"I’ll take stupid neocon fantasies for 400, Alex."
"Ok, Skippy: The answer is:
"one of the reasons there is a substantial reform movement in Iran — particularly among its young people — is because of George W. Bush’s tough policies."
" What is one of the biggest lies Ari Flesicher ever told?"
" Correct, Skippy-you still control the board."
This appears to be the corollary to the "We are not doing enough to help them" line of thought. What better way to salvage a reprobate’s reputation then by linking subsequent events to unintended consequences of a bad decision made by him.
And it seems to be gaining some traction among the usual suspects.
There is, of course, only one problem-it does not tell the whole story. If Bush wants to take credit for something-how about him taking credit for creating Ahmadinejad in the first place? Because if Iran has gotten more hardline of the past ten years-guess who helped shove them that way?
The evidence presented for the proposition that Iraq’s nascent democracy (let’s be charitable) influenced what’s happening in Iran is that (a) there’s a nascent democracy in Iraq, (b) Iran is next to Iraq, (c) Iranians make “religious pilgrimages and conduct business” in Iraq and (d) there’s something amazing and hopeful going on in Iran. By contrast, no Iranian … for instance, has mentioned Iraq as an inspiration for the demonstrations, nor has any leader of the opposition cited their Iraqi neighbors as a model or a source of guidance. Instead, they talk about internal, domestic provocations provided by Ahmadinejad and the clerical regime. If we’re going to go by, say, business ties, Iran’s main trading partners are China, India, Germany, South Korea, France, Russia and Italy. Which of those countries inspired the Iranian protests we’re seeing now?
By invading Iraq in 2003-Bush provided defacto evidence to anyone who wanted to use it that the United States was intent on forcibly occupying the region to control its oil resources. As a result the hard line movement in Iran-which had been experiencing difficulties of its own since 1997-was actually rejuvenated, thanks to fears about US intentions.
I think that the key point to make here is that the reformist candidate won the Iranian presidential election in 1997, and won re-election by a big margin in 2001. Then back in 2003 when a reformist president was actually in office and the Iranian government was looking to improve relations with the United States, the Bush administration chose to strengthen the hand of Iranian hardliners by (a) labeling Iran part of an “axis of evil” (b) refusing to engage in bilateral dialogue with Iran (c) cutting off cooperation on Afghanistan and (d) invading Iraq. We then got Ahmadenijad in the 2005 election, and now we’re watching the 2009 election unfold right before our eyes. The moral of the story is that there’s nothing unusual about a reformist candidate getting strong support from the Iranian voters.
Furthermore, Iranian society has long had western leanings and the Bush probably did more damage to that credibility than anyone since the Shah. Iranians certainly don’t want an Iraq model of government-with an average of 8-10 violent terrorist attacks a day-and a government that blatantly sides with one faction against the other. (Even though most Iranians are Shia’s-its not necessarily apparent that they embrace it he same way Iraqis do). I’ve long believed that most Iranians have never liked their theocratic government. They have been stuck with it-the result of a revolution gone terribly wrong, that was co opted by the wrong kinds of people. ( Ultra-religious Muslims). Proves the old adage about being careful what you wish for. They may have wanted to the Shah to be gone-but they did not get what they were hoping for.
Iran’s demonstrations in the streets did not start out to be a peoples revolution-but that appears to be what it is turning into. The question the west needs to ask itself is whether it will turn into something that benefits the West. It might not you know-and then where we will be? For the Iranians-the story is about them. For the US, its about how do we get the best deal for what comes out of it?
See, I’m funny that way. I am all about Westerners-in particular Western men-being the preferred customers in the brave new world. The man Republicans have been tripping over themselves to quote as being an agent provocateur of revolution, Ronald Reagan,was that way too.
No, John McCain, President Reagan did not stand up for the people of Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring. That happened in 1968, when Mr Reagan was in his first term as governor of California. Nor was Alexander Solzhenitsyn deep in the gulags when Reagan gave his "evil empire" speech. Someone inform Mike Pence. Next will we hear someone credit the release of "Tropic Zone" with forcing an armistice in the Korean War?
This is all very amusing, but Republicans are losing sight of Mr Reagan’s actual foreign policy. His approach toward Iran was brutal realism that resulted in the sale of missiles to the mullahs’ regime. His approach towards South Africa was also pure strategy—support for a racist regime as a way of hurting the Soviets. Many of the anti-communist forces backed by his administration (in Asia, Africa and Latin America) were also hostile to their own people. In other words, he rarely exhibited the woolly-headed, we-support-you idealism that his party is now advocating.
See, one thing Reagan never lost sight of was that US foreign policy is about one group of people only-the US. Its all well and good to see people exhibit normal human empathy towards the demonstrators in Iran-but this "revolution" , if it succeeds may not go where we think it will. Intervene too proactively for a government that has little real desire to go the way the US wants, and we become stuck with it. Isn’t that the real lesson of the events in Iraq?
A mistake is still a mistake-even if its aftermath later gets set to right.