SOPHISTICATED COUNTRY

This time, it was Iran. The same debate really. Is Tehran a regime in transition with an inevitable shift toward democracy? Is it better for the West to take a hard line with the military-Islamic regime in order to encourage a change for the better – or should we ply them with trade, diplomacy, and oh-so-sophisticated engagement? I mentioned Rafsanjani’s recent public statement that he wanted to nuke Israel. “Oh,” my friends replied. “He is just a silly person. It is all for domestic consumption. You should take a more sophisticated approach.” I asked about the nominated British ambassador, rejected by Tehran because he is allegedly a spy, and a Jew. They didn’t have a particularly good answer for that, except to argue that Iran is now a unique state, in their opinion. It is a state with two equivalent regimes. We have to be careful, sophisticated (that word again) or it could all go horribly wrong. What about Iranian disruption in Afghanistan? Inevitable border dispute. That boat-load of arms to the PLO? Why not? The Iranians do not regard Hizbollah or Hamas as terrorist organizations but as national liberators. And so the argument came back to Israel, where one found almost zero support for any of the Jewish state’s actions. I recount this not because I agree with it,. but because it was a direct interaction with a worldview that is powerful and prevalent in the most pro-American European country. My friends are also no radicals and they are all in the top 1 percent educational bracket. Many are right-of-center. One demanded any evidence that George W. Bush wasn’t a moron. Now do you see the problem?