Hamid Yazdan Panah, 26 November 2013

Over the course of three decades, the Iranian people have had to suffer through the darkness and depravity of the ruling regime. Not only have the Iranian people had to overcome a brutal dictatorship, but they have been consistently betrayed by a policy of appeasement by Western governments. The policy of appeasement has been enabled by a complex lobby, which employs subtle tactics to influence policy.

One of the most powerful methods by which this lobby operates is what I call “inverted orientalism.” Edward Said famously deconstructed the Western view of the Middle East in his foundational text “Orientalism” which was published in 1978. The book sheds light on the history of Western thought in regards to the Middle East. Said focuses on the ways ways in which the culture and history of the Middle East have been projected in West, and the myths which have surrounded it. The book focuses on the way in which power and culture are used to exert hegemony and justify colonial domination.

The concept of orientalism no longer exists in the classical manner as it did in the past. Currently, the narratives in the West are not as blatantly racist or imperialistic as they once were. Yet the concept of Orientalism still  offers a useful lens through which to analyze the current state of affairs in regards to the Iran. Today, we have a new, “inverted orientalism” taking root. Instead of simplistic generalizations which favor colonialism and domination of the Middle East, we have simplistic generalizations meant to justify the ruling regimes in power. In this regard, Iran is an obvious and interesting example.

A simple example of this type of “inverted orientalism” is this article “A 3-Minute Video Tells You What Iranians Really Think Of America.” The article goes out of its way to portray Iranian’s within Iran as having a positive view of America. The fact remains that a generalization is problematic whether it is positive or negative. Where traditional Orientalism consistently made negative generalizations of Iranians, “inverted orientalism” makes positive generalizations of Iranians, but still treats them as though they were something that needed to be “understood”, maintaining the same problematic approach to the culture as traditional Orientalism.

Another example which I often encounter is the morally relativist arguments made by some misguided Americans who claim that concepts like Human Rights and Democracy, should not be imposed on Iran, and that we should be “culturally sensitive” when criticizing the obvious lack of political and civil rights in Iran. These arguments take traditional racist attacks against the Middle East and flip them on their heads. In essence they still reduce the Orient into a primitive and mysterious place, but instead of condemning it they celebrate it and justify that which they believe is “simply part of their culture.”

In the political context, “inverted orientalism” entails all of the sweeping generalizations and simplistic analysis that was typical of traditional orientalism, but places it in a politically correct light. Through this context, so called “Middle East experts” make broad claims about Iran or Iranians, and pose as gatekeepers of knowledge for the Western audience.

Historically, a European archaeologist would be the one presenting an incomplete and misguided analysis of Middle Eastern culture as an example of Orientalism. Today, you have someone like Trita Parsi or Reza Aslan, presenting their politicized conclusions to Western audiences, and claiming that because they are Iranian and they can uncover the hidden truths about Iran.

A classic example of this occurs whenever Trita Parsi speaks to an American audience. He peppers in various facts about “Iranian culture” and the “Iranian psyche” in his political analysis, so as to legitimate his various talking points. The unwitting American listener eagerly digests the simplistic generalizations, and take Parsi’s words for facts. Because Parsi colors his lectures with liberal and anti-war rhetoric, his lobbying points become even more appealing to his audience.

The hard truth is that “inverted orientalism” and those who preach it not only betray the hopes and wishes of Iranians fighting for freedom, but will go down in history as a shameful display of coddling a dictatorship.

“Inverted orientalism” has been utilized consistently by the Iran Lobby in their efforts to distort the reality of the nuclear program. They have consistently attempted to cast the conflict as part of a complex “East vs. West” dialogue, while casting the Iranian regime as a misunderstood “partner.” In doing so they often use an oriental lens to analyze aspects of Persian culture, or attempt to give some form of hidden insight into the “mysterious” regime, while ignoring the plain realities of the nuclear program.

For example, Trita Parsi, has utilized this argument in order to claim that all that is needed is “understanding” in order to resolve the nuclear crisis. He consistently attempts to act as an expert on the Iranian psyche and justify Iran’s nuclear policy through a mix of absurd psychoanalysis and historical misrepresentations. A favorable review of Parsi’s recent book by John Limbert claims;  “Parsi recounts it all—the misunderstandings, the fears, the prejudices, the ambitions, and the misreading—that have hobbled American efforts to end three decades of futility with Iran.”

Oddly enough Limbert has taken to writing similarly themed articles, as well as being part of the Iran Primer, along with other notable contributors like Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, who have published works such as The Mad Mullah Myth: The Dangers of Misunderstanding Iran’s Strategy. All of those connected with the Iran Primer have followed the same line touting negotiations with the regime, and attempting to act as experts who can analyze and understand the true nature of Iran and do us a grand service of clarifying any misunderstandings.

No matter what the situation, whether Iran is in a position of weakness or strength, crisis or calm, they remain adamant about two things; first that sanctions must be removed, and second that now is the best time to negotiate with the regime. The true intentions of these maneuvers are not to reach a settlement on the nuclear issue, but to buy the Ayatollahs time. The same strategy has remained consistent over the last decade, as every round of negotiations has failed.

The fact is, these apologists for the Ayatollahs have consistently attempted to hide their true intentions under the guise of avoiding a disastrous military conflict, and promoting the idea of reaching “understanding” with Iran. These strategies focus on exploiting the legitimate fears and concerns over the unstable situation in the Middle East, and exploit the anti-war sentiment that prevailed after the Iraq war.

The fact is Iran, like any other country in the world is a complex place, with its share of contradictions. The Iranian people do not need experts to “uncover” their state of mind, or to reduce their feelings to a sound byte. The Iranian people want what all other people in the world want. Peace, freedom, equality and a chance to live a decent life. As long as this regime is around they will never have those things. It doesn’t take an expert to see that.

Hamid Yazdan Panah is an Iranian-American human rights activist and attorney focused on immigration and asylum in the San Francisco Bay Area.