I’m not sure what the true back-story is about China cutting back on its oil imports from Iran, but it potentially indicates that the Obama administration has succeeded in isolating and strangling the revolutionary government there. As Europe moves to stop oil imports, and Japan and South Korea prepare to follow, Iran is going to go broke very quickly, and their economic elites may quickly conclude that their dalliance with Khomeinism must come to an end. I can’t see how any serious Iranian businessmen would prefer a hopeless military confrontation with the U.S. Navy to a change in regime at home. The Islamic Revolution ought to come to end. It has been surpassed by the Arab Spring and it has turned as inwardly repressive as the Shah’s regime. The people tried and failed to bring the necessary changes two years ago. The missing ingredient was a revolt of the economic elites. Clerics belong in seminaries or mosques, not in power. I hope the Iranian people, including those who have real economic power, will see the light and choose civil government and peace over clericalism and war. My hope is that the world unites and squeezes the balloon until it pops from internal pressure.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
99 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Whatever he’s got going, I hope it works. Where’s Russia in all this?
.
Always betting on the wrong horse and using an act of war to provoke a retaliatory attack. Downfall of Mussadeq in 1953, support of the Shah in 1979, support of Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran War and a million deaths, support of Pakistan developing Islam atom bomb contrary to NPT treaty, support of Mujahideen and Arab Sunni mercenaries in Afghanistan, US military forces on Saudi soil, blowback Islamic extremists (Saudi/Sunni) in period 1993-2007, unlawful invasion of Iraq providing Iranian power surge in Middle East, extending stay in Afghanistan without sufficient ISAF forces and US assets thereby alienating Pakistan.
Why continue doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia, Gulf States and Israel to provoke Iran. Excellent opportunity to supply modern fighter jets, intelligent bombs, missiles and anti-missile systems. Just waiting for the big-bang …
Ahmadinejad and Iranian people will most likely make the choice to risk a limited US bombing raid on the bunkers of their nuclear program, calculating the US and the West will suffer more from financial and economic havoc. Russia and China still offer backing of Iran in the UNSC. Europe in a cowardly way closes ranks with Obama on the Iranian boycott. Their choice is made out of domestic political gain and the uncontroled anti-muslim sentiment since 11/9.
Iraq may become a political ally of Iran due to Saudi Arabia funding Sunni insurgents and Maliki’s opposition to removal of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Hey, it’s my two favorite fallacies about American foreign policy:
.
It’s an extension of decades long policy in Middle-East, oil supplies and specifically vs. Iran. We’re not speaking of Central America, Grenada, Philippines early 20th century or South East Asia in the sixties or other fp issues.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."It’s an extension of decades long policy…
Of course it is, because it’s just gotta be.
This can’t really be about nuclear proliferation.
I wonder why China and South Korea have suddenly jumped on board of our decades-long policy?
.
You’re posing more questions than coming forward with a factual response. Yet you have a loud voice while wanting for learning. Puzzling.
Where did you get the idea China is on the side of the US, the UNSC isn’t (yet) where the US is in enforcing sanctions. On South Korea I suppose you missed the change in leadership from Sunshine policy toward North Korea and the present tough talking leader. Perhaps Bush and Bolton had some influence on a change of heart and NK policy.
Just for the record, the interpretation by the US and its MSM of the IAEA report is very similar to the Bush era and Iraq’s ‘hidden’ biological and chemical weapons.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."If you were attempting to convey any sort of meaning, you might want to try again.
I can’t even say for sure whether or not you’re disagreeing with me.
Iran has done me no harm. Our Republican government, on the other hand…
Is there anyone here at this blog who can explain to me in specific, honest language what Iran has exactly done wrong to deserve this act of war (aka embargo)? Imagine how exciting it must be to live in Iran and be able to look forward to US and Israeli bombs falling on your head for reasons which no one has explained. It is definitely the ambition of every Iranian to become collatoral damage. The honor is immeasurable. The biggest conondrum is that the most peace-loving, democratic and magnaminous country in the world is constantly in a state of war. How is that possible? That’s probably because I am forgetting the dictionary meaning of words in my old age. Yes, they hate the US for its freedoms! Guffaw, guffaw.
What Iran has done wrong is not be open and transparent about its nuclear program in a way that a lot of other countries have. It has obeyed the letter of the nonproliferation treaty but played the ambiguity card for regional power.
And…it has not seemed to be interested in renormalizing diplomatic relations with the United States, a 32-year break in diplomatic relations.
Those are the main issues. The side issues are that it’s an oil exporter and is a strategic regional power in relation to the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.
