Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Media Focus on Anti-Regime Exiles Plays Into Amhadinejad’s Hands

Western’s media’s recent focus on pro-regime change Iranian exile groups has given the authorities in Tehran a new way to discredit the opposition movement.

(Inter Press Service)

While mass demonstrations in Iran are dwindling—with the opposition appearing largely paralyzed by the authorities’ crackdown—the crisis is causing the reemergence of Iranian exiles who have long advocated regime change in Iran, sometimes by force.

Western media’s promotion of these exiles—many of whom are not well regarded by ordinary Iranians—is damaging to the goals of demonstrators, say observers familiar with Iranian reformist politics.

Attention to pro-regime change Iranian exiles “has brought about enormous hardships on the ground," said Asieh Mir, an Iranian scholar at the U.S. Institute of Peace who works on democracy issues and participated in the reformist governments of the early 2000s.

Mir says that Iranian state-run news has been carrying Western news outlets’ interviews with anti-regime exiles. "This kind of media coverage and inviting the opposition is harming the movement," he told the Inter Press Service.

Guided by harsh statements from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei and presumptive President-elect Mahmoud Amhadinejad, Iranian authorities have repeatedly asserted that foreign meddlers are supporting the anti-government protests.

Mir Hossein Moussavi, the opposition leader who lost the recent disputed election, has vociferously denied that he seeks the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

On the contrary, Moussavi, a player in the early republic and the revolution, says that the crowds of Iranians are rallying for a return "to the pure principles of the Islamic Revolution."

The unifying goal of the rallies and demonstrations, which brought together varying segments of Iranian society, was to annul the election results and hold a free and fair poll—a far cry from bringing down Iran’s unique mix of Islamic theocracy and republicanism.

Not all Iranian exile groups are vocal about their desire for regime change, but these groups stand out in that they claim to represent the masses who have been filling the streets of Iran. However, most exile groups and figures lack legitimacy in Iraq.

Among the leaders of these disparate groups of anti-regime exiles are Reza Pahlavi, the suburban Washington-based son of the last Shah, and Maryam Rajavi, leader of the controversial French-based Mujahadin-e-Khalq (MEK).

These two individuals’ views have been amplified by their appearances in mainstream U.S. and Western media—a fact the Iranian government has seized upon to discredit Iran’s demonstrators.

State-run media in Iran is replaying clips of interviews and speeches by Rajavi and Pahlavi in an attempt to tie demonstrators to the anti-regime figures and cast their aspirations as an attempt to subvert and destabilize Iran.

The government has accused protesters and foreign governments of colluding to foment a "color revolution," like the allegedly U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-backed popular uprisings that reshaped Eastern Europe and which U.S. hawks have long advocated for Iran.

But Washington is unlikely to back up MEK and Pahlavi. In an interview in the June 27 edition of the New York Times Magazine, Pahlavi denied any support from the U.S. government: "I don’t rely on any sources other than my own compatriots," he said, calling charges he has ties with the CIA and groups trying to destabilize Iran "absolutely and unequivocally false."

But Pahlavi, a symbol of the dictatorial Shah whose secret police was known for brutal repression, holds more sway with the monarchist exile communities than with citizens in Iran.

Pahlavi dismissed Moussavi as a "prescreen[ed]" candidate who could therefore "not be a true representative of the nation."

In the sometimes combative Times interview, Pahlavi claimed he maintains ties to "all sorts of groups that are committed to a secular, democratic alternative to the current regime."

Asked about his father’s rule, Pahlavi said he left "this judgment to history"—something most Iranians, who tend to have long political memories, have already done, as evidenced by the continuing widespread resentment of the 1953 CIA-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically-elected government and re-installed the autocratic Shah.

In a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, Pahlavi urged the United States and the international community to intervene and help demonstrators.

"I have seldom seen nonviolent movements for change succeed without international assistance," he said. "Let's not have the regime in Iran define what is interference and what is not."

Maryam Rajavi and her cultish Islamist-Marxist MEK group have gotten less mainstream media attention in the U.S.—most likely because since 1997 the U.S. government has considered MEK a terrorist organization.

In addition, MEK is not a viable force in Iran because it sided with Iraq in the bloody and traumatic Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

In spite of this reputation, several commentators, most prominently U.S. neoconservatives, have published endorsements of the MEK in smaller and foreign publications.

A longtime proponent of U.S. covert support for the MEK, Raymond Tanter, wrote an opinion piece for the Jerusalem Post encouraging the United States and Israel to give broad support to MEK and its umbrella organization, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Tanter is president of the pro-regime change Iran Policy Committee and a scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a hawkish member of the so-called Israel lobby in the United States.

Fellow neoconservative Daniel Pipes, who has admitted he favored the election of hardliner Ahmadinejad, also wrote a piece for the Jerusalem Post promoting a regime change plan that "takes advantage" of the MEK, calling for their prompt removal from U.S. list of terror groups. (Pipes also noted that he attended a June 20 NCRI summit outside Paris.)

Projecting MEK views onto dissent within the Islamic Republic, Pipes claimed that during her speech, Rajavi called for regime change: "Like the street protesters, she also called for the demise of the Khomeinist regime."

Iranian state media has been publishing clips and pictures of Rajavi wearing a green headscarf in an attempt to tie her to the protests—the same color associated with Moussavi’s campaign and worn by many of the protestors. Green also happens to be the color of Islam.

This faction of exile views, however, seems not to have penetrated the Barack Obama administration. In the June 28 New York Times, David Sanger quoted a U.S. official who grasped some of the nuances of the positions of opposition within Iran.

"The students in Tiananmen wanted real democracy, the Poles wanted regime change, but the Iranians might be looking for something in between," the unnamed official told Sanger, noting that further radicalization, if it occurs, will likely be sparked by actions of the regime itself.

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and PRA’s Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share