-
U.S. POLICY
Will China Surpass the U.S.?
-
NEOCONSERVATIVES
Why The Neocon Strategy Was A Failure
-
ISRAEL
How Powerful Is the Israel Lobby?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 11:02 PM
Share
I don’t know where the latest unrest in Iran will lead -- and neither does anyone else -- but it seems like the regime is losing whatever legitimacy it had left and may also be losing its capacity to squelch dissent with displays of force. (As before, Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish has lots of videos and commentary on events there.) The outcome of this sort of challenge is inherently difficult to forecast, as it is nearly impossible to know ex ante when a critical “tipping point” might be reached. At a minimum, the regime has clearly gotten significantly weaker since the contested election last summer.
Here are some cautionary lessons to bear in mind. First, we do not know enough about internal dynamics in Iran to intervene intelligently, and trying to reinforce or support the Green Movement is as likely to hurt them as to help them. So our official position needs to measured and temperate, and to scrupulously avoid any suggestion that we are egging the Greens on or actively backing them with material aid.
Second, this is an especially foolish time to be rattling sabers and threatening military action. Threatening or using force is precisely the sort of external interference that might give the current regime a new lease on life. If you’d like to see a new government in Tehran, in short, we should say relatively little and do almost nothing. I don’t object to making it clear how much the U.S. government deplores the regime’s repressive measures, but this is one of those moment where we ought to say less than we feel.
If you’re looking for a useful historical analogy, think back to the "velvet revolutions" in Eastern Europe. Neoconservatives used to argue that the rapid and mostly peaceful collapse of communism proved that rapid democratic transformations were possible in unlikely settings, and they used that argument to justify trying the same thing in Iraq. (We all know how well that turned out.) In fact, the velvet revolutions were a triumph of slow and patient engagement from a position of strength. The upheavals in Eastern Europe were an indigenous phenomenon and the product of containment, diplomatic engagement, and the slow-but-steady spread of democratic ideals through the Helsinki process and other mechanisms. And the first Bush administration was smart enough to keep its hands off until the demise of communism was irreversible, which is precisely the approach we ought to take toward Iran today.
Finally, as I mentioned a few days ago, we should not assume that a Green triumph in Iran would eliminate all sources of friction between Iran and the West. A new government would probably seek to continue Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and will certainly want a secure (read: superior) position in its own neighborhood. In practice, that means trying to achieve an imbalance of power in its favor, which will make the U.S. uncomfortable. If the clerical regime falls and we continue to insist that Iran stop enriching uranium and conform to our policy preferences, that will convince many Iranians that the United States is irrevocably hostile to their country and not just to the current regime. So I hope somebody in the Obama administration is starting to think about a) what we do if the Green Movement succeeds, b) what we do if it fails, and c) how to keep hawks in the United States and Israel from making things worse.
AFP/Getty Images
Here are some cautionary lessons to bear in mind. First, we do not know enough about internal dynamics in Iran to intervene intelligently, and trying to reinforce or support the Green Movement is as likely to hurt them as to help them. So our official position needs to measured and temperate, and to scrupulously avoid any suggestion that we are egging the Greens on or actively backing them with material aid.” (Stephen Walt)
If the French had adopted Steve Walt's advice during the American Revolution, Walt would be collecting his salary from Harvard in pounds instead of dollars and he would be working at the Belfer Centre instead of the Belfer Center.
"The upheavals in Eastern Europe were an indigenous phenomenon and the product of containment, diplomatic engagement, and the slow-but-steady spread of democratic ideals through the Helsinki process and other mechanisms." (Stephen Walt)
Yes, but let's remember what "containment" included. It included the Berlin Airlift; it included Radio Free Europe; it included a variety of economic and trade sanctions against Warsaw Pact nations; it included the stationing of tens of thousands of American troops in free nations that bordered the Warsaw Pact countries; it included thousands of ICBMs in the United States and hundreds of medium range MIRVED missiles aimed at the Soviet Union and its allies; it included constant pressure by the United States on its European allies not to become too dependant on the Soviet Union for its energy needs; it included constant rhetoric by American Presidents about the evils of Soviet Communism and it included a bipartisan consensus on the part of political elites in the United States that confronting Soviet Communism and imperialism was the dominant foreign policy priority of the United States,
I wonder if Steve Walt would support a similar policy directed not only against Iran but also against Islamofacism in the Sunni world.
