Monday, January 7, 2013

Nostalgia for Nixon

By Paul Iddon

Flynt Leverett's distortions of Nixon's presidency and the present situation in Iran.

Nixon and Mao.
Cast your mind back to 1973. An eventful year to the least. That saw monumental events in not just the Middle East, but the entire world. Probably the most grotesque thing to transpire that year took place in the south American country of Chile. There the agency which Flynt Leverett used to work for carried out a brutal coup against the democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende and installed a right-wing military junta headed by the brutal Augusto Pinochet. It was a heinous assault on the small non-aggressive state, a country that had never harmed or threatened to harm the United States. Consequently it was assaulted in such a grotesque manner exactly 20 years after the CIA backed the British in their blatant subversive action against the Iranian government. The CIA upon its retrospective assessment of the events of 1979 determined that the Iranian Revolution was among other things 'blowback' for their actions in 1953. And actions in the intervening time such as the installation of a secret police force that sought out and punished, that's putting it lightly, those who voiced dissent.

So in essence the oppressive regime currently in power in Iran today was able to force its way to power as a somewhat indirect result of that American and British intervention in Iran's domestic affairs in 1953. Whilst one can counter argue this point of view by outlining the geopolitical reasons the U.S and U.K had for undertaking that assault on Iran's independence one simply cannot realistically exclude the primary influence that both oil and geopolitics had on this imperial intervention.

Flynt Leverett always stresses the importance of Iran due to its resources and geopolitical importance. He often brings up and then downplays the opposition in Iran and has exhibited classic signs of double think when he insists Iran is an 'Islamic Republic' whilst using selectively dubious sources to try and prove the Iranian public, which hasn't been allowed participate in a democratic and free referendum on their destiny for over 30 years (a very large part of Iran's population is actually under 30 years of age), supports the authoritarian regime in power there. But he never seems to be able to reconcile with the fact that the regime has done its utmost to prevent a conclusive public opinion poll from being conducted to prove to the world that is the case.

Flynt's primary contention and argument is that it is completely Washington that is at fault for not undertaking a 'Nixon goes to China' with Tehran.
“He put every ounce of political skill, Machiavellian calculation, diplomatic acumen, capacity for secrecy…all of the good and maybe not so good parts of political persona, he put all of them into this and achieved this historic breakthrough, because he knew it was strategically vital for his country.”
That was him describing Richard Nixon of all people. Granted Nixon's overture to China was a breakthrough. But it was done, as was the case with nearly everything that Nixon done, purely for reasons for Realpolitik. Flynt by evoking such admiration for Nixon's action would like you to forget that Nixon only went to China after his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in a classic case of political triangulation, purposely scuttled the 1968 peace accords in Vietnam and as a result prolonged that brutal, and blatantly colonial, war against the people of that country. That inevitably resulted in the killing of a great deal of American boys in the process by Peking's North Vietnamese allies. One doesn't even want to think about the number of Vietnamese that were killed during the period of that wars prolongation. This all transpired before Nixon decided to make his 'historic breakthrough' by going to Beijing -- 'diplomatic acumen' indeed.

Flynt would like you to forget that, and he would also like you to forget that the Cold War is over and remember that Iran has lots of oil and is strategically important for the United States. But the main thing he wants you to forget is that the United States played a prime role in robbing Iran of both her resources and her peoples freedom. It was because of people like Flynt, so-called 'realist' CIA analysts and advisers, that this happened in the first place. Now he is continuing to, in this post-Cold War world of ours, advocate a policy that will essentially see to the United States once again dealing with thuggish plunderers, oppressors and enemies of the people of Persia. All done under the guise of adopting a more sober foreign policy that will suit American interests. Dealing with the regime would also on a personal basis for Flynt potentially bring vast business contracts to a certain energy and consulting firm which a certain Mrs. Leverett is CEO of.

