Iran
Ezra Klein very kindly and graciously commented on a short leader I wrote earlier this week. In short, he thinks my views on Iran are simple-minded, which is fair enough. In truth, my thoughts on Iran are pretty involved, and I fear they’d take at least a couple thousand words to fully unpack. I am familiar with the highly unusual structure of the Iranian government, though it’s certainly true that I didn’t successfully describe all its curlicues and intricacies. In my professional capacity I don’t really have that luxury, at least not now.
Also, Ezra Klein finds it weird that I consider the United States a benevolent actor in Iraq. I guess that’s an honest difference of opinion. I’d add, briefly, that I’m not even sure the United States is an actor in Iraq, as various arms of our government are working at cross-purposes there. Also, I suppose it’s worth mentioning that I think Iran is right to pursue a more sophisticated nuclear energy infrastructure (they need it — they’re terrible at extracting oil from the ground, and then there is the difference between the international price and the subsidized domestic price), that the United States and Iran ought to have direct, state-to-state negotiations, and that Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful actor in Iran’s government. I suppose I thought this was rather far afield from the narrow point I was trying to make. And I still do.
As for Iran’s intentions in Iraq, I’m confident that they’d very much prefer the stability of the grave, so to speak, to other imaginable outcomes. It so happens that we’ve become the defender of Iraq’s minority populations — not our intention when we first invaded, to be sure. Note also that imperialist powers throughout history have justified their rule through an appeal to the safety and well-being of minorities. This is an interesting and important point, but it’s not certainly not enough to justify abandoning those minorities, and those elements of the majority that seek reconciliation under a broad-based government.
By now I think it’s painfully obvious that our invasion of Iraq was a catastrophic blunder. Does that mean the stability of the grave, under Iranian suzerainty, is preferable to a continued U.S. presence? It’s not at all weird that Iran wouldn’t want a powerful independent state on its border, e.g., a stable and unified Iraq allied with the United States. What I find weird is that we would think that accommodating Iran in its efforts to create a new vassal state would be an unambiguously good idea.
A brief note about “Ahmadinejad’s Iran”: yes, the clerics rule, but some elected officials reflect the interests of actors within the “deep state” better than others, and this compounds their influence. This is a thorny notion, to be sure, and I’m confident only that I don’t fully understand it. But my sense is that peeling the onion involves peeling away more than just one layer.
Reihan some thoughts are so monumentally stupid (with all due apologies) that only an intellectual could believe them. The above writings are an example.
Iraq by all accounts is very successful, COMPARED TO THE ALTERNATIVE. Which was letting Saddam roll us very visibly and making bin Laden’s argument AGAIN that we are weak, easily bullied, and can be attacked without consequence.
Globalization and modern technology make this world very different. Even very poor countries can kill millions of Americans. North Korea and Pakistan can’t even function as societies and have nuclear ICBMS. Not capable of hitting America today. But that will eventually change. They can certainly ship them out via shipping container. Boom! There goes LA.
We are essentially Paul Castellano, and Iran, Saddam, AQ, much of Pakistan, and the Muslim world like John Gotti. Seeing us as easy, tempting targets. There is no fear there. By removing Saddam we injected real fear, for the first time since Vietnam, that the US was not to be attacked with impunity. Saddam bore the responsibility for the War, throwing inspectors out in violation of his sworn agreement, posturing that he had nukes, and acting provocatively in the belief it was 1998 and Clinton was President. Compared to acting weak AGAIN, Iraq was worth it. We can’t invade the world, act as it’s policeman, and so need fear and caution in our enemies. That doesn’t come from running away from conflict.
By contrast, Iraq gives us a win. We can supply it endlessly from the Sea. Unlike Afghanistan which can only be supplied by a tenuous line through the Khyber Pass and which is subject to closure at any time by Pakistan. As it runs through their territory, and most Pakistanis support both bin Laden and the Taliban. In Afghanistan all we can hope for is avoiding losing. A holding action.
We have a win. Over bin Laden and AQ. In Iraq. A visible defeat for our enemy. By our soldiers and Marines. Won on the ground. With important local allies who have info and intel which we can’t get from eavesdropping. And if required, an unsinkable aircraft carrier next to Iran.
As for Iran, it is a dangerous enemy and has been since 1979. When threatened by both the USSR and Saddam, they still chose to seize our Embassy and parade the hostages around, torture them, stage mock executions and the like. Even during a year of war with Saddam they still held them. Iran pushed us out of Lebanon (Beirut Barracks and Embassy bombing) and has tried to do the same in Saudi Arabia (Khobar Towers). Next to AQ Iran’s Hezbollah has killed the most Americans of any terrorist organization.
Iran has openly boasted of “destroying” the US along with Israel. It shelters Saad bin Laden and other senior AQ members. It sends men and material to kill US soldiers and Marines in Iraq (after we removed their great enemy Saddam and made Iraq far weaker and no threat to them, and did the same with the Taliban in Afghanistan).
At EVERY turn Iran has consistently chosen to be our enemy, and a dangerous one at that, even when it is to it’s advantage NOT to be our enemy. This policy is seen with Khomeni, Khameni, reformers like Khatani, moderates like Rafsanjani, and Ahmadinejad.
Now they are pursuing nuclear weapons (the Europeans are scared spitless over it) and will eventually work out both the plutonium bomb (they have enough for a Uranium “gun-type” bomb aka Little Boy) which can be put on warheads and ICBMS capable of hitting the US.
The smart doctor treats the cancer before it spreads. The smart thing to do would be to hit Iran hard, at regime wealth centers like hotels, malls, factories, and the like, all nuclear facilities, and start up counter-terror with Azeri, Arab, etc. terrorist-separatist movements. They certainly deserve it for killing our guys in Iraq and all the other stuff (Beirut, Buenos Aires, Khobar Towers etc.) they pulled. Hit their nuke stuff too.
The Iranian people (excepting the thin, urban educated youths) are poor and largely illiterate, deeply religious and our enemies. They and the regime that controls them want things that are incompatible with American interests, chief among them our expulsion from both the Eastern Med and Persian Gulf (aka Persian Empire 2.0) and our destruction. This same regime fought Saddam with human wave attacks of young boys ages 9-12, and celebrated it with a “fountain of blood” in Tehran. The would stop at nothing.
We ought to take Iran apart at the seams. Before it’s a deadly danger lobbing either ICBMS at the US or handing off the spare nuke to Hezbollah.
— Jim Rockford · Mar 5, 11:03 AM · #
Reihan:
I suspect that, hidden deep in your thoughts on protecting minorities, lies the creeping incomprehensibility of aggressive democracy building. Protection of minority rights is a profoundly important thing in democracy; but if it’s enforced by fiat from an occupying nation, it doesn’t mean much qua democracy. Who really pulls the strings in Iraq? The answer, of course, is the United States; the government has never been empowered to make decisions that the US (and particularly the US military) really doesn’t like. I’d like for minority rights to be protected in Iraq, but my opinions on Iraq are irrelevant. Benevolent autocracy, I think, is an attractive notion for anyone. But since democracy-building in Iraq is the hill the America of my youth has decided to die on, I think we should actually pursue real democracy. Democracy without minority protection is a sad thing, it’s true. Democracy without self-determination, on the other hand, is just any other kind of vassalage.
Jim Rockford:
Obviously there’s a lot to unpack there. I think, though, that any analysis that stems from the notion that the Iraq war has been effective at projecting American strength is deeply flawed.
— Freddie · Mar 5, 01:28 PM · #
Freddie, that’s a great point, and it seems pretty clear that this conflict between promotion of democracy and promotion of minority rights may encourage Yugoslavia style breakups, where each minority at least has the option of moving to the country next door, where they are the majority and may begin their own reign of oppression. (“Ethnic self-cleansing”?) Also, you are awesome, and should join this blog in full rather than as a guest commenter.
As to the main debate, I think the essential question between Reihan’s two pieces and Ezra’s is whether US and Iranian goals and effects in Iraq are significantly morally equivalent or distinguishable.
At some level, our ambitions are similar, given our perspectives. The US would like Iraq to develop into a Japan-style client state, prosperous and free, that would allow us to extend the influence of our grand Western alliance. Iran would, presumably, like to spread the Islamic revolution to the peoples of Iraq and have them develop into a sui generis sort of client state, pious and blessed, that would allow Iran to extend the influence of its, thus far limited, alliance. (Syria and Hamas may be Iran’s only clear clients, and they are much more clients of convenience than belief). Both states, presumably, believe that the people of Iraq would be benefited by being more like us, and would also like to see Iraq as an ally or client state.
Now, I personally happen to think that, if the cost were equal, it would be better for Iraq to become a Japan-style western state than an Iranian-style theocracy. I suspect that Ezra would agree, and that Achmedinijad would disagree.
That brings us, I guess, to costs and the likelihood of success. Although I think it would be objectively good for the Iraqis to be magically transformed into Japan (by which I mean a liberal democracy that still reflects their national flavor and customs), I think it would be very bad for Iraq to undergo a full scale sectarian war, or to end up with a liberal government that collapses, Shah of Iran-style, into a full blooded theocratic revolution and series of purges.
— J Mann · Mar 5, 03:13 PM · #