Feedback | 19 April 2003

Comment on The end of the beginning by Michael Ledeen (12/04/2003)

Michael Ledeen’s analysis of how the United States will approach other ‘evil’ states, namely Syria and Iran, shows signs of hysteria from the start. Ledeen tells us that ‘Today, both Iran and Syria are engaged in a desperate terrorist campaign against coalition forces in Iraq.’ Yet the evidence suggests that Iran has shown a complete lack of interest in events over the border, and that Syria has helped a few hundred zealous young men to their deaths in Baghdad. This hardly constitutes a ‘desperate terrorist campaign’. He claims later that Iran and Syria will kill us in Iraq and Afghanistan and in our homelands; again, where is his evidence?

Ledeen also fingers Hezbollah as an instrument of Syrian and Iranian evil in the Middle East. But Hezbollah is now almost completely independent of both Damascus and Tehran. Iran and Syria may occasionally have influence, and serve to restrain Hezbollah, but the days are long gone when Hezbollah took orders from Khomeini and money from Damascus. If you want to deal with Hezbollah, then deal with Hezbollah.

Finally, Ledeen rails against attempts to engage with Iran. Admittedly, the process of democratization in Iran has not been as rapid as Iranians would like, but progress has and continues to be made. Improving relations with Iran will strengthen its diverse reform groups, and trade will erode the economic strength of hardliners. Denouncing Iran will not.

Ledeen’s most grievous error is his suggestion that Reza Pahlavi, the Shah’s son, lead Iran into democracy. Pahlavi is not “widely respected‘ in Iran, he is widely ignored. The last thing Iran’s reformers need, as they insist upon their legitimacy, is outsiders crowning the Shah’s son as their new leader. The US and UK restored the old Shah to his throne in 1953, and the Iranians haven’t forgotten it.