The Iranian Opposition and the Disinformation War (Part 2)
How media and politicians effectively deliver propaganda for the Islamic Republic regime in Iran
Here I will discuss how various methods of propaganda have helped the Islamic Republic, either directly or indirectly, especially in relations to attacks on the Iranian opposition movement. I divide them between the direct disinformation of the regime’s network in the West, and the indirect methods employed by politicians and media to normalise the regime. I emphasise the regime lobby’s links to the Western Left and its role in disinformation, and how policies of appeasement enable this.
Disinformation: The regime lobby’s smear campaigns
What we see here are those that sit at “the top of the tree” - the web of people around the Islamic Republic regime and its worldwide network of apologists and lobbyists, who are aided and abetted by a transnational network of “progressives" (who are well inside the UK Labour and US Democratic parties), and the related web of NGOs and “human rights” lawyers.
The anti-Western narrative binds together groups with seemingly incompatible social and cultural agendas, yet align neatly when it comes to their support for the Islamic Republic. This explains why the Western Left can ally with Islamist groups, and also embrace the Nation of Islam (which also supports the Islamic Republic) despite its own religious incompatibility with any form of Islam. Hence the Islamic Republic supports Sunni Islamist (Hamas) and Communist (PFLP) terrorist groups, who also receive sympathy from the aforementioned network.
This Islamic Republic regime and its agencies are well aware of this. They and other Islamists possess an impeccable understanding of the West’s internal vulnerabilities. After all, it was Jimmy Carter who enabled them to come to power in the first place, with Barrack Obama and now Joe Biden continuing that tradition. The lobby groups such as NIAC and Quincy Institute were created, and a network carefully coordinated (represented by such figures as Trita Parsi, Jamal Abdi, Negar Mortazavi and Farnaz Fassihi) for that purpose.
I should also make note of the fact that regime supporters and collaborators do not all fit the stereotypical profile of “religious fanatics” associated with Islam. Many of them live and work in the West, lead very Western lifestyles, yet they are part of an elite which has profited handsomely from collaboration with the regime. The privileges of this elite is a cause of anger among Iranians.
Iranian opposition activists and movements have been subject to smear campaigns by regime apologists. This most blatant form of this is known as “black propaganda” created by regime apologists with the intention to undermine or discredit opposition to the regime. One of the most blatant examples of this is the disinformation spread by the so-called “human rights” lawyer Elahé Sharifpour-Hicks who in a tweet of hers spread two falsehoods: linking protests in Khuzestan to the unpopular “opposition” political cult MEK, and claiming they were linked to Israel. This has since been utilised by pro-regime media, with the intention of doing harm to protesters.
Sharifpour-Hicks is a former employee of Human Rights Watch, which astonishingly is far from alone among NGOs in its dishonesty - its employment of Tara Sepehri Far as a researcher is consistent with this. Indeed, the web of journalists in “liberal” or left-leaning media outlets, NGOs and “human rights” lawyers react furiously to opponents of the Islamic Republic and its lobby groups, as can be seen by their defence of Farnaz Fassihi, a notorious regime apologist. They will cry victim despite the regime apologist brigade’s far more odious record of attacks and harassment of the opposition.
Pro-regime lobbyists routinely attack Iranian opposition activists (specifically Iranian monarchists and nationalists), as well as grouping them with imaginary “right-wing extremists” and Saudi Arabia. We now know of another disinformation operation, a smear campaign against Saudi investigative journalist Hussein al-Ghawi who has covered Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Republic lobbying operations:
It comes as no surprise that the smear campaign against Hussein al-Ghawi and the attacks on Iranian dissidents occur from much the same interest groups. The network of “progressive” Western NGOs, journalists and politicians who have ties to Islamist movements including the Islamic Republic regime and the Muslim Brotherhood, go out of their way to defame those who dare to expose their agenda.
The kind of people you see employed in these NGOs and as “human rights” lawyers are all the same: dishonest, narcissistic and self-promoting. And their lies have potential to endanger innocent people. There is a high degree of similarity of people employed by these lobby groups and NGOs, as they recruit from the same pool of “talent”. Many have worked for more than one of these organisations, and despite their ostensible diversity are remarkably homogeneous in their behaviour and worldview.
Another tactic used by this network is social media trolling. On Twitter and other platforms, activity around Reza Pahlavi and the Iranian opposition is met with attacks from pro-regime trolls who post the usual Islamic Republic talking points and hurl insults against the opposition. These troll accounts have a “coordinated” look and feel to them, giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that they originate from troll farms operated by regime agents such as MOIS and IRGC Intelligence Organisation. (This also includes the “Restart” trolls you may have seen around claiming to be an “opposition” movement).
The extensive networks of the American and British Left can reasonably be described as enablers and collaborators with a murderous regime, along with those aligned with their agenda. They are partners of an Iranian elite which has profited handsomely from collaboration with the Islamic Republic at expense of the Iranian people. It is not a coincidence that the language of the Islamic Republic’s propagandists and that of the Western Left are similar.
We are dealing with a regime that has replicated Soviet methods of repression and disinformation. The Islamic Republic has carried out purges, mass executions, show trials and forced confessions. It has employed an extensive networks of agents and lobbyists, and utilises the Western Left’s disdain for the values, freedom and civilisation of the West to its own benefit, bringing them into its network of supporters. While the Cold War ended three decades ago, the danger from hostile ideological forces did not end but assumed other, more insidious forms.
Normalisation of the Islamic Republic: a more insidious method of keeping the regime in power
This falls into the category of “grey” propaganda or “white” propaganda, which is not necessarily propaganda produced by the regime or its agents, but often by (usually “progressive”-minded) journalists, politicians, diplomats, businessmen and so-called analysts who effectively normalise the Islamic Republic, painting an alternative reality and ignoring the problems ordinary Iranian people must face on a day-to-day basis inside the country. This form of propaganda is more subtle and not always understood.
Media coverage of protests displays a high degree of inaccuracy. Important details, perhaps because they may be politically inconvenient to the writer, are often omitted or played down. An excessive emphasis is given to the socioeconomic side of the protest (without discounting its importance), obscuring the fact that the fundamental demand of Iranian protesters is the end of the Islamic Republic and the liberation of Iran from its brutal and tyrannical rule.
Disturbingly, some news articles and social media posts by politicians, journalists and diplomat attempt to portray a pleasant experience of Iranian life, society and culture while ignoring the brutality of the regime. A good example of this is the image of a Dutch MP holidaying in Iran, while the newly-appointed British ambassador to Iran has drawn criticism from Iranians for his out of touch tweets.
Often media coverage of protests in Iran, and Iran in general, recycles regime lobby talking points such as the impact of sanctions. This serves regime propaganda and reinforces anti-Western narratives by portraying Iran as a victim of “Western imperialism” (a favourite Left-Islamist talking point), as opposed to the incompetence, corruption and brutality of the Islamic Republic regime. This also reveals in the double standards of South Africa and Iran - Apartheid in South Africa was met with protests and boycotts, whereas Western politician and media pressure for the exact opposite with Iran.
These people in conjunction with regime lobbyists mentioned above help create a sense of “normal” in Iran around a situation which is far from normal for Iranian people. Discussions about “hardliners” and “reformers”, for instance, presents the image that Iran is ruled by a system which is somewhat “democratic” and allows for some kind of debate and dissension, when in reality it has been ruled by a single regime since 1979 and its high level functionaries have all been complicit in it atrocities. Likewise, the presence of religious minorities in Iran is used by some of them to convey the impression of “tolerance” and “pluralism” (which is used to smear the Sunni Arab world and Israel in comparison), when the reality of day-to-day life for these communities in Iran is very different.
Iranian people and their friends around the world work hard to counter this more subtle form of pro-regime propaganda, highlighting the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in media reports and the conduct of politicians, media and journalists who are out of touch with reality and make a mockery of the liberal democratic societies they live in.
The appeasement policy of European governments over the last four decades has done more than anything else to keep the Islamic Republic in power, despite compromising the security of their own countries, and endangered the safety of Iranian opposition activists currently living in the West. History has shown that appeasement does not end well for all parties concerned. Evil flourishes when good people do nothing, and in doing a deal with evil forces, one risks being tainted by evil themselves.