Why did the mullahs bother to steal the election?
The consensus is that there’s no way the Iranian election figures are correct, and that things were rigged to allow Ahmadinejad to win. And for a long time it’s also been clear that the mullahs—Khameni in particular—are the ones who are really in charge, anyway.
So why did they bother? Why not just rubber stamp whoever might happen to win, if either candidate would essentially have been under Khameni’s thumb? Why would Khameni want to pull the mask from his own face, and reveal the truth of how corrupt and tyrannical the system is?
I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I do know the question. I’m not completely convinced by Time, either, when it suggests theories such as the following:
Some analysts believe Khamenei is motivated by a desire to prevent Iran from normalizing its relationship with the West, fearing that removing the external “threat” against which it was constructed will fatally undermine the Iranian political system. Ahmadinejad’s critics charged during the campaign that his provocative antics had undermined Iran’s standing in the world, but he certainly functions to restrain any movement toward rapprochement, keeping in place the fear of the “Great Satan” that has been an organizing principle of Iran’s authoritarian clerical regime.
Not that Iran won’t seek agreements with U.S. on areas of conflict that could lead to confrontation. Khamenei may believe that his regime’s best hope of survival is keeping his country on a war-footing against an external enemy, but an actual war would be disastrous for the regime.
Perhaps. But if the tenure of Ahmadinejad predecessor Khatami is any guide, a “reformist” President would be nice window-dressing for Iran, but wouldn’t necessarily give him any sort of real power to change things in a fundamental way—or especially to stop Iran’s nuclear program. So why risk inflaming the huge number of people who voted for Mousavi by so flagrantly and openly cooking the books for Ahmadinejad?
As I said, I don’t know. But I don’t think Obama helped the situation any by playing his own hand even before he became president, leaving himself no wriggle room with Iran. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad must feel they have Obama just where they want him, committed already to negotiating directly with them. Is this at least part of the reason why they felt so emboldened—because they knew they would stand to lose none of the ground and none of the validation they’d already gained from the Obama administration?
Bahukutumbi Raman agrees:
The U.S. has had the Israeli card against Iran. Tehran was always nervous about the possibility of the U.S. encouraging Israel to put Iran in its place if the worst comes to the worst. Obama has thrown away that card much to the relief of Iran.
If Iran spurns Obama’s overtures to it and follows on its nuclear and anti-Israel path, Obama has not kept for himself a fall-back option. In his anxiety to project a “good guy” image of himself right across the Islamic world, including Iran, Obama has unwittingly encouraged hard-line elements such as Ahmadinejad, who have no genuine love for the U.S. and who will lose no opportunity to make the interests of the Islamic world prevail over those of the international community. The U.S. may have to pay a heavy price for Obama’s policy U-turns in the Arab world and towards Iran.
[ADDENDUM: John Bolton weighs in. And I find it darkly humorous that so many people offering mindless ad hominem attacks on Bolton in the comments section there call him the nastiest name they can think of: neocon! Funny way to refer to a guy who was head of his school’s Students for Goldwater group back in high school. But the word “neocon” has become a simple pejorative devoid of all meaning save “evil warmongering relic of the Bush years”—except, of course, for when it’s revised to be a code word for “evil Jewish warmongering relic of the Bush years.”]
I read some speculation — can’t remember where — about the possibility that this is actually a coup by Ahmadinejad against the mullahs — that it’s a bid to replace the theocracy with a military junta. Has anyone else seen that? Is it plausible?
One observations, slightly off-topic. I don’t remember seeing women in these scenes of student uprising before — at least not in such numbers. That’s pretty thrilling, isn’t it?
I don’t honestly Ilostmydinnerjacket has enough cojones to attempt any kind of coup. I do think the Mullahs walk a tight line because a large percentage of the population is young and enamored with Western things and the way of life. The Mullahs need to balance their ideal of theocracy against the population’s desire for technology and freedoms.
If an honest poll could be taken I would bet a majority (though maybe a slim one) would understand the Israeli position – because in a way the Iranians are in the same boat in their own country – surrounded by enemies (their own government).
Oddly enough I don’t actually get a sense of threat from the Iranian general population. Reminds me of China.
The mullahs were afraid that the election of Mousavi would be the beginning of a popular movement that would eventually rewrite the Constitution. Large majorities of people in Iran believe the office of the Supreme Leader should be chosen by direct election as well. They felt that a win by Mousavi would have given momentum to a movement that might eventually dislodge the conservatives, including Khatami, the Basiji, etc.
It’s also true, however, that while Khamemei has the final say, the President of Iran nevertheless has considerable power and influence. The hard-line conservatives in the government may have simply overreached, feeling that a win by a reformer, even one as conservative and well connected as Mousavi, was not as good as having someone in their own corner.
It was a combination of factors: fear, overreaching, and stupidity, thinking the Iranian people would just roll over and accept this.
Sorry, I meant to write Khamemeni in the first paragraph above, not Khatami, who was a former reformist president in Iran.
I’m sure the conservatives recall what happened to the Shah —- and Khatami’s election reinforced this fear, because the conservatives know they are not popular.
Neo,
I have to disagree with your statement “But I don’t think Obama helped the situation any by playing his own hand even before he became president, leaving himself no wriggle room with Iran. “
He is allowed, in the face of overwhelming facts, to change his mind. Much as (swallow hard and spit it out) Carter did with Brezhnev. I remember the infamous kiss on the cheek at the concusion of the SALT treaty talks. Then a few months later, the USSR invaded Afghanistan and Carter to his credit admitted that he was duped about the nature of the Soviets.
Obama could easily say that he made an honest effort to engage Iran but that recent events show that this regime is not a trustworthy or fit partner for any type of negotiations. But that would take character, nevermind….
