The Limits of Solidarity
Glenn Greenwald points out that many of the same people who are now expressing their solidarity and support for the Iranian people (McCain, Podhoretz, Kristol, etc.) are the same ones who have publicly endorsed plans to bomb the country, plans that would inevitably result in the deaths of many of those same Iranians.
To that I would add that polling in Iran has repeatedly revealed widespread popular support for the country's nuclear program. In this poll, for instance, 84% of Iranians said Iran should have the capacity to enrich uranium and 89% said that the continuation of the nuclear program was important for Iran's economy. In other words, in all likelihood, a large percentage of the Iranians who are out protesting in the streets and seeking reform support the very policy that the Bill Kristols and John Podhoretz of the world believe is sufficient provocation to warrant a massive bombing campaign against their country.
At some point, those advocating for a military action against Iran need to face up to this fundamental contradiction. Bombing that country would, in addition to generating many casualties, significantly strengthen the hand of the hardliners. It would poison public opinion against the West and stifle reform efforts. And on the flipside, if the reformers succeed and the result is a more democratic Iran, there's little reason to think Iran's elected leaders would abandon the country's nuclear program. In functioning democracies, elected leaders tend not to kill programs that are massively popular. To truly embrace democracy in the world, you have to understand that people in other countries will often see things differently than you see them.
I'm glad that events in Iran appear to be humanizing the Iranian people in the minds of many Americans. I hope that memory lasts, because I have a feeling we haven't heard the last from the bomb Iran crowd.
To that I would add that polling in Iran has repeatedly revealed widespread popular support for the country's nuclear program. In this poll, for instance, 84% of Iranians said Iran should have the capacity to enrich uranium and 89% said that the continuation of the nuclear program was important for Iran's economy. In other words, in all likelihood, a large percentage of the Iranians who are out protesting in the streets and seeking reform support the very policy that the Bill Kristols and John Podhoretz of the world believe is sufficient provocation to warrant a massive bombing campaign against their country.
At some point, those advocating for a military action against Iran need to face up to this fundamental contradiction. Bombing that country would, in addition to generating many casualties, significantly strengthen the hand of the hardliners. It would poison public opinion against the West and stifle reform efforts. And on the flipside, if the reformers succeed and the result is a more democratic Iran, there's little reason to think Iran's elected leaders would abandon the country's nuclear program. In functioning democracies, elected leaders tend not to kill programs that are massively popular. To truly embrace democracy in the world, you have to understand that people in other countries will often see things differently than you see them.
I'm glad that events in Iran appear to be humanizing the Iranian people in the minds of many Americans. I hope that memory lasts, because I have a feeling we haven't heard the last from the bomb Iran crowd.
posted by A.L. at 9:08 AM
13 Comments:
Santayana: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Welcome to 1938.
I don't think anything more needs to be said.
More than that, when these same folks at NRO thought the election might go the other way, they continually denigrated the election and said the only difference between the two candidates was rhetoric and that hard-line rhetoric was preferable because the evil is more transparent.
Steve, violating Godwin's Law on the very first post is not setting a particularly good tone for this thread.
So, you feel that it's not a somwhat disconnected sentiment to humanize the Iranian protestors while simultaneously advocating bombing their country?
While it is foolish to characterize the entire Iranian populace as the equivalent to Nazis, it is equally foolish to disregard that otherwise culturally sympathetic Iranians just might have some trust issues with the good old USA.
For example - consider the following:
1. The US involvement in the 1953 coup that installed the hated Shah in power.
2. Two and a half decades of military and financial support of said Shah's repressive regime.
3. Selling chemical weapons to the Iraqis. Providing military and financial aid to Saddam Hussein as he instigated a war that killed a few million Iranians.
4. Turning around and then selling weapons to the Iranians, enabling the mullahs to extend the Iraqi War.
5. The US's boneheaded initial portrayal of the war of choice in Iraq as a "crusade". The inability of the Bush administration to keep its supporters and subordinates from conflating the War on Terror with a War on Islam (see Pajamas Media comment threads to see my point here).
6. The US' willingness to toss aside previous laws and human rights committments in order to torture Muslims.
I could go on here, but in our effort to show the Iranian people that they should sidle up to us on the global stage, our hamfisted actions in this part of the world has enabled the Mullahs and the radicals to seize and maintain power. Unfortunately, we're going to have to sit this one out, because the minute this becomes a "US wants the overthrow of the regime" debate, then the protestors who are doing the actual uprising, the ones who are doing the bleeding, the ones who are dying, will have their movement deligitimized as being US stooges.
