Flynt Leverett (and his Jewish-American wife Hillary Mann Leverett) remain among the most important voices within the United States with regards to US foreign policy on Iran. They argue that it is in the best interest of the United States to pursue a diplomatic relationship with the Iranian government rather than claiming to do so while making gestures to the “Iranian people” and stipulating indirect ultimatums through the US’s economic war upon the country. Flynt Leverett left the Bush administration in 2003 because of disagreements about the government’s Middle East policy and the handing of their “war on terror.” Despite widespread pressure to toe the “Iranian threat” line that is running through the mainstream media and Washington in general, Leverett continues to offer diplomatic solutions for US-Iran relations.
Leverett argues that the IRI has not and will not respond to orders and that if the US government is serious about ending decades of quiet conflict with their former ally, then the US needs to abandon the idea that they can dictate the terms of Iran’s surrender. He argues that the US needs to get past the arrogant idea that the Iranians should consider it an “honor” to negotiate with “us.” Some will call this idea crazy, others might consider it refreshing.
Of course, Leverett and his wife are among a rare minority of prominent foreign policy analysts who dare take this position and are often attacked accordingly. Due to the IRI’s own authoritarian domestic policies, arguing that the US should pursue diplomacy with this government is often equated with supporting their domestic policies. Furthermore, the Leveretts continue to defend the extremely unpopular position that there is not enough substantial evidence to prove that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not win the election. They argue that while it certainly seems like there may have been some fraud, based on polls taken from within Iran and the US, Ahmadinejad was expected to win. They are basing their assessment on existing evidence, rather than the “I just know it” claim. Leverett makes the interesting observation that one reason why people continue to insist that the election was stolen is because Ahmadinejad is an extremely “polarizing figure.” Of course, neither of the Leveretts support Ahmadinejad as an individual, in fact, they are only interested in what’s best for the US, but they believe that trying to destroy the IRI will only lead to further conflict in the region (which will not serve US interests) precisely because Ahmadinejad does have support within significant elements of the population.
I highly recommend listening to the entire Atlantic Council debate I’ve posted below between Leverett and leading neoconservative Michael Ledeen which took place last month. Ledeen openly advocates the “regime change” option, arguing that the US should only pursue this policy covertly if supporting elements of the Iranian population say this would be helpful. Under the guise of defending human and women’s rights, Ledeen compares the IRI to the Nazis and states that it is impossible to pursue diplomatic relations with the current government. Of course, these statements are likely fueled more by Ledeen’s overall outlook on the Middle East than actual facts. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald has taken Ledeen to task several times over the years for his support (though Ledeen now claims otherwise) of the war on Iraq and his policy recommendations on Iran. Also check out this post by Greenwald for more revealing links on Ledeen.
Pay close attention to how instead of directly addressing Leverett’s assessments, Ledeen uses Iran’s domestic policies to dismiss their viability. This tactic is used by all regime change advocates. Significantly, many of the sincere elements of Iran’s civil rights movement (here I am talking about people living within the country who have been fighting for increased rights for years) argue that “help” from the US, especially in the form that is offered by Ledeen, is the last thing they need.
