Somehow NRO is having some trouble posting my full reply to my friend Andy McCarthy. I’m sure it will be fixed soon, but in the meantime, here it is:
Nothing is better than getting honest criticism from a serious person. It’s almost impossible to find it nowadays, and I’m very grateful to Brother Andy for his kind words and trenchant comments. Ditto to Mark. How did these lawyers learn to write so well? I thought they beat that out of you in Law School…
Bush Doctrine: As I remember it, we declared war on terrorist groups and on the countries that supported them. Indeed, we would not distinguish between the ones and the others. There was no democracy component. It was war; we had been attacked and we were now responding.
We blasted Afghanistan because al Qaeda was there, and the Afghans wouldn’t turn them over to us despite the two ultimata.
I was a big supporter of the Bush Doctrine. I still am. But I disagreed with the methods and the “sequence.” I thought that if we were going to go after state sponsors, the number one sponsor was (and is) Iran. Moreover, I didn’t (and don’t) think we had to bomb or invade Iran in order to remove the regime that sponsored the terrorists. I thought we could do something similar to what we did to the Soviet Union: support the dissidents with broadcasting, communications technology, public demands, funds for strikers, and so forth.
You don’t think this is likely to succeed, and you are certainly in good company. But the Iranian people have repeatedly and at great cost to their wellbeing and even their lives showed their hatred for this regime. Strikes are ongoing, demonstrations take place daily, and after what we have seen there since June 12th, it seems to me that the country fulfills all the conditions of a revolutionary situation. By the way, I do not believe that a free Iraq is the mullahs’ worst dream. I hope I said that the mullahs feared the effect of a free Iraq, as of a free Afghanistan. I think that’s true; revolutions spread, even in the tyrannical Middle East, and the Iranian leaders live in great fear. They’re right to be afraid, especially of American support for the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people. Like most people who have looked at this, you don’t think it’s likely. But then, hardly anyone thought the current uprising was likely (I did, as you know).
But then, most people did not think we had a chance of provoking the collapse of the Soviet Empire. And as for forces to repress potential dissident uprisings, I don’t think the KGB was inferior to the Revolutionary Guards.
I almost always thought that the Iranian revolution would need outside support, and urged us to provide it. I am not of the Wehner/Will school that foresaw a rippling wave of democracy sweeping across the region. Rather, I thought that we had a chance of overthrowing many of the terror-supporting tyrants by political means rather than by invasion. I believe, furthermore, that if the Iranian regime comes down, it will have a huge effect on the terrorist organizations all over the world. I think that a free Iran would be pro-Western, would terminate support of the terrorists (Sunni and Shi’ite alike, as well as the secular terror groups), and would be interested in living in peace with its neighbors.
Where is Islam in all this? To take your colorful example, Ayatollah Sistani has expressed many noxious thoughts. But then, he’s of a tradition that suggests that men with turbans shold be in the mosques, not in the chanceries. The Islamists that you and I dread and wish to defeat have a different view of things; they want men with turbans in control of everything. They want some sort of Caliphate, a true nightmare. It is noteworthy that Sistani recently sent a secret message to Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, condemning the violent repression the regime has directed against the Iranian people. He’s a fundamentalist, as you rightly say, but he’s not a jihadi.
That 31-year old Iraqi whose claim that his people don’t believe in liberalism or secularism seems conjured out of a hat, frankly. I thought most people agreed that the last Iraqi elections showed the growth of less sectarian parties. As for Iran, that’s a country with a tradition of secular self-government, where the Islamists are now so deeply scorned that I cannot imagine a man with a turban being freely elected to anything. Unlike Iraq, where democracy must be learned, the Iranians know all about it. Indeed, if you read the statements of the many dissident ayatollahs these days, you can see that they believe that Islam has been discredited by the regime. You can hardly miss this: every night millions of Iranians take to the rooftops and chant “Allahu Akbar,” Allah is great. They shout this, not to praise the theocratic regime, but to mock it. For those words are immediately followed by “Death to the Dictator!” who, famously, rules in the name of Allah.
So yes, “freedom” has different meanings from region to region and from tradition to tradition, but in the case of Iran (and, I think, for most Iraqis) it is understood much as we do.
