The Hazards of Self-Referential Thinking

A week ago there were big demonstrations in Tehran. There were rumors of demonstrations in other cities in Iran: Isfahan, Fars, Mashad. The attached news summary led with the New York Times reportage on the Iranian situation. One reason I'm posting it here, and now, is that it mentions that the Iranian government had, for the first time, accused the U.S. of "meddling" in Iranian affairs.

There are a couple of ways to react to that. If you are one of the people who still believe that the CIA is an organization of superheroes - like X-Men, but with less facial hair - you can take it at face value. "See, Martha! I told you that Leon Panetta was up to no good." In that case, you probably believe that the NPR stringer who was arrested for possession of wine and then convicted of espionage was guilty. If she weren't in Wisconsin now, she'd probably be up to no good.

If, on the other hand, you think that the mullahs must be lying just because they are mullahs, then you may be sure that the U.S. government is innocent of anything that could be called "meddling."

I, to stake out my own position, think we have three components here. First, the Iranians, like white southerners in the 1960s, have to believe in the power of "outside agitators." They don't want to believe that the people of Iran might be turning against them. Second, there's the history of U.S. and British interference in Iran. Third, just as we tend to see all of the Iranian actions as aimed at us, the Iranians see all of our actions as directed at them. So Mr. Obama's Cairo University speech had to be intended to stir up the opposition in Iran.

For some real insights into Iranian thinking, see the movie Persepolis.