The Pundits Join the Revolution
Not so long ago I was in the pundit’s equivalent of the psychiatric ward, as one of a tiny handful of people (generally considered deranged) claiming that the Iranian people hated the mullahcracy, were prepared to rise up against it, were totally worthy of American (indeed broad Western) support, and would win.
All of a sudden, a good-sized gaggle of born-again democratic revolutionaries have entered the bandwagon. In the last couple of weeks, Bob Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, Jim Glassman, Ray Takeyh and Richard Haass have jumped on board. God willing, they will stay and attract others. Welcome, comrades!
So this seems a good time to catch up on bandwagon etiquette. First, explain what got you here; that’s a great way to encourage reluctant “realists” to join our revolutionary ranks. Kagan understands that, and tells us why he changed his mind. After the June 12th election fraud and the huge crowds that filled the streets of every major city in Iran, he notes, only a blind man could fail to see what was going on:
A year ago…there was little sign the Iranian people would ever rise up and demand change, no matter what the United States and other democratic nations did to help them. If the prospects for a deal on Tehran’s nuclear program seemed remote, the prospects for regime change were even more remote. These probabilities have shifted since June 12.
If he had had more space, Bob would undoubtedly have added, by today it should be clear that the mass movement aimed at regime change in Iran is truly that, and extends throughout all levels of Iranian society, most paradoxically to the Shi’ite clerical leaders. Poor Khamenei keeps saying that religious leaders should speak up, by which he means “defend me!” But they won’t; they want him gone, as most Iranians do.
Second, let’s be specific about what “support for the Iranian dissidents” (which is increasingly coterminous with “the Iranian people”) means. Krauthammer is certainly right to say “to fail to do everything in our power to support this popular revolt is unforgivable,” and Haass echoes him: “The United States, European governments, and others should shift their Iran policy toward increasing the prospects for political change. Leaders should speak out for the Iranian people and their rights.” But let’s spell it out a bit more.
Kagan hits some of the main points: “With tougher sanctions, public support from Obama and other Western leaders, and programs to provide information and better communications to reformers, the possibility for change in Iran may never be better.” More concretely, we should help the dissidents get good communications hardware, and our leaders should demand the release of political prisoners, equal rights for women, an end to torture and rape in the prisons, and greater freedom of speech, assembly and press. As Takeyh says, “The Obama administration should take a cue from Ronald Reagan and persistently challenge the legitimacy of the theocratic state and highlight its human rights abuses.”
Haass has several good ideas:
Congressmen and senior administration figures should avoid meeting with the regime. Any and all help for Iran’s opposition should be nonviolent. Iran’s opposition should be supported by Western governments, not led…outsiders should refrain from articulating specific political objectives other than support for democracy and an end to violence and unlawful detention.
Notice the comment on Senator Kerry’s proposed jaunt to Tehran. A bad idea. And he’s right to emphasize that the nature and composition of a free Iranian government is up to the Iranians. They are fighting and dying for it, while we are only supporting them as best we can. So to speak. Thus far, it’s only words, but maybe, with all the added intellectual firepower, it might get real.
Michael, you know by now that I am loathe to rain on your parade, but this counters your assessment: http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=2064
How low can low go?
Michael,
I am not so sure about Charles Krauthammer’s leaning towards Iran’s government. However, as for Ray Takeyh and Richard Haass the story is quite different. These two have left nothing short of helping Iranian Islamic-Tyranny in the past. In fact they tried very hard to lobby for the Iranian Government through Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). For them the equation was very simple, and ridiculously naive: They were anti-Bush “intellectuals”, and Bush was against Iranian Government, therefore they were for the Iran vs. Bush! You see, up to a year ago, there were a lot of “intellectuals” within Iran and outside, who thought the present government of Iran could magically metamorphosis into a democratic system through continual reform. This argument, which was assimilated because of the winning of Khatami in 1997 presidential election, believes in a gradual reform of the Iranian Theocracy into a democratic system.
