© the eyeranian

Ledeen is a very dangerous man, not just for Iran but for the non-American world in general. Five years ago nobody would have paid any attention to him. The world is such a different place now that men like him can have so much influence.

A great post (or rather article!).

At last I understand the disconnect between what Pedram says, and what I read when I go to the links he provides.

First off, Ledeen has delusions of grandeur, I've read things the administration said about Iran long before Ledeen showed up on the scene. The administration has much better sources the Ledeen, his influence on policy is pretty minimal.

But Ledeen is definitely a vocal source in the media. So he's probably worth talking about.

Pedram misquoted him on the first point, was were accurate on the second, and I read the third differently.

His plan:

1. "It is also long past time for us to support the many independent Farsi-language radio and television stations that broadcast to Iran from the United States."

He didn't say Monarchist. He said independent.

2. He does say we should use Shiism, I grant you that.

3. I read his supporting the strikers comment differently.

Here's how I see the disconnect between what Pedram says and what Ledeen actually says. The way that Pedram misquoted Ledeen is symptomatic.

So Ledeen says "support indepedent radio".

Pedram reads that, and knowing that most of the radio stations are controlled by Monarchists, reads that as "support Monarchist radio". Which is not what Ledeen said.

This is what _I_ would say about Ledeen.

Ledeen's heart is in the right place, but he's woefully ignorant about the details. Ignorant enough to make him dangerous.

As an example, Ledeen suggests supporting opposition Farsi radio and TV. While that sounds good in theory, in practice the opposition radio and TV stations in LA are run by Monarchists. So supporting those stations blindly would support Monarchism. If the goal of the US is truly for Iran to peacefully transition to true democracy, they must tread carefully. Most of the organized opposition to the mullahs have their own ax to grind.

For instance http://www.sumka.org seems to be an offshoot of the Nazi party!

One hopes that the administration gets its policy advice from people that are a little more informed then Ledeen.

P.S.

The number one enemy of the Iranian people is not Ledeen. It's that asshole they have in charge.

There are no "independent Farsi-language radio and television stations" and Ledeen knows it too. You think he doesn't but I disagree. The strike is called by the Monarchists. Again, he knows that too so to ask for supporting the "people who have called it" is a hidden way to get support for the Monarchsits. As for "the asshole in charge", I agree but would rather not use language like that when we refer to George W. Bush, after all he did get the vote of a minority of Americans.

......"George W. Bush, after all he did get the vote of a minority of Americans."

That's crap.

Bush got the vote of half the American people. And if the Supreme Court had ruled in Gore's favor, his win would be no less contentious. The major news organizations, with the NYT's included, independently re-tallied the Florida votes and declared Bush the winner. Google/Nexus this fact before you spout off again.

Pedram, I am a fan of your weblog and it's been a while that I read your random opinion.

The reason I am writing to you is that ABC's Nightline was about Iran tonight, and of course Rob Sobhani made an appearance, and Michael Ledeen was tonight's guest! He is so radical that even Ted Koppel was criticizing his perspective about Iran and other issues such as Iraq and Afghanistan! Unfortunately Ledeen's interview is not posted on ABC’s web site, but you can read the program's script here: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/index.html

Keep up the good work and enlighten us about what’s going on in the world of politics!

S.J.

Thanks a lot. One of the benefits of living on the west coast is being able to catch something the rest of the continent has seen earlier and they can give you a heads up, as you did.

Thanks to Koppel also, for demonstarating to the world what an idiot Ledeen truly is. He looked lost, unsure and very dense.

The highlight for me however was Sobhani making a fool of himself by saying "1953 is only an astrix in Iranian history". Dream on Rob. The memory of one of our national heroes Dr. Mossadegh and the coup your handlers arranged to get rid of his popular government is the fuel that keeps me up late writing this, takes students to the streets to face danger and will one day bring freedom and demoracy to our homeland.

The "astrix" also means people like you are never part of this equation.

Pedram, you've convinced me. Bush should leave the Iranians alone to have their own revolution.
(Not that he wouldn't love for that scenario to come to pass.)

One problem, though. You better hurry it up, because W. isn't going to wait until the mullahs get their nukes. You see, US national security is a factor in all this. So if you wait to have your (relatively) bloodless revolution a little too long, you'll lose your opportunity. If Iranians really dislike W. as much as the mullahs, they better take care of the mullahs before W. has no choice but to get involved.
That's the reality and timeline you're working with. So save your defiance and focus.

