When political unrest erupted in Iran earlier this year in the wake of a disputed presidential election, Borzou Daragahi had a front-row seat. Born in Iran, the former Pulitzer Prize finalist is now the Beirut-based bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times. Daraghi reported directly from Iran on the post-election protests, and since leaving the country in June due to security concerns has continued to cover developments there.
While on vacation in New York City recently, Daragahi stopped by Columbia University to speak with journalism students. Afterward, he spoke for a few minutes with CJR assistant editor Greg Marx. An edited transcript appears below.
Greg Marx: Is there reason to think there might still be a major change in the political leadership in Iran?
Borzou Daragahi: It’s totally unpredictable. We’re in completely uncharted terrain. And anyone who claims to be an Iran expert and makes that prediction is a fool. But what is kind of easy to predict is that this is weakening Iran on the international scene. This is weakening the hardliners’ ability to make demands on the West over its nuclear program.
GM: The divide within Iran is often presented as between moderates and hardliners, but it seems as though Ahmadenijad and Khamenei may have different interests or different constituencies. Is that the case?
BD: Sure, but it’s not that much. They’re overlapping. There’s not a lot of space between those two guys. Khamenei sometimes tries to play a game where he distances himself slightly from the other guy, but I think it’s a game.
GM: So essentially they’re bound together?
BD: Well at this point, after this whole post-election unrest, they’re bound together in blood, because if one goes down, the other goes down as well. Unfortunately for Khamenei, his credibility has been damaged by this.
GM: There was a story in another paper recently about the Revolutionary Guard coming to play an even larger role in politics and running the state.
BD:It’s an old story. What more can you say? The Revolutionary Guard is an elite military branch that is led by hardline ideologues who have many business and financial interests and have been growing in power since the early nineties. Any new development in that front is incremental.
GM: The role of social media was obviously one of the big stories of the protests, and you’ve mentioned how you would use online video to keep track of events. One of the things that happened on the U.S. side was people like Andrew Sullivan and Nico Pitney using that to do as much as they could to cover the story. Was that a resource for you at all?
BD: I never knew about Andrew Sullivan or Nico Pitney or any of these people until I left Iran, because all those Web sites were filtered out. But without a presence on the ground, you’re very, very, very limited. The LA Times has sources in Iran—we have friends of the LA Times, long-time friends. This is the advantage of having a real news operation, we have people who have been going into Iran with the LA Times brand for decades. That makes a big difference. We have built up sources, contacts, relationships with officials even.
GM: Since you left Iran in June, you’ve been operating mostly from Beirut. How much does it compromise your reporting not to be on the ground yourself?
BD: It makes it tougher. But you know, I’ve been going to Iran so much for years and years and years. There have been many spells where I didn’t go to for Iran for six months. I don’t know, I haven’t been there in a few months—maybe I’ll go again in December.
GM: You think you’ll be able to get in OK?
BD: I’ll have no problem getting in; I have an Iranian passport. Getting out is the hard part. Will they let me out? Will they lock me up or something like that? Hopefully not.
GM: The coverage that has come out has tended to be focused on Tehran. How difficult is it to get a sense of what’s going on elsewhere in the country?