Iran is not Poland
(updated below--twice)
I know I shouldn't be surprised by it, but the profoundly ignorant criticism emanating from conservatives today over President Obama's handling of events in Iran is infuriating. Take, for example, this deeply oblivious and embarrassingly partisan post by Ed Morrissey. Morrissey compares Obama's reaction to current events in Iran to President Reagan's reaction to political unrest in Poland in 1981. Morrissey observes that, unlike Obama, Reagan expressed vocal support for the Polish reformers. He concludes:
Second, and more importantly, Poland and the United States did not have the sort of antagonistic history that Iran and the United States have. Therefore, when Reagan expressed solidarity with the Polish reformers, it didn't undermine them politically. Iran is a totally different story. Iranians still resent the U.S. (and justifiably so) for its role in orchestrating the 1953 coup that removed Iran's democratically elected leader. In the 1980s, the United States actively supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq regime in the Iran-Iraq war, a war in which millions of Iranians were slaughtered. And our last president labeled Iran a charter member of the Axis of Evil. Suffice it to say, politicians in Iran aren't exactly tripping over themselves to secure the coveted United States endorsement. The last thing Mousavi and his supporters want is for the President of the United States to express his solidarity with their cause. That would play right in to Ahmadinejad's hands.
Just about everyone in the world understands this basic reality except American conservatives. At first I thought they were just feigning ignorance and using the situation to try to score cheap political points. I'm sure that's true of many of them. But there are a number of them--and I would put Ed in this category--who appear genuinely oblivious to the basic diplomatic realities of the world. It simply doesn't occur to Ed that Obama is being careful in what he says precisely because he supports the reformers in Iran and does not want to make the situation more difficult for them, which is exactly what would happen in he followed Ed's advice. The notion of American exceptionalism is so deeply ingrained in some of these folks that they are entirely incapable of seeing how others view the United States or how things that United States leaders say come across to foreign audiences. It reminds me of a statement Liz Cheney made last week while criticizing President Obama. She said:
I know I shouldn't be surprised by it, but the profoundly ignorant criticism emanating from conservatives today over President Obama's handling of events in Iran is infuriating. Take, for example, this deeply oblivious and embarrassingly partisan post by Ed Morrissey. Morrissey compares Obama's reaction to current events in Iran to President Reagan's reaction to political unrest in Poland in 1981. Morrissey observes that, unlike Obama, Reagan expressed vocal support for the Polish reformers. He concludes:
Reagan took a stand on freedom, where Obama sounds desperate for engagement with the forces of oppression. . . .Sorry to step on your hagiography, Ed, but there are some other "big, big differences" that are probably worth pointing out--like, for example, the fact that the current situation in Iran is not even remotely analogous to what happened in Poland. First and most obviously, the government in power in Poland in 1981 was the puppet regime of a foreign power, the Soviet Union. The regime currently in power in Iran is not. That makes a big difference. It creates a completely different dynamic. The puppet regime in Poland couldn't very well accuse the reformers of being the stooges of a foreign power because that's exactly what they themselves were.
It’s the difference between leadership and management. Reagan led, and he inspired the Poles to continue the struggle that eventually helped free half of Europe from iron-fisted domination by the Soviet Union. Obama wants to manage the crisis to keep from having to lead. Big, big difference.
Second, and more importantly, Poland and the United States did not have the sort of antagonistic history that Iran and the United States have. Therefore, when Reagan expressed solidarity with the Polish reformers, it didn't undermine them politically. Iran is a totally different story. Iranians still resent the U.S. (and justifiably so) for its role in orchestrating the 1953 coup that removed Iran's democratically elected leader. In the 1980s, the United States actively supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq regime in the Iran-Iraq war, a war in which millions of Iranians were slaughtered. And our last president labeled Iran a charter member of the Axis of Evil. Suffice it to say, politicians in Iran aren't exactly tripping over themselves to secure the coveted United States endorsement. The last thing Mousavi and his supporters want is for the President of the United States to express his solidarity with their cause. That would play right in to Ahmadinejad's hands.
Just about everyone in the world understands this basic reality except American conservatives. At first I thought they were just feigning ignorance and using the situation to try to score cheap political points. I'm sure that's true of many of them. But there are a number of them--and I would put Ed in this category--who appear genuinely oblivious to the basic diplomatic realities of the world. It simply doesn't occur to Ed that Obama is being careful in what he says precisely because he supports the reformers in Iran and does not want to make the situation more difficult for them, which is exactly what would happen in he followed Ed's advice. The notion of American exceptionalism is so deeply ingrained in some of these folks that they are entirely incapable of seeing how others view the United States or how things that United States leaders say come across to foreign audiences. It reminds me of a statement Liz Cheney made last week while criticizing President Obama. She said:
We've now seen several different occasions when [Obama]'s been on the international trips, where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe unequivocally, unapologetically, America is the best nation that ever existed in history, and clearly that exists today.' Instead we've seen him do what we saw him do in the speech in Cairo, which is sort of, 'on one hand this, on the other hand that,' and then attempt to put himself sort of above it all. I think that troubles people.It apparently hasn't occurred to Cheney that going around the world saying "we're better than you" is not the most effective form of diplomacy. It's the same cultural and historical obliviousness, the same inability to comprehend that people in other countries might have genuinely held grievances with the United States, that leads people like Morrissey to condemn President Obama for failing to express his solidarity with the reformers in Iran--even though such an expression of solidarity is the last thing that those reformers want or need.
UPDATE: Hilzoy and I are apparently on the same wavelength because she wrote virtually the same post and posted it at almost exactly the same time. Weird. Go read her post, too.
UPDATE II: As is often the case on the right, nearly everyone is now trumpeting the same inane criticism. Robert Kagan writes that "Obama objectively ha[s] no use for [Mousavi] or his followers" and that his "goal" now is "to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it." Andy McCarthy writes that what Obama wants is to "overlook this most recent atrocity and go on with business as usual: empowering this terrorist regime at the expense of American national interests and the desperate hopes of Iranians who cannot overthrow the mullahs without our help." Jonah Goldberg cluelessly wonders why Obama seems so indifferent to what's happening in Iran. And in the most laughably incoherent post of all, Victor Davis Hanson all but acknowledges that meddling in the situation in Iran would be counterproductive but then argues that "everyone meddles in everyone else's elections" and therefore it's "shameful" and "embarrassing" that Obama isn't expressing his support for the reformers (in all seriousness, I'm beginning to think there's something really wrong with Hanson; his level of coherence has plummeted dramatically).
I don't know if its a product of extreme partisanship clouding their mental faculties or whether this is all cynical point-scoring, but I find it baffling that anyone who pays any attention to politics or world events could honestly think that there is anyone in the current administration (at the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon, etc.) who isn't rooting for the reformers in Iran. The notion that Obama just wants everything to settle down over there so that he can begin his negotiations with Ahmadinejad is just ludicrous in the extreme. He would infinitely prefer that the current uprising lead to the installment of a more moderate, reformist regime in Iran. That would make one of his most difficult foreign policy tasks a little easier; it would buy him time and political cover to pursue aggressive diplomacy and would make unilateral Israeli military action less likely. Of course he wants the reformers to succeed. He's just smart enough to know that he won't be helping them by publicly expressing his solidarity with their cause.
Obama is by no means a perfect president. Indeed, on issues like gay rights and civil liberties, he has in many ways been disappointing. But I cannot begin to express how grateful I am on days like this that he is president and not someone like John McCain, who, based on his statements yesterday, would have done exactly the wrong thing. I'm also grateful that the morons and hacks at the National Review have absolutely no input into the situation.
posted by A.L. at 10:40 PM
50 Comments:
Great post. I am simply amazed at sheer stupidity and idiocy of people like Ed. Your points are so true and are so obvious that one has to be either an idiot or a dishonest partisan not to agree.
Some people might say that Ed goes too far when he writes "Obama sounds desperate for engagement with the forces of oppression".
Is Obama looking for ways to cozy up with vicious ruffians? Perhaps so. Six montghs ago Michael Barone described our current administration as a "thugocracy" in-waiting, so it makes sense that Obama would seek out the compay of like-minded bully boys.
I'm really surprised that Anonymous Liberal is having such a hard time grasping the concepts here. He should read the Washington Times, watch Fox News, and listen to Sean Hannity. That way he'll learn THE TRUTH.
If you are still having a problem with Ed's case, how about this bit of reasoning: IRAN and POLAND both are spelled with two vowels. There's your similarity, mister-smarty-anonymous-liberal-pants!
It is interesting the analogies people find.
Tiananmen Square, 1989.
Eastern Europe, 1989.
Poland, 1981.
Iran, 1979.
Even Iran, 1953.
Another one keeps turning over in my head.
Hungary, 1956.
I have no memory of the even, which happened before I was born. (And, I suspect, before most commentators finding analogies were born). But what comes to my mind is that the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 began as a revolt on behalf of a reformist Communist -- hardly a shining exemplar of liberty, but the best they had within the limits of the system as it existed. But once the crisis began, things became extremely fluid, very fast and soon the whole system was being challenged.
The analogy is flawed, obviously. The Communist government of Hungary, like all East European Communist government, was a profoundly artificial creation, entirely dependent on a foreign power. As such, it was not willing or able to resort to force in its own defense -- but that foreign power was. The government of Iran knows no foreign power will intervene on its behalf. Doubtless that makes it more willing to use force to hold onto power.
We'll see what happens. I am hoping for the best, but another lesson here (see Poland, 1981, Tianenmen Square, 1989) is that stories like this don't always have a happy ending.
Ukraine a couple of years ago had an "Orange Revolution" where continuous demonstrations over a stolen election brought about peaceful change. Both America and the EU supported the forces of opposition. The same thing happened in Serbia when Slobodan Milosovic was toppled over a stolen election. The EU and the US also supported the insurgents there, but covertly.
Serbia might be the best analogy because so soon after the Kosovo war, NATO countries were not popular. But even then, there was a broad swathe of Serbian support for joining the EU. There is no country where both the corrupt regime and the democratic opposition are largely anti-US. Moussavi is more of a Mossadeq than a Yeltsin.
From my own reading, the best that might be obtained here is the fall of Khamenei and his replacement by a moderate like Rafsanjani who would order a new election. Rafsanjani is a sworn enemy of Ahmedinajad, and would cause untold problems for the President if he became Supreme Leader.
Obama and the US administration should continue to follow its sensible course of calling for peaceful democratic change.
A question: do the grievances of the American people have against past actions by the Iranian government matter? After all, there was the illegal taking of the U.S. embassy (which under normal circumstances would be considered an act of war) and the kidnapping of Americans who worked there, and which the Iranian government justified because of what happened in 1953. Did what happened then override the grievances all Americans have against every act of violence the Iranian government perpetrated against the U.S. over the past 30 years?
Steve,
I have no idea what point you think you're making. I never suggested that Americans couldn't have legitimate greivances with Iran (nor do I see how that's relevant to the discussion). I also wasn't suggesting that past U.S. action "justified" any kind of response on Iran's part. My point was simply that as a matter of descriptive reality, the United States is not popular in Iran--and for reasons that easy to understand.
This isn't about us. It's not about who is "better". The only relevant question is what should we be doing right now in order to increase the likelihood of a good outcome in Iran. And the obvious answer to that question is not to do what the Ed Morrisseys of the world are saying we should do.
Steve, Steve, Steve. If you knew how to think critically, you would understand that there are more than a few people in Iran who are neither fans of the current Mullah regime OR the United States. Let's face it, the US hasn't given even moderate Iranians much of a reason to view our country with either trust or admiration.
Yes, the 1979 hostage crisis was very bad. However, providing overt military and financial support to Saddam Hussein's 1980's invasion of Iran was much worse. 52 Americans who were held hostage compared to MILLIONS of Iranians who were killed by OUR weapons, it's not much of a comparison. Hell, Ollie North on orders from Reagan SELLING weapons to the Iranians during that same war was just the icing on the cake when it came to the whole "trust issue".
Just remember, Steve-O, if your side got their way and launched a massive military attack on Iran, then you would be advocating killing many of the same protesters you're heroically sticking up for now.
Great Post, A.L.
I'd only add that what Obama has accomplished to establish our "greatness," at least in some quarters, is to lead by example. If we appear to be the shining city on the hill, then we don't need to preach it to anyone.
Contrast that to Bush, who preached freedom ad nauseum but made us look like blithering hypocrites by undermining actual freedoms home and abroad. That's why so many in the Middle East and the rest of the world grew to hate us--they were smart enough to see that Bush was a colossal hypocrite.
A.L.,
You use of grievances is pointless. Most of the Iranian people weren't even alive in 1953, and barely remember the Shah and U.S. support of him. All that they know of that period is what the mullahs have decided is the history, even if the "history" the mullahs present is flawed (which is also true in your case; Mosaddeq wasn't democratically elected, but voted in by the lower parliament at the time, and installed twice by the Shah).
Even our support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war didn't just come out of the blue, but as a result of what the Iranian government did to the U.S., and has been doing to us over the last 30 years. Additionally, the U.S. did drop support of Hussein long before the war ended.
Also, George W. Bush always addressed the Iranian people as separate and distinct from the Iranian government, even while he was including the Iranian government as part of the "Axis of Evil". Considering the amount of death and destruction the Iranian government has supported and financed over the past 30 years against the U.S., was Bush wrong? The Iranian people may not see it that way, but that is probably due to how the mullahs have presented the "facts" to the people, much like the puppets of the Polish government in 1981 used to present. And it doesn't, as you seem to assert, negate why the U.S. government has acted in the way it's had against the Iranian government over the past 30 years. And it isn't as if the Iranian people aren't all that enthralled with the mullahs anyway.
Your own hagiography is absolutely wrong. While its true that Poland was a puppet under a foreign regime, which isn't the case in Iran, the fact is that Iran's "democracy" is a puppet of a brutal theocratic oligarchy. In that regards, using Poland as an analogy isn't all that much of a stretch. Not only that, all the so-called reformers in Iran are also puppets of the same brutal theocratic oligarchy.
It's a matter of how much political strength the U.S. should project, and Obama (at least at the time Morrissey wrote his piece) had shown zero strength. Even Merkel and Sarkozy didn't have a problem making strong statements as compared to Obama. Since Morrissey's post, his blog partner at Hot Air put out a post that was not nearly as critical as Morrissey, and isn't really very critical at all. But that was simply because Obama hadn't made the statement when Morrissey wrote his post. Let me add that the later post at Hot Air came out long before you wrote this post criticizing Morrissey.
Bill:
Just remember, Steve-O, if your side got their way and launched a massive military attack on Iran...
My side has never advocated a "massive military attack" on Iran. What has been advocated is a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, nothing more. That's much different than the false notion you present.
Steve, I know it's pointless explaining this to you, but you are, as usual conflating descriptive observations with normative ones. Whether or not you think the Iranian people are justified in not liking the United States, the fact of the matter is that they do. The how or why isn't even all that relevant. The U.S. is not popular in Iran, which is why Mousavi and the reformers there do not want the U.S. to vocally support them. If they did, we would.
Merkel and Sarkozy are in a different situation. They are not the leaders of the U.S. Germany and France don't carry the same significance or meaning in Iran as the United States does. So they have the latitude to be more vocal while not undermining the reformers.
What is it about conservatism that makes them nostalgic for the freaking Shah of Iran? I love the "who cares, 1953 was a long time ago" tact taken by the same people who view Reagan blusterings from the early 1980's as being historically applicable in all current events.
Steve in particular literally seems to utterly disbelieve that normal Iranian citizens are actually capable of disliking their dictatorship while simultaneously having legitimate historical grievances against the United States.
Either way, Steve has missed the crucial point. Not being in favor of the conservative "cure" does not necessarily mean that one is in favor of the "disease".
Steve, your side has advocated a massive attack on the nuclear facilities, many of which happen to be in or near heavily populated Iranian cities. No one is even particularly sure that such facilities could actually be destroyed with air strikes, and no conservative has bothered to consider either innocent Iranian casualities, or even the possibility that Russia might enter the conflict on the side of the Iranians. Nah...conservatives never ever ever think that US military action could ever have an unintended side effect. Shock and Awe, motherfucker.
A.L.:
The U.S. is not popular in Iran, which is why Mousavi and the reformers there do not want the U.S. to vocally support them.
