Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
I suspect the critical op-eds by Paul Wolfowitz and Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post will merely serve to convince the president that he is doing the right thing after all. The op-ed by David Ignatius, meanwhile, will be read more carefully. Krauthammer just opened his cakehole and started giving his opinions. Ignatius first consulted with people who -- unlike Wolfowitz or Krauthammer -- might actually know something of Iran:
"We clearly have to be on the right side of history here," says Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment and an informal adviser to the White House. But he cautions that "if we try to insert ourselves into the momentous internal Iranian drama that's unfolding, we may unwittingly undermine those whom we're trying to strengthen."
That very much seems to be the dilemma, and I sure as hell don't know how one strikes a useful balance between these competing desires. I do have faith that the Obama Administration has held its tongue not because it supports the regime in Tehran but because it doesn't want to undermine the position of the protesters.
And I also understand that neo-conservatives like Krauthammer -- who has reliably advised reckless courses of action since this crisis started -- have less fear of open conflict with the Iranian regime than I do. But here's my question for them: what is your endstate? Where are we trying to ultimately go? Are we trying to force a bloody crackdown on the protesters so the world can see how horrific the regime is and will then approve tough sanctions? Are we trying to start an armed confrontation with Iran? Just tell me what you are trying to acheive through a more openly confrontational stance and I'll listen. But for now, I suspect that one of the reasons Krauthammer, Kagan & Co. are criticizing Obama's tactics vis a vis Iran is because the majority of Americans would find their strategic goals they hint at but never reveal to be bat-guano crazy. Prove me wrong.
AQ:
Love the blog, but am wondering: Where in the Krauthammer op-ed does he advocate military action, regime change, preemptive strikes, arming Iranian protestors, etc? I realize he's an evil, moronic, intellectually-wanting 'neo-con' and only those on the other side of the political spectrum have enlightenment and wisdom, but all he did was state an opinion that the administration should speak out on behalf of the demonstrators. Right or wrong, its simply an opinion and - feel free to correct me - but isn't that the purpose of an op-ed? In a case as complicated as the inner workings of the Iranian regime and a popular movement that could alter the Iranian political landscape (or not), I don't believe anyone has a monopoly on wisdom or insight - just opinions and perspectives. That probably goes for most Iranians themselves and would include those who might try and claim impartiality towards the current administration, such as Ignatius and a member of the Carnegie Endowment (who just happens to be an adviser to the White House).
I do hear what you are saying in the bigger picture and agree ("that very much seems to be the dilemma, and I sure as hell don't know how one strikes a useful balance between these competing desires. I do have faith that the Obama Administration has held its tongue not because it supports the regime in Tehran but because it doesn't want to undermine the position of the protesters") but the reality is not everyone is going to approve of the path chosen by a particular administration.
And in terms of end-state, is the question whether it would be better to negotiate a grand bargain or nuclear agreement with Ahmadinejad or Moussavi (both hand-picked and/or approved as candidates by the Council of Guardians)? If not, wouldn't it be better to see a more transparent governing body in Tehran so we at least know how to move forward on the diplomatic front?
Hope this does not elicit a defensive reaction, because otherwise I appreciate the insights and good commentary provided here.
Obviously Wolfowitz is a very controversial figure. What was wrong, though, with his op-ed? It seemed reasonable to me. His focus was on American foreign policy history in roughly similar situations rather than the current Iranian situation. I think there are lessons in the situations he discusses. I do not know the history of the edsa revolution well. Is he misrepresenting it?
Good post. They're both ludicrous (and possibly pretty cynical) columns and there's no "beef" to be seen in either case. It's worrying in the case of Wolfowitz, given the fact that he's a man who has scaled the heights of U.S. government. In the case of Krauthammer it's merely infuriating to observe that somebody can be so prominent and so handsomely compensated for pumping out a load of old (and, furthermore, deeply predictable - I could have written the column for him on the basis of his past form) pig's dribble.
You're absolutely right - the American government faces a juggling act right now and it's very delicate. We can't know that Obama's approach is going to pay off, but it's fair to say that it's a better bet than the alternatives currently on offer. As you note, it would also be helpful if the critics of the policy were willing to put a bit more meat on the bones of their arguments in terms of specifics, regarding both end states and the means to be employed along the way.
"AQ:"
Hah! I guess this is an al Qaida blog. I always suspected it Exum, but the cat's out of the bag now. You always did like those insurgents a little too much.
"Obviously Wolfowitz is a very controversial figure. What was wrong, though, with his op-ed? It seemed reasonable to me. His focus was on American foreign policy history in roughly similar situations rather than the current Iranian situation. I think there are lessons in the situations he discusses."
I know what you mean, but I think you're wrong. I'll take a couple of punts on this, though others may be able to do a better job than me.
First off, there's the problem of context. The "neo-cons" deserve some credit with regard to the Reagan administration's endgame stances in the Philippines and in some of the situations that evolved in Latin America. Where Reagan was often keen to prop up authoritarian governments, a lot of people who are now placed under the "neo-con" umbrella were often more willing to aid reform and democratisation and to recognise when reform could succeed.
However, that's about as far as it goes. The Philippines was completely different to Iran in terms of the circumstances. It was easy for the US to back the overthrow of Marcos. Why? Because the Marcos regime was an American client dictatorship. The US was propping him up, so all they needed to do to make the regime fall was... er... stop propping him up. I don't think anyone would suggest that this situation pertains in Iran.
As far as I'm aware, Wolfowitz' version of the coup against Gorbachev is also, at the very least, debatable. I've certainly heard it told rather differently.
So one of the problems with this reasoning by analogy is the fact that the context is different. Another issue is the fact that, for each of Wolfowitz's rather pat case studies, one can offer one that seems to demonstrate the opposite. In 1991, President G. H. W. Bush gave supportive rhetoric to the Shi'a in Iraq. In response, the Shi'a were emboldened, upped the stakes and were slaughtered. The 1956 Hungarian uprising was stoked by a misperception on the ground that American radio broadcasts into Hungary were suggesting that the USA would support them in an uprising. The situation then escalated, with the Hungarians believing that US support was worth more than it actually was. The result was that the Hungarians were ground under Soviet tank tracks and the Americans (understandably - not least because they hadn't intended to encourage the Hungarians to such an extent) called uncle on the grounds that the only way they could do anything was to go to war over Hungary.
So a) the reasoning underpinning the op-eds is pretty flimsy and the historical context highly questionable and b) one might hope that the above goes some way to showing that expressions of support, if they mean anything, often require something more to back them up. If Wolfowitz and Krauthammer think we should be willing to back our words up with something more they should say so openly. If they don't, they're playing a different but arguably equally dangerous game and not one to be indulged in by serious people.
AM,
You have the range, fire for effect.
Why should the government do anything right now when Generation Y is clearly running a virtual insurgency with their hacktivism/cyber warfare campaign. The strategy seems pretty clear to me, strengthen network flows into Iran to insure information flows out of Iran for the purposes of transparency.
I see it as a manifestation of Obama policy but at with a clear population centric driven nature, and with Facebook and Google going Persian over the last 72 hours, we have taken the global non-state, transnational actor theory to a whole new level as the economic nations become base for launching attacks against the political party currently in power in Iran.
To me anyway, there are clearly activities in the west supporting the opposition, but it is a population centric engagement, not a government driven engagement. I would argue the political class (primarily on the right) is so arrogant regarding their own power they fail to see it is the absence of government involvement that has likely helped the cyber effort to be so successful. I posted my thoughts on this in detail on my blog.
This doesn't seem all that complicated, at the end of the day. Direct US support for the protesters risks one of two outcomes:
1. Being embraced by foreigners discredits the protesters and makes things easier for Khamenei et al. This is especially a risk given the history of the US-Iran relationship. More evidence for it is how Iranian dissidents reportedly rejected US support during the Bush administration, worrying that it would hurt their credibility
2. Being embraced by foreigners leads to rising expectations that we can't back up. The protesters rise up and get massacred but we don't intervene for many of the same reasons we haven't attacked Iran up to this point. So you have a reprise of Hungary in '56 (as Ricks worries about) or Iraq in '91 with the Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
Bottom line seems to be that demonstrating that the world is paying attention is good, but direct support can't help. It can only make things worse. So if the goal is to actually have the protesters continue to gain strength, etc., we shouldn't do anything.
