How Not to Respond to Iran
I don't pretend to know what has happened or what is going to happen in Iran. I am pretty confident, however, that Republican partisans who are attacking the Obama administration for its response to this weekend's events in Iran are trying to score cheap political points at the expense of basic common sense. The worst of this group is Victor Davis Hanson at the National Review. In yet another critical post, he writes:
Furthermore, what Hanson mocks as a "make it up as we go along" approach could more accurately be described as a "wait until we have more facts" approach. Attempting to intervene in the internal politics of another country (particularly a country like Iran) while events are still very much in flux and we don't have a clear understanding of the basic facts is just a very reckless and ill-considered idea. It's the kind of thing that is likely to do more harm than good. For once, let's try to approach a serious issue in a serious way and not instantly reduce everything to petty partisan point scoring. This isn't about us.
Obama's past siren calls to quit Iraq, the "optional" war, his snubbing of Maliki, his ahistorical efforts to charm the Islamic Street, and apologies to theocratic Iran while lavishing attention on Ahmadinejad put him on the wrong side of history.Putting aside the ridiculous nature of Hanson's allegations, he is giving very bad advice here. Obviously no one approves of anti-democratic violence, but the last thing the protesters in Iran need right now is vocal American support. That would only undermine their efforts. As Spencer Ackerman notes, the Obama administration's cautious approach "has the support of Iranian human rights groups, which fear the clerical regime will exploit any perception of U.S. interference to slander the opposition as American puppets — a caustic charge in a nation with a deep memory of U.S. interference in its politics."
If Obama were wise, he would get out pronto a statement condemning the anti-democratic violence of the Iranian government, and suggesting it follow the Iraq example of free and internationally inspected elections.
At some point, one should see that moral equivalence and multicultural non-judgementalism, however catchy for the moment, are as stupid as they are amoral, and will put the U.S in a foolish, "make it up as we go along" position.
Furthermore, what Hanson mocks as a "make it up as we go along" approach could more accurately be described as a "wait until we have more facts" approach. Attempting to intervene in the internal politics of another country (particularly a country like Iran) while events are still very much in flux and we don't have a clear understanding of the basic facts is just a very reckless and ill-considered idea. It's the kind of thing that is likely to do more harm than good. For once, let's try to approach a serious issue in a serious way and not instantly reduce everything to petty partisan point scoring. This isn't about us.
posted by A.L. at 12:09 PM
17 Comments:
It's the kind of thing that is likely to do more harm than good. For once, let's try to approach a serious issue in a serious way and not instantly reduce everything to petty partisan point scoring.
As opposed to whom, President Obama? Obama this past Friday, 6/12 (emphasis mine):
We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. And obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change.
You think Obama will take his share of the blame if it turns out the Iranian election was fixed? He sure as hell was already to take his share of the credit. All to score political points.
Besides, how can anyone think there is a "robust debate" going on in Iran when all of the choices for President were handpicked by Supreme Leader al-Khamenei and the Guardian Council anyway, even the so-called "reformer". It doesn't help when even our own President doesn't understand what is going on in Iran.
That's pretty weak stuff, Steve. You're stretching pretty badly.
Also, I don't think there's any question that there was a robust political debate in Iran--particularly by Middle Eastern standards. Whatever happened in the election itself doesn't change the fact that this debate occurred.
Indeed the unrest in the country right now is a testament to how robust the pre-election debate was.
Hanson is putting the cart before the horse. Iraq has "internationally inspected elections" only because the government allows it. For the U.S. President to essentially force them down the Iranian government's throat not only would accomplish nothing, but it's the opposite of the Iraqi example he cites.
That's pretty weak stuff, Steve. You're stretching pretty badly.
And you're not, and doing so only to score political points? You were stretching by saying Hanson was calling for Obama to support the protesters. He did no such thing. All Hanson said was that Obama should put out a message regarding anti-democratic violence and follow Iraq's recent election examples. How is that a call for Obama to support the protesters?