In case there is any confusion about my antipathy to radical Islam, like you I was outraged at the inclusion of Shariah in the Iraqi Constituion, as I had been similarly horrified when Afghanistan was declared an Islamic Republic. But I do not believe that Muslims are doomed to follow a set of unchangeable and unacceptable convictions and orders to slaughter or enslave all the infidels.
I know this is too long, forgive me. But two more points: first, the notion that Iraq is simply an Iranian colony. That’s a real stretch. Most Iraqis dislike their Iranian neighbors. But they have to pay attention to the facts on the ground. We are leaving, and, at least for today and tomorrow, the Iranians are staying. As I have said for years, you cannot possibly have decent security in Iraq so long as the mullahs reign in Tehran, because Iraqi leaders know that the Iranians can kill them. Maliki know this better than most; he was once a member of an Iranian terrorist proxy. He’s seen it first hand, and perhaps he’s even done it with his own hands. So the Iraqis have to take out insurance, and at least pretend to bend to Iran’s will. This is hardly a matter of Islamic brotherhood. Oy.
If you want to give Muslims a chance, the key is to defeat the radical Islamists. Our defeat of al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army in Iraq was a very important event; people all over the region understood that Iran had been kicked between the legs. But if we now walk away, and pretend that our problems with Iran are just a misunderstanding, the jihadis will return. Indeed they are returning right now, precisely as I expected.
We can’t win this thing unless we defeat the Islamist regime in Tehran.
Final note: Afghanistan. If we retreat from Afghanistan, it will be the greatest boon to jihadi recruiters since the destruction of the Twin Towers. They will then prepare the next assault on us, and eventually kill more of us, here and elsewhere. So leaving is self-defeating. I have little hope of a flourishing Afghan democracy in my lifetime. A family member who has spent time there suggests that if all goes well, it might join the Third World. At the moment it’s more biblical. But few Afghans will freely throw in with the Taliban if we show, as we did for a while in Iraq, that we cannot be defeated and we are not going to leave.
Mr, Ledeen,
You arrive at faulty conclusions. In my recent prolonged stay in Iran, I got to mingle with the people and not just the city folks but also the country side.
Yes, many people hate the regime, including me. I hate Ahmadi & Khamenie, but if you give me or the majority in Iran a switch to overthrow the regime, we won’t press it. Yes, we want to change the faces but not the regime per se. We want a liberal cleric like Ayat. Sanei to be instead of Khamenie & maybe Mousavi in for Ahmadi.
One of the things that this regime has done over the past 30 years is to get the country side more involved in the political process. Why? because they are overwhelmingly conservative 9/10. This is a group that was apathetic and a no factor during the revolution and Shah’s time. Now they heavily show their presence.
The election and re-election of Khatami was not only because of liberal slogans, it was also because he was wearing a BLACK(meaning desendant of Mohammad) turban. The fault with your analysis, AP’s & Reuters is that they inteview people in the city and forget the Shahrestanis (country side) because it is not fun to stay their while in Iran.
2nd, the city people except some Tehranis want liberalism, but not free flowing like in US, rather more like “controlled” liberalism. Therefore, if it goes too far, they want brakes put on it.
3rd, people in Iran secretly despise Islam, like myself, but that doesn’t mean they are not conservatives. Iranians like to be conservative with their daughters but liberal with their sons, as is and has been a tradition in Asian countries even Japan for centuries. That doesn’t mean that they want them wearing Burkas, but at the same time, they don’t want to see their daughters leaving for dinner to be with her “boyfriend.” Future fiance, yes but boyfriend , NO!
Alas, obviously Iranians living in Iran, don’t know difference between Hamas or Hezbollah. They are busy enough with domestic issues. Same, with Americans, they can’t tell differnce between Venezuela & Mexico.
However, people in the establishment or others who care about foreign policy like me, we would never trade in Hamas, Hezbollah, Yemen Houthis, Iraqi Shiites, Hasawi East Arabian Shiites, Bahraini Shiites in for chump change, US Boeing parts. Even a secular regime would not do it.
Would any US governemnt trade in Colombia in? Why should Iran? Why should Iran, cut off its tentacles and be forced to fight enemies at its home base. Why should Iran, as the present Vatican of Shiites worldwide, trade that privelege in for a government like Turkey’s.
