Now that it is obvious that engaging Iran was a delusional misstep, President Obama should denounce the Iranian regime as a rogue state that employs terrorism against its own people as well as overseas. It is time for a Reaganesque statement. The administration should say, in so many words,”
“The clerical regime in Tehran has revealed its moral bankruptcy by using terrorism against its own people;
“The sponsorship of terrorism by Iran in Lebanon through Hezbollah, in Gaza and the West Bank through Hamas, and in Iraq through various entities is intolerable, and America will exact heavy penalties should it continue;”
“All the less can the world afford to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons now that the violent and lawless character of the Tehran regime has been exposed before the world, and America will use all possible means to prevent this from happening.”
There are other things the US might do quietly, but I will leave those to the imagination.
June 22nd, 2009 |
That would be a great stance. I think Obama is too wedded to the idea of engagement with whoever is in charge in Iran to change course now.
June 22nd, 2009 |
I like it. (Aren’t you relieved?)
June 22nd, 2009 |
He can call them ‘rogue,’ he can call them “pusillanimous Persians” but we don’t need to “take democracy to Iran!”
June 22nd, 2009 |
Spengler, you are in good company here: Carolyn Glick and the all-wise John Bolton come to mind. And I am with you on this.
However, I heard one analyst’s contra argument that gave me pause. The argument goes like this: No revolution in Iran will succed without the support of segments of the military, the Iranian Guards and paramilitary forces. Without some support or neutrality from some of those groups, the protests will inevitably be crushed. Thus, some elements of the government and military must come to the aid of the protestors, if they are to have a chance at success. This will be almost impossible if those elements can be painted as stooges of America.
June 22nd, 2009 |
I liked your articles a few years back. They were refreshingly different and offered unusual perspectives often enough. But lately I feel you’ve become a boring zealot of the cause who struggles on every feasible occasion to see things as onesided as it can get at all.
What do you think would “The Free World” and their ruling elites do once their reign is at stake? What do you think would any given system of power do in the place of the mullahs? What do you think is the alternative to totalitarism for countries in opposition to the US? Sky News and ExxonMobil, eventually?
If you really think what you wrote in this item you’re as naive as naive can be. I dont think you’re naive and hence I am upset.
June 22nd, 2009 |
While I concur that engagement will do nothing to halt or delay Khomeinist Iran’s march toward nuclear capabilities, it seems worth noting to me that Pres. Obama’s efforts have made it more difficult for the Khomeinist revolutionaries to trot out flimsy anti-American rhetoric convincingly.
Although in my Jeffersonian gut I’m in agreement with you, I also wonder if the perception of American endorsement would not be an albatross around the neck of Iran’s middle-class reformists. Reform will require broader opposition to the Khomeinist establishment; perhaps the US/Israel/EU should watch its step in order that we not alienate the fence-sitters who could yet turn against Khomeini.
June 22nd, 2009 |
Mr. Bishop,
I don’t think the middle-class reformists are going to make it. Neither does Stratfor, which says something similar to my earlier comments. This just turned up in my inbox from George Friedman:
The regime is going to win, for the time being. The only thing to do is to make the victory Pyrrhic by attacking the legitimacy of the regime itself. Then other useful things can happen, e.g., an Israeli air raid on nuclear facilities.
June 22nd, 2009 |
The problem with the win that the regime might get out of this, though, is that it turns Islam into just another faction within Iran. People who support the theocracy are one group, versus those who want secular democracy, constitutional monarchy, etc. This goes totally against the original view of Islamic revolution by its creators: they saw it as a system with universal support from all Muslims, although they might disagree on other things. This is why the clergy allowed a limited form of democracy with their Islamic state. This gave the impression that Islam is the highest principle and underneath that people can argue about this economic policy or that, this foreign policy or that, etc But no one can challenge the supremacy of the Islamic clergy and the Islamic system.
This Revolution, even if it is stillborn, will show that Islam is not the highest value for a sizeable chunk of Iranians. They want democracy and individual freedom, first and foremost, with Islamic law as an option below that. Once you start down that path, though, over time, Islam will become a minority option and even ultimately a marginal option, as Christian parties are now in Europe.
The Iranian clergy would have been better off with an Israeli style parliamentary democracy with religious parties holding the balance of power, than with the system they now have, which is clearly losing its legitimacy.
Nothing can put the genie back into the bottle now, though, for the Iranian clergy. They have lost their mandate from heaven and from now on are just another repressive dictatorship ruling through a police state.
June 22nd, 2009 |
Obama[s stance in this crisis is at best vague. Fouad Ajami in an incisive analysis today in the WSJ labeled his policy “incoherent” as follows:
That ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom has not served American policy well in this crisis. We had tried to “cheat” — an opening to the regime with an obligatory wink to those who took to the streets appalled by their rulers’ cynicism and utter disregard for their people’s intelligence and common sense — and we were caught at it. Mr. Obama’s statement that “the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as had been advertised” put on cruel display the administration’s incoherence. For once, there was an acknowledgment by this young president of history’s burden: “Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.” No Wilsonianism on offer here.
The article is at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124563005022735881.html
June 22nd, 2009 |
It is becoming increasingly clear that, fiddled election results notwithstanding, Ahmanie won the election. If the USA really doesn’t like that, it can bloody well go in there with six-guns blazing and show those people how to vote, can’t it? It would make for a year or more’s worth of interesting television.
June 23rd, 2009 |
Hello Blogger;
“Iran” The real question is who is creating this madness?
“The Israelites have ravaged this land (Palestine) through plunder and murder, they have killed their friends with whom they had drunk wine, and they have deceived and misled their fellow believers of the Jewish cult, who are truly not Israelites but merely believers in a cult.
Thus the Israelites betrayed their own friends and murdered them because of their greed, but it shall likewise be done to them by the rightful owners of this land whom they have deprived of their rights and subjugated since ancient times.” – The Talmud of Jmmanuel, the gospel of The Christ manifestation on earth that the Pharisees do not wish for us to read.
Next question; why is this madness being allowed? Is it about greed or power? Or is it part of a perfect plan to restore the service-to-others orientation within the soul of humanity?
If we do not read to understand material outside of the control matrix, we then have nothing to stand on but more of our own speculations based on the disinformation created by the controlled medias.
I will not be returning to this post. Therefore, if you have comment regarding mine, please use the Contact Us on my website.
June 23rd, 2009 |
If I were convinced that western condemnations might figure into the social calculations of, well, anyone outside the west, I’d be happy to see our leaders making those pronunciations in the strongest and clearest terms. If our leaders could further undermine the moral legitimacy of these corrupt theocrats according to your proposition, I’d wholeheartedly agree; after all, it seems to be a rare moment when truth and political stratagem coincide.
I’m not an expert on Iran or the Muddled East. It’s just that I recently spent the better part of four years there and don’t (fore)see our moral endorsements or condemnations as being strategically productive in the ways we intend them to be. How eager should we expect anyone in that cultural theater will be to find common cause with the Great Satan?
June 23rd, 2009 |
I agree with your perspective, wholeheartedly. But I found the comments quite fun. Like Mr. Helmuth James who needs radiation treatment for the Marxist cancer he must have picked up at a community college somewhere.
June 23rd, 2009 |
“…America will exact heavy penalties should it continue…”
It’s almost comical to hear you suggest this for Obama, as his speeches are always such soft, academic, morally-equivalent affairs. I believe Obama’s mouth is physically incapable of uttering such firm and dire words!
June 23rd, 2009 |
So much for the future of Christianity on that continent…but one wonders what statistics for homosexuality, rape, abortion, etc. when Christianity was taking hold during the 5th or 6th centuries in Europe.
June 23rd, 2009 |
Mr. Bishop,
When you say “producxtive,” the question is, for what purpose? Branding Iran as a rogue state would make it easier for others to take action to reduce the risk from Iranian adventurism.
June 24th, 2009 |
It seems to me that you’re arguing here that the use of Israeli hard power in the future might be more justifiable to the world if Iran were perceived as an illegitimate rogue state. I can’t imagine that by “others” you meant anyone but Israel.
This seems to me a simultaneously credulous and unnecessary soft power precondition for the legitimate exercise of hard power. Who is going to look more kindly upon Israel, ever, for anything? As you’ve astutely pointed out in the past, the world’s problem with Israel is existential, not political.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact