Our good friend Jeromy Brown makes the case for naïveté in foreign policy:
A hero who will be remembered.
A man stands up and speaks with real authority to the fake authorities in Iran. Yet they have reacted interestingly. Mahmoud Vahidnia was, of course, immediately arrested, but now Khameini is projecting a humane image by sparing him further punishment.
“Vahidnia showed a new atmosphere which is the true characteristic of the Iranian people,” Ataollah Mohajerani, a former pro-reform Cabinet minister, wrote on his Web site. “If from now on in gatherings in the presence of the supreme leader one finds the courage to get up and speak in defense of justice and right, the climate of tyranny will suffocate.”
Speaking to The Associated Press, Mohajerani dismissed the idea that Vahidnia could have been planted by authorities, but said the state was using the incident to try to paint itself in a better light.
“Khamenei wants to show that the leader is totally prepared to face criticism,” Mohajerani said in a telephone interview from London.
Does he? Well, I’m certainly prepared to let him keep making that case. Nobody could imagine it will be easy for others, but there they are, out there in the streets again, crying out, standing up for themselves.
Pursuing this angle is so much more interesting and promising than drawing up plans to bomb Iran, don’t you think? Can we really attack a country when its people are trying to reject the leadership naturally? Does Israel really think a military strike can do more damage to the Iranian leadership than Mahmoud did?
Israel isn’t interested in “do(ing) more damage to the Iranian leadership;” Israel is interested in keeping atomic weapons out of the hands of Islamic fanatics, and Israel is interested in her own survival. Saying that it is more “interesting” to pursue the angle of, what, helping the Iranian people themselves weaken the grip of the mullahs, than drawing up plans for a military attack on Iran assumes that we can’t do both, and that we shouldn’t prepare for the day when we might need to use such plans.
Yeah, it would be great if we could help the Iranian people unseat the existing government and replace it with a peaceful democracy, one which didn’t fund terrorist groups in Lebanon, one which didn’t care if Israel continued to exist, and one which was interested only in selling its oil at reasonable prices. But that we might encourage such developments does not mean we shouldn’t consider stronger alternatives, should the need to use them arise.
Why is it that whenever Americans talk about “helping people” these days, onlookers immediately think of bombs, Marines, and many many corpses?
The term “naivette” is too easily bandied about by people who told us we’d be greeted as liberators in Iraq, and in 40 years haven’t figured out that occupations are self-perpetuating.
What will bombs do? Eradicate all nukes should Iran develop them? Unlikely. Should Iran develop nukes, they are going to scatter and hide them. The perpetual flaw in neocon thinking is assuming infallibity and omnipotence. You will miss, and likely leave them with the ability to retaliate, for which one would be hard-pressed to explain why they shouldn’t.
You see, Dana, there are people over there in Iran who think just like you. Would you shrug off America getting bombed? Of course not. Yet you persistently expect people in other countries to act like something other than human beings.
You would expect to politely inform Iranians that any bombing of their country was their own fault. What you’ll get is a war on your hands that will make Iraq and Afghanistan combined look fun, while also intensifying both of those conflicts.
You guys love telling each other you’re not the naive ones, but it’s pure smoke you blow up each other’s asses. You can keep encouraging Ahmedinejad with posts like this, while I’ll keep supporting the Vahidnias out there. People like him are where the real solution to Iran lies.
Well, unless the Good Guys can actually get into power in Iran, there’s a good chance Israel will find itself with little choice but to do something militarily. A government run by a Holocaust denying nut AND getting nuclear weapons is just something they’re not likely to tolerate.
When the Israelis say “Never again”, they mean it.
You have a point, Dana, but I think conservatives tend to be a bit naive themselves about the effects of the use of force. Dropping a few bombs in Iran will not destroy their nuclear program, and will make it more likely that people would support a more belligerent foreign policy than the one they currently practice. And, as I’m sure you know, a full-scale war with Iran is simply impractical, and would cause far more problems than it would solve.
Also remember that, by and large, Iranians buy into their system of government, even if they find their current leaders lacking. They want a theocracy. That idea may be bizarre and distasteful to all but the most conservative Christians in America, but that’s how it is. Unsatisfying as it may be, Vahidnia and his ilk represent the only real avenue for positive change in Iran, which will likely be gradual and not cataclysmic.
Jeromy derisively says:
My daughter already countered that.
And again,
Furthermore, you really should read that book blu brought up (but didn’t tell everyone to read), written by a self-declared liberal (in the book, even) who was in the US Army in Iraq. The book is entitled “Love My Rifle More Than You” and has reportage of Iraqi citizens telling her to tell Bush to stay in Iraq. Regular Iraqi citizens thanking us for being there, reported by my daughter, who was there, and a self-declared liberal, who was there.
You might want to do a wee bit more homework, Jeromy.
Jeromy:“You see, Dana, there are people over there in Iran who think just like you. Would you shrug off America getting bombed? Of course not. Yet you persistently expect people in other countries to act like something other than human beings.”
Exactly, Jeromy!
Now this is going to be a generalization, but I observe that many Conservatives have great difficulty seeing issues from the other side, which makes it difficult for them to resolve differences by any other means than military power. On which side of the aisle do we find most of these war-hawks?
John: Oh, I’ve done my homework, but you’ll pardon me for forgetting to explore your wealth of anecdotes.
Jeromy, when my evidence shows your claims to be patently false, you have not done your homework.
A couple anecdotes don’t constitute evidence.
4200 dead soldiers, on the other hand…
4200 dead Soldiers represent a minor skirmish in Korea or WWII. What’s your point?
My point is that statistical comparisons to those conventional wars are 100% meaningless.
So you have no point? Got it.
No, in fact my original point stands. The war did not end up like the right predicted, a quick easy war followed by a blooming, grateful democracy. We faced an organized insurgency consisting of angry Iraqis who our very presence fueled.
But it’s interesting to see you sweep aside the deaths of 4200 Americans when it suits you.
Never passed a logic class, I see.
What’s 4200 American lives over a period of a few years? We’ve legally murdered over 30 million Americans since the 70s right here in this country. I don’t see you getting all worked up about those 30+ million legally murdered Americans.
Jesus H. Christ, Iran’s revolution got turned into an abortion debate.
I got an A in Logic. You and your predictions about me.
One of the things we learned is that you actually have to identify fallacies. What rule of logic do you think I violated?