Gotcha! Iranian Studies in an Age of Suspicion
Gotcha!
Iranian Studies in an Age of Suspicion
How should intellectuals navigate wartime? For scholars in Iranian Studies—whether in the diaspora or working within the Islamic Republic—this question has immediacy. In light of the US-Israel attacks on Iran and the onset of a precarious ceasefire since April, scholars working on Iran within different organizations and countries have found that their expertise matters. But for whom?
Public Intellectuals and Wartime
In wartime, the public turns to experts and intellectuals to interpret complex events, geopolitical maneuverings, and the human toll. But the public domain is highly diverse, making it hard for independent figures to find their footing. In these very moments, public conversations often disintegrate, collapsing into extremes of opinion: states versus people, resistance versus complicity, loyalty versus betrayal, solidarity versus silence. Iranian Studies is no different. As a subfield of Middle East Studies, it mediates these binaries within a polarized landscape marked by distrust and, at times, by the erosion of scholarly norms across influential sectors—including the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian diaspora, and other global stakeholders. What are scholarly norms during times of crisis and wartime?
They begin with civility. Political disagreements are expected, but ad hominem attacks should not replace analysis. Standards of scholarly discipline exist to provide legitimacy and lend the imprimatur of authority to intellectual endeavors, ensuring that claims are based on evidence, rather than serving as propaganda or political expediency. Like many fields formed by cultural and geopolitical polarities, modern Iranian Studies scholarship has succumbed to political pressures. The current war is no exception. Writers and scholars are increasingly applauded or assailed for their advocacy and political activism rather than for their actual scholarship. Even scholarship can fall victim to such political attacks. This polarization has hurt the field by intensifying an atmosphere of suspicion and antipathy.
In this milieu, the role of the public intellectual becomes even more precarious. The constraints of a “gotcha” mentality deliberately shrink the space for nuanced intellectual conversations because extreme voices want only their side to be heard. Groups demand political litmus tests that defy intellectualism. This trend can be seen in the circulation of selectively edited clips from lectures, interviews, or online posts – stripped of context – to insinuate false alignments with one side or the other. Such practices exist to discredit individuals, not to build informative and honest public engagement. Some of these targeted personal attacks or insinuations are also rooted in revenge and anger. Those under attack lash out at others to ensure no one escapes reputational harm in the field.
This confrontational posture shows a deep rift from thinking to accusation. Instead of analyzing a scholar’s multipolar arguments—for example, a critique of both U.S. sanctions policy and Iranian state repression—detractors may question the scholar’s motives: suggesting hidden allegiances, institutional pressures, or ideological agendas. In online fora and social media spaces, threads may quickly devolve into speculation about who a scholar “really speaks for,” rather than what they are actually saying. In this way, intellectual disagreement and analysis give way to suspicion and innuendo.
Concerns about funding sources from advocacy groups and foreign governments have triggered such suspicions. Close ties to media platforms occasionally blur the line between scholarship, commentary, and advocacy, prompting audiences to question whether political affiliations eclipse balance and rigor. In the polarized climate of Iranian and Middle Eastern Studies, such skepticism can erode credibility, supporting the belief that intellectuals are partisan actors engaged in ideological projects funded by others rather than objective observers offering independent analysis.
Within Iranian studies, competition among scholars themselves intensifies these tendencies. Consider, for example, moments when a major news outlet seeks expert commentary on Iran: the most prominent networks invite a limited number of voices, usually familiar ones, to speak, and visibility can translate into professional clout. Disagreements may take on an added edge. Some scholars may position themselves as more authoritative, more authentic, or more politically attuned than their peers. Tendentious critiques of another scholar’s stance—say, the characterization of a protest movement—may function not only as intellectual disagreement but also as a form of potential professional advancement within certain circles.
The presence of special-interest groups clamoring to shape discourse compounds this dilemma. Advocacy organizations, think tanks, or diaspora political networks regularly elevate certain scholars regarded as allies while overlooking others, promoting voices that reject nuance and instead align with straightforward policy preferences. Scholars who adopt moderate or evenhanded positions become especially vulnerable in these polarized environments. For instance, a scholar who simultaneously criticizes authoritarian practices in Iran, or the 1979 revolution, yet questions the legitimacy of the current war, may find themselves attacked from both sides—labeled illiberal or apologetic by one and disloyal or inauthentic by the other. Yet public intellectuals must uphold their independent academic stance, resisting easy categorization and pushing back against political pressures from any side. Scholars who choose to align themselves overtly with parties or advocacy groups must, for the sake of transparency, disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
Absent these basic expectations, advocacy without transparency contributes to an atomized intellectual environment, characterized by factionalism, cliquishness, and, at worst, name-calling. Even edited volumes, symposia, or academic workshops can come to rely on the same groups of scholars, reiterating like-minded assumptions while excluding alternative or oppositional perspectives. Academic networks—whether formal or informal—become echo chambers that reinforce certain positions and quietly reject others. This filtering creates an anti-intellectual environment that resists new approaches to controversial subjects in part because it does not promise familiar conclusions. Scholars who engage in dialogue across these divides are excluded from visibility because the organizations affiliated with their fields reward scholars who project preferred positions.
For these reasons, distinctions between the public intellectual and the public advocate matter. For scholars, engaging the public is not about mirroring its expectations. Rather, it is about resisting facile judgments that complicate public discourse. Intellectuals tend to prefer reflection and nuance over quick explanations. Maintaining intellectual independence despite such external pressures persists as a sine qua non of scholarship. It invites political openness and the articulation of subtle positions, even when unpopular, while rejecting unproductive or combative exchanges.
In a time of war, when narratives harden and pressures intensify, this commitment becomes all the more vital. Our job is not simply to produce knowledge about Iran, but to defend the conditions under which knowledge can be pursued and contested. This entails rejecting the “gotcha” mentality, remaining mindful of the influence of organized interests, and sustaining independence to the greatest extent possible.
Scholars who cannot agree on the substance of their disagreements are unlikely to reach consensus on norms. Without it, however, Iranian Studies and Middle East Studies will succumb to the same forces they purport to overcome—intolerance, partisanship, and hate, riven by suspicion and calculation. Rather than a “gotcha” mindset, public intellectuals and scholars can promote a growth mentality–or better yet, trade call-outs for a culture of grace.
