Iran, the Hidden Homosexual, and the Opinion Journal?
The Opinion Journal, the really right font of the otherwise august Wall Street Journal, has suddenly discovered that it favors openness for gays -- in Iran.
It has been well known to many of us (if more of a surprise to the O.J. who just saw 'occasional human rights reports') that Iran has been brutal in its treatment of gays. Boys under the age of 18 have been shot or hanged for their 'crimes,' among other violence.
But when the Journal author concludes: "All of this ought to be evidence that, when it comes to the Iranian regime, the gap between bad neocons and pure-of-heart progressives ought to be no more than tactical: This is, ultimately, a regime that needs to go" I find myself asking what on earth makes this writer think we'd be any more successful in making regime change in Iran than Iraq?
Have we learned nothing from our adventure in the Gulf? The nuclear weapons issue is real and important, but in advocating for a "regime that has to go" I'd say only under one of two scenarios:
1) a coalition similar in scope, financing and broad UN authority to that of "Desert Storm" of the early 90's
or
2) the Iranians use their democratic process to instigate regime change themselves.
The pundits (and now some billionaire financed ads) starting to beat the "war with Iran" drums seem to not recognize that Iranians have elections and a political system. Ahmadinejad is a vile and cruel man, but he is not, as he has been branded, a dictator. He succeeded his predecessor, who was a relative moderate, through an electoral process (which may be flawed, but is a far cry from much of the Gulf). He can be replaced the same way.
American policy in the region has done much to prop up Ahmadinejad who would, without his tin-pot "standing up to the great Satan" maneuvers, be very unpopular at home. Iranian citizens are fed up with unemployment, a return to strict Islamic codes of conduct, and soaring energy costs and gas rationing at home. Only his bravado abroad wins him accolades at home.
He'd be a shoe-in to lose the next election but for the fact that his saber-rattling engenders the exact response that makes him seem heroic at home. We would have been much better off even after the start of the Iraq invasion if Bush had cut the "Axis of Evil" noise and used the window of opportunity that had opened with Iran, who assisted us in the early stages of Afghanistan.
We could have continued to be strategic in enlisting this uneasy alliance, thus maintaining our ability to use America's "greatest weapon" within the nation of Iran. Most Iranians want what most humans want: access to the quality of life they know exists in the West and is denied them by their Supreme leader's ideals and their President's incompetent governance.
The real power in Iran is the Supreme leader, Ayathollah Khamenei, and his Council. To focus on the sputterings of Ahmadinejad is a policy that is leading us to the brink of war.
And if we go to war in Iran, it will be a disaster that could easily last 20 years. Their population is over 70 million and much of that is youth. They could raise an army that would not cut and run the way Saddam's army melted into the sands of Iraq. Iraq may have narrowly won the Iran-Iraq war but not for the lack of tenacity among Iranian forces. Iran has indigenous weapons manufacturing, has strong commercial relationships with Russia, France, and others. They will not roll over easily.
The neo-con idea that we can just bomb some Iranian nuclear installations seems laughable were it not so serious. It is not imaginable that we could stop at bombing. One attacked inside the borders of Iran, they would attack our Navy in the gulf, and likely pour over both their eastern and western borders to seek out and attack American and allied troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Once so engaged, the US military would "have no option" but to escalate to a full ground war.
But where would the matériel and troops come from to fight that war? For the moment, from what I hear, there is just enough sense and power within the top brass of our military to keep GWB, Cheney and their thinkers from heading us full speed down that unsustainable path.
Iran is a country with a lousy human rights record, a belligerent set of leaders, and a dangerous desire to build a nuclear program shrouded in secrecy. But Bush and Co already bet the bank in Iraq and I can 't see how we can raise the capital and troops for another mid-east regime change without massive taxes and conscription. It is unfortunate to be forced into such limited choices, but that is a direct consequence of four years of badly executed war in Iraq -- a failing squarely at the feet of GWB,Cheney, Rummy et al.
It is not, as the O.J. likes to allege, because lefties are soft on dictators, terror, or whatever. We just know that Bush blew it bad in Iraq and going double-down with Iran is a fools terrifying bet.
peace.
It has been well known to many of us (if more of a surprise to the O.J. who just saw 'occasional human rights reports') that Iran has been brutal in its treatment of gays. Boys under the age of 18 have been shot or hanged for their 'crimes,' among other violence.
But when the Journal author concludes: "All of this ought to be evidence that, when it comes to the Iranian regime, the gap between bad neocons and pure-of-heart progressives ought to be no more than tactical: This is, ultimately, a regime that needs to go" I find myself asking what on earth makes this writer think we'd be any more successful in making regime change in Iran than Iraq?
Have we learned nothing from our adventure in the Gulf? The nuclear weapons issue is real and important, but in advocating for a "regime that has to go" I'd say only under one of two scenarios:
1) a coalition similar in scope, financing and broad UN authority to that of "Desert Storm" of the early 90's
or
2) the Iranians use their democratic process to instigate regime change themselves.
The pundits (and now some billionaire financed ads) starting to beat the "war with Iran" drums seem to not recognize that Iranians have elections and a political system. Ahmadinejad is a vile and cruel man, but he is not, as he has been branded, a dictator. He succeeded his predecessor, who was a relative moderate, through an electoral process (which may be flawed, but is a far cry from much of the Gulf). He can be replaced the same way.
American policy in the region has done much to prop up Ahmadinejad who would, without his tin-pot "standing up to the great Satan" maneuvers, be very unpopular at home. Iranian citizens are fed up with unemployment, a return to strict Islamic codes of conduct, and soaring energy costs and gas rationing at home. Only his bravado abroad wins him accolades at home.
He'd be a shoe-in to lose the next election but for the fact that his saber-rattling engenders the exact response that makes him seem heroic at home. We would have been much better off even after the start of the Iraq invasion if Bush had cut the "Axis of Evil" noise and used the window of opportunity that had opened with Iran, who assisted us in the early stages of Afghanistan.
We could have continued to be strategic in enlisting this uneasy alliance, thus maintaining our ability to use America's "greatest weapon" within the nation of Iran. Most Iranians want what most humans want: access to the quality of life they know exists in the West and is denied them by their Supreme leader's ideals and their President's incompetent governance.
The real power in Iran is the Supreme leader, Ayathollah Khamenei, and his Council. To focus on the sputterings of Ahmadinejad is a policy that is leading us to the brink of war.
And if we go to war in Iran, it will be a disaster that could easily last 20 years. Their population is over 70 million and much of that is youth. They could raise an army that would not cut and run the way Saddam's army melted into the sands of Iraq. Iraq may have narrowly won the Iran-Iraq war but not for the lack of tenacity among Iranian forces. Iran has indigenous weapons manufacturing, has strong commercial relationships with Russia, France, and others. They will not roll over easily.
The neo-con idea that we can just bomb some Iranian nuclear installations seems laughable were it not so serious. It is not imaginable that we could stop at bombing. One attacked inside the borders of Iran, they would attack our Navy in the gulf, and likely pour over both their eastern and western borders to seek out and attack American and allied troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Once so engaged, the US military would "have no option" but to escalate to a full ground war.
But where would the matériel and troops come from to fight that war? For the moment, from what I hear, there is just enough sense and power within the top brass of our military to keep GWB, Cheney and their thinkers from heading us full speed down that unsustainable path.
Iran is a country with a lousy human rights record, a belligerent set of leaders, and a dangerous desire to build a nuclear program shrouded in secrecy. But Bush and Co already bet the bank in Iraq and I can 't see how we can raise the capital and troops for another mid-east regime change without massive taxes and conscription. It is unfortunate to be forced into such limited choices, but that is a direct consequence of four years of badly executed war in Iraq -- a failing squarely at the feet of GWB,Cheney, Rummy et al.
It is not, as the O.J. likes to allege, because lefties are soft on dictators, terror, or whatever. We just know that Bush blew it bad in Iraq and going double-down with Iran is a fools terrifying bet.
peace.
posted by Snowman at 2:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home