"If the clerical regime falls and we continue to insist that Iran stop enriching uranium and conform to our policy preferences, that will convince many Iranians that the United States is irrevocably hostile to their country and not just to the current regime." (Stephen Walt)
Do the Iranians who oppose the regime so vociferously that they are willing to put life and limb at risk really care whether Iran acquires nuclear weapons or are they more interested in a rapprochement with the United States?
I don't know the answer to that question; neither does Steve Walt.
On France, please remember that it was only good for the colonial rebels and not for France. France went bankrupt partially as a result of backing the rebels, so only someone who automatically thinks the world should back the U.S would have thought it would be good for France. Also frankly the only advantages I've been able to find from our independence in the 19th century was that the U.S could avoid entering the U.K's wars and the U.S could expand across the continent. If this had any time between 1815 and the 1870s I would have suggested that the U.S form some tie with the U.K just to have the protection of a major power.
I honestly have serious doubts that economic or trade sanctions had any real effect on the outcome of those protests and pro-democracy movements. Having Western soldiers on the border didn't even enter into the equations of the protesters or the elite. You'll note that in Poland when plans were drawn up for martial law from 1981 to 1983 they didn't have any fears of the West invading, in 1989 the knowledge that Russia wouldn't send soldiers to put down protests as it had before in Hungary seems to have given the Solidarity movement more bargaining power than all the Americans in West Germany put together. Incidentally I would say the exact same thing of the missiles, I cannot find any reason for why missiles would encourage democratic movements. You either fire a missile or you don't, it can't protect protesters and I can't think of an instance where any nation has threatened to launch a missile if protesters are shot or arrested. Also I suggest that you remember that this "bipartisan consensus..of the political elites" did not exist. President Johnson was very opposed to the U.S.S.R while Nixon was far more friendly. Also the U.S was more than willing to intervene on behalf of France and Britain to help them in imperialist matters such as Vietnam and Iran.
After that is the word Islamofascism. I am only going to say this here so I advise you to read closely. It does not exist. It has never existed. There is no such ideology as Islamofascism. Political Islam and Fascism are very incompatible. Fascism (in general form) calls for a racial purity (though it varies from group to group), for one party to dominate the state, and notably does not advocate the religious institutions of the state govern it. Political Islam (in its incredibly varied forms) advocates for religion to be involved in the government in some form, does not require only party to dominate the state though this does occur, and notably has no problem with the idea of different groups and people becoming Muslim. Islamofascism is simply a buzzword that the far right created to combine an enemy that few people really remembered with a enemy that few people had any understanding of and so evoke memories of World War II. In essence it's propaganda.
On nuclear weapons and what the Iranian people want: it isn't a matter of weapons itself, it's a matter of nationalism. I'm not certain of it myself, but there is a possibility that a regime replacing the current one would be criticized by the Iranian people for backing down to the West. From an Iranian perspective it actually could be in their interests to acquire nuclear weapons, the U.S overthrew two governments on either side of Iran, and even if both nations are going through insurgencies I imagine that the Iranian leadership would rather prevent an invasion from ever happening. I won't say that this is definite, but I will say that it's probably easier to decide to stop building nuclear power plants if you have already proved your anti-American credentials.
If your idea of "rapporchment" with the US means that Iran will follow the dictates of the US and abandon its nuclear program, and at every opportunity praise Israel and its right to be a state for Jews only, you really don't have a clue. Iran is an independent country, with a very long civilization and history. I would venture that all Iranians believe they have a right to make independent decisions, and that includes the nuclear program. Of course, this does not mean that the US et al does not have its fingers in the pot. It seems that most of the Iranian experts on US TV seem to be from Los Angeles, where many of the Shah's moneyed supporters fled.
And re Eastern Europe, other forces played a much larger part than US bases. Simply put, the Soviet Empire fell because it just went broke. Just a small example, cost accounting didn't really exist in Russia. How long can you claim to be an industrialized nation and not know how much it costs to produce an item? Afganistan was the final expenditure that pushed it over the brink. Further, most Eastern European countries had been independent and reasonably democratic before the Soviet occupation,. They used the weakness of the Soviet Union to assert their own independence, not to reach rapporchment with the US.