The argument of course has eerie similarity to the logic proposed in cold-war era by Soviet propagandists, who theorize on how a third world country with a pre-capitalist socio-economic structure could be turned into a socialist one ( the logic, an anti-Marxist one of course, was framed by Lenin and Stalin as: “The path of non-capitalist growth towards socialism”!).
Ray Takeyeh’s idea had a lot of believers among democrats, as well as a number of reformists within the Iranian Government and Parliament, who are now in prisons of the Mulahcracy instead of following the path of democracy. While the idea is a wishful one, it is void of realistic and objective recognition of genesis of Islamic Theocracy or any Theocracy for that matter, which is an anti-thesis of democracy. Islamic Theocracy is born and constructed as an antagonism towards Democracy and as such, there are no mediating paths which could get one to the other. In fact, it could be very well argued that the so called Iranian Revolution became a pillar of anti-democratic “movements’ in middle east and despite the obvious differences between Khomeinism and Al-Qaeda, the latter was formed in the shadow of the former (Brzezinski should take notes!) Never the less, it is a welcoming trend to see everyone camping in “the tent”, may be as you say this is the sign of a change in Iran, and not in their thought system.
You’ve been saying this for well, how long has the internet been around? It’s not going to happen.
To a certain extent, governments only fall when they choose to. Any regime can stay in power if they are willing to be ruthless enough (and have enough loyal servants to be ruthless with). Many aren’t, and governments fall. But many are, and they stay in power. I don’t think being ruthless is going to be a problem for the current Iranian regime.
Mr Kagan was also against an Israeli military strike against Iran, the argument being that maybe regime change would solve the problem rather than military action & that if regime change somehow succeeded, then it would be perhaps ok if Iran had nuclear weapons.
I don’t agree – Israel cannot risk a nuclear-armed Iran under ANY circumstances nor can we sit around waiting for a possible change of regime. There is NO acceptable level of risk & as things stand now, only military action has a chance of derailing Iran’s nuclear program.
It is merely fantasy to count on Obama or other Western powers to do anything at all about Iran. The West has spent the last 10 years dithering around & will continue to dither around until Iran obtains nuclear weapons & the means of delivery.
This could be the telling of Obama’s real intentions for this nation (conspiracy theory @ work here) he does not want to make China mad
so he can get their help in turning the US to communism (once we rebel). China supports the
evil regime and Obama would cross them by helping the people of Iran.
Where did I leave my medical marijuana?
The best course of action would have been a political assassination, right after that beautiful woman was gunned down in the street. Not of Ahmadinejad, but of… Mousavvi, the guy who had the election stolen from him. It would have blown the lid off. No one would EVER believe he wasn’t assassinated to silence the opposition. (The plus side is to remember that he was a Mullah-approved candidate. We wouldn’t want him in charge, either.)
One bullet would have destroyed the whole nuclear-Iran threat and ended the exportation of terrorism from Iran. Not to mention the joy of seeing a bunch of extremist Mullahs losing their heads.
Slightly related, Canada just cut off funding to UNRWA putting pressure on Iran’s proxies in the middle east.
Although I hate to heap praise on anyone but myself (I’m presidential that way), Mr. Ledeen has been telling us about mounting opposition to the mullah state for a long time. Conventional wisdom has been saying the opposite, based on the laziness of the media to report what Ledeen was watching. Ledeen, of course, is a problem for State Dept. types who worship the illusion of stability. Regime change is so messy and we shouldn’t encourage Westernization of Muslim cultures with destabilizing notions about equal justice before the law, freedom of speech, religion, etc. All that stuff is just so embarrassingly American.
They shat on their plate. Let them go hungry now.
Same for Cuba.
Same for us.
What David said. It’s over Michael, let it go.
On a positive note, the Mad Dog Mullahs didn’t have to kill thousands before the ones left alive wised up.
The key to modern revolutions is the ability of the despot to find thugs willing to use automatic weapons on the mob. Given those thugs, there is no chance of the mobs winning.