And how do you know the mullahs and Ahmadinejad wouldn't approve of anti-democratic violence? History has shown they really don't have a problem inflicting violence on a wide variety of people, including their own. It isn't Hanson making "ridiculous allegations".
Furthermore, what Hanson mocks as a "make it up as we go along" approach could more accurately be described as a "wait until we have more facts" approach.
This administration hasn't done a good job of handling the "wait until we have more facts" approach on many things. I refer to the speech he made Friday that I quoted in my earlier comment.
Yoohoo! SteveAR?
This isn't about your ego until your obtuse yet moot bickering obscures your ability to absorb facts. Again.
Rinse. Repeat.
I'm not sure even Victor Davis Hanson listens to Victor Davis Hanson anymore.
And how do you know the mullahs and Ahmadinejad wouldn't approve of anti-democratic violence? History has shown they really don't have a problem inflicting violence on a wide variety of people, including their own. It isn't Hanson making "ridiculous allegations".
What are you talking about? I fully believe they are capable of anti-democratic violence. They're pretty clearly engaged in it right now. I wasn't questioning whether such violence is occurring, just whether its smart for the U.S. to vocally weigh in on what's going on.
Obama's apparently going to speak at 5:00. I'll be curious what he says. With situations like this there is often a big gulf between what you want to say and what it is smart to say.
As Spencer Ackerman notes, the Obama administration's cautious approach "has the support of Iranian human rights groups, which fear the clerical regime will exploit any perception of U.S. interference to slander the opposition as American puppets — a caustic charge in a nation with a deep memory of U.S. interference in its politics." You are dead right about this and I'm glad Obama realizes this. My GF is half iranian (her dad immigrated). Her family in Iran has basically been echoing this same sentiment..
I have to agree with AL on this. It is hard to see how Obama's weighing in for the opposition helps anyone other than Ahmadinejad.
In fairness to the neo-cons, they took the same self-defeating positions when Bush was president, so I am not sure that the criticism is driven solely by partisanship.
A.L. may be right on the merits, but Hanson did use the expression:
multicultural non-judgementalism
Which means he scored a point for his side. Or something like that.
Please don't tell me that people are actually using "Islamic Street" as a buzzword. "Main Street" was insufferable enough.
The surest way to discredit the Iranian reformers is to allow them to be labelled as "American stooges".
A over-hasty response by the Obama administration might allow that to happen. If the mullahs have fixed an election, they are doing a pretty good job of destroying their own legitimacy. They have been exposed to their own people as dependent on the security forces to stay in power. The resemblance to the Shah's regime must be obvious to any Iranian.
No reason for Obama to give a sucker an even break.
why doesnt the president do something? why doesnt the president leave well enough alone?
no matter what the president is doing the wrong thing according to the right. they bore me.
-pl
In his first post, SteveAR brings up an issue that had actually troubled me earlier--but not anymore.
I'd earlier been skeptical of Mousavi being a Michael Steele--new face, same people. So I find the regime's panicked reaction oddly reassuring, in that it means the change offered by Mousavi might actually be real change.
Or, at least, Ahmedinejad seems to think so.
no matter what the president is doing the wrong thing according to the right
One could almost say that in the right-wing worldview, intelligence and facts are fixed around policy.
At some point, one should see that moral equivalence and multicultural non-judgementalism, however catchy for the moment, are as stupid as they are amoral, and will put the U.S in a foolish, "make it up as we go along" position.
Ah, we have been making it up as we went along. That's what has been getting us into trouble for a very long time. No one buys our nonsense about principles anymore because it's obvious we make up our own rules as we go along and break them any time we feel like it.
As Noam Chomsky puts it so succinctly, these types of arguments make sense only from the point of view that we own the world. That point of view is implicit in most discussions of foreign policy in the American media, and from it we are not only entitled to decide who rules Iran, but we are shirking our responsibility by not forcing our will on them.
And he really suggested they should follow the example of Iraq, a country we invaded and have been occupying and dictating terms to ever since.
i love chomsky! great quote!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home