
Daragahi, who has been one of the best journalists writing for a US newspaper on Iran, initially offers a straightforward "Iran Students Carry on Protests", depicting university demonstrations over the last week. In the sub-headline, however, there is an ominous sign of the real point of the article: "In the West, some analysts have begun to discount the opposition movement's power."
And so the piece dissolves into unsupported soundbites. Mark Fowler, "a former CIA analyst who now heads Persia House, a service run by the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm in Washington", declares:
And then, just to put the boot in if anyone was holding on to faith in the Green movement, Fowler pronouces, "Mousavi is not a liberal per se. When he was prime minister, he would have made the conservatives and the hard-liners proud." Like Jackson Diehl yesterday, Daragahi then invokes last month's visit to the Washington Institute of Near East Policy by Ataollah Mohajerani, "a confidant of opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi [who] refused to distance himself from Ahmadinejad's nuclear policies", as a high-profile representative of the internal opposition.
Daragahi twists the knife further by citing the articles of former US officials Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, calling on the Obama administration "to abide by the results of Iran's election and to engage with Tehran's current leadership". What Daragahi does not mention is that the Leveretts' initial proclamation of the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad victory, offered within days of 12 June in an article with the University of Tehran's Seyed Mohammad Marandi, has been challenged by a wide range of analysts, let alone by the Green movement.
It should be noted that Daragahi also quotes the opinion of Gary Sick, another former US official, that some U.S. foreign policy hawks "regard any 'reform' movement in Iran as a distraction from further sanctions and the outright U.S.-Iran hostility that they favor as a way of clarifying and simplifying U.S. policy choices in the region". But, given that Daragahi has already portrayed Fowler and the Leveretts as neutral, objective experts rather than "hawks" --- and along the way questioned the credentials and strength of the internal call for reform and justice --- Sick's comment is no more than a whistle in the anti-Green wind.
Of course, Mark Fowler and the Leveretts should be free to express their opinions. But it would be useful if those opinions were supported, in a one-sided article, by some semblance of evidence. And it might have occurred to Daragahi to consult an expert source inside Iran --- despite the regime's determined efforts to shut down any notion of a live opposition, those analyses come out day after day --- or an analyst whose primary contacts are not with officials within the Iranian Government or economic elite.
At the end of the day, however, this considered approach is not Daragahi's because --- like Jackson Diehl --- his primary attention is not on the desires, concerns, hopes within the Islamic Republic: "Iran's nuclear program remains a top Washington priority. And few U.S. officials expect the opposition to cause any shift by the Iranian government on nuclear policy in the next year, a critical period in which many fear Tehran could move dramatically closer to gaining the capacity to build an atomic bomb."
Which is fine. It's not my concern, however, and I dare say that it is not the primary thought for those who are on the frontline, rather than filing from a bureau in Beirut (or writing in a living room in Birmingham, England). So it would be appreciated if Daragahi simply said, "Nukes First, Nukes First", rather than trashing the opposition movement to fulfil that agenda.
However, let me close with the positive rather than the negative. Having provoked disbelief and then anger, Daragahi ultimately --- and unwittingly --- gives hope and raises a smile. For there, four paragraphs from the end of his piece, is the line:
"The Iranian government itself has yet to write off the protest movement."
Quite right, because the Iranian government might have better information than a Mark Fowler and his consultancy or the Leveretts and their quest for engagement. And here, from another group with pretty good information, is the sentence that could be added:
"The protest movement has yet to write itself off."
It is less than 24 hours to 13 Aban.
Iran: More 13 Aban Videos
The Latest from Iran (3 November): 24 Hours to Go
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
UPDATE 1030 GMT: Interestingly Daragahi is now singing a somewhat different tune on Twitter, quoting a "Tehran analyst": "Youth seem determined 2 show up for 13 Aban. May not be huge number but significant and agile walk of youth will turn up. Numbers will be enough to make BBC Persian and VOA other news agencies [notice]. The way every official is warning the young [against gathering is going to be counterproductive."Again, with apologies in advance, I am reacting to an article in a US newspaper about the Green movement in Iran.
I do not want to do this. It is only 24 hours since I wrote about themisinformation and (in my opinion, misplaced) priorities of Jackson Diehl's opinion piece in The Washington Post. And the focus, not only for 13 Aban but on every day, should be on what is happening in Iran rather than the diversions of the "Western" media.
However, this morning there is an analysis by Borzou Daragahi in the Los Angeles Times which is so partial, so distorting, so wrong that it verges on sabotage of the demands, aspirations, and ideas of the Green movement.
Daragahi, who has been one of the best journalists writing for a US newspaper on Iran, initially offers a straightforward "Iran Students Carry on Protests", depicting university demonstrations over the last week. In the sub-headline, however, there is an ominous sign of the real point of the article: "In the West, some analysts have begun to discount the opposition movement's power."
And so the piece dissolves into unsupported soundbites. Mark Fowler, "a former CIA analyst who now heads Persia House, a service run by the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm in Washington", declares:
Our view is that the regime has largely neutralized the opposition. It seems to us that they have pretty much decapitated the opposition in terms of leadership. I don't think the government is particularly worried about it.
And then, just to put the boot in if anyone was holding on to faith in the Green movement, Fowler pronouces, "Mousavi is not a liberal per se. When he was prime minister, he would have made the conservatives and the hard-liners proud." Like Jackson Diehl yesterday, Daragahi then invokes last month's visit to the Washington Institute of Near East Policy by Ataollah Mohajerani, "a confidant of opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi [who] refused to distance himself from Ahmadinejad's nuclear policies", as a high-profile representative of the internal opposition.
