This poor woman, those poor people.
Read the latest from Iran at Andrew Sullivan’s blog.
Of course US interventionism is fraught with danger anywhere in the world, especially in the Muslim world. And of course our performance in Iraq doesn’t exactly set a great example. BUT. This is an organic uprising of epic proportions coming from within in response to an educated people’s refusal to be bullied anymore by barbaric zealots cloaked in religion. We have the potential to intervene without putting significant boots on the ground. We could control Iranian airspace in a short time. I am sure it’s being contemplated, but so far Obama has been less outspoken on this than the English or French (Obama has also cut all pro-democracy funding directed at Iran). I am not optimistic, but we would have allies in this endeavor. I can’t see how we can let this possible last chance to rid Iran of the Khomeniites go by the wayside.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Jun 20th by Loudoun Insider
That was awful to watch. Unbelievable.
If you want to completely derail any chance of the Iranian people taking control of their govt then American airstrikes would do the trick. we should stay out of it. this is their fight and we should pray for them. its not just the Iraq war that should teach us a lesson but also the catastrophe in 1953 when the CIA overthrew their last legitimately elected govt.
I agree with Amit, sometimes a country has to take their destiny in their own hands and others should not intervene.
During the 1960’s Civil Right Movements people were beat in the streets, endured attack dogs, water hoses and police brutality Thousands of people were murdered, usually lynched or beaten to death. The state governments (especially in the south) were easily as brutal and treacherous as the Khomenties and the violence went on for months and in some places even years. It was simply horrible, but the people of America had to do this for themselves.
Other countries did not and should have not intervened. The United States and its people had to do this for themselves.
We’re a lot less justified to go after Iran than we were Iraq in 2002–not that you’d know it by all the revisionist history since then.
excellent point Anon
NovaConservative, what revisionist history are you referring to? In either case, I do agree with you that we are not justified in either case.
We need to watch this carefully and surgical intervention should never be ruled out. I am absolutely not advocating Iraq part two, or the installation of another shah. If this revolution gains more steam and the regime goes more brutal we may have an opportunity to even the score by decimating their air power and hitting key installations. Look at what the Iraq no-fly zones did for the Kurds.
“We’re a lot less justified to go after Iran than we were Iraq in 2002–not that you’d know it by all the revisionist history since then.”
That’s bullshit, NovaCon. Our invasion of Iraq wasn’t justified in any way, shape or form. No revisionism is necessary.
LI, any military action by the US now would be incredibly counter-productive. I can’t even imagine the blowback in the form of Hezbollah, Hamas, increased IRGC support in Iraq, etc. we must not interfere in Iran. Neoconservativism is often worse than Socialism and this is a perfect example
Revisionist history or not, the press coverage of the Iraq the past 7 years makes any action on our part now impossible. We are now hamstrung.
Amit,
‘I can’t even imagine the blowback in the form of Hezbollah, Hamas, ‘
With respect these people already come after us every chance they get now. There comes a pointing when they cannot hate us anymore.
‘increased IRGC support in Iraq, etc. we must not interfere in Iran.’
This is definitely not why going into Iran is a bad idea. 34 people where killed in a bomb strike today in Iraq. The IRGC is already active in Bagdad.
During his recent visit to Camp Victory in Iraq, President Obama told 600 U.S. soldiers that they had helped Iraq to “stand on its own as a democratic country.” He added: “That is an extraordinary achievement, and for that you have the thanks of the American people.”
Was the President giving those troops his views truthfully or prevaricating? If the former is the case, I would say that the official script has changed just a bit. What sayest thou, IBOB?
Amit,
‘Neoconservativism is often worse than Socialism and this is a perfect example’
You are kidding right? SOcialism last century killed millions in Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Camobia, Loas, scores of African countries … and you are comparing this to Iraq? Have you completely lost all sense of proportion?
jacob, the terrorist groups like Hamas, etc need recruits otherwise they die on the vine. our overt actions have a direct result on AQ and others to draw young men and women to their cause. why is that so hard to understand?
and it is not the media coverage of Iraq that has hamstrung us but rather our military too stretched out to fight on another front.
Socialism has killed millions and so has Neoconservatism. Right now the Neocons are trying to kill a few more than the Socialists
The revisionist history in which nobody bothers to mention that virtually every American leader of any significance or political party was in complete argument with the decision to go to war, from Nancy Pelosi to Bill and Hillary, to John Kerry, Al Gore…and so on. The history in which the US President’s motives were questioned in acting on incorrect intelligence, but nobody bothers to question why the British, Australian, Japanese (etc) leaders who came to the conclusion weren’t in on the alleged conspiracy. The history in which the fact that American pilots who were patrolling the no fly zone, as per the 1991 agreement, were routinely shot at and the subject of aggressive action, in clear violation of the peace agreement and every relevent UN resolution. The history in which we forget the fact that if Hussein and his regime had simply let the weapons inspectors do their jobs, the whole thing would have been avoided. The history in which nobody bothers to question why Iraq had assembled the deadliest known bio and chemical warfare terrorists in the world, all in one roof–all being well paid–to do what?
And so on. I’m as unhappy with how Iraq turned out as everybody else is, but I can’t stand how quickly we forget the totalality of the situation and what the facts were at the time. If the war had been properly executed, of course, nobody would be arguing about the justification.
NovaCon, I don’t disagree with what you just said but wouldn’t you also be in favor of socialized medicine if it was implemented properly and efficiently? but I’m guessing you don’t trust the govt competence in doing a good job with health care. we should expect the same incompetence when the same govt deals in foreign policy. less is more
http://bearingdrift.com/2009/06/20/less-is-more/
“jacob, the terrorist groups like Hamas, etc need recruits otherwise they die on the vine. our overt actions have a direct result on AQ and others to draw young men and women to their cause. why is that so hard to understand?”
That’s a dangerously naive statement.
You do know that the greatest number of recruits steamed into organizations like AQ in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, right? This was prior to the US “doing” anything: the astounding success of 15 guys with box cutters served as the motivational factor.
Let’s speculate for a moment, and assume that the WMD argument was just a convenient subterfuge for invading Iraq. In 2001-2002 our asymmetric warfare capabilities were virtually non-existent. The terrain in Afghanistan isn’t exactly ideally suited to our conventional force package. The terrain in Iraq is, however. If the plan was to bait the extremists into coming to Iraq and engaging us on the conventional battlefield, it worked out pretty well. Further, if the plan was to establish forward bases that can accommodate heavy bombers and 200K+ troops for future use in what may be an inevitable armed conflict with Iran I’d say that’s worked out pretty well, too.
Switching gears, what have we done to incite Kim Jong Il into threatening to launch a missile at Hawaii?
I think we all know that elections are won or lost on a candidate’s ability to sway “independents”. much the same, the terrorist groups are able to sway passive support into active support when there is an external threat. you mentioned 9/11 and perhaps you also remember how all Americans quickly were united behind Bush after a very contested election just months earlier.
was 9/11 a win for the bad guys? yes. but where did we lose more Americans? NYC or Iraq? we can have a separate discussion on how simple security measures would have prevented the 9/11 attacks if the FAA didn’t prevent pilots from having guns.
and Kim Jong Il? let’s stop rewarding him for firing missiles at us with foreign aid. as long as we pay him to develop nuclear technology he is going to do it
“I think we all know that elections are won or lost on a candidate’s ability to sway “independents”. much the same, the terrorist groups are able to sway passive support into active support”
That’s a pretty big reach. One involves convincing some poor schlub to vote for one candidate or another. The other involves convincing that same schlub to strap on an explosives vest and commit murder.
I’m not advocating for direct military action BTW. I’d suggest that it might be beneficial to reach out to the Russian Mafia in Turkmenistan, hand them a briefcase with 5B in cash, and ask them to smuggle about a million pallets of AKs and RPGs into Iran, then sit back and watch. They’re good at that sort of thing.
Amit, there were terrorist attacks on us long before we started seriously fighting them which pretty conclusively shows AQ and others were recruiting before any overt action on our part. Why is that so hard to understand? And I’m afraid I have to concur with jacob: your attempts to equate socialism with neoconservatism in terms of the number of real, confirmed deaths resulting from their application is completely daft. Either you’ve lost all sense of proportion, as jacob says, or your familiarity with history is lacking.
But I’m willing to be convinced. Please, tell us where neoconservatism has killed millions. All of us familiar with history are aware of socialism’s lethality. If neocons are trying to top socialism’s tally, it should be easy to point out. Please, do so.
sort of like we did back in 1953? that turned out we wanted.
the way we wanted
Iraq was all about Iran and any other thugocracy paying attention. It was America throwing deep. Iraq and Libya are have some in Iran hopeful. It just may be working.
oh btw, I think between the Iraq war, the Cold War, Vietnam, and even the Civil War we had a few million people die. perhaps we could argue if it was Socialists (i.e. LBJ) or Neocons that wanted to go to war in Vietnam but in the end the real point is that our intervention in other country matters does not serve us. we are not the policeman of the world.
“sort of like we did back in 1953? that turned out we wanted.”
Actually it did. We had 23 years of relative stability in the region as a result.
are you inferring the region was unstable prior to 1953 because democracy was taking hold in Iran which at the time was the most progressive nation in the Middle East? Imagine if we had a real ally in the Middle East instead of ones we have to subsidize.
nevermind how the CIA/Dulles brothers coup in Iran set the pattern for a number of destabilizing events in Latin America over the next 2 decades.
“are you inferring the region was unstable prior to 1953 because democracy was taking hold in Iran which at the time was the most progressive nation in the Middle East?”
No. I’m saying that the stakes were to high for us not to have our thumb on the scales. The cold war was in full swing, and the most important outcome of the coup was denying the Soviets access to the oil.
Against that backdrop, I stand by my position that it was the correct course of action at the time.
the Soviets have plenty of oil and export much of it to Europe. they weren’t the problem, the British were. they are the ones who convinced Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers to get involved because they were upset about British Petroleum losing their oil revenues.
Cato, so would I be correct in saying you would be in favor of airstrikes on Iran and North Korea and the assassination of Hugo Chavez?
No to airstrikes on Iran at this point in time. They’ve got so much heat on them right now even the feckless UN is going to have to step in. Besides that, it looks like the Israelis are going to do it for us in the near future, so why get in the way..
No to North Korea as well. Wait for crazy Kim Jong to launch his impotent rocket in the general direction of the US, then retaliate while it’s in the air on a massive scale.
No on Chavez. That’s a bit of a different circumstance.
And P.S. the Soviets didn’t know they had “plenty of oil” back in 1953.
Cato, I’m glad you’re not advocating any intervention but that seems temporary or in lieu of someone else doing something. what role do you think the US should play immediately?
Honestly, I think the best thing we can do at this point is sit back and allow events to unfold without trying to influence them at all. If these protests have any chance of overthrowing the mullahs and replacing them with a democratic state, we should do nothing to jeopardize that.
Sometimes the best course of action is to do nothing. I think this is one of those situations.
FYI, thought some on this thread might find Hugh Hewitt’s latest of interest: http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/7b591689-e1c3-499e-8a83-b54d940d6e3e
The Iranian government has certainly been showing its true colors. This is yet another example of tyrants using religion and intolerance as an instrument of oppression. The desire to do something, use American treasure to bring freedom to these poor people, is natural but ill-considered. If reform is to happen in Iran, it needs to come from the ground up. The most we in the West can do is offer moral support. ANything else plays right into the mullahs’ hands.
