Perhaps we can all agree that in diplomacy (not to mention in Iranian culture, which has distinctive ways of conveying meanings by saying the opposite of what is meant), when a U.S. Vice President says that Israel (which depends on us almost entirely for its armaments) is a sovereign country that can do whatever it wants, he will certainly be taken to have said the opposite -- namely, that Israel is our proxy and that, like proxies anywhere else in the world, it will do things we won't do, so that we can keep our hands clean. Can we agree that this is what he will be taken to have said by other players in this game?

Notice, please, that I did not say that this rendering of what Biden's statement means gives an accurate summary of what it actually does mean; nor did I say that this is what it should be taken to mean.

What I did say is that this is what it WILL be taken to have meant and that, for that reason, a nation with power as immense as ours in this instance should be careful about emitting signals that will be taken to mean something more than what they actually say. Unless, of course we do mean them to be taken to mean something more.

And if Biden (or the rest of the administration) did mean for his comment to be taken as something more, then I think that he and/or they made a mistake. His comment cut against what has been done well so far using a different, more diplomatic approach. Diplomacy is like that.

Notice, please, that I did not say that this rendering of what Biden's statement gives an accurate summary of what it actually does mean; nor did I say that this is what it should be taken to mean.

What I do say is that this is what it will be taken to mean, and that, for that reason, a nation with power as immense as ours in this instance should be very careful about emitting signals that will be taken to mean something more than what they actually say.

But that leaves the liberal state incapable of drawing distinctions between bold free spirits (say, entrepreneurs) and parasitical free riders (say, finance capitalists, derivative traders, ec.) No wonder John D. Rockefeller was such a strict, religious Calvinist; the price of freedom is self-discipline, which can be sustained only by some deep faith.

The worst thing, from a liberal point of view, is when the state itself tries to inculcate that faith, thereby corrupting it. It's an unending dilemma or paradox. How do you sustain an expectation of deep faith (without which people can't trust one another to do the right thing) without imposing doctrine? We Americans are always about to lose our balance on this, but we have always seemed to recapture it.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/17/what_the_next_24_hrs_in_tehran_will_tell/

That's not to say, though, that the newly alienated therefore favor radical democracy or even secularism. Apparently some do, some don't. Nor does the new opposition to the regime necessarily mean any new affection for Israel. The Shah had very normal diplomatic and other relations with Israel, and he remains a hated memory. So, there's no telling what shape the opposition would take even if Moussavi were installed and even if Khamenei were replaced by a more "moderate" Supreme Ruler. As for whether there could be a more completely secular revolution or dramatic reconfiguration of the Islamic republic, I doubt that, but I have no idea. I'll ask Cameron Abadi what he thinks.

My post of two days ago reported the untold story of the elections, which was that much of Ahmadenijad's substantial electoral support (whether majority or no)was eroding because many of the people who voted for him hadn't thought through what they were doing and were appalled at the results. Yesterday, from Iran, Roger Cohen confirmed this in a very strong column.

Dan K wants to remain agnostic about what we've seen over the past few days by remaining agnostic about the actual vote count. This strikes me as a dodge. And Seth Edenbaum will not answer my question about which side he's on; I don't see what the LA Times column he linked does to clarify that. The best post on this was MJ Rosenberg's a couple of posts down from here, noting that neo-cons want to have it both ways: They were ho-hum about an Amadenijad victory, since they like having him as a foil; then, they sided with the insurgent crowds, because that makes the incumbent look even worse. Whose side are they really on? That of the people they think they can liberate by bombing them? Whose side is Seth Edenbaum on in this? He won't say.

The unanswered question remains whether you think the Iranian people are represented better by the demonstrators than by those who are about to silence them. You're allowed to express an opinion.

"The next 24 hours may tell whether the rest of Iran can stand up to them and the terrifying division in the country which their saluting represents." -- Jim Sleeper

The only remaining question, here, it seems to me, is which side Edenbaum is really on. I fear that my post has answered that already.

Thanks to Corpiscator for that link to the interesting background.