I’ve spent much of the weekend trying to subtly keep up with the news from Iran on my Blackberry (I made a family commitment to keep the laptop off – a matter of unfortunate timing on my part). Patterico has a good roundup of sources, but if you can’t follow anything else, I’d go to Twitterfall and look at #iranelections. This is raw rumor right now, but the analysis can – and should – wait.
I firmly believe that the right thing for the US and Western governments to do is to make encouraging noises about the will of the people and do, exactly, nothing. Any action in these next weeks by us as a nation will have far more unintended consequences than we can imagine.
But we, as a people, can do quite a bit. If there ever was a time to let activists, media, and leaders in the Middle East know that “the whole world is watching” that time is now. Follow Twitter, read blogs, share them with your friends. Accept that much of what you read is wild rumor and try as best you can so sift through it for grains of truth.
Find sites where pro-freedom (and by that I mean simply ‘pro-fair-elections’) Iranians are communicating, read them, and let them know with comments and emails that you are watching.
Let’s see how 20th Century repression, in the interests of 14th century ideology, reacts to 21st century open communication tools.
I don’t believe that Twitter and Youtube will bring down the repressive religious oligarchy in Iran. I’m not that much of anoptimist. But it will weaken the hold they have on the Iranian people – and in time, that may allow the Iranian people to find their own path to their own brand of freedom.
And – as a side note – all of us will know a whole lot more about the Iranian state a month from now than we know today. So let’s reserve the policy suggestions until some dust has settled – please.
–
Okay, but what’s their “brand of freedom”? Is there an “Our Family” brand that costs less patriotic blood?
Sorry, but when one speaks of brands, it sounds like the grim leftists who pretend that socialist prison-states enjoy improved types of “freedom” and “democracy”.
And there will be plenty of time for sober restraint when the jackboots have triumphed. For now, the cry should be SMASH FASCISM.
There’s a pretty big Persian-American population in this area. From a few conversations I’ve gotten the following ideas:
1) They don’t like the current regime.
2) If America invaded Iran (like Iraq) they’d go home to fight the aggressors.
bq. Any action in these next weeks by us as a nation will have far more unintended consequences than we can imagine.
Inaction will have unintended consequences as well.
Considered inaction is one thing. Don’t-give-a-damn inaction is something else. From reports it looks like Obama is voting present on this one.
Ah, Andrew. Glad to see you admit that fighting fascism is too tough. Why, even muttering some vague phrase about “fair elections” would be a risky venture. Obama with his rainbow tinted white feather would never put us in such a position. Meanwhile the Germans and other European countries have called in the Iranian Ambassadors for talks.
As for Zimbabwe, I’m sure you can find tons of other off topic tropes and red herrings to distract those who might doubt the 1(TM). Why not Burma?
Err, I could be wrong, but doesn’t this situation call for exactly the sort of foreign policy approach the left has been trumpeting as their strong suit? Smarter, gentler, kinder and hipper diplomacy to solve the world’s problems? This situation calls for precisely that, inspiring, carefully calculated rhetoric, deft diplomacy, and fancy backroom negotiating.
History hung a perfect pitch out there for the Democratic foreign policy technique to strut its stuff, and we appear to be just sitting and watching it go on by.
I think the US needs to do at least 3 things.
First, Obama needs to get in front of the cameras and give a brilliant speech. The speech needs to give support and encouragement to the protestors and condemn the regime for election rigging and general tyranny while simultaneously making it clear the US isn’t going to meddle in internal Iranian affairs (to avoid raising foreign meddling hackles). A bit at cross purposes I admit, but I have faith Obama can do it, heaven knows he’s pulled off worse.
Second, if the US has any contacts with the pro-democracy movements inside Iran (and with State and the CIA the way they are that’s unfortunately a question mark), they need to be quietly told that if they need anything they should just scribble it down on a sticky note, put it in this mailbox here and close their eyes for 15 minutes. When they open their eyes, whatever was written down on the note will be right in front of them. Its a magical world after all.
Third, the US needs to quietly let the mullahs know that the US doesn’t intend to interfere in an internal Iranian electoral dispute but that if the Iranian army/militias start wholesale slaughtering protesters all bets are off. At best they’ll be looking at an economic blockade so bad they’ll need to smuggle in daylight. At worst, well, it might start raining high explosive…global warming you know…
which makes it quite difficult for Obama to do likewise.
Especially if you are not inclined to think of alternatives. Obama is, many have assured us, a brilliant man, no? I suggested some vague words, Treefrog a cleverly phrased speech. It can be done.
Hitchens speaks of our pathetic Secretary of State. Well, we all know of Hitchens’ animosity towards the amoral Clintons. I myself am reminded of two old Herblock cartoons from the fifties. One shows Ike playing golf while the troubles pile up — say, wasn’t Obama out playing golf. The other shows Franco brought to the alliance table with flies buzzing around him and the diners bolting from the seats while holding hands over their mouths. That one reminds me of the no preconditions bit.
There was a time when parts of the Left cared about such things. Today it is just cynical posturing.
Although to be honest, the Iranians might not want or need anything from the CIA, both because if discovered it would be compromising and because except for respect for democratic elections, we and they have few points of agreement.
Probably, but they’ll be the best judges of that, and making the offer wins brownie points even if they can’t take us up on it.
Actually, we’ve got another path to take that might be preferable. All along Iran has been meddling in Iraq using various informal Shiite-Shiite channels. Wouldn’t this be a perfect time to turn that connection around? Heaven knows (pun intended) there is no love lost between Sistani and the mullahs. Make him aware that any support needed will be forthcoming, stand back, and let him run with it.
I’d love to see his version of Shiite theology spread more widely.
Andrew, since we’re going back to the Iraq War, I recall the left arguing that it was the responsibility of the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Of course Iraqi civilians would not have stood a chance in Hell against the Republican Guard, and the Iranians stand little chance either. All the same it is quite clear which side we ought to be on, unless you want to fall back on the “Let the people who aren’t ready for democracy kill each other as they have been doing for thousands of years” argument.
Budapest 1956 was not for nothing, either.
Speaking of Hitchens, his motto is “Do something every day to annoy Bastard HQ.”
This is what Obama should be doing. He should working to make Iranian Bastard HQ as uncomfortable as possible, and the time to start is right now.
In your infatuation with Munich 1938
Snicker. Another strawman, I never mentioned Munich. And an infatuation, no less. G*d, Andrew, you can’t make a point without wandering in a wilderness of irrelevancy, it’s pathetic.
I expect in a few days you will be running to catch up with a parade of condemnation that has past you by.
Hey, Glen and Chuck, just post your orbats right here. A third front—why not?
If you see some teeny problem with that, then you might think about less truculent alternatives (little joy as they may bring you). I suspect you will wind up with something closer to Treefrog, and that the Obama Administration will be landing pretty close to it.
I don’t have any firm beliefs on this; the stakes are too high and the situation too confused, for me to really stake out a “Do this, do this now!” position for all posterity.
But I do have some observations and hunches.
First, Obama’s recent speech, which did not per se apologize for Operation Ajax, but certainly held it up as shuffling step in that direction, would make it really really damn risky and difficult for the United States, just a few weeks later, to get involved in any overt push against the Iranian regime in the face of the official election results.
(As a side note, I would give a pretty penny to know how far and in what sense the ramifications of that speech were gamed out in advance. I don’t have a firm enough sense of Obama’s foreign policy to want to opine if that was a calculated gamble that failed, or a calculated gamble for farther down the line, or just an, “Oh, shit, we assumed he’d lose!” kind of thing.)
Second, for the gung-ho, yee-hah, let’s get ’em crowd, please at least try to admit to some strategic thought, here. Maybe a risk-reward analysis, assuming the locals in the countryside do not, in fact, greet us with flowers and sugar cookies but wage a guerilla war from far more favorable terrain.