Also, here’s a link to a great post on this subject by Michael J totten. here
From the various reports we are getting out of Iran it looks like Ahmadinejad may have lost more heavily than people thought at first. The Mullahs may well have realized it was coming and prepared for it, first by that smooth announcement of the great “victory” and then by the crack-down. Trouble is, once the genie is out of the bottle, it is awfully difficult to stuff it back. That may well be why the Supreme Leader has now announced that there will be an enquiry, having first extolled the “re-election” of the President.
Tim P: I am in complete agreement with you that Obama could change his mind. I didn’t make myself clear enough, but what I actually mean is that boxing himself in like that made it far more difficult for him to do so. I also don’t think he will change his mind (although he could) because (a) he would see it as losing face, and (b) he has no intention of doing so; he really meant it when he said he’d meet with Ahmadinejad, and he couldn’t care less whether he is a legitimate leader or not.
Another point is that Obama doesn’t seem to understand that not committing oneself prematurely to a particular course of action is a good thing in the world of diplomacy.
“So why risk inflaming the huge number of people who voted for Mousavi by so flagrantly and openly cooking the books for Ahmadinejad?”
Perhaps in that part of the world it really isn’t enough to just have power and have everyone know it. Perhaps it is better, to keep that power, to demonstrate it from time to time with a fixed result like this. Then to kill some people in the resulting demonstrations just to underscore the point.
Worked for Communist China.
Hell, it would work here.
It was a combination of factors: fear, overreaching, and stupidity, thinking the Iranian people would just roll over and accept this.
Mitsu — We will only know for sure if it was fear, overreaching, etc. if the mullahs don’t get away with it. My bet is that they do.
It seems equally likely that they are doing what authoritarians do — getting their way, one way or another — and they have their situation nicely calibrated, thank you very much. These are not people who mind some blood in the streets or the dislike of their people or bad press in the west.
As neo notes, after Obama’s campaign speeches and his Cairo speech, and his current useless comments about “robust debate”, the mullahs likely realize they have little to fear from Obama either. They have him nicely calibrated as well.
Test
We giving too much stake and ligaments for the Iran elections.
Iran had and has never been democratic country it’s ruled by fist before and now by Mullah.
If some don’t know who Mullah and their handwork to get people around let not forgot Khomeini and his supporters.
All the scenarios of election is fraud and a tactics Mullah trying to show the world they are doing good things.
The reality its there on the ground Iranians have more problems , even some reported of refugees telling the 2nd larger refugee from Iran in recent years.
So why did they bother? Why not just rubber stamp whoever might happen to win, if either candidate would essentially have been under Khameni’s thumb?
I’ll tell you why: It doesn’t have anything to do with Iran, or “Iranian Moderates”–it’s about Europe, Russia and the US.
They held a sham election to give Obama, Putin and European leaders cover to ‘engage’ with Iran and to continue screwing around with sanctions until they build their nuke.
It’s China and North Korea that don’t care about any stinking election–they’ll keep selling them nuclear technology.
As Obama said: “It doesn’t matter who wins the election. What matters is the fact there was a robust debate.”
The point of stealing the election was to give Obama et al the chance to say there was a “robust debate” and recognize the “winner”.
I’ve long thought that the Mullahs were not just ruthless but much more clever than most folks, especially the MSM and various Western leaders realize. I believe most leaders in the Middle East can run circles around any Western leader in foreign affairs and diplomacy.
We always seem to be wrong in our beliefs and judgements about Iran and the Middle East, always being surprised by events that transpire there and they always seem to be spot-on about how we will behave under various circumstances.
Obama announced he would meet with the Iranian murderers without preconditions. His self image and public image with his base depend on having talks with these despicable characters. But a funny thing happen on the way to these meetings:
The Iranians are now in the process of humiliating Obama by standing him up on these meetings. My guess is that they will hold out until he gives them something that they want. They have already had long, time consuming talks without preconditions handed to them on a silver platter but they know they can get even more.
Perhaps what they want is nothing tangible — perhaps what they want is as simple as a compliant and frightened(for his image) US President to steamroll during the still-hypothetical negotiations.
It must also be pointed out that the Iranians do not have to negotiate at all. After all, they must know, as do most of us, that they can continue down the road of terrorism financing and importation, killing Israelis and Westerners by proxy, and building a nuclear weapon without much fear of anything the West would do. They must see us as decadent and weak — and rightly so.
In a previous comment I was wondering why Obama had not taken a strong stance about the current Iranian unrest. After mulling it over I think the answer is obvious. Obama wants talks with Iran, his prestige rests on these talks happening and he is afraid they will not meet with him if he issues a strong condemnation or gives encouragement to Iranian dissidents.
His tardy statement, given only a few minutes ago, obsequious to the Mullahs in the extreme and giving no encouragement to the dissidents, confirms my thoughts.
had something to say, but got tired of trying
Oh-oh! Politicians share personality traits with serial killers: Study
latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/politicians-and-serial-killers.html
So, how’s that respect for Islam working for ya, Obama?
Gray:
I’ll tell you why: blah blah blah….
Seeing as how I missed your entire point–lemme try again:
Even though anyone who won would be under the Mullah’s smelly thumb, why did they have to steal it for Ahmedinejad?
‘Cuz the Mullahs think it is funny when we have to kiss that little muppet’s hairy ass.
‘Cuz Ahmadinejad has “made his bones” in the Islamic Revolution: he “trained” Basiji in the Iran Iraq war.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/basij.htm
and he was a hostage-taker:
http://www.danielpipes.org/4115/ahmadinejad-hostage-taker
Ahmedinejad is the turd that the Mullahs want to rub our noses in. In a Robust debate….
