What Kind of Meddling Do They Want?
Over at the National Review, Michael Ledeen implores President Obama to intervene in the Iranian situation:
Secondly, I think the protesters would take issue with the suggestion that they are doing what they're doing "in the name of our values." Mousavi and his followers have aggressively and shrewdly taken up the mantles of both Iranian nationalism and Islam. They're working "within the narrative" as publius aptly puts it. Indeed, this is precisely why they aren't asking for the United States to jump into the fray. Their internal credibility depends in large part on framing this debate as being about Iranian values, about Muslim values. It takes a special sort of myopia and nationalistic narcissism to see this as being in any way about the United States.
I have no doubt that the Obama administration is doing whatever it can, quietly and behind the scenes, to aid the reformers (such as their request to Twitter the other night to delay scheduled maintenance). But jumping into the fray publicly would so obviously be counterproductive that you really have to wonder whether conservatives want the reformers to succeed. It strikes me as bizarre, too, that conservatives are suddenly willing to ascribe so much magical power to Obama's words, as if a public show of support would somehow inspire the Iranian reformers to double their efforts. How is that belief at all consistent with the relentless criticism from conservatives of Obama's Cairo speech? Has Obama suddenly developed new powers of persuasion and inspiration that conservatives all believed he was lacking a few weeks ago? Can he now will the Iranian Mullahs into submission by the sheer power of his eloquence?
I give up. These guys aren't even trying to make sense.
You're going to be accused of meddling anyway, since out there in the real world you are believed to be the leader of the forces of freedom and democracy. So stop pretending to be a sweet innocent, and get in there and fight for people who are dying in the name of our values, and who want to be part of our world.There are so many things wrong with these two sentences. First, what sort of meddling does Ledeen have in mind? Other than making a strong public statement (one that would in all likelihood not be welcomed by or helpful to the protesters), what does Ledeen think Obama should be doing? Does he think we should literally "get in there and fight"? If not, what exactly is he calling for here?
Secondly, I think the protesters would take issue with the suggestion that they are doing what they're doing "in the name of our values." Mousavi and his followers have aggressively and shrewdly taken up the mantles of both Iranian nationalism and Islam. They're working "within the narrative" as publius aptly puts it. Indeed, this is precisely why they aren't asking for the United States to jump into the fray. Their internal credibility depends in large part on framing this debate as being about Iranian values, about Muslim values. It takes a special sort of myopia and nationalistic narcissism to see this as being in any way about the United States.
I have no doubt that the Obama administration is doing whatever it can, quietly and behind the scenes, to aid the reformers (such as their request to Twitter the other night to delay scheduled maintenance). But jumping into the fray publicly would so obviously be counterproductive that you really have to wonder whether conservatives want the reformers to succeed. It strikes me as bizarre, too, that conservatives are suddenly willing to ascribe so much magical power to Obama's words, as if a public show of support would somehow inspire the Iranian reformers to double their efforts. How is that belief at all consistent with the relentless criticism from conservatives of Obama's Cairo speech? Has Obama suddenly developed new powers of persuasion and inspiration that conservatives all believed he was lacking a few weeks ago? Can he now will the Iranian Mullahs into submission by the sheer power of his eloquence?
I give up. These guys aren't even trying to make sense.
posted by A.L. at 10:49 PM
30 Comments:
Mr. Ledeen ought to go to Tehran today and get the facts from the front. This way he can truly contribute to his comrades in peril. Boots on the ground instead of bad breath.
Of course, AL. This entire episode just underscores that the entire neocon purpose is purely, and utterly political--not moral. So, while they should have been cheering Obama's Green Lanterning in Cairo, for the sake of philosophical consistency, they didn't hear what they wanted politically regarding Israel and scoffed.
And so it is with Iran--in which, morally, they've got to know that publicly siding with the "reformers" would actually backfire, politically it suits them to attack Obama as anti-freedom or some such rot.
I'm sure that if we just hold tight here, Arkansas Steve will jump in and clarify everything. Waiting...
I'm sure that if we just hold tight here, Arkansas Steve will jump in and clarify everything. Waiting...