Daragahi twists the knife further by citing the articles of former US officials Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, calling on the Obama administration "to abide by the results of Iran's election and to engage with Tehran's current leadership". What Daragahi does not mention is that the Leveretts' initial proclamation of the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad victory, offered within days of 12 June in an article with the University of Tehran's Seyed Mohammad Marandi, has been challenged by a wide range of analysts, let alone by the Green movement.
It should be noted that Daragahi also quotes the opinion of Gary Sick, another former US official, that some U.S. foreign policy hawks "regard any 'reform' movement in Iran as a distraction from further sanctions and the outright U.S.-Iran hostility that they favor as a way of clarifying and simplifying U.S. policy choices in the region". But, given that Daragahi has already portrayed Fowler and the Leveretts as neutral, objective experts rather than "hawks" --- and along the way questioned the credentials and strength of the internal call for reform and justice --- Sick's comment is no more than a whistle in the anti-Green wind.
Of course, Mark Fowler and the Leveretts should be free to express their opinions. But it would be useful if those opinions were supported, in a one-sided article, by some semblance of evidence. And it might have occurred to Daragahi to consult an expert source inside Iran --- despite the regime's determined efforts to shut down any notion of a live opposition, those analyses come out day after day --- or an analyst whose primary contacts are not with officials within the Iranian Government or economic elite.
At the end of the day, however, this considered approach is not Daragahi's because --- like Jackson Diehl --- his primary attention is not on the desires, concerns, hopes within the Islamic Republic: "Iran's nuclear program remains a top Washington priority. And few U.S. officials expect the opposition to cause any shift by the Iranian government on nuclear policy in the next year, a critical period in which many fear Tehran could move dramatically closer to gaining the capacity to build an atomic bomb."
Which is fine. It's not my concern, however, and I dare say that it is not the primary thought for those who are on the frontline, rather than filing from a bureau in Beirut (or writing in a living room in Birmingham, England). So it would be appreciated if Daragahi simply said, "Nukes First, Nukes First", rather than trashing the opposition movement to fulfil that agenda.
However, let me close with the positive rather than the negative. Having provoked disbelief and then anger, Daragahi ultimately --- and unwittingly --- gives hope and raises a smile. For there, four paragraphs from the end of his piece, is the line:
"The Iranian government itself has yet to write off the protest movement."
Quite right, because the Iranian government might have better information than a Mark Fowler and his consultancy or the Leveretts and their quest for engagement. And here, from another group with pretty good information, is the sentence that could be added:
"The protest movement has yet to write itself off."
It is less than 24 hours to 13 Aban.
tagged 13 Aban, Ataollah Mohajerani, Booz Allen Hamilton, Borzou Daragahi, Flynt Leverett, Gary Sick, Hillary Mann Leverett, Iran, Iran Elections, Jackson Diehl, Los Angeles Times, Mark Fowler, Mehdi Karroubi, Persia House, Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Washington Institute of Near East Polic, Washington Post in Middle East & Iran
13 Aban, Ataollah Mohajerani, Booz Allen Hamilton, Borzou Daragahi, Flynt Leverett, Gary Sick, Hillary Mann Leverett, Iran, Iran Elections, Jackson Diehl, Los Angeles Times, Mark Fowler, Mehdi Karroubi, Persia House, Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Washington Institute of Near East Polic, Washington Post in Middle East & Iran
Reader Comments (9)
[...] } Iran: A Response to US Misconceptions of the Green Movement (The Sequel) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Your Daily Alarm Clock BuzzFutura Speaks For [...]
Bravo! Thank you for this balanced, informative critique of Daragahi's incomplete reporting/analyzing. So out of line with his general performance that one wonders if perhaps his 'management level minders' knocked on the door. Double damage with the timing, too.
Thanks again for speaking up.
Well done, Scott!
Observer is also right to be surprised by Daragahi's sudden loss of balance. Screws do come lose sometimes, as we know.
For a main stream media journalist it's always a cheap win to author a contrarian piece that cynically undercuts a currently "hot" movement, especially if that movement is in any way idealistic.
This betrays a deep carelessness about the effects of one's work. I don't know how someone with the author's knowledge of the current state of affairs in Iran could put out this kind of analysis. It reveals a serious moral blind spot in the author's vision. It is always easy to find people willing to offer cutting sound bites about something. Much more attractive than the prospect of hard scrabble digging to find out what's really going on.
The coup regime in Iran must be pleased that western journalists are doing their work for them in this way. You couldn't buy this quality of propaganda if you tried, but the seductive ease and appeal of going cynical gets the job done for free.
"Interestingly Daragahi is now singing a somewhat different tune on Twitter" -- Well yes, but how many will see it? His Beyond Babylon piece has already been carried by everybody in and out of town.
Maybe we all learned something we needed to know. Hope not. Thank you for the update.
[...] here to read the rest: Iran: A Response to “What If the Green Movement Isn't Ours?” (The … Share and [...]
see also this:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5498046/surprising-fact-about-the-iranian-opposition-they-take-irans-national-interest-seriously.thtml
Today November 3rd 2009, by reading Borzou Daragahi's piece in Los Angeles Times and the opinion of such stupid so called experts (Mark Fowler and Flynt Levertt and his wife Hillary Mann Leverett) who have closed their eyes and ears, I got sick to my stomack. Either they are paid agents of the nasty criminal regime or just plain idiots. We know that Karm Sadjadpour is a paid agent by the nasty criminal regime of Iran.
[...] I had sharp words for an article by Borzou Daragahi of The Los Angeles Times because it was “so partial, so [...]