For Penny - Let's see... less than half of eligible voters actually voted, if which "W" got almost 48% of the vote. So in reality he gets the vote of less than 24% of the American votes that were available to him.

At numbers less than a quarter of total, I think the statement "he did get the vote of a minority of Americans." may not be far off from the truth. As hard as that is to swallow, I understand.

Mr. Moallemian writes, about Michael Ledeen, "The man I called 'Iranian people’s number one enemy' is not a weightless writer or some idealist trying to sell his notion of 'Liberation, American Style' for Iran..."

Mr. Wetter responds, "The number one enemy of the Iranian people is not Ledeen. It's that asshole they have in charge."

Gentlemen, gentlemen! Let's not argue. We should all be able to agree that you're BOTH wrong! ;-)

The number one enemy of the Iranian people is (certainly!) not Michael Ledeen. It's not even Mr. Khamenei. It's not even a man.

The number one enemy of the Iranian people is an IDEA. The enemy of the Iranian people is the idea is that mosque and state should be joined together; that such joining makes the Iranian people "more moral."

Far from *supporting* that idea, Michael Ledeen actually recognizes it as the fundamental problem in Iran.

And, without that idea, Mr. Khamenei is essentially stripped of almost all his power.

Mr. Moallemian is right that Mr. Ledeen thinks he's important. And he makes a convincing case that Mr. Ledeen frequently makes mistakes (or misrepresentations?) on the facts.

But it's a huge mistake to focus on the flaws of Mr. Ledeen. Or even Mr. Khamenei. The place to focus is to defeat the *idea.*

The 20th century saw many very bad ideas. One was that government should control property and the means of production (communism). When enough people in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Block understood that the idea was their enemy, their enemy collapsed.

When enough people in Iran recognize that tying mosque in with state is a bad idea, it will collapse. That should be the goal.

A second goal, and no less important, should be to replace the collapsed government with one that protects rights (including, very importantly, freedom of religion).

"One problem, though. You better hurry it up, because W. isn't going to wait until the mullahs get their nukes. So if you wait to have your (relatively) bloodless revolution a little too long, you'll lose your opportunity. That's the reality and timeline you're working with. So save your defiance and focus."

Excellent point. It's a mistake to focus on bogeymen like Michael Ledeen.

So Bush got 24% of the voters. It's still a nimrod point, because you see, democracy includes freedom FROM voting, interestingly enough. This isn't USSR or Saddam's Iraq where it's compulsory.

Wow, you're hatred for Michael Ledeen takes my breath away. I began to follow with interest the situation in Iran, and the pro-democracy movement, because of Ledeen's pieces in NRO. As the demonstrations have progressed in the past few days, I've been looking at more websites with reports from people on the scene in Iran. Like Andrew Sullivan, I wanted to extend moral support to the pro-democracy movement. In fact, Michael Leaden has said all along, in his NRO pieces and in "The War Against the Terror Masters" that moral, political and financial support were all that was needed for democratic change in Iran, not military action.

But checking into the various Iranian weblogs has forced me to the conclusion that, rather than allies in the struggle for liberty and freedom, I have found in the Iranian student movement one filled to the brim with anti-Americanism and post-colonial nonsense. It is clear that, as much as I would like the U.S. government to extend moral, political and financial help to the pro-democracy movement, that it isn't wanted. Iranians would rather be murdered by Khamenei’s thugs than accept any help from the U.S.

Well, let me predict how your stubborn instance on not wanting American help is going to play out. The mullahs are going to crush the movement, and nothing will change in the Islamic Republic. Iran will be about to get nuclear weapons, and the U.S. will need to destroying all of the facilities in air and commando raids. The Iranian military, not wanting to be on the losing end of an un-winnable war with the U.S., will pull a coup and overthrow the mullahs. And after that, you are likely to end up with a new Shah or somebody worse.

Go ahead. Be stubborn. We extend our hand in friendship, and you slap it away. But let there be no doubt. After 9/11, the U.S. will not allow Iran and its terrorist proxies undermine the security of the United States.

