A Few Random Thoughts on Iran
Let’s not pretend that the street revolt in Iran — is it too early to call it a revolution? — is occurring in a vacuum. It isn’t. Something approaching secular democracy is working for millions of Muslims, most of them Shiites, in Iraq.
And the people of Iran have noticed.
If their revolution succeeds, Iran still might not be our friend. But a new government would have a lot to deal with — and might find it profitable not to directly support quite so many terrorists. And a less-bellicose Iran would reduce tensions around the Gulf, where a mostly-unnoticed arms race has been going on for the last few years. Hell, the Saudis helped fund the Pakistani bomb, and you’ve got to figure they expect some return on their investment.
Meanwhile, who knows what Tehran is willing to do. Another Tiananmen? Something stupid, insane, and deadly to provoke the US and rally the people? Or maybe to provoke Israel? The mullahs still have some big cards left to play, although currently they’re accusing the UN of meddling, which defines lameness down.
Of course, President Obama looks set to play his own deflection game here in just a few minutes. So there’s a lot of that lameness redefining going on.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way? Mostly the last one, but if we do any leading, it would best be done quietly. What we shouldn’t be doing is pretending nothing is happening, or that it isn’t any big deal. Finding where the line is between that and staying out of the way… well, that’s the tough one.
I’m glad to see you mention Iraq as a possible inspiration for the demonstrating Iranians. I think Bush’s “outreach” in Iraq far extends this month’s “outreach” speech in Cairo–I mean, if results are the yardstick.
You know, I keep reading about how we shouldn’t say too much, don’t look like we’re interfering with a sovereign nation, blah blah blah.
And then I think, “What kind of spittle inducing conniption fit would we be seeing if all the incidents were the same, except you substituted the word Israel for Iran? How concerned with propriety and the appearance of non-interference would our Great Leader be then?”
And the worst part about his craven position is that it has absolutely zero chance of achieving the result Obama wants. The Mullahs will never, ever negotiate in good faith with this country.
I’m too young to actually remember how bad Carter was except for the regular cursing of his name by my father. But I suspect Carter deja vu is on the way.
Every country that wants the bomb will have one sooner or later. We cannot stop it, we can only delay it. And the only value in delay is to buy time to put in place a more permanent solution.
My favored solution? Stable democracies with the bomb don’t trouble me too much. And of all the governments that have said it’s ok if their own population gets slaughtered, precisely zero were democracies (go figure!)
Iran might get a true democracy this year, and just in the nick of time. The longer this goes on, the more comfortable I am with Obama’s half measures. The right outcome is too important to screw it up with any emotional attachment we may have for the U.S. as the cheerleader of liberty.
ROVE, YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD!
Obviously -although it’s the last thing Team Obama wants to hear- Ronald Reagan’s support of Poland’s Solidarity in the dark days of the Soviet-ordered crackdown is the model here- not the preposterous straw-man argument of “what are you going to do, invade?” disingenuously presented by the do-nothing, Obamapologist left.
And isn’t this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East in the wake of Iraq’s liberation?
Maybe that’s why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran… no matter how much it benefits the US and free world.
That, and the fact that he’s already piled all his chips on legitimizing this vile regime- a democratic revolution at this point would be downright embarrassing for him.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
There are many things the US did to influence the current status of Iran. First of all, just being there (the old history: cold war stuff, colonialist stuff, support for the Shah, etc.) that is water under the bridge. Then there is definitely Iraq. The Shiites there are having a hell of a time of it, but they have quite a bit of political clout (a.k.a. a majority of the population) in that fledgling democracy and a leader (Mahdi) who has dropped off the radar to go to Iran (to Qom, to be exact,) to gain long-term credibility as both a Shiite leader and an eventual leader of Iraq but not until the US presence is much diminished. While Iraq will probably not emerge as a rah rah pro-US democracy either, the long-term prognosis is that it will be less controlled by religion than Iran currently is. And then there’s the influence of Obama, whose Cairo speech and tacit approval of the concepts behind the demonstrators in Iran certainly are on the side of the angels, but it’s way too soon to balance that against Iraq to say which is more or less meaningful. About the only thing that is certain is that it is maddening to watch as the Iranian people are oppressed in real time rather than conceptually and in the abstract.
I think the Iranian government is more afraid of talking to the US than we have to fear from talking to them, which is a good part of why I don’t fear Obama’s willingness to speak without conditions. I do think Obama would be a fool not to want to speak with Mousavi if he wins at some future time. And he’d also be a fool not to continue to offer to speak with Shahmadinejad if he “wins”, since there’s no way Iran would go for it under those circumstances. It’s a rhetorical and symbolic gesture either way, and while it won’t diffuse all that much regarding Israel or even nuclear proliferation, it won’t hurt in any way I’ve seen articulated. Al Qaeda will still bluster from their holes, Pakistan will not be as stable as we’d like, Iran won’t be like Times Square in the pre-Rudy days, and Saudi Arabia will still have way too much money and still not want to do a damn thing to help the Palestinians toward a meaningful existence.
And I have to add that I don’t know where the Reaganite Republican gets his reality from, but I might get tested at my work so I can’t join him there.
it’s way too soon to balance that against Iraq to say which is more or less meaningful
Tough call, weighing the existence of an increasingly successful democracy in Iran’s chief rival vs some cheap talk from an increasingly transparent charlatan. And let’s not forget Obama’s historic visit to a burger joint with Joe Biden. That’s gotta be pretty important too.
I think the Iranian government is more afraid of talking to the US than we have to fear from talking to them
Why? What’s the downside of being recognized as a peer by the one-time most powerful nation on earth? Is there a danger they’d be so enchanted by Zero that they would make an agreement they would then feel bound to honor? What would we get, and what would they lose, by talking?
They would lose their made-up image of us as the horrible enemy that keeps them oppressed and their poor people poor because we oppress them so. And that would hurt them much more than it would hurt us. Openness doesn’t hurt America, because we are free. Openness and dialogue only hurt the governments of closed societies because they lose control of the people’s image of the “enemy”. We have nothing to lose, their governments could lose everything.
As for this recognition that comes from meeting, I don’t see that at all. If Obama wants to meet with foreign leaders, it’s for utilitarian reasons and not to bestow his blessings upon their heads. He’s not the fucking Pope. It’s not like Shahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il would meet with him and then widely distribute postcards of the two of them shaking hands, since even their fantasies require some internal consistency. It’s a good idea for Obama to meet with them for the exact reason that they don’t want to: it makes their bullshit obvious.
As for us, we wouldn’t really “get” anything from talking. Hell, we aren’t that much better off now that Poland is free. Poland sure as hell is better off, but I can’t really say we won that much. But international relations isn’t a zero-sum game with winners and losers always being assessed in a broad, international manner. The world is a better place for having a freer Poland, Iraq, and even Latvia. Was it worth the cost we paid? Maybe not in dollars, but what is it worth to be able to call your leader “an increasingly transparent charlatan”? I can’t put a figure on it, but the previous White House occupant, the arrogant asshole with the addled mind of a kegeratored fratboy, probably couldn’t either. Freedom is priceless, it is a basic human right, and it is worth promoting worldwide. The arguments I have relate to how to do it best, not whether or not it’s worth it.
They would lose their made-up image of us as the horrible enemy that keeps them oppressed and their poor people poor because we oppress them so
I don’t know about that. Republicans are more than willing to engage in debate with Democrats (if ABC would only sell us the ad space), but Democrats maintain their made up image of us as the horrible enemy that keeps them (and everyone else) oppressed and the world’s poor people poor &c. To the extent we don’t surrender to their every wish without getting anything in return – a distinct possibility given the people we have in charge – we can still be painted as the evil implacable unreasonable enemy. But the mere fact of agreeing to, in fact begging for, talks makes us look like we’re giving in. I can imagine the statements that would accompany the announcement of a summit: “Take heart O Muslims! For America’s lies have been exposed. The false claims that the Islamic Republic was isolated were a ruse to hide that it was America which angered the world, America with its wars on the Muslims for the oil and to extend its empire, even as America had unjustly overthrown the government in Iran. But now the costs of American greed and treachery are clear, and the United States must sue for peace.” And that would just be the statement from the White House. I can’t imagine how gleeful the Iranians would sound.
If Obama wants to meet with foreign leaders, it’s for utilitarian reasons
Exactly what ugly foreign governments would say. “See? The United States is no better than us. They recognize that their position is weakening, and now they have to come to us. They talked of ‘human rights’ and ‘justice’, but that was a tyrant’s justice. It was useful to them to say the words, but where are their principles now? We did not have to change. We were not in the wrong. They had to change.”
He’s not the fucking Pope.
On the org chart inside Obama’s head, the Pope is one of his direct reports.
It’s not like Shahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il would meet with him and then widely distribute postcards of the two of them shaking hands
Sure, what kind of pinhead would read anything into a cheap picture like that?
what is it worth to be able to call your leader “an increasingly transparent charlatan”?
Dunno. I called your leader an increasingly transparent charlatan. He’s only the President of my country. If he wants me to follow him somewhere, he’s going to have to lead in a desirable direction. Hasn’t happened so far. But I can try to insult him less if it would help you to be less pouty.
Freedom is priceless, it is a basic human right, and it is worth promoting worldwide.
Or at least mentioning a few days after an ice cream run photo op, if pro-freedom statements from the French have been polling well.
I don’t see Obama begging for talks. Where was that? I only see a willingness to talk, which has been rebuffed repeatedly. As for your proposed statement, it doesn’t sound plausible. I don’t know where you get the idea that Democrats are unwilling to listen to Republicans, but I also can’t see many foreign policy ideas coming from the Republicans. The best I’ve seen is John McCain’s recent statements that seem to emphasize his belligerent Bomb Bomb Iran thing, which would seem to me to be a bad idea right now. The basic point of Republican statements about Obama’s handling of Iran seems to be that Obama hasn’t said what he said with enough force, and not that what he said was wrong in any way. The Republicans are like a choir director demanding that Obama sing with more emotion. Maybe they’ll ask the he employ the jazz hands in his next appearance.
As for ice cream and hamburgers and even hiking the Appalachian trail if he chose to, who the fuck cares? I know the disappearing thing did wonders for Cheney’s image, but not everyone is so afraid of the press and public that they can’t go out now and then.
Anybody who wants to understand why Obama’s holding back should go look at today’s “Day By Day” strip.
If Day By Day explained it, it’s because Obama likes tramp stamps and MC Hammer, I guess. And something about the Jews. Now I know. And knowing is half the battle. The other half is trying to figure out where the hell he got those supposed facts about the Left.
Jon, maybe you’re not as familiar with the left as you suppose?
I don’t know where you get the idea that Democrats are unwilling to listen to Republicans
Jesus, what planet have you been on since January? The stimulus bill was fast-tracked, with basically zero Republican input. Several spending bills were passed without any Republican say. There’s been talk of combining the Cap-n-Trade and healthcare initiatives so that the votes can’t be filibustered (don’t know what the term for that practice is, but the Dems sure hollered about it when Bush had it done several times). I guess the Dems are really worried about the Libertarian block there, eh?
You need to wake up to reality. You don’t have a clue as to how things actually happen.
I guess jon missed the story where Barry called up the GOP rep and told him “We won.” Deal with it.