Or is there a logical flaw in my argument?
p.s. You could be really Machiavellian and say Krauthammer et al. want US support because they know it will lead to a backlash against Iran and awful behavior by the regime, which would then justify US military intervention. But there's no actual evidence for that.
You don't define "bat guano crazy", but I can guess it might mean upholding the premier position of America in the world, bringing down hostile regimes and replacing them with as close to liberal democracy as we can get.
Or as Anthony seems to imply, pigs dribble.
I don't really think if those are their goals that they are prudent or wise, but no less lacking in wisdom or prudence than kowtowing to foreign despots, deluding yourself into thinking you can charm or negoitiate away their ambitions to be a regional tyrant, or that's it's wise to betray your core principle of self government by the people.
[of course I question whether our plutocrats and brainacs in DC believe America should really be self governing, but that's tangential I hope to this thread. I hope.]
We have a long tradition of encouraging kindred souls to rebel against tryanny and establish democracy - in fact we are the worlds most enduring revolution and chief exporter of revolution. Hell, we are the prime and first exporter of revolution, even though we could do little or nothing to those inspired by us. It began almost immediately with France and then Poland, later Latin America, in our own time Hungary, Czechoslovakia 1968, the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain coming down in 89, Tiannamen square (that went very bad, and will stay that way), other people inspired to throw off the yoke may include the Singing Revolution, the Orange Revolution, the currently failed Cedar revolution...and Wolfowitz mentions the Philipines and the downfall of the USSR after a last gasp coup.
Let's remember in the particular case of Iran - the clerics want this fight, and they want to export their own brand of revolution - one that's not all that different in effect than the Taliban when they get into power - and they want to force this on their neighbors. They are also constantly threatening to destroy Israel, Israel on the other hand could easily annihilate them but merely issues stern cautions. Let's remember as well this same regime killed a lot of Americans in Iraq, usually by proxy and lending support and expertise, but they nonetheless have a lot of our blood on their hands.
Why shouldn't we, just from a realpolitik or from a we're at war viewpoint take the opportunity and stick it to them? In particular since we have a potentially more attractive replacement than a monarch or a dictator?
But here's my question for them: what is your endstate? Where are we trying to ultimately go? Are we trying to force a bloody crackdown on the protesters so the world can see how horrific the regime is and will then approve tough sanctions? Are we trying to start an armed confrontation with Iran? Just tell me what you are trying to acheive through a more openly confrontational stance and I'll listen.
And to consider the other side of it, don't we understand exactly what the desired endstate is with the President's approach? We want to be able to deal with whatever Iranian government emerges from this turmoil on the basis of our interests in the region, to be able to normalize our relationship in the service of vital American national interests. Neoconservatives and other idealists may not agree with this approach, but they absolutely cannot fairly suggest that this approach is directionless. More aggressive support for the opposition would constrain American actions in the days to come, would reduce our flexibility, and would result in decisional pressures that have far more to do with the internal concerns of the Iranian people than the security and prosperity of the American people. About this there is precisely no doubt.
Where can this thing go from here, whether or not we're involved in a more active or vocal fashion? There are a few possibilities that I can see:
1) Regime cracks down (or opposition escalates to revolution), violence ensues, regime overcomes opposition and retains power
2) Regime cracks down (or opposition escalates to revolution), violence ensues, overcomes regime and takes power
3) Regime agrees to new elections, Ahmadinjed wins fair election, opposition defeated but not destroyed, regime retains power
4) Regime agrees to new elections, Mousavi wins fair election, opposition takes power
This is pretty much it, right? And we're hoping to make option number 4 happen, right? (Or at this point, isn't option 3 equally viable? So long as the opposition has had its opportunity to vent and is granted a new election that it perceives as fair, doesn't this constitute reform and liberalization even if the conservative candidate is eventually re-elected?)
What actions are going to make this happen? Does it seem likely that a conservative regime with poor relations with much of the world (and specifically with the U.S.) is going to be spurred by external criticism to reform as opposed to violence? Particularly when we consider that this is a culture and a people obsessed by the idea of malign foreign interference -- and when there is ample historical precedent of malign American interference -- in Iranian internal concerns?
Now if number 4 is our best-case scenario and number 3 is considerably less desirable for us but still viable, let's consider the other end of the spectrum: what is the worst-case scenario? It seems pretty obvious to me that option number 1 would result in the worst of all possible worlds: widespread violence, a lot of dead people, the possibility of a revolution escalating into a broader regional conflagration, and all of this ending up with the same regime in power that seems likely to remain there without violence, only now without the reluctance to suppress its population through brute force that might have obtained before the outbreak of open hostilities.
Scenario number 2 would be pretty ok for us, though there would obviously be a pretty dramatic loss of life. And, oh yeah, if Mousavi ends up in power, you've still got the guy who was a hero of the Islamic revolution, who was PM in Khomeini's time, who had a good relationship with Hizballah and probably does not perceive the use of terrorist groups abroad to advance Iranian interests as something that's illegitimate, and who is still going to pursue the development of nuclear weapons. Oh yeah, and there might be a civil war, considering that revolutionary movements tend to fracture upon obtaining power, and a lot of young, liberal types are going to recognize that Mousavi wasn't all we were cracking him up to be. Oops.
So our order of preference, from most desirable to least, is 4-3-2-1. Right, makes sense?
Except I forgot to put on my idealist hat today, so let's do that. Ok, set: good must prevail! Moderation and equivocation are evil! Evil must not be allowed to triumph! The blood of patriots must be shed to throw off the tyranny! And accordingly, we have to rework our priorities.
The simple fact of the matter is that people like Wolfowitz and Krauthammer want a revolution. They believe that it's morally bankrupt to deal pragmatically with a regime that they consider "evil," so before things can change in the region, that regime must cease to exist. Whether that happens through force of arms or political change is of little concern to them, though politics results in moderation and shades of grey, so revolution is probably better. THOSE WHO CALL FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO VOCALLY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION ARE DOING SO IN THE HOPES THAT FORCEFUL AMERICAN RHETORIC WILL RESULT IN A MORE AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGE TO THE REGIME. In short, they want a revolution.
So it's just a matter of priorities, really: the Obama administration, recognizing that American interests are paramount, wants to take a pragmatic approach that allows for flexibility in dealing with the future. The idealists are fundamentally interested in change, in revolutionary change, hoping that this will be a boon for America but really subordinating that goal to pursuit of "right" and "good." Their primary goal is the elimination of the Islamic Republic; they are less interested in securing a post-conflict correlation of forces that facilitates negotiation or pragmatism vis a vis a government they view as illegitimate and fundamentally evil.
Whew, sorry, bit of a rant there.
We probably also inspired the Irish in 1798, although the help that came was from the French...and then there's the fundraising in the 1916-1922 troubles. And the political support by a Democratic party that was having it's arm twisted by its' voting base in the USA, which may just have held back the British enough from crushing it...
The problem here is people keep trying to ascribe rationality to Krauthammer, a walking hate-fest, who just reacts with vitriol to any foreign policy choices the left makes. If Krauthammer was king of the world, we'd have colonized the Middle East, nuked Russia, and have designated a national holiday honoring Dick Cheney.
Check out this summation of the argument before Krauthammer and Wolfowitz chimed in, so nothing of substance has changed: http://www.icsr.info/blog-item.php?id=60
But AM and commenters pointing out overt US encouragement may enable the regime to crush the protestors...yes. It's happened many times before. It might also queer deals or double cross arrangements we may have with Iran to calm down mookie in 2007/2008. *May*.
Galarahn has good points about hactivism and cyber revolution - but sadly I think it won't work if the guys with guns and batons are willing to use them. There's also still a question as to how deep or wide the pro-democracy movement - if we mean a liberal democracy - really is...
Of the Adminstrations approach, we should indeed look to our interests first, and adopt a wait and see as long as is prudent and wise....and of course Mousavi is hardly a liberal.
Chris,
Watch out for the Red Bull. It is indeed much more than it's cracked (cracked LOL) up to be...
Red Bull gives you wings, and makes your nose itch
Galrahn has good points about hactivism and cyber revolution - but sadly I think it won't work if the guys with guns and batons are willing to use them. There's also still a question as to how deep or wide the pro-democracy movement - if we mean a liberal democracy - really is...
Transparency does enable foreign political support if events demand it, and the cyber element is the transparency necessary or governments to make wise decisions. The internet has clearly become the tool for the opposition, and I don't think anyone really knows how much milage can be obtained through the effort.
Should things go radically violent against large numbers of people for all of the Middle East to see, I certainly don't think that would be against our national interest. Transparency is how we win the information and diplomatic postion in these scenarios, so I believe the cyber element is critical to national strategy right now even if it isn't under the control of the national government.
"Transparency is how we win the information and diplomatic postion in these scenarios, so I believe the cyber element is critical to national strategy right now even if it isn't under the control of the national government."
Yes. Yes. Yes.
And Yes. Nor should much of it be under the control of any govt...
And in the same vein...
Ultimate Embeds
Scroll down to the 12/8/06 post if interested...
Should things go radically violent against large numbers of people for all of the Middle East to see, I certainly don't think that would be against our national interest.
Really? You don't think it would be harmful to American interests if a violent revolution broke out in the most important state in the most important region of the globe, likely fueling the aspirations of those powers that might like to influence post-conflict politico-military arrangements (Israel for one; possibly Russia and China) and resulting in widespread bloodshed? You think the most consequential second-order effect would be some sort of encouragement to the aspirationally democratic populations in other authoritarian states in the region?
Because I see a whole lot of bad coming out of that.
Because stabilty is sooooo boring.....
"Dogbert: According to chaos theory, your tiny change to another universe will shift its destiny, possibly killing every inhabitant. Dilbert: “Shift happens. ..."
Come on Chris, let's introduce a little anarchy....
Let the Dog catch the car, again
the majority of Americans would find their strategic goals they hint at but never reveal to be bat-guano crazy. Prove me wrong.
AM: Colonel... that Coca-Cola machine. I want you to shoot the lock off it. There may be some change in there.
Colonel "Bat" Guano: That's private property.
AM: Colonel! Can you possibly imagine what is going to happen to you, your frame, outlook, way of life, and everything, when they learn that you have obstructed a telephone call to the President of the United States? Can you imagine? Shoot it off! Shoot! With a gun! That's what the bullets are for, you twit!
Colonel "Bat" Guano: Okay. I'm gonna get your money for ya. But if you don't get the President of the United States on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you?
AM: What?
Colonel "Bat" Guano: You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.
I have literally nothing of substance to add here (situation normal). But elf, I thought I would point out virtually all irish republican activity prior to 1916 was organised from the states. Ideologically though it was French inspired, as you say. Although as the French were massively influenced by you Yankees, you could say that the Irish were indirectly inspired by your good example. If only they'd got the chuch and state separation bit right.
And yes I think US political pressure was the main reason in the early days why da Brits didnt go all Kenya on the six counties.
"And yes I think US political pressure was the main reason in the early days why da Brits didnt go all Kenya on the six counties."
Any evidence for this?
Mmm, evidence. Not so much. I cant give you a quote from government ministers, although I think I've developed that feeling from talking to people involved and reading a lot about it. . I was working on the basis that even in the early 70s the UK was pursuing a "gentler" counter-insurgency strategy than it had in other post-WWII situations (internment, torture and Dublin &Monaghan bombings included) and the US was the only state of any significance to care about N.I., Also, the UK did bend to US pressure in some instances (eg Macbride principles and anti-discrimination legislation, even though there were other reasons for this). Finally of course it got them on board completely to help the peace process
In so far as international opinion constrained the British in any way, it would have been the US constituent of such opinion which would have been most important.
Re use of the word "Kenya" I was exagertating of course- they wouldnt have used anti-Mau Mau tactics in the UK anyway. I was trying to think of an example of a pretty ruthless British 20th Century counter-insurgency campaign.
Furthermore, later on in the troubles, distinctly from the AIA in '85,the UK started putting a lot more effort into winning "the hearts and minds" of the nationalist community, and consequently it eschewed policy options which could have "crushed" the insurgency in Elf's words in the short term, opting instead for a longer term solution.
Or maybe just chaos.
I agree Ramzi, although to clarify when I bought up the French I should have maybe specified Wolfe Tone and 1798, although I think you got it. And of course the French picked up these bad habits from the American Revolution *which is still going on, F**k Yeah*.
When I said the Brits were restrained I was referring to the 1916-1922 troubles, so of course you must have meant 26 counties. Unless the embrace of chaos theory has opened holes in time, so...
[it's real bad. I am dead sober right now, and babbling worse than if the oppo].
I wonder if US pressure did play a role in the restraint the Brits showed in Troubles round II : 1969-1996, or if it was more general outcry and internal UK opinion.
Have I used the word crushed lately? My My, I am going to have to switch from Red Bull back to Vodka.
Different strokes for Different folks, also different stakes (much higher in the case of Pakistan for reasons well known to both US and UK). The IRA would not have used a nuke if they had one, and they were only interested in leaving the UK and joining the Republic (which wanted them like a dose of the Black Clap).
Going back to earlier threads....if COIN will buy the hearts and minds of Pakistan, and they really mean to defeat the Taliban/AQ - Great!!
If that doesn't work, don't rule out "Fonseka COIN".
Hola Senor Elf
Yes the famously ugly Napper Tandy, another stalwart of '98, was a personal friend of Napoleon, or so they say. I seem to remember the Irish Tricolour being inspired by the French variety as well.
I remember seeing a 1798 remembrance parade on the 200th anniversary when I was in Kerry a while ago. For reasons to random to go into here, part of the parade involved a goat in a cage. The patriotic impact of the parade was slightly compromisef by the fact the goat was shitting all over the tricolour.
I meant 69-98 actually. Anthony's got me thinking if I'm right on this. I might read more around it. Re: restraint - I assure you it wasnt internal UK opinion. Most UK opinion would probably have supported pretty -extreme jack-booted repression during the troubles.
Ramzi
Without dissin me distant cooshins, I completely understand. Having been there (being bombed, not NI). I actually think the British Army did the best they could under the circumstances, not that there weren't mistakes, and that there was not a long learning curve.
Before a fire starts - please note I said the British Army . I am not letting the bigots, the nutters, the weak or irresponsible pols who let everyone - including the British Army by letting them take most of the heat - off the hook. Or the terrorists of either side.
In this case taking the long view and establishing equal justice under the law worked. It's probably not applicable to many other places. Some people like to chant "No Justice, No Peace". I have yet to see justice being paramount in war, if present at all.
You forget Krauthammers job: Hes for increasing conflict w. Iran in order to run interference for Nethanyahu, so as to make Obama ease off on the Palestine solution. One of his fellow Jpost columnists lays out the argument here, under the catching title ": Im glad Ahmadinejad won".
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184859035&pagename=JPost%...
Re : end state.
Maybe provking a crackdown might lead to the kind of street action that brings down the Islamic Republic.
The end of the IRI is not going to be bloodless in any regard and the people's reaction to the election provides an inflection point in history.
Chris Mewett--this regime is the wellspring for nearly every negative impulse in the region (AQ the exception), I'm willing to roll the die.
Visitor 4.54: Yeah, thats just what we need, a civil war spanning from Afghanistan through Iran and into Iraq, dragging along Pakistan.
Visitor 5:07,
Why would an Iranian civil war necessarily span thru Astan and into Iraq, other than refugees...? Can you clarify your concern?
BTW Vice COS seems to have a bee in his bonnet, I don't know...is this guy an evangelical martinet, or is he on base? I remember the name from the reign of error in 2006...so I am not neutral..
GI AA
You know, normally when someones on a crusade to purge sin and vice...it means there's a past there, if not present.
His focus was on American foreign policy history in roughly similar situations rather than the current Iranian situation.
Iran and the Phillipines are "roughly similar"? Not hardly. The Phillipines were a U.S. client state with a huge Navy base at Subic Bay and a government and people friendly to the U.S. for decades That situation lends itself to exerting influence. Iran couldn't be more different.
Why do some people think this Wolfowitz guy is so smart, especially given his track record as one of the most zealous promoters of the Iraq War? He's given space in the Washington Post and this is the best comparison he can draw? Jeez.
I am a Filipino and I was there at the EDSA revolution and the many months of rallies leading up to it.
Anthony's comment above about the Philippines as a client dictatorship that will fall if only the the US would stop propping it up is basically correct. May I also add, to emphasize our difference with what's happening now in Iran, that we recognize this and we (not me personally, but the majority of those opposed to the dictator) were practically begging for the US to interfere. And the begging started long before 1986. Ninoy Aquino, the leader of the opposition, who had been lobbying for US support got shot in 1983 while deplaning from America.
We knew about that "cut and cut cleanly" thing by Lugar but we're skeptical. When a couple of F-16s (from the Subic US Naval Base) made a fly-by at EDSA (btw, it's the name of a highway), the hundreds of thousands of people gathered there whooped it up. We knew that it's over. Marcos fled the next day, iirc.
The Philippines is truly, madly, deeply in love with the US and apple pie. There's even a joke (wish?) around here that if the visa restriction between us is lifted today, there will be no people left in my country by this time tomorrow. I doubt it very much that this is true with Iran.
Oh, and stop this importing of Jeffersonian democracy nonsense. It only worked for us because we are a US colony
from the turn of the 19th century until you "granted" us our independence in 1946. Hollywood took over from then on.
Since when is their ever an "end state" in history. Your framing of the issue suggests short-sightedness.
@ Andrew Exum
You really have to learn to respect people that you disagree with instead of just using ad hominem attacks.
I think you are way off base on what Kraut and Wolf were getting at. Besides, if they are to be believed, many of the Iranian blogs that are covering the protest are saying that the protesters are condemning Europe and the US for standing by and not helping them. It is a common theme in the blogs I'm reading.
Sadly, I have to agree with Wayne Z. Ad hominem attacks on people you disagree with do nothing to bolster your own opinions. Make your case without attacking motives of people who express other opinions. Just saying.
The basic problem in Iran remains, that there it's much more difficult than just the "good people" versus the "evil regime". There is the huge and diverse "green wave" of Musavis supporters - many of whom (but sure as hell not all) are completely fed up with the Islamic Republic. There are the supporters of Ahmadinezhad and the regime - a couple of millions without doubt; organized, armed, (more or less) prepared to die for their cause - and even more prepared to let everyone who challenges the Islamic Republic die for their cause. And then there is the game behind the curtains of power - Hashemi and Nateq-Nuri both got publicly slammed by Ahmadinezhad in the TV-debates. If he and his guys can (1) mess with some of the most, most influential people of the IR (Hashemi), (2) mess with some of the old guard of the conservatives (Nateq Nuri) while simultaneously (3) rig the election in the most outrageous way (as it is perceived) including (4) humilating not only a Mehdi Karrubi and a Mir Hossein Musavi but the Pasdaran-Foundingfather Rezai while (5) surviving the current outrage - than pretty much nothing and nobody is save from them in the Future. Perhaps Mesbah-Yazdi and his folks rout Hashemi in the next elections for the Council of Experts (with a little help from my friends)? What guarantees will exist for the old conservative cleptocrats? These questions in the minds of some influential people will make life much harder for Ahmadinezhad and his guys in the next days. Exactly the reason why the Supreme Leader came to the defence of both Hashemi and Nateq Nuri yesterday.
But where in all the turmoil is the role of the US? Sure as hell, Khamenei won't listen to the US, and do a Marcos... "Oh, Great Satan doesn't support me any longer. What a pity. Then I don't wanna rule. Better find a nice exile". If it comes to an armed confrontation, vocal US-support will be pretty much the last thing on the mind of the opposition. Nice to know Uncle Sam likes you, but either you are willing to confront the regime for some better reason (and there are plenty) or you stay at home. On the other hand, the Basij of cause already consider the US, Israel and the usual suspects the culprits behind the "unprovoked and totally outrageous, violent turmoil" (as they see it). Easy to say that every word coming from the US will be fuel for their mobilization-campaign.
On the other hand, if the worst clashes can be avoided, than the string-pulling behind the curtains will likely be tipped in favor of the powers that are by overt US support. The US is truely disliked by most people affiliated with the regime - conservatives, reformers, opportunists. Abu Muqawama and all Lebanon-Nerds will find one of their alltime-favorite Ex-Ambassadors to Syria (Mohtashami) in the election-team of Musavi - just one example (and Mohtashami is one of the old radicals who still gets foam at the mouth when hearing the words Israel or US). Those guys will not be delighted by Obama praising Musavi. Could be pretty much a death-kiss to his efforts.
I think it's pretty obvious that the modest gains of a staunch US position (moral support to the most radical opposition) will be outweighed by the damages (moral support to the loyalists and simultaneously deterring moderate oppositions forces) while having no influence whatsoever on those in power.
I can't imagine that a Mr. Krauthammer or a Mr. Wolfowitz are really ignorant on these things - come on, it's not that hard to figure out. So for me the only reason for their criticism of Mr. Obamas prudent tactics can be their desire to hurt their president even at the expense of the Iranian opposition while claming insincerely to have only their best in their minds. That for me deserves ad-hominem-attacks.
From David's piece.
"The biggest gift the West can give the Iranian people is to keep open the lines of communication."
This has not worked out so well in Darfur or the DRC or.........
The fact that the "West" is offended or outraged only goes so far.
An very interesting piece from the Economist on what is "required" for a revolution to succeed. http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2009/06/the_chemistry_of_revoluti...
The President on Iran.....
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said - “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
I would have to say that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” is not the first quote I think of when asked about the moral fiber of the "international community" that Iran supposedly seeks the "respect" of. I have no idea who this little chat was aimed at. The people in the streets? The Government of Iran? Or a quick couple of lines to get domestic opposition to STFU?
A good end state would be the mullahs hanging from the lampposts and the overthrow of an evil theocracy (is there any other kind, especially an islamic one?). Absent that, a bombing run on Qom would suffice.
"Prove me wrong."
Since you're the one making unfounded accusations, perhaps you should prove yourself right. Or is that too much to ask?
Wow. My respect for you and any opinion you have about current events went straight down the toilet.
You may disagree with Krauthammer, but your venomous hostility and contempt towards him is unbecoming and only serves to distract from whatever point you are trying to make about the matter at hand. I have read Krauthammer's columns for years and can be very sure that he is a brilliant intellect, even if I don't agree with his opinions in every case.
You, I now can see, lack the tools to debate him and so resort to name calling. 'Opened his cakehole'? Really? Is this a sports radio call-in show or a serious discussion? What do you want Krauthammer to do next, tell you to 'Shut your trap' or 'shove it up your a**', or maybe ask you to take it outside?
This is the last time I will ever link to your commentary. Bye.
For those of you who may link to Iran blogs, this could be assumed, but is being confirmed....Sepah will be tracking twitter and social dissent ...
Big Sepah watching twitter
It appears that Obama is proving you wrong.
People are so jingo-ish and sheep-like. Those who didn't care about Iran and still know next to nothing about it are trying to become armchair generals. Those who joked and sang about bombing the country now pretend they give a shit. They give those who really do care and know what they're talking about a bad name. They're pathetic. And Krauthammer and his ilk are disgusting ideologues who should be chucked out the door.
This is a parody site right?
Dear Krauthammer's Daddy,
So let me get this straight. You're saying that the "armchair generals" who "didn't care about Iran" before, are pretending to "give a shit" now. While people like you, who "really do care" and "know what they're talking about," have hated Iran all along?
Yeah, I know what you mean by "disgusting ideologues"...
No, "street fighter," you didn't get it straight.
Looking in a mirror, I see, "street fighter."
Add your comment