That isn't the point. Merkel and Sarkozy didn't come out in support of the protesters either, but strongly critical of what they see as problems with the election. There is nothing partisan about that, and there would be nothing wrong had Obama come out earlier saying the same thing. Every post you cite highlights the same exact thing, not that Obama come out as a supporter of the protesters or Mousavi. Strong criticism of the way the Iranian government handled the elections wouldn't be partisan.
You did the same thing in your previous post on VDH, putting words in Hanson's mouth that he didn't make. Same here. Additionally, you assume Obama and members of the administration would rather work with a new Iranian government, despite the fact that the Obama administration hasn't demonstrated any such notion whatsoever. But as long as we're working on assumptions, I assume Obama does want a quiet Iran, and is willing to work with striking even a bad deal with Ahmadinejad and the mullahs so that he can concentrate on further abusing the American economy.
SteveAR-
C'mon. you seem to accept the point that we are not popular in Iran. You seem to also accept this is because of our interference with a quasi-democratic revolution in the 1950's.
In all honesty, you really think attacking the "results" or conduct of an election in Iran, considering our past history in tweaking who is in power in Iran would not be a boon to Ahmadinejad? You really don't think he would hit his opponents over the head with "See, the Americans want their stooge Mousavi in power over what the vast majority of Iranians want - me!" That's either naivete or intentional denial of reality.
Any attack on the election from the US helps Ahmadinejad. Obama has played it rather smart so far, though I would say even less if I were him. It has given Ahmadinejad less ammo than he would otherwise have.
There's one other angle you haven't considered here. The neo-cons want the Iranian moderate opposition to fail. Keeping Ahmadinejad in power allows them to keep their base inflamed and, in their warped view, makes their lust for war more plausible.
"There's one other angle you haven't considered here. The neo-cons want the Iranian moderate opposition to fail. Keeping Ahmadinejad in power allows them to keep their base inflamed and, in their warped view, makes their lust for war more plausible."
We have a winner!
The key to understanding conservatives is fairly simple. They actually BELIEVE their spin.
Obama is a celebrity lightweight, so thus the teleprompter silliness. Obama is a socialist, so all his policies are clearly redistributionist. Obama is an anti-war lefty, so thus the military can't possibly respect him. And so on.
The truth in these claims isn't in the facts, but rather that conservatives believe the Repub spin from the last election. It's wasn't just political games; it's empirically true. That's the key to understanding this.
nerpzillicus:
C'mon. you seem to accept the point that we are not popular in Iran. You seem to also accept this is because of our interference with a quasi-democratic revolution in the 1950's.
I accept that we aren't popular in Iran. The whole "our interference...in the 1950's" is, however, nothing more than a ridiculous excuse, for reasons I've cited earlier. The Iranian government already used that excuse 30 years ago. It no longer applies, especially as they have helped murder hundreds upon hundreds of Americans over the last 30 years. And before you cite U.S. support of Saddam Hussein, it was the U.S. that got rid of Saddam Hussein, something the Iranians couldn't bother with over the last 20+ years; even after getting rid of him, the Iranians, especially Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, couldn't resist their illegal meddling in Iraqi affairs and helping murder U.S. soldiers there.
Obama has played it rather smart so far, though I would say even less if I were him.
The Iranian government, especially Ahmadinejad, would say Obama blows his nose in a way that is an insult to their Islam in order to justify themselves. So you can forget the excuse angle.
Let me add this. Ahmedinejad and the mullahs would use anything positive the U.S. might say or do with regards to Israel and Jews in order to justify their actions. This is something that was seen before during the last century.
Would you, if you were Obama, try to counter outright lies about the U.S. that come from the Iranian government, or would you remain quiet because it is "smart"?
I'm wondering what the chances are that the Obama administration or the CIA or someone in Washington is actually in contact with the Iranian opposition, and that the course of action Obama is taking here has been discussed and coordinated with them. Does anyone have any insight into this?
From one Steve to another:
SteveAR: I fail to see what actual purpose these statements by Obama that you urge will achieve, other than bolstering our own moral self esteem. Can you lay out a specific scenario by which you foresee Obama's weighing in decisively on the part of the Iranian opposition actually bringing about the end of the regime, or even contributing to its weakness?
Anonymous Liberal,
Don't you think that a fair argument can be made that Obama has already built up enough credibility in the Middle East by distancing himself from the unpopular policies of the U.S. and extended an open hand to the Iranians and U.S. that he is UNIQUELY qualified to be someone who CAN stand with the anti Ahmadinejad protestors?
How is that an anti liberal position?
By ignoring them while simultaneously reaching out to Ahmadinejad it sends all the wrong signals.
Just about everyone in the world understands this basic reality except American conservatives...
Watching many conservatives use the events in Iran to bash Obama is deeply embarrassing. That said, I would like to point out that at least some on the political right endorse the quiet approach:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/06/16/why-obama-should-stay-silent-on-iran/
SteveAR-
This is simply getting incoherent. If you want Ahmadinejad out, you want Mousavi to win. If you wnat Mousavi to win, you want the Iranian people to continue the pressure on the government - meaning you want the people on Mousavi's side. If Mosuavi can be slandered as a stooge of the US, and the US is not popular, the last thing you want to do is give any grounds for that slander to hold water. So why can't you just admit, this one time, Obama is probably handling this right?
As to the '53 coup being an excuse - well, it could be an excuse for the government to do bad things, but do you seriously think people who were forced to endure 25 more years of the Shah (and indeed, 30 years of the Islamic Republic) should just let it go that we overthrew their government to protect BP's bottom line? I mean, you have shown you are unhappy about things that occurred in the past, but the Iranians don't have a right to be angry with us? Is there a statute of limitations on these things? Will you let go of Roe v Wade in twenty more years?
