ARTICLE: Velvet Revolution in Iran?, by Martin Beck Matuštík, Logos JournalGood piece. Worth reading.
We only get downside coverage of Iran, much like with the old USSR, which was why its collapse was so surprising.
I like the piece's comparison to late Soviet history. There is the showy totalitarianism of Stalin and then there was the tired authoritarianism of Brezhnev. Iran is clearly on the backside of that trajectory, but we play it like it's on the upside, despite all of the regime's sad failures at both home and abroad.
Thanks to Lexington Green for sending this in.
| Permalink |
Comments (3)
I keep hoping that the new meme that Syria and Iran are needed-partners in securing some aspect of "security" in Iraq is actually a clever plot to suck Iran into a wider-sphere of cooperation with the West that in the end will counter-balance the 'Mad Mullahs'. The Iranian people, as compared to their "government", is well-disposed towards the West and the United States. Given another generation, the middle-classes of Iraq and Iran could be firm social-allies of the West...if not full-members. Even if just in the model of the informal Franco-German 'Rhenish alliance' viz-a-viz the Angolospheric special relationship of the US to Britain and Australia.
Posted by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | November 28, 2006 3:43 PM
I keep thinking that the one thing we need with Iran is patience, and it is the one thing no one seems to have. I keep thinking that Adjmezhenihadabad or whatever his name is should be taken as more of a Mussolini than a Hitler, though he lacks the sartorial flair of either. He is a small time player making big threats. Even if he "gets the bomb" he is still deterrable. If he really wants to have his whole country commit suicide, we can oblige him. But Mao didn't pull the trigger, and he really was nuts. This guy, if he tried it, he'd probably be shot by his own people before he could put the red phone down. In the meantime, the people of Iran hate their government, but in a resigned sort of way, not an angry mob kind of way. They very sanely do not want American "help" along the lines of massive rocket and aerial bombardment of the towns and cities where they and their children live. So, we should respect that and not start killing lots of Iranians and destroying their economy as a "gift of freedom" or some such mislabelling.
Iran is a very ancient country. This current regime is 27 years old. It is unpopular. It is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Give its people time to dismantle the regime on their own.
In the meantime, we should drop all restrictions on travel to Iran, give Americans a thousand thousand dollar tax credit for every week they spend in Iran on vacation, and we should have duffel bags full of iPods, laptops, catalogs, books, DVDs and whatever else is tough to get in Iran, and swamp the place with consumer goods as gifts from the American people.
Embrace the Iranian people. Make no promises to the regime, tell the regime that if it uses a nuke it dies, and say it on TV so there is no ambiguity. And mean it. Let them choke that down. Having a nuke is being in the big boys' club. Then let the soft kill do its work.
Posted by Lexington Green | November 28, 2006 9:10 PM
I think you're right, Lexington.
Dressing this all up with the Twelvers shtick is no more valid than interpreting Bush as a nutty Christian.
By forcing Iran to choose between nukes and perceived national humiliation (at a time when their fortunes rise throughout the region thanks to our mistakes) is a no go.
Instead, we need to access our number one ally in this standoff: the Iranian people.
Posted by Tom Barnett | November 29, 2006 9:10 PM