Please, make no mistake – the real power in Iran resides in the Revolutionary Guards and who controls them. They are about as fanatical jihadis as they come. The population is terrified of them. They are armed with the latest weapons and training that the army does not have.
They are loyal to the clerics. I find the speculation that Ahmadinejad may be thinking of a coup against the mullahs to be laughable. His views of the world and of Shia Islam’s role in assisting the return of the Mahdi coincide with theirs. In fact, I rather suspect that he may be even more radical than they are. But he does not command the loyalty of the Guards.
We in the West like to entertain ourselves with the banter of the chattering classes’ view of intrigues and subtleties, but has anyone really considered the alternate reality? Which is… that sometimes the simplicity of power backed by a mailed fist is really how many societies operate.
I agree with Bolton. He correctly understands how the Islamic Republic operates and will continue to operate unless and until it is challenged right to its core. That means internal revolution and it means a big beat down coming from without from countries that are threatened by their nuclear weapons.
neo-neocon Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I’m not sure whether you’re referring to Obama or Ahmadinejad there. Six of one; half dozen of the other…
Please, make no mistake – the real power in Iran resides in the Revolutionary Guards and who controls them.
The Supreme Leader or rahbar, Ayatollah Khomeini until 1989 and since then Ali Hoseyni Khamene’i. The rahbar controls key institutions (foreign policy, the military, law enforcement, the justice system) of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In contrast, the president primarily concerns himself with the softer domains such as economics and education.
There is a bigger picture to see, examined in this article by Spengler in the Asia Times.
H/T for the link to Fresh Bilge.
Hey, I agree with Mitsu! Pretty much.
Tyrannies look impregnable until the day that someone kicks the rotted door in, and then everyone agrees that the downfall was inevitable. The mullahs may indeed have overreached. It is the nature of tyrants to end up surrounded by people who will only tell them good things (see Ceausescu, Stalin, Saddam). They want to make symbolic statements proving their dominance, but lose the sense of what they can get away with. Hence ridiculous 99% elections that everyone who has ever voted for class president knows is bogus.
You’re getting shot in the streets protesting for your candidate, who is under arrest. You look to the last light of freedom on this planet and you hear:
“What I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was,”
The ultimate outcome of this election is voters getting shot in the street you gigantic ass!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124510480449716609.html
form the above link:
“Former U.S. officials said the Obama administration is walking an increasingly delicate line between supporting democracy in Iran while pursing the abolition of Tehran’s nuclear program. ”
Why is that an either/or proposition? Tehran is wholly intransigent and will pursue nuclear weapons in pure spite of any “delicate line”. Do these dopes think that it will be easier to abolish their nuclear program in a less democratic Iran?
Still, I hew to Churchill’s advice: “Better jaw, jaw than war, war.” Yet Churchill was dismayed at the election of Hitler as Chancellor and urged Britain to prepare for war….
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/reflections-on-the-iranian-enigma/
VDH, as usual, nails it:
Or, if the election result is semi-accurate (I doubt it), (Amadinejad) energized his base, by showing the rural believers that even much worshipped Barack Hussein Obama was courting their all-wise leader and de facto agreeing to the new Persian Islamic nuclear hegemony.
This will define Obama’s presidency.
It’s an awe-inspiring set of events, what’s happening in Iran. They are a people with a long history, and I believe the ruling class made a terrible mistake here — they underestimated the level to which people were willing to be cowed by terror and violence. Such a blatant fraud — they didn’t even try to make it plausible — has awakened the Iranian people. The rulers crossed the line and people in Iran have been saying — they are willing to risk death to resist this regime. I give them my full support, I hope they succeed.
The crowds are marching and they’re chanting “Death to the dictator!” (a reprise of a slogan used against the Shah) and “I will kill the one who killed my brother!” (a reference to the paramilitary Basiji who killed several students and some protesters). It brings tears to my eyes to witness this.
correction: I meant to write they overestimated the extent to which the people were willing to be cowed by terror — and underestimated their resolve in fighting such a blatant violation of their own constitution.
Let’s have no illusions about Mousavi. It is reported that he played a large role in setting up Hizb’allah in Lebanon and his hands are drenched in blood. The fact that he passes himself off to the sheeple, in Iran and elsewhere, as a reformer does not make him one.
Bolton is right. Every man who runs for office in Iran is vetted thoroughly by the Mullahs’ council.
I think it’s all a sham and should be named as such. Yeah, the truth hurts, but let’s be done with it and move on. Unfortunately, in the West the diplomatic class, the journalists, and those who lack a realistic grasp of the power structures in Iran all seem to control the memes that spin out of this story.
The greatest dangers come from the devil you can’t name or will not name. We live in times, however, when ostrich dna seems to have infiltrated human dna.
This is pretty amazing. Seems Twitter isn’t entirely frivolous, after all: Follow along here in realtime, at CNNfail.
http://cnnfail.com/
Apparently, only Twitter is able to breach the Iranian govt.’s information blockade.
Recent tweets from Bahram81,
IRGC = Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, read from bottom up:
# Rumor goes on;3 of d 16 are Iraq-war veterans (Mousavi’s potential allies), have been taken2undisclosed location in east Tehran
#iranelectionabout 1 hour ago from web
# Just in,Cyrusnews reports of rumors; 16 IRCG commanders arrested after trying to persuade elements in the Army to join ppl
#irancalender about 1 hour ago from web
# Shooter of the paramilitary base near Azadi sqr. seems to be arrested by ppl? http://tiny.cc/NCyz7 & http://tiny.cc/4YrpT
#iranelection RT about 1 hour ago from web
# Shooter of the paramilitary base near Azadi sqr. seems to be arrested by ppl! http://tiny.cc/NCyz7 & http://tiny.cc/4YrpT
#iranelection about 1 hour ago from web
# Speigel quotes VOA “5000 Hezbollah fighters assisting Iranian police in the suppression” #iranelection about 2 hours ago from web
# # #
Twitter delays shutdown…
A critical network upgrade must be performed to ensure continued operation of Twitter. In coordination with Twitter, our network host had
planned this upgrade for tonight. However, our network partners at NTT America recognize the role Twitter is currently playing as an important
communication tool in Iran. Tonight’s planned maintenance has been rescheduled to tomorrow between 2-3p PST (1:30a in Iran).
# # #
please RT: #iranelection has been blocked in Iran. Switch to #Iranians, #Tehran, #Iran9 (via @outpost54, @aplusk)
JordanHanapule – 2:10
This reminds me of the Chinese sneaking out word about their pro-democracy rebellion in 1989, via the new technology of fax machines. And the fall of the USSR likewise.
“The Revolution Will Be Televised!” er, Twitterized!
As Obama said: “It doesn’t matter who wins the election. What matters is the fact there was a robust debate.”
That right there is the statement of a congenital idiot. FORM is all. SUBSTANCE means nothing to this peckerhead.
The scenes I seen on TV of huge masses of protesters on Tehran streets remind me what I seen on Moscow streets in 1989. And Bolton’s wize remarks about internecine power struggle among ruling elites is also very much like what I observed in Supreme Communist Party School in 1984. This clerical gerontocracy behaves just like Brezhnev’s Politburo in 1984-86, divided and bitter, but progressivly loosing control of situation and contact with reality. In 3 years from now, the regime will collapse.
Pepe Escobar
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3869&updaterx=2009-06-15+11%3A27%3A50
The best analysis I’ve seen is Michael Ledeen’s So How’s it Going in Iran? Ledeen has been following Iran and pleading for the US to do more to destabilize Iran’s regime for years now. According to Ledeen, “What’s going to happen?, you ask. Nobody knows, even the major actors.”
I would certainly like the mullahs deposed and my heart too goes out to the Iranian people. I remember a blogger who called herself Iranian Girl who was pleading after the the invasion of Iraq that the US military roll on and liberate Iran next.
I also remember when the statue of Hussein was toppled and later in election after election when the Iraqis voted under threat of death how stoned-faced and flinty the anti-war Americans were towards the liberation of the Iraqi people. I don’t recall those Americans shedding any tears whatsoever then. Mostly they were too busy explaining how the Iraqis were better off under Hussein.
So I must say I’m curious that we have the anti-Iraq War Mitsu, Israel-basher/Ahmadinejad-apologist Juan Cole, and the ever-complex and dishonest Andrew Sullivan following Iran so closely now. Do they imagine that this is their chance to get all emotional and misty about liberation? Or that this somehow redounds to Obama’s credit?
Roger Simon at PJM once explained the astonishing venom of those liberals and leftists who opposed the Iraq War. He said that they could not forgive the Bush administration and neocons for taking the moral high ground of supporting democracy against dictators.
Mitsu believes that the people will prevail, but they will not. The rulership has cemented the legal part, and now all those that oppose are just state enemies and so they have chased out the press, and will ‘clean house’ a bit as they are already firing into the crowds.
despots die out or are taken out, they are rarely if ever thrown out by the people. Since the left has the US long out of the overthrow regime game, there is not going to be a change of state in iran unless russia wants it, and russia dont want it (as ahmadinejad is now at a summit in russia).
on another note to those who intend to travel world wide someday.
Ruling on NightJack author Richard Horton kills blogger anonymity
technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6509677.ece
Since Mitsu has posted on this thread but refuses to reply to the previous thread, I will repost and rewrite.
Mitsu:
It would stand to reason then that American liberals were more opposed to the Mullahs than are American conservatives, no? After all, American conservatives prefer the Conservative Party of Canada, and American liberals prefer the Liberal Party of Canada, no? It would be the same with Iran, no?
Here is what Carter Administration figures had to say about Khomeini. Carter is and was a LIBERAL.
Khomeini, head of a government that took the American Embassy personnel hostages, is a holy man. Oh yeah. Go ahead, Mitsu, find some American conservatives who had such good things to say about the CONSERVATIVE KHOMEINI as did the above liberal Carter Administration figures. From what I remember, from the beginning American conservatives abhorred the Mullahs, unlike Jimmah and his minions.
The problem that Mitsu has is common to many liberals. They assume that domestic politics in the US can be projected to different countries and to different times. Mitsu says that the Mullahs, oh yes conservative just like in the US, which ignores the American consensus of separation of church and state. But to apply the same comparison to liberals- not fair, says Mitsu: liberals are not Communists. Mitsu’s elevated education on the River Charles is lacking if he is unable to see the absurdity of those two positions.
Part of the problem may be ignorance of Iran. What Khomeini achieved was radical and revolutionary: a Shiite theocracy. Previously, the mullahs stuck to religion, and left government to others. Not conservative at all. Another part of the problem may be the liberal naiveté that all change is good, which goes a long way in explaining how Jimmah got gobsmacked by the Mullahs. Make no mistake: the Mullahs instituted radical changes in Iran. Well, it wasn’t progressive change. Sorry about that.
It would appear that both Carter and Obama have problems with making nice with the Mullahs. Not a good idea to make nice with those who want to destroy you.
Artfldgr has just gently reminded everyone that Iran’s regime is a valuable proxy in Russia’s war against the West. Russia wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. It isn’t only for money that Russia arms Iran with anti-air weapons, among other things.
I could type a string of deserved insults directed at naive observers of these events, but I won’t. Waste of time, just as they are a waste of oxygen.
*huxley,
I preferred Leeden’s post from a few days back, or rather the comments in the thread. They seem much more plausible and realistic in their observations.