Further, your argument seems to be two wrongs make a right (we overthrew their government, they took hostages, it's all good) (although, more accurately, you still seem to think the US can be upset about bad things the Iranians have done, but they need to get over their gripes with us).
Would you, if you were Obama, try to counter outright lies about the U.S. that come from the Iranian government, or would you remain quiet because it is "smart"?
I would remain quiet. The Iranian people are possibly the most pro-western people in the Middle East. They are well-educated, and have a rather homogeneous country that should not break into sectarian lines. I would cross my fingers that by not causing any harm to the current movement, a crazy guy will be kicked out of office, or maybe the even the guardian counsel will come down, without firing a shot. If not, we'll simply be in the same place we already were.
Smart warfare requires letting your enemy defeat itself. Osama bin Laden achieved this with his tape in the 2004 election, and Khameni is doing it to himself now. He's trying to walk back his original "divine assessment", in the hopes that too much damage hasn't already been done. Let's not help him walk that back, and hope the Iranians can get back what they should have had back in 1953.
Steve, so you are refusing to let the Iranians for helping "murder hundreds and hundreds of Americans" but are very quick to absolve the US for helping kill millions and millions of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War.
It is irrelevant that we double crossed Saddam eventually, there is some blood on our hands there, and you are either naive or willfully ignorant to even imply that the Iranians should let us off the hook for that.
I do find it sort of pathetically hilarious that the neocons and their quislings like Steve are arguing that the Iranians have really no right to invoke the past incidents with the US while simultaneously arguing FOR a military strike against Iran based largely on events of nearly 30 years ago.
Seriously, Steve, any military attack on Iran would trigger a war that would DWARF the current operations in Iraq/Afghanistan. We simply do not have the military resources to fight a substantially larger conflict in a third theater, especially with an all-volunteer military.
Moreover, the US certainly is in no position to withstand other countries jumping in on the side of Iran, either militarily or in the form of oil embargoes. Hell, all China would have to do in response would be to turn off the loan machine for a month. Not to mention a badly overstretched US military would be of no use if N. Korea decided to do something stupid or China wanted Taiwan back or some such.
But, nope, you clowns don't ever think about the big picture when you beat the drums of war. You sing "bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran", jerk off to old videos of the Gipper, and simply assume that our mighty military and excessive hubristic pride in ourselves will somehow insulate us from the consequences of our own actions.
The whole "our interference...in the 1950's" is, however, nothing more than a ridiculous excuse
If it were up to SteveAR to decide that would be one thing, but this... is not about SteveAR until SteveAR makes incoherent, willfully ignorant and/or incoherent statements here to reinforce his need for the world to revolve around SteveAR.
What does SteveAR have to contribute except subterfuge?
nerpzillicus:
This is simply getting incoherent. If you want Ahmadinejad out, you want Mousavi to win. If you wnat Mousavi to win, you want the Iranian people to continue the pressure on the government - meaning you want the people on Mousavi's side. If Mosuavi can be slandered as a stooge of the US, and the US is not popular, the last thing you want to do is give any grounds for that slander to hold water. So why can't you just admit, this one time, Obama is probably handling this right?
Yes, and you can stop adding to the incoherency.
As I mentioned, Obama making a strong statement about the election problems isn't partisan, even if the Iranians try to spin it so. If you want to believe the Iranians, that's your problem, and is not indicative of who I want or don't want as President of Iran.
If the leader of the free world can't make a strong statement about freedom, then what the hell kind leadership is that? And if you noticed, I did link to another post at Hot Air that A.L. didn't seem to read that was much more positive of what Obama said yesterday, which, by the way, came out after Morrissey's post (meaning Obama hadn't said anything substantial by the time Morrissey wrote his post).
Speaking of incoherent:
As to the '53 coup being an excuse - well, it could be an excuse for the government to do bad things, but do you seriously think people who were forced to endure 25 more years of the Shah (and indeed, 30 years of the Islamic Republic) should just let it go that we overthrew their government to protect BP's bottom line?
You forget that most of the people of Iran weren't even alive in 1953, which is something that is common knowledge. So how could people know what they endured if they didn't live it? Something else; BP's bottom line wasn't something the Iranian government to take by force (which is what Mosaddeq attempted to do). It was private property, even if it was in Iran. What's interesting is that the American left also believes that the government can take private property from one private party (and compensate that party unjustly) and directly give it to some other private party, despite the fact that the right to private property is guaranteed by the 5th Amendment. If you don't believe me, it was the liberal wing of the Supreme Court that endorsed it in the wholly unconstitutional Kelo decision.
I would remain quiet. The Iranian people are possibly the most pro-western people in the Middle East. They are well-educated, and have a rather homogeneous country that should not break into sectarian lines. I would cross my fingers that by not causing any harm to the current movement, a crazy guy will be kicked out of office, or maybe the even the guardian counsel will come down, without firing a shot. If not, we'll simply be in the same place we already were.
I could say that you wanting to be quiet and you're endorsement of Obama's lack of a strong statement is indicative of you wanting Ahmadinejad remaining as President. Would I be right, or is that as ridiculous a premise as the one you made?
Besides, we wouldn't be in the same place as we were, as if events remain static. We have a brutal theocratic oligarchy, a government five previous Presidents refused to recognize, getting ever closer to having nuclear weapons, something that is a direct threat to our national security. And we have a President who seems to be willing to recognize that government and is less troubled about that government having nuclear weapons than any other President in the last 30 years. That should be troubling to every American.
It turns out it didn't matter what Obama said. The Iranian government is accusing the U.S. of meddling anyway.
As they say, no good deed ever goes unpunished.
