Iran, the Neocons, and the Bomb
If the neocons are to be believed, Ahmadinejad's theft of the Iranian elections - and his continuing crackdown on dissent - are not the results of internal dynamics in Iran, but rather of the words of conciliation spoken by President Obama prior to the vote.
As the latest incarnation of Mitt Romney - the fire breathing hawk - put the right-wing case on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, "It is very clear that the president's policies of going around the world and apologizing for America aren't working."
An excellent post by Ali Frick that ran on Think Progress earlier this week quotes Iraq-war advocates Richard Perle and Frank Gaffney asserting that Obama's willingness to talk to Iran about curbing its nuclear program has helped legitimize Ahmadinejad's regime and emboldened the "thugs" in Tehran due to "our weakness." And Robert Kagan has put in his two cents worth in today's Washington Post in an article entitled "Obama, Siding With the Regime."
What would the neocons do differently? What should be done in the face of Ahmadinejad's repression, and how will it influence efforts to stop Tehran from seeking a nuclear weapon?
First, it should be noted that the struggle in Iran is far from over. It is too early to tell whether Ahmadinejad will maintain his power through the barrel of a gun, or whether the popular protests can last long enough and be strong enough to force him out of office.
But, if Ahmadinejad prevails, it will be with reduced power. As Joe Cirincione has noted on the Huffington Post, "he will be greatly weakened, handcuffed in his ability to play the nuclear card as a nationalist rallying cry. Pressed at home, he will need to show some gains internationally; the nuclear issue must be compromised to realize those gains." In particular, the needed economic progress that either an Ahmadinejad or a Mousavi government will need to show will depend on an opening to the West, which means putting the nuclear program on the table.
In any case, no one is suggesting that negotiations on Iran's nuclear program go forward immediately. Obviously there will need to be a pause while the current political crisis plays itself out. But when the dust settles, negotiations will still be the most viable option for curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The neocon's alternatives - from economic strangulation to military intervention - make about as much sense as their brilliant plan of invading Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction that did not in fact exist.
Well-said. We can always count on the neocons for brilliant plans!
June 17, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
California, The Looney Libs and Man controling Nature.
Next time it rains go outside and try to make it stop or go outside at noon and make the sun stop shinning.
This is what you are trying to do with Al Gore Science.
The only change you will see with the looney science is our nations economy will be distroyed due to bad planning.
Oh yea, California, this is a perfect example of what happens when a whole state goes Loon.
June 17, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is your comment remotely relevant to Iran, the Neocons and the Bomb? Maybe you're on the wrong thread.
I'd like to help you out -- which way did you come in?
-- ARG
June 17, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, Mr. Hannity. You can take off your mask now.
June 17, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone here is saying that the neocons wanted Ahmadinjad to win. Some of the loonies are even implying they intervened in covert ways. Now you're saying they're blaming his win on Obama's policies. Pretty clever guys, those neocons.
A lot smarter than you lefties, that's for sure.
June 17, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems pretty clear that those who favored a hard line policy toward Iran, including the incumbent Israeli coalition, felt that an Ahmad win would be clarifying, while a win by one of the others would put a nicer face on what remained an aggressive regime. As to intervening, naw, that's nonsense. That's just more American narcissism/paranoia -- it's all about us.
June 17, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I agree, both with them and with you. But then what's Hartung saying; that these same guys are now blaming Obama for Ahmadinejad's win? Now that's Machiavelli at his finest.
June 17, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would the Neo-cons do?
McSame unveiled their plan during the last campaign: "Bomb,Bomb,Bomb--Bomb,Bomb Iran!"
June 17, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a not a situation the U.S. can exercise any control over. And it makes not a bit of difference who is in the WH.
This is a political regime trying any way it can to stay in power no matter what its citizens want or what the rest of the world thinks. Interfering in this would just be too messy and not worth the headache.
June 17, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Iran, there is appears to be a broad-based protest movement, aimed primarily at getting the government to set aside fraudulent elections results and either declare Mousavi the legitimate winner or hold a re-vote.
In the United States, there is talk from some quarters of a "Green Revolution", pushed along by long-time regime changers who apparently want to topple the Iranian state, and are exploiting the crisis as an opportunity to catalyze more sweeping and cataclysmic change than most Iranians probably have in mind.
Who can say what the neocons are up to now? But they may be hoping they can goad and taunt Obama into intervening more assertively, something that they anticipate will then spark a more violent xenophobic crackdown in Iran, and light the fuse of a true revolution, and even perhaps create conditions that dangerously dangerously spiral out of control and raise calls for foreign military intervention.
What bugs the neocons to no end are demonstrations to the world that the Iranian state is not wholly "evil", but contains civilized and self-correcting republican structures that might succeed in resolving the crisis peacefully while strengthening Iran's imperfect democratic traditions, and which ultimately improves Iran's position and reputation in the Middle East. That Iranians might find a way of promoting a model to the Middle East of moderate Islamic republican government by peacefully resolving their crisis within the legitimate structures of the Islamic Republic is a vision of hell for neocons. They're hoping for more blood, chaos and more creative destruction.
June 17, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I think you're correct, Dan. One other thing though: Leo Strauss' third law of Neorobotics - that it's ok to lie. What arrogance! The idea that the rank and file must be lied to because they can't access Strauss' second law of Neorobotics: the philosophers wrote secret messages between the lines of their tomes that only Neocons can decipher.
What was the first law? I forget. Was it "repress civil protest" because demonstrators don't purchase weapons on the international arms market?
June 18, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The neocons, like hitching posts on city streets, have become irrelevant.
June 17, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much of the neocon rhetoric is way over the top; but is the President himself doing enough in terms of his rhetoric? I'd at least like to see a statement reflecting the will of the Iranian people should be honored.
I explain more here:
http://www.obamapundit.com/?p=293
June 18, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, the "will of the Iranian people" might be probematical. There's at least a chance the Ahmadinejad did in fact win the popular vote - a pre-election poll that said he had two thirds of the vote, and his "rustic appeal" to rural folks, who are very conservative. Who knows at this point? It may be a moot point. Although the population of Tehran represents about 11% of Iran's total, that percentage of the 11% who are in the streets, and however many are in the streets of other cities, could very well be the tipping point of some dramatic changes in Iranian politics. Additionally, I think whatever assessment of the Iranian political landscape that exists now will radically change by the time this social upheavel is over.
June 18, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink