Monk

In the 1970s, disgruntled young Iranians rebelled against a corrupt secular regime by embracing an ascetic form of Islam. Now they’re rebelling against a corrupt religious regime by embracing personal freedom — in some cases, even sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll.

-- Nicholas D. Kristof at The New York Times

Kristof writes about how the Iranian youth are becoming increasingly freer despite their repressive government. His argument is that if we can refrain from invading Iran, we will surely see the tide turn as the more liberal young rise to prominence. Conversely, if we invade Iran, we will likely only strengthen the regime as well as set back liberalization in that country.

On the other hand, we have a fanatic regime that will soon have nuclear bombs. It is a tough position.

The Americans and Israelis have been up in arms for years about Iran attaining nuclear-weapon capability. Leading Republian candidate Mitt Romney has taken up the issue to beat up on Obama, saying that under Obama, Iran will definitely have the nuclear bomb, they will not under President Romney. The punditry scoff at that, saying Romney has to be merely playing the political game of appearances and posturing, because the only thing that can stop Iran is outright military invasion. Though, it is noted that even if the Americans are not up to that, having invaded more than its share of Muslim countries lately, and not really demonstrating that Americans have won a lot of control over the countries for all the costs and deaths, the Israelis are good to go.

This has generated some interesting discussion, and I want to get a couple of comments. Some commentators are even wondering if the problem rests with our obsession over the issue, that our own thinking may be irrational and worthy of mockery. Hence, Matt Steinglass:

It seems to me that the American and Israeli obsession with Iran's nuclear weapons programme proceeds from a misguided messianic-apocalyptic streak in both countries' political cultures. There's a temptation to imagine the world of foreign policy as a broad extension of a Robert Ludlum novel: a desperate time-constrained race to stop evil madmen from committing atrocities. This vision is morally clarifying and inspiring. But it has little to do with reality, and it distracts the public from the actual challenges of foreign policy, which are usually messy and often involve actual sacrifices in order to achieve publicly valuable goals.

I can appreciate the shot at America. Who can deny that there exists this apocalyptic streak? I find it a little thrilling myself. The problem, though, is that Iran is not exactly an example of uncorrupted rationality that has gone past superstitious fancies. Iran's own messianic-apocalyptic streak is worthy of worry, certainly.

Others note that Israel may have more solid reasons to be concerned about a nuclear Iran, which may threaten its own regional hegemoncy. Michael Cohen states the case:

Israel can act practically in an unfettered manner across the region. It can bomb nuclear power plants in Iraq and Syria; it can invade its neighbors (most recently Lebanon); and it can maintain the occupation of several million Palestinians. Israel can do all these things, in part, because of a vast military superiority that includes nuclear weapons. If Iran suddenly were to have a nuclear bomb, it would not only shift the balance of military power in the region, it would limit Israel’s military flexibility and its own perception as a regional hegemon. No longer could Israel operate with virtual impunity.

Commentators counter this concern, too, saying that it again overstates the practical power that nuclear weapons give to countries, saying that the only real thing that nuclear weapons grant one is effective immunity from being invaded, which, it is also noted, is something that Iran would very much love to have, with so many American and Israeli swords hanging over its head.

As far as 'crazy' leaders are concerned, it is noted that none is crazier than the North Korean leader, and that he has not been able to use his nuclear weapons to take over South Korea.

The new tone seems to be: why worry? We have never been able to control the nuclear genie since it first came out of the bottle at Los Alamos. We obviously should be used to learning to love the bomb.

But I don't know. Iran worries me more. Whatever may be Kim Jong-Il's shortcomings and eccentricities, I do not think he is burdened by apocalypic visions. I can imagine Iran pushing the boundaries of the threat and use of nuclear weapons into macabre regions of possibilities heretofore unknown. The Middle East promises to get a lot more interesting.


============

Sources:

Michael Steinglass, "The Atrocity-Addicted Imagination" at The Econoomist

Daniel Larison, "Iran and Nuclear Weapons" at The American Conservative

Lest you think that End Days eschatology is limited to the likes of Harold Camping and other Christian fundamentalists...

( Read more... )

"Western countries have designed plans to cause drought in certain areas of the world, including Iran," Mr Ahmadinejad said in the city of Arak in Markazi province.

"According to reports on climate, whose accuracy has been verified, European countries are using special equipment to force clouds to dump" their water on their continent, he said.

By doing so, "they prevent rain clouds from reaching regional countries, including Iran," Mr Ahmadinejad charged.

-- News/LJ

OMG, by why are they hitting Texas, too?!

I feel his pain. Though, I still wish Ahmadinejad would get off the world stage, in spite of his delightful comic touches.

What has happened to this religious system that it orders the killing of innocent people during the holy day of Ashura?

...

The sins that you have committed today cannot be forgiven by God. If you don’t have a belief in God, at least be a human.

-- Mehdi Karoubi

The streets of Iran are in turmoil again, as the dissension over the disputed re-election of Ahmadinejad last June reaches another critical point. The deaths include the killing of the nephew of Mousavi, the leader of the protest movement and the man held to be the rightful winner of that June election.

The Obama Administration, after being criticized for being too soft on the Iranian regime during the initial protests last summer, now seems to be taking a stronger line on behalf of the protesters:

We strongly condemn the violent and unjust suppression of civilians in Iran seeking to exercise their universal rights. Hope and history are on the side of those who peacefully seek their universal rights, and so is the United States.

Even so, one supposes that necessity dictates that this cannot mean much more than moral support, but that is more than what has been given before, as President Obama did not want to offend the government with whom they would have to be dealing. The odds would still seem to favor Ahmadinejad and the regime, as they presumably will only exercise harsher levels of repression to keep power, but this is a stunning uprising that keeps going on and has only gotten stronger and more determined. History may be in the making.





I only learned about this when I checked in at Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish today, and it's a great source for the breaking news of these demonstrations, and I got some of the Karoubi quote from Reuters.

It looks like the regime will be staying in power, but it would seem the government has to be left that much more hollow, rendered naked, but brutal despotism is so common to the region. It was starting to look like a renaissance spring might start thawing out those governments. We recently saw some good news in the Lebanese elections, for instance, turning away from Hezbollah. But it looks like that cultural winter will be lingering for a while. Yet the ice is cracking.

Iran’s ruling mullahs were always ruthless. But they disguised it a bit with faux elections. I say faux elections because while the regime may have counted the votes accurately, it tightly controlled who could run. The choices were dark black and light black.

What happened this time is that the anger at the regime had reached such a level — because of near-20 percent unemployment and a rising youth population tired of seeing their life’s options limited by theocrats — that given a choice between a dark black regime candidate and a light black regime candidate, millions of Iranians turned out for light black: Mr. Moussavi. The Iranian people turned the regime man into their own candidate, and he seems to have been transformed by them. That is why the regime panicked and stole the election.

-- Thomas L. Friedman for The New York Times

Protests in Iran continue unabated after a week, rocking the streets and shaking up the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad regime. The regime has been slow in escalating the violence, doubtless hoping that the protests would peter out, and although they loosened the leash on the police making today the bloodiest, they have yet to come down with a full Tiananmen-style crackdown. The regime seems determined to have its way, but having waited this long to use full force, allowing the protest to spread and become more determined itself, one wonders if their rule may be genuinely imperiled.

( Roger Cohen column )

One employee of the Interior Ministry, which carried out the vote count, said the government had been preparing its fraud for weeks, purging anyone of doubtful loyalty and importing pliable staff members from around the country.

“They didn’t rig the vote,” claimed the man, who showed his ministry identification card but pleaded not to be named. “They didn’t even look at the vote. They just wrote the name and put the number in front of it.”

-- Bill Keller for The New York Times


To read Andrew Sullivan's blog is to get the impression that this apparent heist of the election for Ahmadinejad may be the prelude to a revolution. Either that or violent repression anyway.

♠
Now we have to depend on — Oh, my God! — President Bush to persuade the world to read the whole N.I.E. and see it in a balanced perspective. As I’ve also said before: Some things are true even if George Bush believes them, but good luck getting anyone to buy that anymore.

-- Thomas L. Friedman for The New York Times

Friedman does a nice job explaining why the popular NIE statement clearing Iran may be a good kick in the seat of Dubya's pants, but Iran is still a dangerous government and the nuclear threat is real, and is only made worse because of this misleading NIE news.

( Friedman )

xXx