The Leveretts in Tehran: Our Mashregh Interview

Since mid-November, we have been on the road a lot—including a trip to Iran and two trips to China—and took a hiatus from posting.  With the turn of the (Western) New Year and our return home (at least for a while), we resume again.

In the course of our most recent visit to Tehran, in late November 2014, we sat for a number of interviews with various Iranian media organizations.  The most extensive was conducted by MashreghMashregh published its interview with us, in Farsi, at the end of December, see here.  We are pleased to publish it in English below.

Our trip to Tehran spanned the days just before and just after the November 24 announcement of yet another extension in the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran.  (Once again, we are grateful to the University of Tehran’s Faculty of World Studies for inviting us.)  Not surprisingly, the Mashregh interview starts with the negotiations, the impact of the Republican victory in the 2014 U.S. congressional elections on prospects for a final deal (and for the enactment of further Iran-related secondary sanctions by the United States), and the diplomatic influence of Saudi Arabia and Israel.  But the interview goes on to consider a wide range of other topics, including:  how the United States is (not) coping with the emergence of a more multipolar world; President Barak Obama’s letters to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei and Obama’s overall weakness as president; how our own views about Iran have evolved, both during our service in the U.S. government and afterward; why it is so important that the United States not only deal with the Islamic Republic as a rational foreign policy actor but accept it as a legitimate political order; and our role in the American debate over Iran’s 2009 presidential election and what was at stake in this episode.

Q:  I would like to start with the nuclear negotiation, the extension of the Geneva deal, the Republicans coming to take control of the Congress, the Obama administration and congressional opposition as an obstacle to reaching a nuclear agreement, the diplomacy between Iran and the P5+1, the extension of the talks in Vienna, and the positive and negative reactions to this in Iran.  How do you assess the situation?

Hillary:  I think it’s not accurate to put Congress as an obstacle to what would otherwise be a smoother process.  I think one of the problems was that the Obama administration decided to work with the Congress.  Congress is never going to agree; it doesn’t matter whether it is Democrat or Republican.  The leading sponsor of sanctions against Iran is a Democrat, Senator Menendez from New Jersey.  He is completely in favor of sanctions. It’s not so much the Democrats or Republicans.  The problem is that there was not a decision on the U.S. side that the United States, for its own interests, needed a deal with Iran and that the United States would do what was necessary to get a deal, like what President Nixon did with China in the 1970s.  Nixon decided—over the opposition of Congress, over the opposition of the anti-China lobby (which was very strong, like the pro-Israeli lobby today)—that the United States, for its own interests, needed a better relationship with China, and he went and got it.  That’s what he did.  With regard to Iran, a decision like that has clearly not been taken on the American side.  I thought in particular that it was a very bad sign, the night before the most recent extension in negotiations was announced, that President Obama spoke to the American public only about the benefits of a deal for Iran—that Iran would have the chance to rejoin the international community, that it would be good for Iran, this country with 77 million people, to come back into the international community.  The issue, for an American president, is not to do Iran a favor.  The issue for an American president is that, when it is in America’s interests to have a deal, then the American president should do what he needs to do to get the deal.  That, to me, is the fundamental problem here.

Flynt:  I absolutely agree with that.  Fundamentally, the reason we didn’t have a deal is because the United States keeps insisting that, as part of a deal, Iran must dismantle some significant portion of its nuclear infrastructure.  Maybe the number of centrifuges that the United States is willing to tolerate has going up.  But, as I understand the current US position, the United States is still asking Iran to dismantle about half of its operating centrifuges.  Iran rejects this.  The Iranian positions is very well grounded in the NPT, in international law.  As I understand it, the Iranian position is that Iran would be prepared to limit the growth of its centrifuge infrastructure for some period of time, but Iran is not going to shrink this infrastructure to satisfy the United States and, at some point in the foreseeable future, Iran wants to be able to start growing this infrastructure again, under international safeguards.  If the Obama administration were prepared to work out a deal on that basis, I think there could be a deal on the nuclear issue in a matter of weeks.  Technical experts could work out various details and you would have a deal.  The reason you don t have a deal is because the United States still thinks it is in a position in which it can dictate the terms for a deal.  The language in the United States is still, “How many centrifuges should the United States allow Iran to have?  It seems to us that, at this point, Iran is not going to accept the United States allowing Iran to have some number of centrifuges.  That’s why we don’t have a deal.  Now the Republicans are going to control the senate.  Is that going to be a further obstacle to progress?  Yes, I think it will be.  What Hillary said is absolutely right—that there is broad bipartisan support for sanctions in the Congress for a new sanctions bill.  But the Obama administration has been able to hold off a new sanctions bill because the outgoing Senate Majority Leader, Senator Reid (a Democrat from Nevada) never put the bill on the schedule for a vote.  Because if it were ever put to a vote there would be a strong bipartisan majority in the Senate in favor of the bill.  The big difference now is that Senator Reid will no longer be the majority leader.  His replacement will be a Republican who has already said publicly that the Republicans will schedule a vote on a new sanctions bill early in 2015, after they take control of the Senate in January.  They will schedule a vote on a new sanctions bill and, if it actually comes to a vote, there will be a bipartisan majority in favor of it.

Q:  Despite this, does Obama have the power to hold off the imposition of new sanctions, and will Congress resist him?

Flynt:  It would be a fight.  It would be real fight.  President Obama said that, while the Joint Plan of Action was being implemented, if Congress passed a new sanctions bill, he would veto it.  Given the terms of the Joint Plan, he really had to say that.  But he never faced the issue because Senator Reid made sure the bill never came up for a vote.  Now that bill is going to come up for vote.  Will Obama, when the bill passes, veto it?  And then, after he vetoes it, will he be prepared to work very hard to get enough democrats in the Senate to help him sustain his veto?  Will he be able to persuade enough of them not to vote again in favor of the bill, not to vote to override his veto.  In our system, if Congress passes a law the president can veto it, but then congress can vote on it again and, if there is not just a majority but a two-thirds majority in favor of the bill, then it becomes law over the president’s veto.  How hard is Obama willing to work to block a new Iran sanctions bill?  First of all to veto that bill, and then to see how he can sustain the veto. I think it could be a real battle.

Q:  Saudi Foreign Minister visited in the last round of talks in Vienna and met with John Kerry.  And nothing came of the talks but an extension of the negotiations.  What is your assessment of the role of Saudi Arabia?

Hillary:  There were two meetings. They also met in Paris.  Secretary Kerry coordinates very closely with Prince Saud al-Faysal and with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israael.  I think the importance is for American domestic politics.  The Obama administration wants to show American domestic audiences that they are respecting the interests of these longstanding U.S. allies, and that the United States will not sign a deal with Iran going beyond the interests of these allies.  Kerry and the Obama administration thought it was important to show that the Israelis and Saudis are satisfied, rather than doing something that would anger them.

Q:  About the recent struggles between America and Russia, is this confrontation of two countries between the two countries a move to a new system and the formation of a bipolar world—or a multipolar world, with a view toward China and other emerging powers—and toward a new Cold War?

Flynt:  I would be more inclined to put it in the frame of moving from American-led unipolarity to a more multipolar world.  I think both China and Russia have wanted to see movement toward a more multipolar world for some time, but each of them has had its own interests in what they see as positive and productive relations with the United States.  But now US policy toward both Russia and China is accelerating efforts by these countries to move even more rapidly toward a more multipolar world.  The United States, as a declining unipolar power, is trying desperately to hold on to more power than it can sustain.  In the process, it is doing more and more things that impinge on core Russian interests, core Chinese interests.  I think that both Russia and China have to calculate a balance in their foreign policy–to what extent do they seek to maintain a cooperative relationship with the United States and to what extent to they try to move the world toward this multipolar condition.  Now, both China and Russia are tilting more and more toward the promotion of multipolarity.  U.S. policy toward Iran is part of that dynamic.  But U.S. policy toward Russia leaves fewer and fewer Russian believing that, at this point, Russia has a serious option to cooperate with the United States.  Likewise, Chinese are increasingly concerned that the United States is trying to contain China as a legitimately influential player, in Asia and globally, and that the United States wants to try and reassert its hegemony in Asia.  I think that U.S. foreign policy has really accelerated those trends.

Hillary:  I think it reflects not having a real strategy, along with an inability to think about how issues connect.  So, to look at U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine, to look at U.S. policy toward China or Iran—U.S. policymakers do not think about how these issues connect and overlap.  What are the tradeoffs:  if you want to sanction Russia over Ukraine, how can you expect Russia to work with you on Iran?  There is no strategy for how the United States wants to position itself in a changing world.  I think that this is due basically to a refusal to accept that the world is changing.  Instead, the United States pretends that it can continue as the world’s sole superpower.  American elites persist in arguing, based on ideas of American primacy and American exceptionalism, that there is just something about the United States that will keep it the greatest country in the world.  This is a deep strategic problem.  It’s not just President Obama or his foreign policy.  It is deep in American culture, and is reflected in many ways—for example, in how Americans tell themselves that the United States won the Cold War, that we defeated the Soviet Union, and that this is because of American exceptionalism.  Instead, the United States needs to accept that the world is changing.

While we were writing our book, Going to Tehran, we came to think that the United States was in a similar situation in the 1960s as it is in today.  When Nixon came to office, the United States was facing strategic catastrophe in Asia.  We were stuck in Vietnam, with tens of thousands of Americans killed.  Tens of thousands had also been killed during the Korean War.  The dollar was going down, and the economy was declining.  We didn’t have enough money to continue these wars.  The situation between black Americans and white Americans in the United States was bad; there were riots everywhere.  America was in a real crisis at the end of the 1960s.  President Nixon was able to say to American public that the United States had to prioritize, that it needed to stop pursuing hegemony in Asia.  Pursuing hegemony in Asia was working against American interests, and that’s why Nixon went to China.  China didn’t give the United States anything.  Not a single centrifuge, and not anything else.  But President Nixon made it clear that the United States needed to realign relations with China so that America could withdraw from Vietnam and rebuild its credibility and strategic standing.  In our book, we argue that the same kind of leadership is needed to remake American policy toward Iran.

Having a better relationship with Iran doesn’t mean that the United States will become pro-Iranian or that it would take sides in Iranian domestic politics.  It means that, if the United States can have a more normal relationship with Iran, then Iran can rise as a normal power in its region along with Saudi Arabia and Israel and Turkey and that these regional powers could balance among themselves.  There would be normal balancing in the Middle East—which means that, while the United States might not leave entirely, it wouldn’t be using military force in or against every country from Libya to Syria to Iraq to Afghanistan to Iran to Saudi Arabia.  The United States has a lot of interests in the Middle East, but those interests are not well served by having a large military presence everywhere.  We argue in our book that this is the kind of policy that the United States needs to pursue today—to accept Iranian power so that Iran can rise with other regional powers.

Q:  A former intelligence minister and current advisor to President Rouhani (Ali Younesi) has said that Obama is the weakest president in the U.S. history.  How much do you agree with this view?

Hillary:  In the United States there are more and more comparisons being drawn between President Obama and President Carter.  A lot of people look at President Carter after he left the presidency and see him as a good person who has done a lot of humanitarian things.  But while he was president, Carter was seen as unable to set priorities and to focus on what was really in America’s interests.  He was also unable to work with Congress.  So a lot of people today see a similarity between Carter’s presidency—which is not widely seen as a strong or successful presidency—and Obama’s presidency.

Flynt:  I don’t know whether Obama is the weakest president in American history, but I think he has proven to be a very weak president.  We expect Obama to disappoint those who oppose him.  What is really striking about Obama is how many of his supporters are disappointed with him on a wide range of issues.

Q:  The American president, in a move unprecedented since the Islamic Revolution, has written three letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader and has requested further cooperation from Iran.  What is your view of Obama’s letters to the Iranian Leader?  Are these signs of Obama’s weakness and the ineffectiveness of America’s regional policy?

Flynt:  It is a weakness.  Obama is not the first president to do this, but it is a weakness.  There is a reluctance in the United States to accept the Islamic Republic as a system—I know you like the word Nezam—to accept the Islamic Republic as a system with a constitution.  There is a Leader with particular responsibilities, there is an elected president with particular responsibilities, there is a Majlis that has its responsibilities, and so on.  There is always a sense in the United States that the U.S. government can find some part of the Iranian system which it can work with to get what it wants, and that part of the system can somehow work around the other parts.  This never works out well for the United States, but the United States keeps trying.  I think that’s part of what is going on with President Obama’s letter to Ayatollah Khamanei.  We obviously don’t know directly what was in the letter; we know only what was reported in the American media about the contents.  But, if those reports are reasonably accurate, it also underscores just how delusional the American approach is.  To me, Obama’s letter to Ayatollah Khemeni essentially says, OK, if Iran will make concessions on the nuclear issue, if it will compromise its sovereignty on the nuclear issue, that the United States will allow Iran to take part in U.S. military campaign in Iraq and Syria that Iran has already assessed to be a bad idea.  There is a certain detachment from reality in a message like that:  make a compromise on something you really care about, so that you can be part of a project you have already said you are not going to be a part of.  We will not speculate on Ayatollah Khamenei’s reaction if that’s the kind of letter he got.  But, if I received a letter like that, I would be really wondering about the strategic logic behind U.S. policy.

There is the book, Going to Tehran, and there is the story behind this book.  Have you always had the same opinion about Iran or have your views changed?

Hillary:  We both worked as Middle East experts in the U.S. government for about 20 years.  Yet we had never met an Iranian from the Islamic Republic who supported the Islamic Republic.  We had learned about (even from our best “experts” and best universities), read about, come to know about Iran only through the prism of expatriate Iranians who had left Iran during the revolution or during the war.  We never really questioned this view until about a year before the September 11 attacks, when I was assigned by the State Department to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York.  I was a Middle East expert and was assigned to cover Middle East issues.  But I was also given Afghanistan, because nobody in the U.S. government cared about Afghanistan at the time and I was both relatively junior and, I think, the only woman at the U.S. Mission at the time.  So I was “stuck” with Afghanistan.  But it was my good fortune, because the UN Representative Lakhdar Brahimi had a very good idea—to bring Afghanistan’s six neighbors (which, of course, include Iran) together with the United States and Russia to form a contact group called the “6+2.”

When I initially joined the contact group, I assumed that the delegate from Pakistan was going to be my ally, because Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been traditional allies of the United States for the past 20 years.  But, as I started to talk to the delegate from Pakistan, I realized that he was a supporter of the Taliban and bin Laden; he would refer to the capital of Afghanistan as Kandahar, rather than Kabul.

Then there was the Iranian delegate.  In U.S. law, American officials were not allowed to say “Hello” to Iranian officials.  We were not allowed to engage them—except if you were in a multilateral working group on an issue that has nothing to so with U.S.-Iranian relations.  This only happens at the United Nations, where both Iran and the United States could be talking about peacekeeping or economics or something else.  So it was OK for me to talk to Iranian officials, because it was not about the United States and Iran, it was about Afghanistan.

The discussions were enlightening, because the Iranian official was very well educated about Afghanistan, very well educated about Central Asia.  It started off that way.  And then I realized that not only is he very educated and understands the issue in a very sophisticated way, but his understanding is very similar to mine.  I did not have the knowledge he had (he had much more knowledge), but his view of Afghanistan, his view of geopolitics in the Middle East and Central Asia was much more similar to mine than the view of the delegate from Pakistan, who was supposed to be my ally.  So we started to talk a lot about Afghanistan and to coordinate some of our positions, because they were so similar.

Then the terrorist attacks happened on September 11.  My colleagues and I at the U.S. Mission were about to be evacuated from our building.  In the course of my conversations with my Iranian colleague, I had told him that my sister worked at the World Trade Center, which had been bombed.  In the chaos, my colleague called from the Iranian Mission to ask about my sister—it turned out that she was OK—and to say how terrible this was and that this is what we have been working on—the growing terrorism threat coming from al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan.  He was sure that there would be a condemnation from Tehran, and a few days later it was shocking for me and for many Americans when the Supreme Leader condemned terrorism wherever it happened in the world—including in Washington and New York.  I wrote back to the State Department that this was a very important development and that we should intensify the talks with the Iranians in New York because we really had common interests.  So, from what had started as just one person (me) talking to an Iranian counterpart, a couple of people joined me from Washington and then more people joined my Iranian colleague from Iran.  We talked together about Afghanistan over the next two years.  I think that this dialogue helped to keep the situation in Afghanistan in relatively good shape from 2001 to 2003.  After that, though, we stopped talking and U.S. policy, in my view, became much more militarized in Afghanistan.  In these discussions about Afghanistan, I had the opportunity for the first time to hear, from an Iranian perspective, how the Islamic Republic sees itself in its neighborhood—the threats that it faces, the interests that it has.  And I didn’t hear this from the perspective of an expatriate Iranian or someone who wants to see the Islamic Republic overthrown.  This was really enlightening for me.

I was strongly supportive of continuing and expanding these talks.  I was asked to come to the White House to work on Afghanistan policy and Iran policy for the National Security Council, but there were different people with different views at the White House.  Fortunately for me, Flynt was also at the White House.  So we became a team, but we had a lot of opposition.  The first opposition was with the Axis of Evil speech, which I was not told about even though I was the person in charge of Iran policy.  It was a big shock and I started to question how can I still work for the U.S. government?  Eventually, Flynt and I both resigned in protest.

Initially, when we moved out of the U.S. government, we thought we should try to educate Americans about how Iran looks at the world, about areas of cooperation and the potential for cooperation.  So we started to write about that.  Not anything about Iran’s domestic politics, just foreign policy.  Our initial idea was that the United States could work with Iran on what we called a “grand bargain.”  Our idea was that, because U.S. and Iranian interests were similar, if the United States gave Iran a chance, Iran could join with the United States to be part of the pro-American political and security order.  That was our initial idea.

But our idea evolved from there, because we started to see that the pro-American security order is not very good for the United States.  The U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel is not healthy for the United States.  It would not make sense to try to get Iran to be part of that.

So we started to look at what makes Iran important.  We had a feeling that we did not understand that as clearly as we do today.  We do not take a position on Iranian domestic politics or try to say that the system here is the most perfect, fantastic thing in the world.  But we recognize that, after a history of western and Russian penetration and domination, Iran has been able to develop an indigenous, self-made system.  We started to look at how that self-made model has influence beyond Iran’s borders in a way that the Shah’s Iran never did.  Why does the Islamic Republic have more influence on its neighbors than the Shah’s Iran?  We concluded that it must be something about the domestic system, something that has enabled this system not only to survive for 35 years but to have influence beyond Iran.  We spent a lot of time reading Imam Khomeini’s lectures in Najaf, going over a lot of his speeches, which we thought were very important.  We wanted to bring some of Imam Khomeini’s ideas to an American audience, and to explain some of the Islamic Republic’s achievements in healthcare, in education, even in gender issues.  In the United States, the idea is that women are garbage here, but if you look at jobs and education, the reality here is a very different story.  We wanted to bring that to American audiences as well.  Our book is first and foremost about American interests.  And we argue that, instead of having the false idea that Iran is a terrible state that treats everybody terribly that is going to collapse tomorrow, the United States needs to recognize the real foundations of legitimacy here.  It’s important for the United States to accept that and to accept Iran as an independent power, not be afraid of it, and to embrace Iran’s independence as a way of having a more stable balance of power.

Q:  In your book, you talk about three myths about Iran.  Please explain how lobbies and the American media foster these myths about Iran?

Flynt:  The idea of three myths was a way of trying to help readers think critically about a seemingly infinite number of bad ideas in the United States about Iran.  The first myth is the irrationality myth—that the Islamic Republic is this ideologically driven system that cannot think about foreign policy in terms of national interests; we really wanted to challenge that.  The second myth is the illegitimacy myth:  that the Islamic Republic is an illegitimate political system with no popular support and is always at risk of being overthrown (if not today, then maybe by next week); we wanted to challenge that myth, too.  The third myth is what we called the “isolation myth”—that the Islamic Republic does not have any real influence in this region and can easily be isolated, regionally and globally, and can be pressured to a point where it either surrenders or disappears.  These are the three myths we wanted to challenge.

Challenging these myths puts you up against some very powerful forces in American society.  We have made some progress on the irrationality myth.  There is a greater willingness among American elites to consider that Iran has a rational foreign policy and that it can be engaged on that basis.  There are still people who reject this idea, but we have made some progress.  It is on the other two myths that we have gotten the strongest opposition.  There are any number of people who will basically agree with us that Iran could have a very rational foreign policy and that the United States should be talking with Iran.  But, they ask us, why do have to say the Islamic Republic is a legitimate system?  Why don’t you just say that it is a terrible dictatorship but that this does not matter and that the United States should talk to Iran anyway.

Hillary:  In the U.S. government, we also worked on Libya, on U.S.-Libyan rapprochement in the early 2000s.  We thought that, for Libya, too, the U.S. sanctions should be lifted and that the United States should engage Libya.  The United States could say that Qadhafi is crazy and the Libyan system is a dictatorship, but it is in U.S. interests to realign relations with Libya.  Then look what happened.  As soon as there was a protest in Libya, the United States was intervening on one side, against Qadhafi.  Any small problem can be used in the U.S. system as the reason to overthrow political orders in other countries, as we saw in Libya.

Flynt:  And the U.S. government did this even though the Libyan government had basically surrendered to the United States on weapons of mass destruction, on terrorism, and on the nuclear issue in return for an American commitment to normalize relations, lift sanctions, and stop trying to overthrow it.  That was the deal.  The Libyans did not even dismantle their nuclear infrastructure themselves—they let American technicians come in and dismantle their centrifuges.  Those centrifuges are now in the United States.

Q:  Were the centrifuges and other facilities transferred to America reassembled there?  And how can the situation with Iran be dealt with under current conditions in the American system—from the administration and Congress?   

Flynt:  That’s a good question; I really don’t know.  But this is why it is important for the United States to make accepting the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy part of coming to terms with the Islamic Republic.  This means not just recognizing that Iran has legitimate national interests, but also recognizing that this political order is a legitimate representative of those interests.  But neoconservatives in the United States do not want to accept the Islamic Republic, the pro-Israel lobby does not want to accept it, even a lot of liberals on what you might call the left side in the United States can be very interventionist on what they think of as human rights.   They say that they do not like war but they are in favor of what they call humanitarian intervention.

Hillary:  Each of them, neoconservatives and liberals, funds think tanks and gives money to universities to have centers for the Middle East.  As a result, they have this production of knowledge which is not based on facts.  It is not based on being in Iran or even on data and statistics you can find in the United States.  Anybody in the United States could look at UN statistics on education here in Iran.  They could see the Islamic Republic’s record on education for boys and girls, how the Islamic Republic has nearly eliminated the difference in education for boys and girls that prevailed under the Shah, and see how much progress has been made since the revolution.  But they don’t, because these think tanks are paid for the production of information to advance a particular agenda.  The lobbies dominate the debate, with the help of think tanks and a lot of media.

Q:  You investigated Iran’s 2009 election and concluded that election was conducted accurately and with no fraud.  Can you explain more about this research?

Hillary:  About the 2009 election—we are not Iranian officials; it is not our place to verify an election here, one way or the other. Our analysis of the election made two points.  First, there were many polls before the election.  When we examined these polls, it seemed very clear that President Ahmadinejad could have won the election, and could have done so with around 60 percent of the vote.  Second, when we looked at various claims that there was fraud in the election, we never found any evidence of fraud. Different people had different ideas on how there could have been fraud, but no one as far as we know ever offered actual evidence of fraud.

As Americans, we do not want to take a side in Iranian domestic politics, and it is not our place to say that there was no fraud. However, we thought it was important to say that the best polls indicated Ahmadinejad was going to win, and that no one had presented actual evidence of fraud.  It was important for us to say that in the United States, because the overwhelming majority of American analysts, including some of our best friends, said—without any evidence—that the election was a fraud.  Many of them went on to argue for regime change in Iran, because the election had supposedly been a fraud.  We thought it was important to dispute this charge, in part because the charge was intellectually dishonest and disregarded real information and facts.   It was also important to dispute the charge because the charge was dangerous, given the historical direction of U.S. foreign policy toward Iran and in the Middle East more generally.  I suppose that, tomorrow, someone might come out with evidence of fraud. But we did not see any evidence at the time; we still have not seen it.  And even if there was fraud, it is still not America’s business.  We saw what happened in Libya, when there were protests and the United States intervened.  Look what happened to Libya after the United States overthrew Qadhafi.  It’s a disaster.

Q:  What was the feedback from publishing the book?

Flynt:  It was extremely polarized.  On one side, people said that it was a brilliant book, and important book—including people like Noam Chomsky.  On the other side, our critics said we had not just written a bad book; they literally said we had written an evil book, a “morally deformed” book.  Our critics said, “You are trying to get us to accept an evil system”—Iran.  This is, we think, an indicator of how hard it is going to be for the United States to reformulate its foreign policy toward Iran.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

 

42 Responses to “The Leveretts in Tehran: Our Mashregh Interview”

  1. Saman says:

    I wish your site was more active.

  2. Fiorangela says:

    Welcome Back!

    You have been missed.

    While you were meeting with Iranians, Dr. Andrew Bacevich conducted a MOOC on US policy in Middle East. In his closing lecture he tackled the “special relationship” with Israel. His assessment was crisp: Israelis pursue their own interests, whether or not they comport with US interests. No problem with that; that’s what states do.
    The USA, on the other hand, does not pursue its own interests, it finds itself in a situation where political consideration result in USA supporting Israel’s interests at the expense of USA.

    He validated your assessment that:

    “. . .it was a very bad sign, the night before the most recent extension in negotiations was announced, that President Obama spoke to the American public only about the benefits of a deal for Iran—that Iran would have the chance to rejoin the international community, that it would be good for Iran, this country with 77 million people, to come back into the international community. The issue, for an American president, is not to do Iran a favor. The issue for an American president is that, when it is in America’s interests to have a deal, then the American president should do what he needs to do to get the deal. That, to me, is the fundamental problem here.”

    It seems like such a simple concept.

  3. Rd. says:

    Good to see you guys back.

    Hillary: “made it clear that the United States needed to realign relations with China so that America could withdraw from Vietnam and rebuild its credibility and strategic standing.  In our book, we argue that the same kind of leadership is needed to remake American policy toward Iran. “

    If Nixon was ‘smart’ enough to consider rapprochement with China to save US supremacy, that was then, when it was US v Soviet Union. Today’s dynamic evolves around a self appointed unilateral hegemon. Isn’t the flaw the leadership itself and not the approach?

    Hillary:“But our idea evolved from there, because we started to see that the pro-American security order is not very good for the United States.  The U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel is not healthy for the United States.  It would not make sense to try to get Iran to be part of that.
    So we started to look at what makes Iran important. “

    “It’s important for the United States to accept that and to accept Iran as an independent power, “

    That may be novel, however, is this really a question about Iran? Or is it more of a question about US? It seems, you are hoping to change US policy towards Iran to be a more realistic and beneficial policy. But it seems it is the core of US policy/existence which is at fault.

    You argue; “We started to look at how that self-made model has influence beyond Iran’s borders in a way that the Shah’s Iran never did.  Why does the Islamic Republic have more influence on its neighbors than the Shah’s Iran?  “

    Perhaps the same questions needs to be applied to US? The might and exceptionalism fantasy has worn out its usefulness.

    “As soon as there was a protest in Libya, the United States was intervening on one side, against Qadhafi.  Any small problem can be used in the U.S. system as the reason to overthrow political orders in other countries, as we saw in Libya. “

    “neoconservatives and liberals, funds think tanks and gives money to universities to have centers for the Middle East.  As a result, they have this production of knowledge which is not based on facts. “

    It is however, based on racial supremacy. Reasoning will not likely succeed in influencing, let alone change this mind set. These flawed behaviors are a reflection of a small group of elites. This is not reflection of a ‘democratic’ system where you can influence such diseased mind set.

    Chris Hedges once commented “there was ‘a’ reference to Nixon memoirs at the height of Vietnam war demonstration on a day when bus load after bus load of demonstrators were filling up streets around the white house. Nixon while watching from behind a window in the White House turned to Kissinger and said “Henry, they are coming to get us”. “

    The influence and change needs to reflect on the public and not the elites, if US is to save herself.

  4. Dan Cooper says:

    I couldn’t agree more with Hillary

    “The issue, for an American president, is not to do Iran a favor. The issue for an American president is that, when it is in America’s interests to have a deal, then the American president should do what he needs to do to get the deal. That, to me, is the fundamental problem here”

    If Obama manages to get a deal with Iran, he would consolidate his legacy and create history.

    I for one, do not see any rapprochement between US and Iran so long as that criminal Netanyahu and his cronies rule American foreign policy in the Middle East.

  5. fyi says:

    Dan Cooper says:

    January 13, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    A week or so before Mr. Obama’s statement, Mr. Shamkhani, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council had publicly proposed, in effect, a partitioning of the Near East into US and Iran spheres of influence and control.

    Mr. Obama has evidently accepted that proposal contingent on some conditions which I do not know.

  6. ataune says:

    Welcome back.

  7. Khomeini says:

    Thank you Mr and Mrs Leverett for the post. Its being a long break.

  8. Kooshy says:

    Welcome back you all, to me it all looks like the Leverets are now becoming more realistic with their US’s early 70s China policy change similarities, meaning a need for the element of desperation on the U.S.’s part which is not there yet to close the gap, but with new developing and forming realities on the ground we are or will be getting there slowly, how ever as Leverets correctly asses the price/ cost of an accommodated understanding will accordingly increase as the western desperation for a renewed/ revised policy becomes more of a necessity rather than a desire.

  9. Castellio says:

    The forthright chronological overview makes this one of the more generous postings, be it of Race for Iran or Going To Tehran. Thank you.

    It is sad, but true, that many Universities are paid/conscripted/organized to create misguided conclusions from false information. It is good to see that simply and clearly said.

  10. Smith says:

    Leveretts,

    * “It is on the other two myths that we have gotten the strongest opposition. There are any number of people who will basically agree with us that Iran could have a very rational foreign policy and that the United States should be talking with Iran. But, they ask us, why do have to say the Islamic Republic is a legitimate system?”

    Though it is admirable to counter the legitimacy myth at a theoretical level, but practically, I believe, no energy must be wasted on it. Since no and let me repeat again NO non-western political system will ever be regarded as a legitimate one by US. The reasons are many from Greek philosophical thought to Colonial supremacy to Post modern political conclusions of Western culture. This will be a futile battle if you choose to fight. The only people for whom legitimacy must be consequential are the people of Iran and they flock to vote at each opportunity. Furthermore, it will always be the military and strategic power of Iran that will deter US or any other power intending to invade Iran, not busting of this myth. Such a myth does not go away by education but by inter-cultural dialogue during peace times. We are not there yet.

    As for the other two myths of foreign policy and isolation, the situation will improve even more (at least for Iran). In France the same takfiri people for whom the French state was ready to go to war with Syria, have shown their real faces. It is France that is so isolated, it needed US ambassador to take a solidarity walk with French president on an empty Paris street (due to security reasons, LoL) in order to prove otherwise. It is the isolated Saudi Arabia that has started to have border clashes with the same group it has been supporting against Iran. It is the isolated Turkey which has been supporting anti-Iranian groups in the region that needs to put up a clown show for Abbas in order to prove otherwise.

    * “I suppose that, tomorrow, someone might come out with evidence of fraud.”

    It wont happen. Because there was no fraud. Ahmadinejad had genuine support at the time. The stuttering Mosavi and the corrupt Karobi were not even close by comparison. The only “evidence” that can come up is a manufactured one for the purpose of a show trial if IR fails to defend itself and falls in an invasion/coup.

    * “they literally said we had written an evil book”

    People said the same about Darwin’s On The Origin of Species. Now we know better. Even Pope nowadays uses antibiotics which are prescribed/formulated keeping evolution in mind, regardless of his ideological views.

  11. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    January 14, 2015 at 9:32 am

    Why do you say Obama has accepted that?

  12. yk says:

    Firstly to the Leveretts I say happy new year, looking forward to more pragmatic analysis from your intelligible site. Thanks.

  13. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    January 15, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    I do not know.

    I personally doubt that the Axis Powers would be willing to accept such a deal.

    May be once ISIS attacks Saudi Arabia in earnest we will see a change in Axis Powers policy.

  14. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    January 16, 2015 at 9:56 am

    I doubt such a deal would be reached. It is even more “generous” than what Leveretts have been advocating. But yes, the situation in Saudi is fast deteriorating. In fact the focus of US should be Saudi Arabia and not Syria and Iraq. The king there is seriously ill and sooner than later will die. There is widespread support for ISIS among Saudi population and there appears to be internal battles being fought over who the next king should be. Already they are building a wall, though its effectiveness is debatable since there is internal support for this sick ideology: http://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-is-building-a-600-mile-great-wall-to-shield-from-isis-2015-1

    It is a shame. US has based its policy for the region on Saudi stability. Once this crumbles which will eventually, the whole thing will collapse.

  15. ToivoS says:

    I had trouble understanding the importance for the US to accept the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic before. It seemed sufficient for the US to accept that Iran had rational national interests and that accepting those would be sufficient. Libya is a very good example for how dangerous continuous demonization of another nation can be.

    However, the China precedent is a good counter-example. For the first 20 years after Nixon’s recognition, the US really didn’t accept the legitimacy of communist party rule as we saw with our reaction to the Tien Mien Square demonstrations. Today this does not seem to be a problem anymore but it has taken 40 years for the US to accept the legitimacy of the PRC.

  16. fyi says:

    ToivoS says:

    January 16, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    It is instructive to also view another analogy.

    US & China jointly gave political and material support to the murderous Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia in order to wound Viet Nam and thus hurt USSR.

    At one time, US forced India to cancel a shipment of water buffalos to Viet Nam just so that Viet Nam is hurt.

    There was also an informal embargo of Viet Nam to starve that country.

    To this day, Mr. Hun Sen, the man installed by the Vietnamese is running the show over there in Cambodia – after all that posturing and maneuvering.

    The analogy with ISIS, Syria, and Iran is quite clear and I do not think it needs any elaboration.

  17. M. Ali says:

    Great to have the team back.

    Here is something interesting about the France rally that tells a lot about the east-west gap.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-march-tv-wide-shots-reveal-a-different-perspective-on-world-leaders-at-largest-demonstration-in-frances-history-9972895.html

    The picture taken at the Paris march of the leaders apparently is staged to give the illusion of leaders walking with the common men. This is about the support of FREEDOM OF SPEECH. How worthwhile is freedom of speech if the narrative is always constructed and false?

    How can we as nations and as societies move forward if we are bogged down by our own delusions and lies? Politicians and journalists and scholars create an atmosphere of falseness that is transformed into reality by the faith of the public in the multiple narratives.

    The French attacks have less to do with Islam and more to do with the west’s inability to really absorb members of their society that are not 100% in line with the status quo. Tolerance shouldn’t be a slogan but a way of life. 200 years since slaves were freed in USA, black people are STILL called African-Americans. How misguided can a society be when this is the POLITE way of addressing their members.

    Western societies can talk about freedom, acceptance, tolerance, equality, etc, but it’s masks that remain masks no matter how much they repeat it to themselves. The white men from America, France, Britain, Germany, etc will ALWAYS remain friends no matter how many World Wars they enter against each other, no matter how many of their own children they kill. Once the dust settles, and the ink is dried on their peace treaties, they go back to holding hands and smiling.

    And no matter much, all peace with the rest of the world is temporary. We saw how quickly Russia was pushed aside. We see that no matter how many times Turkey goes to their parties, Erdogan will never enter their circle. No matter how much of win-win partnership China has with the EU & US, the mistrust and the distaste always remains.

    So, now, we go back to Iran. Iran’s future is not in the west, it’s in the east. It’s with Iraq and Syria and Pakistan and Afghanistan and China and Turkey and Oman and so on. It’s here that actual friendship CAN be ultimately forged to last us generations.

    Unfortunately, once again, the east, from Turkey to Saudia to India to Iran, all look for answers and prospects in the west.

  18. Karl.. says:

    M Ali


    How can we as nations and as societies move forward if we are bogged down by our own delusions and lies? Politicians and journalists and scholars create an atmosphere of falseness that is transformed into reality by the faith of the public in the multiple narratives.

    I have questioned that myself many times, people are obsessed these days with stuff like miley cyrus, newest blockbuster and watching nonsense videos on youtube.
    No wonder the IQ in the west arent progressing as it used to. People can be fooled to support anything today, and dont even try to persuade them, then they get crazy, they want to live in ignorance forever it seems. Very tragic.

  19. Rd. says:

    “Israeli Airstrike Kills Six Hezbollah Fighters, Iranian General in Syria”

    looks iziz are back at their usual game, specifically targeting just before negotiations are reaching more advanced stages.

    http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/israeli-airstrike-kills-six-hezbollah-fighters-syria

  20. Rd. says:

    M. Ali says:

    “How worthwhile is freedom of speech if the narrative is always constructed and false?”

    this publishment of filth and ignorance started in the 60 under the name Hara-Kiri. In 1970 the day after the death or burial of De Gaulle they made some remark that was deemed an offense of lèse-majesté against the deceased President. a week after they were shut down, the same editors, cartoonist, etc ,started cahrlie hebdo.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hara-Kiri_%28magazine%29

    in 2009 they had another remark about sarkozi (his son) and jews. this time, they knew better, so they quickly fired the editor in charge of that cartoon.

    –http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/im-not-charlie-im-maurice-sinet-fired-by-charlie-for-anti-semitism/118874

    the two or 3 or how ever many ignorant individuals had more to do with the failure of french societies and ghettos and french FP than freedom of nonsense.

  21. fyi says:

    Rd.
    January 19, 2015 at 10:10 am

    In Europe, there is a big problem with large Muslim communities that are not easy to integrate.

    It must be remembered that, in France and Belgium, the majority came from poor areas of North Africa in the 1950s to 1970s: many were indeed poor villagers from the mountains of Morocco or Algeria — often of Berber stock, in fact, not Arabs.

    They were not sophisticated people.

    But they were hard-working and kept a low profile.

    It is with the 2nd and 3rd generation, born in the country, that problems are more acute: they are not prepared to work in factories for the minimum wage for the rest of their lives, and anyway those factories have disappeared, more often than not…

    Europe is, in fact, recapitulating the experience of Black Americans in industrialized North of the United States.

    They were very poorly educated and unsophisticated people who moved North to work in the industrial plants of Detroit, Gary, Cleveland, and Toledo – among others.

    But their movement also coincided with the beginnings of the decline of US heavy industries – steel, chemicals, automobiles, etc.

    And their progeny could not make the transition from manual work to clerical and later knowledge work.

    Such a transition, evidently, cannot be made in 2 or 3 generations – it takes longer than that.

    [Just look at us in Iran, 120 years of trying to create good government, rule of law and representative government…]

    In US, the Blacks became angry and together with Whites – who had become resentful and tired of the constant feuds with them – presided over the destruction of great American cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, and Toledo.

