What the West Isn't Hearing About

To understand the big stories of the last year in Iran, we need better access to the little stories.

BY AZADEH MOAVENI | JULY/AUGUST 2010

In July 2009, the Tehran fixer for a non-Western TV network had his hand chopped off with a machete by a pro-Iranian regime militant. His bosses stayed quiet: They knew if they spoke up, the Iranian authorities would shut down their bureau.

This was no isolated tragedy. In the year since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed reelection sent millions of protesters into the streets of Tehran in what came to be known as the Green Movement, journalists have found increasingly formidable obstacles to doing their job. Getting the real story out of Iran today is virtually impossible.

Instead, we are all -- to one degree or another -- in danger of misreading Tehran. And if at first the Western media seemed to overinflate the Green Movement, declaring a "revolution" and pumping up the expectation for regime change beyond all reasonable hope, some of what we're reading now is what the Iranian government wants us to read: a portrait of a quiescent country whose recent unrest was merely an irrelevant temper tantrum by sushi-eating, Chanel-clad north Tehran. Sadly, reporters who underplay the serious repression still present in Tehran -- whether those intimidated by the government, or those simply seeking better access or the ability to move more freely -- provide powerful ammunition to analysts in Washington who may now be tempted to dismiss Iran's Green Movement as a construct of deluded partisan journalists. This dangerous dynamic -- compromised journalism abetting a security establishment that would prefer to focus on Iran's nuclear confrontation with the outside world instead -- seriously threatens to undermine the West's ability to engage with both the Islamic Republic and the opposition on the basis of an honest picture of Iranian society.

When I last lived in Tehran in the mid-2000s, working as a journalist veered between the precarious and the harrowing. During relaxed periods, government officials scolded me for reporting on subjects they found embarrassing or inconvenient. They offered tea and pastry, but the steely message behind the Persian politeness was clear: Heed the red lines if you want to stay accredited. When the government felt vulnerable, civility vanished. In one especially unpleasant year, I was trailed by a hook-nosed security agent, bullied to inform on my sources, and threatened with prosecution for "endangering national security." That was all before the summer of 2009, when the Iranian government faced the most serious challenge to its rule since the 1979 revolution.

Misreading Tehran
A Year Later: What We Got Wrong
Essays by Reza Aslan, Azar Nafisi, And More

Now, the situation is far worse. Foreign reporters in Iran, whether permanently or temporarily, must constantly worry that their stories will provoke arrests or worse. Government filters on websites mean journalists spend hours fiddling with filter-busting software instead of reporting. Phones have always been tapped, but anxiety now runs so high that journalists cannot use their cell phones or office lines to call sensitive sources. The situation is so bad that even some journalists accredited to work in Iran have elected to move to nearby cities like Dubai or Beirut. Those who stay, or those who visit, end up occasionally producing pieces like one that recently appeared on the website of this magazine by Hooman Majd (who served as the official interpreter for Ahmadinejad during his 2006 United Nations visit). His oddly anesthetized dispatch from Tehran argued that the government enjoys widespread support in its quest for nuclear energy. But this is an unreasonable assertion -- and one that would have been much harder to make in the days when independent writers were able to gather Tehran ground truth for themselves. I remember well, for example, the reaction when Ahmadinejad launched his "nuclear energy is our absolute right" slogan in 2005: Mocking graffiti enumerating all the other things that were Iranians' "absolute right" went up across the low-slung walls of Tehran. My favorite example: the "right" to Danish pastry (the government had renamed this ubiquitous confection "Flower of Mohammad" pastry after the Danish cartoon furor). Few today have the opportunity to make even such a modest reality check. Instead, we are left with pieces like Majd's, which feed right into Washington's dominant national-security establishment view of the Green Movement as a mere distraction from the more pressing nuclear crisis.

With reporters on the ground so compromised by self-censorship, our ability to get a decent read of public opinion in Iran, let alone any smart, rigorously reported insight into domestic politics -- the opposition's strategy, the displeasure of the ayatollahs in Qom, the establishment's discomfiture at the prospect of sanctions -- is nonexistent. Even small, telling stories have become too sensitive to report, like the post-election defection of young journalists from Press TV (the government's English-language TV network) or the distressing rise of so-called "experimental hires" as firms exploit young people's desperation for jobs to extract months of unpaid work under the false premise of a trial period. Reporters for the Western media in Tehran have either failed to notice these stories or declined to cover them for the sake of retaining their credentials. I heard about them from a journalist friend in Tehran. I hope he's saving his notes.

 SUBJECTS: IRAN, MIDDLE EAST
 

Azadeh Moaveni is a London-based contributing writer for Time magazine on Iran and the Middle East and author of Lipstick Jihad and Honeymoon in Tehran.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

HOOMAN MAJD

11:37 AM ET

June 8, 2010

Ms. Moaveni, from her home in

Ms. Moaveni, from her home in London, tells us that it is “virtually impossible to get the real story out of Iran” and then proceeds to tell us a little bit about what that real story is, according to her. She maligns all journalists who live and work in Iran, or those who visit, for not telling the truth out of fear, or for “oddly anesthetizing” their work. She calls me out specifically on my “ureasonable” assertion that Iran’s nuclear program enjoys wide support, begging to differ because of an anecdote from 2005, when she lived in Iran (I was there then, too.) Iranians are given to political humor, no matter who their leader is, but mocking the government’s sloganeering is not necessarily tantamount to rejecting its premise. Many of my friends laughed openly at the counter-slogans Moaveni mentions, all while claiming that Iran had the right to enjoy the same nuclear technology as any other country (I asked). If the “little story” of the “Danish pastry” mock slogan which so amuses Moaveni tells the “big story” of the popularity of Iran’s nuclear program, then Ms. Moaveni is guilty of the same “tourist journalism” she decries.