Mr, Ledeen, you know very well that loyalty is very hard to buy. Heck, Saudis with all the money haven’t been able to do it “except with American lobbyists” Yet Iran with minimal financial assistance has worldwide followers.
In essence, given its status as a majority Shiite nation, Iran carries the mantle of Shia. No government in Iran would trade that in for invitations to US embassies for independance day.
Mr. Ledeen, if you are fighting for Iranian citizen rights, that is one thing. However, if you are fighting to cut off Iranian hands from the rest of the region, you will be sadly disappointed.
Even, “Muslim” Iranian like me who want to throw off Khamenie’s turban and spit on Ahmadinejad and talk about Mohammad and his pedophilic sick tendencies and religion, would not want to reduce Iran’s influence in the region via Hamas, Hezbollat..etc. We would contain our hatred for Islam and especially Mohammad and hence “limit” our freedom of thought in exchange for an Islamic mask and bull horn to maintain our influence in the world and especially the Middle East.
Michael, thanks for your post. Maddening. Here is one complete amateur’s guide to our situation in Iran & Iraq: please forgive me if I’ve missed something.
It seemed to me, at the time just prior the the US Iraq invasion, that the commitment to topple S. Hussein was only the second theatre in a much broader war that involved Iran [toppling the Taliban was the first].
It would have been folly to commence the second invasion, especially, unless it was followed-up with sufficient sustained US effort to assure that the theocratic regime in Iran was toppled. You had made it clear that the best scenario was internal revolution by Iran’s own people. 1-2-3.
The only “exit strategy” from such a war is total victory; substantively a transformation of the region’s politics and economy. There is no definition of victory that includes an unmodified Iran.
We went into Iraq, took the ground boldly and rapidly but then went “surgical” … for years …
… all the while ignoring Iranian aggression in Iraq and Lebanon, all the while failing to make the regional case for Iranian internal revolution, all the while going defensive on “missing WMD’s”, all the while fumbling the ball on domestic issues at home, all the while working hard to set-up neo-fascists at home in ’04 and ’08. The Bush Administration wouldn’t even defend itself against the likes of Plame & Wilson. The Administration instead enjoyed real success on our own Southern border by going after Ramos and Campeon. The victorious “surge” seemed to come disappointingly, if not pointlessly, late in the Administration’s plan.
I suppose even a nuclear Iran – one that at least understood and feared ‘mutually assured destruction’ – would be infinitely preferable to its present eschatological freakshow. Better nuke free, if at all possible, for the safety of all of its neighbors and the safety of the Straights. Your point is disturbingly clear: We can’t win this thing unless we defeat the Islamist regime in Tehran. More… We will lose. That will be no mere “mistake”, it will be a bloody nightmare.
Interesting comments, Michael. The first one wants, albeit reading between the lines, what Dubcek wanted to bring to Czechoslovakia in 1968.
The second one places more emphasis on government action than what I consider to be prudent. Needless to say, I am keeping my options open. The fork in the road that the Muslim world is approaching is this: preparatory regimes like what FDR mused about in “Lost Crusade: America in Vietnam”, or what Joel Richardson has written about.
Ali – You say: “Alas, obviously Iranians living in Iran, don’t know difference between Hamas or Hezbollah.”
In reality, what is the difference between the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah? Sunni/shia? Location? In the end, they’re both terrorist groups hiding behind a cloak of ‘charity’.
David,
What private-personal enterprise would you propose to bring about the fall of Iran’s Islamist regime? Blogging and writing is valuable, to be sure, but you make an important point. Government action, whether passive or aggressive, should not be the sole option.
Ran, I propose the strategy used by Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul. Let it be that those who started the fight be forced to deal with their comeuppance on various fronts. What Michael has long advocated has to be part of the strategy. Plus, an establishment of a preparatory regime that covers Iran, plus her neighbours. Sort of like
a strenuously backed government in exile.
Because the property rights of some are protected part of the time, and this has been part of Islam from the get-go. Therefore, it isn’t just because of 14 centuries that this has been going on, it is a case
of it simply being wrong. For, when any culture has gotten stronger, it is because the property rights of all were robustly protected all of the time.