And this is different from Israel how? Oh, that’s right, they never signed the NPT, did they.
I may be hallucinating here, but I recall reading years ago that Iran was very much interested in renormalizing diplomatic relations toward the end of the Clinton administration, but that the Bush admin basically turned a blind eye to their overtures, and then the whole “Axis of Evil” business came about. Did a number on N Korea’s nuclear ambitions too.
I think your side issues are main issues in certain other circles.
The question was what Iran had done wrong, not what the US motives are. Those are two different issues. Yes, the side issues in what exactly Iran has done wrong are the geopolitical main issues in US policy. In a backhanded sort of way, that was my point.
In talking about the US and Iran, Israel is a red herring issue. Of course, Israel is in violation of the NPT–but it never was a signatory to it and Iran was. That makes it a different issue because the IAEA cannot assert its authority as extensively over non-signatories. The US can save $3 billion a year by insisting that Israel sign and abide by the NPT and then dropping foreign aid when Israel refuses to.
I was being facetious in my post to you. I kinda think you know that though. Well, more than kinda.
.
You have the main and side issues turned around.
Saudi King Abdullah urged the U.S. to “cut off the head of the snake” by attacking Iran and halting its nuclear program. From WikiLeaks: US embassy cables: Saudi king urges US strike on Iran
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Main issue: What has Iran done wrong?
Side issue: Being geographically in the wrong place and holding valuable resources.
This crisis is driven by the side issues and domestic politics in both the US and Iran.
“What Iran has done wrong is not be open and transparent about its nuclear program in a way that a lot of other countries have.“
Other countries like – hmmm, let’s see – Israel for example?
Believe me, if I could cut off US support of Israel, I would.
Iran is just one of those grenades with the pin pulled that Bush left behind. If we ignore Iran, does it just become another N. Korea? If we ignore, will Israel start something the whole world will have to clean up for the next 10 years? And lets not forget Iran has oil.
My hope is that non-violent resistance will let the air out of a lot of over-inflated balloons.
My thought too. Like Libya China is not creating a problem and here may actually be aiding the sanctions. A better price on oil is a nice incentive to help squeeze the Iranian regime.
If the green revolution was happening now I think Obama would be more inclined to at least speak out. He was new and thought Iranian regime was a bit more legitimate. I think he dreamed of direct negotiations and was tentative in his condemnation of the crackdown.
You are assuming that after 32 years of Khomeinism that there is an economic elite independent of the regime. And that championing the interests of the Iranian 1% is in the long-term interests of the US.
The US, Europe, and even China and Russia are not going to force the end of Khomeinism from outside no more than they forced the end of whatever Soviet Communism and Putinism have in common.
The best they can hope to accomplish is to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon in way that North Korea has.
The best analysis says that Iran is not going there anyway–that it’s nuclear weapons development program, like Japan’s is well within the limits of the Non-Proliferation Treaty but could be put on fasttrack if an existential threat arose.
Like Saddam Hussein, Ahmedinejad cannot explicitly let the world know that there is not actual construction of nuclear weapons. Ambiguity itself deters. Until some nitwit decides that it is an excuse for war.
So who does Iran want to deter? Well, there’s Israel of course, but little evidence that Israel will expose itself diplomatically by starting the Third Gulf War. And there’s Saudi Arabia, which is purchasing even more weapons from the US and actively suppressing a restive Shi’ite minority in Saudi Arabia and assisting Bahrain in suppressing the Shi’ite majority.
These tight sanctions are a risky move, especially as the GOP ratchets up its “Bomb, bomb, Iran” campaign rhetoric.
The irony is that helpful regime change will happen when Ahmedinejad does not have a foreign enemy to use in rallying national unity. But it must happen on terms of the Iranian 99% if the US is to end the conflict that it started with the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953.
We almost has some liberalization of the regime under Khatami–until President Bush added the regime to the “Axis of Evil”. The popular reaction to that action of the US brought Ahmedinejad to power and slammed the door shut on liberalization.
Pointblank, we do not need to maintain Iran as the next enemy. And we need to understand that Ahmedinejad’s payoff for his picking a fight is his consolidation of power. Exactly the opposite of what you think will happen. Economics does not drive everybody’s foreign policy.
“Like Saddam Hussein, Ahmedinejad cannot explicitly let the world know that there is not actual construction of nuclear weapons. Ambiguity itself deters. Until some nitwit decides that it is an excuse for war.”
