Kaveh Afrasiabi: Vilification of a Scholar

Reza Esfandiari writing from Manchester, England

esfandiarireza@ymail.com

It was the Roman poet Terence who famously wrote “veritas odium parit” – “the truth gives birth to
hate.” A popular Turkish proverb also remarks that “if you speak the truth, make sure to keep a foot in
the stirrup.” This could not be closer to reality than in the case of Dr Kaveh Afrasiabi, a widely
respected and independent-minded political scientist who has worked at Tehran university and various
American educational centres that include Boston and Harvard and who now stands accused of daring
to speak the truth that few want to hear.

Despite being a prominent advocate of interfaith discussion and cultural exchange between civilizations
both before and during the reformist presidency of Mohammad Khatami, and going as far as to set up
an NGO in support of it, Dr Afrasiabi is now subjected to abusive ad hominem attacks and slandered in
the blogosphere as being a puppet for a hardline Iranian regime and apologising their every sin.

Despite the fact that he has championed the democratic and human rights of the Iranian people at
numerous conferences and seminars, and has served as a U.N/UNESCO consultant on religious and
political dialogue, he is portrayed as an opportunist in America and a stooge of alleged paymasters
based in Tehran. However, ever since he sued Harvard University a decade ago over the egregious
violation of his civil rights and took the matter to a jury trial and eventually to the United States Supreme
Court whilst acting as his own attorney. He has continued to win both admiration for his courage but
also scorn in the high places that felt threatened by him. Professor Noam Chomsky no less has
described his battle with the university as a "sad and shameful chapter in Harvard’s history."

Indeed, amongst serious scholars and journalists, Dr Afrasiabi’s contributions are regarded of great
value and indeed indispensable to anyone interested in understanding contemporary Iran and the
Islamic world, including many issues that those in the Iranian regime would prefer not to discuss.

His peer-reviewed articles include those in Middle East journal Telos, Harvard and Brown university
political and theological reviews, as well as an exhaustive number of op-eds in newspapers such as the
New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington post, Der Tagespiegel and The Asia Times, to name but a
few, are cited in dozens of scholarly books on the Middle East and enjoy a global readership. He is also
an internationally recognized prolific author of several books notably the acclaimed “After Khomeini:
New directions in Iran’s policy” (Westview Press, 1995) described by professor Ervand Abrahamian of
Baruch college as a "must read for academics and policymakers." His novel concerning women and the
Islamic Revolution “Diaries and Jallad” (Astro's Press, 1998) has been referred to by Professor Peter
Chelkowski of New York University as "easily the best, most imaginative novel of its kind."

It is of no surprise, therefore, that American TV networks see him as an important consultant on Iranian
and international affairs, especially due to his considerable expertise on the Iranian nuclear program,
and not someone just parroting a script sent from Tehran. This is a man whose academic freedom, and
quite often vigorous defense of it, is hardly in any question by those who really know him.

His critics, however, dismiss this as the behaviour of someone hedging their bets and having “a finger
in every pie”, but the reality is that it reflects that of a genuine polymath with scholarship ranging from
theology, politics and international relations, feminism, fiction, poetry and ecology. Clearly, such
tremendously diverse academic and scholarly pursuits, coupled with a determination to candidly speak
his mind on any issue, makes Dr Afrasiabi a unique character in academic and media circles. At times,
his visceral and scathingly critical views on the subject of foreign (mostly British) interference in his
native Iran serve to distinguish him from more languid commentators who tow whatever line the
organisation backing them supports. In this respect, he shares a popular street sentiment and
nationalism with most Iranians and not those scholars who are all too happy to cosy up with the ranks
of the British Establishment in the hope of securing their favour.

But it is in recent months that he has incurred the sustained ire of all those in the media and the Iranian
expatriate community who have insisted that the June election was “fraudulent” and “rigged”. His
vociferous and tireless defense of the official election results has brought him unduly bad attention but
such accusations have to weighed against the fact that he actually bothered to examine the evidence
which he has demonstrated comports to a natural outcome. He rightly has dismissed the spurious
allegations of fraud this time round just as they were made the first time Ahmadinejad was elected. Yet
despite the fact that no real evidence of foul play has been forthcoming and that the results of two
scientific polls conducted by American organisations (TFT and WPO) showed that the incumbent had
indeed won by a landslide, he was accused of helping to prop up a “fraudulent and illegitimate
government.”

But Dr Afrasiabi took the pains to remind audiences in the West that the people of Iran are not
represented by the more visible residents of Shemiran and Niavaran in the North of Tehran but by the
largely unseen millions who inhabit the countless villages, towns and cities outside of the capital. In this
respect, Dr Afrasiabi is not a “regime apologist” but rather the voice of the silent majority of Iranians
inside Iran whom the Western media has chosen to ignore both before and after the June poll. Even so,
he has since called for national reconciliation among the various competing factions and for the Iranian
Government to adopt much of the social and political platform of the Green movement as well as to
release all prisoners accused of inciting sedition and to respect the rule of law.

But it is his reaction to the PBS-BBC documentary “A Death in Tehran”, which has rankled his critics
the most. Despite being interviewed by the producer and director of the film, Monica Garnsey, his
comments were censored out in large part because they challenged others presented in the
documentary, in particular Dr Arash Hejazi whose contradictory statements were not mentioned or
scrutinised in any way - he was just allowed to talk about himself as a man of integrity and as a witness
to state-sponsored brutality. Dr Afrasiabi rightfully concluded that Hejazi was more interested in
contacting the media than in saving the life of Miss Agha-Soltan or honouring her right to privacy in
death violated so callously by the filmmakers who surrounded her during her last moments. He also
presented new evidence taken from a series of emails he had with an LA Times correspondent that
described a different eyewitness account, notably from the music teacher, of what actually happened in
the side street where Neda was killed.

However, the producers of the documentary were not prepared to allow for any dissent or questioning
of their narrative that was so unashamedly propagandist and biased in nature that even BBC Persian
TV was reluctant to air it. What Dr Afrasiabi insisted on was that his participation would not be for the
purpose of making the film appear objective but that it was on the premise that it actually would be
objective, critical and discerning. Moreover, when the interview was conducted in September it was
made clear to him that the film was going to be about the post-election unrest in general and not focus
on the death of Neda Agha-Soltan. This is admitted by Iason Athanasiadis, one of the consultants of
the PBS-BBC film who has since come out trying to deny that he himself was appalled by the direction
the documentary took and the lack of journalistic standards applied in it. Neither was Dr Afrasiabi aware
that one of the associate producers of the film was Kelly Niknejad who heads “Tehran Bureau”, a front
for the Green movement.

The simple truth is that those who cannot debate him vilify Dr Afrasiabi – this was apparent when Dr Ali
Ansari of the pro-establishment British think-tank, Chatham House, walked out of a live discussion on
PressTV concerning the Iranian election results. The latter was simply eviscerated by the former and
cried foul and left. Likewise, anyone who fears having to defend their analysis of events in Iran has
every reason to smear people like Dr Afrasiabi as the only way in which they can get their message
across without being taken apart intellectually and exposed for what they are.

Whatever his faults and failings, Dr Kaveh Afrasiabi’s commitment to the scientific method, to freedom
of speech and to academic discourse makes him a scholar of worthy repute. His profound experience
and knowledge is also something which people would be foolish to ignore especially when it becomes
more imperative each day that accurate analyses of the situation in Iran are presented and discussed.