Must be nice to live in a fantasy land of "extending hand in friendship" nonesense. I suggest much more reading on the topic and more importantly LISTENING for my friend Jashua.

No, I won't be listening. I'll be tuning out.

"But checking into the various Iranian weblogs has forced me to the conclusion that, rather than allies in the struggle for liberty and freedom, I have found in the Iranian student movement one filled to the brim with anti-Americanism and post-colonial nonsense."

I haven't found that. But I haven't even attempted to do a survey of *Iranian* weblogs or websites, let alone Iranian *student* websites. Do you have specific sites in mind?

"Well, let me predict how your stubborn instance on not wanting American help is going to play out. The mullahs are going to crush the movement, and nothing will change in the Islamic Republic."

From several sources, my impression is that things are already changing fairly profoundly in Iran. (From what I hear, things aren't even remotely the same as 20 years ago...and even in the last decade there's been significant change towards liberty.)

"Iran will be about to get nuclear weapons, and the U.S. will need to destroying all of the facilities in air and commando raids."

Might happen. Might not. First, it almost certainly won't happen if Bush is not re-elected. I don't think that's a sure thing. Second, even if Bush is re-elected, I'm not sure he'd do it. (I don't think he'll do it in North Korea...which I think is good.)

"The Iranian military, not wanting to be on the losing end of an un-winnable war with the U.S., will pull a coup and overthrow the mullahs. And after that, you are likely to end up with a new Shah or somebody worse."

Possible. Not probable, in my opinion. (Either the military coup, or the dictatorship.)

"Go ahead. Be stubborn. We extend our hand in friendship, and you slap it away."

I assume you're aware of the U.S. role in the coup that brought the Shah to power?

"But let there be no doubt. After 9/11, the U.S. will not allow Iran and its terrorist proxies undermine the security of the United States."

I think most of the world doesn't really understand how much 9/11 changed the opinions of most people in the U.S.

Pedram,

You have qualified your initial charge against Ladeen by stating that he is the number one enemy with influence in Washington, D.C. More importantly, you have made a very good case for that label.

Now you need to get through to Ladeen himself -- no small task to be certain!

"More importantly, you have made a very good case for that label."

How did he make a "very good case?"

He pointed out where Ledeen wrote or said things that indicate Ledeen isn't really an expert on Iran. (A city Ledeen called a "town" is really a "city." Big deal.)

He said that Ledeen advocated:

1) Supporting monarchists...even though Ledeen has made it clear he supports democracy.

2) Playing Iraqi Shiite clerics against Iranian clerics. Ledeen's reasoning is that Iraqi clerics support separation of church and state. Maybe this is wrong, or maybe this is right. I don't know. Maybe it's a bad idea, even if it's right. But I hardly think this qualifies Ledeen as an "enemy of the Iranian people."

3) Supports monarchists (again with this charge). Again, Ledeeen has made it VERY clear that he supports democracy in Iran...not monarchy.

Mark, could you name ONE democratic and not monarchist entity he has pointed out so far as being in need of and deserving of support and money? The only ones he wants to support are 1- Radio and TV stations in LA, that are clearly and openly monarchist, and 2- those who have called for a strike on July 9th, which is basically the same monarchist media, Reza Pahlavi and Mr. H. Tabarzadi, who has a permenant representative assigned to participate with monarchist efforts in U.S.A.

Hiding under the general banner of "democracy" is easy to do, but actions speak much louder than words.

I have one or two last things before I end my first and last visit to this site. About Mossadeqh: Get over it. He was a communist, and I'll be damned if the U.S. is going to start apologizing for every regime it undermined to win the Cold War. You can get in line behind the Chileans and the Vietnamese.

Oh, and if the Iranians keep bringing up Mossadeqh, you're going to find Americans remembering the following more clearly:

(1) the Iran hostage crisis
(2) Desert One
(3) the murder of William Buckley
(4) the Marine barracks bombing
(5) the Khobhar Towers bombing
(6) hundreds of other terrorist attacks in Lebanon, Israel, Europe and Argentina

Iran is responsible for all of them.

Oh, and if you don't believe Michael Ledeen is an Iran expert, you're dreaming. He's forgotten more about Iran than you know.

