To Meddle or Not to Meddle - interesting commentary on Iran

[ProfJohn]

Found this commentary interesting. Especially in terms of putting some perspective on what we are seeing in Iran. We are so caught up in the moment that we have forgot the past.

Iran is a country that has been at war with us for the past 30 years and our response has been weak and mild to say the least. It is no wonder that they ignore us when it comes to their nuclear plans. In the past they have waged war against us by proxy and we have done nothing in response. As long as we continue to treat the current government of Iran as legitimate and as someone we can or want to deal with we will continue to face the type of asymmetrical warfare that Iran has waged against us for 30+ years.

If we want real chance in Iran we shouldn't be giving grand speeches about opening our hands if they unclench their fists and other worthless metaphors. We should instead take steps to make it clear that we view their government as illegitimate and do everything within our powers, short of war, to get that government removed from power.

As for Obama and Iran. He should look to Reagan's treatment of the Soviets and use that as a guide. Early in his term Reagan refused to speak to the Soviets. He called them the 'evil empire' and engaged in industrial sabotage in order to weaken its government. Only when he saw a real reformer take power did Reagan make efforts to talk to him.

Also, don't forget that prior to Reagan we had 30+ years of 'engagement' where we talked to and tried to work with the Soviets. And for all our work we got nothing. It wasn't until we finally started to confront the Soviets that real progress was made.

Obama should keep that in mind when he decides whether we engage with Iran or we alienate them and work to end the regime of the mullahs. The removal of the current Iranian regime would be the biggest step towards world peace since the break up of the Soviet Union, that should be Obama's ultimate goal. Don't look for ways to become friends with this evil murderous regime, look for ways to eliminate them.
Op-Ed from National Review, that evil right wing magazine.

As someone who has favored for years a policy of regime change in Iran (see, e.g., here, here, here, here and here), what stuns me about the commentary over the last couple of days is the perception that the regime has done something shocking with this election. The regime isn't any different today than it was the day before the election, the days before it gave logistical assistance to the 9/11 suicide hijacking teams, the day before it took al-Qaeda in for harboring after the 9/11 attacks, the day before Khobar Towers, or every day of combat in Iraq. Throughout the last 30 years, this revolutionary regime has made war on America while it brutalized its own people. The latter brutalization has ebbed and flowed with circumstances, depending on how threatened (or at least vexed) the regime felt at any given time.

Serial American governments, however, have shunned moral clarity and shunned their own fatuous rhetoric ? rapprochement," "engagement," "cultivating 'moderates,'" "democracy promotion," "the Bush Doctrine," back to "engagement" again ? in pursuit of what our foeign policy geniuses have been so certain is the grand bargain with Iran that has been within reach any day now for the last 30 years. The Clinton administration obstructed the FBI's investigation of Khobar because highlighting Iran's complicity in the murder of 19 members of our Air Force would have been inconvenient for its overtures to "reformer" Khatami (while the real power, the mullahs, happily plowed full speed ahead ? death to America style ? building their nukes and abetting our enemies). The Bush administration was flat incoherent, with the president correctly calling Iran an implacable terrorist regime while his State Department treated them like they were any rational government ? eschewing sticks and continuing to entice them with more carrots every time they mocked the last batch of goodies.

Perhaps the worst part of all this was allowing the antiwar (and, specifically, antiwar in Iraq) crowd, aided by our foreign-policy gurus, to equate regime change with invasion in the public mind. Regime change in Iraq became the official policy of the U.S. in the late 1990s, years before the invastion of Iraq. We could have and should have made regime change in Iran official American policy long before that ? certainly by 1996. Had we done that, we could have had a clear policy, denied the mullahs legitimacy in every particular, squeezed them in every way (particularly economically), sanctioned governments that continued to deal with them, supported the dissidents, and attacked them militarily (with or without a full-scale invasion) when they sponsored terrorist camps, supported and harbored al-Qaeda, killed Americans in Iraq, and built their nukes.

I agree with Jonah that John is off-base in suggesting that there is a current of opinion on the Right which holds that demonstrations in the streets mean a government is illegitimate and must fall. But I disagree with what I take ? perhaps mistakenly ? to be the implication that something has happened in the last few days that ought to change our view of the legitimacy of this government. This was never a "democracy." It was a farce. The elections never meant anything in terms of legitimacy. The mullahs controlled the outcome of the elections through and through. Until now, it has been enough to exercise veto power over who could stand for election ? but the fact that they were doing that was confirmation that, if the vote went bad and they needed to take the next logical step of fixing the vote count, they would fix the vote count. The fact that the bank robbery occurs at high-noon for all to see doesn't make it more of a robbery than one conducted in stealth.