Beverly,
I don’t get this
hysteriaenthusiasm with twitter. What, if Iranians used mail pigeons, the world would announced “pigeon technology revolution”? Sounds suspiciously like brand promotion to me, the amount of irrelevant twitter praising. It’s just a means of relaying info, people, for god’s sake! I’m sure there is even more coming via SMS and cellphone txt msges – why not promote them?Btw, even though there were rumors of “shutting down internet”, I can still read posts in my LJ buddy list from a girl in Iran, married to an iranian; she’s been writing about events steadily. Today’s news: the foreign journalists are given orders not to write anything about opposition, or resistance in the streets of Tehran, Shiraz or elsewhere. All universities are surrounded and blocked. 19 professors of Tehran university quit in protest. Information about arrest of 10 high-position officers of something she calls КСИРin Russian (have no idea; commenters explain it’s to regular army like SS to Wehrmacht…Revolutionary Guards, maybe?) In the comments there is a regular war on its’ own…
Left is more and more government. Complete left is communism or dictatorship.
Right is less and less government. Complete right is anarchy.
I apologize for the media and academia getting it WRONG all these years and confusing people like Mitsu.
When anybody uses religion, environmentalism, racism, etc as a reason to expand government – it doesn’t matter the reason. It simply is more government.
The key is to find good governance and make a nation where people respect the rule of law where there is individual liberties.
We have that – except liberals don’t like it. They want to “TRANSFORM” our nation.
Liberals like Obama and Mitsu want to “TRANSFORM” the U.S.
What if Obama and Mitsu used the word “Transform” about their wives? Is their something wrong with their wives that they’d want to transform them? Don’t they love their wives?
Do liberals really love this country? I’m not questioning their patriotism. What I am saying is liberals like Obama and Mitsu haven’t loved this country and go around apologizing and making accusations about this country and wishing to transform this country.
We are the most generous nation on earth. Capitalism has brought prosperity and liberals do not see that they seek to weaken this nation economically and with regards to national security.
Conservatives here are centrists on the political scale.
It’s a classic, dishonest rhetorical maneuver from the left to conflate American conservativism with radical Islam.
Nothing is that simple, if it ever was. For the record, I still call myself a liberal.
In any event, Mitsu is incorrect that “nearly everyone calls the ruling mullahs in Iran conservative, and the reformists are called liberals.”
Even the MSM understands that when dealing with authoritarian governments the terms liberal and conservative are confusing. The usual terms, whether in Tehran or the old Kremlin, are hard-liners and moderates.
Lazy journalists and lazy readers will perpetuate lazy ideas.
Due diligence is a foreign concept to Mitsu. 🙂
vanderleun Says:
“Hell, it would work here.”
except for that rifle behind every blade of grass thing….
Your picture of left vs right, Baklava, is hugely oversimplified, and as I noted in the other topic, it simply doesn’t match up with the actual behavior of conservatives in this country. I stand by my earlier characterization: conservatives in the US have identified themselves with some libertarian ideas — but this is primarily used as a reason to oppose social programs, and not to oppose other forms of expanded government power and social restrictions, as we’ve seen under Bush and many previous Republican governments.
Also, what you fail to understand is that on the left, there is also a strong libertarian impulse as well — there’s a sharp divide between, for example, the Chomsky-style left and the Stalinist left (if such a thing even exists anymore) — Chomsky for example has explicitly called for a near-anarchic government system with very weak to nonexistent central government. He calls his approach “libertarian” as well, though you might find that surprising. I’ve known a number of self-identified anarchists and they all consider themselves on the left.
It’s actually quite interesting that people on the right and the left in this country both identify with the idea of opposing government power. On the left, of course, they also oppose centralized corporate power — on the right, there seems to be a willingness to accept unfettered corporate power even as they attack government power — but only on the economic side and typically not in every domain.
I laud your intellectual commitment to less government, Baklava, at least you’re trying to be consistent, but I don’t happen to agree that conservatives in general in this country are actually in favor of less government across the board, and that’s certainly the case for the Republican Party. It’s a talking point but simply not reality.
Finally, when it comes to conservatives in this country opposing Iranian conservatives — of COURSE that’s the case. Conservatives tend to be nationalistic and nationalists of every country tend to be opposed to nationalists of other countries. That’s precisely what you’d expect.
However, my main point here is that we are all Americans, and for the most part, we share far more in common than you guys may seem to think. Right and left in America are suspicious of excessive government power (the right being more suspicious of government economic policy and the left more suspicious of government intrusions on free speech, privacy, police tactics, etc.) Right and left in America are opposed to dictatorship. Right and left in this country are pro-democracy. That’s what we share and simplistic pictures of “more” and “less” government really miss the reality of both what we share and what each side really believes.
Excuse me, Mitsu, you were the one just pressing the false claim: “…nearly everyone calls the ruling mullahs in Iran conservative, and the reformists are called liberals.”
In any event it’s good of you to notice that we are all Americans and have much in common. I remember arguing during the Iraq War with many a progressive who took the line that there was really not much difference between George Bush and Osama Bin Laden. Both religious fundamentalists, you know — an arm lock you tried in the previous topic.
So please pass that bit of wisdom about our commonalities
to your anti-war compatriots.
Six months ago, few Americans would have disputed that Ahmadinejad was a thug and a tyrant, but there were many on the left who supported Obama’s push for direct engagement with the Iranian president anyway. America deals with all kinds of thugs and authoritarian leaders, and Obama and his supporters made the case that we should deal with this one, too. But the left, I think a little to their own surprise, became deeply invested in the Mousavi campaign. Perhaps you could see it most clearly on Andrew Sullivan’s blog, but much of the media liked the simple narrative of Mousavi the Obama-like reformer against Ahmadinejad the Bush-like ideologue. And after the Lebanese elections, the media was primed for a story on the “Obama Effect” in the Middle East.
— Michael Goldfarb, Reality Check
This is probably the answer to my earlier question about how the left is suddenly all emotional and misty about the possibility of an overthrow of the mullahs, even though they cared not a whit for the liberation of Iraq from Hussein, and defended Obama’s reaching out to Ahmadinejad and the mullahs up until about five minutes ago.
A friend of mine was a prominent member of Solidarity in Poland, where now Reagan is revered. He told me that when Reagan spoke out in support of their struggle against Communism and for freedom, their flagging morale soared! Reagan is apparently God as far as the Poles are concerned.
Obama and Iran couldn’t be a more stark contrast. He’s a weakling and/or someone who doesn’t know what he believes in (or if he does, it isn’t democracy).
Regarding the question posed by the heading, and in light of the apparent civil unrest that seems to be spilling over in Iran at the moment, I’d like to paraphrase an observation I made in another thread.
Basically, it doesn’t matter if you are good or evil, generous or greedy, or ethical or unethical, plans don’t always work out the way someone thinks they will.
The mullahs plans don’t seem to be working out for them at the moment…
Occam,
You are right in that observation. The thing that still stuns me to this day – I’ve observed that most people as yet have no real grasp of just how powerful the ideology of Islam is. It is far more powerful and totalitarian than Communism is. That is what the people of Iran are in the grip of.
Communists fear death. The true, hard-core Muslims do not, which is why they talk about Armageddon as a moment of opportunity for their religious telos. The exchange of nuclear weapons in a grisly war does not frighten the mullahs and their supporters. Their supernaturalistic theism tells them the Mahdi will rescue them from such a tribulation and impose Sharia Law on the entire world.
The Soviet apparatchiks and party leaders blanched at the thought of their own annihilation and that of their country. That’s the difference, folks.
The mullahs will not hesitate to unleash hell on their own population in order to control them. The Revolutionary Guards will do their duty and crush any rebellion. The mullahs will also not hesitate to unleash hell on the Jewish state and wipe it out.
The rest of the babbling of the Western journalism and political classes is just a caccaphony of mental masturbation.
huxley,
The Left is wrong about Mousavi. He’s a thug too and he’s been up to his eyeballs in building and supporting the forces of Hizb’allah and al Qods. He has packaged himself as a reformer, and the idiots in the Western Left have (once again) fallen for a ruse.
Every time you think these people cannot possibly become more stupid, they surprise you.
Mitsu funnily and lazily wrote, “conservatives in the US have identified themselves with some libertarian ideas”
libertarians want a cut in government by 80%. So yes, conservatives and libertarians are to the right of center. Some conservatives are centrist and some self-identified conservatives/republicans vote for bigger government. We LECTURE these conservatives to get back on the center or right of center.
Mitsu even more funnily (yes – I’m mangling English on purpous) wrote, “Right and left in America are suspicious of excessive government power”
Jaw dropping to the floor. You are NOT grounded in reality. Look at the voting pattern of the Democrat party and especially the leftists in the Democrat party. For more and more taxes, levies, fees, and MORE SPENDING than BUSH WOULD’VE DONE.
Liberals opposed Bush’s drug prescription program and the NCLB acts as not spending enough on drugs and education. 11% increases weren’t enough. Liberals are NOT as you say Mitsu. Period. Ignorance and laziness are yours to keep! 🙂
Maybe you are thinking of the 60’s hippie’s slogan “Question Authority” Mitsu.
But today. You are off base. Liberals are in power and don’t like you questioning their authority.
Do you like the ABC News/ White House cooperation with no opposing views thing that will happen soon? That’s outstanding isn’t it? 🙂
Join with conservatives in fighting that. Will ya?
Mitsu,
Market oriented solution or big govt solution? Be honest ! 🙂
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/06/15/obamacare-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
Sorry off topic Neo.
“Their supernaturalistic theism tells them the Mahdi will rescue them from such a tribulation and impose Sharia Law on the entire world.”
Actually, I think this is totally wrong.
See, for example, Israeli scholar Ze’ev Maghen’s work ”
Occultation in Perpetuum: Shi’ite Messianism and the Policies of the Islamic Republic” in The Middle East Journal 62, no. 2 (April 2008).
Maghen argues that, contrary to popular belief, the clerics of Iran are decidedly anti-Mahdist. Shi’ite clericalism is predicated on the absence of the Imam. The Imam held a special position in Shi’ism as he was the only person capable of engaging in ijtihad, or, more specifically, reasoning through intellectual questions of fiqh or jurisprudence. When the twelfth Imam went into occultation, the clerics of Shi’ism took on for themselves the collective mantle of ijtihad. In the absence of an authoritative voice on questions of fiqh, the clerics would have to speak collectively.
Hence Maghen’s argument: the religio-political legitimacy of the clerics rests on the permanent and perpetual absence of the Imam. Were he ever to return, they would no longer be the authoritative voice speaking on matters of fiqh in his absence. They are his deputies; if he comes back, their services are no longer required.
Maghen also makes the argument that Ahmadinejad, who is not a cleric but most definitely is a Mahdist, uses his Mahdism as part of anti-clerical rhetoric. He hopes fervently, Maghen writes, for the Imam to return to save the people from corrupt clerics. The clerics, in general, are not fans of this.
“This is probably the answer to my earlier question about how the left is suddenly all emotional and misty about the possibility of an overthrow of the mullahs, even though they cared not a whit for the liberation of Iraq from Hussein.”
A key difference between these two cases is that Iraq was liberated and Iranians are liberating. Active vice passive, as it were.
Consider it, perhaps, the expression of a sense of humility, a recognition of the limits and wisdom of even the most powerful and wisest and best-intended actor.