I can never figure out how this entirely bogus excuse came into the public consciousness. Iraq stated repeatedly, clearly and unambiguously for over a decade that it had no WMD and allowed UNSC inspectors to trample around or years, throwing them out in 1998 only when they were used to gather intel about Saddam’s whereabouts for a potential assassination. It is really sad when democrats just propose to draw a smiley face on Republican style imperialism and think they are better people for it.
In answer to the question “what did Iran do wrong to deserve all this” the answer is that they overthrew a puppet government the US imposed upon them and then proceeded to resist US-Israeli dominance in the middle east. Those are unpardonable sins for which they must be punished. The nuclear file is simply an excuse. Iran could announce the end of its nuclear program tomorrow and US policy would be exactly the same.
Just as Iraq’s lack of WMD did not save Iraq.
BooMan, Where do you get the gall?
‘The Islamic Revolution ought to come to end.’
The revolution took place decades ago. The country and government that have survived against geat odds since then are not a revolution. You might as well say that American Revolution ought to come to end. Very arrogant and very intolerant.
Saying that people shouldn’t have to live under a government like that in Iran is something that anyone who purports to adhere to any kind of liberal or leftist values should find utterly uncontroversial.
Where are yours?
Well, I’m old, too old to change. Besides, I save a lot of time by viewing events overseas in terms of what I learned thirty, forty years ago, and not re-thinking through things periodically — enough time to learn a couple languages, and my raised-bed garden is the envy of my neighbors.
I mean, how likely is it that anything important has changed.
No blood for oil! USA out! Rally to the support of the oppressed third-world-people-of-wherever it is. Support the peace-loving Fill-in-the-blank regime.
I’ve got nothing against keeping America’s imperial history in mind when analyzing this administration’s actions. I’d go so far as to say that it’s important to ask these questions.
But it’s the insistence that we don’t need to ask the question – that we always know the answer, facts be damned – that bugs me. We’re supposed to be the reality-based community, but damn if there aren’t a lot of people who are the mirror image of the neocons.
They never have to ask whether the facts fit their theory, just how. All they ever need to do is check their guts, restate their ideology about American power in the abstract, and assume that the facts back it up.
appreciate your comments joe.
I’m silly that way. I don’t like theocrats here at home or anywhere abroad. I don’t see Iran’s government as better than Syria’s in any way. They both need to go. For the people, first, and for international peace and cooperation, second.
.
BooMan’s sliding scale: Iran, Chili, Grenada, Panama, Iraq and again Iran. About totalitarian states in 2011, US ranking close to a flawed democracy. Please explain your reasoning “for international peace and cooperation.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."The strategy here is to economically attack Iran until it responds militarily, giving the U.S. a fake moral high ground to “defend” itself, since the other side supposedly attacked first.
So it was our fault that Japan attacked us during World War Two? And Japan and Iran will have no choice but to start slaughtering people in response to economic pressure?
That’s repugnant.
But the U.S. is provoking militarily too. According to the New York Times: “The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf
So let me get this straight: launching a military attack – shooting and burning and shelling people to death on a large scale – is perfectly understandable, legitimate, and not at all your found when you do it to the United States, but defensive actions are acts of aggression.
Repugnant, and utterly lacking in principles.
.
As in Gulf of Tonkin or alternately not starting a war when a commercial jetliner gets shot down as in the Strait of Hormuz. Are you some sort of ObamaBot leaving short messages fully biased to one side only or calling out ‘Firebagger‘ accusations. Repugnant.
USA a flawed democracy.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."See above. You are like a parody of a sophomore who read Howard Zinn for the first time.
Did you mean to write something to back up your claims about this episode? Because you totally didn’t.
Nothing you just spit out has the slightest bearing on the question. You’re just randomly spewing bad stuff the United States did at some point in history, as if we can just assume your implausible spin to be accurate as long as we hold the United States in sufficiently low esteem.
A little bit of “All men are John,” a little of of ad homenim, and voila: it must be legitimate for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, or for the Iranians to fire on American ships in international waters, because why? Because the Gulf of Tonkin and the shooting down of the airbus are Bad Things the United States Did.
Are you some sort of ObamaBot leaving short messages fully biased to one side only or calling out ‘Firebagger’ accusations.
No, Oui, I’m somebody who actually disagrees with you, and to whom your errors of logic are quite familiar from my own misspent youth.
I don’t like theocrats here at home or anywhere abroad. I don’t see Iran’s government as better than Syria’s in any way.
The funny part is, this position was completely uncontroversial on the left during the Green Revolution uprisings. The intertubez were chock-full of anti-war lefties saying exactly the same thing, siding with the protesters, and denouncing the Iranian regime.
Yeah, because supporting uprisings within the confines of a country to get rid of the old and in with the new (though Mousavi isn’t much better) is totally the same thing as outside forces attempting the same thing.
Wow, thanks for the assist.
Yeah, because supporting uprisings within the confines of a country to get rid of the old and in with the new (though Mousavi isn’t much better) is totally the same thing as outside forces attempting the same thing.
Who said anything about outside forces? Here is what this dispute is about:
BooMan, Where do you get the gall?
‘The Islamic Revolution ought to come to end.’
I don’t like theocrats here at home or anywhere abroad. I don’t see Iran’s government as better than Syria’s in any way.
The funny part is, this position was completely uncontroversial on the left during the Green Revolution uprisings.
This is what you are having a problem with: denouncing the Iranian regime. That’s what BooMan isn’t supposed to do, now, all of a sudden.
You just flip-flopped, not on what outside forces should do to Iran, but whether it’s OK to say that the Iranian regime is bad. All your comment here does is give us your motive for doing so.
Well, you know what? The Iranian regime sucks. It would be better if it vanished tomorrow, and a decent government took its place. Anyone who has even the slightest affection for liberal values should consider that a perfectly reasonable thing to say, regardless of any political calculation.
There’s no issue with denouncing the Iranian regime. I do that all the time. There’s also no issue with liberals like me who didn’t get behind the whole Green Movement because Mousavi was just as bad as Khamenei; he frequently talked about returning to the “purity” of the Khamenei revolution. I don’t doubt the sincerity of many of the protesters in Iran, but I question and do not trust the leaders of that movement. If that’s the path they were to take, well, that’s their choice. It doesn’t mean I’m supposed to like it anymore than the current regime.
There’s an implication that Booman doesn’t care where the change comes from, so long as it happens. That’s why people are saying, “Where do you get the gall?” It’s imperialist, it’s nationalist, and it’s from the eyes of an American exceptionalist.
“It’s imperialist, it’s nationalist, and it’s from the eyes of an American exceptionalist.“
Yep. American exceptionalism, not to mention imperialism, is alive and well among the “progressive” community.
Is China engaged in American exceptionalism? Is the European Union? How about Japan? How about South Korea?
Do you know dumb what you’re saying sounds?
The world is united in its effort to strangle the economy of Iran. Why?
Because everyone is sick as hell of their government and their government’s bullshit.
The Iranian people are sick of it, too.
And what am I hoping for? War?
No, the opposite of war. Regime change from within, assisted by a united international front from without.
.
Hypocrisy? BTW China is NOT supporting new US sanctions.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I think your formulation in the initial post implied in a fashion that Obama was responsible for Chinese reductions in oil, for which there is little basis in fact.
I gather the objection is to using American economic influence to coerce other countries to take actions that injure Iran’s economy (and obviously increase suffering in the country for the people). I can understand that, but what I don’t understand is why these actions are particularly egregious compared to any other country’s actions. We’re no better but we’re also no worse.
I don’t think it’s particularly imperialist or nationalist to want to see the downfall of a highly conservative, repressive, theocracy. I long for the downfall of the nascent one here in America.
Even if it’s a highly conservative authoritarian democracy (thinking Singapore), it’ll still be an improvement.
The irony here is almost unbearable. The United States and its little pal Israel, the two most aggressive, war-making countries in the world, are far greater threats to international peace and cooperation than either Iran or Syria have ever been or could ever be.
maybe you see it that way. I don’t. Are you still defending the Assad regime? I hope not.
There are none so blind…
And I have never defended the “Assad (sic) regime”, though I can understand why it has been convenient for you to argue as if I have.
Saying a large chunk of people would support Assad in a democratic election is now defending Assad. And even though Assad’s massacring his own people, there are still many pro-regime protesters out there to show that. Lemme guess…they’re paid instigators!
First, seabe, despite BooMan conveniently putting the words into my mouth, I have never defended “Asad’s regime”, ever. On the contrary, I have repeatedly made a distinction between Asad and the regime, and pointed out to BooMan how naive he was to believe that in a dictatoriship the regime and the President are one, and that being a dictator means someone can do whatever he wants. If you and BooMan believe for a moment that Bashshar Al Asad is driving what is happening in Syria now, then you are incorrect.
Second, saying a high percentage of Syrians would vote for Asad in a democratic election is by no means defending him any more than it would be defending Newt Gingrich to say he has a chance of winning the nomination, or Mitt Romney by saying he could win the next election, or Ron Paul by saying he has a lot of passionate followers on both the left and the right. When I made that statement about Asad it was in fact a reality supported by both anecdotal and objective evidence, and a view held by a large number of people who are far more qualified than I am to make such a judgment.
Third, this reminds me of the way Iraq-invasion cheerleaders used to accuse me of defending Saddam every time I tried to point out that the Ba`thists in Iraq were not pure evil, and that in fact the Ba`thist government did a lot to develop the country and improve the lives of its people.
Fourth – huh?! How is “even though Assad’s massacring his own people, there are still many pro-regime protesters out there to show that. Lemme guess…they’re paid instigators!” supposed to connect to anything I have ever said about anything?
And finally, I expect these kinds of knee-jerk reactions from BooMan, but your thinking is generally more nuanced than this. Perhaps it was late at night, and you were tired when you wrote all that?
Sorry, I was mocking Booman. I know you never defended Assad. You said you knew a lot of people who were sympathetic to his regime, and so did I. I remember what you said at the time.
Perhaps I should add snark tags for things like this next time, seeing as a lot of people would do have such a view on foreign policy? I thought it was clear I was mocking Booman’s saying you “defended” Assad.
She clearly defended him. She blamed other elements in his government.
You asked me “Are you still defending the Assad (sic) regime?” I have never defended the “Assad (sic) regime. On the contrary, I have been very critical of the Syrian regime.
It is thoughtless and naive to insist that in a monarchy or dictatorship the regime and the head of state are one, and that being a monarch or a dictator means you can do whatever you want. The power balance between head of state and regime is on a continuum depending on a number of factors.
As for my view of Bashshar Al Asad specifically, it is nuanced, and reality-and-fact-based, and if reality and facts conflict with your need to cling to unnuanced, knee-jerk good vs evil views, then that’s your problem, not mine. I have confidence in what I have learned as a result of study, observation, direct contact, and life experience.
OK, NOW I understand how that could have come from you. It was so illogical and inconsistent, I was worried about you! ;o}
Actually, just to be clear, I did not say people were sympathetic to the regime. Every Syrian I know, whether they like Asad or not, considers the regime to be the primary problem. Their view even now is for the most part that if Asad could, he would have made a greater number of more significant changes in response to the rebellions, but the regime is not allowing it. I believe that is correct, though how many and what reforms he might have made is unknown.
Again, BooMan seems to hold the simple-minded and naive notion that in a dictatorship or monarchy the head of state and the regime are one, and the head of state can do whatever he wants. That is simply not the case, particularly in the case of Syria where Bashshar Al Asad inherited his position. There are forces in that regime that are more powerful than Bashshar is, and ignoring that fact would cost him not only his job, but his life.
Does it really matter? I guess in some small ways it matters for history, and maybe it matters to some Syrians who have strong opinions about various personalities in the government.
But the head of state can abdicate and flee if he doesn’t want to be responsible for a bloodbath. He hasn’t done that. So, when he had a moral choice to make, he made it in favor of slaughtering his own subjects.
However he started out, he chose to become a monster.
Yes, it really matters if you have any interest in understanding what is going on. If all you are interested in is having a gut-satisfying mindless fact-free knee-jerk reaction ending with a childish application of a fairy tale good vs evil label, then I guess it really doesn’t matter at all.
Right, that’s essentially what I’m saying. Perhaps I should have worded it better.
Do you now believe that the Assad regime needs to be replaced and held accountable?
I am not asking of outside forces should do the removing or the accounting. I am asking what you think, morally, should happen to them.
BooMan, that question is equivalent to the old “have you stopped beating your wife” trap, and I don’t appreciate it, but sadly it does not surprise me.
I have made it clear more than once that I have always believed that the Syrian regime needed to go. Like the majority of the Syrians and Syria authorities of my acquaintance, I have always believed that the regime, largely remnants of the Hafiz Al Asad regime, was the primary problem. I base that on a lot of information from a lot of sources, including internal information – as I did in Iraq, I’ve got direct and indirect connections in high and low places.
As things stand now I also believe that Bashshar Al Asad is finished.
Good.
Let us hope that he is finished.
And let us hope that the Iranian regime is finished, too.
Peas in a pod.
What an ignorant statement.
“I’m silly that way. I don’t like theocrats here at home or anywhere abroad.”
Two points:
Point one is one of the most boring in the left’s lexicon.
If you believe in collective security and in the validity of nuclear non-proliferation, then it is most certainly the world’s business when countries have run afoul of the UN, the IAEA, and the international community. Why is everyone putting sanctions on Iran? Why are they refusing to buy oil from them? Is it all because America is a big, bad bully who isn’t minding its business?
I didn’t even agree with the decision to intervene in Libya, but many progressives applauded because it was supposedly going to save innocent lives. Were they all not minding their business?
Point two is just wrong. I criticize the Saudi Royal Family at every opportunity. I did it in comments just last night. They are a rotten group of thieving theocratic bastards. I’d sooner cry for Mubarak than cry for them.
“Point one is one of the most boring in the left’s lexicon.”
It is also the most true and indisputable. The US isn’t fighting for any collective security. The US has no right what so ever to decide for other countries what technologies they may produce and which ones they may not. If the US is truly concerned about nuclear proliferation why not start with its own arsenal? If you think Iran is a great threat to global security, why don’t you take a sheet of paper and list all the countries Iran has attacked on one side and all the countries attacked by the US on the other.
“Why are they refusing to buy oil from them? Is it all because America is a big, bad bully who isn’t minding its business? “
Yeah pretty much. The US is sanctioning any company that deals with Iran’s central bank. Do you think for an instant that without these sanctions, Japan, South Korea, etc would just decide on their own not to buy Iranian oil? You must assume you’re readers are idiots if you expect us to believe it.
Your criticism of the Saudi regime is commendable. Are you calling for it’s over throw like Iran’s? Do you think the US, which guarantees the survival of the KSA government would like to see it overthrown? If not, why not? Iran is light years ahead of KSA when it comes to religious freedom and human rights.
If you say that the US has no right to say what technologies other countries can develop, what are you really saying?
Because that’s not what is happening. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and the whole world has the right to say that they can’t develop or proliferate nuclear weapons technology. How does the world enforce this agreement? Who is asked to put the muscle behind that enforcement?
What you are saying is that the whole world has no right to take actions to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. But you pretend that you are saying that it is America alone that is attempting to exercise that right.
If the the NPT is going to be successful, then America is going to have to be aggressive about rounding up support, which is what is happening.
As for the Saudi regime. I am not calling for the overthrow of their government for two reasons. First, it is not clearly in our national security interests for a whole host of reasons. And I can get into those, because the details matter. But suffice, for now, to say that instability in the peninsula would create a level of uncertainty that could do really serious damage to the economy. This is a cost/benefit analysis, and introducing massive uncertainty and a high risk of economic dislocation is not to be done lightly. This is also why war with Iran is an insane proposition.
Second, there is no visible, credible opposition to support. In the abstract, I’d love to see the Royal Family pauperized and some of them prosecuted. But until I see what the alternative looks like, I’m not going to casually call for their overthrow. On this second point, this is why I wouldn’t have advocated the overthrow of the Assad regime two years ago, but why I have no problem calling for that today. Let the opposition in Syria prevail and put the Assad regime on trial.
As for Iran, what the world is doing is not much different from what the world eventually did to the South African government. They said, collectively, “enough with you assholes.” And the rich people finally saw the writing on the wall and broke apart the apartheid system.
This is mainly about their nuclear program, but it’s also about everything else their loathsome regime does on the international stage and to their own people.
What do I want? I want the Iranian people to rise up and throw their government out and put in place a government that has no Council of Guardians and that doesn’t think its role is to spread a theocratic revolution.
I applaud the revolutions elsewhere, even in their anti-Western elements. Let Iran be what it wants to be, even if it continues to be a thorn in our side. But, be rid of the clerics. Is the Saudis want to do that, I’d support them morally even if I’d reserve judgment on their prospects for making the world a better place until I saw the details. Saudi Arabia is its own unique place because of Mecca and Medina. A revolution there has some many implications its a bit dizzying to even contemplate. But I want the Arabian people to live free of theocratic assholes. I want that for everyone.
You seem to believe, or want the rest of us to believe, that the US position on Iran is that it simply be “transparent.” That’s bullshit. The US position is that Iran has to stop enriching uranium. Totally stop. That’s the US position. It has always been that way. Iran has a legal right to enrichment, and insists upon it. Therefore, the US is insisting on veto power over what technology Iran may or may not pursue. The IAEA continued to report that Iran has not diverted any of its uranium and that all of it is accounted for. That’s all Iran is required to do under the treaty.
“But until I see what the alternative looks like, I’m not going to casually call for their overthrow.”
That’s reasonable enough. But why aren’t you saying the same for Iran or Syria? I don’t like the Assad regime, but if the alternative turns out to be ethnic cleansing of Aliwites, or if it turns out to be a Salafist regime financed by Saudi Arabia…Or if Syria is “liberated” with tonnes of depleted uranium. Then maybe Assad staying in power is not the worst possible outcome. At any rate, it is a matter for Syrians to decide. Not Americans, not Turks, not Saudis.
Lysander, don’t confuse BooMan with facts and reasoned arguments. You’ll just ruin his day.
Maybe that’s why you haven’t realized that the main problem in today’s Iran is not theocrats but the pro-Ahmadinejad security apparatus.
That’s like saying that the problem with the right in this country isn’t what they believe, espouse and do, but that we have the FBI.
It is? I simply don’t get your analogy.
Let me try it again. Khamenei and his faction of clerics would not be in power today but for the support of the security apparatus. A significant segment of the clergy are against Khamenei, Ahmedinajad and their security state. I am quite sure that if these clerics were in power, Iran would not be the country you’d like it to be. But it would be a lot more like the country most of the Iranian protesters would like to see.
http://www.jafariyanews.com/2k10_news/oct/26iran_sl_rebuked.htm
I too think Khamenei needs the Revolutionary Guards more than they need him.
What ought to come to an end is the repression of civil liberties. That need not end the regime, but likely will.
But the big point in controversy is the idea that the US and its allies should once again become involved in a regime change when such intervention is one of the reasons that there was popular sentiment for the Islamic Revolution in the first place.
And make no mistake that the US neo-cons want to see a restoration of the Pahlavi family to power. However the putative Crown Prince is “an outspoken opponent of any foreign military intervention for regime change in Iran, believing that the people of Iran alone have the power to bring about change in their governmental system and society.”
Sanctions as means to regime change is “foreign military intervention”.
If the US seriously wants to contain the Iranian nuclear program, regime change must be off the table completely as a US policy goal. That sort of policy change was why Nixon was lauded for going to China.
Declaring the Arab Spring victorious is way premature.
Example: Egypt. Yes, the people got rid of Mubarek, but what of his well-paid cronies and generals? They are still there. That’s why the Egyptian people are protesting again in Tahir Square, except now women are being stripped and beaten by the authorities.
It’s obvious the “Arab Spring” is far from over in Egypt, the ultimate end uncertain.
Regarding the economic elites in Iran, calling for them to revolt- why should they? Do they not have cash reserves to fall back on, to ride out the storm?
I’m afraid it’s not that easy; I assume the economic elite are tied to the clerical elite, and unwinding that relationship is easier said than done.
I think you’re giving Egypt short shrift.
Egypt just had free elections, in which parties that were brutally suppressed by the old regime won by an impressive margin. They will be taking power later this year.
Now, I personally don’t like the bastards – the MB and the Salafists – but that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
See. How am I supposed to respond to you. Did I say that the Arab Spring was ‘victorious’?
No. No, I didn’t.
What I said was that the Arab Spring had surpassed the Islamic Revolution.
Is that ambiguous? Okay. Let me be more clear.
Iran stood for a long time as an example of an Islamic country throwing out Western powers, establishing a democratic form of government, and maintaining their independence.
Their way was one of the only available examples of how this could be done. Now they are other, better examples. They may be no more successful than the Iranian Revolution turned out to be, but they are fresher more compelling roadmaps. And they are going to tear the heart out of the Assad regime, and then the Iranian regime hopefully will follow.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to turn to its extreme, fascist right, is a non-signatory of the NPT, tells the international community to get bent on its illegal and brutal occupation…and you’re cheering on our policy towards Iran.
.
In a non-medical way, just for politics’ sake.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."You forgot the part about getting a forced transfer of $10 per every man, woman, and child in the US every year as “foreign aid”. That’s in the neighborhood of the total Low-Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP) budget for a year. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility.
Brave man, BooMan. You wrote that the United States is doing something right by using coercion in international politics, on a blog read by lefties. As you well know, your thesis is wrong by definition, because of Howard Zinn and shut up that’s why.
Highlighting the broad, growing international consensus on the Iranian a useful corrective to the bogus “American Imperialism!” analysis. However, I find it incredibly unlikely that such a partnership will hold together to support regime change. China doesn’t want the Iranian regime to get nukes any more than any other country does, but that doesn’t mean they care if it’s oppressive.
Um, yeah, and women belong in the kitchen and coloreds belong in the back and…and…and…
.
I avoid using comparisons as they are always flawed.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."All comparisons break down eventually because they are merely comparisons, not equations. The point of a comparison is to highlight the similarities, in this instance the assignment of a group to where they “belong” – nothing more, nothing less.
