Protests in Iran

[wink]

Right again. I think you're giving this "reform movement" much more credit than it's due. This has just about zero chance of turning into any kind of significant change in the government there. You're acting like they're on the cusp of some kind of mass revolution where our "moral support" might just be the little bit of encouragement they need to overcome the regime. In two months, no one will remember this. I hope I'm wrong - I really do, but my healthy cynicism hasn't failed me yet.

Brett

The reality is we just don't know what will happen. It is very possible that they are more likely to fail without recognition from the west, especially the U.S. You are guessing there will be no worthwhile changes. Fact is, even if put down there would be one worthwhile change. Iranians will be left with the bitter memory of the violence and abuse while remembering how empowered it felt to freely voice opposition to the totalitarian state. The you tube videos will still circulate. I don't know what you base the "zero chance of change" on. If the protesters are put down but reformers are emboldened and get organized and turn out into the streets 15 months from now, will you say that these protests failed? It is a continuum. Think long term. Reform has to start somewhere, sometime.

I'm coming from what I would call a pragmatic or realist standpoint; whichever side is on top at the end will have to be dealt with diplomatically and isolating the hard-liners will only make the diplomacy harder and further isolate us from them.

I agree, we must deal with whoever remains in power. I certainly don't see how dealing with the mullahs can get any worse, for any reason. But, reformers are far more likely to talk and cooperate. Again, I just don't see the down side. The protests are put down and we have to deal with the mullahs and current president. Big deal, been there. They can't be more pissed at us or more inclined to build nukes then they are now. What, you think they will abort their nuke program out of appreciation for us not throwing support to protesters?

And I shouldn't have given you the open-ended brush off; my point on regime change is that is nice to hope for, but should not be an overt aim of the US. I'm all for working the back channels and trying to get rid of the current leadership there, but if anyone in our administration said the words regime change they would be making a huge mistake.

Thanks for the elucidation. For my part I need to make clear when I mentioned regime change I was referring to, literally, a change of government. I wasn't referring to a policy. Although I truly believe Mr. Obama should have shown more support for the protests I agree that using the phrase regime change by any U.S. official these past several days would not have been helpful, or necessary.

You also make it seem like the only choices are "you don't support Iran's regime=you must support strong words" and conversely "you don't support strong words=you must support Iran's regime". There are plenty of choices beyond those.

Short of covert action and back channel comms, which I doubt, I can't think of any other options or net results.

I am glad the pragmatists are in charge vice idealists. But that is just me.

Oh really? How illiberal of you. It was the pragmatists that decided the Shah was better for American interests despite his secret police. It was the realists that supported all variety of dictators in central and South America during the proxy wars between the U.S. and Soviets. Pragmatists have us supporting the Saudis and paying huge amounts of foreign aid to Egypt. Those very pragmatic foreign policy decisions by Democrats and Republicans are denounced by liberals and the left. But on this, the left wants to be pragmatic?

 

[eddie]

Oh really? How illiberal of you. It was the pragmatists that decided the Shah was better for American interests despite his secret police. It was the realists that supported all variety of dictators in central and South America during the proxy wars between the U.S. and Soviets. Pragmatists have us supporting the Saudis and paying huge amounts of foreign aid to Egypt. Those very pragmatic foreign policy decisions by Democrats and Republicans are denounced by liberals and the left. But on this, the left wants to be pragmatic?

Pragmatic? Convenient surely, and hindsight is 20/20, but every one of those actions has both a long and short term consequence set. Whether they were worth it / even necessary at all it in their immediacies still remains to be seen in light of continuing long-term headaches, no?

 

[wink]

Pragmatic? Convenient surely, and hindsight is 20/20, but every one of those actions has both a long and short term consequence set. Whether they were worth it / even necessary at all it in their immediacies still remains to be seen in light of continuing long-term headaches, no?

I disagree. We won the Cold War. Those decisions, individually to some degree or an other, and in the aggregate for sure, led to the victory. There are no lingering results of our actions taken in those days that compares to the threat of the Soviet Union or expanding communist slave states.

