 |
June 30, 2004We Get CommentsIn fairness to Michael Ledeen, whose Iran policy prescriptions I've been critical of of late, I should point out he's commented at my original post here: Part of Ledeen's note excerpted: On Iran, it is not fair to suggest that I am inciting the students. I am trying to incite my government to support the students and others who have often demonstrated their contempt for the mullahs. And while you are, God knows, quite right to say I have been compulsive/obsessive about Iran of late, this is the view I have always held toward people living under tyranny who wish to be free. We should help them. My issue is, given that we simply are not marching into Teheran anytime soon (for a variety of reasons), I'd be curious to hear specifically how we can apply pressure to Iran to democratize in a fashion that will not imperil the lives and futures of the students (and also, it bears mentioning, without Iran more actively sabotaging us in Iraq). Also, of course, there is the 800 pound gorilla of the nuclear question looming in all of this too. So let's maybe put the question a bit differently. What is more important to the American national interest right now? A democratic Iran? Or a nuclear-weapons free Iran? We might, God forbid, not be able to have both (or either!) just now--indeed achieving just one might prove very, very hard. I'd suggest we should be concentrating, very intently, on Iran's nuclear capability right now (less so on their support for Hezbollah, their domestic policies, the latest clerical rabble-rousing pronunciamentos). Laura Rozen is right--this issue (barring NoKo testing a nuke or total melt-down in Iraq) will likely be the issue of '05 (particularly given Iran's attendant trouble-making capabilities in Iraq). Are policymakers ready? Er, not by a long shot. P.S. Someone over at the FT recently opined we need a Bosnia style "contact group" to address Iraq (by way of making Chirac step up to his obligations and provide a specialized high profile multilateral fora to handle matters Iraq). Question: might we need one, more urgently, for Iran instead? UPDATE: Don't miss Ardeshir Zahedi's (no link available) Iran op-ed in today's WSJ-Europe. Zahedi, a former pre-revolutionary Iranian Foreign Minister, makes some pretty succinct points. He structures the op-ed by trying to answer the question "what is to be done" by first addressing what can't. In this latter category: 1) Iran "cannot be forced to unlearn knowledge accumulated since the 1950s" (nuclear physics etc); 2) Iran must have the right to develop nuclear energy (with Iran's economy growing at 8%/annum all of Iran's oil production might be needed for domestic consumption by 2010); 3) we cannot force Iran to separate its nuclear technology into two halves (civilian/military) as all nations "with a civilian nuclear base are capable, if they so decide, of moving into the military sphere of nuclear technology as well." Zahedi than basically goes on to say that the Soviets and Americans had been pretty sanguine about letting the Shah potentially develop a "surge capacity" (know-how, infrastructure and personnel to develop a nuclear weapon in a very short time frame without actually doing so) as, per Zahedi, Iran under the Shah was viewed as a pretty well behaved nation-state (no land war since encroachments on Herat in the 1850s!). So, much like Michael Ledeen, Zahedi then poses the question thus: Anyone with any knowledge of Iranian politics would know that the present regime in Teheran is strategically committed to developing a nuclear "surge capacity" if not a full arsenal of nuclear weapons. The real question, therefore, is whether the region, and the rest of the world, feel comfortable with the idea of a revoluntionary regime, claiming a messianic mission on behalf of Islam, arming itself with nuclear weapons. Per Zahedi, a 'peaceful' Iran with nukes would be as inoffensive as England with nukes. This is Zahedi's way of saying--this isn't about Iran's nuclear capabilities writ large--it's about those brutish Mullahs. So, in the evolving, what the f%&*k to do about Iran debate--look to see the Ledeen-Perle-Zahedi wing argue that, at the end of the day--it's all about regime change, stupid. Le plus ca change..... P.S. This begs the question, do we hint to the great Iranian public that we would accept a nuclear Iran, were it not for the presence of those dastardly Mullahs? Posted by Gregory at June 30, 2004 01:25 PMComments
I believe we must attack Iran - pre-emptively; a massive pre-emptive strike that would destroy all their nuke sites and their military. This could neutralize their nuke program and lead to a democratic revolution - as it has in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if this attack only achieved the first objective, and failed in achieving the latter, I believe that an Iran in utter disarray - as a result of a massive pre-emtive strike - would be better than a tyrannical Iran that oppresses its own citizens, and which aids and abets Jihadist terror world-wide - while attempting to attain nukes which would make this pre-emptive attack more dangerous, or which could be handed over to Jihadist terrorists to deploy non-conventionally (in suitcases, not on missiles). We could follow this up with an similar attack on North Korea. Or we could attack North Korea first. Further diplomatic efforts at this point only aid the enemy; time is on their side, not ours. Diplomacy is therefore, at this late date, merely appeasement. And appeasement never freed a sinlge human soul or prevented a single war. It would be foolish and bad and wrong for us to waste our precious military advantage over these two pariah states while we still have that advantage. It would be silly for us to not do what must be done because of fear of either the "arab street" or the UN or France. These foes have NO MORAL STANDING. Zilch. Zero. Bupkus. Doing the right thing - defending liberty, opposing tryanny in all its forms, and preventing tyrants from gaining the power to blackmail us by getting nukes - is EVERYTHING. We could give each tyranny an ultimatum first: The choice then is theirs. Posted by: dan at June 30, 2004 03:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
Gregory: Always enjoy your provocative comments. I am at a loss to figure how a country persuades Iran to de-nuke when they are doing the rope-a-dope with the "soft powers" (France, Germany and the U.K.). Diplomacy, as with in North Korea, appear to be of little benefit to a country bent on becoming a nuclear power, and that (again, like North Korea) baldly threatens other countries with them. So, I don't see a separation between regime change and de-nuking Iran. And I don't see a separation between Iranian nuclear weaponry and the will, motivation and competence to develop and deploy them. Posted by: Capt America at June 30, 2004 09:19 PM | Permalink to this comment
so we either a) negotiate with the mullahs so they don't go nuclear (and run the risk of failing), b) overthow the current govt (almost impossible to imagine doing now) or c) try to rouse internal dissent but, should a crackdown occur, likely screw the Shi'a there as badly as we screwed the Shi'a in '91 Iraq? Better options? Posted by: jjacob at June 30, 2004 11:39 PM | Permalink to this comment
The mullahs derive their power from the economic production of Iran. Without that production, the mullahs are no more powerful than religious or tribal leaders in Equatorial Guinea. The mullahs have crossed the line in supporting terrorists in Iraq. They must pay the ultimate price for these actions. Western nations dependent on Iran for oil will need to find other suppliers. Soon. Posted by: Dar at July 3, 2004 12:42 AM | Permalink to this comment
Greg. First time visitor here, great blog. Are you posing the question honestly looking for an answer, or simply setting up a softie for someone to hit out of the park? If so, here's my swing: Seems obvious to me. Let the Israelis know we would be very happy if they could do it again.
