Sunday, September 09, 2007
Conceptualizing Iran
There is a great post and related discussion in the comments on Iran over at the Belmont Club. Apart from its geopolitical timeliness, the subject is getting a lot of attention because Michael Ledeen's new book on the subject (buy it now!
8 Comments:
By 
Unknown, at
Sun Sep 09, 01:49:00 PM:
In response to your comment over at Wretchard's place, Tigerhawk, there are conceptions other than those you character as the dove and hawk conceptions of Iran and its intentions. Here's another.
Iran is a regional superpower in southwest Asia and perceives its interests as including influencing events within its sphere of influence. Both the dove view (Iran as victim) and the hawk view (Iran as revolutionary predator) are, largely, beside the point. Iran has interests in the region, it will pursue them, and it will continue to do so regardless of what regime is in control there.
So do we. Our problem is that since 1979 we've viewed our interests as being opposed to those of Iran and Iran's actions have been instrumental in furthering that view. Must it be that way? I don't think so. I think we need to look for common ground.
By 
, at
Sun Sep 09, 04:50:00 PM:
Our history of international engagement has so often been identified as the promotion of free trade, personal liberty and freedom from oppressive government. What's missing from this debate is a definition of America's interests and goals in Iran, with specific reference to these, our traditional interests.
Does anyone think those values have been foremost in this administration's efforts to contain the threat posed by the mullahs, and their aggressive support of worldwide terror?
We stand today in a strong military position and a weak tactical position vis a vis Iran precisely because the administration has made so little effort to foment political debate within Iran, and has represented only the narrow military and economic interests of our country to the people of Iran, instead of promoting our traditional values, and has engaged in no direct political confrontation within the region with the Ahmadinejad regime, instead relying on the UN as a forum. Since when is the UN a valuable forum? It's hypocritical in the extreme to constantly criticize the UN, rightfully, but to unashamedly claim to the world that "Diplomacy is exhausted" when none has really taken place.
Iranians are an enormously capable people with a great sense of their own unmatched history in the region. Intelligent, vibrant, well educated and with a desire to live as well as their country's riches ought to allow, but don't because those selfsame riches are squandered through mismanagement, war, terror and pursuit of various Islamic dreams. In history, Iran has been the sight of fights against the Greeks, Alexander, the Romans and the Russians, as well as every regional competitor. History shows us that starting an all-out war in Iran is a really dumb idea.
The Iranian people aren't necessarily our adversaries in the region, despite the earnest wish of their oppressive government. Have we pressed the regime as we ought to within Iran itself? Where is our effort to communicate with Iranian labor unions, student groups, young people? Islam has been a disaster for Iran, and Jimmy Carter's bright idea of easing the Islamic clergy into charge of the country has marked him forever as the worst president this country has ever had the misfortune of electing. Had he confronted the Islamic unrest alongside the Iranian government we wouldn't be in this position.
It's fine to remind Americans of the litany of acts of war perpetrated against our country by the Islamic regime. It's especially fine to eliminate the nuclear threat that regime would pose to world peace, and our own population. But, go to war? Not necessary, and a policy whose actual implementation the freshly elected Democrats will never approve or accept. Eliminate the nuclear threat, then press for free trade, personal liberty and an end to support of terror. Confront the Iranians at every turn, but no invasion.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Sep 09, 05:44:00 PM:
it will pursue them, and it will continue to do so regardless of what regime is in control there.
AFAIK, the only odious things Iran did when the Shah's "regime" was in control were internal, and even those pale in comparison to the mullah's heavy hand. That was at a time when they had US backing too.
What would you advocate as this "common ground"? Please be specific.
By Unknown, at
Sun Sep 09, 07:07:00 PM:
I'm no authority but I think it's obvious that we have common interests. In keeping shipping moving through the Gulf, for example. And, believe it or not, Iraq's collapsing into chaos wouldn't be in either U. S. or Iranian interest although I'm sure we have different views on what form a stable Iraq should take.
There are undoubtedly other things. It would be a start.
By , at
Sun Sep 09, 09:06:00 PM:
Some years ago, I was leafing through some old volume of an encyclopedia that had belonged to by grandmother, when I found part of a "Sunday supplement" from the late 1930's. In it, was an article about how Germany just wanted 'good relations' with France, and that British meddling in continental affairs was trying to stir up trouble.
This was after the publication of 'Mein Kamp', the ascendancy of Hitler and the National Socialists, and the oppresion of the Jews in Germany. Yet the willful delusion was evident in the article.
This is not 1937, or anything similar. It's 2007. But people tend to see what they want, and disregard the rest.
-David
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Sep 10, 08:19:00 AM:
Perfect World: Rise and Fall of the Third Reich = required reading.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Sep 10, 05:59:00 PM:
keeping shipping moving through the Gulf
Which of course is why Iran has invested heavily in coastal batteries near the straight that can turn it into an unnavigable scrapyard in a matter of hours, right?
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Sep 11, 12:19:00 AM:
No, those would be the US Navy target range, opening soon for a limited time.
