Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?"

Even if he wasn't, the Iranian people would be. Ahmadinejad is a demagogue, not a dictator, and relies entirely on whipping up the fears of the Iranian people to move forward with his agenda. They lose a lot going ahead with this nuclear program, and all they'd gain is deterrence against an invasion we could easily convince them wouldn't happen even without it. Ahmadinejad may be an Iranian neoconservative with a hankering for war, but if the people's fears are assuaged, he's got nothing.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 06:46 AM

Are you really so dim as to think that the Iranian people have any say in the matter whatsoever?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 7, 2006 07:07 AM

Oh, and calling Ahmadinejad a "neoconservative" is simply hilarious. It just demonstrates how stupidly meaningless the term has become (if it ever had any utility). It's like "fascist" (i.e., anything that I, as a blinkered fool, don't like).

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 7, 2006 07:09 AM

"Oh, and calling Ahmadinejad a "neoconservative" is simply hilarious."

He called Nutcase a Jooooo.....???

Damn, he is one confused moonbat moron!

So now it is a codeword to allow couched anti-semitism and for Iranian whackjobs! Whod have thunk it?

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 7, 2006 07:24 AM

"We promise we won't attack you, so you don't need all those nasty little nuclear bombs now, do you?"

"Oh, you're not going to attack me? You must be weak then, so I'm going to attack you."

Peace through strength, moonbats!

Posted by Astrosmith at August 7, 2006 08:20 AM

What is the stick, when Mr. Lamont refers to carrot and stick options? Is the stick: sanctions? Because those are already in place. If the carrot is to remove sanctions, or we will stick them back in... what exactly is Iran's desire to take the carrot? The Iranian government wants less of the US, not more of it. They wouldn't mind some F-16s and parts for their F-14s, but otherwise, they are not very interested in US culture.

Posted by Leland at August 7, 2006 09:16 AM

"Are you really so dim as to think that the Iranian people have any say in the matter whatsoever?"

Are you so stuck on dictator stereotypes that you can't conceive of anything more complex at play in a hostile country? I know it's easier to reduce every equation to one variable, but reality doesn't care if you're too lazy to deal with more. The Iranian government is divided by what Ahmadinejad is doing, but he's got the ball because he plays to public fears of American attack; he panders to national pride and fear to justify making Iran even more of a pariah at a time when the public wants greater legitimacy. He is a demagogue, and will become a liability to the religious authorities only if he loses public support.

I know it's hard for some people to conceive that there is such a thing as politics outside the realm of democracy, but most oppressive regimes don't consist of a Bond villain sitting in an art-deco chair pushing buttons and going "Muahahaha!" Fact is, the mullahs don't like Ahmadinejad, they resent and fear the power he wields through populist demagoguery, and would prefer a more circumspect and controllable leader, but he's building alliances in the military that make it difficult for his enemies to oppose him. If his approval plummets, his allies will consider him a liability, his enemies will be emboldened, and programs associated with him will be undermined or at least placed in limbo. This is realpolitik; this is how smart people conduct global affairs, and protect fragile balances from idiots like Ahmadinejad and Bush.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 09:36 AM

Are you so stuck on dictator stereotypes that you can't conceive of anything more complex at play in a hostile country?

No. That doesn't mean that the people have any power. Iran is run by the mullahs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 7, 2006 09:43 AM

"This is realpolitik; this is how smart people conduct global affairs, and protect fragile balances from idiots like Ahmadinejad and Bush."

Aahh!!! Moral equivalence, the hobgoblin of the simple minded and intellectually bankrupt, rears its ugly head again.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 7, 2006 09:44 AM

"Oh, and calling Ahmadinejad a "neoconservative" is simply hilarious."

You don't think he's a psychotic militarist who panders to nationalism and paranoia with Orwellian propaganda?

"It's like "fascist" (i.e., anything that I, as a blinkered fool, don't like)."

It's not "like" fascist, it's a euphemism for a hybrid of fascist ideology and Bolshevik tactics, and it certainly has nothing to do with what anyone likes or doesn't like. In fact, the only reason you deny the legitimacy of the term is because it's a negatively-connoted word associated with your politics; people who think as you do can't or won't take reasonable positions, so every now and then you simply scrape off a new layer of the words you've poisoned by association like a snake shedding its skin.

Neoconservatives originally embraced the term because they thought it connoted newness, freshness, and the future, but then it became associated with THEM and started to mean violent, wild-eyed lunacy, militarism, pathological lying, and pushing an agenda at all costs; and that's when it had to go. So then they started making crap up about it, claiming it was anti-semitic, flinging their transparent propaganda at anyone who dared to confront them with the word their own insanity had made toxic.

They're Orwellian word-rapists who think they can screw with people's minds by redefining terms, and that's why nobody believes a damn thing they say anymore. Your own attempt to delegitimize the terms "fascist" and "neoconservative" is amateurish by comparison, and laughably transparent. Good luck with your lexicographic cleansing, Rand.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 10:13 AM

Your own attempt to delegitimize the terms "fascist" and "neoconservative"

I don't have to do that. The users of the silly terms do it themselves (not that "neocon" was ever a legitimate term), as your weird post-modernist pop-psych rant shows.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 7, 2006 10:18 AM

"Iran is run by the mullahs."

