It appears that the US think tank The Ne…
It appears that the US think tank The New America Foundation is leading the effort to ‘massage’ the US media/Western press into accepting Ahmadinejad as the victor in the likely fraudulent election in Iran.
Earlier, we had The New America Foundation project Terrorist Free Future making arbitrary and unwarranted assumptions about the vote for Ahmadinejad based on their specious polling. Now another peon of that think tank has declared “Ahmadinejad won. Get over it” at the website Politico.
It’s interesting to note that The New America Foundation is not a neoconservative think tank, which could be expected to support Ahmadinejad. It’s ranks appear to be salted with many former neoconservatives “who were mugged by reality” such as Francis Fukuyama and Fareed Zakaria. However the outlets they are publishing in are all pretty much hardline ‘war forever’ neoconservative propaganda sheets, such as the Washington Post and Politico.
Abu Noor, 
johnpi, 
razib and 2 others are discussing.
Safia 4:50 pm on June 15, 2009 Permalink |
Nate Silver tackles some of the assumptions reached in the WaPo op-ed by the pollsters:
fivethirtyeight.com
razib 5:16 pm on June 15, 2009 Permalink |
new america spans the gamut. right to left. paleo to neo.
johnpi 6:36 pm on June 15, 2009 Permalink |
The gamut from ‘liberal hawk’ through neoconservative, at least. If there is a consensus among that crowd that Ahmadinejad is somehow better for long-term US foreign policy objectives, then that’s a consensus, period – since there is no actual “left” at the top levels of American foreign policy-making to the left of ‘liberal hawk.’ See Glenn Greenwald writing about the foreign policy community.
I was just reviewing the background on some of its luminaries. Walter Russell Mead sits on the advisory board of United Against Nuclear Iran, a nonprofit co-founded by the recently dismissed Dennis Ross. UANI doesn’t have a mission according to its website, it has “The Cause,” which is to “stop Iran from arming itself” with nuclear weapons.
UANI has a 34 second ad that it has produced, nearly half of which either has a picture of Ahmadinejad or his name playing across the screen throughout. Clearly, the people at UANI consider Ahmadinejad a valuable propaganda asset. I’m sure they’d hate to lose him.
razib 10:32 pm on June 15, 2009 Permalink |
you’re being selective and seeing what you want to see. it’s a big foundation with a lot of people. jim pinkerton is an anti-iraq war paleoconservative. michael lind has written a piece for antiwar.com titled How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War. barry lynn doesn’t focus on international policy at all, it’s all about church-state separation.
you’re generalizations are tiresome. (now i’m sure you’re going to figure out how michael lind and jim pinkerton are really neocons)
razib 10:35 pm on June 15, 2009 Permalink |
and look, i know people personally who work for *new america*. that’s why i know that it isn’t some neocon tool. there are neocons and conventional liberal hawks in the foundation. unlike
most washington foundations they make a specific attempt to fund people from all over the political spectrum. for this they regularly get caricatured as leftist or rightist or whatever by lazy people who think a few fellows must naturally reflect the whole foundation (this is pretty much true for most washington foundations, but not new america) so i guess if you want to see what you want to see….
pi.info 11:41 am on June 16, 2009 Permalink |
Razib – you’re being selective and seeing what you want to see.
Abu Noor – you’re cherry picking your ‘evidence’ here.
I’m surprised you would both assert this without offering any specific proof on this specific issue of diverging opinions from NA analysts (and even if you did find some NA affiliates who were supportive of Mousavi, it still wouldn’t necessarily be proof that NA wasn’t coordinating like-minded analysts – or those amenable to joining a coalition for personal advancement, or who could care less either way – to push Ahmadinejad).
Jim Pinkerton, Michael Lind – even James Fallows, a liberal hawk who I have a lot of respect for after he apologized for supporting the Iraq war – all these people are diverse, but none are in the public eye right now saying anything one way or another about the next leader of Iran, so it’s a non sequitor.
it’s a big foundation with a lot of people
agree. That’s why I’m talking about a consensus.
i know people personally who work for *new america*. that’s why i know that it isn’t some neocon tool.
Again, that’s why i said consensus across the spectrum, I didn’t say it was a “neo-con tool,” only stating the obvious that if there is a consensus, neo-cons are part of it.
there are neocons and conventional liberal hawks in the foundation.
Isn’t that what I said?
if you read them, clearly not designed to give the impression Ahmadinejad won in order to make conflict and war with Iran more likely.
There’s two assertions in that sentence. I’m asserting that the consensus appears to be that Ahmadinejad is preferable. Whether it’s for purposes of war-making or negotiating is unclear – but I’m deeply suspicious of the war-making instincts of the US foreign policy establishment obviously.
you’re generalizations are tiresome.
I’m trying to make sense of a pattern (NA Foundation affiliated experts pushing Ahmadinejad), but you seem to have misunderstood me to have said it’s a neoservative thing. I’m not. There is enough evidence of advocacy (and manipulation in the characterization of the poll by the pollsters) here that it’s not credible to assert a coincidence.
If you’ve got light to illuminate the darkness, please light it.
abunoor 1:26 pm on June 16, 2009 Permalink |
John,
First of all, I thought you were making a larger point about New America Foundation generally, not just this one issue.
