The Leveretts go after Nazila Fathi, for her NYT article on five recent executions in Iran. From their follow up:

[O]ne of our criticisms is that Ms. Fathi did not inform her readers that the organization to which three or four of the executed prisoners (depending on which Western media reports one reads) are alleged to have belonged, PJAK, was designated as a terrorist organization not only by the Islamic Republic but even by the Obama Administration.  On this issue, Mr. Lucas now writes, “Point taken…yes, Fathi could have mentioned that PJAK is proscribed as “terrorist” by the US Government.”

...In the end, we do not know whether the five executed prisoners were wrongfully convictedand, as we noted in our initial critique of Ms. Fathi’s article, we are personally opposed to the death penalty.  But we do know that Ms. Fathi’s reporting on this case was professionally irresponsible.  It is Ms. Fathi’s prerogative to report on human rights cases in Iran.  But when she, or any other journalist, does so in a professionally irresponsible way in order to advance a particular political agenda, we will call them on it.

Lucas's rebuttal:

The authors of Race for Iran have posted an attempted rebuttal of this column. As it is largely a misrepresentation of my analysis and a continuing assault on Nazila Fathi, I will not post a detailed response. There is no value in continued conversation with or even recognition of those who are void of information and deaf on ethics and morality.

I will note, however, how the authors met this challenge that I set on Wednesday: “1. Make their own critique of the material surrounding this case of the 5 executed Iranians and present that critique; 2. Alternatively, acknowledge that they have no concern with human rights, justice, and fairness within the Iranian system; 3. If they do so, disclaim any ability to assess the legitimacy of the Iranian Government since they are not concerned with issues human rights, justice, fairness which may affect the legitimacy of that Government in the eyes of the Iranian people.”

The authors make no attempt to meet the first test, but they do tacitly accwept the second and third challenges: “[Race for Iran] is not focused on human rights; it is focused on Iran and its geopolitics.”

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.