Yeah, it's always struck me that those who use this term aren't doing their cause any favors, especially with educated folks. Can make it seem that it's just rabble-rousing for the boob vote. While Islamic fundamentalists may believe in any number of jarring things, they hardly seem to be big believers in those that the inventors of fascism did: Intense nationalism, ethnic/tribal superiority, chronic extra-territorial ambitions for "living" purposes (with consequent chronic territorial aggrandizements masquerading as being for "defensive" purposes), chronically lavish funding of one's military and glorification of martial values....
Just doesn't fit the Islamic Fundies so far as I see it at least.
No argument is tasty w/o Salt (Jews) and pepper (Israel)
kassandra,
You write: " Israel for Jews only".
First, who was talking about Israel here?, and why on every occasion the name "Israel" has to be inserted here.
Second, "Homeland for Jews", does not mean to the exclusion of other non-Jews. Almost 20% of Israel's citizens arr Muslims and other non-Jews. (Like Iran being a homeland for the Shi'ite Farsi)
Otherwise, I do agree with your assessment on the collapse of the late USSR. We should use the same tactics to remove a bunch Mullahs with 7th century mind set. We can not even phantom the ominous possibility of them having their finger on the nuclear trigger. Those brave Iranians need to be free to elect the type of leadership they deserve, which walks the 21st century, not the 7th one.
Force the regime to spend all its budget on Don Quixotic weapon program, until no money left for other social programs. Then watch the crowd round these diaper-heads back into their caves in northern Iran.
Where Israel fits. And Syria. And Lebanon. And the Saudis. And..
Sababa03,
If you can't see how some in Iran might compare their situation with the US vis-a-vis kowtowing by any future regime with the special protected status Israel has, then you'd better remove International Affairs as a topic of idle, let alone serious, thought.
Iran: One of the cradles of civilisation with an unbroken record of settlement and political domination of the land it sits on regardless of confessional changes.
Israel: a brand new nation created by settlers.
US: a brand new nation created by settlers.
Hmm, I wonder why, given the above facts and the fact that the US says nothing about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons but demands Iran stop any attempt to gain them at a future time, Iran would factor Israel into any and/or all of its thinking about the US and its intentions and demands.
The entire Middle East could fit inside a single Australian state, but it has enough ongoing fueds, wars, alliances, betrayals, conspiracies, relationships-of-convenience, counter-intuitive political machinations and outright illogical stupidity for the whole world five time over.
Nothing happens to any one of those nations in isolation. So you'd better know what the neighbours are doing and what everybody's opinion of everybody else is before you begin contemplating even speaking, let alone acting on what you think anybody's best interests are.
Is Israel the US' social program?
Sabab, E-Pi answered you very well, but I will add a few other thoughts. You apparently wish to refer to Israel's neighbors when you say that they should be "forced to spend all on Don Quixotic weapons until no money is left for other social programs. . ." It is quite obvious that in Israel the military is viewed as a social program. The IDF is sacred in Israeli thinking, noone questions them, they in fact rule the country. Israel would long ago have spent itself into bankruptcy and would have collapsed like the USSR were it not for the United States dole that keeps it afloat. And they would long ago have crawled back into the caves where they came from, as you so eloquently put it. Israel is a social program of the United States.
The US did not come out of the blue
In regards to "Where Israel fits. And Syria. And Lebanon. And the Saudis. And.." - The land that is now the US was continually settled by Europeans for hundreds of years before a conservative revolution (one that aimed to maintain the status quo) created the United States of America. The US has evolved and has been around for a long time.
Israel was a very recent and hasty creation.
kassandra.
you write:
QUOTE:"The IDF is sacred in Israeli thinking, noone questions them, they in fact rule the country."
REPLY: IDF does not rule the country. It is subject to, and gets its orders from civilian body who was duly elected by the Israeli people. IDF is responsible for defending the country. So far it has done an excellent doing just that.
QUOTE: "Israel would long ago have spent itself into bankruptcy and would have collapsed like the USSR were it not for the United States dole that keeps it afloat."
REPLY: It is clear that, except for your own biases and prejudices, you have no idea what Israel, and its enormous economic prowess are.
Perhaps this table below will put your convoluted and misinformed comments "crawling back into their caves." (Thanks for letting me borrow your own words.)
GDP per CAPITA (2008 est).
ISLAMIC STATES:
1.Afghanistan----$800
2.Bangladesh---$1,400
3.Egypt:---------$5,400
4.Jordan:--------$4,700
5.Mauritania---$1,800
6.Nigeria:-------$2,200
7.Pakistan:------$2,600
8.Syria:---------$4,500
9. Sudan:--- ----$2,500
10.Yemen-------$2,400
TOTAL:-------$28,300
ISRAEL----------$28,800
Oil rich States.
Saudi Arabia:--$20,700
Libya:------------$13,100
Iran:-------------$12,800
Source: http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/gdp_per_capita_2008_1.html
QUOTE: "And they would long ago have crawled back into the caves where they came from, as you so eloquently put it. Israel is a social program of the United States."
REPLY: whatever that means
Uh-huh, yuh, America was settled for hundreds of years. Yep, about as many hundreds of years as Australia has currently been settled by Europeans.
A drop in the ocean of human history compared with, as I noted, the continued and uninterrupted settlement and domination of the land beginning 4,000 years ago with the Elamites...
Any wonder that with an unbroken record of 4,000 years they might look on the US an uncivilised upstart without history or culture. Nobody likes being told what to do by the children.
Quite right: "Islamofascism" an automatic disqualifier
An utterly meaningless term. Islamic fundamentalists, Wahabbists, et al. all have some real world application and aren't inherent inaccuate; "Islamofascism" is an utter misnomer that says much more about the person who uses the term than it does anything else. Most of the Islamic fundies are black-/gray-market capitalists; "fascism" is better applied to the regimes we support in the ME (such as Egypt) than it is to the non-governmental, loosely organized cells of al Qaeda, whose occasionally expressed desires for a broad caliphate is by no means fascism.
Use of the French example is apples and oranges to this situation.
And does it need to be pointed out *yet again* that the threat of communism and the threat of a minority of poorly organized Muslim terrorists are not fit to be compared to one another? Does it also need to be pointed out, *yet again*, that the U.S. is beyond broke? That we are already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan? That we have no money to finance the bombing and invasion every Islamic hot spot on the planet in a game of endless whack-a-mole? I suppose it does.
Great advice, Steve Walt style
You said everything that needed to be said. Let's hope the appropriate people are listening.
is taken, is likely to be the wrong move, then obviously, no move should be taken at all. Mr. Moussavi has asked for the Mullah establishment support and not the support of the USA or the west.
Consequently, if the Mullahs end up supporting him eventually, it will be to have power restored to them as opposed to that of the "Pasdars" or "Bunyat-i Mustazafoun", or even himslef. Currently there is unrest in Iran evidently, but I think still that, the western euphoria should be put on hold for some time if not for a very long time, because there is still majority of support for the regime in the cities of Iran, and mush more so in the countryside. Moreover, the regime supporters are better organised and supplied than the opposition.
I think the situation should be watched closely, and changes in loyalty and support should be noted also. The international community should weigh up its options carefully, between wanting to deal in the future, with a Mullah regime, or security-oriented nationalist regime like what exists in Iran
today.
khairi janbek.paris/france
The scene: Imagine its late 18th century France.
The Characters: Louis XV, His Serene Majesty, King of France; Chancellor of the Sorbonne; Professeur Walt (the 1775 version of Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard)
The Location: A bunker located deep under the Versailles Palace. The bunker is called "la salle de situation."
Louis XV calls the Chancellor of the Sorbonne and asks him to send over to the palace right away his leading expert on foreign policy. The King explains that there are some interesting events occurring in North America that require attention and that he needs some advice on how to proceed. He reminds the Chancellor that he doesn't want to speak to one of those sentimental types; he doesn't want anyone who gushes about human rights and certainly not anyone who cares about liberte; he wants to talk to a realist.
The Chancellor tells the King that he has just the man for the job. He's sending Professeur Walt right over. Professeur Walt arrives at Versailles and is immediately brought to meet the King,
Professeur Walt: How can I help you Your Serene Majesty?
Louis XV: Things are really starting to heat up in North America. Their throwing tea in the harbor; they're not paying their taxes and they even shot some British constables at Bunker Hill in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. What do you think I should do?
Professeur Walt: First, we do not know enough about internal dynamics in North America to intervene intelligently, and trying to reinforce or support the Americans is as likely to hurt them as to help them. So our official position needs to measured and temperate, and to scrupulously avoid any suggestion that we are egging the Americans on or actively backing them with material aid.
Louis XV: But Professeur, those Americans are really riled up. You should hear the slogans their chanting. They're saying things like "Don't tread on me," "Give me liberty or give me death," "No taxation without representation,” There’s one fellow who said "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." In Virginia, Thomas Jefferson is even lobbying for religious freedom. Religious freedom can you believe that? I think if we support the Americans we can make things tough for our long-time opponents, the British. You know, if we support the Americans we can finally pay the British back for all of the humiliations they've inflicted on us going way back to Agincourt.
Professeur Walt: This is an especially foolish time to be rattling sabers and threatening military action. Threatening or using force is precisely the sort of external interference that might give the British regime in America a new lease on life. If you’d like to see a new government in America, in short, we should say relatively little and do almost nothing. I don’t object to making it clear how much the we deplore the British regime’s repressive measures, but this is one of those moments where we ought to say less than we feel."
Louis XV: But Professeur, can't we at least loan the Americans a little money. (I hear if we do, the Dutch will lend some money too)? I was thinking maybe we could send over some muskets and musket balls and gunpowder. I was also thinking we might send some military advisors. I know this guy Lafayette who could do the Americans alot of good. I know they're realling going to love him. I was also thinking we could badger the British and their allies in other parts of the world so they would be distracted from giving the war against the Americans their best effort. If the Americans start to gain some traction, I was thinking I might even send in a few troops.
Professeur Walt: Your Serene Majesty, what's happening in America is an internal process; there is really very little we can do to help. In fact, if we get involved the Americans are less likely to succeed in giving the British a black eye not more likely to succeed. I'm afraid you have too many war mongers at Court; my advice is that you have your ministers start planning what to do if the Americans succeed and what to do if they fail. Whatever you do, don't help them! Let's make sure France doesn't make things worse.
Louis XV: If I follow your advice Professuer the Americans will surely lose their war!
Professeur Walt: Who cares; it really isn't our business anyway.
And as my point was made above, France went bankrupt as a result. France had no obligation to wreck its own economy to support a rebellion, indeed if I had been a French leader and I had realized that by supporting this war I would drain my nation's coffers I would have said forget it. A leader is responsible for the wellbeing of their own nation and any leader who puts that wellbeing at risk simply to help some group in another nation should be removed from their job. It was good for the colonists that France decided to help, it wasn't good for France.
The scene: Imagine it's the early 21st century.
Now look back at history.
In the 18th century the French refused to bankrupt themselves in the name of "my enemy's enemy is my friend", they instead chose to practise Realpolitik.
Because there was no French "intervention" during the American "rebellion" the rebellion failed.
Now cut to North America in the early 21st century.
America (or whatever name it took in the last 200 years) is a thriving, first-world economy nation that speaks English. It is also a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Aside from a few peculiar quirks about about its parliamentary system and universal health care to go with its universal education, exactly what do you think would have been lost in that Revolution?
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are English-speaking, Caucasian-dominated First-World nations that didn't feel the need to throw off the King's yoke.
All three boast better health-care systems than the US. All three boast a better record of "confronting" aggression in the previous century than the US. All three boast a better record of democracy actually being representational.
The most obvious difference is that despite winning their war the Brits in Canada allowed the French to continue with their language. Or perhaps that's an irony of history too far for you.
one thing you all overlooked...
You are trying to shoehorn one historical situation into another and it that doesn't work at all.
France had just lost the Seven Years War (called the French and Indian War on the North American continent) to England. This had nothing to do whatsoever with "human rights" or other terms that no one even considered important back in the 18th century outside a few Enlightenment salons. The decision to get involved in the American Revolution was for the following reasons:
a) To humiliate the British after their victory against the French
b) To secure a trading partner with access to New World resources (France lost most of their colonies after the Seven Years War)
The French had very legitimate, attainable, and most of all realistic geopolitical goals for going to war against the British
Aiding the Iranian protesters, who are a fractured group with with no defined goals, against the government does not make sense. It will only give credence to an insular, paranoid regime that they are being taken down by "Western agents."
I don't disagree but your historical analogies don't really work...Eastern Europe were client states of a dying empire that had been the subject of relentless propaganda from our side for half a century, and those movement received significant support from us (and had modern successful states near or on their borders, etc. etc.). The analogy just doesn't work, just like when the neocons used the same analogy to posit a democratic Iraq leading to a series of democratic revolutions across the mid-east.