But Ahmadinejad is not, which is why they want to replace him with someone more controllable. The mullahs may not care what the public thinks, but they're not stupid enough to go directly after a populist demagogue with strong support among the people and the military. If they did, he could just as easily declare them "treasonous false Muslims," and get the religious sanction of supporting mullahs to have them executed. So, he needs to become isolated in the government, discredited, and appear wedded to an agenda the Iranian people no longer consider in their interests; his supporters would abandon him for better prospects, and his enemies would move in.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 10:31 AM

If [Ahmadinejad] approval plummets, his allies will consider him a liability, his enemies will be emboldened, and programs associated with him will be undermined or at least placed in limbo.

Ok, I'll take that hypothesis as being a process that could occur. Now, what is the catalyst? Don't tell me the mullahs, because: He is a demagogue, and will become a liability to the religious authorities only if he loses public support. Which suggests the mullahs are already unable to stop him. Besides there is this: The Iranian government is divided by what Ahmadinejad is doing, but he's got the ball because he plays to public fears of American attack; he panders to national pride and fear to justify making Iran even more of a pariah at a time when the public wants greater legitimacy.

The US and the world has hoped and pushed for another Iranian revolution for decades. No catalyst succeed in the past. So again, what's the new catalyst?

Posted by Leland at August 7, 2006 10:37 AM

"Moral equivalence, the hobgoblin of the simple minded and intellectually bankrupt, rears its ugly head again."

It's not moral equivalence, but moral solipsism that typifies shallow minds. The idea that you are morally unique, and therefore no universal rules can be applied to judge your actions against another's is simply delusional and (yes) characteristic of fascism through its Nietzchean philosophical roots. If George W. Bush panders to national paranoia and waves foreign threats before the public whenever he needs a distraction from domestic affairs, you probably think he's being a responsible leader. When Adhmadinejad does exactly the same, suddenly your vision clears and you understand that he's a lying demagogue exploiting the public's fears. The only moral difference between them is their disposition relative to you, which you seem to think is some kind of defining characteristic. Well, allow me to disillusion you on this point--you are not the universal medium by which all moral decisions are measured, and moral value does not spread outward in decreasing order from your position. Actions have a moral status, not people, except insofar as their actions characterize them--so if your mother kicks a dog, she's not morally superior to someone you don't like who kicks a dog. Normally people figure out these basic moral and ethical principles intuitively, but I guess some people are just plain slow.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 10:53 AM

Squidward (Brian) says: I know it's easier to reduce every equation to one variable, but reality doesn't care if you're too lazy to deal with more.

Then he says: Fact is, the mullahs don't like Ahmadinejad, they resent and fear the power he wields through populist demagoguery, and would prefer a more circumspect and controllable leader

So, everything is the Mullahs? Seems like one variable to me....getting lazy are we? Now one Bond villian, but a whole squad of cat-stroking maniacs?

Squidward says: people who think as you do can't or won't take reasonable positions, so every now and then you simply scrape off a new layer of the words you've poisoned by association like a snake shedding its skin.

Rand's position is perfectly reasonable, except its against what you perceive, therefore its BAD BAD BAD. In contrast, the left tends to take whatever position the populace likes best, so they can aquire more votes to attain their own power base.

Squidward says: It's not moral equivalence, but moral solipsism that typifies shallow minds.

Translation...you're all wrong and hurtful, so I'll use big words to prove I'm smarter than you.

Sometimes the simple picture is the right one. Everyone knows the Mullahs run Iran. Everyone knows that Adhmadinejad is not liked by the mullahs. Everyone but you also knows that the populace have no power over their destiny, with or without Adhmadinejad.

Posted by Mac at August 7, 2006 11:15 AM

"Ok, I'll take that hypothesis as being a process that could occur. Now, what is the catalyst?"

As I've said, the mullahs are unable to stop him only while his support is strong, but without that support they wouldn't even have to act in force. The religious authorities have absolute power to remove candidates from office, to have people imprisoned, or simply to disqualify them from running for office, but doing that while Ahmadinejad has vast support could lead to unrest or possibly a military mutiny forcing the mullahs to reverse themselves.

But were he to become isolated and discredited, they could exercise their prerogative with impunity, possibly even just calling early elections to placate the public and disqualifying him from participating. If he managed to get the military to act despite dwindling support, the result would be civil war rather than a popular uprising, and I don't think the Iranian military would follow him into that. More than likely, if he tried to move under those conditions, they would arrest him themselves and turn him over to the mullahs, followed by his execution for treason. So if he loses support, he becomes irrelevant no matter what he does.