The only question is how high the bodies get stacked. Fortunately for the average Iranian, there wasn’t any need to produce large stacks. That is also fortunate for those in the west with the illusion that a bloodless revolution is always possible. It isn’t. The amount of blood spilled is always a choice for the despot.
Those advocating the ‘green’ revolution in Iran would have been responsible in part for those stacks of bodies. They would not have been held accountable for them, at least not in this world. One can hope they would have gotten their bill in the next.
Urging someone to their death in a senseless and useless cause strikes me as immoral.
The ‘green revolution’ was senseless because it wasn’t about regime change. It was about replacing the current despot. Nothing more, nothing less.
Iran is a military problem. That is because supporting terrorism and building nuclear weapons are military acts. That means the solution required is a military one. Clausewitz points out that all military action takes place in a political environment. So we bomb by night and negotiate by day. When the Mullahs get tired of being bombed, they will negotiate an end to it. Since the only thing the USA wants is unfettered access, which Iran has already agreed to when it ratified the NPT, working out the technical means to do so shouldn’t be that much of a problem.
THe support of this tyrannical and murderous regime by the Obama administration, in contrast to Bush’s firm antipathy toward tyrants who will ‘end up on the ash heap of history”, is a complete shame on this country. Worse still when we can all see it’s simply because Tehrans leadership is Islamist and its people long for democracy and freedom from ‘religious government’…. Obama will speak against such things in America while talking about the CHristian right wingers, but when it comes to genuine murderous religiocracy with blood on its hands, Obama declines to criticize and tacitly supports.
I still shake my head and cannot believe it’s come to this. But now we have some momentum to fix it. And so we shall….
How come all of Pajamas’ posts, even little tiny ones like this, are split into two pages?
Trying to double your apparent traffic?
well stated.
The world should cut all ties to the regime. If the Europeans don’t want to go along the USA should do it on it’s own.
AND the talks or talking should stop. It only bolsters the regime.
regards
14. Chester White:
How come all of Pajamas’ posts, even little tiny ones like this, are split into two pages?
Trying to double your apparent traffic?
They aren’t, although most are. What’s your point ?
nothing in life is free …unless you are an obama friend.
As a certified Liberal, I feel the need to respond to some of the discussion here.
I have to defend my fellow Liberals against the assumption many people seem to have developed, no doubt guided by passionate AM talk radio hosts, that Liberals don’t love American values. That is the craziest thing I ever heard.
Just think about it for a second. Our name is “Liberals”. Do you think we might love “Liberty” just a bit?? Your name is “Conservative”. You guys want to Conserve a world order that existed in the 50s. Certainly you’re free to make that your goal, but our goal is Liberty for all people everywhere and we happen to think that’s the highest one we could have picked.
The reason we did not support regime change in Iran is not because we secretly love Islam and want to topple America to install a one world order with an Islamic messiah ruling everyone through brain chips and looking for the return of Jesus to murder him. That is crazy talk.
The reason we didn’t support regime change in Iran before is because we honestly and sincerely, and perhaps naively, believed that the People of Iran had chosen the Islamic Republic fair and square, and that THEY were happy and content with it.
We believe it is not our place to go around telling other people how to run their government, even if we think theocracy or communism are a terrible choice. It’s THEIR choice and we have to respect it because we all have to share this planet.
Now that we know that the People of Iran do NOT support their current government, Liberals see that it’s our duty to support those seeking their liberty in any way we can. So Liberal philosophy has not changed, and it’s not so much that we think Ianians now have some practical advantage that makes it more likely they’ll succeed at this time, it’s that now Liberals know the People of Iran WANT a change.
Iranians have always had the power in their hands to make that change, like any people anywhere suffering under vicious tyrants, and we should help them any way we can.
Rev. Magdalen: i’d dearly like to see more liberals say what you have said so well. thanks.
“The key to modern revolutions is the ability of the despot to find thugs willing to use automatic weapons on the mob. Given those thugs, there is no chance of the mobs winning.”
I want to agree with Michael Ledeen—but my faith is weak. The dissenters in Iran seem unable to obtain weapons. I find it hard to believe that a Gandhi type approach can be successful with the mullahs. Ultimately, Israel will have to bomb the nuclear reactors.
There is also another problem with Ledeen’s thesis: Obama is now the president—and he ain’t gonna do anything to upset the Iranian leadership. Nothing like our host proposes has any realistic chance of becoming reality within the next three years. We may be in a predicament similar to that of pre-World War II when the allied governments refused to marginalize Hitler when it would have been a relatively easy thing to do.
David Thompson: that last sentence IS my thesis in “Accomplice to Evil.”
Mr. Ladeen you are so right and correct!! Hopefully some of your suggestions will become policy. Those that fight for freedom must be supported. Be Well
Perhaps the President can arrange a trip to Iran to meet with Khameni and do a profound bow to him as he did to the Saudis. That will show him!
On a related note, this column by David Brooks was in today’s National Post. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26brooks.html
I sent in my two cents to the paper saying that the latest display of the Mexican hat dance by Brooks does not take into consideration of Bernard Goldberg being a litmus test.
The populists have profound respect, and acceptance, of “Bias” and “Arrogance” by Bernie Goldberg. The elitists have profound skepticism and hostility for those two books.
I am not holding my breath for that particular letter to the editor to
be printed in the National Post.
My policy would be the 3rd Infantry Division takes the capitol airport and the US Marine Corps holds open the straits of Hormuz.
I’m agnostic on the chances of an internal regime change in Iran, but I can only assume that those pointing to http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=2064 as counter-evidence did so based on a quick read, and before the update.
Terry (#5):
Why should the Western powers do anything about Iran’s nuclear program? At best, Israel will solve the problem militarily (allowing the West to proclaim it is “innocent of the blood”), and at worst, there’ll be a nuclear exchange in which a bunch of Jews and “brown people” will die (possibly even leading to a discrediting of radical Islam). Win-win.
I suppose I must note that this is not my prescription. “They chose dishonour…”
I’ll also note that Israel, which is admittedly in a poor situation, seems to be dithering as well. Or if you prefer, engaging in agonizing deliberations.
17. Rev. Magdalen:, I have this to counter you.
David Lloyd-George was a Liberal, and was the British Prime Minister when the Germans surrendered at the end of the First World War.
His views on the British Empire were interesting. He concluded that the Empire was run poorly, and that it was folly to try to manage everything from London, and expensive folly at that.
So, who is the true Liberal? DLG or those of
whom you speak for?
For, it goes back to the question, what is truth. Either it is immutable, or it is a reflection of the appetites of those who employ power plays.
17. Rev. Magdalen:
Just think about it for a second. Our name is “Liberals”. Do you think we might love “Liberty” just a bit?? Your name is “Conservative”. You guys want to Conserve a world order that existed in the 50s. Certainly you’re free to make that your goal, but our goal is Liberty for all people everywhere
I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE that you don’t understand conservatives.
you want to be a liberal because you identify with the “word” liberal to mean “enlightened” and conservative to you means “backward” or past tense.
no the conservatives do not want to preserve the “50′s ” lifestyle. I do understand that you have bought into the progressive brain wash.
it is conservatives that want freedom and liberty. NOT LIKE THE 50′s.
conservatives also don’t care if you want to live in a socialized commune with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
What conservatives object to is people like you saying that “everyone” needs to pay for your vision of socialized paradise.
you are the epitome of what a progressive mind set is. You are lost in the perverted socialist language.
17. Rev. Magdalen:
Iranians have always had the power in their hands to make that change
you are a pompous elitist. dead people have no power. the cemeteries of Iran are full of people who want liberty. You sound like one of obama’s idiot speech writers.
@Rev: “Just think about it for a second. Our name is “Liberals”. Do you think we might love “Liberty” just a bit?? Your name is “Conservative”. You guys want to Conserve a world order that existed in the 50s. Certainly you’re free to make that your goal, but our goal is Liberty for all people everywhere and we happen to think that’s the highest one we could have picked.”
Slow down… You may be more like us than you know. Liberty is a state of independence – not of dependence upon the powerful state, yes? Liberty is also the state of observance of natural rights… yet the goal of the progressive Left – today’s “liberals” has been profoundly pro-state control and pro-state confiscation, with a near complete piracy of the rights and responsibilities of the Individual.
Modern Conservatism is properly at it’s heart about the conservation of individual, constitutionally protected Liberty – libertarianism, if you will, or Tocquevillian democracy. The world order coming out of the 50′s is a modern creation not of libertarian-constitutionalists but their antithesis – statist “progressives” – the people who hijacked the term “liberal.” The modern Conservative movement – William F. Buckley for one – fought bravely against the statist machine. They gave us Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and the their modern libertarian offspring.
If you care about individual liberty and individual responsibility – a classical liberal – then your home is in the modern libertarian-conservative camp. We are committed to undoing the statist machine of the last Century. That experiment has been tried and it fails miserably.
Cheers.
“David Thompson: that last sentence IS my thesis in “Accomplice to Evil.”
I may be misunderstanding your core argument. It would definitely behoove me to reread your book. Still, it is unlikely the west will effectively deal with Iran until it’s too late. There is a very good possibility that historians some fifty years from now will discuss the disaster of the Barack Obama presidency. This administration is not going to do anything to help the Iranian dissenters. Obama is too reluctant to be perceived as an imperialist. Never forget that in his way of looking at the world—the United States is the real threat. The mullahs are victims. We are responsible for their rage. Confronting the Iranian leaders will only get them angrier. Best to remain passive.
Barack Obama is a poorly educated man. His Ivy League credentials are a joke. But we are stuck with him. I expect he will not finish his term of office. However, I would not bet my entire life savings on this prediction.
Rev (#17):
As a “certified Liberal,” are you not familiar with the history of what is now called the “liberal” movement? Are you not aware that your forerunners believed, “honestly and sincerely,” that most (all?) communist regimes governed with the “consent” of their populace, only to be proven wrong time and again? (“Yes, those darkies on the plantation shore are content.”) How much naivete must we put up with before speculating about other reasons?
Not to mention that appealing to the semantics of the labels is silly. Do “conservatives” want to conserve the welfare state? Do “liberals” promote liberal economics (ie free-markets)?
Now, if your “goal is Liberty for all people everywhere,” great! We’re in full agreement. I’ll just note that in practice, you’ll find more agreement with this position among the dreaded neo-cons than among those who call themselves liberals.
Since despite my hoping for the best, I find this matter depressing, here’s some humor from the Kagan article:
“Fallout.” Heh.
Reports of the demise of the Green Revolution may be premature. Check this out: http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=2067
Where one falls, another takes his, or hers’, place.
“We believe it is not our place to go around telling other people how to run their government, even if we think theocracy or communism are a terrible choice. It’s THEIR choice and we have to respect it because we all have to share this planet.”
You are using the “B” word too much. That is the real difference between Conservatives and Liberals/Progressives/Socialists/Fascists/Communists or what ever you’se guys are calling yourselves this week. 4th worlders BELIEVE. Conservatives want EVIDENCE.
That is the root of your errorneous statement above.
America has not just a right, but a duty to tell other people how to run their country when that country is hostile to America.
On a planet where 3rd world tyrants can murder millions of Americans with one bomb, it is the duty of government to prevent them from acquiring and using such weapons. Iran put together the knowledge and skill to build a nuclear weapons by ratifying the NPT and receiving that knowledge and skill as a gift so long as it wasn’t used to build weapons. In order to get access to nuclear knowledge and techniques, Iran had to agree to allow inspection of the sites it built to pursue it’s nuclear industry. That inspection is meant to ensure that the nuclear technology transferred to Iran was not used to build weapons. By refusing the inspections, Iran has breached the treaty.
What is the point of negotiating another treaty for them to breach?
No, either Iran allows unfettered inspections or we go to war with them. Then after they are defeated, we install a new regime that will abide by the treaty terms.
Speaking of planets, on this planet powerful nations instruct less powerful nations on how they should behave. This is a FACT, one that has been proven over the course of history many times. I don’t know what planet it is where powerful nations respect the choice of weak nations, but it sure isn’t on this planet Earth (Terra, Dirt).
I would like for you to point me to evidence to support your beliefs. Other then that, I will treat them like the delusions they are.
You can live a life based on delusions, but there are those of us that refuse to do that.
Michael. thanks for editing my comment. It (my comment) was wrong.
cabeza: good, I thought so.
36. Rosinante:
Speaking of planets, on this planet powerful nations instruct less powerful nations on how they should behave. This is a FACT, one that has been proven over the course of history many times. I don’t know what planet it is where powerful nations respect the choice of weak nations, but it sure isn’t on this planet Earth (Terra, Dirt).
I would like for you to point me to evidence to support your beliefs. Other then that, I will treat them like the delusions they are.
You can live a life based on delusions, but there are those of us that refuse to do that.
the UN is doing just that. the USA pays the lions share of the UN cost and allows the UN to abuse them. the otherwise weak nations jerk the USA around and they haven’t the strength of character to tell the UN to take a hike
time to get rid of the UN or at least stop funding it.
The real question remains is “Who will be freed first, Iran or the US?” My guess – neither. The religious zealots of both countries will hang on to power as long as there is still life in their degenerate bodies. Liberalism is a religion. Our Universities are just like the radical religious training centers of Islam. My economics professor at UMass (yes I did go to college so long ago they had yet to invent special studies programs for the retarded kids)outlined in class how “they” were going to destroy the US. First bring ethnic diversity to the US through immigration (the 1968 Immigration act) thus diminishing the ethnic heritage of this country and destroying its Western European culture. Important to their success was to take over the media, the marginalizing of Christianity (as if that needed any help), bringing down the economy, and then putting the middle class on welfare. What comes next? Well “they” then divide the area, once know as the US, into six regions with six separate but politically similar communist regimes. Who was the “they” he was referring to? Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama. I am sure he did not know their names but if he is still alive he was probably doing cart wheels when Obama was elected.
Rev Magdalen #17——You say , ” people of Iran do not support their government. Liberals support those seeking liberty, any way we can.
My question to you, with respect to your answer.
If liberals believe the way they do, why are they so behind OBAMA?
OBAMA is not a true liberal. OBAMA belongs to the progressive movement. Full government control, which takes away liberties.
The American people, are in a restrained revolt against , Obama’s progressive machine.
Where are the liberals? Do they not understand the difference between liberals and progressives?
Obama’s progressive programs, will take away the liberals rights, the same as conservaties rights.
When the true liberals wake up to this , they will turn against OBAMA and his progressive programs, but not their liberal beliefs.
There is a huge difference between liberals and progressives.
Think about this.
First to the brave “Liberal”: any words of support for the beleaguered Iranians are welcome irrespective of your stated political affiliation (in my book at least).
Second, to the gentleman who made an aside to the effect that Israel is “dithering” … wow — most of the world is damning Israel for even *thinking* about attacking Iran, Israel KNOWS they will be immediately ostracized in a way that makes the aftermath of their bombing of Osirak — the Iraqi Nuclear plant extremely minor. Why? Because Israel knows that an attack on Iran (as much as *I* personally support and want them to do it!!!) will lead to Iran mining the Persian Straits which will then lead to a HUGE increase in the price of gas. That will in turn bring ALL the anti-Israelis AND anti-Jews in this country (not to mention the EU) to smack Israel in a way she’s never been smacked before. Boycotts imposed on Israel will be the most minor of her problems. Just remember that even with Bush in the presidency, Israel was Universally condemned for attacking Iraq — and only well after the 1st Iraq war did Israel get *any* kind of reprieve.
Also, it’s not clear at ALL that if the US does NOT want Israel to attack, that Israel *can* still attack? The US controls a massive amount of airspace directly between Israel and Iran. So much of Israel’s “perceived” dithering” can be attributed to desperate behind the scenes lobbying of the Obama administration to at least give just Israel (forget the USA!) the “green light” to allow Israel’s planes to fly over Iran without being challenged. It’s not at ALL clear to us conservatives that Obama would NOT issue orders to challenge Israeli planes on their way to Iran – I desperately wish that was not the case, but I can see a scenario by which Obama is more concerned with re-election (which REQUIRES him keeping gasoline prices low) than giving Israel a “green light” to let their planes at least *try* to take out much of Iran’s nuclear sites.’
Please tell me I am wrong — really! I would love anyone to soberly explain why this analysis is “not going to happen.” The ONLY option Israel has is to fire potentially nuclear tipped missiles from their “mini-boomer” subs — the “dolphins.”
But that is not a scenario which will lead to a satisfying conclusion. For anything approaching a satisfying conclusion (which, by the way, includes hundreds of thousands of Israeli deaths, but so be it — and I cry at the potential future deaths of my relatives there by the way) is for Israel to go in with fighters and bombers and use bunker-busters and then laser-guided missiles to “thread the needle (the hole) created by the bunker-busters so that the JDAMS will then penetrate the outer hulls and do their damage entirely from the “inside” of each plant /site.
This requires at a MINIMUM a USA green light and more likely USA intelligence in the form of satellite imagery as well as other helpful items (Awacs-type intel?).
I *hardly* think the Israelis are “dithering.” This decision will literally destroy something like 10% of their country, so to sort of vaguely equate that with Obama’s dithering on whether to simply take his best commander’s advice on Afghanistan is an unfair comparison. 5 US states (10% of 50 is 5) were not hanging in the balance of Obama’s absurdly long “consultation with his advisers” — *that* I think is fair to label as “dithering” (and worse!)
Lastly another point someone brought up about the update referred to in the very first post is extremely important as it totally negates the posts original thesis.
And finally-lastly, Ledeen has a great track record in observing and reporting on Iran. It’s ben clear to MANY Iran watchers for well over 5 years that Iran had the seeds of death (see “Spengler” in the Asia Times) in terms of it’s population distribution. And the facts that Ledeen more recently pointed out of an actual run on the banks(!!!) — that is serious sh*t! He made other great points in his latest post (not this one) — but the run on the banks is a well known litmus test for the precursor to regime downfalls.
This talk about bombing a facility or blockading ports seems a little shortsighted – what happens when Iran shoots back? Are we then in another mideast war, sending American troops half a world away to take out a dictator and then patrol streets and avoid homemade bombs for years? Then we set up a democracy and risk a fundamentalist party takeover? It’s an incomplete solution.
One approach I’ve wondered is whether it is possible to wage and win a covert war against places like Iran. Covert wars aren’t popular in the US and with good reason, but using our intelligence and precision targeting capabilities it seems like it would be possible to put the fear of god into anyone involved in the Iranian weapons program.
Tristan: iran has been waging war against us for thirty years. iranian troops and iranian proxies are killing Americans now in Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. it is not about nukes…they have killed hundreds of Americans without nukes…
Falafel (#42):
Dither – “act nervously; be undecided; be uncertain”
I agree Israel is in a very difficult situation, with no good choices. I am merely saying that it has known about the Iranian threat for quite a while, and that it knows that if it doesn’t do anything, it (unlike the US or Europe) faces the very real danger of destruction. And yet the Iranian nuclear program proceeds.
(And thank you for noting my update.)
Also note the massive cuts/elimination of subsidies by the Iranian regime. Not a move that tends to lead to social peace.
Tristan (#43):
General answer: “This talk about bombing a facility or blockading ports seems a little shortsighted.” I’d argue that not doing so is shortsighted. There would certainly be negative repercussions to doing so (which is why Michael seems to have opposed such measures (he can correct me if I’m wrong)), but other options are / might be even worse. Due to our having kicked the can down the road for so long, we are out of good options; we can only choose the least-bad one. Choosing to do nothing is among the worst.
Specific points:
1. “What happens when Iran shoots back?” What Michael said.
2. “Risk a fundamentalist party takeover.” Oh noes! Iran might become ruled by fundamentalists!
3. I’m all in favor of the covert war approach. But given their unpopularity among our “elite,” I’m not sure how good we still are at it, and whether this administration would be willing to engage in it. (Note: If you’ve been following the news carefully for the past few years, it seems that either someone is engaging in covert warfare, or the Iranians are suffering from an unbelievable streak of bad luck. However, there are limits to what such warfare can accomplish, especially if waged by a relatively tiny country, say one which closely follows Iran alphabetically.)
Such a powerful pro-West, pro-USA, and genuinely pro-democracy Iranian uprising against the Islamic Regime would not have taken place, had McCain and Palin replaced Bush and Cheney. Iran has been simmering against the mullas for the last quarter of a century, but no Iranian with a grain of self-respect wanted to identify with the US anti-Mosaddeqh Cold War policies — and with the US conservative dreams to re-impose another Pahlav on Iran.
So, let us give some, if not all the, credit … to Barack Obama. Will you, My Dear Michael?
After the overthrow of the Mosaddeq government masterminded and financed by the Brits and the CIA in 1953, it was Barack Obama who for the first time won back the hearts and minds of Iranians for the USA, the West, and, potentially, for Israel.
If Mir Hossein Mousavi succeeds, I hope he will not be treated the way you guys treated Gorbachev, — conspiring to quickly replace him with an Iranian Yeltsin, i.e., Reza Pahlavi or an Iranian Chalabi.
I said “If” because those in the world including Iranians who hoped for some basic changes in our polices after Obama was elected are being disappointed. They see how Obama confronted by the old guard of both parties is helpless. The Iranian mullas’ propaganda machine is making full use of this ‘unchanging (GOP-Blue Dog) American way’. Obama’s success abroad depends on how much respect we allow him within the country — and how much we allow him to rebuild the economy on sound foundations.
My fellow Americans, please, for God’s sake and for the sake of this wonderful Modern Western Civilization … accept the fact that Iran is radically different from the rest of the Islamic world. Yes, we can indeed have a genuinely modern, pro-West and friendly Iran. We can not, however, have a friendly and stable Iran ruled by a Shah or a Husni Mubarak or a Parvez Musharraf. A Green Iran led by a Mousavi — along with the Shiite world consequently — will be our dependable and resourceful friend enabling us to balance the blackmail of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, and … and …. IF we treat Iran as a friend like Canada and India, not as a puppet and as a banana republic.
Also, please remember that if there is any possibility of a re-formation and reconstruction of religious thought in Islam making it compatible with modern realities and sensitivities — and ACCEPTABLE FOR A MASS OF MUSLIM BELIEVERS, it has to come from some traditional bearded Islamic High Clerical Circles of unquestionable prestige.
Although I come from a Sunni background — and personally a Rushdite — for various reasons — which can not be detailed here, I believe that some High Clergymen of Shiite Islam, e.g., some Montazeris, some Saaneis, and some Khatamis, are more likely to initiate, create and sanction such a Re-formation, a New Shariah.
So, Mousavi’s refusal to package himself as an ‘instant’ anti-Islam secularist (the way the Pahlavists, our perennial opportunist, Mr. Rajavi, and some fringe extremist leftists-anarchists are doing) is a blessing for Iran as well as the West. Any sudden replacement of the ayatollahs with vulgar and corrupt ‘pro-West’ and anti-Left ‘secularists’, or with the Mojahedin of Mr. and Mrs. Rajavi whose Islamic credentials and right to ijtehad will never be accepted by the masses of the believers … will keep the monsters of all kinds alive. Such an inevitably bloody replacement will open the gates for multidimensional civil wars, and tensions, chaos, instability and upheavals — more intense and longer in time than those that followed the overthrow of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. We can not afford to have a Somalia in such a vast resourceful and strategically located land.
credit obama? well he will certainly claim it.