It's impossible to say what our meddling would do in this situation (beyond just as a logical matter); there are just as many historical analogies were countries undergoing unrest were pushed over the brink by confrontational attitudes (i.e. Reagan's defeat of the Soviet Empire), or pushed into revolution by war (i.e. the Russian Revolution during World War I).
But, frankly, there's no way we have the expertise to do this, so best just to wait and see...
as an Iranian who lives in Iran i give some clues abt our internal situation
here we have 3 group of ppl .a)the more majority of ppl over of 70 present are tired of current system and its management like those who support the green movement also the mass population of the ppl are in line with this group b)second group of ppl who support the current government are mostly poor and uneducated ppl who are depended their life by government`s aid that's why they support the system c)the third category are wealthy ppl which are in connection with government too,these are ppl who are involve or has communication with agents in the system ,like relatives of clergy mans or other individuals like this .
and i think that these are the main problems of our ppl 1) economical hardship 2)injustice 3) dividing ppl to insider and outsider ,insider the ones who are in line with supreme leader and outsider the ones who do not believe in supreme leader 4)giving high positions to those ppl who are politically motivated not by their skill on those filed for example : most of Iranian PM,s have serve in IRGC and they have not especial skills with managing the country just their involvement in revolution gives them those important positions not their skill ....
hope this little info gives u all some perspective abt our internal institutions ..
>>>But, to the main point -- the USSR collapsed because of economic non-viabiity rather than because we contained its aggressive moves.
It is true that the former USSR collapsed because of economic non-viability, but think of the possible outcomes if we did not contain any possible aggressive moves. What does a regime with a non-viable economic system, but a strong military do, if it surrounded by soft states with strong economies ? March right in and help itself to the goodies and stave off collapse for a few more decades.
Also, part of the economic non-viability of the USSR was because of its broken economic policies. Part of it was also because it was forced by the US to stay on the treadmill of defense spending. The kind of defense spending that was a minor item for a US-sized economy was a serious drag on the Soviet economy.
>>>We were fortunate that the USS wasn't run by a much smarter Party such as the one in charge of China
Very true. Ultimately, I think the regime chose to shut down rather than fight simply because of ideological exhaustion.
>>>While Islamic fundamentalists may believe in any number of jarring things, they hardly seem to be big believers in those that the inventors of fascism did: Intense nationalism, ethnic/tribal superiority, chronic extra-territorial ambitions for "living" purposes (with consequent chronic territorial aggrandizements masquerading as being for "defensive" purposes), chronically lavish funding of one's military and glorification of martial values...
Strangely enough, this almost exactly describes political Islam. However, it is based on religious supremacism, not nationalism in the conventional sense. If you map the concept of the Islamic Ummah to the European concept of the nation-state, every one of the above items fit.
I don't think it is possible to map the Islamic Ummah to the European concept of nation-state, because the notion of Ummah is a transnational one, and based on faith rather than race, colour, ethnicity, language or creed.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Nuclear Confrontation Helping Protesters
Walt,
It is true that we should not do much else to help protesters, at this present time.
However, you are wrong in saying that confrontations will not help the protesters. In fact, the current nuclear crisis we have against Iran, and the accompanying war rhetoric, is helping the protesters by occupying the IRGC.
To protect against the possible strike against the nuclear refineries, the IRGC is on a war footing, manning its air raid listening posts and anti-aircraft batteries, as well as the general defenses at the strategic sites. These are people the IRGC cannot send to Tehran to quell the insurgency.
We the US are helping out the protesters by keeping the IRGC engaged in national defense. The reason the protests take place at all is because of our threats of air strikes. (and that of the Israeli Air Force.)
One thing we could do to help the protesters right now: Immediately announce a normalization of relations and re-open an embassy in Tehran. We'd take away a propaganda tool of the regime, because, hey, we're making peace!
Of course we need to keep up with the bank freeze against the Iranian government.
http://americanmohist.blogspot.com/2009/12/iranian-revolution-visualizing_09.html
Nuclear confrontation is just an excuse from a super power who finds no other objection on sovereign Iran.
In one side they are supplying sophisticated weapons to Korea, Taiwan and full military aide to Pakistan that is highly destabilizing the already volatile region.
This kind of state unrest is matter of Iran internal matter and nothing to worry for west.
If west is interested to look into then try to stop the atrocities of US forces and its interferences in Muslim countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, where deadly blasts on ordinary civilians are being taken placed .Here majority is quite confirmed that in all this mess somewhere US intelligence is contributing for execution of such heinous acts.It is always US history to escalate terrorism through civilized manner.
The protesters represent a minority of the population. The country is divided, but to say the government has no legitimacy is to rely on wishful thinking, not realism. And to keep pushing that line is to confuse perceived US interests with an interests in democracy itself.
And now there are pro government protesters in the streets as well.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639&lb=brme
I've posted this before. It should not be news but it is every time.
Creating a Permanent Political Insurgency
I don't think we should go with either extreme here folks. Afterall, for all their failures as of late, the CIA is still a rather capable organization.
Add that to the fact that we can maybe, just MAYBE, use our clusterfrig in Iraq for some good for a change. While we still have thousands of troops stationed there, let's take advantage of their passive presence.
I say we and Israel litter Iraqi Kurdistan with safehouses for Irani 'Green' dissidents and create a steady pipiline of covert funding for their resistance to the present government. This includes bankrolling and protecting senior-level clerics that dare to speak out against Khamenei and the status-quo. I'm not sure how amenable Southern Iraq is right now or how the SCIR in Iraq would take this, so its better just to stick with Kurdistan for the moment.
Do it on the hush hush, but insure that the political resistance is well fed, and permanent.
It'll provide us with the platform for dialogue in the future if the 'Green Movement' is successful, and worse comes to worse, it'll keep the Irani Government occupied with domestic upheavel so they can't devote resources to foreign endeavours.
What say you?
I mean chances are we're already doing it.
"Hundreds of thousands of government supporters took to Iran's streets on Wednesday in a show of force against the opposition, with a senior cleric telling their leaders to repent or face death."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22TEHRAN+%28AFP%29+–+Hundreds+of+thousands+of+government+supporters+took+to+Iran%27s+streets%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
I can tell you're as big a fan of democracy as the rest, which is to say: not much.
Israel and Pakistan are more dangerous and more unstable than Iran. But in the war of us vs them you would consider Israel "us" regardless of their actions.
So much for objective morality.
Do others wonder the same thing? Exactly how did Ahmadinejad “hijack” the Iranian election, which required that he steal more than 11,000,000 votes? He must have had help. Does not even one of his co-conspirators have a price? Why have we been unable to loosen even a single pair of lips with a credible, evidence-backed story to tell? I doubt it reflects a lack of effort.
Charges about Iran's treatment of protesters immediately after the election, and since then, are serious and may all be valid. But the government’s handling of protests must be distinguished from the election itself. The narrow election issue is not whether the government mistreated those who disputed the reported results, but whether Ahmadinejad in fact won. Like it or not (I did not), he was reported to have received 11,000,000 votes more than his nearest competitor (Moussavi), hardly a Bush v. Gore margin.
Most polling stations (not all – more on this below) were monitored by a representative of the opposition candidates. Most or all of the opposition's 646 specific complaints, the vast majority of which alleged minor pre-election irregularities, were investigated even though the opposition seemed oddly indifferent about them after the election. Nothing significant turned up, and the opposition lodged no serious complaint about the findings. In addition, though opposition leaders expressly declined to ask for a recount, election officials voluntarily recounted 10% of the votes chosen at random, with opposition representatives looking on. Ahmadinejad's margin was slightly larger in the recount.
Several broad complaints did call for a careful look.
First: the votes in certain districts exceeded the number of registered voters. The government’s explanation: a voter was not required to vote where he had registered -- a sensible rule, since no local issues or races were on the ballot. It would have been easy to determine whether this indicated fraud: talk to some district-hopping voters; independently verify where they voted, and how many times. I am not aware that this, or any other investigation of this allegation, took place or was even requested in any district where this occurred.
Second: many reform candidates were unfairly declared ineligible. But so what? This may well be a valid complaint for the excluded candidates, and a matter of serious concern generally, but obviously the opposition candidates made the cut. The exclusion of other reform candidates may actually have helped those who remained. During the 2008 US presidential campaign, John McCain once joked that he would be overjoyed if the Democratic Party found itself unable to choose between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama.
Third: Opposition candidates complained that their observers were blocked from many polling places. If true, this may have resulted from the last-minute addition of many polling places to accommodate the extremely high turnout, though the reason does not matter: opposition observers should have been allowed to watch. But this presents an attractive opportunity for the opposition to make its case. If these unobserved polling stations yielded disproportionately more Ahmadinejad votes than did observed polling stations in districts with similar voter profiles, I and many others would be very suspicious. I am not aware that the opposition has ever sought to find this out.
Fourth: Opposition candidates contend that the vote counts at many polling places, even when conducted in the presence of opposition observers, were altered after the ballot boxes had been forwarded to Tehran for verification by national election officials. The verification process allegedly took place in locked rooms without opposition representatives being permitted to observe. If true, an opportunity for serious fraud undeniably existed. Once again, however, this allegation presents an opportunity for the opposition candidates to make their case. As other commentators have pointed out, it is highly unlikely that CIA or Mossad electronic eavesdroppers were given the day off on Iran’s election day. The vote counts at hundreds or thousands of polling stations were sent by email and text messages to Tehran shortly after the polls had closed, creating an electronic record that can easily be compared to the vote counts that later emerged from the locked rooms in Tehran. We may fairly assume that our own eavesdroppers, probably without even being asked, would gladly provide the opposition candidates whatever evidence they might need to establish that local vote counts were altered in Tehran.
Fifth: highly confident pundits, their judgments unfettered by actual data or (in most cases) recent residence in Iran, assured us there was "no way" so many Iranians could have voted for Ahmadinejad in certain areas, especially the home districts of opposition candidates. Karroubi, for example, had received far more votes from his district in 2005. Possible explanation: Karroubi was a legitimate contender in 2005, a wasted vote in 2009. Another possibility: voters preferred Ahmadinejad. But why speculate? Check some ballots. Even the best of vote-riggers are notoriously sloppy. LBJ, for example, received many votes from deceased Texans who tended to show up in alphabetical order just as the polls were closing. At least a few smoking guns could have been found if this complaint had merit. I am not aware that any have been, or that the opposition has seriously pressed this point.
Sixth: the Supreme Leader (Khameini) unfairly influenced voters by expressing his support for Ahmadinejad. Two responses: first, Khameini's "support" came only after the election, when he announced that Ahmadinejad appeared to be the clear winner. And Khameini backed away even from this purely administrative statement a day or two later, insisting that Moussavi's allegations of fraud be thoroughly investigated before Ahmadinejad’s victory could be confirmed; oddly, Moussavi himself expressed no interest in such an investigation. Second, even if Khameini had endorsed Ahmadinejad before the election, so what? This would have been essentially equivalent to an endorsement from a popular outgoing (or incumbent) U.S. president. Did we cry foul when Ronald Reagan endorsed George H.W. Bush? When Clinton endorsed Gore? Will we complain if Barack Obama shows up at Democratic campaign rallies in 2010?
The opposition's mantra never changed: don't investigate the election; just toss it out and do it over. How would Americans have reacted if Al Gore had demanded this in 2000? Nor did the opposition ever explain what would happen if a second election yielded the same result. Another do-over, until the voters get it right? They never called for outside observers or recommended any specific changes to prevent the same massive fraud from occurring the second time around. The opposition appeared to have in mind just one test for fairness in the new election: it would be fair if their candidate won, unfair if he lost. This test was a new one for reform candidates. After all, the same election procedures, administered by many of the same officials, were considered to be entirely fair when the reform candidate, Mohammad Khatami, was elected president in 1997 and 2001. Khameini was the Supreme Leader then too.
In short, it is appropriate – important – to challenge Iran's treatment of protesters after the election. It is not appropriate, however, to conclude from those protests, or from the government's heavy-handed reaction to them, that Ahmadinejad did not win the election. They are separate issues.
All this matters. I suspect that US officials acknowledge Ahmadinejad's legitimacy when they talk privately with their foreign counterparts, but many of them posture in public. Nearly all US media outlets routinely refer to the election as tainted and insist that our policy toward Iran must reflect this. Those who disagree are described as naive at best, more likely in league with the devil. But they are simply accepting reality.
It's time we all did.
It's been high time we bomb Iran. better late, then never.
tiffany jewellery
tiffany co
tiffany co jewellery
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
Jan/Feb 2012
-
Cover Story
-
Feature
-
Inbox
(30)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE