THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XII, Issue # 67, May 9, 2010
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
EMBRACING IRAN
By Janet Doerflinger
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY & THE ISLAMIC "REPUBLIC" OF IRAN: ADVOCATING U.S. APPEASEMENT OF IRAN -- THE
MYTH OF THE "STERLING PEACE OFFER" MADE BY THE IRANIAN REGIME TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN 2003 --
AMERICAN APPEASERS PROMOTING THE INTERESTS OF THE IRANIAN DICTATORSHIP & SEEKING TO UNDERMINE
AMERICA'S STRATEGIC INTERESTS & POSITION IN THE MIDDLE EAST & SOUTH CENTRAL ASIA
FULL STORY:
Flynt Leverett and his wife Hillary Mann Leverett, both former officials of the National Security Council, are prominent
advocates for appeasing Iran, a case they make in a steady stream of articles, public appearances, and postings on their
website, raceforiran.com. Flynt has a perch at the New America Foundation and teaches at Penn State; Hillary
is CEO of SRATEGA, an energy and political risk consulting firm, and is a fellow at Yale's new Jackson Institute for
Global Affairs.
After leaving the Bush administration in 2003, the Leveretts utilized their talent for self-promotion to sell the myth that the
Iranian government had made a sterling peace offer that was heedlessly spurned by the incompetent, warmongering
Neo-Cons. This line was eagerly embraced by Bush-hating media, who made the Leveretts minor celebrities and launched
their post-government careers. The prop they brandished in their drama was the "Guldimann fax" received by the U.S.
State Department in May, 2003.
In the Leveretts' version of events, the Guldimann fax was a history-changing offer from the Iranian government to the
U.S. government -- an offer of a "grand bargain" to resolve all disputes with the United States. Steven J. Rosen and
Michael Rubin have definitively debunked their story. The fax was not composed by anyone in the Iranian government,
but by Tim Guldimann, then-Swiss Ambassador to Iran, who shared the Leveretts' desire for rapprochement between the
U.S.A. and Iran. Guldimann said members of the Iranian government had approved some, but not all, of its provisions,
and he didn't know which parts they approved and disapproved. Moreover, the Bush administration was, at the time,
negotiating at higher diplomatic levels with Iran, and the Guldimann fax was inconsistent with the positions
communicated by the Iranians in those talks.
A crucial element of the Leveretts' narrative was the rejection of the offer by the Leveretts' ideological opponents within
the Bush administration: the hawkish "Neo-Con" faction led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. But the Leveretts'
ideological allies, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage, have said that they themselves rejected the fax because they --
and State Department Iran experts -- did not consider it an authentic Iranian overture.
After launching themselves with a distortion, the Leveretts, since 2003, have tendentiously supported the Islamic
Republic of Iran, specifically the faction of Ahmadinejad, lending authenticity to their arguments with frequent
references to private conversations with Iranian leaders. As Lee Smith recently pointed out in three important articles in
Tablet magazine, in totalitarian societies, access is limited to those who promote the leaders' interests. The
Leveretts' slavish advocacy centers on three areas: promoting an American "grand bargain" with Iran, favoring
Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic over the Green Movement, and favoring Iran over Israel and other regional U.S.
allies.
In the Leveretts' version of a "grand bargain," the U.S. would promise up-front never to attack Iran and never to help
foment an internal uprising against the Islamic Republic. In return, Iran would enter into extensive negotiations
regarding the nuclear issue, their support for terrorism, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In more recent iterations, the
Leveretts concede that the Iranians would not agree to give up uranium enrichment. Amir Taheri suggested that the
"grand bargain" be renamed "pre-emptive surrender." As Taheri has noted, appeasement is the worst possible policy,
because rewarding the aggression of a Fascist or totalitarian regime only invites more aggression. Furthermore, Iran has
perfected the art of buying time under the guise of negotiations.