Here's what the famous 'Gonzo' journalist, one of Nixon's main detractors in print, Hunter S. Thompson said upon the former Presidents death in 1994:
“Let there be no mistake in the history books about that. Richard Nixon was an evil man -- evil in a way that only those who believe in the physical reality of the Devil can understand it. He was utterly without ethics or morals or any bedrock sense of decency. Nobody trusted him -- except maybe the Stalinist Chinese, and honest historians will remember him mainly as a rat who kept scrambling to get back on the ship.”
Similarly I'd wager that the cold and clumsy policies and contentions of these cold self-described 'realists' will be frowned upon by history. I am reminded as I write this of a furious outburst Victor Klemperer had when writing in his personal diaries -- which recorded the lifespan of the discriminatory and repressive state system that existed in his home country of Germany. He expressed this burst of outrage when he jotted down the following:
'If one day the situation were reversed and the fate of the vanquished lay in my hands, then I would let all the ordinary folk go and even some of the leaders, who might perhaps after all have had honourable intentions and not known what they were doing. But would have all the intellectuals strung up, and the professors three feet higher than the rest; they would be left hanging from the lampposts for as long as was compatible with hygiene.'
As far as we constitute citizens of 'the west', we should strongly oppose any kind of conciliation with the regime occupying Persia. The people it oppresses have done nothing to threaten or harm us. Their land has been occupied by the great powers and their destiny subverted by them. 'Honest historians' would surely wonder what we were thinking if we were to listen to the likes of the Leverett's. Worse still, carefully ponder what those who fought for the most basic of civil rights and exerted extraordinary courage in facing down the brute murderers and rapists of the Revolutionary Guards would think of us if we embraced these criminals and thugs now. And sought to, as the Leverett's continually insist we should, recognize them as the true representatives of the Iranian people.

History shows there has never been, and probably never will be, a shortage of petty moral relativists, jesters and sly apologists for authoritarianism and tyranny. Sadly history also demonstrates time and again how the average decent citizen of the world is often fooled by them. One hopes we won't be fooled about the nature of the Iranian regime, and prove to be an exception to this historical rule.


Mark Pyruz said...

Flynt Leverret and I were alive and aware, here in the United States, back in 1972. Were you, Paul?

Flynt didn't work for the CIA in 1972.

Paul, have you ever travelled to Iran? Even once? Flynt and his wife Hillary have, multiple times.

Hillary was tasked with dealing with her Iranian counterparts during the initial stages of OEF, during which time the Iranians were very helpful. Have you ever worked for a foreign ministry or state department? Have you ever had formal dealings with the Islamic Republic of Iran?

What exactly are your scholastic or academic qualifications, Paul?

Paul Iddon said...


Never claimed Flynt worked for the CIA in 1972.

Haven't been able to travel to Iran as a result of the sanctions and the paramilitary goons you have to get a Visa off (ties Flynt has made apparent he has in the past). Been invited numerous times by friends though.

I don't ask for your qualifications when you make the countless fatuous statements you've become notorious for, try disprove something I said for once.

And you owe me an apology for saying that I'm 'anti-Iran'. That was a slur, and aptly illustrates how low you are stooping these days.

Paul Iddon said...

Oh and Mark, what qualifications did you have to write a comprehensive response to Michael Eisenstadt's various analysis's and contentions with regard to Iran. Do you possess superior qualifications than that qualified 'expert'?

Going by the general tone of your questioning, if you do not wouldn't that by definition disqualify you from having what may otherwise be a valid opinion, regardless of what sources you cite to reinforce your own contentions?

Just want you to see how illogical and stupid your arguments are when they're hurled right back to you.

Anonymous said...

have you ever ceased being a shill for swine or transcended your small-minded attempts to defend, merely because it is Iranian, that which is immoral and terrible

being a toady for nationalist arrogance is quite unlovely.

Yossarian said...

That's an excellent point Mark, and it popped into my mind as I read the first paragraph. Who the heck is this "Paul Iddon", anyways? A quick Google search of his name and Iran together...And only this website shows up. What is his background? Does he speak fluent Farsi? Does he hold a graduate degree in Near East Studies? Does he have military or State Department experience in the Middle East? Was he a journalist assigned to an Iran desk by a major news agency? Has he worked in the oil sector in the Persian Gulf? Anything at all? Who is this guy? What is the source of his supposed expertise? Why should I waste my time reading the work of a clueless lightweight? Is he trying to make some kind of name for himself, slinging mud at Fynt's good name? Good luck with that one. :D

Paul Iddon's writing is reminiscent of what one finds over at the, namely that of Jousha Foust. That mind you, is not a good thing to be compared to.

Anonymous said...

Somehow I don't think Paul Iddon is "anti-Iran".
He is against the Islamic theocracy which is the most anti-Iran entity since the Arab invasion of Iran over 1400 years ago.
If anything Paul is pro-Iran and proves it by writing articles about the plight of Iranians under the fascist Islamic theocratic dictatorship.
But by looking at articles written by Mark Pyruz it proves to me as well as others that he has extreme leanings towards the ignorant zealotry that is the fascist Islamic banditry which is presently occupying Iran.
As for Flynt's good name it is questionable because he is just another writer who has sympathy towards the occupying terrorist clerical mafia establishment that has the blood of over a million dead patriotic Iranians on its hands.
His denial of all those dead patriotic victims of Iran says it all.

Anonymous said...

@ Paul, the blind spot in your view is that your strategy is exact the same as the strategy of IRI; they do not want to solve any Problem; they want to let Country bleed; that is their purpose; now, you say the same Thing and playing into their Hands ...

Anonymous said...

blogs resorted to censorship didn't publish my rebuttal

Unknown said...

@Yousarian 5:02
I am still trying to figure you out.
Are you tasked with discrediting the writers in order to discredit the anti regime messages?

Why should it matter to you what "pedigree" Paul has? Why don't you offer a counter argument to his points instead of saying he has no "right", according to you, to write about Iran. Paul doesn't need your approval to write here.

He is the blogger and you are the commentator; He is free to blog and you are free to comment, We will even believe your role plays as you do it.

As Paul would say, cheers!

Yossarian said...

Actually, there are several very good writers here. Then there is Paul and yourself. As for Paul's "pedigree"...I wasn't commenting on that. Only the origin of his supposed "insight" into Iran, or perhaps lack there of. It appears that he only writes on Uskowi, as well. At least for this topic.

As for being here to discredit the anti-regime message, that is hardly the case. In fact, people who hurtle such claims around, tend to be just as fanatical and totalitarian as the very regime they despise. People who would once again replace the VEVAK with the SAVAK, if you catch my drift.

So, you guys just keep on writing third-rate articles, and I'll keep on commenting on them. Consider it a marriage of sorts. ;)

Yossarian said...

Flynt worked for the State Department...Hardly just another writer. My guess is Paul is trying to make a name for himself in the "field," and this is a good way to attract attention.

Unknown said...

@yossatian 7:36
For the record, I don't believe in marriage and I doubt you would be my type anyway.

You still haven't made any serious counter argument other than saying that Mr. leverett meets your approval and that he is a worthy writer.

You may say that you are a US veteran, a private signed up to pay for college loans for all we know, but all indications are that you are serving the Islamic republic regime by using Islamic republic standards of argument, focus on the messenger and not the message.

The reason I love this country, America, is that everyone is allowed to say whatever they want about any subject. If you are going to continue to pretend to be an American then stop using Iranian regime standards of arguments and act a little bit more American.

Anonymous said...

Flynt is just another tool of the fascist Islamic mafia theocracy.

B.M.A said...


"worse still. carefully ponder what those who fought for the most basic of civil rights and exerted-extraordinary courage in facing down the brute murderers and rapists of the IRGC would think of us if we embrace these criminals and thugs now!"

-DID YOU MEAN THAT THE IRGC- assaulted people during the so called green movement riots? -NOBODY IN THE WHOLE WORLD DARES TO SPEAK SUCH A BOLD LIE! even JF,a red hot critic of the regime would agree that the IRGC WAS NOT PARTY TO ALL THAT HAPPENED!-

PAUL, are you sincere that IRAN HATE is not driving crazy??

Anonymous said...

B.M.A,you haven't a damn clue what you're writing about.