---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Campus Watch <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:24 PM
Subject: Embracing Iran
To: [email protected]
[image: Campus Watch] <http://www.campus-watch.org> Campus Watch
Home<http://www.campus-watch.org>
| Middle East studies in the
News<http://www.campus-watch.org/docs/type/newsfromcampus>
| Donate <https://www.meforum.org/participation/campus>
Please take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber
area<http://www.campus-watch.org/list_edit.php>,
and submit your city & country location. We will use this information in
future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area.
Embracing Iran
* by Janet Doerflinger
American Thinker
May 9, 2010*
*http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/embracing_iran.html*
*http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/9566*
Send <http://www.campus-watch.org/article_send.php?id=9566>
RSS<http://www.campus-watch.org/rss.xml>
Flynt Leverett and his wife Hillary Mann Leverett, both former officials of
the National Security Council, are prominent advocates for appeasing Iran, a
case they make in a steady stream of articles, public appearances, and
postings on their website, raceforiran.com. He has a perch at the New
America Foundation and teaches at Penn State; she is CEO of SRATEGA, an
energy and political risk consulting firm, and is a fellow at Yale's
new Jackson
Institute for Global Affairs <http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=6560>
.
After leaving the Bush administration in 2003, the Leveretts utilized their
talent for self-promotion to sell the myth that the Iranian government had
made a sterling peace offer that was heedlessly spurned by the incompetent,
warmongering neo-cons. This line was eagerly embraced by Bush-hating media,
who made the Leveretts minor celebrities and launched their post-government
careers. The prop they brandished in their drama was the "Guldimann fax"
received by the State Department in May 2003.
In the Leveretts' version of events, the Guldimann fax was a
history-changing offer from the Iranian government to the U.S. of a "grand
bargain" to resolve all disputes with the United States. Steven J.
Rosen<http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/did_iran_offer_a_grand_bargain.html>and
Michael<http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/225enxax.asp>
Rubin<http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjMzMWMwN2UzMDczODc4ZDYxNDFhYTllODQxZjYzYjA=>have
definitively debunked their story. The fax was not composed by anyone
in the Iranian government, but by Tim Guldimann, then-Swiss ambassador to
Iran, who shared the Leveretts' desire for *rapprochement* between the U.S.
and Iran. Guldimann said members of the Iranian government had approved some
but not all of its provisions, and he didn't know which parts they approved
and disapproved. Moreover, the Bush administration at the time was
negotiating at higher diplomatic levels with Iran, and the Guldimann fax was
inconsistent with the positions communicated by the Iranians in those talks.
A crucial element of the Leveretts' narrative was the rejection of the offer
by the Leveretts' ideological opponents within the Bush administration: the
hawkish "neo-con" faction led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. But the
Leveretts' ideological allies, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage, have said
that they themselves rejected the fax because they -- and State Department
Iran experts -- did not consider it an authentic Iranian overture.
After launching themselves with a distortion, the Leveretts since 2003 have
tendentiously supported the Islamic Republic of Iran, specifically the
faction of Ahmadinejad, lending authenticity to their arguments with
frequent references to private conversations with Iranian leaders. As Lee
Smith <http://www.hudson.org/smith> recently pointed out in
three<http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/25357/iran%E2%80%99s-man-in-washington/>
important <http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/25842/the-immigrant/>
articles<http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/26398/grand-bargainers/>in
Tablet <http://www.tabletmag.com/> magazine, in totalitarian societies,
access is limited to those who promote the leaders' interests. The
Leveretts' slavish advocacy centers on three areas: promoting an American
"grand bargain" with Iran, favoring Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic
over the Green Movement, and favoring Iran over Israel and other regional
U.S. allies.
In the Leveretts'
version<http://www.tcf.org/publications/internationalaffairs/leverett_diplomatic.pdf>of
a "grand bargain," the U.S. would promise up-front never to attack
Iran
and never to help foment an internal uprising against the Islamic Republic.
In return, Iran would enter into extensive negotiations regarding the
nuclear issue, their support for terrorism, and the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. In more
recent<http://asp.newamerica.net/publications/special/time_for_a_us_iranian_grand_bargain_14062>iterations,
the Leveretts concede that the Iranians would not agree to give
up uranium enrichment. Amir Taheri suggested that the "grand bargain" be
renamed "pre-emptive surrender." As
Taheri<http://www.amazon.com/Persian-Night-under-Khomeinist-Revolution/dp/1594032408/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271723471&sr=1-1>has
noted, appeasement is the worst possible policy, because rewarding the
aggression of a fascist or totalitarian regime only invites more aggression.
Furthermore, Iran has perfected the art of buying time under the guise of
negotiations.