Per your question about a revolution, which is separate from the one I'm discussing, probably the best catalyst would be a more respectful version of the Cold War: don't call their ancient and storied civilization "evil," but exert constant, assertive, constructive pressure for reform while being careful not to show hypocrisy in our dealings with other countries. Unfortunately, Bush has already thrown away any semblance of moral authority that might have made that feasible in the short-term, so it may be a long time before we build up enough of it to start that process. So the key ingredients in any successful strategy would be time, assertive pressure, moral authority, and giving them something more inspiring to hope for than a bunch of fast food chains. We, being outsiders, simply have to be patient in our expectations and subtle in our thinking; in a way Adhmadinejad is a hopeful sign, because he's shifting the balance of power from the mullahs to civilian government, and that shift would likely persist to some degree even if they removed him.

Some day there will be a Mikhail Gorbachev in Tehran, a soccer riot will turn into a general uprising, and he will simply let it happen, the police will join their fellow citizens in the streets, and the last desperate flails of the theocracy will be crushed in the months following. It will happen. We won't see it coming, and so neither will the mullahs.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 11:45 AM

don't call their ancient and storied civilization "evil,"

No one is doing that, except in your warped mind.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 7, 2006 11:50 AM

Mac,
Who the hell is Squidward?

"So, everything is the Mullahs? Seems like one variable to me....getting lazy are we? Now one Bond villian, but a whole squad of cat-stroking maniacs?"

No, there are multiple variables: Ahmadinejad, the majority of mullahs who have a problem with him, the minority of mullahs who support him, the military and intelligence apparatus, and the Iranian public. Of course even that is a simplification, but the point is to create a reasonable model of Iranian politics. And no, none of that involves a "squad of cat-stroking maniacs"--they're powerful men in a Byzantine government with their own organizational agendas, which means their collective actions are predictable.

"Translation...you're all wrong and hurtful, so I'll use big words to prove I'm smarter than you."

Second-order translation: I don't know the meanings of the words you just used, and am too lazy to look them up, so I'll just salvage my pride with a snidely dismissive remark.

"Everyone but you also knows that the populace have no power over their destiny, with or without Adhmadinejad."

People who preface statements with "everyone knows" are preemptively acknowledging they're talking out of their ass.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 12:08 PM

"No one is doing that, except in your warped mind."

Bush lumped Iran in with North Korea and Iraq as the "Axis of Evil," so don't give me that crap. Iran treats its people a lot better than most of the dictatorships Bush funds with US taxpayer money, and they know that, so clearly it was intended as an inflammatory slur.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 12:14 PM

Who the hell is Squidward?

Look up Spongebob Squarepants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squidward_Tentacles

Posted by Astrosmith at August 7, 2006 12:19 PM

Bush lumped Iran in with North Korea and Iraq as the "Axis of Evil

What does that have to do with their ancient civilization?

Iran treats its people a lot better than most of the dictatorships Bush funds with US taxpayer money

And you expect us to take anything you say seriously after this? Why are you wasting your time and my bandwidth posting this kind of deranged dementia on my blog?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 7, 2006 12:36 PM

Squidward says: so clearly it was intended as an inflammatory slur.

As is most of what you post, so what?

He also mentions earlier: they're powerful men in a Byzantine government with their own organizational agendas, which means their collective actions are predictable.

So, you're saying that the powerful people are the ones controlling the situation as best they can, to continue to have the power they want? Sounds like a Bond villian to me. It also sounds again, that you're lumping a whole lot of trouble into one cause, which according to you're earlier post is a habit of a lazy person's mind.

I agree that there are a huge number of variables at play in the region. We're all human (Bush too) and humanity has a way of nefariously complicating things. The bottom line though is that the people of Iran have no say in their government. You seem to think they do, but then you post of the powerful mullahs orchestrating things, which points to the people not having power....very confusing

Posted by Mac at August 7, 2006 12:37 PM

And because Persia (not Iran) has an ancient and storied history, that says what about the current regime? Besides, many of those 'stories' are of warfare, invasions, imperialism, genocide, raping and pillaging, you know the general evil type violent human behavior.

The subtext here is an unfavorable comparison of the older, more mature, wordly and sophisticated civilization (which doesn't exist anymore) and a young, brash, reckless, ignorant, upstart of a civilization. That there are just too many complexities beyond the ken of the American mind.

Posted by nobody important at August 7, 2006 01:10 PM

"What does that have to do with their ancient civilization?"

It's a slur against their civilization, whose long history the Iranian people take great pride in.

"And you expect us to take anything you say seriously after this?"

I guess in all your "deep scholarly studying" on Newsmax you never ran across the fact that Bush spends US taxpayer money propping up brutal regimes in Egypt, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and a number of other Arab countries in exchange for merely not being hostile. And at least compared to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Iran is practically a libertarian paradise--there's an elected parliament, several political parties, and women are allowed to vote and run for office. But don't let reality get in the way of your pious contempt for the enemies of the Fatherland.

"Why are you wasting your time and my bandwidth posting this kind of deranged dementia on my blog?"

