Commentary Magazine


Tom Friedman’s Iran Ignorance

Jonathan Tobin highlights well some problems with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s defense of President Barack Obama’s empathy with Iran. Perhaps a greater irony, however, is how wrong Friedman gets Iranian history. Friedman describes how:

We, the United States, back in the ’50s, we toppled Iran’s democratically-elected government. You know, there might be some reason these people actually want to get a weapon that will deter that from happening again.

Three problems with this conventional wisdom:

  • Firstly, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq was not much of a democrat. Or, if he was a democrat, then he was a democrat in the mold of Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide: he was democratic so long as you agreed with him; Iranians who voiced opposition might easily find themselves lynched.
  • Second, while Kermit Roosevelt wrote the main English-language account of the 1953 coup in Countercoup, he exaggerated his own and the United States role in what was a much broader operation. The idea for the coup was British because Mosaddeq had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (a predecessor of British Petroleum) and then refused to negotiate. The United States was more concerned by Mosaddeq’s pro-Soviet proclivities. So too were the Iranians themselves, especially the military and the clergy. That’s right, the folks who run the Islamic Republic today were co-conspirators with the United States and deeply opposed to Mosaddeq’s anti-clerical attitudes. So when Friedman self-flagellates, he essentially is apologizing to the Iranians who supported the coup.
  • Third, Friedman gets the shah wrong. Mohammad Reza Shah was a deeply problematic figure, and he grew far more dictatorial after the 1953 coup, but at the time of the coup, he was a popular head of state whom Mosaddeq was seeking to force out in order to assume dictatorial power himself. Then again, he was a dictator in the mold of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey: he sought dictatorial powers to modernize Iran, making Iranians equal under the law regardless of religion and enfranchising women. Still, the shah’s regime was brutal at time, and there were no angels in this story. But the idea that the 1953 coup motivates the Iranian nuclear program is bizarre. While the shah had a nuclear program himself, the resurrection of the Iranian nuclear program after the Islamic Revolution can be traced more to Iraqi chemical weapons attacks on Iran.

There’s also a broader problem underlying both Obama’s and Friedman’s assumptions about Iranian motivations, and that is the assumption that grievance motivates the Iranian nuclear drive. That’s lazy thinking and belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic. At its heart, the Islamic Republic is an ideological state. The reason why Obama’s interpretation that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s statements can be discounted because he’s playing to a political constituency are so bizarre is that such an explanation suggests ignorance of the fact that the supreme leader derives legitimacy from God rather than from the Iranian public. The Islamic Republic simply isn’t a normal, status quo state; it’s a revisionist, ideological power. Iran’s nuclear behavior is rooted not in grievances real or imagined, but rather in a desire to export its revolution.

Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »

3 Responses to “Tom Friedman’s Iran Ignorance”

  1. BARRY MEISLIN says:

    Tom Friedman, Roger Cohen, what difference does it make? It’s the NYT, after all.

    As long as Iran wishes to destroy the Jewish State, it gets a pass. Actually, it’s the reason why it deserves our support…. (or at the very least, the benefit of the doubt).

    As for the Iranian people? Well, heh, we all saw first-hand how much Obama supported them several years ago when the streets of Tehran were drenched with their blood….

    (But then Obama has Israel’s back, too….)

    Anybody who believes a word that Obama says is an utter fool.

    Anybody who supports what Obama is planning is complicit in the destruction his policies are intended to bring about.

  2. ELLIOTT GREEN says:

    Michael, I basically agree with you but you overlook an important point that would be an even stronger refutation of Friedman’s silliness than what you bring up. That is, the Carter administration, guided by Zbig Brzezinski, knowingly helped Khomeini take power in Iran. So Khomeini was helped as much or more by US foreign policy bodies as the Shah was when he was brought back to power. George Lenczowski had a helpful article on that episode in the American Spectator circa 1961. There may have another article in the same vein in Commentary around the same time.


    As appalling as it is, Iran looks like the perfect hegemon, compared to the Sunni Arabs. The Arabs squabble, fight among themselves, and can only agree about one thing–their antipathy toward Israel.

    The Sunni Arab armies are not battle-tested or adequately trained. They refuse to commit them beyond their own borders, and are probably only useful for parades and repression. If captured by ISIS, they could be radicalized and turned, which is probably another reason. All of this despite that the Saudis are the largest importer of arms in the world. Pakistan, a Sunni ally has backed away from helping them in Yemen.

    By contrast, the Iranians deploy beyond their borders, are reliable allies, and have the willingness to export terror to achieve their goals. Soon, they will be nuclear. Obama must admire this. That’s why he’s effectively cutting a deal, effectively making him our de facto ally. It’s a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact all over again.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
for full access to
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
Don't have a log in?
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.