Neo-leftists
The left's vision of Iran
Bahram Moghisi
August 9, 2005
iranian.com
Many Iranians have an attitude towards Iran which
parallels that of the neoconservatives in its lack of nuance and its
gross oversimplification of a complex reality. This is apparently
true also of some leftist Iranians. As a perfect example,
one may point to the recent article, "Left
out," by
Naheed Rasa.
Leftist or Neoconservative?
What is the proper attitude within
the left vis-a-vis
American power? In the article, Naheed Rasa asks rhetorically, "Can
we use American power to promote democracy in the region?" From
the context (Iraqi Kurdistan, etc.), it's clear it is coercive
power she is talking about. However, "leftist" may
be a misleading term by which to designate one who
poses this rhetorical question.
The right label would be "neo-conservative." Remember,
the neo-conservatives were a movement of leftists and
democrats who, despite their progressive social agenda, were
disenchanted with the left's refusal to support the use of
American power to spread "America's democratic values" abroad
by coercive means. They wanted the US to take a hard line against
such foreign "enemies of the freedom and democracy" as
the Soviet Union.
Now, replace the evil empire with the "axis
of evil" (Iran, Iraq, North Korea) in such rhetoric,
and what you get are the contemporary neo-conservatives. And
that's precisely where the author of "Left
out," Naheed
Rasa, fits in.
There has always been a trickle of leftist intellectuals who
reinvented themselves as neo-conservatives. Christopher
Hitchens is a good recent example. So, Rasa certainly
is in distinguished company.
The Nuclear Controversy and Idiocy
A hallmark of the current neoconservative approach to the controversy
over Iran's nuclear program is their, let's say "over-simplified," image
of the issue. Case in point: Rasa says that anyone
who doesn't think Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons is "an
idiot."
Whether in the past Iran had a military nuclear program is
hard to know, although it seems plausible. But what
about now? Iran has agreed to implement the Additional
Protocols, which would allow unlimited, un-announced inspections
and gathering of environmental samples.
Now, the gathering
of environmental samples is an effective way of checking whether
a country has a military track. Furthermore, unlimited inspections
can be highly effective too: indeed, that is how the U.N.
dismantled the entire Iraqi nuclear program over a decade ago!
With the Additional Protocols, it would be very difficult and
risky, if not impossible, for Iran to pursue a military
track
It seems entirely possible that Iran has decided
to have a
dozen nuclear reactors, as it claims, and wishes to produce
its own nuclear fuel. It is also equally plausible
that they realize that it may be impossible, or highly risky,
to have a military track as well, and as a result they have
suspended or eliminated the military track, if there ever was
one, which is uncertain (especially given the latest CIA
estimate that Iran is ten years away from having a nuclear
device).
At any rate, labeling alternatives to the
neoconservative position as "idiotic" would appear
to be unwarranted.
Hejab and Idiocy
The same kind of black-and-white
attitude, which is lacking
in nuance, pervades the rest of Rasa's article.
Take the question of hijab, where she ridicules academics who
point out that for some women the hijab can be liberating.
But why does the hijab have to be one thing or the
other? Why does it have to be only what Rasa says it is, and
nothing
beyond that?
Could it be that the hijab is oppressive for some
women, liberating for others, and neutral for yet others? Can't
the personal predilections, family background, milieu, class,
and country of the woman make a difference?
If the hijab were made optional, surely many women, especially
in Tehran, would take it off. In Tehran, that might be
the majority. Yet, there will also be those who will retain
it.
In Egypt, for example, there has been a major
trend among educated women to adopt the hijab, and in that
country
the hijab is not forced by the state.
Most likely, the hijab means very different things to
different women. For Rasa, however, it's self-evident ("everyone
knows") what the hijab means to *all* women, and anyone
who questions the caricature she paints must be an idiot. A
more nuanced approach is in order here.
Presidential Elections
Another question on which a balanced approach would be appropriate
is the recent, flawed presidential elections in Iran. Some
paint it as entirely black. In particular, the neoconservative
party line, as echoed even in a New York Times editorial, was
that they were "sham elections." Rasa writes, "the
recent presidential election in Iran was a joke. "
Here, too, I'm inclined to agree and disagree. It is true
that the elections had a lot of issues, most gravely as
concerns the illegally-organized "getting out the vote" campaign
launched by the Baseej. The problems Rasa highlights
are valid as well.
But, at the same time, it was by no means a "sham election."
First, there was no evidence that any ballot-box
stuffing took place.
Second, despite all its flaws, this was actually the freest
election Iran has ever had. One of the candidates,
Mostafa Moeen, was on national TV saying that he is against
special privileges for the clergy, and he formed a pro-democracy
coalition with secularists. Nothing like this has ever happened
before.
So, the situation is more complex than many would have it.
On this point, as in the other points, Rasa's rhetoric
parallels the neo-conservative black-and-white approach
to a reality that is fairly complex.
|