Much as we did in South Vietnam, we should be organizing and teaching the Iranian forces to rid themselves of the problem. The will to do this is already apparent in the population.
Argue as you will (quite possibly by youngsters who weren’t even alive then–Wolverine– that certainly is NOT directed at you–your service is beyond reproach) but South Vietnam did finally move ahead of the communistic half-brother in the region , and contrary to the popular media-inspired belief, and due in large part to our actions there, we did win in Vietnam. The cost was higher than some can fathom. But in the long view, we actually won.
I do not, and cannot , condone the use of larger quick fixes. They reflect poorly on the US in the global worldview.I agree with a portion of the peanut gallery here. It’s the quickest way to turn the world on us for “strongarming” thru our superior firepower.
We’d be much better served to put highly trained intelligence on the ground and shape and form the resistance on the down low. Before Iran’s mullahs and governors even know what has hit them. By the time they should react, it’ll already be too late.
Agree with Brian. Although it is counter-intuitive, doing nothing but supporting non-violence will have a powerful impact that reaches far beyond Iran.
This may be Islam’s new beginning. We could be at the start of Islam’s reformation.
It’s a rejection of extremism (AQ, Hezz, Hamas). It’s a reach toward real democracy.
Will their democracy look like Western democracy? No. We need to be ok with that — they are not the West. But democracy is much better than theocracy.
Cato, your “thumbs on the scale” negate the opportunity costs.
We are where we are. We might be in a worse place without your thumb — or we might be in a better place.
Bullet Proof Monk, the price we paid in Vietnam was extremely high but I respectfully disagree. the progress Vietnam has made since was due to Capitalism, not our military. if we truly believe in our ideals then we don’t need the barrel of a gun to promote them, we can do that by example. Communism was destined to fail and I think our overseas military endeavors postponed that failure. Reagan defeated the Soviets by creating a defensive military strategy, not an offensive one.
Thanks to Sullivan’s blog, read this insightful article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/opinion/21gerecht.html
The stealing of this election looks to be the straw that broke the camel’s back with the corrupt Islamofascists.
In reading more about that poor woman shown above (I debated about whether or not to post that horribel photo) apparently she was targeted by one of these Basij paramilitary thug pieces of shit as she stood next to her father watching the demonstrations. Could it be that she was wearing jeans and no veil? How dare she! I am truly surprised we aren’t seeing NOW organizing protests here in the US. The oppression of women in the name of Islam has gone way overboard.
I indeed hope we are seeing a lasting couter-revolution develop.
I’m still for targeted airstrikes. The regime is using helicopters to drop some type of acid or tear gas solution on protesters. Many people have been hospitalized with severe skin burns.
LI, what targets would you like to hit with airstrikes?
Amit, we’re not that far apart. All we have to move together on is that our actions to suppress the communism did not halt capitalism , but rather allowed it to advance all the more swiftly.
Monk, whenever a war is waged the people must be taxed to pay for it which removes capital from the private sector into the public which hurts Capitalism in my opinion. therefore I would only wage war when it is truly justified and in defense of our nation. the swiftest method to advance capitalism and liberty IMHO is to limit govt powers.
Iran’s air force needs to be put out of action. This should be coordinated with the Mousavi camp. Mousavi is no Patrick Henry, but he’s certainly better than Ahmadenijad. If Mousavi can co-opt the regular army and air force, then perhaps this won’t be needed. The Basij headquarters should be eliminated, along with regime-loyal Revolutionary Guard units. I think it will be better in the long run if we do this rather than the Israelis.
“Cato, I’m glad you’re not advocating any intervention but that seems temporary or in lieu of someone else doing something. what role do you think the US should play immediately?”
This may come as a surprise, but I think the public response by our administration is about right. The Europeans as you might have noticed are taking a harder line than we are. There’s already a sufficient groundswell for significant pressure so we don’t really need to stick our necks out on this one.
I’m pretty much in agreement with the Monk on what the longer term course of action should be.
Full disclosure: I started life as an “operator” meaning a cog in the JSOC machine. I was there for the tail end of the cold war all the way until shortly after Somalia. My viewpoints are naturally shaped by those experiences.
Just because Communism/Fascism is destined to fail doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help it along when an opportunity presents itself.
That poor woman’s name is Neda and she is becoming a true leader in death for this cause:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.woman.twitter/
These Basij a-holes should be exterminated.
LI, do you really think the Mousavi camp would coordinate attacks on strategic sites in Iran with the US? Mousavi is just Ahmadinejad-light.
If it meant him gaining power, who knows. Does an Iranian nuclear bomb scare the shit out of you like it does me?
Obama played golf while the opportunity to speak out forcefully against an oppressive regime slips away????
LI, your statements are really concerning. How would Mousavi gain power by colluding with the US to attack Iran? The Ayatollahs have the real power in Iran and a few military strikes are not going to topple them from power.
Does the nuclear bomb Iran doesn’t have worry me? a little, but a military strike isn’t going to end their ambitions but embolden it. instead of building it themselves they will get North Korea or Russia to sell it to them on the black market. So after we’ve really pissed them off what do you think they are going to do next?
I’m sorry LI but your neocon approach to this situation would be disastrous.
The Administration has played this as well as I would have expected the 2001 Republican Dream Team (Chaney, Rumsfeld, Powell) to play it. The difference is that the current occupants are playing it smart and not falling into traps. The better-credentialled, more experienced crew of 2001, after being Cool Hand Luke for about five or six months following the WTC/Pentagon attacks, just melted down under pressure and went on their binge against Iraq.
There is nothing the religious elite in Iran would like better than for the US to lean too far forward on this. It would save their bacon (can I say that about Islamic theocrats?). It appears that we are declining to extend that favor and are forcing the mullahs to stew in their own juices with the populace. The situation is volatile and dynamic. The correct approach today won’t necessarily be the correct approach tomorrow. But so far, the US is doing the right thing to protect our interests, to promote democracy, and to protect the brave people in the streets of Tehran.
Well Amit my opinions on this are just that, and I have no direct say on how the US responds. We can agree to disagree.
Scout, I don’t think we’ve done one thing to protect the brave people on the streets in Tehran.
we can make it a lot worse for them by appearing to be fomenting them. I thought Obama’s statement today was pretty good. It tried to emphasize that Iran is in the spotlight, without suggesting that the US was behind this.
In any event, I’m not sure there’s anyplace we can drop a bomb that would make this better. This will either be Berlin or it will be Tienamin.
If these protests continue, the people become better armed, and the regular army starts to defect and battle the Revolutionary Guards, then we will have an opportunity to provide real assistance, especially if coordinated with the resistance. Again, no boots on the ground, but tactical air support.
The people don’t really stand a chance against the regime if it’s forces stay loyal. If those forces are decapitated and left without air power, things could change.
Our role could be to curtail other parties from becoming involved (Russia, Syria) and bolstering the hard liners.
The cracks are starting to form in the upper leadership. It may be good to ensure third parties don’t intercede…
tactical air support doesn’t work when you’re supporting civil rights demonstrators.
[...] It’s equally dangerous and just plain bad foreign policy now to be advocating air strikes against a nation when a substantial portion of the population is pushing for change from the inside. Yes, I’m talking to you Insider! [...]
It does when things escalate to the point that the regime is using air power against its citizens. Again, see the Kurdish example.
LI – I understand the desire to assist the Iranians on the ground who are trying to create change. Getting involved in any overt manner would do far more to imperial the prospect of actual change, as it would introduce a new (and highly politically charged) variable that would offer the current regime its best chance of re-establishing something that approximates unity.
The US has been evil incarnate for the past 30 years in Iran. Furthermore, you have to accept that there is tremendous distrust associated with the motivations of western nations (especially those that want to “help” Iran). There is a very clear history of Iran being taken advantage of by various nations over the past couple of hundred years, and the citizenry are acutely aware of this.
