Profoundly off

The Leveretts and accountability of American analysts on Iran


Profoundly off
by Omid Memarian

The list of foreigners who unconditionally support the Islamic Republic of Iran is short but not unexpected: Omar Albashir of Sudan, Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah, Khalid Mashal of Hamas, and Hugo Chavez of Venezula might be at the top. Add to this list an unlikely duo: Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett.

Notwithstanding over two decades of collective experience working for organizations and entities like the CIA, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the National Security Council, the Leveretts are currently America's most prominent, and abrasive, defenders of the Iranian regime and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Though they cloak their analysis in the guise of strategic thinking and anti-war diplomacy, their writings betray a dangerous lack of understanding of Iran's internal realities as well as an almost bigoted contempt for the Iranian people.

Take for example a recent article on their blog the "Race for Iran -- whose name conjures memories of British colonialism -- entitled "Iraq Redux: 'Conventional Wisdom' and Accountability for Iran Analysts". The Leveretts posit that "no one paid a price for the colossal analytic failures that neutered our debate about the war in Iraq--and, now, the political classes are once again falling for an intellectually lazy but politically convenient conventional wisdom regarding an important foreign policy issue, this time about the Islamic Republic of Iran."

In illustrating their points, however, the Leverett's are the ones guilty of intellectual laziness and a lack of objectivity. Instead of serious, fact-based analysis, they rely mostly on ad-hominem attacks against those who don't share their unconditional support for the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, had the Leverett's piece been written in Persian it could have easily been confused with the writing of Hussein Shariatmadari, the radical editor in chief of hardline Kayhan Newspaper (Fox News on steroids).

While the Leveretts attack those who don't share their rosy opinion of the Iranian regime as "completely wrong" and "partisan", their key source in Tehran is their erstwhile co-author Seyed Mohammad Marandi, who has emerged as the Iranian government's chief spokesperson in the English-language media. Marandi, who arranged for the Leveretts' to visit Tehran recently, consistently defends and dissimulates the brutality of the Iranian government, dismissing well documented prison rapes and murders as Western and Zionist-media conspiracies.

Because of the fact that the Leveretts continue to be offered a prominent place in the public debate about Iran, their analysis deserves careful scrutiny. Particularly their latest article whose tone, language, and logic could have been written from the pen of Ahmaidnejad's official speechwriter. Here are some "corrective observations" on the Leveretts' arguments:

"The Green Movement" vs. the government

The couple challenges Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who said in The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler article, "there is a clique in power" in Tehran that "does not respond to incentives and does not respond to disincentives." Sajadpour also said "the Iranian government is "under siege from the popular uprising last year after a disputed presidential election". The Leveretts call Karim's argument "wholly unsubstantiated" and "false--assertion," and to explain their judgment, they continue:

"The evidence of the Green movement's decline since June 2009 is clear and irrefutable. One of the very strong impressions we took away from our visit to Tehran in February--shortly after the publicly promised and widely anticipated show of strength by the Green movement on February 11, the anniversary of the Islamic Republic's founding, had turned out to be an almost complete "bust"--is that the Iranian government is far from being "under siege" and is, in fact, quite confident in its base of popular support."

Corrective Observations: "Where to begin?" What defines a decline in a movement? How can the Leveretts claim "the Iranian government, in fact, quite confident of its base of popular support," when the fact is that the government has had to arrests thousands of people, and continues to do so, has killed dozens, and has sentenced at least ten protesters to death for "throwing rocks" and similar bogus charges. The February 11th anniversary was never meant to be the peak of the people's protests. Not to mention that the government had 8 months to get out of shock mode and to utilize its propaganda machine in order to show the world, and people like the Leveretts, that they have brought the protests under control and the movement is extinguished. For anybody who is in touch with the Iranian society on a daily basis, it is obvious that the overwhelming frustration among millions of people exists and they are awaiting constructive and strategic opportunities to step out again.

The couple's "impression" from their visit to Tehran reflects neither facts nor the reality on the ground.

The people showed their power in the Ashura protest and in others like it. Their strongest protest was the time they neglected the Supreme Leader's warning in his Friday prayer just following the election last June. He had warned of the consequences of further protests and still millions appeared on the streets of Tehran anyway.

With the government using execution sentences, rape and torture to prevent people from protesting , of course it is forcing the Movement to change it's course away from street protests; that is all. It is completely ridiculous to conclude that the movement has ceased because it has refrained from walking into the regime's militant trap. Therefore, the Leveretts' reasoning for the "bust" of the "movement", or whatever you call it, is grossly negligent. It basically reflects the narrative of the Leveretts' hosts in Tehran. To say that because there has not been any further protests in Tehran and that the government has a strong popular base is frighteningly simplistic. As simplistic as Jimmy Carter's famous remark on January 1, 1978 in Tehran, calling Iran "an Island of Stability," as the anti-Monarch Revolution was about to explode into the scene.

Iran's Foreign Policy; Ideologically Driven or Rational?

The Leverettes say:

"Claims that the Islamic Republic's foreign policy debate is too ideologically constrained to allow for a strategic opening to the United States are simply not supported by the historical record. On this point, we recommend a recent interview with Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Islamic Republic's Atomic Energy Organization and our piece about that interview. In particular, Salehi's words in this interview about America should be read by all those who continue to circulate the false and a babat maman historical argument that the Islamic Republic's legitimacy is irrevocably grounded in hostility to the United States."

Corrective Observations: The response by the Leveretts on whether Iran's foreign policy is " ideologically constrained to allow for a strategic opening to the United States" or not, is simplistic and loose. You don't have to be an expert on Iran or have lived in the country to understand how, over the past three decades, the IRI has made hostilities towards the United States a major part of its identity. Even though there have been some moves towards the United States in the past, the industry of anti-American sentiment has constrained the Iranian leaders deeming them unable to make a positive change.

The way that the Iranian authorities portrayed the role of the U.S. during the post elections protests as masterminding the unrest is a clear example of how the IRI has been strangled by it's own rhetoric. If the IRI gives up its anti-American sentiment then it would be a different phenomenon. There is a very strong radical faction within the current establishment that believes once Iran normalizes its relationship with the U.S., the clock will start ticking towards the regime's collapse. That's why, regardless of some efforts towards resolving Tehran's problems with Washington, there have been no systematic actions.

It has become a tradition to place the blame on the U.S. for any obstacles in running the country since the Revolution. Iranian leaders are facing a wide range of serious problems, including bad management, corruption, incompetence, costly foreign policy, and a divided political system that is highly polarized, with millions of people who are overwhelmingly frustrated by the government's economic performance. Now, more than ever, the Iranian leaders blame the U.S. as the root of all their troubles.

I believe that even though many Iranian conservative strive for a better relationship with the U.S., those who are pulling the strings know otherwise and fear that a post-normalized Iran would face huge domestic crisis. So, the animosity towards the U.S. is not a matter of choice but inevitable necessity. It is the rulers' way of justify domestic shortcomings, while they are incapable of providing any real solutions. It's no surprise that the vast majority of the Iranian middle class supports normal relations with Washington.

The Supreme Leader and Iran's Decision Making Circles

The Leveretts go on to criticize Sajadpour's view on the decision making structure in Iran. Sajadpour told Washington Post :

"the purge of moderates from the decision-making structures in Iran has made it more likely that the country will attempt 'the Pakistan option.' Under this scenario, Iran would declare itself a nuclear weapons state, endure the condemnation and then watch as the world comes crawling back, anxious to bring it back into the international fold."

The couple challenges his's point in the "corrective observations" they provide:

"...Who are the moderates that have been "purged" from high-level decision-making about nuclear matters? There is ample evidence that, since Ahmadinejad became President in 2005, Ayatollah Khamenei has taken numerous affirmative steps to ensure that he continues to hear a wide range of views about nuclear issues. Ali Larijani, Hassan Rohani, Kamal Kharrazi, even Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani--all continue to play important roles in the ongoing discussion of nuclear matters in Iranian leadership circles. At the same time, there is no evidence that Iran is moving toward a "Pakistan option"--which, we suppose, Karim would distinguish from a so-called "Japan option". Our understanding is that, while Ayatollah Khamenei strongly supports continued development of Iran's nuclear capabilities, at this point he also continues to oppose any move toward overt weaponization."

Corrective Observations: On this point, I believe the Leveretts have had other names in mind but mistakenly have raised the names like Rohani, Kharazi and even the moderate Hashemi Rafsanjani. It's astonishing that the Leveretts leave out names like Hassan Firouzabadi, Joint Chief of Staff, and Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of the Revolutionary Guard, and even Saeed Jalili, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

Obviously the Leveretts have not monitored major changes in Iran's decision-making structure since 2005. To put it nicely, one would be a fool to imagine that any of the aforementioned would get along with the others on major policies. It's like President Obama getting advice from Karl Rove and Joe Biden on what to do in regards to Iran policy.

The Leverretts negligence to understand the basics of Iran's policy-making structure lead the couple to speculate of a "Japan Option" instead of a "Pakistan Option" leaving one to just guess at proof of their claim as to whether Iran is moving toward making a nuclear bomb or not. Perhaps the Leveretts have had meetings with ranking IRGC forces and they have insured that militarization of Iran's nuclear program in not happening. I don't believe that Iran is irrational enough to choose such a costly path. This Nostradamus style of speculation by the Leveretts just seems unreasonable.

The Iran of 2010 and the Iraq of 2003: What is missed?

The Leveretts claim:

"In the years preceding America's 2003 invasion of Iraq, many American elites allowed themselves to be taken in by Ahmad Chalabi and others espousing a romantic view of the possibilities for political transformation in Iraq that would solve all of the major challenges to American interests in the Middle East. Politicians, policymakers, journalists and others should not allow themselves to be taken in again--or excuse bad and misleading analysis of Iranian developments because those promoting that analysis must surely "mean well". At this point in America's post-9/11 engagement in the Middle East, we cannot afford that kind of sentimentality anymore."

Corrective Observations: I truly agree with the Leveretts on what led to the invasion of Iraq. It is also completely true that in dealing with Iran " bad and misleading analysis of Iranian development" is not affordable for the United States, the Iranian people and the Middle East region in general.

But who is misleading the public and the decision-making circles? The fact that the Leveretts' analysis ignores Iran's recent developments, internal politics, political traditions and the domestic legitimacy crisis is not only poisonous but also pushing Iran to act more and more irresponsibly and provocatively.

Also, the Leveretts ignore the fact that the 2003 Iraq is incomparable with the 2010 Iran. Iraq in 2003 was a country with a destroyed civil society, thanks to years of blanket U.N. and U.S. sanctions. Iraq in 2003 was in a different age of communication; the pre-social media era.

Also, the comparison between Ahmad Chalabi and the two reformist presidential candidates, Mir Hussein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, is preposterous. Mousavi and Karroubi, have stronger support within the IRI establishment than does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They were much closer to Ayatollah Khomeini than many mediocre politicians that have surrounded the leader these past five years. That's why the Iranian security establishment has chosen to bark but not bite with regards to its threats to arrest them post election. Why is that?

In the early eighties, in fights between Mousavi; the then Prime Minister, and Khameni; the then President, Ayatollah Khomeini repeatedly took side with his Prime Minister. Unlike Chalabi who came to Iraq from the outside and who was more like a puppet, Mousavi came from within Iran and is a man with strong character who brought 3 million people to the streets in his support after last June's election. The Leverettes lack the understanding that it's not possible to analyze Iran's current situation with regards to their knowledge about Iraq.

A thousand Chalabis cannot equate one Mousavi, nor can one thousand Ahmadinejad equate one Hashemi Ransanjani or one Khatami; a moderate president that was not taken seriously by people like the Leveretts when he was in power, a miscalculation that contributed to the elections of Ahmadinejad in 2005.

The fact that the Leveretts cannot differentiate between Khatami and Jafari or between Mousavi-Karrubi and Chalabi raises the question; what were they doing in Tehran? Just eating Kabab and Doogh with Dr. Marandi and the others who wanted to paint for them a rosy picture of post election Iran.

Labeling Iranians who challenge the government as "Chalabis" is what paid agents of the IRI do anywhere they can. It's appalling to hear analysts, such as the Leverettes fall under the Iranians government's narrative.

Those who perpetuate any false narratives about Iran's political development, neither serve Iran and its people nor do they help resolve the nuclear crisis.


The Leveretts have not only misread the Conservatives in Tehran, but have also misread the opposition movement in Iran, regardless of its destiny. Neither their hate for the moderate president Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) nor their love for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have served the decision-making community in Washington.

