Bush and Admadinejad: "They Need Each Other"
In this morning's LAT, Kim Murphy writes ("Iran reformists want U.S. to tone it down") of the twisted dance of the belligerent paranoids that is leading toward more and crazier war.
Murphy quotes "Saeed Leylaz, a business consultant and advocate of economic reform and greater dialogue with the West," as going so far as to advocate that Washington shut up about reform in Iran altogether, "because in 100% of the cases, it benefits the right wing." Such absolute proclamations rub me the wrong way. But Leylaz goes on wisely:
"Mr. Ahmadinejad tries to make the international situation worse and worse. And now with the U.N. Security Council resolution, he can say, 'Look, we are in a dangerous position, and nobody can say anything against us, because the enemy is coming into the country.' Exactly like George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. They are helping each other. They need each other, I believe."
Murphy concludes:
A large number of parliamentary deputies signed letters this year demanding answers from the president on the nuclear issue and the economy. But new, strong language from Washington starting in January that hinted at the possibility of a military strike quickly took the wind out of their sails.
Independent legislator Akbar Alami, who had circulated a letter, said he stopped getting signatures almost immediately.
If Iranians perceive a foreign threat, he said, "they don't pay attention anymore to differences, and the problem they have between parties and governments doesn't matter anymore."
To the contrary, said former central bank governor Mohammad Hossain Adeli, it mobilizes the Iranians and ratchets up the conflict.
"The foreign pressure is counterproductive and radicalizes the domestic environment," he said. "And then this radicalization results in more confrontational positions on the part of Iran."
In recent days, the acute Paul Rogers of opendemocacy.net and Ewen MacAskill in the Guardian have been pointing at the American military buildup in the Persian Gulf. Rogers thinks that for logistical reasons the most dangerous month is April.
Possibly the defining factor in Toynbee's view was external threat. He argued that when one was absent it was necessary to either invent one or find an internal replacement. In this case the necessity in question was internal cohesion.
Absent external challenge a group of people going about their business is only that, people going about their business (not a bad thing). But when a boundary is drawn, or forced, you have a state. Iran is a culture first, incorporating its history. Its statehood is only sharply defined by the external conditions.
The obvious correlation in recent years is the re-election of Bush followed by the election of Ahmadinejad. Coupled with the next correlation, electoral loss here for the party in power, and the same in Iran, it seems clear that while both sides are doing some posturing, one is in the lead on actions, the US. So rather than responding to Iran's threat we are, or were, creating it.
Brings to mind Josh's post about Iranian exile Soroush Shehabi's advice to the President: "...one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."
February 11, 2007 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The title of your column says it all Todd, we're watching "The Dance of the Two Idiots". "W" has less than two years to turn everything around and save the Bush Family Legacy and he and his cronies need a success in the Middle East. Admadinejad is trying to stir the pot and save his regime in light of his recent parliamentary losses. Nationalism trumps every other political card and nothing creates a sense of nationalism better than a war or the threat of war - Bush and Admadinejad are both old hands at playing the nationalism card.
The BBC is reporting here that the "explosively formed penetrators" that the Pentagon is claiming have Iranian signature marks on them and has killed 170 US soldiers and wounded 620 US personnel since "June 2004", "...cannot be independently verified." If the Pentagon has the evidence then it needs to be independently verified and why has it taken them since 2004 to bring it out into the open. Like the lead up to Bush's Iraq War, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Planning always goes on, we planned for decades during the Cold War but very few of those plans became operational. As was mentioned in the Guardian article, Israel could do the dirty work of bombing the Iranian nuclear sites as a proxy for the US. Israel would revenge itself on Iran who used proxies to defeat them in the last Lebanon war and the US would not be an active participant.
February 11, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Radicalizing Iranians is part of the plan for perpetual war, you need a bogeyman to make money.
Interesting that the Pentagon has determined the exact number of troops killed by Iran, while the cause of the "non-hostile" helicopter crash two years ago in Jan. 2005 that killed 31 Americans is still "being investigated".
February 11, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Admadinejad is all too happy to play chicken with Bush. He knows America is in no position to invade Iran. He knows the Iranian leadership will survive airstrikes, even massive airstrikes. And he knows his sagging political popularity in Iran will skyrocket if Washington attacks. It's a no-brainer for him.
Admadinejad also knows that the Administration loves a boogeyman, in fact, needs a boogeyman. He saw the role OBL played over the years. He saw how the White House puffed Saddam Hussein into a Super Villain. He thinks: I can play that role. Easily.
Admadinejad knows he can play the role of OBL and Saddam without the risk of the US taking him out. He's practically daring the White House to bomb Iran. The White House needs another war and Admadinejad needs the support a war would create. They're perfect for each other.
February 11, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Reminds me of Sharon-Bibi/Arafat, Olmert/Haniyeh
February 11, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why? You seem to be in denial. From Egypt to Lebanon to Pakistan, Washington has set back the cause of freedom. Any dissident who is caught advocating democracy is now dismissed as a pro-American mouthpiece. Well done, Bush!
But that's a fact. Why should stating it rub you the wrong away? Because an "uppity" Iranian says the American emperor has no clothes? At least someone is speaking the truth.
After Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the CIA rendition program, etc, Washington has earned the right to shut up.
Snap out of your denial, Todd!
February 11, 2007 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, is appropriate to be chary of formulations like "100% of cases" because it doesn't define the scope. If we limit the situation to events since 2000, OK. Does this go without saying?
I am rubbed the wrong way by unrestricted absolutisms, along with TG.
February 11, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad...
Funny, when the last REFORMIST Iranian president Khatami was in power and trying to reach out to the US, everyone ignored him on the grounds that Iranian presidents are nobodies since they don't control Iran's military, intelligence or foreign policy (which are under the control of Iran's Supreme Leader)
But when Ahmadinejad is elected and makes intemperate statements (or are attributed to him, to be more exact) all of a sudden he's portrayed as the Leader of Iran.
He isn't. THis has nothing to do with AHmadinejad. Some people here in the US are in the business of exaggerating him because it suits their agenda.
FYI, it was AHMADINEJAD who came to the UN and declared that Iran was willing to open up its nuclear program to multinational participation, thus ensuring that it could not be secretly diverted for weapons use. This proposal was agreed upon by the Iranian side - all of them. This was also solution that an IAEA committee had proposed itself. The US and EU ignored it.
February 11, 2007 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually all the Iranian opposition figures are against US sabre rattling against Iran.
Shirin Ebadi is another one. Learn more at Action Iran.
February 11, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
When foreign policy is designed around domestic political considerations only (a la Rove) it can only be analyzed using the logic of the spectacle.Thats why Condi can throw her little barbs at Chavez but the oil continues to flow.It is symbiotic relationship at the level of image and also works for Malaki and Murtha.
February 11, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the U.S. needs guidance from the Pope. When Solidarity arose in Poland the U.S. and the Vatican played a very active role in supporting the Lech Walensa and the dissent Union. However it was done through the AFL-CIO and other private groups. It was not quietly. It is hard to believe that the U.S., if not with Bush as President, cannot secretly provide aid to varous Iranian reformers as well as see what talks with Iran will lead to.
My friend who has a number of military contacts believes the Iranian hostage taking in 1979, the killing of the Lebanese CIA station chief and the killing of the 241 Marines in the early 1980s have not been forgotten and are playing a role in the Bush Administration and neo-Cons push for a military solution with Iran.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 11, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So am I, Tom. I loathe "unrestricted absolutism."
But Leylaz is hardly guilty of that. He is not stating a meta-principle. He is saying that today every time Washington lectures Iran it's sure to backfire. What's absolutist about that? It's common sense.
