Idealism wrapped in naivete.
I continue to shake my head at guys like Ralph Peters and others who continue to advocate for a noisy, rattle the cages, type of encouragement of the electoral chaos in Iran. These people are really misguided. They might want to get out and watch how the world really works-instead of living in their blogger’s dream world of how they think it should.
Note to the idealists: National sovereignty actually means something-and in particular it means that other nations don’t get to drive the bus on another nation’s internal affairs. The situation in Iraq has to play out on its own. Those who believe we have some sort of “moral obligation” to provide active, interventionist support are simply fooling themselves. The means to do so does not exist.
Do any of these guys remember what happened in Hungary? In 1956, Radio Free Europe encouraged the resistance movement, giving them the mistaken impression that NATO was willing to cross the Iron Curtain to come to their aid. When President Eisnhower sat down and looked at a map-he came to a more practical conclusion: Budapest was not worth the loss of several Western capitals. The Soviets knew geography was in their favor and they went forward and crushed the revolution. The United States and Europe remained conventional and nuclear cinder free, however-which was in the end the right call to make.
Thomas Ricks worries that the idealists have forgotten that lesson:
>I think President Obama is correct in showing extreme restraint in dealing with the situation in Iran. My concern is that opposition protestors will interpret any voicing of Western support as a sign that we will come to their aid. Every time I see one of those “Where is my vote?” signs in English, I worry even more.
Yet, the chattering morons class continues to rail against Obama’s supposed inaction. Now mind you-he’s actually said a lot about it-at least one statement every day. And he has been wise to take the measured tightrope he has walked so far. Shows that he is more up to speed on the overall history of the region than the neocons are. As a wiser mind than mine noted:
By the way, by being a bunch of loudmouths and turning your fucking blogs green, you’re really not helping. Honest, you aren’t. The Iranians have pretty vivid memories of what happened the last time the West involved itself in their electoral system. And those memories are less than fond. While nobody likes having foreigners poking their noses into domestic elections, they like it even less when said foreigners overthrew the only democratically elected government they ever had. I suspect that Iranians will respect American thoughts on their elections the week after the Americans start welcoming British opinions on taxes on tea.
Lots of bloggers have observed that Iranians love Americans, and they’re right. They do. But like most Americans, Iranians despise the United States government. Therefore, if the Obama administration does what those chuckle head fucking Republicans demand, it could unify domestic Iranian opinion behind Ahmadinejad. It could well be that Iranians feel about Ahmadinejad what Americans felt about George W. Bush when Bush was assailed by foreigners; “Sure, he’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”
Or maybe, just maybe, its that Iran’s government does not work the way we would like it to. “Installing Mousavi will not bring democracy to Iran, it will only hand the presidency to someone with a better wardrobe. Iran’s policies, and especially its foreign policy, will change not at all. This is because those policies aren’t determined by the president.”
Some people cannot seem to remember that.
Actually, they do. However this argument that “Oh my God, Obama is not doing enough” is not about the Iranians at all. Its not about what is being said-more than it is about who is saying it. These chuckle heads ignore the fact that Bush did pretty much the same thing in : ( fill in the blank with tyrannical, oil-less, African or Asian government here). This whole meme is all about finding yet one more reason to attack the President. What’s especially interesting about it is how quickly a “Save the noble Iranians” commenter will very quickly switch the argument back to something unrelated-like how much they hate the stimulus or how Obama is going to take their : ( money, guns, or daughters-fill in the blank).
Furthermore, the irony of the fact that as little as six months ago-and even now-a fair percentage of these “morally obligated” writers were advocating with equal fervor the whole sale murder of a lot of the residents who are currently manning the Twitter barricades. “Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country — actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People. “
And if Mousavi wins? You think its back to Tehran in the 1970’s? Time to wake up and smell the hallucinogens. It doesn’t work that way:
1) These are Persians. Not Westerners-which only makes them a slightly more advanced than the bottom of the human food chain-Arabs. These people like to hold a grudge and when it comes to the US they have several to grasp on to. These people remember both 1953 and 1979 very well. I might want to see the shah back ( and Iranian girls in mini-skirts), but the majority of Iranians don’t.
2) Mousavi is not Nagy. Even if, even if he plays so far above is game he wins-he’s still not going to give the US an Iranian foreign policy that the US wants. He’s not staying up nights praying for Israel. Hell, even Iraq does not do that-and they are supposed to be “our guys” ( See note one and the bottom of the human food chain).
3) Regardless of who wins-the Iranian partnership with Russia will remain strong. Barring a fundamental cave in by a new Iranian government- Iran is still goint to need material support that the US is not going to provide. Russia will stand ready to support. That’s not good for the US. One of the more interesting things about the multi-polar world that is arising, (and which Iraq helped speed up) is that not every change is 180 degrees. Sometimes its only 75 degrees to the left or right.
4) Finally, even if Iran were to become a full-fledged liberal democracy, it would not necessarily abandon its nuclear ambitions, including the possible acquisition of nuclear weapons. This is about what is doing what’s right for Persia-not what is right for the west. For a demonstrator who has a sense of pride in the 1000 year old Persian nation-nukes seem a great way to make them a player on the world stage. People forget Mousavi was involved in starting the Iranian nuclear program. Iran wants to be like India. We gave support to India and helped them re-vitalize their nuclear program. So appeals to their better nature tend to have no impact.
But these folks who are yelling for more “action” don’t care about any of the preceding facts. This is not about Iran-its about finding still one more thing to criticize Obama about. Teabags anyone?