#1 Ali nailed it, and that’s the true Iran that we’ll have to deal with
To ali ardakani:
Every time I see your post I simply disregard it since it is baseless and dumb to the core!!! You are a typical brainwashed basiji! Here is one quote from you:
“Yes, we want to change the faces but not the regime per se. We want a liberal cleric like Ayat. Sanei to be instead of Khamenie & maybe Mousavi in for Ahmadi.”
Who is WE sir???
How dare you speak on the behalf of millions who want to send this regime with all its agents and trolls to the dustbin of history?!!!
I do not understand why you are in this forum at all!
Go to your base ayatollah whatever Sanei or other morons and leave Iran and Iranians alone!!!
again on ali ardakani’s comment: I am just baffled on your comment a bit. How can you personally despise Islam and again wish for a “reform” within the Islamic establishment by merely changing the faces of the ayatollahs in charge? You should know more than anybody that Iranians may despise Islam privately or even openly but that does not mean that they are atheist. On the other hand Iranians in general are very traditionalist very much like middle America and in the US heartland. All Iranians want is the separation of mosque/Islam from their government the same way they have always had it in their long history. So I am sorry if I offended you in anyway earlier but I just got very confused about the contents of your comment and did not see any coherence there.
Thanks!
To Shiraz,
Dear Sir, I don’t take offense- really I don’t. However, please be patient, read the entire piece and comment. Thank you
Two things I need to mention:
1. In the analysis of Iran’s domestic policies, many critics tend to broadside the rural or country side folks. This constituent is now a major block. They have moved out of the rural areas into the cities but they carry the same mentality. This group is very conservative.
2. Iran today is 70 million strong, double what it was at the time of revolution. Go and do a study on where and whom exactly had the highest birth rates in society. The answer will lead you to # 1.
3. Foreign policy had never and should never be subject to the will of the people. It is not a popularity contest. Foreign policy is devised by experts in the field along with intelligence gathered. Furthermore, the great majority of any nation on Earth have very limited knowledge of foreign police.
4. Many Iranians, especially liberals and opponents of the regime wrongly assume that Western governments and critics like Mr Ledeen, Robert Spencer, Horowitz…etc want to overthrow the regime because of repression at home. They hide behind the veil of “Iranian citizens human rights.” The truth is what they really want is the China model – allow the government a free hand domestically to repress as much as possible BUT foreign policy wise BE A NICE MEMBER AND A FRIEND to the WEST.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are two such examples of the China Model. In Saudi Arabia, the repression is enormous. Saudi Shiites in East Saudi where all of Saudi oil is, are treated like feces and live in ghettos. They are branded heretics by the top religious muftis in Saudi Arabia. Not one Shiite representative in their Majlis. Furthermore, they have brainwashed their people enough that Iranian pilgrims to Hajj like your grandmother and aunt get to be insulted and spit on by Saudis simply because they are Shiites. Yet not one peep out of Western government against Saudi A. except Amnesty International which is irrelavent.
Compare Saudi Arabia and its citizens to Iranians. Not one Iranian, even the most extreme would spit on and insult foreign guests.
5. Question: Why did China adopt the Chinese Model (repression domestically, open arms internationally)? Simply because they learned Communism is a lost and burnt out card. They could get no more mileage out of the Communism card especially after Soviet Union fell apart and communists scattered and lost faith.
6. Iran today has the Islam card internationally. This card and this ideology has enormous popularity in Middle Eastern countries. Should Iran simply throw out that card to get giggy with Western countries??
7. Mr Shiraz, I will grant you- you want more freedoms for Iranians. Great. Take control and open Iran up liberally as much as you want. So you take domestics, and I will guide foreign policy! Good Deal?
8. I want the anti- China model for Iran. However, our deal will bring no joy to Western countries.
Take Syria, miniskirts and bikinis in streets in its streets, yet shunned internationally because of its foreign policy. Other exams are Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus, Russia.
In our deal, you can open more than any of the above nations and give much more freedom of thought and expression not just freedom of cloth wear. But again, our deal will not be acceptable to the international community.
9. Mr. Shiraz, foreign critcs use liberty and freedom as slogans, but what they want to cut off Iran’s hand. They want to diminish Iran’s influence in the region. Take a look at Egypt or Turkey- two huge and great nations but with no regional influence at all.