    Neither side gained anything from that destruction.

    All the while, US government was giving money to Blacks to keep them quiet.

    I guess, in Europe, Islam has become a form of protest against not making it to the Middle Class comfort of Europeans.

    But wearing those garments does not help advance oneself; I should think.

    At least here, the Black women hold many small clerical jobs in companies, shops, etc.

    They are the Blacks that work; as opposed to men who seem “Not be willing to play by any rules.”

    There are about 20 million Muslims in Europe, with some 5 million of them in France, according to the demographer Michèle Tribalat.

    That amounts to roughly 8% of the population of France, compared with about 5% of both the U.K. and Germany.

    In the early 1970s, 2 million of the 3 million foreigners in Germany
    were in the labor force; by the turn of this century, 2 million of 7.5 million were; the rest are living at government largess.

  22. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    January 19, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    So true.

    But there lies a bigger question here. Why is it regarded as an obligation for West to feed, cloth, educate and provide “Rezq” to these people of various colors and faiths? Have these other faiths and colors come to believe in divinity of West now?

    When there is a food shortage, every one looks up to West to solve the problem. When a disease propagates terror, it is expected that West comes up with solution and that also fast. When aircrafts get old, it is seen as a given that the West has to replace the fleet with newer ones. When they do not like something in West, it is expected of West to comfy their hurt emotions, but then the very next day they are buying Western medicines, using Western Internet, riding Western automobile technology and use synthetic cloths, electricity, eye glasses, even the clean tap water, all Western gifts to humanity.

    Do these people realize that they have elevated West to the status of a god by their lame behavior and their wonder-less lives?

    No excuse of theirs is acceptable anymore. They are what they are, because of themselves. No one is stopping them to dedicate their lives to worthy passions and exploration of universe within or without their earthly bodies. The only blame is on them.

    As Dr Maryam Mirzakhani got inspired by the life story of a Western artist, Vincent Van Gogh perceiving the life not how Iranians have been perceiving it for centuries, but how a Westerner sees and appreciates it and becoming what she has become, then why not others?

    Enough of excuses.

  23. nahid says:

    Thanks M. Ali for the article , especially for this sentence So, now, we go back to Iran. Iran’s future is not in the west, it’s in the east. It’s with Iraq and Syria and Pakistan and Afghanistan and China and Turkey and Oman and so on. It’s here that actual friendship CAN be ultimately forged to last us generations.

  24. fyi says:

    nahid says:

    Mr. Khamenei thinks that someday Iran can be like France.

    That is a lofty goal which will take Iran no less than 2 or 3 hundred years.

    Iran does not have the intellectual/technical depth of France or Italy or England.

    That intellectual depth has to be nurtured and grown over centuries.

    The poverty of Iran, in this respect, is surpassed by orders of magnitude in such countries as Pakistan, Indonesia, Oman etc.

    For the coming decades and centuries, until and unless Iranians an Turks and Central Asians learn to be as productive intellectually as France, Italy, and England, they will be dependent for all new ideas and techniques on the West.

    Conceivably, Iran could try to emulate Japan, the only non-Western country that has been able to get close to the West in its intellectual vigor as well as inventiveness.

  25. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    January 19, 2015 at 8:11 pm

    I think there are2 silver linings in all of this – potentially:

    – in all of this is that religious people and not so religious people in Iran and Turkey and few other places such as those will reject the worst aspects of Islamic Traditions – “This is not our religion!” – including the mullahs.

    After Taliban, ISIS, and all these acts of terrorism against Shia in Pakistan or Iraq or Afghanistan – as well as the atrocities of Boko Haram in Nigeria – I think even the most conservatives of the Doctors of Religion in Najaf and Qum will have to really put some thought into how to distinguish Islam from Terrorism – facile condemnations like “This is not Islam.” will not suffice, I am afraid.

    It is like Dr. Gholamhussein Ebrahimi Dinani stated: “We are Muslims but not Arabs.” – meaning unthinking human beings to be treated like cattle; the way religious police in Saudi Arabia walk around with their thin long sticks – hitting women on their calfs – forcing them to go to prayer.

    The other one is the on-going economic siege war against Iran, disabusing Iranians of any fantasies that might have ever entertained.

  26. ataune says:

    @fyi

    “It is with the 2nd and 3rd generation, born in the country, that problems are more acute”

    It looks to me that the social problems in France are not stemming mainly from the young “beurs” looking to move upward in the society and facing on each corner tremendous obstacles and roadblocks since their birth.

    The acute problem is mainly the French Republic not being capable to adapt herself and bring to these individuals the same minimal requirements that she once promised to the others with “liberte, egalite, fraternite” and somehow provided to them with the help of the American funds after WWII.

    Having the political wind in their back in France now, “atlantiste” and neo-cons too are pushing hard to portray the main problem as being caused by the religious background of these 2nd and 3rd generation French not being compatible with the “values” of the French Republic – Reqpublic in which tolerance doesn’t seem to be part of it anymore.

  27. fyi says:

    ataune says:

    January 20, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    I would say that the failings of the French Republic are then being largely exaggerated.

    There are very many Muslims that are working in professional & technical jobs in France and they are quite French – I should think.

    And they are not going around causing trouble.

    Look, if it is so bad in France, these 2nd and 3rd generation people could always leave and go to another country in which they think they can get a better deal.

    Look no further than the Islamic Republic of Iran; any one who wants to leave can and does leave – going to US, Dubai, Malaysia, Australia, Canada, or Europe to seek a better fortune.

  28. ataune says:

    @fyi
    ” these 2nd and 3rd generation people could always leave and go to another country in which they think they can get a better deal”

    These are French people born in France. It’s their country, and if this country is defining herself as a government for the people and by the people then she belongs to the “young Arabs” as much as the “Francais pure souche”. If the Fifth Republic has huge shortcomings like this – and others not to mention here – the way to go is a new social and political contract and not, as you suggest, to force thousands and thousands of young French outside the country, or in jail.. pourquoi pas? If you believe in the principles of the civil societies, as you are claiming, you need to defend the right of those citizens as much as other individuals IN France… if you desire to keep a bit of credibility.

  29. James Canning says:

    I continue to think that much of the hostility toward Iran in the US Congress rests on an assumption that hurting Iran helps Israel get on with its effort to get rid of the Palestinians.

  30. fyi says:

    ataune says:

    January 20, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    60% of inmates in French prisons are Muslim (recent article in The Economist). This was reflected in the movie, “A Prophet”, which showed the traditional (Corsican) gangs being sidelined by ever-more-powerful Arab gangs. In all, 10% of the French population is of Arab/Muslim descent.

