I have not yet added my two cents to the discussion of Iran. Yaacov Lozowick covers the problem neatly:
"Fog Over Channel, Continent Cut Off"
I continue not to know what to say about the turmoil in Iran. Which is too bad, since cyberspace is chock-full of all sorts of commentary from folks who are quite certain about it all. Well, I'm not. I know who the Bad Guys, are, for example, but not who the Good Guys are. I think I know what the one side wishes to achieve, have however not the slightest idea what the other camp wants. Nor am I convinced there are two camps: perhaps there are five? I could easily write a long post about all the things I don't understand, before explaining how I'd just love the events to vindicate whatever set of political beliefs and especially pet animosites that I harbor. Alas, none of that would make me any better informed.
Also, since we don't know how this chapter of the story is going to end, there's always the danger that if I pretend to know what I'm talking about three days will suffice to prove me wrong - and that would be embarassing. Most pundits normally have at least ten days between pontificating and being proven wrong, by which time no-one remembers any longer.
So I feel for President Obama, who is coming under growing criticism for not knowing what to say. I mean, the man has unbeatable resources and tools at his fingertips, from the CIA and the NSA all the way over to Rahm Emanuel, and still he's at a loss for words. (Obama!)
I do take issue with Yaacov's empathy for President Obama, who is presumably the leader of the free world, if that phrase has any meaning in our post-modern world. His diffidence effectively offers the Mullahs his imprimatur.
There are a number of available rationalizations for Obama to justify caution in his statements about the Iranian situation. John Kerry offered this bit of sophistry that has already been overtaken by events:
What comes next in Iran is unclear. What is clear is that the tough talk that Senator McCain advocates got us nowhere for the last eight years. Our saber-rattling only empowered hard-liners and put reformers on the defensive. An Iranian president who advocated a “dialogue among civilizations” and societal reforms was replaced by one who denied the Holocaust and routinely called for the destruction of Israel.
Meanwhile, Iran’s influence in the Middle East expanded and it made considerable progress on its nuclear program.
The last thing we should do is give Mr. Ahmadinejad an opportunity to evoke the 1953 American-sponsored coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and returned Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to power. Doing so would only allow him to cast himself as a modern-day Mossadegh, standing up for principle against a Western puppet.
Words are important. President Obama has made that clear in devising a new approach to Iran and the wider Muslim world. In offering negotiation and conciliation, he has put the region’s extremists on the defensive.
Someone should explain to Kerry that the presence of hundreds of thousands of Iranians protesting peacefully against the regime in Iran is qualitatively different than dealing with Ayatollah's who are completely in control of their country. In times of such disequilibrium, it is impossible to know what kinds of inputs can further destabilize the system. By making statements that appear to empower the Mullahs, Obama appears to be supportive of an unacceptable status quo ante. This is not where America should be; considering that the Mullahs have already accused the United States of interference, or meddling, which seems to be the word of the day, Obama's diffidence becomes even less morally or strategically acceptable.
The New York Times, on its editorial page, chimes in with some perfectly tone-deaf remarks which include the quintessential trope of the enervated class:
June 17, 2009
Looking at the behavior of Iran’s government, one can only conclude that it is terrified of its own people. Looking at the courage of the hundreds of thousands of protesters who have taken to the streets, one can only feel admiration and anxiety for their safety.
...
More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government’s illegitimacy and desperation.
If the authorities want to resolve this impasse peacefully — that must be the goal — they should call a new election, monitored by independent Iranian observers. Before last week’s results were prematurely and improbably declared, a runoff was expected between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi. As a first step, authorities should set up a commission representing all major candidates to examine the election data and jointly determine a face-saving and credible way forward. [Empahses mine-SW]
Some in Washington, meanwhile, have been complaining that President Obama hasn’t been tough enough in his criticism of Iran’s government. He may have to speak out more forcefully in the days to come. But given its history with Iran, the United States must take special care not to be seen as interfering. That would only give Iran’s hard-liners a further excuse to blame the United States for their own shameful failures.
I am always struck by the insistence by so many New York Times-liberals, that thugs and autocrats must have this or that goal and should do this or that action which appeals to the fair play instincts of the doyens of the Times. As Yaacov noted, we know who the bad guys are, and in this case, the bad guys will do whatever they want and can get away with. The only restraints that exist on sociopaths are the restraints imposed upon them by more powerful forces. That is Abnormal Psychology 101, though generally learned operationally, first hand, in kindergarten.
Perhaps the odds of fundamental change in Iran are minimal. The Mullahs and their hired guns have shown themselves perfectly willing to sacrifice as many of their subjects as necessary to ensure their rule. They know that the choice before them is life or death. A divinely inspired system cannot tolerate being seen in error. Further, the Mullahs surely remember Nicolae Ceauşescu.
There is little we can do to help those courageous Iranians who know they may be walking into a hail of steel. Sadly, the ease and alacrity with which our President and his supporters are ready to effectively (or passively) prop up a failed, amoral, and sadistic status quo is dispiriting. This is Realpolitik at its very worst and is a disaster, especially when you calculate how a Mullah victory will effect the chances of a peaceful surrender of their nuclear program and apocalyptic ideology.
Recent Comments