It's no surprise that rightists (like the Investor's Business Daily cartoonist Michael Ramirez and the Columbus Dispatch) portray Iran in the fashion befitting anti-Japanese propaganda from the WW2 era. But are leftists presenting the general public with any information that gives them a better impression? Most of them don't. Marvin just posted here an article titled "Iran's Unlikely TV Hit Show Sympathetic to Plight of Jews during the Holocaust Draws Millions Each Week." That's 7 September 2007 issue of the Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately hidden in B1, so few will read it, but the impression of Iran one gets from most leftist media is generally worse than this Wall Street Journal article.
Why are leftist media usually less useful than even the corporate media (which are in themselves much worse than scholarly books and articles)? That is probably because the corporate media, once in a while, present "human interest" stories, which can at least make room for cultural and social aspects of foreign nations that are not necessarily in keeping with the view of the most hawkish of the US power elite. In contrast, most leftist media take little interest in such "human interest" stories about Iran in fear of being perceived as "soft on mullahs" if the "human interest" at stake arises out of good things done by the Iranian government as is the case with this TV show on Iran's state-owned television.
The corporate media, to be sure, never question the legitimacy of the US campaign for regime change in Iran. The aforementioned WSJ article goes on to say,
A slick documentary-style program recently aired long
interviews with two Iranian-Americans who were detained
on allegations of working to overthrow the regime. The
interviews -- in which the pair blandly admitted to meeting
with Iranian scholars and dissidents, but not to attempting
to topple the government -- were intercut with provocative
scenes of demonstrations in Ukraine, where the U.S.
encouraged groups that eventually staged the successful
Orange Revolution in late 2004.
In short, it raises the issue of "color revolutions" only to suggest that, no, the specter of "color revolutions" is only in the minds of Iranian government officials. But, on this issue, too, most leftist media are hardly better. Leftists oppose war, but most of them do not unequivocally oppose US campaigns for regime change (they mainly suggest that such campaigns are counterproductive, strengthening the hands of the Iranian government, _as if they would be all right if they were productive_), especially the angles of campaigns that use "soft power" in the name of support for "democracy," using "civil society" and "trade union" fronts such as the National Endowment for Democracy (of whose fellowships Haleh Esfandiari and Ramin Jahanbegloo were recipients), Radio Farda (the Persian-language counterpart of Radio Marti, of which Parnaz Azima is an employee), the Open Society Institute (of which Kian Tajbakhsh is a consultant), the Solidarity Center (which claims to support "free and independent unions" in countries like Iran, except that, when it comes to Washington's client states such as Egypt, it is happy to work with governments and government-controlled unions: <http://www.solidaritycenter.org/content.asp?contentid=437>), and so on. Instead, they should be making efforts to discredit these institutions and question those who work for them, whether they are fools or knaves. But, with a few exceptions such as Hossein Derakhshan, they aren't unearthing any information that sheds light on the network of regime change apparatuses and Iranian "dissidents."
But those few who do so are criticized by those who don't (see Stephen Zunes, "The United States and 'Regime Change' in Iran," 7 August 2007, <http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4456>; Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson, "The Iranian Impasse," 16 July 2007, <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/afary/3>).
Last but not the least, there is the tendency to reinforce the rhetoric that legitimizes the empire and delegitimizes its official enemies.
"The United States has a government, security organizations
and allies. The Soviet Union, however, has a regime, secret
police and satellites. Our leaders are consummate politicians;
their are wily, cunning or worse. We give the world information
and seek influence; they disseminate propaganda and
disinformation while seeking expansion and domination."
(Stephen F. Cohen, Sovieticus: American Perceptions and
Soviet Realities, 1985, pp.29-31)
Thus, even in articles that question some aspects of the empire's foreign policy, we see the same rhetoric of legitimation and delegitimation -- "the U.S. government" and "the Iranian regime":
As a result, the dilemma for U.S. policy-makers is this:
the most realistic way to overthrow the Iranian regime
is through a process the United States cannot control.
The U.S. government has historically promoted regime
change through military invasions, coups d'etat and
other kinds of violent seizures of power by an
undemocratic minority. (Stephen Zunes, "The United
States and 'Regime Change' in Iran," 7 August 2007,
<http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4456>)
Oddly, the same dichotomy surfaces even in the far left rhetoric: e.g., "Under increasing pressure from the US government, which has classified Iran as part of its 'axis of evil', there has been a recent escalation of conflicts within the Islamic regime" (Justus Leicht, "Social Tensions Escalate Conflicts within Iranian Regime," 6 September 2002," <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/iran-s06.shtml>).
For all the criticism of the empire, leftists, even far leftists, appear to (probably unconsciously) think of the US government as more legitimate than the Iranian government.
On 9/9/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> If you think this is an example, then you're really reaching. Zunes
> advocates "regime change" in Iran done by Iranians, not foreigners. I
> suspect what annoys you is that he's referring to you as one of the
> credulous bloggers and editors, while curiously failing to name MRZine.
>
> You forgot to quote this paragraph:
>
> > In apparent recognition of this trend, Congress last year approved
> > $75 million in funding for an administration request to support
> > various Iranian opposition groups. However, most of these groups
> > are led by exiles who have virtually no following within Iran or
> > any experience with the kinds of grassroots mobilization necessary
> > to build a popular movement that could threaten the regime's
> > survival. By contrast, most of the credible opposition within Iran
> > has renounced this U.S. initiative and has asserted that it has
> > simply made it easier for the regime to claim that all pro-
> > democracy groups and activists are paid agents of the United States.
>
> So you really have nothing.
Just where does Zunes, or do you, think $75 million has gone? Not at all to any of the "certain Western nongovernmental organizations" and their Iranian associates? What are those "Western nongovernmental organizations" whose work in Iran Zunes and you appear to think is good or harmless? One remains curious. -- Yoshie