Keep waiting.
I do have a question to start a dialogue on all this. The Iranian government, even before this post came out, had already accused the U.S. government of "meddling", despite the fact that Obama has been extremely restrained in his comments on the Iranian election. Maybe it was what the State Dept. requested of Twitter, which A.L. highlighted. So it didn't matter that Obama didn't really say anything that could be called meddling; the Iranian government accused the U.S. anyway.
Here is my question. What is the benefit to the American people of Obama's restrained response to the Iranian election?
What is the benefit to the American people of Obama's restrained response to the Iranian election?
How about increasing the odds of regime change in Iran?
Plus, shouldn't the question be what is the benefit of speaking out forcefully? What would be accomplished by such a gesture other than possibly undermining the reformers efforts? The President isn't a blogger. His role is not to speak out for the sake of speaking out. His role is to take whatever steps are likely to result in the best outcome. And sometimes that means knowing when not to jump into the fray.
Notice Steve that absolutely no one involved in the reform efforts in Iran is asking that President Obama take a more high-profile role. They know that would be counterproductive. Only American conservatives don't get this.
A.L.:
How about increasing the odds of regime change in Iran?
To what? A democracy? It's also likely to devolve into a real dictatorship, which would also be "regime change". So that isn't a real answer.
Plus, when? Some time after the current Iranian government has already acquired nuclear weapons? Isn't it Obama's stated goal, along with it being a priority, to keep that government from having them, regardless of whether or not regime change takes place, or the kind of regime change that occurs?
Notice Steve that absolutely no one involved in the reform efforts in Iran is asking that President Obama take a more high-profile role.
Do you know that for an absolute fact? And what reform are you talking about, putting Mousavi in as President? As everyone has mentioned, that isn't going to be much of a change.
Steve, you said
"Do you know that for an absolute fact? And what reform are you talking about, putting Mousavi in as President? As everyone has mentioned, that isn't going to be much of a change."
So, in other words, Mousavi is no different than the man who stole election, but Obama should be critized for not siding with the protesters who are dying in the streets on behalf of...errr...Mousavi.
Right there is the problem with the NRO/NeoCon take on this situation. They claim they are on the side of the Iranian protestors while quietly complaining that they are backing the wrong guy anyway.
The fact that Mousavi is not currently a corpse is a tea leaf that these protests are having a bit of an effect on the stability of the regime. The anger that the Iranian bloggers/Tweeters are showing about the Arabic fighters being imported into Tehran to crack skulls is front and center. It could be that at the end of this, many of the Iranian people just aren't that interested in continuing the proxy wars all over the Middle East. Too bad the American people aren't sharing the same sentiment.
I give up.
A.L., I need your wisdom (and Hilzoy's charity): For the past year or so, about the time that I realized I don't really know any conservatives (or don't know that they are conservatives), I've been surfing conservative websites, trying to figure out what conservatives want / believe.
One piece of info that I'm glad to have is that not all conservatives are the same type of conservative--and while some of them really do seem to match with the caricatures, many of them don't.
But despite that one piece of humanizing information, the overwhelming feeling that I've gotten is that many conservatives online are intellectually dishonest and quite partisan.
Now, here's my worries: how do I make sure that I myself am not intellectually dishonest / partisan?; and how do I go forward when I don't respect many fellow citizens' thoughts? I mean, their votes count as much as my votes, so I want them to vote for things I believe are right, but it's disheartening trying to convince them.
How can we move forward without giving up? Or is there some strategic form of giving up?
It's difficult to tell if Ledeen means well or means ill. In either event his advice leads to bad outcomes for all involved. His track record on advice stinks. At some point consistent bad advice allows one to conclude that he is ill-intended. In any event he is arguing for intervention in another state while he would object to that state intervening in a third state and that is hypocrisy. But then his loyalty is not to the American state but the Israeli state. He's a traitor to the United States.
Bix Dugan:
So, in other words, Mousavi is no different than the man who stole election, but Obama should be critized for not siding with the protesters who are dying in the streets on behalf of...errr...Mousavi.