Man, the word “group” sure is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
Clerics. Black people.
You know: groups.
When “group” connotes “F*** them” then yes, it’s doing it’s work.
Call me American, but one of the few things that would motivate me to take up arms against my own government would be clerical rule. I’m silly that way.
You have every right to feel that way, and to act on it if necessary. What you absolutely DON’T have is any right to project what you want for yourself on the rest of the world, and you certainly don’t have a right to force it on others by means of bombs, guns, or economic “squeezing”.
I agree with you on this. See my comment below.
I wonder how the US Navy’s rescue of an Iranian fishing boat from Somali pirates (not to mention the and the provision of food and medical treatment) alters the political equation.
Superb example of “progressive” American arrogance.
When you lived in Iraq, we’re you longing for the Shi’a religious elite to take over your country and start telling everyone how to act?
I kind of doubt it, but you can correct me if I’m wrong.
I remember reading Riverbend’s dispatches. She seemed a little less than enthusiastic about that prospect. I don’t think she was alone.
So, if it’s arrogant for me to want the Iranian government to go so broke that the elites join with the masses and send the clerics packing for Qom, you can just sue me,
What an incoherent response, BooMan. What relevance does my – or my dear Riverbend’s – desires in Iraq have to your American exceptionalist arrogance in believing that you have the right, or even the ability, to determine for Iranians what is best for them, and what they do, or should, want? And what relevance do my, or Riverbend’s, or any other Iraqi’s desires have to your outrageous hubris is believing you have the right to use economic, political, or military violence to force Iranians to conduct their internal business in the way you decide is best?
And by the way, Riverbend and I are two voices only, and we do not determine what the Iraqi people or Iraq as a country want, need, or should have, though we are certainly orders of magnitude more qualified to speak on that question than you or any other American will ever be.
I would also remind you that it was the kind of America-knows-best-for-everyobe hubris that you are exhibiting that has, in fact, resulted in the Shi`a elite taking over Iraq, and turning what was for centuries a prosperous, secular country with an extremely diverse and well-integrated population into what it is today.
It is also the kind of American exceptionalist arrogance you are exhibiting that put an abrupt end to Iran’s movement toward democracy, and ultimately led to its transformation into the Shi`a theocracy it has become.
And finally, are you really naive enough to believe that if this economic “squeezing” you are advocating will not harm the “ordinary” Iranian people most of all? And have you Americans learned nothing at all from all your other misdirected uses of economic, political, and military violence to force your will on other countries?
Get over yourself, BooMan.
Because the truth is that you don’t want to have some Ayatollah tell you what to do. You don’t want to live in a tyranny. You even preferred the tyranny of Saddam to the tyranny of the clerics. And, any sane person would agree.
And spare me the lecture about how it isn’t anybody’s business. Is what is happening in North Korea no one’s business? Was Apartheid no one’s business? Is what is going on in Palestine no one’s business?
Don’t tell me that I can’t condemn Iran’s government because some other government is also bad. If the whole world is being mean to Iran, there’s a reason. Just like there’s a reason that Israel is increasingly isolated. Former American clients have been thrown out for a reason. Current Iranian clients are being thrown out for a reason.
Don’t pretend that what we are witnessing is all about America. It’s all about Iran.
.
My new diary – China Not Backing US on Iran Sanctions and More Fallacies
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."good day, sir.
You like to say goodbye a lot.
neocons always rear their heads. heh.
Morons, too.
dick on this one. enjoy the blow-back.
“Clerics belong in seminaries or mosques, not in power.”
In this country, for sure. But in foreign affairs, you have to deal with what exists. The fact is that a very important segment of the clerics were on the side of the protestors, and they were shut up by the pro-Ahmadinejad clerics. As late as March 0f last year, Tony Karon reported in TIME that “Ahmadinejad and his backers, far stronger within the regime’s security establishment than they are among the clerics, had made clear their determination to limit the influence of their arch-nemesis Rafsanjani over the selection of the next Supreme Leader. And they appear to have succeeded, even if they haven’t necessarily put one of their own supporters in his position.”
In other words, to this day, the most powerful counterforce to Ahmadinejad is still among the clericals. Not all of them, of course, but enough of them.
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/03/08/iran-rafsanjani-ouster-a-defeat-for-regimes-anti-ahmadin
ejad-camp/#ixzz1ip46SzmX
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/03/08/iran-rafsanjani-ouster-a-defeat-for-regimes-anti-ahmadin
ejad-camp/