I've always thought the first duty of government is the security of the governed. I'm not sure I'm on board with Jonah's distinction that legitimacy is a duty ? I think that's more of a status, going to the question of whether you really have a government rather than to what government must do. But in any event, it seems to me that this regime is now engaged in exactly the sort of thing it has been engaged in for 30 long years. If we were finally going to do what we should long ago have done, and make regime change our policy, I'd be ecstatic. But let's not overlook that we have treated this regime as a legitimate government through atrocity after atrocity. That will make it much easier now for Obama to do what he wants to do in any event ? 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.

 

[jpeyton]

No more US intervention. Let the Iranians work through the process naturally. It will be more of a victory if they earn it on their own. In fact, US intervention would remove legitimacy from it.

 

[BoomerD]

Yeah, forcing a regime change in Iraq worked out so well for us...:roll:

Then, there's Ronnie Raygun's meddling in Nicaragua...remember the Iran-Contra Affair?

The USA should stop trying to be the world's police force and let nations decide their own fates.

help when asked...but do NOT meddle where we are not wanted.

 

[ProfJohn]

Interesting read from a former CIA agent who suggests that Ahmadinejad may have really won the election.
Time link

Before we settle on the narrative that there has been a hard-line takeover in Iran, an illegitimate coup d'état, we need to seriously consider the possibility that there has been a popular hard-line takeover, an electoral mandate for Ahmadinejad and his policies. One of the only reliable, Western polls conducted in the run-up to the vote gave the election to Ahmadinejad ? by higher percentages than the 63% he actually received. The poll even predicted that Mousavi would lose in his hometown of Tabriz, a result that many skeptics have viewed as clear evidence of fraud. The poll was taken all across Iran, not just the well-heeled parts of Tehran. Still, the poll should be read with a caveat as well, since some 50% of the respondents were either undecided or wouldn't answer.

No doubt, Iran will come out of last Friday's election a different country. But it would serve us well to put aside our prism that has led us to misunderstand Iran for so many years, an anticipation that there would be a liberal counter-revolution in the country. Mousavi is far from the liberal democrat that many in the West would like to believe he is. The truth is, Ahmadinejad may be the President the Iranians want, and we may have to live with an Iran to Iranians' liking and not to ours.

He also says that piling on sanctions at this time would be a bad thing. Doing so would only strengthen Ahmadinejad.

I would agree, for now at least. We should take a hands off approach, perhaps send out signals of support to the students and such, but only take a hard line approach further down the road after all the current drama comes to an end.

 

[seemingly random]

What should our position be on Iran?

Missionary position. Many here would say the problem with iran is their religion. We need to get christians in there as soon as possible.

---

I think the official position obama is projecting now is appropriate - "It's an internal problem in a sovereign country. We should let them work it out."

And then, go about what we usually do in these situations - direct our ops already in place to help out with the internal destabilization. And have a couple of carrier groups close by.

 

[CanOWorms]

We shouldn't directly interfere, but actively work to fend off any European support for the reigning government. Don't forget that when the Rwanda genocide was happening, France sent in planeloads of weapons despite the UN embargo. I wouldn't expect it to be beyond Germany (they must be scared for their sizable economic interests in Iran) to send weapons to the Iranian government to help them slaughter innocents. Less potential Iranians to immigrate to Europe would also be to their governments' advantage. A free Iran, with a young and educated population so close to Europe is viewed as a threat to them.

A planned strike against German infrastructure as a warning would be the best aid to help the Iranian people if that's what you wanted to do.

 

[Bitek]

We need to stay out of it publicly. We can help in the background, like help the internet sites stay open, or even assist in distrupting gov't filters on the internet, etc. Last thing we need to do is start getting out in front of this and make it look like the protesters are American agents undermining the republic (which R's seem hellbent on doing.)

That would most likely result in a violent crackdown and a nationalist backlash. This looks to be growing just fine by itself. The neocons like Kristol just need to chill TFO, play it smooth, and let the people work it out themselves instead of trying to force things too fast and fuck the whole thing up.


IOW: If you are trying to lay a girl, is it better to drop the date rape drugs, or be cool, work it, and let the girl come around on her own? The first will get the job done if that's all you are thinking about, but there are consequences afterward, not to mention what is more enjoyable in the end.