I'm not sure you're entirely correct based on what I've read; I'm seeing that many of those protesting are more upset at the mullahs. The issue is how much the mullahs have hurt themselves with their actions, especially al-Khamenei.
In any event, that isn't the question. The question is, how do Obama's restrained comments benefit the American people? Let me add a secondary question: since it is the mullahs who have always been the enemy of the American people, wouldn't it benefit the American people for Obama to further inflame the Iranian people's animosity towards the mullahs? In that regard, Obama wouldn't be taking sides between Ahmadinejad or Mousavi, but would be on the side of the people against those behind their oppression, the mullahs.
Steve, you really are a moron, you know that.
So, in your hypothetical, Obama says "rise up Iranian people and overthrow the mullahs". So, do we say this in a way that makes them think that the US is going to physically intervene? And, when we don't, this will dredge up comparisons to Bush the First when he exorted the Iraqis to rise up to their deaths.
Sorry, Steve, but we have to be as out of the way as possible. This is between the mullahs and the Iranian people. It's not about the US. Frankly, Bush and his crew blustering and threatening everyone and anyone during the last years accomplished absolutely squat.
Part of me thinks that you will end up being disappointed if we end up not invading Iran. The American people actually benefit from the US not getting into a war with Iran. Why are you too stupid to understand that?
Jet Jaguar:
Sorry, Steve, but we have to be as out of the way as possible. This is between the mullahs and the Iranian people. It's not about the US. Frankly, Bush and his crew blustering and threatening everyone and anyone during the last years accomplished absolutely squat.
First off, this isn't about Bush. He wasn't treating Iran any differently than the previous four Presidents. Second, don't you believe nuclear weapons under the control of the mullahs and their minions is a huge threat to the American people? Even President Obama has said this was so, despite the fact that diplomacy (by his administration and the Bush adminstration) hasn't come close to stopping the Iranian government from getting closer to having nukes, or supporting terrorists.
What is the benefit to the American people of Obama's restrained response to the Iranian election?
At the very least, it would have made the predictably inevitable charge of American meddling a lot more credible and lowered the risk of international backlash if the mullahs had quickly and brutally suppressed the demonstrations. They haven't yet cracked down hard, and every hour that passes makes the price they will pay higher if and when they do so.
If America's long term goal is to destabilize the mullahs -- and I believe that is President Obama's endgame here -- then the short term goal is to keep the pot on the boil as long as possible. I've yet to read any semi-plausible argument as to how cheerleading from the White House would accomplish this.
Bellicose cheerleading does, of course, benefit certain portions of the American people. But only if it's a Republican doing the cheerleading. Because of course, anything Obama does is by definition weak-kneed appeasement.
The American Right has lost its marbles.
Steve...yes, the previous four presidents had a policy of isolation with the mullahs. Bringing in Bush is relevant because HE was the one who labelled Iran part of the "Axis of Evil". If you combine this cowboy bluster with the transparently phony invasion of Iraq, it's no wonder that the mullah's "elected" a hardline lunatic in 2005 in response. With each increasing drumbeat towards war on the part of the US, the more insane the Iranian regime's actions became. Seriously, did Bush's big talk ever actually cause any world power to "back down"?
Obama seems to be working the long game here. Backing off from the Bush/McCain "bomb bomb bomb Iran" talk, and letting the mullah's freak out and give themselves more rope to hang themselves with.
The longer this mini-rebellion goes, the harder it will be for the mullahs to slap it down without losing all of its legitimacy in the eyes of its people. And the beauty of it, is that the Great Satan will not have been either "taking sides" or openly cheerleading the protesters without having any idea about what might come out on the other side.
So, in summary, the Right's reaction to all of this has been "WWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH...we wanted to go to war...it's not fair....MOOOOOOOOOOM".
Tom:
If America's long term goal is to destabilize the mullahs -- and I believe that is President Obama's endgame here -- then the short term goal is to keep the pot on the boil as long as possible.
I hope you're right. I just hope it gets done before they have any nukes to control. That's the key.
I've yet to read any semi-plausible argument as to how cheerleading from the White House would accomplish this.