Finally, Steve. I suggest that you check out the book or the movie of Marjane Satrapi's "Persepolis". It's a memoir of what life in Iran was REALLY like, and ought to poke a few holes in the far-right's desire to put the Iranian people into a neat little subservient box.
Well, yes. It is incoherent for conservatives who rail against activist government at home to then think that an interventionist stance in foreign policy is a great idea.
Obama, who I do not consider myself a fan of, is largely playing this right. The appropriate response is to convey the message that we are not blind to what is occurring but also that we are not pulling any strings and that this is for the Iranian people to sort out. High-profile American involvement would be poison to the very people we wish to see succeed.
SteveAR: "I don't think anything more needs to be said."
Indeed - all by itself it demonstrates that you don't have the slightest hint of idea of the actual issues involved.
I think it's actually more insidious. I think they are simply using the election controversy as a cover to aid in the stand against Iran. They will use it as a cover to take action against the country, under the guise of helping the people. Much like how we "invaded Iraq to liberate the people from Saddam".
Dennis, sadly, I think you're on to something there.
Either way, the neo-cons literally don't think that the Iranian people are even relevant to the discussion, the protests are just a means to the neo-cons end.
To add one more data point to the Iranians' perception of us -- Iran Air Flight 655, shot down by the US military in 1988.
AL's point that "to truly embrace democracy in the world, you have to understand that people in other countries will often see things differently than you see them" is exactly right, and is a counterpoint to a lot of the wrongheaded foreign policy thinking for the past 10 years.
Jon
Amid what appears to be some horrible violence in Iran, a few useful things appear to be occurring in terms of the US view of Iran.
First, as AL says, the human face of Iran (which was always there to those caring to look) is coming into focus. That educated human face is hard to reconcile with the crazy islamist caricature promoted by the right wing. Bombing a country is much harder to do when you can't demonise its entire population. Contrary to popular belief, Iran is a far more pluralist and tolerant society than US allies such as Saudi Arabia.
Second, the regime's response to the demonstration (which appears to include militia members on motorbikes) suggests that Iran's military complex is hardly the existential threat that it is represented to be. Iran, it is worth remembering, expressed support for the US after 9/11, has military resources that are a fraction of the United States' and has not invaded anyone in nearly 500 years. While I do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and support efforts to prevent that outcome, there are several existing nuclear powers that are far more likely to actually use one, or to deliver one to terrorists.
If you are looking for the 1930's equivalent to Iran, you might try.. umm... Iran? The Shahs were in power then, but it was an autocratic state whose population and military position was dwarfed by the major powers of the time.
Hopefully, this closer look at what Iran is really like will dissuade people from the spectacularly stupid suggestion that Iran in 2009 has anything in common with Germany in 1938.
Another thing that this is doing: deflating the idea that the people of the Middle East / Muslims only understand violence.
Here we have a massive non-violent movement. I'm sure there are writers at Commentary, etc, who don't believe such a thing is possible.
All,
Two key points.
1) Nuclear weapons technology is now about 65 years old. It's folly to believe that we can keep that technology out of the hands of all nations that we have a fundamental disagreement with.
2) Iran will eventually be able to master the technology and techniques that will allow her to build a weapon if she so chooses. The key here is, what will the Iranian government look like that does achieve this technology? Here is the opportunity for Iran to CHANGE it's system to one that is more amenable to America and even Israel, and for some reason, a good chunk of the neocons and right wing Israeli's think it's better if Amadeninutjob wins since that is the "true" face of Iran. But it's not. Iranians are by and large much more moderate then their government. These protest show us that a better day in our relationship with Iran is coming, even if it's not quite here yet...
Just some random thoughts,
Cosmo
You also have to understand that as far as the majority of Iranians are concerned, their nuclear program is clearly intended for peaceful purposes only.
The majority of Iranians are against nuclear weapons. Hell, the majority of Iranians believe that nuclear weapons are against the tenets of Islam. This happens to be the official policy of the current administration as well, which has never acknowledge any goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.
Our current belief in their development of a nuclear program is basically based upon a single laptop that was captured in 2004 which contained designs for something that could potentially hold nuclear weapons rather viably. It would seem that all of their Uranium is even currently accounted for...
In Iran, their nuclear program is seen as a method for the development of an alternative energy source, and as such saying they don't have a right to enrich Uranium for it would be to them like telling us we don't have the right to build solar cells.
As all around the world ,we know Michael Jordan is the super star in NBA .His quotes is one of my favorite ,that is air jordan.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home