Second, with regard to this one issue…I’m not sure why you would take an article where the writer goes on for several paragraphs about why the U.S. should negotiate and say it is “unclear” whether the purposes are for ‘negotiating’ or ‘war-making.’ You’re going to have to give me a reason for thinking that people who are always talking against war are really for it…although to be honest I don’t care that much and if you want to just be skeptical of govt and establishment even to the level of near-paranoia that’s probably a good thing, I just don’t think your specific argument here makes a ton of sense. And I don’t know anyone personally who works for New America foundation, but I see its talking heads popping up in various places and it is bizarre to suggest that it is a war mongering organization. Are you sure all these people are the establishment?
I also don’t read the articles you mentioned as preferring Ahmadinejad. I read them as assuming that Ahmadinejad wil be in power, either because he really won the election or because he will succeed in stealing it. In either case, it will make war less likely if people accept that than if Ahmadinejad is in power and he is widely considered illegitimate, that would make war more likely.
Of course there is always the chance that they could be overcome by events and Ahmadinejad will not survive in power, but I’m no Iran expert and no one knows the future but Allaah.
Anyways, thanks for your reply and viewpoint.
abunoor 1:27 pm on June 16, 2009 Permalink
Oh, and how do you square your theory with Reihan Salam’s piece? Did he go “rogue” from the NAF conspiracy?
razib 1:56 pm on June 16, 2009 Permalink
yeah, had the same impresssion as abunoor.
pi.info 6:40 pm on June 16, 2009 Permalink
I’m not sure why you would take an article where the writer goes on for several paragraphs about why the U.S. should negotiate and say it is “unclear” whether the purposes are for ‘negotiating’ or ‘war-making.’…near-paranoia that’s probably a good thing…
Really? You must be shocked – shocked! – to read this report from no less a source than the Leveretts themselves:
Given the Leveretts’ disdain for Ross, it seems they do have a genuine interest in real negotiation with Iran – but that doesn’t mitigate the significance of the fact that they have endorsed Ahmadinejad. They may differ in their reasons for being in consensus with the neocons but we have a pretty good statement here of why the neoconservatives would be inside a pro-Ahmadinejad consensus.
I just don’t think your specific argument here makes a ton of sense.
Actually, you provide a powerful rationale for why people like the Leaverett’s would be pro-Ahmadinejad. Quoting you:
Are you sure all these people are the establishment?
Yep. A-list and B-list.
Non-establishment voices with a good record like Chris Bowers and Juan Cole, all see massive fraud either with the Iranian election or the tripe that is being pedaled by NAF flunkies like Ballen.
The sad thing about this is that once again a genuine revolution has launched in the Shi’ite Muslim world (Mossadegh, Southern Iraq after the first Gulf war), and once again the US has taken the side of the bad guys/left the people twisting in the wind. Same shit, different day. Well, aside from my government’s pursuits, I’m perfectly happy to support the majority of the Iranian people in any way requested…
Abu Noor 7:13 pm on June 16, 2009 Permalink
I’ve lost you again John. I thought the point was whether people were pushing for war or negotiations, not whether they were “pro”- Ahmadinejad.
Abu Noor 12:01 am on June 16, 2009 Permalink |
John, I basically agree with Razib that you’re cherry picking your ‘evidence’ here. In fact, people from New America regularly challenge conventional establishment wisdom.
Without getting into the weeds of that debate, however, let me also say that i think you are misreading the purpose of some of the articles you link to here. The article headlined “Ahmadinejad won. Get over it” and similar pieces are, if you read them, clearly not designed to give the impression Ahmadinejad won in order to make conflict and war with Iran more likely. In fact, they are designed to prevent people from using the fraud in the election (either real or perceived) to move away from Obama’s gestures toward engagement toward a hardline stance which could make conflict and war more likely.
Razib, while I agree with you that New America seems to have people from different parts of the spectrum, there must be some common characteristic that New America is trying to promote. What do you think that is?
Reihan Salam, also with New America, has a piece titled A New Islamic Revolution which I’m not happy to say since I normally like Reihan, although I frequently disagree with him, and because I liked Feldman’s book the thesis of which he relies for this post, doesn’t really make a lot of sense and appears poorly written and argued. (maybe it was edited by somebody who didn’t understand what Salam was trying to say)
razib 2:33 am on June 16, 2009 Permalink |
Razib, while I agree with you that New America seems to have people from different parts of the spectrum, there must be some common characteristic that New America is trying to promote. What do you think that is?
i haven’t gotten into the details, but my understanding is that they’re trying to promote heterodoxy as a matter of principle. basically the think tanks in washington have uniform voices, and people are careful in what they say because they know who is buttering their bread. new america is an attempt to offer something different.
abunoor 9:35 am on June 16, 2009 Permalink |
Thanks for the response…that’s pretty much the impression I get as well.
Abu Noor 12:06 am on June 16, 2009 Permalink |
Ok, Ok…rereading Salam’s piece it was quite as bad as I thought upon first reading but I still don’t think it really worked.
Abu Noor 12:06 am on June 16, 2009 Permalink |
Ok, Ok…rereading Salam’s piece it was NOT quite as bad as I thought upon first reading but I still don’t think it really worked.
pi.info 6:46 pm on June 16, 2009 Permalink |
Actually, Salam’s piece is pretty good, but the scope is far beyond this election and Ahmadinejad. As I stated earlier, some divergence here and there doesn’t rise to the level of a problem with asserting that there seems to be a consensus.
aziz 6:33 am on June 16, 2009 Permalink |
off topic, but john you added the link to TI at the wiki entry on New america, didnt you?
pi.info 11:42 am on June 16, 2009 Permalink |
Nope, not me.