I would also add that Reagan was extremely good of knowing when to do some cheerleading from the White House against the Soviet Union, and when not to; and, it got results. He wasn't perfect (nobody is), but he was very good. So it can work.
It's monumentally stupid to focus on Iran's nuclear program -- which is still years away from bearing fruit, by the way.
Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing. Recall that Bush, with his "axis of evil" did not produce any positive results in the direction of reducing either Iran's funding of terrorism, and arguably gave that segment of the Iranian government pursuing nuclear enrichment additional support from the people.
If you cannot force other people to do what you want -- and only the terminally stupid imagine that there can be some kind of "surgical" destruction of Iran's nuclear capability, the result would almost certainly be completely counterproductive -- then you have to resort to persuasion. It helps to understand what the people who you are trying to persuade want.
In the present circumstance, the people involved have different desires. The Ahmedinejad faction wants to secure their hold on their power. The mullahs want to expand their power to extend over the entire Shia population of the mideast. The opposition wants a bigger piece of the pie and to cut Ahmedinejad off at the knees. The populace wants more freedom and better management of the economy.
The one thing they agree on is that they don't want anything from the USA.
While the Ahmedinejad faction has claimed US intervention, in the face of reality it's just destroyed a little more of their credibility and proven counterproductive. If they could point to some believable intervention, ala what the idiots seem to be suggesting, that would in turn enhance the credibility of Ahmedinejad.
I am grateful every day that some idiot like Reagan, Dubya, or McCain isn't at the helm right now.
I would also add that Reagan was extremely good of knowing when to do some cheerleading from the White House against the Soviet Union, and when not to; and, it got results.
I suppose when the equivalent of a Walesa or a Gorbachev shows up in Teheran, then, yeah, the President may wish to be more vocal in his support. In the meantime, using this situation as a pretext for grandstanding to domestic "patriots" would be counterproductive bullshit. And what's really sick is that at least some of the people trying to make hay off this issue know they're being irresponsible but are doing it anyway.
I would also add that Reagan was extremely good of knowing when to do some cheerleading from the White House against the Soviet Union, and when not to; and, it got results. He wasn't perfect (nobody is), but he was very good. So it can work.
There's your answer, AL. You underestimate the importance right wingers place on sheer will. They believe that Ronald Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," and those words alone were enough to bring the wall down. They believe that he called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" and those words brought down the Soviet Union. So, yes, from this perspective it is logical for them to believe that if the President speaks out forcibly enough on behalf of the demonstrators, it will sway the outcome.
Of course, most right-wingers are not old enough to remember how forcefully John Foster Dulles spoke out and how much good that did.
Tom:
I suppose when the equivalent of a Walesa or a Gorbachev shows up in Teheran, then, yeah, the President may wish to be more vocal in his support.
There already is a "Gorbachev", al-Khamenei. Mousavi may or may not be the Iranian "Walesa", but why wait until one shows up if it isn't Mousavi? Wouldn't all of the protesters be "Walesas"?
Let me ask this: if the mullahs truly crack down on the people, should Obama remain quiet about it, and then still attempt to negotiate with that government, thus legitimizing it? You said you believe Obama's endgame is to destabilize the mullahs, how does legitimizing them, something no President has done, accomplish that?
The current approach to events in Iran is working better than I expected. Today Khamenei threw his reputation into the toilet by standing up for an obviously fraudulent election.
Now, now matter what happens, the leadership of the mullahs has been weakened and cast into suspicion.
We'll have to see whether the people of Iran acquiesce to the desire of Khamenei to keep Ahmedinejad in power, but, in the long run, this marks the beginning of the end of the reign of the mullahs -- the respect of a huge segment of the populace has been lost by this action.
More was done in the last week to topple the mullahs than was accomplished in the previous thirty years, and all by staying out of the fray.
C2H50H:
More was done in the last week to topple the mullahs than was accomplished in the previous thirty years, and all by staying out of the fray.
We've stayed out of the fray of Iranian electoral politics for those 30 years, and that was because the U.S. hasn't had diplomatic relations in that time. So Obama didn't do anything different.