Pulling rank, are we? Well, this is your property, and you'd be perfectly within your rights to ask that I stop confronting you with facts you find inconvenient and distressing. Or, if you would find it too humiliating to admit weakness by asking me to leave, you could always have the webmaster ban my IP. It would be a lot easier than defending your indefensible political bloggarbage, let alone considering my points and admitting the possibility to yourself that you might be wrong. Truth is, I only came here originally for the space news, but your other comments were so ridiculous and troglodytic I just couldn't resist tearing into them. Cheer up; if more people get pissed off enough to come here regularly and make fun of you, you could probably get plenty of advertising money. Think of it as an entrepreneurial venture to impress all those "libertarian" friends floating around in your head.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 01:24 PM

There is a simple question to ask...WWMDx2, What Would Mahmoud Do With Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Beuler, anybody?

Posted by Orville at August 7, 2006 01:25 PM

Brian of the one way street says: ...let alone considering my points and admitting the possibility to yourself that you might be wrong.

Exactly! Something for you to try as well.

Posted by Mac at August 7, 2006 01:34 PM

It's a slur against their civilization, whose long history the Iranian people take great pride in.

Oh, horseshit. The Iranian people aren't that stupid, even if you are.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 7, 2006 01:35 PM

Brian, I think you are right that neither the mullahs nor Ahmadinejad would survive without sufficient support, or at least lack of hope for a different option, among the populace.

But when you go on to imagine that Ahmadinejad could be isolated and discredited if, in response to his bellicosity, the world treated Iran with more respect and regard, not to mention courting it with plenty of carrots -- well, that's just plain silly.

Why would anyone improve his behaviour if bad behaviour makes people treat him better? That's not human nature. Heck, if I responded when my son throws a tantrum by being nicer to him, by adding "please" to my commands, by offering him ice cream to stop all the kicking -- what do you suppose I would be teaching him? Even a moment's reflection should tell you.

Furthermore, historically, leaders are isolated and discredited after taking the bellicose route only when the rest of the world responds with bitter contempt and extreme violence. Military defeat, national humiliation, and international scorn are what have discredited dictators. Chamberlainesque appeasement and Kissingeresque "engagement" never have. That may be a sad commentary on the nature of human beings, but it is, nevertheless, a fact with which we must work

If you don't agree, perhaps you can suggest even one historical case where a dictator threatening war against his neighbors, and espousing a doctrine of universal conquest (in this case religious conquest), was successfully isolated and discredited by warm and respectful engagement by other nations.

Remember Roosevelt: "Diplomacy is the art of talking softly while carrying a big stick." What you and Mr. Lamont seem to have forgotten is that carrying -- and being willing to use -- the big stick is what distinguishes diplomacy from mere craven appeasement.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 7, 2006 02:19 PM

Carl says: What you and Mr. Lamont seem to have forgotten is that carrying -- and being willing to use -- the big stick is what distinguishes diplomacy from mere craven appeasement.

I don't think its the "carrying" part is the problem. Its the using part that so many people cannot fathom. BTW, love the ice cream for rotten children part, well put.

Posted by Mac at August 7, 2006 02:48 PM

"Some day there will be a Mikhail Gorbachev in Tehran, a soccer riot will turn into a general uprising, and he will simply let it happen, the police will join their fellow citizens in the streets, and the last desperate flails of the theocracy will be crushed in the months following."

Brian, that isn't today, and won't be tomorrow. Until then, we must keep our powder dry and are arms ready.

Anything else is just wishful thinking, and it is a childish exercise to try to convert it into public policy.

Posted by Rich at August 7, 2006 03:01 PM

Iran treats its people a lot better than most of the dictatorships Bush funds with US taxpayer money

I simply ask that you read this one single article and then talk to me of the great treatment of the Iranian people.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5184

Posted by Sane Shaman at August 7, 2006 03:38 PM

Actually I couldn't leave well enough alone...the whole Iran treats its people well thing really got to me so lets bring out a few more examples of Irans grace and its the wonderful treatment it levies upon its people:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8000

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5755

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8061
(she gets 15 years for murder but death for adultry...backwards much?)

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7843

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8047

Posted by Sane Shaman at August 7, 2006 03:50 PM

*****************

I had to answer this one as well.

One of my students at the University of Alabama in Huntsville went back to Iran a few years ago to visit family. Being a female (and beautiful at that) she had to wear the full Burka or be killed. When she walked down the street in the city she had to move completely out of the way of any male who happened to be on the street. If she did not, the male could do the following:

1. Beat her to a pulp.
2. Kill her there on the street.

The punishment for this for the male was.

Nothing, it is his right, and her fault for getting in his way.

Yep, sounds like America to me.

doofus

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 7, 2006 07:38 PM

Great point Dennis, unfortunately our sparring partners will no doubt come up with something even dumber than what they have before. You see, the atrocities visited upon the people of these countries is because they're misunderstood. Either that, or they wish we had the same rules in the US, to make it fair.

Posted by Mac at August 7, 2006 08:57 PM

Brian,

You're not wrong that, despite being a despotic police state, Iran has politics. Every police state has politics. Politics is a full-contact blood sport in hermetic tyrannies. Ask Leon Trotsky, Ernst Rohm, Lavrenty Beria and Lin Piao if you need second opinions. Hell, ask Admiral Yamamoto for that matter. If we hadn't killed him first, the Imperial Japanese Army would have been happy to do the job themselves.

The real question is not does Iran have factional infighting among its rulers but does this fact alone imply anything useful about how much of a problem that nation is likely to continue to be to the rest of the world. On the basis of my reading of the history of industrial-era despotisms, the answer is pretty clearly "No." In the cases of none of the esteemed gentlemen just adduced can one make a convincing case that things would have, in the large, proceeded significantly differently had they been successful in their politcal maneuverings rather than dead.

Ahmadinejad wants war with the West. The Mullahs want war with the West. The Revolutionary Guard wants war with the West. The military may or may not want war with the West, but they have little prospect of opposing all the other centers or Iranian power at once even if - as is by no means clear - they were inclined to do so.

By the way, why no mention of the Revolutionary Guard in your "analysis" of Iranian power politics? These guys are more numerous, much more fanatical and - possibly - better armed than the Iranian regular military. The RG are certainly regarded as having the decisive edge in political reliability. The Iranian cadres doing front-line military advisement/assistance to Hezbollah in Lebanon are RG to a man. Not a single Iranian regular military type to be seen on the ground there by all accounts.

The inclination of myself and others to honor the quality of your judgement is also not enhanced by your evident credulousness regarding Iran's putative "democracy." Like every other murderous tyranny of the past century, the Iranian regime does not operate in a memetic universe entirely of its own making. The Democracy meme is out there and it has to be at least nodded to in some fashion by even the most centralist of despots.

This is not exactly a recent phenomenon. Joe Stalin's USSR had a national legislature. So did Mao's China. Iran's Majlis is exactly this same sort of Potemkin facade. A legislature for which you cannot run unless you are given the seal of approval by the ruling nabob is not a legislature it is a crude public relations exercise. The rest of us have no trouble seeing the diagonal 2 x 4's holding up the false fronts when they're viewed even a little bit off direct center. Why is it that you credit this sham with authenticity? What are the rest of us to make of your alleged powers of discernment elsewhere when you miss something this obvious?

The Middle East will never know peace until the existing regimes in at least Syria and Iran are destroyed. This strikes me as so obvious on its face as to require nothing beyond a recitation of the facts of history since the disastrous Carter presidency to verify beyond rational question. Still, there have always been those whose ideological imperatives induce willful blindess. For most of the past century these people have been overwhelmingly on the politcal left. This particular bit of navigational lore has proven, over that period more reliable than even Magnetic North as a guide to correct interpretation and action. Whatever the Left wants - do something else.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at August 7, 2006 09:12 PM

Dittoheads of the world unite ! Way to pile on, fellas. Since most of your criticisms overlapped, I'll respond to specific points rather than individuals.

On the subject of "appeasement": First, it is utterly insane to characterize the mere act of talking to a country as a reward, let alone believing you're granting them some kind of gracious allowance by not bombing them back into the Stone Age. Now, you can talk about guerrilla proxies and try to redefine war to mean any state short of political lovemaking, but the fact remains we are not at war with Iran. They are indeed a hostile country, but contrary to the predipositions of fascism, hostility is not synonymous with war, so that means war isn't an option until they do something more belligerent than fund and arm regional proxies to fight our regional proxies.

So, since war is not currently on the table, how should we respond to Iran? It can hardly be called appeasement to pledge the US will respect international law and refrain from further acts of aggression, yet that would go a long way toward denying Ahmadinejad any excuses and shoring up the domestic enemies who consider him reckless. The comment was made that "rewarding" bad behavior with assertiveness only encourages more of the same, but I doubt anyone could long get away with applying that logic in their daily lives before they'd end up in prison for assault or murder. Sane, strong people make every attempt to de-escalate, they don't crack their knuckles and smirkingly wait for an excuse. And you don't have to give antagonists anything more than they already have in order to achieve that; you simply choose to be assertive rather than mirror their belligerence. If they attack despite all these efforts, then you have the unqualified moral high ground and can commit yourself entirely without substantial political obstacles. Either way, you come out stronger.

The question was asked when responding to belligerence with assertiveness has ever worked to prevent conflict, and the simple answer is it worked for half a century during the Cold War. The Soviet Union for much of its superpower history was utterly paranoid about the American military, convinced we would invade at the slightest hint of weakness, so they went absolutely bonkers building up a deterrent and trying to put missiles in Cuba. Dangerous incidents like that, with the whole world at the brink, were the result of such paranoia, and became much rarer when a few highly placed moles in US intelligence assuaged their fears. Subsequent administrations began to get the idea and implemented the mutual inspections and overflights protocols, which people such as yourselves would have termed "appeasement" and "madness" in prior years. Obviously I'm not suggesting that specific solution for Iran, but it illustrates the helpfulness of being open with a potential antagonist--i.e., convince them you have no belligerent intentions. The only way to separate countries acting out of fear and ignorance from those who actually want war is to rob them of their fear and ignorance; unless of course YOU are the ones who want war.

Someone compared Iranian elections to the scripted, predetermined Communist Party farces that took place in Stalinist Russia, which is a completely fatuous and false analogy with no foundation in reality. The Guardians Council has veto power over the candidates, but there are multiple parties, they do have substantive differences, they do wage actual campaigns, and voters do actually elect them; the GC has veto power over legislation as well, but the parliament does pass its own legislation, does have disagreements, and is not like the laughable charades present in, for instance, Egypt (which receives billions in US aid). How can anyone be so stupid as to think there is anything remotely similar to Stalinist Russia in the Iranian government, let alone think it's worse or even comparable to what people suffer in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Some of you people just seem to wear your ignorance like a badge of honor, and it's not uncommon to hear folks from that side comparing France and Canada to the Soviet Union. It's like your brains have exactly two adjectives in them--"mine" and "evil," and any more nuanced analysis you consider some kind of pedantry.

As for burkas, the woman in question must have gone back quite a long time ago, because most Iranian women just wear the head scarf and normal but unrevealing clothes. Nor does it really make sense to argue with my statement, namely that Iran is less brutal than Egypt and Saudi Arabia, by only noting anecdotes about Iranian brutality that don't even come close to addressing the point. All that's presented is case after case of the fallacies of blind hatethink--it slips through the mental cracks that Uzbekistan receives US money while boiling people alive, because there's no talk radio show telling you to be outraged about it. Or that Saudi Arabia executes adulterers by shoving swords up their asses, turning them, yanking them out, and only then decapitating the prisoner. But since these hellish nightmare countries don't openly speak out against the Fatherland, you become piously outraged when they're compared unfavorably to one that does. Get a mind, get a heart, and get a clue.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 11:55 PM

Squidward says: Sane, strong people make every attempt to de-escalate, they don't crack their knuckles and smirkingly wait for an excuse.

And those same sane-strong people realize when de-escalation doesn't work because the other side is determined to fight. The same sane strong people believe in military force to back up their ideals. The same strong sane people are unwilling to negotiate from weakness because doing so undermines everything the US stands for. We didn't become the nation we are by trying to appease tyrannical governments. We became who we are by forcefully backing our ideals. Those who attack us must deal with the same saying the English did before the Revolutionary War. "Don't tread on me."

Personally, I don't want war. Its never the perfect answer. It creates destruction that can escalate into disaster, but unfortunately, sometimes its necessary. The left-leaners, for the most part reading the posts here of those leaners, would advocate that war is never necessary. While that's a laudable thought, its also unachievable with many countries in our world.

I see many governments as children. When children do something wrong the parents (the UN in this case) corrects them once and tells them not to do it again. When the children do it again, the sane strong parent backs up the correction with punitive action. Same thing here. If the UN levies sanctions on a nation for reasons that the body has voted upon, the sactioned nation has been corrected and is therefore expected to halt activities in the area recommended. In our current world stage, what's the punitive action if the sanctioned country does not comply? Nothing. If you do not punish a child (and that does not mean smacking them, it may simply be sending them to their room) they will think that they can do the same action again. Same thing with tyrants. If you don't back up sanctions with force, they're not going to listen. Saddam, case in point.

As for backing Egypt and Saudi Arabia even though they display cruel and barbaric actions toward their own people...They are not displaying the will to wish us all dead for simply existing. Arabia has a lot to learn about being civilized, but they're further along than many other countries.

Squidward says: Nor does it really make sense to argue with my statement, namely that Iran is less brutal than Egypt and Saudi Arabia, by only noting anecdotes about Iranian brutality that don't even come close to addressing the point.

Now, this was a good post, except when you said that first part. That's just silly. It makes perfect sense to argue, because we feel you're wrong.

Lastly, for the whole burka thing. I still feel that men way long ago feared women and the ability to give birth. So, to force women into a subjugated role became standard practice and its still done today. The burka is just one thing amongst millions where women are subjugated to a man's will and that's wrong no matter what.

Posted by Mac at August 8, 2006 06:54 AM

I'll only address one of the most obvious inconsistenceies in that treatise. How do you know what the election of Iranian candidates is really like since they have a state controlled press. If you think they tell the actual truth, you must have a lot of Pravda back issues. Let's put it this way, if Ahmadinejad is truly a leader elected by a majority of Iranians and he represents the majority of the people then their world view is seriously warped and Iran is a nation of anti-semitics and delusional paranoiacs. If the election outcome is controlled by the state and the winner has to be approved by the mullahs then the more reasonable and likely view would be a leader representing the warped views of a few misogynic, cloistered, religious fanatics who are supressing their fellow citizens.

Posted by Bill Maron at August 9, 2006 05:26 AM

Everything I have read suggest there was vote fraud practiced on a massive scale in the election of Ahmadinejad.

Posted by Mike Puickett at August 9, 2006 06:36 AM

"It's a slur against their civilization, whose long history the Iranian people take great pride in."

What civilisation?

Sure, the Middle East may have been the cradle of civilisation - although certain sites in India and China might have been earlier.

The real point is that the Islamic "civilisation" hasn't advanced since about 800AD. The inventions and advances claimed for them, they stole - from Hindu India and from dead Greeks.

The only things ever to come out of the Middle East since the time of Christ have been oil and jihadi. Oh, and once upon a time carpets and dates.

Not a lot of competition for the whole of modern science and technology.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 9, 2006 07:14 PM

Dreaming up games of internal politics in a police state is fine, up to a point, but it can't be all we do.

There were plenty of German nationalists, hardened veterans, and anti-Semites around Hitler. Plenty of them, even the anti-Semites, weren't crazy and stupid, and could see where Hitler was taking them. These men wove numerous plots against Hitler's regime and against his life. The same went for Stalin (although the records on this are less accessible).

My point - and, as Ellen Degeneres put it, I do have one - is that AhmadiNejad could be as lucky as Hitler was. And then where would playing "great" games with Iranian politics get us? If we tried, and got caught, we'd just get hated for it - like we got hated for ridding them of that Russian-leaning proto-Chavista Mossedegh.

I agree that we should be playing this game; but at the same time we need to prepare for the possibility that this game will fail. That's not "hatethink". That's planning ahead. Isn't planning ahead what you want us to do?

Posted by David Ross at August 9, 2006 09:22 PM

Quote from Brian Swiderski: "Talk talk talk..."

*Slowly sawing a leg of his chair out from underneath him*

Posted by Josh Reiter at August 10, 2006 01:49 AM

Once again, I'll combine quotes from various posters for my response and refer to "you" as a group.

"And those same sane-strong people realize when de-escalation doesn't work because the other side is determined to fight."

De-escalation only fails if war ensues, not merely because those predisposed to it claim telepathic knowledge of another country's intentions. Certain in the Iranian government probably believe the US is determined to invade, so it would be to everyone's advantage if they were not given ammunition to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"When children do something wrong the parents (the UN in this case) corrects them once and tells them not to do it again."

The UN has two primary, mutually supportive missions: Helping nations avoid war through diplomacy, and providing humanitarian assistance to regions in extreme poverty. Since nuclear weapons programs enflame tensions, the UN has an interest per its mission of trying to persuade nations who don't have the technology not to acquire it, but ignoring that does not amount to a breach of international law. The UN can decide to express its displeasure through sanctions, which is akin to ostracism, but the UN does not authorize military action to "punish" uncooperative states. If a state is in breach of international law against another, the UN can declare the fact and thereby clarify the aggrieved party's rights, which could possibly involve military action. That is all.

"They are not displaying the will to wish us all dead for simply existing. Arabia has a lot to learn about being civilized, but they're further along than many other countries."

Saudi Arabia is the most anti-American country on Earth, bar none, and its brutality is unparalled in the Arab world. They are the beating heart and original source of the explosion of Islamic radicalism in recent decades, its chief source of funding, and its most secure harbor. We have the royalty in our pocket, or perhaps vice-versa, but your claim that Saudi Arabia doesn't want us all dead is ironic in light of 9/11. Maybe I've been in a coma and didn't realize it, but I don't recall anything remotely comparable ever happening by Iranian groups.

"I'll only address one of the most obvious inconsistenceies in that treatise. How do you know what the election of Iranian candidates is really like since they have a state controlled press."

Because the foreign media reports on Iranian elections from inside the country, interviews people on the street, watches the campaign commercials, reads the campaign literature, and reads the independent newspapers the government routinely closes and their publishers constantly reprint under new names. Elections may not be very fair or free, but they are participatory, they do involve real campaigns, and they generally have respectable voter turnouts--nothing at all like the farcical charades that transpire in Egypt and Libya, where leaders are unanimously proclaimed. Facts like that are a little more meaningful than simply assuming every hostile country is a totalitarian cesspool just because it's morally convenient.

"Everything I have read suggest there was vote fraud practiced on a massive scale in the election of Ahmadinejad."

Possibly, but his approval ratings are undeniably sky-high regardless of how he got there. Part of it is his visibility, given that Iranian leaders in the past have preferred to be less public--it increases the illusion of participation that he spends so much time in the public eye. Another part is that he's pandering to national fear and pride, which is usually a can't-lose strategy in any country.

"Not a lot of competition for the whole of modern science and technology."

Since when is pride rational or dependent on accomplishments? People with less to be proud of are prouder about it, and less tolerant of other people belittling them. Make fun of California in a bar in Santa Monica, the other patrons will take it as a joke and probably join in; make fun of Alabama in a bar in Montgomery, and you'll be rudely introduced to a pool cue.

"My point - and, as Ellen Degeneres put it, I do have one - is that AhmadiNejad could be as lucky as Hitler was."

Or he could prove to be all talk, or he could self-destruct, or he could grow an arm out of his forehead. The point is that we limit our actions to what he actually does, not suppositions about his intentions or degree of willingness to make things easy for us. This is pretty basic, common sense stuff, and I shouldn't have to explain it to rational adults.

"If we tried, and got caught, we'd just get hated for it"

There are no "games" to "get caught" playing here. The mere act of being open and assertive with Iran, which includes addressing their fears of preemptive invasion, robs the Ahmadinejad camp of its most crucial strawman and empowers voices of caution in the government. Assuming that's what you want, of course, because if you want war that's a lot easier to deliver: Just pretend, as you've been doing, that your antagonist is bent on war, and anything you then do to guarantee it happens can be rationalized as speeding the inevitable to your advantage.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 10, 2006 06:07 AM

Squidward says: The UN can decide to express its displeasure through sanctions, which is akin to ostracism, but the UN does not authorize military action to "punish" uncooperative states.