Steve, so what you're saying is that if a country decides to nationalize something, that the US is then justified in simply overthrowing their government?
Let's ask you a direct question, Steve. No changing of the subject is allowed. No introduction of talking points (seriously, twit, Kelo?)
Do you feel that the US should military attack or even invade Iran? Yes or no.
I love your "making a strong statement about freedom" drivel, Steve. Exactly how many dictators has the US propped up or supported over the years in the name of..ahem.."freedom"? Hmm...the Shah, Samoza, Marcos, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, the Saudi Royal family, the Kuwati Royal Family, South Africa, Egypt, Indonesia, Cambodia, South Vietnam, pre-1980's South Korea, etc. etc. etc.
The US has shown a great willingness to let people live in chains in order for us to pretend that we are the beacons of "freedom".
Still waiting for your yes or no about invading Iran.
Bill:
Steve, so what you're saying is that if a country decides to nationalize something, that the US is then justified in simply overthrowing their government?
Using that strawman again, ain't you?
Do you feel that the US should military attack or even invade Iran? Yes or no.
I think the U.S. should do everything to keep Iran, as it is governed today, from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons.
However, I don't believe a full-scale invasion is the right way to deal with Iran, mostly because we don't need to to keep them from acquiring such weapons.
Steve,
Strawman? Please. You need to cite a better reason for the US to orchestrate a coup of the Iranian government other than nationalizing the oil industry.
You say that the US should do everything it can to keep the current Iranian government from acquiring nuclear weapons.
But then you say "However, I don't believe a full-scale invasion is the right way to deal with Iran, mostly because we don't need to to keep them from acquiring such weapons."
Leaving aside the incoherent last sentence there, you appear to say that a full scale invasion would not be the right way to deal with the situation. Since you appear to have little faith in diplomacy, would it be fair to say that you are advocating for a military strike? Just what EXACTLY do you think would be the immediate aftermath of a military strike on Iran? Have you stopped to consider that the Iraqi Shias aren't going to particularly thrilled with us, potentially unravelling the rather phony democracy we established there? Have you bothered to consider that the not entirely small Iranian military would react to such a strike by simply pouring over the border into Iraq? Sure, technically we wouldn't be invading Iran, but we'd be in a full shooting war with them anyway. That takes us full circle back to the original problem of fighting on multiple fronts with an all-volunteer army funded primarily through loans from China.
Finally, don't you think after nearly a decade of war, that the US populace would not really support starting a third war without actually winning the first two.
Anonymous (3:23pm):
Since you appear to have little faith in diplomacy, would it be fair to say that you are advocating for a military strike?
Leaving me out of it for a minute, why do you think the U.S. government hasn't had any faith in diplomacy in its dealings with the Iranian government over the past 30 years, and more especially, the last 6 years? Isn't it possible that it could be that the Iranian government has been consistently untrustworthy as a negotiating partner with everybody (the U.S., the Europeans, the IAEA, the UN, etc.)? I mean their goal is set; they want nuclear power, and by extension, nuclear weapons, and they want to support terrorists. In all of their negotiations, they haven't done anything to change either item, which leads someone in the real world to believe that the Iranian government hasn't earned that trust. Isn't trust important for negotiations to be successful?
It was Senator McCain's hero, TR, who said 'Speak softly and carry a big stick.'
The right's m.o. for Iran is 'Beat your chest and harangue 'em about democracy, then order up a surgical airstrike and hope for the best.'
Jeesh, Steve. For the umpteenth time, are you in favor of a military strike against Iran. If so, please explain how such an action by the US would NOT result in a full on shooting war between the US and Iran. Such a war could easily have millions of causaulties. Such a war WILL cost trillions of dollars.
It's funny that when the people are brown, such concepts as "containment" are thrown out the window in favor of "bomb bomb bomb". When the people are Russians, the ideas of ATTACKING them seemed incredibly foolish and was rarely ever entertained.
It makes NO DIFF if it's Mousavi or Ajad.
PERIOD.
As long as the Guardian Council exists only a French revolution there can change the dynamic of the IRGC, Mullahs, Basij, Hojatieh.
It is THAT which Obama should be working towards, either from a cynical policy viewpoint, OR one of enlightenment esp. for women who don't wish to be compelled to yadda yadda
As for no history of american and russian enmity in a comparison of Poland (which I don't believe apt, BTW)..
American and Russian pilots were KILLING each other from 50-53 in F-86's and MIG-15's, our subs were relentless, in 1948, well, you should know, and in 1962 while russian crews brought down americans over Cuba, our destroyers were ready and in position with Russian subs who were in the same position as they approached each other with a mind towards war, yet Reagan called them the evil empire, joked that the bombs were on the way, and we are all none the worse for it. And let's NOT forget the small detail of american troops occupying Russia after WW1 to try to get rid of the Reds, eh?
But yet something as is OBVIOUS form the comments here wonders if the Iranians are the same..wonders the main question....
CAN THEY BE DETERRED?
Better a french revolution and an ending for Khamenei like Mussolini, and ending for Mesbah Yazdi and Jannati like our old friend in Romania.
Otherwise it won't matter whether we or Israel take action. The result will be the same... ALL OUT REGIONAL WAR, action by Hizballah against the USA - HERE.
Bill:
For the umpteenth time, are you in favor of a military strike against Iran. If so, please explain how such an action by the US would NOT result in a full on shooting war between the US and Iran.
Sure, against their nuke facilities. It worked for Israel 28 years ago when they hit Iraq. No war was started, and there were minimal casualties on the Iraqi side.
The notion that Obama just wants everything to settle down over there so that he can begin his negotiations with Ahmadinejad is just ludicrous in the extreme. He would infinitely prefer that the current uprising lead to the installment of a more moderate, reformist regime in Iran. That would make one of his most difficult foreign policy tasks a little easier; it would buy him time and political cover to pursue aggressive diplomacy and would make unilateral Israeli military action less likely.
The last thing the neocons or the AIPAC warmongers want is a moderate, even democratic, government that would have to be accepted as legitimate despite not being aligned with our interests, or Israel's. Any form of government, no matter how brutal and totalitarian, is just fine as long as it serves the interests of the American empire and multinational corporations. If they can't have that, then it is much better to have a bunch of raving extremists and theocrats to point fingers at, call names and demand regime change by any means. A moderate Iranian government that the U.S. and Israel would have to recognize and negotiate with, rather than bomb at will, is the stuff of neocon nightmares.
This isn't to say that everyone spewing the nonsense understand this. For most of them, far fewer neurons are involved than would be required for such deliberate strategy and it's more likely just the usual reflexive parroting.
SteveAR wrote: " The Iranian government already used that excuse 30 years ago."
You're obsessed with what Iranians did to Americans 30 years ago. So what's so outlandish of Iranians 30 years ago being obsessed with something we did to them 30 years before that?
Also, the Shah wasn't something we did to Iran in 1953 and then ended, it's something that lasted for nearly 30 years. We gave them 30 years of dictatorship and torture.
So, no, it makes perfect sense that Iranians would still be pissed about our role in 1953.
After all, you're pissed about things that didn't even effect you.
Bill:
It's funny that when the people are brown, such concepts as "containment" are thrown out the window in favor of "bomb bomb bomb". When the people are Russians, the ideas of ATTACKING them seemed incredibly foolish and was rarely ever entertained.
Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill. You forget that the Russians had nukes already, which was the reason for the containment, not racism. Plus, India and Pakistan (two countries whom you would probably contain "brown people", something I wouldn't do) have nukes, and nobody is calling to bomb them (with the exception when we attack Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan). So you can put away the race card because that doesn't wash.
Jon H:
You're obsessed with what Iranians did to Americans 30 years ago.
Maybe you should read A.L.'s post again. He brought it up, not me.
SteveAR wrote: "why do you think the U.S. government hasn't had any faith in diplomacy in its dealings with the Iranian government over the past 30 years"
We had enough faith in them to sell them weapons.
"CAN THEY BE DETERRED?"
Well, if they couldn't be deterred, they'd probably also have flattened the protesters with tanks pretty soon after the protests start.
They haven't. Which suggests that the ruling powers aren't completely without concern for the populace.
Ergo, if they aren't willing to subject their citizens to tank treads, they're also not willing to subject their citizens to nuclear annihilation.
Thus, you are just a fear-eaten coward.
Steve, for starters, the name is BIFF McHugeLarge, not Bill.
Second. It's comical to cite the Israeli attack 28 years ago against Iraq that a military strike in Iran NOW would be both successful and have no unintended blowback. That sort of thinking reminds me of the thought process that said that the Iraqis rolled over in 1991, so there would be no possibility that they would fight back in 2003.
Gotta give it up to you guys. On one hand, you portray Al Queda or Islamic extremists as so all-powerful, all-encompassing, that anything and everything the US does is appropriate. Amazingly enough, our portrayal of our "enemy" as omnipotent evil dissipates when it comes time to attack, and then the stance is "our military is so strong, we can't possibly get hurt, let alone suffer any consequences as a result of the attack".
Are any of you war-hawk clowns willing to enlist yourself? Are any of you in favor of food, dry good, gasoline, and metals rationing in order for "our boys" to be fully equipped. As much as neocons want other people to die for their beliefs, they certainly have shown an unwillingness to make any sacrifices themselves.
Christ Steve, where would anyone get the idea that the US would want to bomb INDIA for going nuclear?
The point that you missed is that the US willingness to use military force FIRST seems to run parallel with the skin color of the people they are bombing.
Since 1945, can you name a single predominantly caucasian country that the US attacked? Before you whip out "Serbia", might I remind you that the majority of the Republican leadership at the time vehemently opposed our involvement in that operation, fearing a quagmire and decades of nation-building. Never mind that there are still US troops there...
Biff:
Steve, for starters, the name is BIFF McHugeLarge, not Bill.
My apologies.
Second. It's comical to cite the Israeli attack 28 years ago against Iraq that a military strike in Iran NOW would be both successful and have no unintended blowback.
I didn't say it wouldn't have unintended consequences. But that would have to be weighed against the consequences of the current Iranian theocratic oligarghy having nukes. They wouldn't even have to use nukes themselves, but pass them on to their puppets in Hezbollah and Hamas. What is comical (tragic, really) is that allowing the theocratic oligarchy to have nukes wouldn't have it's own unintended consequences, especially on the U.S., because there would be plenty of consequences. I think Ahmadinejad has made some of those consequences plain.
Christ Steve, where would anyone get the idea that the US would want to bomb INDIA for going nuclear?
You did.
The point that you missed is that the US willingness to use military force FIRST seems to run parallel with the skin color of the people they are bombing.
The point you don't get is that U.S. willingness to use force first (which isn't the case since we haven't always used force; our dealings with Iran is an apt example, considering they haven't been bombed yet) might actually have something to do with political considerations that have nothing to do with skin color.
Since 1945, can you name a single predominantly caucasian country that the US attacked?
Gee, maybe it's because "caucasian countries" like Germany (and West Germany before unification), France, Britain, Switzerland, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and all of the other "caucasian countries" haven't threatened our national security since 1945. How about that?
Plus, if I remember correctly, the U.S. was supplying the Afghanis with Stinger missiles back in the 1980s so that they could shoot down Soviet aircraft. Manned by people from a "caucasian country". Kind of undercuts your theory, doesn't it?
It's certainly a lot harder convincing people to support a war against Iran based on the "they might do this, this might happen" line of argument, especially considering the "they might do this, this might happen" PR line with the Iraq War turned out to be a big pile of bullshit.
Steve, you are being willfully ignorant if you don't think that race and ethnicity factor into how the US deals with threats, either real or perceived. Even a cursory look at WWII propoganda will demonstrate that the US propoganda effort against Japan certainly relied on crude racial stereotypes, as opposed to the anti-Nazi posters which mostly dealt with Hitler. Which nationality was rounded up and thrown into camps, was it German-Americans? No. Why, it was Japanese-Americans. How is it that both Japan and Germany were at war with us, potentially threatening our liberty, but the US rounded up the YELLOW people and not the white?
The key to ginning up war support is to portray the "enemy" as not only a threat, but as an "other". An "other" to be feared. Not being white makes it a lot easier to be an enemy in the eyes of the American people, and Steve, you are a moron if you can't see that.
As for your assertion that attacking Iran wouldn't have unintended consequences, you certainly NEVER made that position clear. A military attack against Iran would most assuredly plunge the US into a third war, and there would be the potential for MANY casualties. I do not believe that the neo-con war hawks have ever been honest with their sheep followers about this. After all, with our shock and awe, we'll make quick work of them darn Iranians.
Eventually, we'll pull one attack too many, and the world will turn its back on us, and we'll be viewed as lovingly as South Africa.
stevear:
a usual reminder- chess not checkers.
rinse. repeat.
So here we are, reading yet another thread in which SteveAR baits AL's readers into a frustratingly circular debate. Yep, Lucy keeps holding that football, and there seems to be no shortage of Charlie Browns ready to take aim. I'm not complaining - I love this stuff and I find that Steve's (deliberately) incoherent comments help me sort out my own thoughts (he's like an inverse logical/moral compass). Still, the repetition is pretty funny. As SteveAR himself quoted - "those who do not learn from history..." I can't help wondering if he was hinting there, what with the obvious Godwin violation and all.
No doubt SteveAr agrees that the Iranian opposition must be delighted to have the endorsement of the beloved Bob Kagan as well as John "Bomb Bomb Bomb" McCain.
Yeah - those guys are luved on the Iranian street.
And Obama - well he just loves the Mullahs and their jive.
AL - it's clown-ocracy on the other side
Biff:
It's certainly a lot harder convincing people to support a war against Iran based on the "they might do this, this might happen" line of argument, especially considering the "they might do this, this might happen" PR line with the Iraq War turned out to be a big pile of bullshit.
That's a valid argument considering that the bullshit was the fault of Saddam Hussein (he hoodwinked everyone). But does that mean that the current Iranian government should be allowed to have (by developing them or acquiring them) nuclear weapons? Obama has said he also doesn't want the Iranian government to have nuclear weapons; but everything he's done, just as Bush before him, is allowing the Iranian government to get ever closer to nuclear weapons. So does Obama really care about this Iranian government, the government cracking down harshly on dissidents, and proven to be completely untrustworthy in diplomacy, actually having nuclear weapons? That is the question that has to be answered, along with why would he say one thing and is doing something else.
Steve, you are being willfully ignorant if you don't think that race and ethnicity factor into how the US deals with threats, either real or perceived. Even a cursory look at WWII propoganda will demonstrate that the US propoganda effort against Japan certainly relied on crude racial stereotypes, as opposed to the anti-Nazi posters which mostly dealt with Hitler. Which nationality was rounded up and thrown into camps, was it German-Americans?
Actually, there were some Germans and Italians thrown into the camps as well, just not in nearly the numbers as were Japanese-Americans.
Here's the other thing about that. It was Democrat FDR, via an executive order, that put those Japanese-Americans into those camps, and a majority on the Supreme Court, all hand-picked by FDR, who said it was constitutional (Korematsu). Do you know the number of American Arabs and American Muslims that Republican Bush had detained for any length of time since 9/11? One, Padilla. That's it. One. And Padilla was convicted of terrorism charges (which is being appealed). So you're complaint should be about Democrats, not about Republicans or conservatives.
The key to ginning up war support is to portray the "enemy" as not only a threat, but as an "other". An "other" to be feared.
Duh. It's a war. The racist aspect should never be used, but it makes no sense to think of the enemy as anything but the enemy.
As for your assertion that attacking Iran wouldn't have unintended consequences, you certainly NEVER made that position clear.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said there wouldn't be unintended consequences if we attacked Iran. My contention is that you won't acknowledge the possibility of the unintended consequences of the current Iranian government having nuclear weapons. And you still haven't.
Let me tell you something. Attack Iran and get crushed. :-)
Before you laugh, remember that America's little 'coalition' is failing miserably in Iraq and Afghanistan and has done nothing but produce even more terrorists.
Well done.
The way people like Ed talk about Iran is nothing worse than the way the terrorists talk about the West. You both talk about unilateral strikes and you are both convinced you are the greater power and you both bullshit non-stop. The only thing that is true is that you are both dumb and deserve to be killed and then buried together.
Obviously Obama is saying these things as he understands that the previous approach has failed miserably.
In any event, I thought this war on terror was about catching Bin Laden? You keep moving the goalposts & the terrorists keeping bombing your children.
To hell with the both of you.
And remember..
Hate
breeds
hate.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home