Thursday, June 18, 2009

Iran So Far Away

There has been a lot of hand-wringing and whatnot about the official US reaction to the continuing post-election protests in Iran. I have some thoughts on this and I'm glad you asked, by the way.

1. There seems to be an assumption by some that the US government should directly channel the emotional state of its citizens, i.e., if we are upset about something and favor a certain outcome, the government should be identically upset and favor the same outcome. When it comes to political theory and views of what government should do and how it should do it, this is about as unsophisticated as it gets. This is not to say that government must always be neutral in its approach to other governments, but there are better and worse times for that type of approach.

2. It should be clear that any kind of direct support we express for the protesters/opposition will be used as a sharpened shovel by the Iranian government. To respond to the argument that the Iranian government is already making claims of US support, that does not mean that we have to validate their false claims.

3. Cynically speaking, no matter what the Obama Administration does in response to the situation, the usual suspects will portray it as the actions of a hopelessly naive and inexperienced chief executive out of his depth. I guarantee you that if Obama had come out with a forceful statement explicitly supporting Mousavi, these very same people clamoring for that very same thing would be condemning the administration right now for putting the Iranian opposition in mortal peril by such a foolhardy, clumsy giveaway to the Revolutionary Guard.

4. From what I can tell - and I do not hesitate to proclaim my near-perfect ignorance of Iranian politics - this is not a struggle between authoritarianism and democracy; this is a struggle between the authoritarians in power and some other authoritarians who would like to take power, albeit legally.

5. As human beings, we can hope for a peaceful end to the protests and the proper expression of the Iranian people's will as reflected by the ballot box (although frankly, good luck with both of those). As a country, our proper course of action is to stay out of it.

Come and get me in the comments.

Update 6/19: J's comment gets a field promotion:

A cloud appears above your post;
A beam of light comes shining down on you,
Shining down on you.
The cloud is moving nearer still.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes in view;
Ahmadinejad comes in view.

And Iran, Iran so far away.
It's Iran, Iran all night and day.
Can't get away.

(I do have to point out, though, that J neglected to cite the band responsible. It is, of course, A Flock of Shias.)

6 comments:

J. said...

A cloud appears above your post;
A beam of light comes shining down on you,
Shining down on you.
The cloud is moving nearer still.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes in view;
Ahmadinejad comes in view.

And Iran, Iran so far away.
It's Iran, Iran all night and day.
Can't get away.

J. said...

Btw, good post, Dave.

J. said...

Flock of Shias! Dang, wish I had thought of that. Well done, sir.

(Word verification is "tersi." Is that anything like Farsi? Maybe a dialect spoken in Tehran... Tehran so far awa-a-ay...)

jjv said...

Well, it seems Dave gets his objectivity on this matter from the same place ABC gets it. In the last two days Obama has stepped up in response to the killings and the bi-partisan Congressional resolution. Prior to that it was "Chicken Kiev" all over again.

The idea that the losing side is as bad for the U.S. as the group in power is belied by the signs in English the protestors use. They want our help, the guys in charge don't.

Also, a Machievellian point, exploiting weakness in your adversaries, whatever their opposition, is the role of a great power.

If we aid in toppling the current government, even it we are not the main agent, which we are not, we will regain power lost by Obama's near rejection of the Iraq success.

Dictators ride the tiger. We need not believe tigers are vegetarian in order to aid them in getting the dictators off their backs and on the menu.

Dave S. said...

Five paragraphs from JJV:

1) I had to read that a couple of times before the shocking truth hit me: a compliment for Obama!

2) Yes, signs in English surely must be directed only at the US and indicate a pro-US mentality. I mean, really, who else in the world speaks or understands our lingo? I agree that they want "our" (broadly defined) help, but only insofar as to deal with the electoral fraud at hand.

3) I agree with this generally, but we have such a crappy record of following ol' Niccolo's advice in Iran (from the point of view of its inhabitants in particular) that we will need to be very careful about whether and how we do this.

4) I am nowhere near convinced that the opposition represents such a clean break from the "current government." Points deducted for foolish Manicheanism -- oops, repeated myself there. I am also very interested to see a post-length explication of "Obama's near rejection of the Iraq success." No, really: What the hell does that even mean?!

5) Repeat the last sentence from #4 above.

Dave S. said...

Hey JJV, quick followup question for you. I just saw a picture of riot police in Tehran and their shields say POLICE. Should we be supporting them too since it is clear from their use of English that they are US-style law and order types? I mean, who else would they be directing that at?