    As with African-Americans USA, I don’t think the gap (10% Vs 60%) can only be explained in terms of the ingrained racism of the police and judicial system — even if the racism of the former is not in doubt, in my view.

  31. M.Ali says:

    Fyi, while I agree with some of your comments, I dont agree with,

    “Look, if it is so bad in France, these 2nd and 3rd generation people could always leave and go to another country in which they think they can get a better deal.

    Look no further than the Islamic Republic of Iran; any one who wants to leave can and does leave – going to US, Dubai, Malaysia, Australia, Canada, or Europe to seek a better fortune.”

    This is an incorrect way of looking at it. While a some do leave the countries they are part of, enough usually stay to change the course of their country. Iran’s 1979 revolution did not come from satisfied Iranians, but from disatisfied, who did not leave their country.

    The Shah of Iran would usually make the same statements when it came to Iranians opposing him,

    “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t…A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”.

  32. ataune says:

    @fyi

    Racism is not even the main issue here. It is the shortcomings of the political and economical system in France. I have the feeling that you tend to defend the principles of individualism when those individual are among certain “elite” but fail to do so if they are part of the common people. You are entitled to think this way, but this was not the promise of the French Revolution, and all the Republics following her to this day. You can be certain that much more than those 10% of the population in France are failing to get the share of the “liberte, egalite, fraternite” that they are entitled to.

  33. Kathleen says:

    I so missed your insights over these last two months. Yikes I was asking all over the place (Melissa Harris Perry’s fb page, Mondoweiss, Huffington Post) about your whereabouts. We need you two. Read the China piece now for this one. Glad you are back

  34. fyi says:

    ataune says:

    January 21, 2015 at 9:17 am

    Let us look at the “common” people:

    The man was murdering prostitutes in Mashhad to “cleanse” the society- until caught. Other “common” people were congratulating his son for having a father such as him and expressing support for his actions. Later it was revealed that he had had sex with a number of them better-looking ones before murdering him.

    More common people: the Fly-over-America that hates Islam and specially hates Iran. The neighborhood in Lincoln, Nebraska, populated by the common people that is locally known as the “Ku Klux Klan neighborhood”.

    More common people: 23-year-old female physiotherapy intern in India was beaten and gang raped in a private bus in which she was travelling with a male friend. There were six others in the bus, including the driver, all of whom raped the woman and beat her friend. The woman died from her injuries thirteen days later while undergoing emergency treatment in Singapore.

    She had been penetrated by a steel rod repeatedly and had suffered multiple serious internal injuries.

    A ten year old girl is sent into a crowd and blown up, killing tens of people. Elites of Nigeria did not send her there – common criminals did.

    Suicide bomber blows up a Shia mosque in Pakistan (3 weeks ago) – a common man sent by other common men…

    Don’t ever try to hide behind “Common People”…

  35. ataune says:

    @fyi

    So basically you think that the promises given by the ruler(s) and signed by him(them) and the representatives of the people in a bottom of a paper called constitution (social contract) is not important when we are talking about the rights of the majority of the individuals in the nation, the ones part of the common people, correct?

    Then I don’t believe you are defending any political cause worth debating about since you are siding with the elite (rulers), who obviously do not need critical thinking but positive propaganda only.

  36. fyi says:

    ataune says:

    January 22, 2015 at 4:20 pm

    I do not believe in the notion of social contract.

    I am suggesting to you that categories such as “elite” or “common” are not very useful in a discussion of moral choice and moral autonomy.

    Both members of the so-called elite and the common man can undertake evil actions.

    You are stating, in effect, that the short-comings of the French Republic (the 5-th republic, as is) are a major factor in the plight of the 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims (North and Central Africans) in France.

    Yet those shortcomings do not seem to affect the Gaelic people of France; they, in comparison to 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims, respect the Law, follow the rules, and try to make the best of their lives.

    I think the difference between you & I may be in the portion of responsibility that we attribute to the state and to the individual in this case.

  37. Kathleen says:

    Great piece promoting understanding between the U.S. and Iran..Thank you

  38. Kathleen says:

    Read once going to read again.

    Hillary “I think one of the problems was that the Obama administration decided to work with the congress. Congress is never going to agree: it doesn’t matter whether it is Democrat or Republican”

    Finally both parties are being exposed for their going along with the I lobbies, Israel etc when it comes to US foreign policy in the region. Now with Boehner’s invite to Netanyahu (or response to a request/order from Netanyahu and lobby) and efforts to grow a two thirds majority to trump a stated veto by Obama if more sanctions against Iran is passed the lines are being drawn in the public’s view. Hoping people contact their Reps let them know what you think about more sanctions and document what their aides say about this serious issue. We see once again how Dems not only fall in line but have promoted more unnecessary aggression towards Iran. How the majority in both parties move us ever closer to a military confrontation with Iran based on more unsubstantiated claims.

    Hoping the Leveretts focus some on how Israel the very nation pushing the U.S. towards more conflicts refuses to sign the IAEA’s NPT and also the Chemical Weapons Convention agreement. How hypocritical and terribly dangerous this is.

    Hillary “Eventually, Flynt and I both resigned in protest” There is an inference that you resigned because of the “Axis of Evil” (David Frum) announcement in a Bush speech. Or did you resign based on the direction of the Bush administrations foreign policy over all in the middle east? What were the responses to your resignations?

    So great to see and hear Hillary on Melissa Harris Perry’s this summer and fall I think four times. A real breakthrough on MSNBC. Just too bad Chris Matthews. Ed, Al Sharpton etc (who I have asked over and over again to have you two on) will not have you on to help educate the public based on facts and a much wider view. If there is a military confrontation with Iran Chris Matthews will surely say “oh I was always against this” after such a possible military confrontation takes place. Which is what he did when it came to the invasion of Iraq. Before the invasion he had Bill Kristol, David Frum, Gaffney and others who were promoting the invasion. Now to be fair Chris did poke at their arguments a bit. However Chris never had Scott Ritter, El Baradei, Ray McGovern, Colonel Ann Wright others who were all over the place (at least with anyone who would listen) questioning the validity of the WMD intelligence. No Chris did not have guest on like this. Which is exaactly what he is doing in the case of the situation with Iran. He has guest on who know little to nothing about the deep details. Most of the host on MSNBC are not interested in widening the scope of U.S. citizens. Hell either is NPR. Diane Rehm has not had Flynt on in a long time. Don’t think she has ever had Hillary on. Thank goodness for the desire to educate by Melissa Harris Perry. Hope Hillary and would be great to see and hear Flynt on that program too. Thanks for all you two do to help widen our scopes