Spring 2007 Editorial
As the invasion of Iraq slogs through its fifth year, we are reminded time and again how many lies were propagated by those who sought this war. With each passing month, comments by our political and military “leaders” find new ways to defend either the reasons for going to war and/or the need to continue it. At the very least, they provide new fodder for Eliot Weinberger’s prescient collection of quotes, published each year under the matter-of-fact title, “What I Heard About Iraq.” This spring, television journalist Bill Moyers has upped the anty, releasing a special look at the role of the media in shaping public opinion toward a military solution, “Buying the War.” Moyers’ devastating critique of his own professional community helps emphasize two points. First, that the fourth estate is merely a group of humans, as susceptible to influence and manipulation as any other community of people – and perhaps more so, due to our greater access to those holding power. Second, that a majority of the American public went along with both the administration and those who were supposed to question its decision to go to war. It is critical to ensure that our nation has learned this lesson, given the growing public debate on Iran. Each week, I receive press releases from conservative lobbying groups that seek to portray Iran as a radical nation that needs to be challenged – and controlled – by a morally superior West. Using language like “Confronting Iran” and “Taking on Tehran” (also the title of a new book published by a neoconservative think tank), these voices are calling the White House and Congress to escalate its rhetoric and strongly consider a “military option” with Iraq’s neighbor. It would be easy to dismiss this as the blather of hard right-wing commentary. But the reality is that such ideology has become the lens through which Iran is considered in our news media. Each week, political liberals – and even progressives – buy into this construct with the use of words like containment, sanctions, and most notably and dangerously, “all options are on the table.” Just check out statements by your favorite presidential hopeful – Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gingrich, Giuliani, Obama, Richardson, etc. – they’ve either called Iran a “threat,” its president a “thug,” or something worse. John McCain might be the only candidate to have crooned “Bomb Iran” in a public setting, but the forms of “strategic engagement” advocated by others should not provide cause for comfort. This is not an apologia for Iran. Its government’s suppression of human rights, free speech, and full freedom of religion need to be criticized and transformed. As Danny Postel suggests in Reading Legitimation Crisis in Tehran: Iran and the Future of Liberalism, the challenge for the progressive community is, rather, to develop new methods of working in support of democracy in that land. Postel’s proposals include solidarity delegations to Iran (such as the Fellowship of Reconciliation’s civilian diplomacy trips), developing a campaign to establish international human rights observers there, bringing Iranian activists to North America on speaking tours, and encouraging Iranians living in the United States to speak to and collaborate with progressive activists about the issues in their homeland.
To be fair, some progressives may feel wary of creating such alliances. Collaborating with Iranians who criticize their government might lead to painful memories of how Iraqi ex-patriot dissidents helped build the mountain of lies that created this travesty of a war. Or, as Postel writes, it could counter our geopolitical understandings – especially for those of us on the Left who define the world within the rubric of American imperial ambitions. Yet engage we must. FOR’s March 2007 delegation to Iran learned that only 300 U.S. citizens a year are visiting Iran. No wonder we rely on our news media and their beloved pundits to tell us what is happening there, and what we should do about it. This is dangerous territory – the land of four-letter words. Iraq. Lies. Iran. News. This issue of Fellowship offers a special look at Iran, drawing on our most recent delegation to the country. We hope this feature section will help to build an understanding of Iran’s people and culture, and will support the construction of a framework for peace between our nations. Ethan Vesely-Flad is editor of Fellowship (editor@forusa.org). ©2007 Fellowship of Reconciliation |
Only those kinds of “personal bridges,” as Postel maintains, can help us move beyond the “confronting” paradigm into one of working in solidarity for human rights. Of course, human solidarity is not a term that plays well in the mainstream U.S. media – it’s “mushy” and doesn’t reflect the polarizing perspectives of so-called policy experts who dominate the talk show circuit.