This comment is on a stale post, but... That 8% growth rate sounds suspicious. Have you found it cited in any non-Iranian source? The regime obviously has an interest in convincing its citizens that jobs and lower inflation are on the way, and it fits the Chinese playbook from which the mullahs have learned so much: "In order to prosper, we'll allow some social and economic freedom, but don't expect us to give up a bit of control over the government or the income we get from our lucrative monopolies." For what it's worth, the Economist says the following:
2248 http://www.texas-holdem-now.com play texas holdem here! Posted by: texas holdem at September 30, 2004 01:10 AM | Permalink to this comment
3583 http://www.casino-online-i.com the best online casinos on the web. Posted by: online casinos at September 30, 2004 08:39 PM | Permalink to this comment
8102 http://www.play-poker-i.com Posted by: http://www.play-poker-i.com at October 1, 2004 04:57 PM | Permalink to this comment
3686 Play poker here poker Posted by: http://www.888-texas-holdem.com at October 6, 2004 03:17 AM | Permalink to this comment
5829 Very well said in the first place! http://www.online-poker-net.com Posted by: online poker at October 6, 2004 10:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
Key Chains http://sporting.lowcost.us.com/list_3386341/Sports_Categories_Fan_Shop_MLB_Key_Chains.php
6961 How can this all be as nice? Check out my site http://www.pai-gow-keno.com Posted by: pai gow at October 8, 2004 08:29 AM | Permalink to this comment
1165 http://www.texas-hold-em-i.com play texas hold em online here. Posted by: texas hold em at October 12, 2004 02:28 AM | Permalink to this comment
1499 http://www.e-texas-holdem.info texas holdem Posted by: texas holdem at October 13, 2004 11:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
4792 http://top-online-poker.info
3055 online poker
8961 http://www.e-online-poker.info
3307 http://www.real-online-poker.net Posted by: http://www.real-online-poker.net at November 9, 2004 03:46 AM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
Grading Bush's Speech: B-
An Open Letter to POTUS Bush's Speech Who Me? The Secretary of No Responsibility Kerry's Bad Advice "Last Throes," Or 12 More Years? We Get Comments Leiter's Provocative Query: What Are The Root Causes of a "Reverse Philosophy Brain Drain"? What Next for Iran? B.D.'s Conscience Caucus
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator New York Observer Daily Telegraph Matt Drudge The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion Washington Monthly New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Times Watch Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
Instapundit Mickey Kaus Josh Marshall Oxblog Katrina vanden Heuvel Armavirumque Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Gawker Romenesko James Taranto Volokh Conspiracy &C (TNR) NRO's Corner Laura Rozen Innocents Abroad Juan Cole Tom Maguire Matthew Yglesias Pejman Yousefzadeh Spencer Ackerman Wonkette Brad DeLong The American Scene Eric Martin Mark Kleiman Winds of Change Jon Henke L.A.T. Steve Clemons Jack Balkin Crooked Timber Austin Bay Becker-Posner James Wolcott UN Dispatch Phil Carter
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Across the Bay
Lebanese Blogger Lebanese Abroad Lebanon Matters Lebop Bliss Street Journal American in Lebanon Beirut Spring For Lebanon
Syria
Columnists
Tony Blankley
David Broder Fred Hiatt Jim Hoagland David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Robert Novak Safire and Company Mark Steyn Sebastian Mallaby George Will Anne Applebaum The Reliable Source Washington Whispers Howard Kurtz
Think Tanks
Security
Books
B.D. In the Press
The Sunday Times(UK)"If It Makes America Look Bad It Must Be True, Musn't It?"
The Guardian "Trial and Error" Online Journalism Review "Feeling Misquoted? Weblogs Transcripts Let the Reader Decide" Online Journalism Review "Bloggers Rate the Most Influential Blogs" (see chart) The Sunday Times (UK) "Rise of the Virtual Soapbox" MORE"
Archives
June 2005
May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
Categories
Area Studies
Beltway Banter Books Department Cultural Missives Euro-American Relations In-House News Iraq Legal Matters Mailroom Media Monitoring Middle East--Iran Middle East-Peace Process Philosophy Presidential Politics Terrorism U.S. Foreign Policy Syndicate this site:
 Powered by 
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||