Gitlin must be aware that "absolutist" is a loaded word when talking about Iranians in the US. (Like Biden's "articulate.") It feeds into the prejudices born of 30 years of constant demonization.
I thought Gitlin would know better.
February 11, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
To present this as a "twisted dance of belligerent paranoids" is plain wrong.
Yes, Ahmadinejad is a belligerent paranoid but he is not dancing with anyone. He's just talking trash. Khamenei is the boss.
Who is about to send a third carrier strike group into the Gulf?
Who's making gratuitous accusations about Iran-made IEDs?
Who's kidnapping whose diplomats?
Who's sending minesweepers and Patriot batteries to the Gulf?
There might be two twisted freaks out there, but only one is dancing.
February 11, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the time I'd agree with you, but when you're talking about Bush and his evil twin Ahmadinejad, you're venturing into exception-that-proves-the-rule territory.
But actually the burden of proof is on you. Can you give an exmple of, say, 1% of "cases" where a BushCo action or statement didn't benefit the Iranian Right?
February 11, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess it did go without saying, huh?
As I said, Leylaz's statement is OK if it is restricted to recent history, but that wasn't explicit. So give TG a break.
February 11, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, is that why the US is always finding an external threat like global communism or global terrorism? Geez, you would think we would figure out we are already a state by now. I guess the rePublicans are just slow.
February 11, 2007 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who is threatening whom with nuclear weapons?
SourceFebruary 12, 2007 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you mean quietly?
To some extent, having private organizations do it, in the open, may be beneficial. Do be aware, of course, that propagandists may claim these are puppet organizations.
The AFL-CIO's as GWB's puppet...
Are you saying the military proper, or the hard-liner political figures won't forget these? I know many military people, for example, who while generally admiring Reagan are furious with him for putting the Marines under orders where they could not defend themselves. I've not known Buckley to be a rallying point, although COL Higgins is much more so -- while the US and USSR had a moratorium on going after one anothers' intelligence officers, many nations, especially Israel, consider such fair game.
Again, as far as the Iranian hostage-taking, lots of military personnel recognize things like this happen. They are very aware of the excessive operational security, and must-have-something-for-every-service, that screwed things up for OPERATION EAGLE CLAW. That failed rescue was a major impetus for forming Special Operations Command, especially the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. Rather surprisingly, as more details have been declassified over the years, the plan seemed better than it first appeared; it was close to workable. The insufficient number of qualified helicopters and crews was probably the thing that doomed it; forming the 160th meant there would always be helicopters and crews training in special operations.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 12, 2007 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that we are always "finding" threats. They seem to be coming to us. Anyone xcare to argue that the Nazis and WWII Japanese were not a threat? Or that the Soviets were not a threat. Or Al Qaida?
To be sure, the Soviet threat and certainly the threat posed by Al Qaida and its ilk have been exaggerated, the latter very greatly. But the threats have been real.
February 13, 2007 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone noticed the photos of supposed Iranian munitions that are supposed to confirm Iranian involvement in Iraq?
Correct me if I am wrong, BUT, every marking on these supposed Iranian 81 MM mortars and the like ALL have English marking on them. I would think that the Iranian miliary would use Iranian markings to label these munitions. I realize English is a second language in Iran, but I find it difficult to believe that military munitions would be labeled in English.
What am I missing here?
It reminds me of the supposed Osama bin Laden tape after 9/11 showing Osama writing with his right hand, when in fact Osama is left handed.
It must be quite hard to get those pesky details right.
Wise Merlin
February 13, 2007 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently it is a convention these days that all countries mark munitions in English. At least, I heard that on NPR.
February 13, 2007 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there's any intention of export, yes. There is a practical problem that markings in cursive scripts as in the Arabic orthography used both for Arabic and Farsi are much easier to become blurred and hard to read. Consider the difference in readability, and ease of printing, English printing and script.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 13, 2007 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink