Why the Iranian standoff is not and must not be our business
(Note: See Ron L.’s disagreement with the title of this entry, and my reply.)
An insightful, coherent column about Iran by a person who, when he’s not writing on subjects impinging directly or indirectly on Israel, is capable of writing insightful, coherent columns.
- end of initial entry -
June 22
Ron L. writes:
Iran’s current political upheaval is our business. The regime has murdered hundreds of Americans through regional terrorism and is developing nuclear weapons to rid the world of the Great and Little Satans (US and Israel). A change of power between Ahmadenejad and Mousavi is a farce. But a country on the verge of civil war is not. If you notice the coverage, there has been little news after the 17th of the Azeri-majority city of Tabriz, from which Mousavi hails., The area is under lockdown because the regime is terrified that the local police would side with the protesters if the Basji start shooting protestors.
Perhaps I am overly sanguine, but given our current leadership, I see this as the best case scenario.
LA replies:
So, looking beyond the immediate Johnnie-Mousavi stand-off, the hope is for a breakdown of the regime itself. Ok. That would certainly be in our interests. I agree fully. But, two questions:
One, is such a breakdown a possible result of the current standoff? (Buchanan makes a strong case that it is not, because the regime will use whatever force is necessary to restore control).
Two, if a breakdown is possible, what can we do to help make it happen? If there isn’t anything we can do, then the matter is out of our hands in any case.
The top priority is that the Iranian nuclear program be stopped. Bush, who talked like an arrogant emperor but behaved like a wimpy liberal, ended up doing nothing to stop the Iranian nukes (a stunning failure for which, to my knowledge, the neocons have never criticized him) and handing the baton to Obama, who of course will do nothing. This makes a regime breakdown a matter of urgent importance to us. But, again, unless there is something practical we can do to help make that happen (something that will not recoil on us in ways we don’t like), what’s the point of our being concerned about the events in Iran? The only remaining hope I see is an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
June 23
Ben W. writes:
The alternative to Johnnie in Iran is a man who came from the Khomeini circle. So why do people feel he is the “democratic” option? Probably people view such politicians these days through the Gorbachev lens—a Communist dictator who became a “reformist” and a liberal. Gorbachev becomes the prototypical agent of historical change.
Prakhar G. writes:
That [breakdown of the current Iranian regime] would certainly be in our interests.
I am not so sure. A _replacement_ of the current regime (preferably by one that is backed by the US) would certainly be better for the US but I don’t that that that is what will happen. I think what is likely to happen is that if the current regime falls, the power vacuum will be filled by the current power centers which do not directly rely on the central government, i.e., the terrorist groups and I personally can not imagine any worse outcome than that.
This crisis once again points out the importance of an active foreign defense policy. If the US government had taken over (and governed) Iran (or even better, not lost control of it in the first place), this would be a non-issue.
One, is such a breakdown a possible result of the current standoff? (Buchanan makes a strong case that it is not, because the regime will use whatever force is necessary to restore control).
Good question. Before this event happened, I would have answered an unequivocal yes but then I thought that the moment something like this happened, the military would be brought in and all the protesters would be promptly shot. As this has not happened, it is clear that I do not understand Iran as well as I thought I did.
Two, if a breakdown is possible, what can we do to help make it happen? If there isn’t anything we can do, then the matter is out of our hands in any case.
Well… Ideally, the US could use this as an excuse to destroy the current regime. However, that would require that the US government then rule hostile territory and I don’t think that the current administration is capable of doing so. My best advice would actually be to do what Obama was doing until recently—nothing. Hopefully, the protesters will be eliminated. If not, there is little that can be done about it so it is best to stay away from this as much as possible.
The top priority is that the Iranian nuclear program be stopped.
Good intelligence and some well placed ICBMs would probably go a long way here. However, this requires some major courage as if there is any mistake, the one who ordered this mission would be excoriated by the public. So… once again, the sensible course of action will not be taken. Using Israel seems like an excellent idea. Behind-the-scenes could be a real possibility.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 22, 2009 01:55 AM | Send