02-22-2019 04:41:18 PM -0800
02-21-2019 02:04:47 PM -0800
02-21-2019 11:01:19 AM -0800
02-20-2019 06:05:04 PM -0800
02-20-2019 04:41:47 PM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

As Iran Wobbles, Washington Is Still Without a Winning Strategy

At some point, Trump and his brain trust will have to ask the basic questions about Iran. As the deadline for the latest round of petroleum sanctions approaches, the punditocracy obsesses over how vicious the economic pressure should be, and over how to use instruments like SWIFT against the mullahs. The government seems similarly obsessed, above all the three Marines who seem to have Trump’s greatest trust and confidence: Mattis, Kelly, and Dunford.

This obsession is misguided. It does not address the central issue, which is how to best promote the downfall of the Islamic Republic.

That is a political issue, not a matter of economic engineering. The pundits and, apparently, the key policymakers seem to believe that there is a level of economic and social misery that will lead to the fall of the Shi’ite tyranny and its replacement by a freely elected government that will end Iran’s ongoing war against us. A government that will work to advance our interests in the region: End support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda; pull Iranian troops out of Syria; stop meddling in Iraq, etc.

I think this belief is wrong. Most successful revolutions reach peak force when the social and economic conditions are improving, not getting worse and worse. It’s commonplace to quote Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake” as the incarnation of the doomed French tyrant’s indifference to the suffering of the revolutionary masses, but the overthrow of the Bourbons wasn’t accomplished by hungry proletarians; it was done by optimistic young citizens, mostly bourgeois, who believed they could change the world.

Similarly, Mussolini’s followers in the early 1920s came in large part from a rising middle class, and presented themselves as an expression of Italian creativity, virility, and courage. Il Duce wasn’t offering pasta to the starving masses; revolutions are carried out by people who want to change the world, not feed their families and neighbors. In Germany, Hitler rose with economic improvement, not alongside the worst moments of the crash of ’29.

If revolution were the consequence of misery, we’d see massive uprisings in North Korea and much of sub-Saharan Africa, as in Cuba. We’d expect Venezuela to join the heap of failed states most any day. But these revolutionary events are not taking place. Turmoil and misery abound, but the regimes hold fast.

Look at Iran today and you will see the streets full of protesters who want the end of the forty-year-old theocracy. Teachers, truck drivers, and bazaaris are all striking. Students, especially at universities, are leaving their classes to demonstrate against the regime. Even the Iranian Arabs in the oil-rich area near Basra are walking off the job, threatening natural gas and oil production. They are deliberately impoverishing themselves in order to promote revolution. It’s not a demand for higher income; it is mostly a revolt against a failed regime and in favor of greater freedom.