With the election of Barack Obama, the Leveretts' career entered a new phase, because Obama's policy of open-handed
engagement was essentially what they have advocated all these years, and it has been an abject failure. The Iranians
have rejected all of Obama's overtures; mocked him and us; continued to arm, train, and fund terrorists who attack our
troops and allies; and they rapidly developed their missile and nuclear programs, thus leading the world towards a crisis
point. Characteristically, the Leveretts' response to the failure of Obama's engagement policy has been to blame it on
Obama, advocate more concessions to Iran (such as removing Dennis Ross and ending covert operations against Iran),
and push for the same failed "grand bargain" engagement policy.
The Leveretts' reaction to the unrest in Iran since last June's disputed election has highlighted their sycophantic
attachment to Ahmadinejad and elicited outrage at their cold indifference to the regime's brutal suppression of dissent.
While their fans may have cheered when they took Ahmadinejad's side against Dick Cheney, their dismissal of the
Green Movement and apologetics for its suppression may have been a bridge too far. After they published
"Ahmadinejad won. Get over it" and "Another Iranian Revolution? Not Likely," they were lambasted even by the Left.
Flynt Leverett faced a hostile crowd at his home base in Washington, D.C., the New America Foundation.
Not surprisingly, the Leveretts also support Iran vis-à-vis Israel. In December, 2009, they published an article titled
"Iran is No Existential Threat: The best way to rescue Obama's failing diplomacy with the Islamic Republic is to stop
letting Israel call the shots," in which they argue that -- on the grounds of fairness -- Iran should be permitted to
continue its nuclear enrichment, and Israel should be stripped of its (unacknowledged) nuclear weapons. They scoff at
the Israelis' fear that, if Iran had nuclear weapons, it could threaten their very existence, and they suggest that, in fact,
the Israelis just want to be able to "conduct offensive military operations at will against any regional target." After
seven years, the Leveretts are finally giving us a little peek at the price tag of their "grand bargain."
The Leveretts present themselves as objective foreign policy analysts, but the veil sometimes slips, as when they said
it was untrue that Iran was a police state, because, when they drove through Tehran, they didn't see many police. They
dismissed the Green Movement because pro-government crowds outnumbered demonstrators, without mentioning
that the former were bussed in for a paid holiday and the latter risked imprisonment, rape, torture, and death. And Flynt
Leverett tied himself in knots on TV trying to explain away Ahmadinejad's genocidal threats against Israel. In terms of
the value of their foreign policy advice, it should be evident to everyone by now that President Obama's efforts to
engage have benefited Iran, not us.
With the failure of engagement and a dwindling threat of crippling sanctions, there is widespread speculation that our
government is drifting towards a policy of containment, or acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran. But, as Steven J. Rosen
told Lee Smith, the Obama containment policy is the same as engagement: the pursuit of a "grand bargain," except with
a nuked-up Iran. The key to both policies is a mistaken belief that the Iranian leaders are normal, rational men with
whom we can do business, precisely the idea the Leveretts have been promoting.
The Leveretts' arguments do not elucidate the truth, but, rather, disguise it and lull us into a false sense of security. If
and when the Islamic extremists who run Iran acquire nuclear weapons, the world will become a darker, more dangerous
place. We can thank not only the Leveretts themselves, but the institutions that have legitimized and enabled their
deceptions: the New America Foundation, the New York Times and other periodicals that have published their
articles, Penn State and Yale Universities, and the nascent Jackson Institute for Global Affairs.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Middle East & the Problem of Iran
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Janet Doerflinger is a writer whose interests include public affairs and foreign policy. This essay was written for
Campus Watch, a program of the Middle East Forum.
The foregoing article by Janet Doerflinger was originally published in the American Thinker, May 9, 2010, and
can be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to
define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam,
working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote
constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly
asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
(Article URL: http://www.meforum.org/2647/embracing-iran)
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
May 9, 2010
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XII, 2010
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity