Iranians Are a Lot Like Israelis -- They Have Hopes and Fears and They Are Also Critical of Their Government

Here’s What An Israeli Journalist Has To Say About Iran After Meeting With Ayotallahs

The Jewish Forward’s Larry Cohler-Esses recently traveled to Iran, where he learned that, despite the cries of the Israel lobby and Benjamin Netanyahu, Iranians are a lot like Israelis -- they’ve got hopes and fears and they’re also critical of their government.

September 10, 2015

Mint Press News - Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s recently elected president, traveled to the United Nations two years ago and made an impressive entrance on the international stage. The Jewish Forward’s assistant managing editor, Larry Cohler-Esses, took advantage of this amazing opportunity and called the Iranian U.N. mission to request an interview with Iran’s leader.

Though that interview couldn’t be arranged, the press attaché had an even more ambitious idea: Why didn’t Cohler-Esses apply for a visa, travel to Iran, see the country for himself, and then tell his readers about his experience?

He would be the first reporter for a Jewish newspaper, in either Israel or the United States, to visit Iran in decades.

Cohler-Esses, who is a friend and colleague, is an ambitious, inventive journalist who loves a challenge. He took up the cause, persuaded his editor to support the project, and began the two-year process that resulted in his week-long visit to Iran (video here) last month.

In many ways, this trip and the process leading up to it were a labor of love for Cohler-Esses. He and I have talked in the past about the time he spent teaching English as a Second Language in Iran during the period of upheaval leading up up to the Shah’s overthrow. We all have fond memories of particularly ambitious trips and adventures we took during our youth, when we were first spreading our wings and trying to figure out what to do with our lives. Iran was Cohler-Esses’ epiphany on the road to Damascus. It was one of the most important experiences of his life.

After returning home and collapsing from this most recent, exhaustive trip, during which he covered tens of thousands of flown miles and visited regions throughout the far-flung nation, he turned his voluminous notes, audio, video and still photography into a combination travelogue-political profile of a nation in transition.
Now he’s published a profile in the Forward and it’s a tour de force, but not in the same way that John Hersey’s New Yorker profile of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was.  Larry’s piece is remarkable as a document of realism. It’s a report shorn of the dogma and posturing featured in so much American and Israeli media these days regarding the Iran nuclear deal.

For that reason, it’s a remarkable, must-read piece for anyone seeking a middle-ground in this debate so lacking in common sense. Immediately following completion of this assignment he turned around and flew to Israel for a family visit. While there, he also conducted several interviews with Israeli media about his Iran trip. Despite being inundated with anti-Iran propaganda by their far-right political leaders, Israelis are curious whether Iranians are the bogeymen Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu makes them out to be.

Cohler-Esses presented a remarkably nuanced portrait which told Israelis that the Iranians are much like them: They want peace. They want prosperity. They want the freedom to express themselves. They are skeptical of their leaders. They want change.

It’s an almost banal set of observations, but it’s practically revolutionary in the Israeli context.

The Forward correspondent, though assigned a minder and translator by the Iranian government, was given free rein to determine where to go, who to meet, and what to ask. He was not restricted in any way. His interlocutors returned the favor by being tremendously candid. They spoke openly of their likes and dislikes, including their own government. Many criticized the very Ayatollahs portrayed so tyrannically by the Israeli hasbara apparatus.

Iran even has something that hasn’t existed inside Israel in a meaningful way for decades: a progressive clerical movement. Grand Ayatollah Yousef Saanei derided the Iran nuclear deal as not going far enough. He said it was a deal concerning little more than money, when it should’ve encompassed human rights, domestic liberalization and political reform. He appeared miffed that the U.S. and Western powers had missed a golden opportunity to negotiate a loosening of the regime.

The Forward editor met many Iranian leaders, some of whom were pragmatic and some of whom were dogmatic in their attitudes toward America and Israel. Yes, there was one anti-Zionist leader, who believed Israel must either be transformed into a single unitary state or destroyed, but the rest of his interlocutors were a diverse lot who understand the difference between a government and its people. They, by and large, didn’t blame Israelis for the injustices of Israeli policy toward Arab states and Palestinians. They didn’t blame individual Americans for the policies of past administrations which demonized their country.

Israel and Iran: Mirror images

Profiles about Israel and Iran rarely note the enormous social, political, religious and psychic similarities between them. Both are states where religion plays a pivotal role, and where a single religion predominates and informs law, politics, and other arenas.


The other 800-pound gorilla in both societies is the military. Both countries see themselves as being under constant threat from hostile neighbors. In Israel’s case, it’s the Arab frontline states. For Iran, it’s their Sunni neighbors. Iran was attacked by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and fought a decade-long war with Iraq in which 1-million men died. Israel, too, has seen many thousands of its own soldiers killed in 67 years of war that it sees as defensive (though the world may see otherwise).

Iran, like Israel, intervenes militarily in the affairs of neighboring states to defend what it perceives as its interests and to fend off attacks against them. Israel has launched wars against Lebanon and Egypt, and it repeatedly pummels Gaza. Iran, which acts primarily in a defensive mode, supports its allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

There are important differences, of course. For example, Iran has not attacked one of its neighbors in nearly 300 years, while Israel has launched countless wars and military operations against frontline states.
Because of what both nations perceive as security threats from neighboring states, their respective intelligence apparatuses hold supreme power. Citizens are expected to sacrifice for the good of the whole, to submerge themselves in a cult of sacrifice.

In fact, there is a cult of martyrdom in both countries. In Iran, this is informed by the concept of Shiite religious martyrdom. In Israel, it is informed by historic persecution of the Jews going all the way back to the Roman era, when 1,000 Jews are reported to have committed suicide rather than surrender during the siege of Masada. This form of ultimate sacrifice is also celebrated in various modern Zionist guides, including the death of Josef Trumpeldor.

Both the Israeli Defense Forces and the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps play central roles in society. In Iran’s case, the IRGC is more than just a military force; it’s got its tentacles in commerce, banking and other revenue-producing fields. In Israel’s case, the IDF is the heart and soul of the nation: Everyone serves (except Haredim and “Arabs”), and serving in elite units offers benefits in terms of social and employment status.

Israel and Iran both pride themselves on being democracies, but they are imperfect democracies at best. Iran seems clearly a theocracy with democratic trappings. Israel has modeled itself on Western democracies since its inception, but the increasing rise of ultra-Orthodoxy coupled with the takeover by settlerism of the levers of political power, have transformed Israel into an incipient theocracy.

In an interview for this article, Larry Cohler-Esses also noted a critical psychic parallel between the two nations. Shiite Iran, given the sect’s tragic history, sees itself as a martyr surrounded by persecutors. It is constantly called upon to defend unto death a theological dogma abhorred by the Sunni majority.

The tragic history of the Jewish people, capped by the genocide of the Holocaust is a similar refrain in Israeli life. It informs every aspect of the nation’s psyche. It creates an expectation of persecution and hatred from the country’s neighbors, while also offering a self-defeating, almost nihilistic view that there’s nothing the state can do to win over its enemies. And, thus, it is justified in doing nothing, sacrificing nothing for peace.

Barenboim cultural overture rejected by Tehran

Because of these commonalities, it’s tragic that Iran has rejected an invitation endorsed by Iranian maestro Ali Rahbari to Daniel Barenboim to conduct the Staatskapelle Berlin orchestra in Tehran. The Iranian government claimed its rejection was based on Barenboim’s Israeli citizenship; however, he is also a citizen of Argentina, Spain, and Palestine — any one of which could be used to admit him instead of his Israeli passport.

Further, Barenboim would be a perfect cultural emissary, as he was a lifelong friend of Edward Said, with whom he founded the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, an Israeli-Palestinian ensemble that also includes Iranian musicians. Barenboim has never accepted the Israeli narrative of occupation and is detested by the right-wing extremists who govern the nation.

It’s ironic that Iran could permit a Jewish-American journalist to report from Iran while rejecting one of the world’s great conductors because he spent several years of his youth living in Israel, where his parents decided he should become a citizen.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Member of anti-Iran media chorus

There is a journalistic class feeding into such national paranoia. Jeffrey Goldberg recently published in The Atlantic an interview with Secretary of State John Kerry on the nuclear deal. This is one in a series of interviews the avatar of pro-Israel journalists has done with figures ranging from Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to U.S. President Barack Obama. Apparently, Kerry gave answers that satisfied Goldberg, except for one instance. Goldberg wanted Kerry to agree with his conviction that the Iranian regime is, at its heart, anti-Semitic and “eliminationist.” He even prepared a long series of quotations from Iranian leaders purporting to prove this claim.

Apparently, Kerry was supposed to agree in his most grave ex-senatorial tones that Iran does pose an existential threat to Israel. But he didn’t perform as expected and Goldberg let him know it.

On a related issue, a distinguished group of 29 nuclear scientists — among them, several Nobel Laureates and senior government science advisors — announced that they supported the nuclear deal. They based their support not so much on geopolitical factors, but on hard science. Contrary to the anti-deal hawks, they said that the safeguards put in place by the deal and the methods of inspection were elegant and sophisticated. These are words not to be heard among the die-hard anti-dealers of the Israel lobby.

Shortly after the scientists issued their statement, Goldberg wrote a shocking tweet, deriding these eminent scientists for being ignorant about geopolitics. He seems to have missed the entire point of their declaration. Indeed, their point wasn’t to agree with him that the Ayatollahs are evil or anti-Semitic, but rather to test the scientific provisions in place to monitor Iranian compliance with the deal. They were speaking as scientists on scientific questions — something lost on someone as ideologically-driven as Goldberg.

Chuck Schumer: Carrying water for the lobby

Sen. Chuck Schumer was the first and most powerful Democrat to oppose the deal. When he announced his position, he released a long statement justifying his opposition to the deal. His views are essentially a regurgitation of talking points circulated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Israeli government.

Apparently, it’s far easier to repurpose memos prepared for him by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than to contrive his own independent views on the subject. Others have done a far better job of rebutting his arguments (to this end, I’ll point to Fareed Zakaria’s Washington Post op-ed, “Sen. Schumer’s illogical case against the Iran deal,” and Josh Marshall’s, “Disqualified,” in Talking Points Memo).

When asked by reporters how much the lobbying and pressure by various groups influenced his decision, Schumer answered disingenuously that it played almost no role. I use the term “disingenuous” because everyone knows Schumer has positioned himself to become the next Democratic leader in the Senate, and, as such, he will be expected to help his members win elections. The only way to do this is with cash. And the easiest way to raise cash is to have a ready stable of donors to turn to. The Israel lobby is one of the largest sources of such campaign donations. So, Schumer had little choice in the matter, at least as he must see it. If he wants tens of millions for upcoming Senate elections, he has to satisfy those who control the tap. If he wanted to exercise his conscience and vote with his president on this, he stood a chance of losing access to this horde of cash and donors. It was a gamble he couldn’t afford to take.

Israel lobby outspends Iran deal supporters 7-1

The best way to measure the relative power of the two sides in this debate is by comparing how much they’re spending. The Israel lobby is spending close to $50 million against the deal. Only two groups support the deal: J Street, which will spend about $5 million, and the National Iranian American Council, which will spend about $1.5 million. Thus, the Israel lobby outspends those supporting the Iran deal 7-1. That’s calculus any serious politician can’t afford to overlook, and Sen. Chuck Schumer is nothing if not a serious politician.

At this juncture, those members don’t seem inclined to turn on Schumer for abandoning their president. President Barack Obama is a lame duck. While he remains popular, his tenure is waning and politicians know which way the wind is blowing: Schumer is their future; Obama is their past.
Ideally, a progressive Democratic senator like Dick Durbin would challenge Schumer for the leadership and hold him accountable for this betrayal of both a president and critical foreign policy objective. But even Durbin says he’s sticking with Schumer.

There are rumblings within progressive circles to punish Schumer and other Democrats who vote against the deal. MoveOn.org organized a petition in which donors said they would withhold $11 million from those Democrats who sided with the Israel lobby. That’s a tactic that seems hard to verify and measure with any certainty, but there could be further blowback resulting from such resentment from progressives.
Sen. Schumer, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg and anyone else who wants to read a disinterested, independent, realistic account of Iran today must read Larry Cohler-Esses’ essay. After doing so, they should be hard-pressed to continue spouting rhetoric and talking points. Instead, they should begin addressing the issues with pragmatism.

Caveats: Limits of liberal Zionism

All this being said, the Jewish Forward piece was not without its limitations. But they were limitations imposed as much by the publication as by its author. The Forward is a liberal Zionist media outlet. It is about as liberal as a mainstream American Jewish publication can be, but there are limits to its liberalism. It supports a two-state solution, for example, but opposes BDS. It sympathizes with the Palestinians only insofar as such sympathies don’t detract from its overriding loyalty to Israel.

So, for example, when an Iranian leader complained to Larry Cohler-Esses that Israel was not a democracy, the journalist reminded him about massive demonstrations against the first Lebanon War in 1982, which held Ariel Sharon accountable for his actions concerning Sabra and Shatilla. This event which occurred over 30 years ago would never happen today. Today, Israeli leaders commit crimes far worse than what Sharon did and they are rewarded for it. Thus, the Forward editor presents an outdated view of Israeli democracy. A view of what Israel once was, but which is no more.

Nevertheless, Cohler-Esses’ trip to Iran and his account of it is a remarkable achievement by a ground-breaking reporter. It alone is worth almost all the $50 million the Israel lobby plans to spend on its campaign to torpedo the nuclear deal.