It is difficult today, as it was in 2005, to find anyone, including any of the leaders of the Green Movement, who fully disagrees with Iran’s nuclear energy program. There are those, of course, who disagree with the tactics and strategy of the Ahmadinejad government in dealing with the nuclear issue, including Mousavi himself, as evidenced in his campaign debate with the president. (Ms. Moaveni may disagree, and suggest that my “unreasonable” assertion would have been difficult to make when she lived there and journalists (or independent writers, as she calls them) were freer, but almost every reporter and writer who did file from Tehran back then came to the same conclusion; that the program was popular.) But her insinuation that she (who worked for Time, no less) was and is independent, and that I am not, is offensive and insulting.

Ms. Moaveni also claims that it is impossible to get a decent read on Iran, that our ability to read about domestic politics, the displeasure of Ayatollahs in Qom or the opposition’s strategy, is “non-existent”. One wonders where she has been this last year, for there have been literally thousands of articles on those very matters penned both by journalists in Iran and by those abroad with contacts in Iran. Google “iran”, if you don’t believe me. My piece, titled “Postcard from Tehran”, was intended to be exactly that: a report of my experiences in Tehran, affording a glimpse of what ordinary life was for ordinary folk in the spring of 2010. I’m sorry it contained no sensational or juicy tidbits, such as (so far unreported) machete wielding basij or the well-documented and well-reported human rights abuses that have and continue to occur. (I do cover the topics that interest Ms. Moaveni in my new book, out this fall. I’ll send her a copy.)

By far the most egregious twisting of my words, though, is Ms. Moaveni’s claim that “we are left with pieces like Majd's, which feed right into Washington's dominant national-security establishment view of the Green Movement as a mere distraction from the more pressing nuclear crisis.” If she had actually read my piece rather than, as I suspect, given it a cursory glance, she would have discovered, for I wrote in plain English, that I actually suggest the exact opposite. I have written elsewhere, too, that it is the nuclear crisis that is the distraction from the Green Movement and human rights in Iran, not the other way around. Perhaps Ms. Moaveni is so pre-disposed to dismiss anything written from Tehran that she missed that. But in any event, her read of “Washington's dominant national-security establishment view” is also quite off base, perhaps because she hasn’t had the opportunity or the time to read the American press, or to visit Washington. The dominant view is not that the Green Movement is a distraction (and in fact the establishment has used the Green Movement to solidify its arguments for confrontation with Iran over the nuclear issue, or even for regime-change, and it is Ms. Moaveni who, with an unsubstantiated claim that the nuclear program is not popular, feeds the dominant national-security view that anything, including military attack, should be considered in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear know-how.). What about sanctions targeted not “at the people” but against those who perpetrated the abuse against demonstrators? Nonetheless, if Ms. Moaveni believes that human rights and democracy in Iran will ever take precedence over a national security issue either here or in Israel, she is sadly deluded. Americans on the whole care less about human rights abuses abroad than they do about their own security, and no administration can ignore that (witness Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Egypt, and even Darfur). I have argued that if the nuclear crisis can be resolved and removed, then perhaps a U.S. administration might be persuaded to pay attention to civil rights, but certainly the Iranians will be better able to, and the Iranian government may have to. She is, of course, welcome to disagree with that.

 

BROCKTOON

1:01 AM ET

June 9, 2010

Majd is a shameless apologist for the regime

Despite Majd's weak-tea defense of himself, Moaveni was actually spot on about his shameless "reporting". At a time when real journalists are imprisoned in Tehran, Majd--Ahmadinejad's former translator--comes back to tell us that all is well and people are actually praying for Ayatollah Khamenei's health! I encourage you to listen to Majd in his next interview. He offers no analysis, only claims that he's a distant relative to president Khatami and then goes on to parrot whatever his ostensible "high level" contacts in Iran have told him. All Majd has is his access to a brutal regime, and if he loses that his analysis is essentially worthless. Bravo Ms. Moaveni, and bravo to FP for publishing it.

 

RSAFSOZ

4:37 PM ET

June 10, 2010

yeah!

yeah, west must see thats sikis

 

ARASH

11:09 AM ET

June 11, 2010

the diaspora is a joke

The Iranian diaspora has become so intolerant and narrow in it's focus that it soon will become more comical and ineffective as the Cubans in Florida.

If translating for Ahmadinejad in 06 at the UN is an indictment, then surely translating Kiarostami's letter calling for the release of Jafar Panahi in 2010 is an indictment as well. But the author never mentions that, and it's very convenient that she doesn't.

I am anxiously awaiting "Lipstick Jihad 2" Ms. Moaveni in which you report to the Western world how much more decadent and backwards we've become since the first "Lipstick Jihad."

 

ANDRIA RICHARDSON

2:17 AM ET

July 8, 2010

Little Stories

The regime has been effectively militarized. The supreme leader's role as commander-in-chief is today as important as his political title. He needs to have the Revolutionary Guards and the paramilitary Basij force behind him. hemorrhoid relief At the same time, in the last few days, we've seen many stories of police, and of some Basij, in encounters with protesters backing away, apologizing, saying they didn't want this confrontation. That's an important turning point. Those are isolated cases, but the mere fact it started is important. One important thing to remember about the Revolutionary Guards is that the regime relies on the officer corps, but all young men have to do military service. Many young men opt to go to the Revolutionary Guards because it may be better for their resume if they want to go to university, or it has better training in some fields and better equipment. But also they get off early in the afternoon, which allows young men to then get a second job, and in this economy that's important. hemorrhoid relief In 1997, in the election of President Mohammed Khatami, the government did a survey and found that 84% of the Revolutionary Guards voted for the first reform president. We have to understand that not all bodies are monolithic in terms of their own views.