10. Once they cut off Iran’s influence, then you and other Iranians will have to fight the battles at home. Everything from terrorist bombing to financial abuse will happen in Iran, and the government will be helpless. Just compare today’s Iran with the rest of the world and especially the Middle East. Iran is far safer than any of them. Much fewer terrorist bombings in Iran compared to any other Middle Eastern nation.
11. Remember, Taliban’s killing of 13 Iranian diplomats? Or, Israel’s abduction of 4 Iranian diplomats in 1982? They paid dearly for their actions! Now, would you really want to reduce Iran’s influence so we would just sit and watch others hurt us?
12. You may counter and say, well if we only mind our business, no one will hurt us.
WRONG, remember who your neighbors are. Remember, Iran is Shiite surrounded by Arab Sunnis who would not hesitate do what Mohammad and his ilk did to Iran’s heritage and culture.
Even if we mind our business and keep to ourselves like Japan & Korea, enemies if they sense that Iran’s is growing economically will stroke ethnic (baluchi/arab/azeri), secterian ( shiite vs sunni) or class (rich vs poor) to destabilize Iran and keep its economy from growing just like Egypt’s.
They can leave Japanese and Korean economies alone because they are off on the edge in some island.
But they will not allow Iran to grow because this is the MIddle East where there is Oil and where Israel regional power and economy diminishes the more Iran’s expands and vice versa.
13. So, I hope, you learn something from MR Ledeen and neo-conservatives. That is: lets fight the battles abroad NOT at Home. Let’s, wish the same for Iran.
Let’s model Iran’s foreign policy to be like United States which has over streched arms everywhere.
Why should we confine ourselves and be crippled.
Oh BTW: Malaysia (which is a Muslim country with plenty of freedoms at home and no history of funding terrorists), when its economy was fast growing- they had to go put the brakes on it- they asked one George Soros to go and ruin the economy and their foreign exchange . Go read about it!
Unfortunately, for Malaysia- its arms and regional power were not strong enough to do anything about it.
Conclusion: secularize Iran demostically if you wish, but leave foreign policy unchanged. Then see if Mr Ledeen will stop complaining. I doubt it!
thanks for reading and being patient!
hmmm how many persons were/are executed in Iran since the beginning of this year ? your policy has a hard price for the Iranians
Besides, I do not agree with you that Turkey isn’t influent in the Region, though rather towards north : Armenia, Georgia, Russiaand the asian oily republics. Turkey will be the counter power in ME.
ali ardakani, you are missing something very important. Namely the Sakharov premise. How a government treats
its own citizens will be the way it treats other nations. Give Michael, and the rest of the people, including myself, more credit as what we want for the long-suffering Iranian, or Persian, people.
So, do not put words in Michael Ledeen’s mouth that he did not say.
I’m sure Iran will undergo regime change from within. Maybe even this century, although I doubt it. By 2550 for sure.
Who wants to wait that long? Especially since the new regime will be the same as the old regime. It took 40+ years of ‘cold war’ to bring down the Soviets. 20 years later the Russians have a new regime that is no different from the old one.
Long term political change requires military action. Look at all the Velvet, Orange, Green etc. revolutions from the immediate post cold war period. Most have gone back to some form of tyranny.
Iraq was a good idea ONLY because in order to invade Iran one needs a logistic base and staging area. Iraq is not just ideal, but the only viable choice. No port cities along the Culf or Indian Ocean big enough to provide logistics support. Turkey’s border with Iran is to mountainous even if they would let us stage there. Russia is the only other possibility and that isn’t going to happen.
So taking Iraq to support the invasion of Iran makes perfect military sense. The Mulllahs know that, which is why they stopped work on their nuclear program after the saw how fast the US went thru Iraq. Then Bush got cold feet, which made the Iraq invasion senseless.
SO now we wait for the IDF to bomb Iran for us.
As far as nations lining up to take a shot at the USA, what do you expect? When you are the King of the Hill everybody wants to pull you down. Every nation wants to be the ONE. First step is getting rid of whoever is the ONE now. Read ‘The Prince’. Nothing new about any of this. It’s your basic, good ol’ fashioned 17th century power politics. The sort that isn’t supposed to be used anymore. The UN is supposed to make all that history.
Excellent insight as always. I wish you were in charge of Iran freedom desk in the US government.