Exactly the point. They can sanction until they're blue in the face, but without force to back up sanctions or something to enforce a resolution, the UN will continue to be viewed as a joke.

Posted by Mac at August 10, 2006 06:36 AM

Maybe I've been in a coma and didn't realize it, but I don't recall anything remotely comparable ever happening by Iranian groups.

No. They only have a president who openly proclaims the goal to destroy Israel and is attempting to get nuclear weapons with which to do it.

What planet are you posting from, Brian?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 10, 2006 08:58 AM

"Exactly the point. They can sanction until they're blue in the face, but without force to back up sanctions or something to enforce a resolution, the UN will continue to be viewed as a joke."

Mac,
You still misunderstand the sanctions process. If someone is doing something you don't like, you can ignore them, you can refuse to buy what they sell, you can leave their property and not permit them on yours, but you cannot act against them unless they are infringing on your rights in some way. The UN can sanction a government for being uncooperative, for enflaming tensions, for generally screwing things up the UN would like to fix, but unless an international law has been broken there can be no authorization of force. That is basic morality and rule of law, not "weakness," and the only people who regard the UN as a joke are the ones who don't support its mission in the first place.

Rand: "No. They only have a president who openly proclaims the goal to destroy Israel"

1. We're not Israel.
2. Israel could destroy Iran five times over before a single US troop could set foot on the Persian highlands.
3. Saying something bad "should" happen to someone is almost never a declaration of intention to make it happen; it's usually an admission of bitter impotence.

"and is attempting to get nuclear weapons"

Attempting to get technology that would make nuclear weapons possible, but whether they use it that way is not a foregone conclusion.

"with which to do it."

Nothing but bigoted speculation. They have every reason to fear a preemptive invasion from the US, and every reason to seek a nuclear deterrent if those fears are not allayed.

"What planet are you posting from, Brian?"

The planet where the mere capability to field a weapons system is not the same as crashing airlines into skyscrapers. It's the planet where governments want to survive, and are not run by legions of kamikazes waiting for their opportunity to bring down nuclear annihilation on their own country. Planet Reality is its name, and some day you might be able to visit it if low-cost rocketry succeeds.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 10, 2006 12:08 PM

1. We're not Israel.

Oh. So that's all right, then.

I really believe that you think that George Bush is a more serious threat to the world than Ahmadinejad. And I stand here in awe at the cluelessness.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 10, 2006 12:12 PM

"Oh. So that's all right, then."

Doesn't have to be all right. The fact remains Israel can easily defend itself with the weapons we sell them and their own nuclear stockpiles. Iran is not suicidal, Ahmadinejad is not suicidal, and the mullahs aren't suicidal either, so they will continue to arm Hezbollah and keep their military safely within their own borders. And no, Rand, they will not give nuclear weapons to Hezbollah; everyone on Earth would know exactly where they came from, and Israel would retaliate just the same. Sorry to bore you with these reality checks, I know they're nowhere near as fun as fantasizing about general conflagration.

"I really believe that you think that George Bush is a more serious threat to the world than Ahmadinejad."

That could be because it's obvious, although let me preempt your inevitable false dilemma: The danger Bush represents to world peace and stability doesn't change that of the Iranian regime. They are coincident challenges with several overlapping areas of concern, including the integrity of international law, the resurgence of fascism, and the growing influence of religious fanaticism in geopolitics. Now, the very first step to dealing with the Iranian issue is having someone in power over here who can do that effectively, so it would be best if the treason and abuse of power impeachments could happen sooner rather than later. Throwing men like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in prison, not to mention handing them over to the Hague, would give us extraordinary political capital throughout the world, and from that position we could begin to address the issues posed by Iran and North Korea. But having men who run torture gulags, conquer and occupy other countries as a matter of policy, and generally lie to the world about everything preach about democracy and human rights is simply a joke, so no progress is possible until we replace them with sane, competent, law-abiding people. Even military solutions are bound to fail under Bush, since his regime is too brutal, corrupt, and incompetent to rebuild what they destroy, leading to wars and occupations that never end. So even if a military solution is ultimately required, we still need a Constitution-based government in power over here to achieve it effectively.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 10, 2006 02:44 PM

Squidward says: But having men who run torture gulags, conquer and occupy other countries as a matter of policy, and generally lie to the world about everything preach about democracy and human rights is simply a joke, so no progress is possible until we replace them with sane, competent, law-abiding people.

Good thing you're not running, because the above is about as insane a piece of crap as I've ever read. If you truly think that's what thuis administration is doing, then you're every bit as deep in the process of hatred that you claim to understand. Hatred is the problem and you're a BIG part of it for the hatred you consistently show. International law is a wonderful idea, but until you're willing to give up the freedoms you enjoy so to appease the leaders who seek only power over their people it won't happen. Just like the UN is a great idea, but an ineffective body.

Posted by Mac at August 10, 2006 03:11 PM

Post a comment