Third, let’s all try hard not to commit the perennial mistake in election analysis, and assume that since none of us know anyone who would have voted for Ahmadinejad, that he therefore must have won only through election fraud.
To be sure, I’ve read enough to be convinced that there were systemic electioneering attempts designed to suppress Moussavi’s vote. However, that does not also mean that Ahmadinejad did not have substantial support among his own base. Some of the commentary (not necessarily here) reminds me very much of life-long urban dwellers wondering how the hell “fly-over country” managed to take the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, forgetting that “fly-over country” can still muster a lot of votes.
Fourth, in the same vein of actual strategic thought, let’s remember that the important thing isn’t winning a temporary feel-good victory right now, it’s winning a substantial and lasting victory, eventually.
Bear in mind that even Moussavi is positioning himself, not to win this round, but to survive for the next round. He’s walking a fine line between low-level agitation (to keep his base) and resignation to the process (to keep from getting executed.) He might know something we armchair commentators don’t.
What’s going on in Iran right now is bad enough for the regime in several ways. For one thing, it’s occupying the strategic bandwidth of the Iranian security forces, affording them less opportunities to make mischief elsewhere; capitalize on that. For another, crackdowns in multiple locations across multiple cities may succeed– certainly the Chinese have managed it– but they will increase resentment in already resentful urban areas, and can probably be manipulated into remaining a persistent drag on Iran’s central policing authorities; campitalize on that, too.
SO although I don’t have any firm opinions, it seems I agree mostly with A.L., on balance.
Second, for the gung-ho, yee-hah, let’s get ’em crowd, please at least try to admit to some strategic thought, here.
I keep hearing about those oddballs, but I haven’t seen any here yet. Are they like some sort of giant invisible rabbit.
As to the other points, yes, I have made them myself in Totten’s comments. But deep down, in the dark recesses of my heart, I’m an opportunist. If this is the moment when Ahmadinejad can be pushed out, let’s push him out. Majority be damned. I don’t think there is any hope of successful negotiations with the man. The real question is: can it be done. Now, I’ll probably burn in Hell for that sentiment, but at least I will share the warmth with Hitchens.
No, the real question is not, can it be done, but can it be done in a way that results in Iran being a long term friend, rather than just an enemy with a different leader.
Wow, go to work for a day, and look what happens!!
I actually think that this is one case where both sides are right – shocking, I know.
look, Andrew, while it’s clear that as a nation we don’t get to simply choose which governments other nations will have (and note that Chalabi isn’t PM of Iraq, so we haven’t been overly heavy-handed even there), we do get to encourage movements that are likely to see the world more our way and cheer on ones that don’t. We even get to use our ‘soft power’ and diplomacy to that end, and while clearly underwriting the opposition to the Iranian regime isn’t in the cards, there are a lot of things we can do to make it harder for them to simply smash their opponents. And we probably should.
Note that even Ledeen rejected the notion of regime change in Iran through force – and simply thought that we should d what we can to help the current regime collapse.
If they get too brutal suppressing internal dissent, some actions to make that harder or more risky – led by the Gulf Council or UN – would certainly be a good thing to be doing, and might make up for the Iranian people’s bitter memories of 1953.
Marc
A.L.,
look, Andrew, while it’s clear that as a nation we don’t get to simply choose which governments other nations will have (and note that Chalabi isn’t PM of Iraq, so we haven’t been overly heavy-handed even there), we do get to encourage movements that are likely to see the world more our way and cheer on ones that don’t.
This one makes a hypocrite out of me, actually. Because on the one hand, I agree. And on the other hand, if anyone made a concerted, meaningful attempt of it here in our elections, I’d consider armed retaliation even they supported “my” side.
chuck:
It has happened several times in recent history that oppression, which usually works quite well, ceases to work, and the oppressors must take one in the ass. Usually it is more accident than strategy.
It happened in the Philippines, in Nicaragua (once or twice, according to taste), and in eastern Europe. It happened once upon a time even in such hideous backwaters as Greece and Spain. Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, and Poland 1970 – all fell short, but then came the 80s and 90s. God willing, Tiananmen will soon be avenged, as well.
AND IT HAPPENED IN IRAQ, as much as some people wish that it hadn’t, and that’s what we’re really talking about.
Obviously we have ample resources short of war. Pretending that war is the only alternative to stroking the dictators is the argument of people who like to stroke the dictators. Suppose we could depose the regime by blowing dandelions at it, shouldn’t we do so? Some people, truth to tell, would say no.
Marcus, what about the French in the American Revolution? And I don’t think that was motivated by pure considerations of liberty. Another example would be Napoleon’s sale of the Louisiana territories, which apart from acceding to historical realities, had some effect of strengthening the US vs Britain? I think Napoleon even commented to that effect, and he was right.
I think what is going on in Iran has passed the point of an election squabble and is getting to the point of revolution. We will see. But revolutions and elections are different beasts.
Re, 1953, the story of Mosaddeq is a bit more interesting than one might suspect from just reading the left wing take.
Chuck, I’ve already said that situation makes a hypocrite of me. But here and now is not 230 years ago. We are both a nation and a state, now, not a collection of nation-colonies trying to be states. Iran, too, is a nation and a state, and my read is that there is some real current of resentment over the 1950s.
And Glen, I do agree that there are ample resources short of war and that we should use and exploit them. But it’s a careful game, that Obama may have unintentionally made more difficult for himself given the speech he made. In any event, it’s a little more careful and serious work than crying SMASH FASCISM as foreign policy.
Mind, Mousavi vs Ahmadinejad is sorta Alien vs Predator. Or the even more gruesome, Rafsanjani vs Khamanei. So the main hope in continued unrest is simply to break up a frozen and corrupt system. Something better needs to replace it but it will be awhile before folks there can figure out what that is. But from my point of view, if the government suffers a loss of legitimacy that is all good. I don’t agree with Obama that it is worth saving.
Marcus:
Thundering Jove, “Smash Fascism” is not foreign policy.
Foreign policy is “We regard the election of Mr. Hitler with cautious optimism, and His Majesty hopes we will continue to enjoy peaceful relations with Germany. Let us move forward in the spirit of Versailles.” Etc.
I’m talking about a little enthusiasm for Liberty, for the Rights of Man. An enthusiasm that used to exist here and there in the world, before we all decided to become a castrati boy’s choir.
I’ve been jumping around the internet, trying to read more than I write. Andrew Sullivan has been one of those trying to post twitters from Iran as quickly as he can. I came across this e-mail he got from the states:
A reader writes:
I’m an Iranian living in Canada. A few hours ago I talked to my brother who is a student at Sharif University, he was at the big rally yesterday and they were only feet away from Karoubi when they marched from the university entrance to Azadi square. He asked what had Obama had said and I started reading the transcript. When I got to “the United States can be a handy political football, or discussions with the United States [can be]” my brother sighed and said thank God this guy gets it.
I’m not sure what is the right or wrong thing to do at this point, but if it resonates with the protesters on the ground, that means it’s probably a good first step.
I think Barack Obama’s speech and his approach to this crisis have been excellent.
He has little room to move.
If he led, nobody would follow. For the European nations, peace with Islam is now a domestic necessity, and their foreign policies reflect that.
For Iran, there is nothing that he can say that matters at all next to the atomic arsenal the nation gains by continuing inflexibly on its present course, and that, like the eradication of Israel regardless of any or all concessions it may make, is popular policy. Empowering the Islamic people is worth nothing.
It is part of Barack Obama’s responsibility as responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. He cannot talk as though something that was characteristic of Islam was going on, which it is, and in a dedicated, Ideological Muslim project in the form of a state.
The best thing the American President can do within such constraints is say nothing, euphoniously.
I support Ron Paul (link).