On Ledeen, I have to agree with Josh here. I think the whole monarchism/democracy dichotomy is sheer paranoia. Name some pure-as-the-driven snow pro-democracy exiles that Ledeen could be urging help for instead of the "monarchists." Put up or shut up. Otherwise the assumption is he's working with what he has, and to demonize him for that seems crazy.

But I have to say, Pedram's attacks on him are intellectually dishonest. He quotes him selectively, nitpicks and rails against him.

In the same article, Ledeen says:

"Finally, our analysts should be more modest when they pronounce on the lack of revolutionary leaders in Iran today. The democracy movement has been growing for years, and has clearly attracted mass support. That does not take place without good leadership. The leaders are there, we just don't know their names and faces. But if we stick to our own guiding principles, and support the democratic revolution under way in the streets of Iran — and if the revolutionary momentum is as strong as it now appears — we will get to know them soon enough."

Are these the comments of Iranian enemy #1? Or a crypto-monarchist?

"Mark, could you name ONE democratic and not monarchist entity he has pointed out so far as being in need of and deserving of support and money?"

To my knowledge, Michael Ledeen has not pointed to any entity "deserving support and money." In fact, he has made it very clear that he merely supports democracy and separation of mosque and state, and NOT any individual:

1) "In so doing, the administration should be careful not to take sides. There are many Iranian political groups, ranging from constitutional monarchists to republicans. Some are religious, most are not (most Iranians have had their fill of mullahs for at least a generation). We should have no dog in this fight; it is up to the Iranian people to decide upon their form of government and their future leaders. But we most certainly have a compelling interest in the democratization of Iran. Without it, our enterprise in Iraq will be constantly threatened, and international terror (including Iranian-guided Palestinian terror) will retain its most ferocious and lethal supporter. With it, the Middle East will take a giant step toward freedom."

2) "Finally, our analysts should be more modest when they pronounce on the lack of revolutionary leaders in Iran today. The democracy movement has been growing for years, and has clearly attracted mass support. That does not take place without good leadership. The leaders are there, we just don't know their names and faces. But if we stick to our own guiding principles, and support the democratic revolution under way in the streets of Iran — and if the revolutionary momentum is as strong as it now appears — we will get to know them soon enough."

There you go with what they "say" again. These guys just pleaded before congress to give $50M to the monarchist TV and radio stations of LA. Why not give $ to others? I just counted Iranian TV programs listed on one of the Iranian web directories and there's about 25 listed who have web sites. There are also about 40 others located outside US. Put that alongside over 40 political parties and organizations, plus notable personalities, plus independant journalists and activists, there are hundreds of entities deserving of support and money if the ultimate goal is democracy. Yet he points out only one repeatedly as deserving of such funds and that one is openly monarchist. What else does he need to do to prove to you his unreasonable bias?

Pedram, has he ever offered you assistance in getting support to continue what you do in bringing democracy to Iran? I doubt it. You won't advocate the kind of democracy he has in mind. The kind they already brought to Afghanistan and Iraq.

"These guys just pleaded before congress to give $50M to the monarchist TV and radio stations of LA. Why not give $ to others?"

I have an even better idea. Don't give money to ANY Iranian opposition TV or radio station!

"Pedram, has he ever offered you assistance in getting support to continue what you do in bringing democracy to Iran?"

Yeah, right! Michael Ledeen is going to call Pedram and say, "Hi, there...I know you think I'm 'Iranian Enemy #1'...but I can't wait to help you out!" :-/

"I doubt it."

I doubt it, too! Here's a hint for you in dealing with people...if you call someone the "Iranian Enemy #1," you probably won't get offers of help FROM that person. (Yeesh!)

"You won't advocate the kind of democracy he has in mind."

What "kind of democracy" does Pedram advocate, and how is that different from the "kind of democracy" Michael Ledeen advocates.

"The kind they already brought to Afghanistan and Iraq."

Afghanistan had the most democratic election it has EVER had, to elect Hamid Karzai. And I predict the elections in June 2004 will be even MORE democratic.

And it's much too early to assess the kind of democracy Iraq will have, but if you're a betting man, I have a bet for you:

In 2004-2005, the Freedom House ranking for Iraq will be better than the Freedom House ranking for Iran:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/iceland.htm

Kharzai was not "elected". He was chosen by a council of elders from various regions. No election has been held in Afghanistan since the invasion.