“Ignorance and laziness are yours to keep!”
This sounds like something one might find written inside a North Korean fortune cookie.
“Let’s have no illusions about Mousavi.”
Mousavi certainly is a man of the Revolution and the Islamic Republic, though there are worse (and better) within the Iranian regime.
Mousavi, however, at this point appears primarily to be serving as a symbol of discontent and rejection of the legitimacy of the system. Focus less on Mousavi the man and more on the people who want so desperately for some change, any change.
Shepard,
Thank you for that information on the theology of the Mahdi. I did not know those things. Helps with the perspective.
So, if Ahmadinejad hews to a theology that is at variance with the clerics’ interests, what is their interest in keeping him in his sinecure? Is it that he’s the perfect attack dog? Is it that he is their answer to Sun Tsu’s “keep you friends close, but your enemies closer” ?
No matter, on one level. Both the clerics and Ahmadinejad want nuclear weapons and they have promised they would use them on Israel.
“So, if Ahmadinejad hews to a theology that is at variance with the clerics’ interests, what is their interest in keeping him in his sinecure?”
I don’t know. The Iranian regime is fractious and opaque. It was designed that way to prevent any one segment from growing powerful enough to challenge the entire system. Iranian leaders often don’t know who actually made a particular decision.
Ahmadinejad’s popularity stems largely from his populism. He gives people potatoes. He wears a windbreaker. He doesn’t own a hot tub in his house. His parents were poor, and he worked his way through college to earn a doctorate. They like his life story, and they like his provisioning of social services. The Iranian poor, in general, are screwed. There was great hope in 1905/6 that things would change, but the British and Russians saw fit to stop that. There was great hope in 1953 that things would change, but the British and Americans saw fit to stop that. There was great hope in 1979 that things would change, but the clerics saw fit to stop that. Everyone promises them butter, but they never get any butter. Ahmadinejad promised them butter and, no matter how unsustainable it is economically, gave them butter. They love him for it. The Great Satan, the nuclear program, these don’t matter to his supporters. Sacks of potatoes do.
His anti-clericism is part of this populism. The clerics have grown fat off the land and the sanctions, and most people know it. He calls them out in a way that can’t be challenged, by hoping for the return of the Imam. They have to put up with it.
So, I think in part they keep him because he is popular and because he provides some outlet for anti-status quo sentiment. There may be other reasons, but I don’t have too much of a feel for it.
“Both the clerics and Ahmadinejad want nuclear weapons and they have promised they would use them on Israel.”
No, they haven’t. It’s also a bit hard to equate a suicidal regime (and they know the use of nuclear weapons would be suicide) with a regime that’s trying to stay in power in the face of mass protests against it. Either they want to live or they don’t. I suspect they do.
>Obamacare
I already pointed out that liberals tend to be less concerned about government when it comes to social programs, so your example hardly refutes my analysis. I, along with most liberals, think our country has too little regulation of the financial sector and too little regulation and involvement in health care. I take this position based on the pragmatic observation that we spend about twice as much on health care as other first world nations and have little to show for it in terms of better outcomes (we’ve had this debate before). I believe we could be far more efficient with more government involvement. I believe there are cases where government involvement leads to more, not less, efficiency. I do not believe the unfettered market is always ideal.
However, of course I do think conservatives can and should push for the market side of things because there obviously is such a thing as too much regulation. On the civil liberties side however I think liberals have tended to have a consistent record against expansion of government powers, and conservatives have tended to argue the other side of that coin. So to reiterate, both sides have their concerns about government power — they just emphasize different aspects of the issue.
But again, as I keep saying — both liberals and conservatives in this country agree — dictatorship is absolutely out of bounds. Democracy is crucial, etc. That’s obviously not the case in Iran or in many other countries, where there’s still a substantial minority who believe that dictatorship is reasonable. In this, right and left are in agreement in this country.
Mitsu,
For the sake of your mental health, don’t bother. American politics take place within a liberal consensus, in which individual liberty and freedom are paramount. Conservatives and liberals in the American context bicker over the details, but no one of import questions our presidential democracy, our capitalist economy, our bill of rights, and so on.
Hysterics over Bush the proto-fascist and Obama the secret Muslim communist socialist fascist aside, of course.
But, again: for the sake of your mental health, don’t bother. Someone who tries to simplify the vast diversity and panoply of political, social, and economic ideas, ideologies, theories, policies, stances, and so on into a single axis, “more” government or “less” government,” is deeply out of touch with reality. You do yourself no favors trying to reel him back in.
Bottom line: we spend more on health care because we don’t write people off. We don’t write off the elderly (as the NHS does in the UK, for example; beyond a certain age no heart surgeries or cancer resections — care is purely palliative), we don’t write off preemies (and count those don’t make it against our infant mortality statistics, unlike most other countries), and to accommodate feminists who left childbearing too late (when the fish eventually decided it did need a bicycle after all) we pay for IVF, and then the massive costs of multiple premature births. (Something other countries don’t do.) On top of which, we pay all of the R&D costs for all new pharmaceuticals and medical devices, while Europe and Japan merely pay the marginal costs for producing them.
Let’s look where the government is already heavily involved: education. We spend more on education than other countries too, and have zip to show for it. California spends the most per student in the US (IIRC), and has the second-worst results in the nation.
You’re a funny guy!
Name one thing that the government does better than private industry. One.
“Bottom line: we spend more on health care because we don’t write people off.”
Actually, this is false.
We write millions of people off in this country, people who do not have health insurance. This is, in effect, our rationing. In countries like the UK, they ration care through waiting lines and denying coverage and sometimes in sub-optimal coverage. We ration care through tens of millions of uninsured (plus waiting lines).
The key question is: what do we get for the money we spend, vice the money they spend for the health care they get? Basically, they get the same or better health care outcomes after spending far less and insuring all people.
Of course, the uninsured have access to healthcare through emergency room visits, but that’s grossly inefficient and costly (and essentially socialism!). If we’re going to have socialism, I’d rather have efficient socialism than our current inefficient socialism, thank you very much.
“Name one thing that the government does better than private industry.”
Liberate Iraq?
It’s a silly question. You know (I hope!) that there exist such things as market failures, public goods, externalities, and so forth. Admitting their existence doesn’t make you a communist, I promise. Now, it must be understood that capitalism does not entail absolute non-interference in the economy by the government. I’m quite glad that we have anti-trust laws, for example, to inhibit the growth of monopolies that are inherently inefficient. This is an example of government regulation of markets – government intervention! – that makes the market more efficient, not less. There are plenty more like that; bank capitalization requirements are another that I hope soon to see made far more stricter than they have been in recent years.
Health care is one of those markets that just does not work very well on its own. It’s very difficult, for example, for consumers of health care to make informed choices about the money they spend. Health care is an incredibly technical field dominated by highly educated experts. Most consumers have no real way of knowing whether the dollars they spend on health care produce better or worse results than dollars spent elsewhere. Markets operate efficiently only when information is available, and this is a great example of a market where information is almost impossible to obtain.
There’s plenty more, but I won’t bore you. The point is: socialized medicine isn’t as horrible as you think it is, and there are plenty of market-based reasons to think that it should, at least in part, be nationalized. We already treat it as a semi-public good (hence the emergency room option), and I sincerely doubt we’ll ever try to make it a purely private good, so the government will always be involved to some degree. We’re never, I hope, as a society going to turn people away from health care for their inability to pay for it. We should just be doing it more efficiently.
My question in comparing the government with private industry obviously related to things that both could do. Government is better than private industry at collecting taxes, too, and for the same reason: it has a monopoly.
The basic problem right now is the perceived disconnect between the consumers of healthcare and the payers. If everyone had to write a check for health insurance each month (rather than receive it as a benefit), health care costs would not increase so dramatically.
FredHjr: “Both the clerics and Ahmadinejad want nuclear weapons and they have promised they would use them on Israel.”
Shepard: “No, they haven’t. It’s also a bit hard to equate a suicidal regime (and they know the use of nuclear weapons would be suicide) with a regime that’s trying to stay in power in the face of mass protests against it. Either they want to live or they don’t. I suspect they do.”
Yes, they have. And just for the sake of argument, what if they have one working bomb now? If the regime appears to be collapsing, what do you have to lose? Not necessarily suicidal, but fatalistic when life out of power or death approaches.
What if they have an army of killer zombie ninjas and has nothing to lose? What if, what if, what if…
Are you sure the use of nuclear weapons would be suicide? I’ve been hearing a new narrative that’s being insidiously introduced by the MSM, that may challenge that assumption soon.
Russia’s Pravda interviewed one official, and printed his statement that the detonation of a nuclear weapon, regardless of country of origin, location of the blast, or even the nation or NGO claiming credit for it, would almost certainly be a US or Israeli plot at its core. This sentiment is being subtly added to a number of anti-proliferation stories.
If this narrative gains enough credibility that the US/Israel can be blamed for any nuke going off, no matter what the circumstances are, launching a nuke would go from being “suicide” to being a rallying cry to attack the US. Even the US itself may be starting to believe it, so far inward our gaze has turned.
“My question in comparing the government with private industry obviously related to things that both could do.”
And my answer compared the government with private industry in an area in which both could perform. Certainly there exists a market, still to this day, for private violence in the form of such corporations as Blackwater (or whatever it’s called now).
Of course, violence is largely the purview of states and not private citizens and corporations as it once way. But there’s a reason for this: security is largely viewed as a public good. What I’m guessing is that there’s some confusion here over the concept of a public good. Defense does not have to be a public good, though it makes a certain amount of sense that way. We make a choice that we will treat defense as a public good; we make a choice that we will treat health care as a semi-public good.
You do know what a public good is, right? If not, let me know and we can back up a bit.
Overconsumption of health care certainly is a contributor to the rise of health care costs. Overconsumption is, however, primarily a product of poor information in the health care market and of the fee-for-service model of health care. Health care providers have a financial incentive to see more and more patients, which reduces the time they have to spend with each and thus drives down quality of health care. Health care providers also have a financial incentive to over-provide, that is, to sell as many health care “products,” such as tests or medicine, since they receive a fee for each service.
nuclear weapons are not wanted becuase they are to be used, but because they prevent regime change by direct force as there is no end move.
once one has a nuclear weapon, either the use of one has to be chanced when being taken over by force, or one moves to other spheres of war which are not so clear if one considers war by its actions not its outcomes. war has always been about outcomes and unrestricted choice of actions taken to achieve such. its outcome is the removal of a designated enemy whether designated publicly or not.
once force is off the table free open societies are at a disadvantage over closed controlled ones.
Tatterdemalion,
Then the logic of what you posted above means that our enemies are in fact carefully crafting a common policy of launching a nuclear war against us. That means Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, and North Korea will all be acting in concert – even if one of THEM started it with the first attack.
What it means is that they are not going to allow us to retaliate against the ones who started it. And they are crafting this policy at a time when we are letting our guard down on so many fronts it’s depressing.
In effect, they are advocating a first strike policy FOR THEMSELVES. We are not even allowed a defensive response.
As I’ve stated it so many times, and many perhaps have considered this opinion the rant of a crank, Russia is using Iran as a proxy in its war against us.
by the way, one does not need a expensive delivery system to get a nuke to the US… a fishing boat with a weather balloon hundreds of miles off coast in international waters is all you need.