Interestingly, in a series of “man on the street” commentaries that were published last Wed/Thur in the WSJ, at least one Mousavi supporter commented that the US had adopted the correct position for all of the reasons I cite above. Bombing Iran or otherwise getting involved in any direct manner is the worst thing that we could do at this time. I realize it’s painful to watch these demonstrators being gunned down – it violates our sense of what’s right on so many levels, but sometimes standing down and doing nothing is actually doing something.
We should be reacting to this much like we reacting to the fall of the Soviet Union and communist regimes in Eastern Europe. We should encourage pro-democracy forces verbally, but not get invoved. Our involvement would only give the hard-liners a way to rally thier forces against “the Great Satan.” When your enemy is shooting himself, the policy is to get out the line of fire and let nature take it’s course.
I still say bomb the nukes weapons plants in Iran and North Korea surgically or have a third party do it. A strike of biblical portions on our country is going to happen if we don’t strike. Ground troops in modern warfare prolongs the reality we need to take out the real weapons of mass destruction. If we don’t I am afraid we will pay the price far worse then 911. Now is the time!!! Korea is about to launch another rocket in defiance and we should blow it out before it is even launched………
Defend the right to protest, and defend freedom. But neither Iranian that was on the ballot is the kind of leader Iran needs.
America is not policeman to the world.
It looks like the Rev Guard has the upper hand now and this will wither and die. Too bad. This was probably the last real chance to save iran from the Islamofascists in our lifetimes.
# 60 Baby Bush thought we were. Isn’t that why we invaded Iraq?????? And what a mess world wide now. We also live in the technology and information age, where with cell phones and the internet, everything is almost instant.
Huseein should have been finished off by Bush Sr, but going back in when we did was a huge blunder. We may have just lost our last chance for a generation or more to change the regime in Iran. That’s very unfortunate, for us, the Iranian people (except the nutcases), and world as a whole.
Leej, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make in #62
LI, regime change in 1979 in Iran took almost a year of protests. we have only seen a week. this is a marathon, not a sprint
I can’t help but wonder had this election taken place last summer with the same result what the response would have been? My bet is some of these folks that seem to have a problem with how Obama is handling it would be on the other side of the fence if Bush took action. Again all about personality and nothing about policy…
#58 agree, surgical airstrikes make alot of sense. What viable 3rd party could be tapped’?
LI, don’t call it yet. There is some interesting stuff going on with the council of experts and we have the memorials…
Amit is right.
I am not giving up yet, but it doesn’t look good, and I think the resistance is losing steam, especially in the face of outright threats of death from the Revolutionary Guards. And those Basij m-f-ers have been armed up significantly as well.
66, there is no viable third party capable of doing it. Of course the Israelis, the most capable air force in the world, could do it, but that would simply be untenable to even the most moderate Iranian. The French of Brits could do some of it but they don’t have enough assets in the area. It’s USAF/USN or nothing.
Great article from The Atlantic on US airpower needs:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force
If you remember my post a while back on the F-22 Raptor, this is a prime example of where a state of the art air superiority fighter is essential to our national security. The Raptor must be kept in production.
[...] intervene or not? Loudoun Insider at TooConservative provide some analysis. Unfortunately I do not agree, air strikes without boots on the ground will only give the Mullahs [...]
Christopher Hitchens shows why we will get blamed for anything anyway:
http://slate.com/id/2221020
I have a Persian “daughter” who lives with us. She is a US citizen (born here when her father was a professor at a US university during the Shah’s reign). She says that a large number of the security forces that are attacking the crowds are Arabic (not Farsi) speakers.
The violence seems to have risen in the last two days. This begins a cycle that resembles the Shah’s end time…
Air strikes are a very bad idea.
the moment US planes end up killing anyone aligned with the opposition, we become the focus, the story and the enemy. Propaganda from the mullahs is one thing, pissing off the man on the street is another.