First of all, how can I help you out? :=)

I see you've joined the crowd that has decided I'm both nuts and important. The first is hard to judge, I've certainly gotten lots of things wrong over the years, but the latter is certainly wrong, as I tried to say both to Rush and to Ted Koppel. Anyone who has raised three children and has an airedale puppy knows he's not very important in the grand scheme of things.

So far as I know, the only "evidence" for the utterly false charge that I support monarchy in Iran comes from an article in the Financial Times that took a single sentence of mine out of context. I have always said that no American has standing to tell the Iranian people what form of government they should have, or who should lead them. That is their decision to make.

I am one of the few people who has been fighting for several years now for their right to make that decision, as I fought for the Russians, the Poles, the Latvians, the Philippinos, the Bosnians, the South Africans, the Congolese, etc. Read my books instead of the often uninformed attacks. I want democratic revolution in Iran, and everywhere else that people are oppressed by tyrants. That's what you want, isn't it? So it is appalling that you, of all people, should falsely accuse me of the very things I (we) have been fighting against. Shame on you.

I have always advocated the separation of church and state, in many books over many years. And I advocate separation of mosque and state in the Middle East, too. The Shi'ite tradition is the closest in Islam to that kind of separation, which was rejected by Khomeini in his revolutionary heresy. Hence I believe it's important for the United States to protect those (mostly Iraqi but sometimes even Iranian) clerics who say that the religious leaders should stay in the mosques and the political leaders should run the country.

And I support the radios--ALL the radios (if there were nazi or fascist or communist radios I would condemn them, but I don't know of any Farsi language pro-nazi radios or tv)--just as I support the widest possible range of media in my own ountry, because I want the Iranian people to hear all the opinions and all the "news." I also think that the Farsi language radios and tvs are important in communicating from one Iranian to another in different parts of the country. It's sometimes easier for Iranians to communicate with people in the United States than with one another inside Iran, and the more the U.S. (and European) based broadcasters are on the air, the more efficient and complete that communication can be.

I think you should be on the air too, and I fully support your blog. So how can I help?

I think that while many of those who oppose the kind of modest support to the IRanian revolutionaries that I advocate are in perfectly good faith, I think they are wrong. Fighting against support for the revolution ends up as appeasement of the tyrants. It's exactly what Khamenei and Rafsanjani want. Khamenei and Rafsanjani think that the most devastating blow they can deliver to their democratic enemies would be legitimization from the government of the United States. Don't you think the Iranian people today are fundamentally pro-American, and want to be our friends and allies? And don't you think they would be demoralized at any sign that we accept the durability and/or legitimacy of the regime?

With whatever influence I have--and I don't think it's been much (maybe you know better than I)--I have been arguing as hard as I can against those in my own government who wanted to make a deal with the Islamic Republic. I don't want "stability," I want revolution and freedom, and I think most Iranians want that too.

I may be wrong, but I am certainly not wicked. And I don't think I'm wrong, either.

Finally, a few nits to pick with you. You do not know anything about my sources, but they are extensive and they have been pretty accurate. Read my book, for example (The War Against the Terror Masters). It was written more than a year ago. I stated that it was foolhardy to believe that we could "win" in Iraq without dealing with Iran and Syria, because they would do everything intheir power to replicate the Lebanon model in Iraq. That's exactly what happened, to the surprise of most of the administration's top policy makers (so much for my vaunted influence, huh?).

I said that Iran, Iraq and Syria had concocted a collective strategy. I said that the plan involved "disappearing" Saddam, first to Syria. That seems to have happened. I also said that the fall of Saddam would encourage the Iranian people to be more aggressive against the regime. That is now happening.

I was indeed told that half a million people demonstrated in Tehran, when the Economist said it was only a few thousand. I reported that. It may have been wrong, time will tell. But shouldn't you acknowledge that I was the ONLY western journalist who, nearly two years ago, pointed to the pattern of Iranian demonstrations and said that the country was clearly in a pre-revolutionary crisis?

In short, why are you so full of venom for me when we are on the same side, want the same outcome for Iran, and are both trying to get the truth?

I'm easy to reach, and I answer both phone calls and emails. If you want more, ask, and I'll try to answer, within the limits of time and patience.

So how can I help?

Cheers,

Michael Ledeen