{"id":43456,"date":"2013-06-19T16:57:24","date_gmt":"2013-06-19T15:57:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/explaining-irans-surprise-election\/43456\/"},"modified":"2013-06-19T16:57:24","modified_gmt":"2013-06-19T15:57:24","slug":"explaining-irans-surprise-election","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/explaining-irans-surprise-election\/","title":{"rendered":"Explaining Iran\u2019s \u2018Surprise\u2019 Election"},"content":{"rendered":"

The dogs of war in the U.S. media bark and, in true Don Quixote fashion, it\u2019s a sign that authors Hillary and Flynt Leverett are on the move. In their electrifying new book,\u00a0Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the former National Security Council experts \u2014 who were forced out of their positions for their opposition to Washington \u2019s war-mongering and occupation \u2014 take on the growing myths told by the U.S. government about Iran .<\/em><\/p>\n

Liberals, conservatives and centrists in the U.S. media hysterically attacked\u00a0Going to Tehran\u00a0as soon as it came out. The\u00a0Wall Street Journal\u00a0derided the Leveretts as \u201cWashington \u2019s most outspoken defenders of the mullahs.\u201d In a particularly nasty hit-piece called \u201cI Heart Khomenei.\u201d Laura Secor of the\u00a0New York Times\u00a0called the book \u201cone-sided\u201d and a \u201cmirror image\u201d of the anti-Iran propaganda churned out by the U.S. government.\u00a0Foreign Affairsclaims they \u201coverargue\u201d their case for ending U.S. hostilities.\u00a0The Weekly Standard\u00a0accused them of \u201cparanoid dogmatism.\u201d\u00a0The New Republiccalled the book \u201can act of ventriloquism,\u201d presumably with the Iranian government as the puppet master.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett. (Photo credit: Penn State)<\/em><\/p>\n

When I see a book receive universal condemnation from the corporate-owned media, I take it as a sign that I need to read it. And ultimately every anti-war activist in the U.S. owes it to the people of Iran to check out this well-researched, persuasive and highly readable case against war with Iran. After all, we live in a country where\u00a0Argo<\/em>, a ludicrous xenophobic hit-piece on the Iranian Revolution, wins the Academy Award for Best Picture at the 2012 Oscars.<\/p>\n

As the Leveretts show in their book, the U.S. government and the corporate media work hand-in-glove to dominate the narrative on Iran, telling and repeating all sorts of myths and falsehoods to build the case for war against a large, independent, oil-producing country in the Middle East.\u00a0Going to Tehran<\/em>\u00a0sets the record straight.<\/p>\n

The book focuses on dispelling three elements of the U.S. mythology around Iran, breaking each into three-chapter parts. First, it challenges the myth that Iran is an irrational state \u201cincapable of thinking about its foreign policy interests,\u201d arguing instead that the Islamic Republic is incredibly rational in its fight for survival as a revolutionary state in a region historically dominated by U.S. imperialism and Israeli militarism.<\/p>\n

Second, it unravels the myth of Iran as an illegitimate state, by showing the overwhelming popularity of the Iranian government and refuting the unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud in 2009. Finally, it challenges the myth that the U.S. can \u2014 or should \u2014 topple Iran through sanctions, diplomatic isolation and the threat of war.<\/p>\n

A Strike Against Imperialism<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Leveretts devote a serious chunk of their book to tracing the roots and trajectory of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and detailing the history of U.S., Israeli and Iraqi aggression against the Islamic Republic. They contextualize Ayatollah Khomenei\u2019s Shi\u2019a Islam, which strongly focused on social justice and anti-imperialism, and they detail the Iranian people\u2019s history of resistance to the brutal U.S.-backed Shah monarchy.<\/p>\n

Khomenei\u2019s thought and popularity casts a long shadow, even into Iranian society today, and the Leveretts give him appropriate treatment. Agree or disagree with their analysis, you have to admit that it\u2019s a far cry from the cynical chauvinism of most Western commentators, who paint a crude (and often racist) caricature of the leading figure in Iran\u2019s revolution.<\/p>\n

Equally important is their handling of the Iran-Iraq War \u2014 called the \u201cimposed war\u201d by Iranians. In that war, then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein launched a U.S.-backed war of aggression against Iran. The Iranian people, inspired by the revolution\u2019s promise of self-determination, sacrificed dearly to defend their country, with well over a million killed from both sides in the eight-year war. The Leveretts show how the \u201cimposed war\u201d still impacts Iranian policy today, seen in the election and re-election of war veterans, like current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for political offices.<\/p>\n

U.S. policymakers constantly refer to Iran as a theocratic dictatorship, but the Leveretts expose this argument as baseless, chauvinistic and out of touch with ordinary Iranians. They write, \u201cMost Middle Easterners do not think that the Islamist features of Iran\u2019s political system make it undemocratic. \u2026 For most Egyptians and other Middle Easterners, the \u2018main division in the world\u2019 is not between democracies and dictatorships but between countries whose strategic autonomy is subordinated to the United States and countries who exercise genuine independence in policymaking. For most people in the Middle East , the Islamic Republic is on the right side of that divide.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Leveretts argue that this divide between imperialist and anti-imperialist countries explains Iran\u2019s rising stock in the Middle East. After decades of U.S. wars and occupations, people in the Middle East support those forces that resist imperialism, rather than the Gulf monarchies that kowtow to Washington\u2019s agenda.<\/p>\n

Counter-Revolution Defeated<\/strong><\/p>\n

It does not seem like four years ago that Iran held its last presidential election, which triggered the so-called \u201cGreen Movement.\u201d With the 2013 elections just behind us, the Leveretts revisit some key facts about the election in 2009 that were overlooked and distorted by the U.S. media. By examining polls, debate transcripts, voting patterns and Iranian election law, the Leveretts prove that Ahmadinejad legitimately won the 2009 election.<\/p>\n

They write: \u201cThe facts were evident for anyone who chose to face them: neither Mousavi nor anyone in his campaign nor anyone connected with the Green Movement ever presented hard evidence of electoral fraud. Moreover, every methodologically sound poll carried out in Iran before and after the election \u2014 fourteen in all, conducted by Western polling groups as well as by the University of Tehran \u2014 indicated that Ahmadinejad\u2019s reelection, with two-thirds of the vote (which was what the official results showed), was eminently possible.\u201d<\/p>\n

Far from the popular rebellion that the U.S. media portrayed, the Green Movement receded just weeks after its beginning. The Green Movement represents the interests of businessmen tied to Western banks and corporations, well-off students, urban intellectuals and professionals, rather than the majority of Iranians. Many Iranians view the Green Movement as an attempted counter-revolution \u2014 backed by the U.S. \u2014 aimed at destabilizing a popular government that supports the Palestinian liberation struggle, Hezbollah in Lebanon and other resistance forces which the Leveretts examine in detail. \u2026<\/p>\n

Even if the U.S. media refused to acknowledge the truth, the Iranian people clearly understood that the Green Movement was a threat to the independence of Iran. A Charney Research poll from 2010 found that \u201c59% of responders said the government\u2019s reaction had been \u2018correct\u2019; only 19% thought it \u2018went too far.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the opposition\u2019s numbers, about 100 people died in clashes with security forces. The Leveretts show that the protests regularly led to opposition-instigated violence, to which the state then responded. Most insightful of all, the Leveretts compare the hypocritical reaction to the Green Movement by the U.S. to the violent crackdown on African American and Latinos outraged at the 1992 Rodney King verdict. The State of California sent in the National Guard and killed 53 people for demonstrating against this racist miscarriage of justice, but rather than condemning government violence, the U.S. media called the uprising a \u2018riot.\u2019<\/p>\n

Why did a solid majority of Iranians support Ahmadinejad in 2009 and approve of the government\u2019s harsh response to the attempt at counter-revolution? The Leveretts argue in chapter four, entitled \u201cReligion, Revolution and Roots of Legitimacy\u201d that the Iranian people, especially poor farmers and workers, experienced real progressive gains from the revolution in 1979.<\/p>\n

In spite of economic sanctions and external threats, \u201cthe percentage of Iranians living in poverty \u2014 less than 2% by the World Bank\u2019s $1.25-per-day standard \u2014 is lower than that in virtually any other large-population middle-income country,\u201d including Brazil, India, Mexico and Turkey. Iran\u2019s rapidly expanding public and low-income health care services have increased life expectancy by 21.9 years since 1980, according to the UN Development Programme. This serves as a model that even universities and NGOs working in Mississippi are implementing. Literacy rose from 40% under the Shah to 99% in the present-day Islamic Republic; voting suffrage is universal and religious minorities have guaranteed representation in the Majlis (parliament).<\/p>\n

Despite Western Islamophobia, women\u2019s rights in Iran have (in some ways) drastically improved. In addition to six months of paid maternity leave \u2014 far higher than the U.S. \u2014 \u201cthe majority of university students in Iran [and] the majority of students at Iran\u2019s best universities are now female.\u201d Some of the evidence the Leveretts present around issues of gender will genuinely surprise readers. For instance, they say that \u201crulings from [Ayatollah] Khomenei recognizing transgendered identity as biologically grounded, today provide the legal basis for free elective gender-reassignment surgery.\u201d<\/p>\n

While Iran still has many contradictions, related to gender and the role that working people play in society, the Leveretts argue that the Iranian people elect to build on the progressive gains rather than overturning them. The Green Movement represented a step backwards in the history of Iran, and the majority of Iranians recognized that.<\/p>\n

Setting the Record Straight<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Leveretts won themselves no friends in the political establishment with their chapter entitled \u201cMyths and Mythmakers.\u201d By far the strongest section of the book, they analyze the neo-conservatives, liberal interventionists, the Israel lobby and the Iranian expatriates as four distinct but inter-related groups that fuel anti-Iranian sentiment in the media and in Washington.<\/p>\n

Many of these so-called \u2018experts\u2019 monopolize the corporate-owned press in the U.S., despite having never read a word of Farsi. Although these groups do not all outwardly advocate U.S. military intervention, the Leveretts show how even the more well-meaning liberal critics repeat the same myths told by the neo-cons and warmongers, effectively strengthening their case for a strike on Iran. It is disturbing to think that the U.S. media still gives a platform for the most vocal cheerleaders of the disastrous Iraq War \u2014 Thomas Friedman of the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0and the xenophobic CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack \u2014 to spew their venom against Iran.<\/p>\n

Even readers convinced that Tehran has nefarious intentions would benefit from the Leveretts\u2019 book. In 1987, current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivered a speech to the UN laying out a fundamental distinction between opposition to U.S. imperialism and support for the people, saying, \u201cThis indictment is directed against the leaders of the United States regime and not against the American people, who, had they been aware of what their governments have done against another nation, would certainly endorse our indictment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Facing the hostile threat of a nuclear-armed Israel, and the U.S. military occupation of Iran \u2019s next-door neighbors \u2014 Afghanistan , and previously Iraq \u2014 the people of Iran want peace and solidarity with the people of the U.S., not another war.<\/p>\n

Going to Tehran<\/em>\u00a0is written primarily to persuade policy-makers to abandon the current U.S. strategy of toppling the government of Iran. Throughout the whole book, the Leveretts seem frustrated at the very likely possibility that their well-researched case against war with Iran will go unread by politicians. However, the primary audience that will benefit from\u00a0Going to Tehran<\/em>\u00a0is not lawmakers, but rather anti-war activists. Anti-war organizers could use the book as a starting point for reading groups and teach-ins about the nature of U.S. aggression.<\/p>\n

The disorganized response by the U.S. anti-war movement to NATO\u2019s attack on Libya proves the need for a unified, principled, anti-imperialist opposition to war that seeks to build meaningful international solidarity. And in 2013,\u00a0Going to Tehran<\/em>\u00a0is an important contribution to that struggle.<\/p>\n

This article originally appeared on: Global Research<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The dogs of war in the U.S. media bark and, in true Don Quixote fashion, it\u2019s a sign that authors Hillary and Flynt Leverett are on the move. In their electrifying new book,\u00a0Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the former National Security Council experts […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[487],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-43456","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-breaking-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43456"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43456\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}