I agree with the above as well, in pressing he Euros not to F it up either.

 

[Craig234]

Lead by example for a change. Respect their sovereignity.

What should Iran's policy be, US regime change by violent means? Non-violent? Nothing?

 

[ProfJohn]

I think Iran's policy towards us is regime change via Islamic revolution. That IS the goal of the whole Islamofascist movement and Iran is certainly a part of that movement, or at least allied towards it in many ways.

 

[Bitek]

Bush: Dropping Ruffies on Iraq
Obama: Smoove B

This will have to be handled very carefully. An intriguing note sent with tasteful but exotic flowers, playful chats via text message, and many a sexually charged phone call. And all this will be done in secret, as we work together on my new charity, Smoove B's Homeless Shelter for Attractive but Poor Children.

First Baby, Smoove is coming.

...When we arrive at the hotel, we will be overcome by mutual sexual attraction, but I will dispel this by saying what a fine evening it was and kiss her lightly on the cheek.

While many may ask why I ended the night instead of taking her to untold realms of sensual pleasure, it is simple. A woman of this caliber is like a rare, black diamond, which must be chipped away and buffed by a master craftsman for months before it can finally be mounted. Patience will be Smoove's ally.

In 2009 she will be mine.

lol

 

[CallMeJoe]

Bad analogy, PJ. Ronnie R had far less to do with the collapse of the Soyuz than you imply; if we credit any U.S. president for the fall of the Eastern Bloc, it must be the otherwise maligned Richard Milhouse Nixon (and his Secretary of State, Mr. Kissinger). It was Nixon's Engagement of the Soviets through the policy of detente that began the end of the "Evil Empire". President Reagan just happened to be at the helm when the by-then-inevitable collapse of the Soyuz accelerated.

If you wish to use the Fall of the Soviet Empire as your model, President Obama's engagement of the Iranians would, rather, appear to be the correct move...

 

[fskimospy]

The idea that Iran has been 'at war' with us for 30 years is absurd. The use of the term 'Islamofascism' is just an attempt to staple 'fascism' onto something we don't like. Iran's policy towards our government (regime change through Islamic revolution) is meaningless as they have no capability to carry it out nor any actual serious intent to do so.

Meddling with foreign regimes we don't like has led to some of the largest foreign policy catastrophes of the last century, in fact I can't think of a time that meddling with a foreign government has yielded a positive outcome for the US. (although there might be one or two that I can't remember). The answer is 'no'.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think Iran's policy towards us is regime change via Islamic revolution. That IS the goal of the whole Islamofascist movement and Iran is certainly a part of that movement, or at least allied towards it in many ways.

Please lay out the plan for how they are going to replace our constitution with a Shah.

Are you suggesting they're going to get the small percentage of Muslims in the US, who have a lower rate of terrorism and violence than the general population, to not only start a revolution, but to successfully overthrow our government by force? You can either not answer, and everyone will understand how flawed your position is, or you can answer and make it even clearer. I hope you choose the latter.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The idea that Iran has been 'at war' with us for 30 years is absurd. The use of the term 'Islamofascism' is just an attempt to staple 'fascism' onto something we don't like.

It works pretty well for any group that isn't an enemy but the propagandists want to make one. if the target is Democrats, the Demo-fascit party.

If women are the target, the femi-fascists. Or maybe the femi-nazis.

Oh, wait.

 

[Siddhartha]

I voted do nothing. Any hint of US involvement will allow the current Iranian government to blame the political upheavals on foreign powers and squash them.

 

[manowar821]

Imperialism needs to stop, regardless of the possible outcome. Fucking keep our god damn american noses out of their business.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Should regime change be our official position on Iran?

Hell. No.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig and Eskimo, are you denying that the whole goal of the Islamist movement is to expand the rule of Islamic governments??

This has always been their open and stated goal. They are very clear that they want to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate that stretched from the Middle East all the way to Spain.

After that I am sure they will be very happy and just sit back with a smile... :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The use of the term 'Islamofascism' is just an attempt to staple 'fascism' onto something we don't like.

