Thursday, October 19th | 29 Tishri 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
July 12, 2017 4:49 pm

Why Are Some Liberals Silencing the Truth on Iran?

avatar by Evan Barrett

Email a copy of "Why Are Some Liberals Silencing the Truth on Iran?" to a friend

Iranian FM Mohammad Javad Zarif and former US Secretary of State John Kerry at a July 2014 meeting. Photo: State Department via Wikimedia Commons.

American options for constraining the Islamic Republic of Iran are limited and problematic. Sanctions inevitably hurt regular Iranians more than their government, because the regime uses its access to illicit markets to insulate the ruling class from the impacts of economic exile. In the military sphere, targeted airstrikes on particular facilities are unlikely to significantly impede Iran’s ability to develop nuclear technology — and an actual invasion of the Islamic Republic would come at unthinkable cost.

Nevertheless, the specter of war with Iran has caused many “responsible” liberals to actively seek a different sort of constraint: limits on the discussion or coverage of Iranian crimes. This deeply anti-democratic impulse — that an honest account of Iranian behavior would only lead to war — was a basic assumption of Obama-era Iran policy.

Even now, as the Trump administration takes incredibly modest steps against Tehran — such as preventing Iranian aircraft from targeting US partners in Syria — a subset of liberals seek to obfuscate or ignore Iranian provocations in the name of avoiding a disastrous, costly conflict.

Take a typical example published this week in the online foreign policy venue Lobeblog, where CIA veteran Paul Pillar discusses the words that many people use to talk about Iran, and the ‘pro-conflict bias’ of that terminology:

Related coverage

October 18, 2017 3:51 pm
0

New York Times Pulls Out All the Stops to Push Iran Deal

Seven to two is the lopsided score of opinion pieces the New York Times has published this month about the...

The vocabulary has become so repetitive and widely used that it rolls off tongues automatically: Iran is a “theocratic autocracy” and the “largest state sponsor of terrorism” that engages in “nefarious,” “malign,” and “destabilizing” behavior as part of its “drive for regional hegemony,” etc. The verbiage has become a substitute for thought and for any careful examination of exactly what Iran is and is not doing and how it does and does not affect US interests. Such a commonly accepted mantra means that anyone making a focused attempt to stir up trouble with Iran starts with a built-in advantage in mustering public and political support.

In this casting, verifiable crimes of the Iranian regime are reduced to political tools that are used by defense hawks to gin up public support for an inevitable war — a war that in Pillar’s mind, its proponents would be shopping irrespective of Iranian behavior. This attitude was present at the highest levels of the Obama administration. Former Secretary of State John Kerry and even the president himself deliberately denied or underplayed Iranian violations of the JCPOA on numerous occasions.

The Obama administration also undermined credible international institutions that were issuing an unbiased accounting of Iranian compliance. When the Obama State Department was asked to comment on a German intelligence report, cited by Angela Merkel, detailing Iranian efforts to procure nuclear material in Germany after the signing of the JCPOA, the State Department simply denied any knowledge of such violations.

Why would the Obama administration, and now their ideological fellow travelers, actively underplay Iranian violations? Ben Rhodes explained the answer about why it was so crucial that the Obama spin machine avoid the pitfalls of regular democratic process: “I mean, I’d prefer a sober, reasoned public debate, after which members of Congress reflect and take a vote,” he said, shrugging. “But that’s impossible.”

In other words, the normal democratic processes for evaluating policy are no longer valid when it comes to Iran.

In this context, the important question is not what Iran is up to, or how to constrain bad behavior, but how one’s own lies can offset the pro-war propaganda coming from known quarters. This is a sort of Bill Simmons meta-foreign policy — we don’t discuss what’s good or bad, but whether things are over, under or properly rated by the powers that be.

Even if we accept, as I do, the calamitous potential of a war with Iran, is it true that the American public is subjected to a constant litany of Iranian crimes? Do Americans know, for example, that Afghan refugees are picked up on the streets of Tehran and offered the choice of an indefinite jail term or to go fight in Syria?

Do Americans know that thousand-year familial residents of Damascus, one of the most diverse cities in the Middle East, are being uprooted from their ancestral home to make way for apartment blocks to house permanent Iranian military advisers?

Do Americans — or Europeans, for that matter — understand that the refugee crisis that they are now dealing with, is — in part — the direct result of an Iranian ethnic cleansing campaign that seeks a Shia-only territory spanning from Tehran to Beirut?

Even after the departure of the Obama administration, liberal doves continue to suppress the truth about Iranian crimes, keeping them off the front page and out of American minds. As so many liberals decry the anti-truth political climate heralded by Trump, they should acknowledge that on Iran, it is the Left that’s afraid of the facts.

Evan Barrett is an independent analyst with a focus on Syria. Previously he served as the deputy director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • frosty7530

    I say Amen to that, Edward Brandwein. One iconic Liberal who would support your comment is Robert F Kennedy, Jr. When he travels the country lecturing/advocating for ecological & energy concerns, he always, at end of his electrifying speech/lectures, we must stop relying on Mideast Oil because these governments are not like-minded as ours on any level! He implies they are so illogical as to use their disabled children and fanatic adults as ammo! Those folks putting us down as “Islamaphobes” should be ashamed of their ignorance, as well as support for Linda Sarsour.

  • Apologists for Iran’s mullahs who conceptualize a benevolent Iranian regime that would serve as a stable force if only everyone (namely the US) would just leave the good mullahs alone. It’s akin to someone trying to talk down a bomber holding hostages after a mass killing. It may sound charitable and nice, but it has the benefit of being practically useless. The mistake apologists makes is that he never addresses the core of the Iranian revolution, government and ambitions. As a religious theocracy built around the whims and personal vision of a single Supreme Leader who has final authority over all military, foreign policy, civil and judicial matters, his opinion happens to count more than anyone else. Consequently, the last few decades until Ali Khamenei have been marked by steep rises in human rights abuses, blessing of a sectarian proxy war against Sunnis states, and a massive build up in military technology — not just in trying to build nuclear weapons, but also in ballistic missile technology which the only purpose is to loft nuclear warheads at other continents, not neighboring states. Apologists also fails to recognize the driving ambition of Iran’s mullahs which is not the acquisition of territory, but the disruption of religious and ideological rivals through proxy wars, terror groups and superior military might. This is because Iran fundamentally fighting a theological and ideological war. As a religious theocracy, its price of victory is the supremacy of its particular brand of Shia Islam which is highly radicalized, evolves from a virulent 6th century medieval strain and one that is inherently at odds with the multicultural, pluralistic, gender-neutral West.

  • freedomfrind

    Because they are not ‘liberal”, they are Leftists, or Lying Leftists.

    Let’s stop calling them “liberal”. “Liberal” is a flattering term which does not properly describe the Left.

    • frosty7530

      Article does a good job of pointing out how our Press is accomodating the propaganda of the Left by labeling critics of this treasonous act as the equivalent of Red Hawks or new replacements for the old “wing nuts”. Leftist journalists try their best to marginilize critics to make us appear to be militant fiends out of the mainstream of civilized thinking.

Algemeiner.com