Who's Misreading Tehran?

Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett take issue with FP's "Misreading Tehran" package.

Foreign Policy's "Misreading Tehran" package (July/August 2010) is, for the most part, a disappointing example of the phenomenon it purports to explain -- inaccurate interpretations of Iranian politics surrounding the Islamic Republic's 2009 presidential election.

It is certainly true that much of the American media -- including some of the writers featured in the series -- got the story of Iranian politics over the last year spectacularly wrong. But the problem wasn't reporting constraints, as the articles suggest. The real culprit was -- and, unfortunately, still is -- willfully bad journalism and analysis, motivated in at least some cases by writers' personal political agendas.

In fact, it was possible to get the story right, and some did. (At the risk of seeming immodest, we count ourselves among them.) But to have done so, writers would have needed to care more about reality and analytic truth than their personally preferred political outcomes or having a "sexier" story to sell.

From literally the morning after the election, the vast majority of Western journalists and U.S.-based Iran "experts" rushed to the conclusion that the outcome had to have been the result of fraud. Poor coverage of the election paved the way for the even worse coverage of the "Green Movement" that followed. These journalists and commentators largely succeeded in turning the notion of a fraudulent election in Iran into a "social fact" in the United States -- just as other commentators helped turn myths about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction into "social facts" before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

It is still possible to stop such a tragic repetition of history -- but only if people are prepared to abandon self-gratifying and self-serving illusions about Iran and look reality squarely in the face.

Flynt Leverett
Director, Iran Initiative
The New America Foundation

Hillary Mann Leverett
CEO, Stratega
Washington, D.C.

Reza Aslan replies:

Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett's suggestion to abandon self-serving illusions and face reality on Iran is good advice. They should follow it.

I included the Leveretts in my analysis of "What We Got Wrong" on Iran because their easy dismissal of the Green Movement was just as inaccurate as the view of those in the media who thought the Iranian regime was about to collapse. However, the difference between them and the rest of the analysts highlighted in my essay is that the Leveretts, despite their claims to the contrary, continue to get it wrong.

For years, the Leveretts have been pushing the United States to engage Iran, arguing correctly that the only way to deal with Iran's regional ambitions is through dialogue and diplomacy. But in pursuing that goal, they have fostered an inaccurate portrait of the current state of affairs in Iran, which, thanks in large part to the actions of the Green Movement, has rarely been less stable than it is today.

The Iranian economy is teetering on the verge of collapse. The country has never been more internationally isolated, with both Russia and China hardening their positions vis-à-vis its nuclear program. The political rise of the Revolutionary Guard has created new alliances between reformists like Mohammad Khatami, centrists like Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and conservatives like Ali Larijani, which will prove detrimental to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when it comes time to select a new supreme leader.

To say that all this is irrelevant and should be ignored so as to plod ahead with negotiations -- indeed, to talk about Iran as though it has been unaltered by the events of the last year -- is, to paraphrase the Leveretts, willfully bad analysis, motivated by a personal political agenda.


America's Triumph Over the Zombie Horde

According to Daniel Nixon, the zombie wars will make the United States more powerful than ever.

In his courageous attempt to bring rigor to our understanding of the zombie threat, Daniel Drezner commits the common error of reducing realism to its balance-of-power variant ("Night of the Living Wonks," July/August 2010). He thus pays inadequate attention to the most likely result of a zombie apocalypse: the re-emergence of empires as the dominant form of global organization.

A zombie apocalypse would most certainly lead to profound transformations in the current order, but in ways consistent with hegemonic-order theory, which sees the rise and fall of dominant powers as the most common pattern in world politics. In the case of a zombie plague, the most likely outcome, for several reasons, is the reassertion of U.S. power.

As Drezner suggests, "the strong will do what they can and the weak must suffer devouring by reanimated, ravenous corpses." Those (re)emerging powers with relatively low state capacity -- such as Brazil, Russia, and India -- will soon succumb to the flesh-eating horde. The United States and the other remaining major powers will protect themselves through indiscriminate force -- quite possibly including nuclear strikes -- to prevent undead mass migration from overrun regions into their territories. America's unmatched global-strike capabilities will lead most other remaining states to acquiesce to U.S. leadership over the zone of the living.

The result will not, unfortunately, be Liberal Order 3.0, but a global Pax Americana supported by regional client-empires tasked with controlling and eradicating local zombie eruptions. In time, we will see efforts to actively settle zombie-controlled wastelands. In other words, the world will experience a macabre replay of 19th-century imperial expansion, but as imagined in the dreams of the most virulently racist advocates of European imperialism -- those who saw indigenous populations as subhuman monsters fit only for exploitation and destruction.

Daniel Nexon
Assistant Professor
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C.

Daniel Drezner replies:
I greatly value Daniel Nexon's penetrating insights into the realist response to the specter of the undead. I must, nevertheless, dispute his prediction of U.S. hegemonic revival and nuclear-weapons use. First, even if weaker developing countries are overrun by zombie hordes, it is unlikely that the great powers -- particularly China -- will face a similar fate. Although the United States will remain first among equals in terms of power projection, the presence of ghouls would not tip the balance of power so far in the U.S. direction so as to support revanchist policies. Concluding that other great powers would simply "acquiesce" to U.S. hegemony seems contrary to the logic of realpolitik. Acting in concert, powerful states would reassert control over nettlesome border adversaries (Cuba, Taiwan, etc.). In a world in which the dead come back to life, however, further territorial expansion would pose greater security risks than gains.

Furthermore, the use of nuclear weapons would be a catastrophic mistake in a zombie-infested world. Zombies cannot be deterred, stripping nukes of their one useful trait. In the event of their use, a nuclear blast would no doubt kill massive numbers of zombies. Unlike human beings, however, the undead would survive any radioactive fallout that comes from such weapons use. Indeed, zombies carrying lethal doses of radiation would pose a double threat to humans as they stumbled around -- death by radiation or reanimation by zombie bite.

If any government were so foolhardy as to launch a first strike, it would create the only thing worse than an army of the living dead -- a radioactive army of the living dead. We can only hope that when faced with a zombie horde, cooler heads than Nexon's will be in the Situation Room.