The ongoing political unrest in Iran appears unlikely to resolve itself soon; unfortunately, the Ahmadinejad Administration and its backers appear to be ramping up the violence, which makes fighting back a difficult decision for the people on the ground. It’s all well and good for a guy sitting in cozy suburban apartment to say that people should be taking to the streets against armed forces, but it’s quite a different thing to do when it’s really your life (or your daughter’s, or your son’s) on the line. I do not envy the difficult decision the people of Iran face — accede to a blatant coup d’état and accept leadership that one knows is not legitimate or just, or fight and maybe die trying to overturn a rigged election. It’s an awful situation, and any decent person watching can only hope for the best for the people of Iran.
But not everyone is down. Vile excuse for a human being Max Boot is downright chipper about the events unfolding in Iran. Boot, a disgusting waste of carbon, is happy, because the sham election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad means that it’s just possible he’ll get the happy little war he’s been hoping for:
Ahmadinejad is about the worst spokesman possible to make Iran’s case to the West–a president who denies the Holocaust, calls for Israel’s eradication, claims there are no homosexuals in Iran, and generally comes off like a denizen of an alternative universe. Even the Obama administration will be hard put to enter into serious negotiations with Ahmadinejad, especially when his scant credibility has been undermined by these utterly fraudulent elections and the resulting street protests.
That doesn’t mean that Obama won’t try–but he will have a lot less patience with Ahmadinejad than he would have had with Mousavi. And that in turn means there is a greater probability that eventually Obama may do something serious to stop the Iranian nuclear program–whether by embargoing Iranian refined-petroleum imports or by tacitly giving the go-ahead to Israel to attack its nuclear installations.
Hooray! Yes, while this sham election is an affront to human rights and the basic dignity of the Iranian people, the good news is that now, maybe we’ll let the Israelis bomb a Muslim nation! What could possibly go wrong, other than the death of Iranian civilians and the possible sparking of a pan-Middle East war? Yes, Max Boot, you truly are one of the most disgusting, bloodthirsty subhumans ever to crawl out from a pile of manure. What would our nation do without you?
It’s hard to say where we go from here. For the next few days, we’ll have to watch and wait; America can’t really jump in on either side here, and the best we can do is mumble about “inconsistencies” and try to signal that no, we don’t think this was a just outcome — but we daren’t come down too hard, lest we allow the Ahmadinejad Administration to use “international interference” as a club against its enemies. Should Ahmadinejad remain in power, this does make it more difficult for America and Europe to negotiate with Iran to stop a nuclear program — but unfortunately, from a realpolitik standpoint, we can’t refuse to negotiate with the people in charge of the country, even if we think they’re scum who stole the election. Other countries still talked to George W. Bush, after all, and more seriously, we continue to maintain diplomatic ties with countries that have pretend democracies, like Russia, not to mention nations like Saudi Arabia and China, places for which Iranian levels of human rights would be a huge step forward. And not the level of human rights Iranians had, say, last week, but the level they have now, today, with the brutal repression and everything.
Hopefully, it won’t come to that. Hopefully, Iran will make a painful step forward here. Ultimately, nobody is well-served by war with Iran, and the best possible outcome is for Iran to gradually transition to a democratic state. That’s what the people of Iran seem to want, and what decent people outside of Iran should support.
Nicely done!
… by tacitly giving the go-ahead to Israel to attack its nuclear installations.
I’m wondering what makes the writer think that Israel is waiting for us to approve any action they take? My guess is that Israel understands the risks of taking such an action as well as any of us, if not better – after all, they live in the neighborhood. My guess is that if or when Israel decides that the risk of Iran having nuclear weapons is greater than the risk of the result of taking them out, they’ll take them out.
What I’d be interested in is people’s ideas of what you think the Obama administration would do if Israel decided to strike against Iran’s nuclear installations?
but we daren’t come down too hard, lest we allow the Ahmadinejad Administration to use “international interference” as a club against its enemies.
I really don’t think that any words of ours would give Ahmadinejad much more leverage to do anything more than he’s already doing. OTOH, a strike by Israel sure as Hell would. So I don’t see them doing anything for a while. But down the line could be a different story.
What could possibly go wrong, other than the death of Iranian civilians and the possible sparking of a pan-Middle East war?
Surely a very strong possibility. OTOH, if Iran’s nuclear program succeeds and puts nuclear weapons in the hands of a theocracy pledged to destroy Israel, then Israel has to weigh the above outcome against the slaughter of Israel civilians and the rendering of a good bit of their country uninhabitable for millenia. How would you like the responsibility of making that decision?
What do you think Israel thinks is the likely response of the Obama administration to threats by or actual acts of the Iranian government? Tel Aviv probably figured that the Bush administration would nuke Tehran if Tel Aviv didn’t. So did Tehran, probably. That acts as a bit of a deterrent. Do you think that deterrent is in place now? How do you think that affects plans and attitudes in both Tel Aviv and Tehran?
Understand that I’m not advising any particular act. I’m no prophet, nor am I a mindreader. But I am a bit surprised that people seem to think that Israel is our proxy and will act or not based on our approval. It’s a factor, to be sure. But I can’t see that it’s going to be the final factor.
Ultimately, nobody is well-served by war with Iran, and the best possible outcome is for Iran to gradually transition to a democratic state.
Mind you, I quite agree with this. I’d love to see it. But Israel has to ask themselves what the likelihood of this actually is, and whether or not they’ll survive until it happens.
Well, it might strongly turn the political tide against the opposition candidates.
Right now, a fair number of people dislike the current “elected” rulers. But as we have seen elsewhere (Iraq, for instance) there are some folks in that camp who dislike the U.S. more than they dislike the current regime.
If the US stays uninvolved, it allows those people to continue to focus their actions on regime change. If the US gets involved, some of the people will switch their focus to the US (who they consider the worse of two evils); others will switch their focus to countering the anti-US people, and by and large the movement against the regime will probably take a serious hit.
Well, as recently as 2008, the Israelis seemed to think they needed our permission.
There’s two specific things they need from us – bunker-busting bombs to increase the likelihood of actually destroying the facilities in question and permission to fly over Iraq. It’s not just a matter of maintaining the relationship, though I’m sure that’s a factor as well. Even a country as powerful as the United States will experience consequences for ignoring or going against the wishes of its allies, as we see from our misadventure in Iraq. For a country like Israel, the fallout to its relationship with the United States is going to be an even bigger part of its calculation.
And in terms of the value of speaking out vs. staying quiet, Iranian opposition groups have said repeatedly that overt support from the United States hurts their cause. I think the least we can do is take them at their word and not make things worse.
Thank you so much for this series of posts.
I just want to echo chingona’s comment #6: Iranians of all political stripes are, reasonably, given their history, very wary of any outside government’s interference in their internal affairs: the British did it, the French did it, the Russians did it, and we have done it. The smartest thing that the US can do right now–given the current geopolitical dynamic–is precisely what the Obama administration is doing: expressing legitimate concern without obviously, explicitly taking sides. Ahmadinejad and Khamenei and company could turn even the smallest and (to us) insignificant sign of US “interference” in Iran’s affairs very easily and very powerfully against the opposition and against what is going in Iran right now. If you’re interested, there’s some really good live blogging going on at Huffington Post.
That’s fine, then. As I said in a previous thread, the ultimate responsibility for what will happen here is in the hands of the Iranian people. It would certainly be best if they manage a change in their government themselves.
I doubt it will be done without loss of civilian lives, though. The theocracy will not give up without a fight.
chingona:
Well, as recently as 2008, the Israelis seemed to think they needed our permission.
Well, first, that’s the New York Times, so who knows how much of that you can believe. But more importantly, that was with a different Israeli PM and a different American President. I think this Israeli PM may well look to Washington D.C. and think that he’s a lot more on his own – and act accordingly.
RonF,
It is certainly possible that an Israeli government will decide the benefits of a strike on Iran outweigh the risks, but you asked what made the writer think the Israelis are waiting for us to approve. Historically, there’s good reason to think they would not act without at least tacit U.S. approval. Yes, things change, but at least at this point in time, adding up all the pros and cons still points to not acting without U.S. approval.
Well, Conan O’Brien just offered a joke. It went something like:
“The Iraqi elections are over and there’s been 3 days of riots and fires. I can’t tell if the winner was Ahmadinehjad or the Lakers!”
Excuse me while I change the channel ….
Did he actually say Iraqi?
Ah, crap. No, he said Iranian.
Washington Post weighs in: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html
Jenny,
Two blog posts (here and here) that one needs to read in conjunction with the Terror Free Tomorrow op ed piece. It is possible that Ahmadinejad won by the margin he claims for himself–though that is highly improbable–but the behavior of the Iranian government in announcing the results begs the question of why they were not, simply, transparent about those results. More to the point, though, what is going on now is about far more than the specifics of this election.
If the Iranian government releases the results with full transparency, even if Ahmadinejad won fairly, they will be giving power to the people, which they are not willing to do. They are in control, and they will do anything to keep it that way.