The only reason it matters more now is because the ISG in the past couple of years and the Obama administration now wants to negotiate with the mullahs and their toadies (Ahmadinejad) over nukes and terrorism, despite the fact, as you point out, that Khamenei has shown himself to be completely untrustworthy.
Steve, I give you props for your subtle way of changing the subject or speaking as if hypotheticals were in fact reality. IF there is a massive crackdown in Iran, it remains to be seen just what Obama and the WORLD community will do. Do you ever stop to think about that? Nope, you weave a narrative of "crackdown, Obama will continue to to negotiate, etc., etc.".
As for the US "not interfering" with Iranian electoral politics, do you find it just an amazing coincidence that after declaring Iran to be in the "Axis of Evil", invading Iraq under false pretense, as well as increased calls from conservatives and AIPAC types that a military solution to the Iranian "problem", that a hardline President was installed?
In fact, during this decade, all the blustering and hectoring and threatening of Iran has not made them quake in their boots, it's actually made them a regional power.
The really sad thing is that if a hypothetical Republican administration actually started a war with Iran, the American people would resist it heavily. In a few years, we're going to have incoming high school freshmen who literally haven't lived in a US that wasn't in an active shooting war. War fatigue among the US populace is ultimately going to win out over bloodthirsty conservatives who could care less who gets killed.
SteveAR,
Labeling the Iranian regime a member of an "axis of evil" wasn't "staying out of Iranian politics" -- and it did untold damage to the credibility of the USA. Supporting the hated enemy of Iran, Saddam Hussein, during his war with Iran, wasn't "staying out of Iranian politics".
When you engineer the reestablishment of a hated monarch, then support him and his secret police for 25 years, it's going to take more than a couple of generations to live it down.
Whether Khamenei is regarded, externally to Iran, as untrustworthy, is totally unimportant to the discussion at hand. It's his internal credibility that matters in this election imbroglio.
Your comments on this thread have left absolutely no doubt that you are utterly ignorant of Iranian-American history. Perhaps you could learn something if you stopped writing and started reading?
Puppies:
Cute name.
As for the US "not interfering" with Iranian electoral politics, do you find it just an amazing coincidence that after declaring Iran to be in the "Axis of Evil", invading Iraq under false pretense, as well as increased calls from conservatives and AIPAC types that a military solution to the Iranian "problem", that a hardline President was installed?
I hate to burst your leftist bubble, but which Iranian President wasn't a hardline President? Both Rafsanjani and Khatami were just as hardlined as Ahmadinejad; the only difference is that Ahmadinejad has a big mouth (plus, he's not a cleric, like the other two). Even Rafsanjani and Khatami as supposedly less-hardlined Presidents didn't convince the U.S. government to open up relations with the Iranian government. Obviously they knew a bit more about them than you do.
Note also that Iran under the supposedly non-hardlined Khatami was caught, in 2003 by the Bush administration, illegally trying to enrich uranium, in violation of the Nuclear NPT, and had been doing so for over a dozen years, when Rafsanjani was President. The Iranian government signed the additional protocol, but never ratified it as is required; that means any current attempts in regards to nuclear power is illegal by international law. And that doesn't even include their attempts at a wholly illegal nuclear weapons program.
Besides, neither Rafsanjani nor Khatami ever wavered in their support of terrorism.
Lastly, it doesn't matter. Khamenei runs the show. And he isn't going to change one bit.
C2H50H:
Labeling the Iranian regime a member of an "axis of evil" wasn't "staying out of Iranian politics"...
If you're going to quote me, quote me accurately, and stop acting like a typical leftist, basing your argument on something I didn't say.
SteveAR,
Your comment and my response are both there in all their glory. I leave it to the readers to determine if leaving out "internal" makes any difference in the meaning of either to the Iranians.
If you understood anything at all about the organization of the "government" of Iran, you would understand that speaking about a loose confederation of often-competing organizations and power blocs, moderated to some extent by religious courts and a "supreme leader", as if it were a monolith is the height of stupidity.
But then, giving a nod to reality just isn't conducive to your argument, is it?