However, as the Leveretts say "Whether on Wall Street or in American foreign policy, lack of accountability for duplicity and/or incompetence sets up all of us for profoundly damaging outcomes."

I hope that the couple frame this and hang it on their wall to never forget that if it were not for people like Dr. Marandi in Tehran or people like themselves in Washington, to support the IRI unconditionally, perhaps, less people would have been killed in Tehran or be killed in the future.

Omid Memarian is an award-winning journalist who writes for the IPS News Agency. Follow Omid on Twitter: . This articles was first published in Huffington Post.


Recently by Omid MemarianCommentsDate
Bad News For Mahmoud
Oct 04, 2012
New York Welcome
Sep 10, 2012
Do Iranians Really Support Nuclear Enrichment?
Jul 05, 2012
more from Omid Memarian
boom shakalaka

Again, Parsipoorlogic

by boom shakalaka on

You conviniently DUCK my question and play diversion. I asked you, "And how has the IRI reciprocated by reducing the "anti-American" rhetoric since the age of the Muslim-world-loving-Hussein-Obama, pray tell????"

And you respond with, "luckily your brand of warmongering was voted out of office in the us. we are heading for peace but you are too dense to notice."

Pathetic! Answer my question, you promoter of IRI? Stop playing sideshow with my initials. Just answer the damn question.

And Marge, you should just butt out. Go to a Israeli/Palestinian site, you can't come on this site and pretend to be Iranian and then get caught to NOT be Iranian and still act as though you have standing to talk about these issues. You don't, for the simple reason that you're a fraud.

Iran is a prisoner of IRI 


Just Ignore the Leveretts

by vosough on

That is what I have been ever since they visited Iran and wrote that since they didn't see any soldiers and tanks in the street they couldn't see how anyone can suggest that Iranian government is a govt controlled by the sepah!  


profoundly Leverets

by peeshi on

nuf said about the paid propagandist.

visit their blog and the black lash about these two money hungry opportunist at  //

too bad you can not self moderate and censor the comments in this wild site.



These two animals

by statira on

are good for inside the wall! Be golemaroof barayeh laye jerz kooband. Look at Hillary. eine antare!


Shroud business couple

by reader1 on


Shroud business couple finding a niche market in media politics pretending to support IRI and hence bringing some balance and sanity to US foreign policy on Iran and middle east.  These guys could be on any side of the fence for maximum media exposure. 

I would just like to say how impressed I am with the quality of the debate on this forum especially by  Landan-neshin and some others with whom I often find myself in disagreement.

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

but this is too good to miss! someone with 'BS' as his chosen initials, using profanities for every other word typed, and trying to tell us where it's at :)

coudn't make this character up if we tried!

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Nilofar don't even bother

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

you're wasting your time with someone like that.

Niloufar Parsi

yes you are full of it

by Niloufar Parsi on

luckily your brand of warmongering was voted out of office in the us. we are heading for peace but you are too dense to notice.

boom shakalaka

Again, full of it...

by boom shakalaka on

Parsipoorlogic writes, "if you had any sophistication you would realise that removing the 'anti-american' rhetoric through détente would be to the benefit of everyone concerned."

Firstly, THANK GOD I don't possess your brand of IRI appeasing, promoting, loving, up-for-sale "sophistication!!!"


Secondly, yes, you're right, "removing the anti-american rhetoric through detente would be to the benefit of everyone concerned," but the problem, which you're too dense to behold, is that the IRI is absolutely in no hurry and feels even less compunction to remove the "anti-American" rhetoric, for it serves its purposes to a tee. So why would they remove the bombastic rhetoric?

Prince Pacifist Obama is in the White House. Cowboy Bush is gone. Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama has written King Rapist Khamenei 3 personal and warm letters. Pacifist President BlameBush has unclenched his fists and has bent over backwards trying to appease the mullahs and kiss their hairy rears, even calling Iran "Islamic Republic of Iran" a dozen times. President Hussein has even cut off the funding to a human rights organization focusing on Iran, based in Connecticut, as a gesture of friendship to the IRI  (a reprehensible act, mind you, in light of the massive human rights violations in the aftermath of the rigged elections).

And how has the IRI reciprocated by reducing the "anti-American" rhetoric since the age of the Muslim-world-loving-Hussein-Obama, pray tell????

Iran is a prisoner of IRI 

Niloufar Parsi

'clap trap'

by Niloufar Parsi on

'clap trap' is your forte. if you had any sophistication you would realise that removing the 'anti-american' rhetoric through détente would be to the benefit of everyone concerned. but go ahead and beat your war drum if it makes you happy.


boom shakalaka

The author, Omid Memarian,

by boom shakalaka on

must have his head up his you know what with regard to his statement, "Mousavi... is a man with strong character." Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with the author's premise that the Leveretts are pure scum whores for hire, nothing more, but this twit author actually tries to pretend that the masses of Iranian people have some sort of true affinity for this IRI jackal, Moussavi.

Guess what, genius, Moussavi was the lesser of two evils, period. So don't try to sell us this bombastic charade that Moussavi "is a man with strong character." This is the same bloodthirsty nokar of mullah Hendi Khomeini who liquidated over 20,000 political prisoners in the summer of 1988, not to mention countless other genocidal decisions vis-a-vis the Iran-Iraq war and other executions of Iranian dissidents, of which Moussavi was a major part of. If he had "strong character" as you say, he would have RESIGNED as prime minister when given these heinous and reprehensible "orders" by Hendi Khomeini.

Frankly, to say that this IRI insider, Moussavi, has "strong character" makes me think you're almost as pathetic, corrupt, biased, foolish, for sale, shady and dimwitted as the Leveretts.   

That's about right. Nice try though.

Iran is a prisoner of IRI 

boom shakalaka


by boom shakalaka on

I think you're well aware that you're full of it, but I'll detail it for you just in case you have forgotten how full of it you really are. In response to the author's following quote, "So, the animosity towards the U.S. is not a matter of choice but inevitable necessity," Parsi writes, "the same rhetorical charge could be made against israel or usa. if the above statement had any resemblance to the truth, no foes in history could have made peace. china and usa in the 70s. egypt and israel. iran and iraq."

The IRI is, after 30 years, still in a revolutionary mode, as Iran has yet to settle down as a normal country, 31 years after the revolution. Egypt, nor Israel were in revolutionary mode when they made peace. Further, China's foundation was never cemented on a bedrock of anti-americanism. The IRI's foundation is, was, and will always be anti-Americanism -- without this base, it has no purpose. In fact, anti-Americanism is the IRI's raison d'etre, period.

Please do not try to obfuscate matters with your tired used-car salesman clap-trap. It is cheap, as is your steady diet of IRI propaganda.

Iran is a prisoner of IRI 

Niloufar Parsi

poor logic

by Niloufar Parsi on

the author repeatedly falls back on emotional appeals rather than political reality. take this one:

"So, the animosity towards the U.S. is not a matter of choice but
inevitable necessity."

the same rhetorical charge could be made against israel or usa. if the above statement had any resemblance to the truth, no foes in history could have made peace. china and usa in the 70s. egypt and israel. iran and iraq. fact is, iran and the us have not been engaged in any direct conflict despite the rhetoric on both sides for over 3 decades. given this reality, coupled with the stalemate situation that both countries find themselves in, détente is a more likely outcome of the situation. the author is simply wishing for war. this is against the interests of both iran and usa, but serves israeli goals alone.



The Leveretts are not for IRI, they want US's best interest

by i_support_khamenie on

The Leverette are not interested in you vs me in the Iranian society.

They look at things an report the same way British counsels did in the pre War era, when political sensitivities were not an issue.

They want what is in United States' best interest.
Mr Memerian wants what is in Iran's best interest.

That is exactly, why you don't like their writings...they care for United States first and foremost...Their extensive time in CIA exposed them to some shady characters who would twist facts just to reach an objective...and they are not gonna have any of it.


And, of course, only the AIPAC Mafioso knows the "truth,"

by Mammad on

the AIPAC version of the truth, that is!

For those who may be interested, read the following in response to the Leveretts's NY Times op-ed of a while ago:



Iraneh Azad

Why would anyone trust these pro IRI fools?

by Iraneh Azad on

They worked for AIPAC, CIA and now the IRI. Would you hire them or trust them after working for AIPAC?


Leveretts: Take notice.

by jamshid on

Leveretts, if you are reading this, pray to god that this regime does not fall. Because if and when it does fall, your names, among many others, will be in the list of those who must be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

And your US citizenship will not save you from hired bounty hunters who just like you have a good taste for money. 


Obama's Approach To U.S.

by vildemose on

Obama's Approach To U.S. Relations With Iran



Landan-Neshin has summed

by Bavafa on

Landan-Neshin has summed it up really well here, couldn't have said it better.



NP Landaneshin: Much to your

by vildemose on

NP Landaneshin: Much to your chagrin, Obama and Hillary don't take these two opportunistis seriously. They are allowed to make a buck; this is the American way.


Iran’s (should be IRI's)

by vildemose on

Iran’s (should be IRI's) Man in Washington How Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, became leading advocates for doing business with Tehran


He even looks like a weasel.


The male Leverett was fired

by vildemose on

The male Leverett was fired by Condi Rice.

  • Leverett: From Iran Critic to Iran Apologist
  • Excerpts:

    This was not always Hillary Mann Leverett's worldview.

    Before she married Flynt Leverett, there was Hillary Mann, hardcore anti-Iran agitator. As an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in the late 1990s, she argued that Iran was a primary exporter of terrorism, and that the then-president of Iran, Ayatollah Khatami, was not a reformer and moderate, as he had been widely billed, but a radical in sheep's clothing. In other words, in the late 1990s, before the rise of Ahmadinejad; before the acceleration of Iran's nuclear program; before genocidal anti-Israel rhetoric emanating from Iran had become commonplace; before Iran sponsored the killing of American soldiers; and before the regime slaughtered its own people when they demanded freedom, Hillary Mann believed that Iran was a terror state worthy only of rigorous sanctions:



    Strategy vs. Sentimentality!

    by Landan-Neshin on

    By beginning, and basing his comparative critical argument on the 'pro-IRI' American couple's past engagement with the CIA and all things anti-Iranian in the US, the author appears to be trying to establish a 'fact', as he sees it, that something suspect must be going on!

    I'd suggest that if there was any state institution in the US - or any other western capital, that sees IRI as a long term strategic ally in the region, that would be their intelligence agencies which have held that view for decades,in fact well before the 1979 revolution, and since. 

    If all the Iranian born anti-IRI activists could, for the sake of this argument, put aside their sentimental or personal feelings toward the motherland for a moment, they would possibly see that for those in charge of long-term strategic planning in Washington, Moscow, London etc. keeping IRI on board in the most volatile part of the world is a prime objective and, as far as their long term plannings are concerned, that does makes sense.

    Some, or perhaps all, anti-IRI Iranians would be amazed to learn that, regardless of the two way rhetoricl public mud-slingings, the West, in longer term, sees IRI as a stabalising force in South Asia; as for Tehran, they've always regarded the West as a potential partner.    

    If the western strategic planners had a grain of sentimentality in them, China would have been under the most severe economic,diplomatic and military sanctions the world had ever seen, and if they cared about human and political rights, freedom of worship and the emancipation of women, Saudi Arabian monarchy would have been rendered obsolete long time ago. But the fruits of Realpolitik is there for all to see.

    Of course, I can see many shouting back and saying who cares about China, Saudi Arabia or any other god-forsaken place!           

    Sargord Pirouz

    The Leverrets did a good job

    by Sargord Pirouz on

    The Leverrets did a good job of refuting Memerian's emotional, knee-jerk reaction to their work, which continues to be validated as time goes by.

    It's really sad how Iranian analysts of the diaspora are inherently biased, causing their work to be flawed.

    It's time for Iranian-American analysts and academics to take a step back, put aside their egos and admit their perspectives (and predictions) have been flawed, and start fresh. It's not hard. It only requires an open mind and a basic sense of humility.

    I encourage you to try, Omid.


    Only the truth will do

    by Fred on

    “even the moderate Hashemi Rafsanjani”


    That the Leveretts along with their dinner companion a certain lobbyist with Rafsanjani connection are in it for financial reasons is elementary.

    But the author a charlatan Khatami devotee is not doing his own damaged credibility any good by calling one of the icons of the murderous Islamist Rapist Republic, one Hashemi Rafsanjani- Bahremani who has a lot of blood on his hand a “moderate”.  

    Time for playing these word games are way past and only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will do.