 

[Flash]

The reality is we just don't know what will happen.....You are guessing there will be no worthwhile changes. If the protesters are put down but reformers are emboldened and get organized and turn out into the streets 15 months from now, will you say that these protests failed?......But, reformers are far more likely to talk and cooperate. Again, I just don't see the down side. The protests are put down and we have to deal with the mullahs and current president. Big deal, been there......

You are dividing the Iranian political spectrum into only two parts when in fact it consists of mainly three parts right now. You have the conservatives, who are the ones in power right now, but the opposition does not consist of just the reformers but also moderates/pragmatists. For the last few years the reformers, who generally want a more open and democratic government, have not worked well with the pragmatists, who want some change but to keep the current system basically intact (this includes some conservatives). This split was evident in the last presidential election in 2005 when the two 'opposition' groups split their votes in the first round, clearing the way for Ahmedinejad to go to the second round. Surprisingly it appears that Mousavi gained the support of both the pragmatists, of which he is basiacally one, and the reformers. That is who ended up in the streets, members of both groups covering a large part of the Iranian political spectrum.

The reason this is all important is that it affects the way we have reacted. Many of the people in the street don't want a secular democracy that would open and free. Some of them want a government that would look a lot like the one they have today, without the hardliners who are calling the shots. Would it be better government to work with on a wide range of issues? Sure, but it is not Poland or Czech Republic the sequel. There are a lot of internal divisions and politics that make the Iranian situation much more complex than anything we faced in Eastern Europe. Stepping into the breach, even rhetorically, could damage whatever options we might have in the future however the situation pans out.

It was the pragmatists that decided the Shah was better for American interests despite his secret police. It was the realists that supported all variety of dictators in central and South America during the proxy wars between the U.S. and Soviets. Pragmatists have us supporting the Saudis and paying huge amounts of foreign aid to Egypt. Those very pragmatic foreign policy decisions by Democrats and Republicans are denounced by liberals and the left. But on this, the left wants to be pragmatic?

Before I saw this thread take a turn I was going to mention that I think this is less a political disagreement between parties than one between two different foreign policy philosphies, irrespective of political party. I think it is pretty obvious that the President and his administration have adopted the realist/pragmatic approach vs the idealist one. No surprise when you see his picks for National Security Advisor and SecState and his solicitation of advice from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, two elder statesmen from the 'realist' camp.

While pragmatism/realist foreign policy has had it's failures the 'idealist' camp has had plenty of it's own. The most spectacular of which would be Iraq, which garnered little support from prominent 'pragmatists'. Our support of the Iraqi National Congress turned out to be an utter and complete disaster. Encouraging the Egyptian 'opposition' in the last presidential election ended with the main opposition leader ending up in jail for 3 years, with only meek protests from us. And our encouragment of open and free elections in Palestine ended with Hamas winning most of the votes, fair and square.

While idealism certainly has it's place in our foreign policy I think pragmatism is the way to go with this latest crisis. Why? It is a messy situation that we can do little to help with and any interference, percieved or otherwise, would liekly backfire on us and possibly the people we most want to suceed in Iran in the end. Best to go with that than tilting at windmills.

 

[wink]

You are dividing the Iranian political spectrum into only two parts when in fact it consists of mainly three parts right now. You have the conservatives, who are the ones in power right now, but the opposition does not consist of just the reformers but also moderates/pragmatists. For the last few years the reformers, who generally want a more open and democratic government, have not worked well with the pragmatists, who want some change but to keep the current system basically intact (this includes some conservatives). This split was evident in the last presidential election in 2005 when the two 'opposition' groups split their votes in the first round, clearing the way for Ahmedinejad to go to the second round. Surprisingly it appears that Mousavi gained the support of both the pragmatists, of which he is basiacally one, and the reformers. That is who ended up in the streets, members of both groups covering a large part of the Iranian political spectrum.

The reason this is all important is that it affects the way we have reacted. Many of the people in the street don't want a secular democracy that would open and free. Some of them want a government that would look a lot like the one they have today, without the hardliners who are calling the shots. Would it be better government to work with on a wide range of issues? Sure, but it is not Poland or Czech Republic the sequel. There are a lot of internal divisions and politics that make the Iranian situation much more complex than anything we faced in Eastern Europe. Stepping into the breach, even rhetorically, could damage whatever options we might have in the future however the situation pans out.

You have said it yourself. There are two teams at play here. There are the allied reform minded people in the street with cell phone cameras and the hardliners with the guns and clubs. So the reform minded folks are not completely aligned, I knew that. So what. One group might want very modest reform and the other major democratic reform. Any movement away from the currant regime is progress. I don't expect Poland, or even Russia by the end of the year. But I don't think it is unreasonable to work for movement AWAY from what we have now.

Before I saw this thread take a turn I was going to mention that I think this is less a political disagreement between parties than one between two different foreign policy philosophies, irrespective of political party. I think it is pretty obvious that the President and his administration have adopted the realist/pragmatic approach vs the idealist one. No surprise when you see his picks for National Security Advisor and SecState and his solicitation of advice from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, two elder statesmen from the 'realist' camp.

While pragmatism/realist foreign policy has had it's failures the 'idealist' camp has had plenty of it's own. The most spectacular of which would be Iraq, which garnered little support from prominent 'pragmatists'. Our support of the Iraqi National Congress turned out to be an utter and complete disaster. Encouraging the Egyptian 'opposition' in the last presidential election ended with the main opposition leader ending up in jail for 3 years, with only meek protests from us. And our encouragment of open and free elections in Palestine ended with Hamas winning most of the votes, fair and square.

We mostly agree here, except you called Iraq a failure and it is clearly too soon to tell. You admitted that yourself some months ago. So you say there are some realist camp failures and some idealist camp failures Well, duh. The landscape changes over time and by location. For the most part I am a mean 'ol heartless pragmatic concervative that cares more about U.S. lives and interests then foreign interests. In light of the times I supported or would have supported most of the interventionist and covert things we have done over the years. But as you liberal guys like to point out whenever you can't make a logical argument in your favor, it isn't that simple.Every crisis, every time, every country requires it's own approach. In these post Cold War days we can afford to be more idealistic. We can afford to focus more long term.

While idealism certainly has it's place in our foreign policy I think pragmatism is the way to go with this latest crisis. Why? It is a messy situation that we can do little to help with and any interference, percieved or otherwise, would liekly backfire on us and possibly the people we most want to suceed in Iran in the end. Best to go with that than tilting at windmills.

Oops there you go. If it isn't that simple, then it is "a messy situation". No one yet has told me just what bad things we can expect to happen if we support reform. How bad can it get? You say too much overt support for reformers may backfire. Just how will that be manifest? How will it be bad for the U.S. Instead of getting a concussion from the baton blows the police arrest them and they disappear? Either way the bell has been rung. It can not be unrung. Reform minded people are marked. At best they will be marginalized if the hardliners win and consolidate. At worst, they disappear. There is no point in keeping your rhetorical powder dry to support the silent or moderate reformers in or outside the clergy after these protests. They will have lost their influence. Only the people in the streets will be able to carry on whether tomorrow or next year, or two years from now. Oh, and that would be better. Let's wait for the next Iranian revolution ( and it will come) until after Iran has nukes. Good one! That is the pragmatic approach.

 

[wlawr005]

hmm...I'm gonna go on a limb here (bunk22 knows that I don't have wings of gold yet). I dont' always agree with Obama, but what exactly should he do in this situation? Are we gonna strike down Iran with our superior military might? Are we gonna send the UN in there to control the situation? I think that PRESIDENT Obama has done the correct thing by keeping his mouth shut. Nothing is going to change in Iran no matter who is in power. The smartest thing for Obama to do is exactly what he did...STFU and wait to see what happens. The last time that we interfered with Iran, we ended up with Khomeni. That is the last thing we need now. If there is truly a REVOLUTION on the brink, let us sit back and WATCH it unfold as opposed to trying to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

 

[Flash]

You have said it yourself. There are two teams at play here. There are the allied reform minded people in the street with cell phone cameras and the hardliners with the guns and clubs. So the reform minded folks are not completely aligned, I knew that. So what. One group might want very modest reform and the other major democratic reform.

You are only seeing two groups in the news, there are other forces at play behind the scene that may or may not support what is going on in the street. You are drastically oversimplifying the situation, somehting that seems to be catching.

We mostly agree here, except you called Iraq a failure and it is clearly too soon to tell. You admitted that yourself some months ago.

Only after a pretty hardcore 'realist' became SecDef did we start to see sucess in Iraq, while not the only factor it was a very big one in our very recent sucess. Instead of trying to mold a democratic system from the ground up we made deals with former 'terrorists' who were part of the tribal system and turned the situation around, something that the 'idealists' in the previous administration never seemed to consider. The intial 'idealistic' occupation and all it's glaring failures; disbanding the army, de-Baathification, incompetent American assistance and reliance on the INC, was a complete and utter failure.

So you say there are some realist camp failures and some idealist camp failures Well, duh. The landscape changes over time and by location. For the most part I am a mean 'ol heartless pragmatic concervative that cares more about U.S. lives and interests then foreign interests. In light of the times I supported or would have supported most of the interventionist and covert things we have done over the years. But as you liberal guys like to point out whenever you can't make a logical argument in your favor, it isn't that simple.Every crisis, every time, every country requires it's own approach. In these post Cold World days we can afford to be more idealistic. We can afford to focus more long term.

I think nowadays when we face a much more 'multi-polar' world and even more varying degrees of friend and enemy I beleive that we have to be more pragmatic than ever. We are no longer facing the monolith of communism on the horizon, just various other -isms whose common thread appears to be anti-Americanism. Sometimes we can be idealistic but when the situation is murky and we gain little by being bellicose, why bother? It does little but diminish our credibility, a long term concern itself.

And quit trying to peg me as a liberal, I am not.

Oops there you go. If it isn't that simple, then it is "a messy situation". No one yet has told me just what bad things we can expect to happen if we support reform. How bad can it get? You say too much overt support for reformers may backfire. Just how will that be manifest?

A lot of it has to do with legitimacy. Supporting the current people in the street could lessen their legitimacy in the eyes of many Iranians. While they may be domestic 'reformers' in Iranian eyes that does not mean they are freinds of the US, or even reformers in the real sense. While many people here are fond of pointing out that Iranians like Americans, that does not mean they like our government and it's policies. Coming down really hard on the side of people who may or may not want or need our support and who may or may not be really democratic minded, is a can of worms that we may not want to open. Especially when we have little first-hand info on what the heck the situation is. At least we had people in most Communist coutnires, nto so in Iran. Many Iranians, of all stripes, still bristle at the foreign interference that they endured in the past. We need not feed the flames at a delicate time.

Let's wait for the next Iranian revolution ( and it will come) until after Iran has nukes. Good one! That is the pragmatic approach.

You are assuming the reformers/pragmatists in Iran don't want nukes, a largely incorrect assumption. They said as much in their campaigns.

 

[wink]

hmm...I'm gonna go on a limb here (bunk22 knows that I don't have wings of gold yet). I dont' always agree with Obama, but what exactly should he do in this situation? Are we gonna strike down Iran with our superior military might? Are we gonna send the UN in there to control the situation? I think that PRESIDENT Obama has done the correct thing by keeping his mouth shut. Nothing is going to change in Iran no matter who is in power. The smartest thing for Obama to do is exactly what he did...STFU and wait to see what happens. The last time that we interfered with Iran, we ended up with Khomeni. That is the last thing we need now. If there is truly a REVOLUTION on the brink, let us sit back and WATCH it unfold as opposed to trying to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Thanks for the opinion. But you should consider the thickness of the limb you climb out on next time you post. We are way beyond this point. Did you read all the relavent posts? None of use want or expect military action, we agree that would be a mistake. The UN would not go, we would not ask them and Iran would not allow it. Besides, the UN is worthless. Although you think the President has done the right thing, you incorrectly think he has been silent. Moreover, I don't get the feeling that even my protagonists in the thread would want the President to say nothing. In fact, the President has made statements. Early on very very week. More firm lately. The debate is over the worthiness of more forceful statements in support of the protests, whether the protest will advance reform and just how bad the down side is for supporting the reformers if they fail. Consider all this and crawl back out onto your limb.

 

[Random8145]

I would not call Iraq a failure, regardless of whether or not the initial strategies tried in Iraq were successful or not. Time will tell with Iraq.

 

[wink]

You are only seeing two groups in the news, there are other forces at play behind the scene that may or may not support what is going on in the street. You are drastically oversimplifying the situation, somehting that seems to be catching.

Life is complicated. All foreign policy is complicated. I was always taught that when faced with a complicated problem to simplify it down to manageable parts or to the essence of the issue. Most complications are distractions, often times thrown out on purpose to obfuscate. Just because something is complicated doesn't mean there isn't a simple solution. Some people have a vested interest in keeping things complicated. Complicated problems require analysis and special complex solutions only highly educated elites are trained to address. It is costly and very time consuming. Mere mortals need not apply.

I think nowadays when we face a much more 'multi-polar' world and even more varying degrees of friend and enemy I beleive that we have to be more pragmatic than ever. We are no longer facing the monolith of communism on the horizon, just various other -isms whose common thread appears to be anti-Americanism. Sometimes we can be idealistic but when the situation is murky and we gain little by being bellicose, why bother? It does little but diminish our credibility, a long term concern itself.

O.K. "sometimes we can be idealistic", I'll take that. I happen to believe that sometimes pragmatism is the way to go. I don't know what having various -ism to deal with vis just the Soviets has to do with being more or less idealistic. Your ideals don't change. How and when you apply the idealistic approach simply has to do with the relative downside of taking the idealistic approach. No one threatens us like the Soviets did. That is why i said we can afford to be more idealistic.

And quit trying to peg me as a liberal, I am not.

Ah, sure, just as long as you promise to refer to me as a knuckle dragging, gun pack'n, ill-educated Conservative.

A lot of it has to do with legitimacy. Supporting the current people in the street could lessen their legitimacy in the eyes of many Iranians. While they may be domestic 'reformers' in Iranian eyes that does not mean they are freinds of the US, or even reformers in the real sense. While many people here are fond of pointing out that Iranians like Americans, that does not mean they like our government and it's policies. Coming down really hard on the side of people who may or may not want or need our support and who may or may not be really democratic minded, is a can of worms that we may not want to open. Especially when we have little first-hand info on what the heck the situation is. At least we had people in most Communist coutnires, nto so in Iran. Many Iranians, of all stripes, still bristle at the foreign interference that they endured in the past. We need not feed the flames at a delicate time.

That is it! That is the fearsome down side to supporting reform in one of the most repressive countries in the world. I am not buying half of that. If I bought it all it would not be risk enough to do the right thing.

You are assuming the reformers/pragmatists in Iran don't want nukes, a largely incorrect assumption. They said as much in their campaigns.

You disappoint me. The guys you watched in the Presidential campaign were hand picked by the mullahs. What do you expect them to say? I do know that even a fair percentage of ordinary Iranians
are for a nuke program. That is based on national pride and government propaganda they have heard for years that they are threatened by Israel and the west, requiring nukes for preservation. In the short term even moderate reformers that may sustain the nuke program would likely not be as threatening as the current government. In time, with freer media and more liberal education the man on the street will realize nukes are not required of Iran for national pride or survival.

Now, will someone please accept my challenge to illustrate the major disaster that awaits the U.S. if the President utters a few strong paragraphs of solidarity with Iranians being beaten and killed for expressing a political opinion?

 

[Spekkio]

Now, will someone please accept my challenge to illustrate the major disaster that awaits the U.S. if the President utters a few strong paragraphs of solidarity with Iranians being beaten and killed for expressing a political opinion?

It opens up the possibility for the Iranian leadership to effectively call the US pussies who won't back up their words. Since we won't, it'll just turn into a pissing contest that'll just conjure up more spirit among Muslim radicals.

Not a "disaster" per se, but it surely isn't going to do us any good.

Edit: Do you really want us to be running away from this guy?

 

[Flash]

Life is complicated. All foreign policy is complicated. I was always taught that when faced with a complicated problem to simplify it down to manageable parts or to the essence of the issue. Most complications are distractions, often times thrown out on purpose to obfuscate. Just because something is complicated doesn't mean there isn't a simple solution. Some people have a vested interest in keeping things complicated. Complicated problems require analysis and special complex solutions only highly educated elites are trained to address. It is costly and very time consuming. Mere mortals need not apply.

Sounds a lot like some of the short-sighted idealism and oversimplification of myriad issues and problems that the last administrationd did. A lot of that worked out really well........ It is less a province of the 'elite' than more out of reach for the lazy and incompetent (not you, just in case you were wondering.......).

You disappoint me. The guys you watched in the Presidential campaign were hand picked by the mullahs. What do you expect them to say?

All of the candidates were not picked by the mullahs, certainly not Mousavi.

I do know that even a fair percentage of ordinary Iranians are for a nuke program. That is based on national pride and government propaganda they have heard for years that they are threatened by Israel and the west, requiring nukes for preservation. In the short term even moderate reformers that may sustain the nuke program would likely not be as threatening as the current government. In time, with freer media and more liberal education the man on the street will realize nukes are not required of Iran for national pride or survival.

You are making too many far-reaching assumptions, especially on something as intangible as 'national pride'. France had a free press and plenty of liberal education yet they still chose to get their own nukes, almost all because of national pride. Why assume the Iranians will be different?

That is it! That is the fearsome down side to supporting reform in one of the most repressive countries in the world. I am not buying half of that. If I bought it all it would not be risk enough to do the right thing.

Now, will someone please accept my challenge to illustrate the major disaster that awaits the U.S. if the President utters a few strong paragraphs of solidarity with Iranians being beaten and killed for expressing a political opinion?

We can make a bad situation worse and limit our already small set of options with a state that openly supports some of the worlds worst terrorist groups. That good enough for you or do I need to make it bigger and bold it?

 

[wlawr005]

Thanks for the opinion. But you should consider the thickness of the limb you climb out on next time you post. We are way beyond this point. Did you read all the relavent posts? None of use want or expect military action, we agree that would be a mistake. The UN would not go, we would not ask them and Iran would not allow it. Besides, the UN is worthless. Although you think the President has done the right thing, you incorrectly think he has been silent. Moreover, I don't get the feeling that even my protagonists in the thread would want the President to say nothing. In fact, the President has made statements. Early on very very week. More firm lately. The debate is over the worthiness of more forceful statements in support of the protests, whether the protest will advance reform and just how bad the down side is for supporting the reformers if they fail. Consider all this and crawl back out onto your limb.

While I do agree that my limb is very narrow, nothing you have said makes a difference. Nothing on this website makes a difference. I love the AIRWARRIOR experts who are neither JCS or CinC's and try to smother the less educated with fancy words backed up by rhetoric. NOTHING THE PRESIDENT SAYS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Did you miss that part of my post? America needs to stay out of it until we are committed to ending it. Armchair quarterbacks are worthless. Save your arguments for shit you can actually change.

 

[wink]

Enough of this frivolous debate. Serious events must be tended to. Michael Jackson has died. There should be no further coverage of the protests in Iran until the Jackson death has been fully investigated and reported. There will be no over simplification or rush in the reporting or investigation of the Jackson death. These things are complicated. We have to consider his family medical history, DNA code, prescribed medications, his environment, EMT response, ER doctors actions and protocol and so many more complications. Please, lets get to the bottom of this. And don't even think about encouraging the Jackson fans in the street. They are obviously not prepared for the long and complicated response to this tragedy.

 

[picklesuit]

That might be one of the best posts this year Wink...