C2H50H:
Here's what I said earlier [in bold emphasis]:
"We've stayed out of the fray of Iranian electoral politics for those 30 years..."
Here's how you quoted me earlier [in bold emphasis]:
"Labeling the Iranian regime a member of an "axis of evil" wasn't "staying out of Iranian politics"..."
Here's how you are quoting me now [in bold emphasis]:
"I leave it to the readers to determine if leaving out "internal" makes any difference in the meaning of either to the Iranians."
You still haven't quoted me correctly. I don't care what you want to "leave to the readers". But if you are going to insult me based on how you are quoting me, at least have the decency to put in the quote as I wrote it. As I said earlier, stop acting like a typical leftist, basing your argument on something I didn't say.
SteveAR,
If what you meant when you said the USA stayed out of Iranian "electoral" politics was that we hadn't openly funded a political party in Iran, I agree.
Since that's pretty ridiculous even for you, I took it to mean "politics" and responded appropriately.
But now I'm confused about what you really think. Are you seriously proposing that the USA fund the opposition? And you think that would help? Are you insane?
What, precisely, do you think distinguishes "electoral politics" from "politics"?
By the way, Bush administration spokesmen openly spoke of preferring "moderates" during past Iranian political contests, including the election that brought Ahmedinejad to power, after all.
Personally, I think you're just grasping at straws here, in an effort to avoid the admission that -- as is obvious to everyone who has read these comments -- you don't know what you are talking about.
C2H50H:
If what you meant when you said the USA stayed out of Iranian "electoral" politics was that we hadn't openly funded a political party in Iran, I agree.
That is exactly what I meant.
Are you seriously proposing that the USA fund the opposition? And you think that would help?
The U.S. government already funds those who oppose the regime, which doesn't bother me at all. But that doesn't mean I support U.S. funding of candidates for the office of President of Iran during one of their elections since the candidates themselves are hand-picked by the mullahs, the real power; I wouldn't support that at all. The reason is because that wouldn't help the U.S., which is what the federal government should concentrate on. Funding those who oppose the regime of the mullahs, however, helps the U.S.
What, precisely, do you think distinguishes "electoral politics" from "politics"?
I think you answered your own question above.
By the way, Bush administration spokesmen openly spoke of preferring "moderates" during past Iranian political contests, including the election that brought Ahmedinejad to power, after all.
So did the prior two U.S. Presidents who were in office since Khomenei died. What does that have to do with anything?
SteveAR,
I have to apologize. I hadn't imagined even you could be so stupid as to suggest that the USA openly fund opposition groups in Iran.
I will let others deal with Steve -- they're doing quite well. But I have to question (not dispute, question) a part of your comments, A.L.
You say "Mousavi and his followers have aggressively and shrewdly taken up the mantles of both Iranian nationalism and Islam. They're working "within the narrative" as publius aptly puts it." (emphasis mine) But, by emphasizing this as a 'tactical maneuver' aren't you implicitly endorsing Ledeen's thesis that they are really acting for 'our values'?
Isn't it far more likely they support Iranian nationalism because they are patriotic Iranians, they support "Islam and Islamic values" because they are believing Muslims? Neither of these, btw, says anything at all about the direction they would, in power, take their countries.
But both sides have been guilty of this too often in my lifetime. Bush's "We'll overthrow Saddam and they'll throw flowers at our feet" proved a prime example of stupidity and ignorance of the conditions 'on the ground.' But so was Carter's assumption that, if we dropped our support for the Shah, the country would turn for leadership to the educated, Westernized elite, and not to that crazy imam with his audio casettes. (And which of us didn't implicitly assume that the Fall of Communism would turn the 'satellites' and 'disgorged fragments of the USSR' into counries 'along the road' to becoming 'standard-model' European democracies -- true in some cases, in others, not so much.)
We were right to cheer the fall of Communism, the Shah, and Saddam -- even if we didn't like what Bush did in the latter case -- but that was because of who they were. And yes, I am enough of a believer in 'our values' to believe that, eventually, they will become far more Democratic.
All I am questioning is whether you have solid evidence as to what Moussavi's motivations are. I know enough to know I don't know.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home