With the election of Barack Obama, the Leveretts' career entered a new phase
because Obama's policy of open-handed engagement was essentially what they
have advocated all these years, and it has been an abject failure. The
Iranians have rejected all of Obama's overtures; mocked him and us;
continued to arm, train, and fund terrorists who attack our troops and
allies; and they rapidly developed their missile and nuclear programs, thus
leading the world towards a crisis point. Characteristically, the Leveretts'
response <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html> to the
failure of Obama's engagement policy has been to blame it on Obama, advocate
more concessions to Iran (such as removing Dennis Ross and ending covert
operations against Iran), and push for the same failed "grand bargain"
engagement policy.
The Leveretts' reaction to the unrest in Iran since last June's disputed
election has highlighted their sycophantic attachment to Ahmadinejad and
elicited outrage at their cold indifference to the regime's brutal
suppression of dissent. While their fans may have cheered when they took
Ahmadinejad's side against Dick Cheney, their dismissal of the Green
Movement and apologetics for its suppression may have been a bridge too far.
After they published "Ahmadinejad won. Get over
it<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html>"
and "Another Iranian Revolution? Not
Likely<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/opinion/06leverett.html>,"
they were
lambasted<http://www.tnr.com/article/world/the-state-the-opposition-strong?page=0,0>even
by the
Left<http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/29/how_do_i_dislike_the_leveretts_op_ed_today_let_me_count_the_ways>.
Flynt Leverett
faced<http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/06/23/flynt-leverett-gets-roasted/>a
hostile crowd at his home base in Washington, the New America
Foundation.
Not surprisingly, the Leveretts also support Iran *vis-à-vis* Israel. In
December 2009, they published an article titled "Iran is No Existential
Threat: The best way to rescue Obama's failing diplomacy with the Islamic
Republic is to stop letting Israel call the
shots<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/04/iran_is_no_existential_threat>,"
in which they argue that -- on the grounds of fairness -- Iran should be
permitted to continue its nuclear enrichment, and Israel should be stripped
of its (unacknowledged) nuclear weapons. They scoff at the Israelis' fear
that if Iran had nuclear weapons, it could threaten their very existence,
and they suggest that in fact, the Israelis just want to be able to "conduct
offensive military operations at will against any regional target." After
seven years, the Leveretts are finally giving us a little peek at the price
tag of their "grand bargain."
The Leveretts present themselves as objective foreign policy analysts, but
the veil sometimes slips, as when they said it was untrue that Iran was a
police state because when they drove through Tehran, they didn't see many
police <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/leverett260210.html>. They
dismissed the Green Movement because pro-government crowds outnumbered
demonstrators <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/opinion/06leverett.html>,
without mentioning that the former were bussed in for a paid holiday and the
latter risked imprisonment, rape, torture, and death. And Flynt Leverett tied
himself in knots on
TV<http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10936#frame_top>trying to
explain away Ahmadinejad's genocidal threats against Israel. In
terms of the value of their foreign policy advice, it should be evident to
everyone by now that President Obama's efforts to engage have benefited
Iran, not us.
With the failure of engagement and a dwindling threat of crippling
sanctions, there is widespread speculation that our government is drifting
towards a policy of containment, or acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran. But
as Steven J. Rosen <http://www.meforum.org/staff/Steven+J.+Rosen> told Lee
Smith, the Obama containment policy is the same as
engagement<http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/26398/grand-bargainers/>:
the pursuit of a "grand bargain," except with a nuked-up Iran. The key to
both policies is a mistaken belief that the Iranian leaders are normal,
rational men with whom we can do business, precisely the idea the Leveretts
have been promoting.
The Leveretts' arguments do not elucidate the truth, but rather disguise it
and lull us into a false sense of security. If and when the Islamic
extremists who run Iran acquire nuclear weapons, the world will become a
darker, more dangerous place. We can thank not only the Leveretts
themselves, but the institutions that have legitimized and enabled their
deceptions: the New America Foundation, the *New York Times* and others that
have published them, Penn State and Yale Universities, and the nascent
Jackson Institute for Global Affairs.
*Janet Doerflinger is a writer whose interests include public affairs and
foreign policy. This essay was written for Campus
Watch<http://www.campus-watch.org/>,
a program of the Middle East Forum <http://www.meforum.org/>.*
*This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an
integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date,
place of publication, and original URL.*
Related Items
- Other writings by Janet
Doerflinger<http://www.campus-watch.org/docs/author/Janet+Doerflinger>
- Other items from *American
Thinker*<http://www.campus-watch.org/docs/publication/American+Thinker>
- Other items related to *Yale
University*<http://www.campus-watch.org/survey.php/id/32>
- Other items related to *Pennsylvania State
University*<http://www.campus-watch.org/survey.php/id/82>
You are subscribed to this list as *[email protected]*.
To edit your subscription options, or to *unsubscribe*, go to
http://www.campus-watch.org/list_edit.php
To *subscribe* to the CW list, go to
http://www.campus-watch.org/list_subscribe.php
*Campus Watch* <http://www.campus-watch.org>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"humanrights movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement?hl=en.