It is not my term and it is a widely used term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism

Paul Berman and Christopher Hitchens argue that there are similarities between historical fascism and Islamofascism:[11][page needed]
rage against historical humiliation; [12]
inspiration from what is believed to be an earlier golden age (one or more of the first few Caliphates in the case of Islamism)[13][8];
a desire to restore the perceived glory of this age ? or "a fanatical determination to get on top of history after being underfoot for so many generations"[12] ? with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system;[7]
belief that malicious, predatory alien forces are conspiring against and within the nation/community, and that violence is necessary to defeat and expel these forces; [8]
exaltation of death and destruction along with a contempt for "art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence", and strong commitment to sexual repression and subordination of women.[8]
offensive military, (or at least armed) campaign to reestablish the power and allegedly rightful international domination of the nation/community.[7]

It may not be a perfect term, but is certainly a valid term.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

....it gave logistical assistance to the 9/11 suicide hijacking teams, the day before it took al-Qaeda in for harboring after the 9/11 attacks, the day before Khobar Towers...

I don't see how anyone with at least two functioning braincells can still pay attention to neocons spewing such nonsense.

And we have been meddling in Iran for a long time. A bit of Googling turned up this video which sums up the situation well.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
This has always been their open and stated goal. They are very clear that they want to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate that stretched from the Middle East all the way to Spain.

This is what I've heard. It's in all the novels. From spain (don't know if portugal is included) to iran (or maybe afghanistan). Don't know if italy was part of it.

There are some people (eg. trent lott) that would like to see the things in the south in the u.s. the way they were 150 years ago. The extremists don't always get their wish.

After that I am sure they will be very happy and just sit back with a smile... :roll:

I think they'll quit there. North american climate isn't conducive to camels.

--craigkimo

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig and Eskimo, are you denying that the whole goal of the Islamist movement is to expand the rule of Islamic governments??

This has always been their open and stated goal. They are very clear that they want to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate that stretched from the Middle East all the way to Spain.

After that I am sure they will be very happy and just sit back with a smile... :roll:

After that they'll be too busy building landing strips for the pigs.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The use of the term 'Islamofascism' is just an attempt to staple 'fascism' onto something we don't like.

It is not my term and it is a widely used term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism

It may not be a perfect term, but is certainly a valid term.

If you bother to read the rest of that Wiki article you'll see that even the Cheney administration eventually gave up on using that moronic term.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig and Eskimo, are you denying that the whole goal of the Islamist movement is to expand the rule of Islamic governments??

This has always been their open and stated goal. They are very clear that they want to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate that stretched from the Middle East all the way to Spain.

After that I am sure they will be very happy and just sit back with a smile... :roll:

Who cares what the goal of the Islamist movement is? They have no chance of implementing it and I have seen no actions by Iran that indicate they take this goal seriously, as they know as well as I do how ridiculous it is. My goal is to marry Natalie Portman but I don't think she needs to start shopping for wedding dresses. If you want to base our foreign policy on the pipe dreams of people that aren't even attempting to seriously undertake this action, you are advocating a dangerously unhinged foreign policy stance that would have no basis in reality. Absolute insanity.

As far as Islamofascism goes I know it's not your term, I never said it was. It is most certainly not a 'widely used' term however, it is only used by the extreme American right and hard core supporters of the Iraq war/war on terror. Fascism is such a nebulous term that you can apply it to almost anything, that's why both the left and the right find ways to brand both liberals and conservatives fascists simultaneously. It's just a loaded term that people staple onto things they don't like, complete bullshit. Hell, Fascism was an attempt to replace sky-beardo religion with the religion of the state, but now you're claiming that a religious organization is fascist. Ridiculous.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig and Eskimo, are you denying that the whole goal of the Islamist movement is to expand the rule of Islamic governments??

There is no single "Islamist movement."

And even if there were, it would be irrelevant. The people in the ME don't even want the radical Islamic fanatics. They're being chased out of most ME countries, not embraced.

Our meddling in ME affairs only helps radicalize people there. Why can't people like you get that through your thick skulls?

We are MUCH more likely to spread freedom to people in the ME by just being an example, a nation they can look up to. A nation that tends to it's own problems, a nation that makes sure its own people are free and prosperous.

Our meddling foreign policy is bad enough, we don't need more of the same. We need the opposite. We need to bring our troops home, defend our own country, our own borders, and reign in the trillion dollars a year we spend overseas.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Let the Iranians work through the process naturally. It will be more of a victory if they earn it on their own.

Agreed, but I do not have high hopes of the current regime going away anytime soon.

help when asked...but do NOT meddle where we are not wanted.

Intervention when asked by the leadership of a nation or by our perceived outcry of the people?