I was hoping to get through this guest-blogging stint without being called a racist, but no such luck. Roger Simon pulls out all the stops: Not only am I accused of using an “off-puttingly racist locution,” but he also implies that I don’t give a damn about the victims of the recent tsunami, and that I might well have opposed the Civil Rights Movement.
(I also appreciate, in the comments below Mr. Simon’s post, being accused of being a liberal. Which is a new one.)
Anyway, just to clarify: when I quoted Michael Ledeen saying that “we have to stand with our people, everywhere,” and suggested that regarding Iranian democrats as “our people” is a mistaken approach to foreign policy, I did not mean to suggest that we do not share a common humanity with the Persians — or the North Koreans, or the Syrians, or any other people living under tyranny. Nor did I mean to suggest that they are racially inferior to us. Nor that I am indifferent to their fate. Nor that I don’t think it would be a good thing, indeed a great thing, if a “democratic revolution” came to each and every dictatorship on this planet.
OPTIMISM IS NOT A POLICY: What I did mean to suggest is that the United States has different obligations to different peoples — and that its primary responsibility is to safeguard the well-being of American citizens. (I hope this isn’t a controversial statement.) If this can be done while promoting democracy in Iran, so much the better. However, as Mr. Simon rightly points out, the primary challenge facing our government today is “the hugely dangerous proliferation issue.” And Iran is the centerpiece of that challenge — a proud nation with a history of political dominance in the region, governed by a corrupt gang of fanatics who are only months, perhaps, away from acquiring nuclear weapons.
So what are we to do? Mr. Ledeen has suggested, most recently here, that the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes (and to pacify Iraq, though that’s a separate debate) is to promote democratic revolution within that nation. Fair enough. I wondered how, precisely, he intends to go about promoting such a revolution. A few days later, he wrote that what pro-democracy activists in countries like Iran need is what we gave the protestors in the Ukraine: “A bit of guidance in the methods of non-violent resistance, a bit of communications gear, and many words of encouragement.” And I asked, in the post that apparently dripped with racism — is this really a plausible strategy for dealing with Iran?
Those who think the answer is “yes” need to address a number of issues. First, taking a bold, “we’re-going-to-undermine-you-from-within-and-there’s-nothing-you-can-about-it” tack with the Iranians pretty much removes any hope of a diplomatic solution to the nuclear quandary. Well, there isn’t going to be a diplomatic solution, Ledeen, Simon, et. al. might retort — but it’s also the case that the more confrontational our rhetoric with Iran, the higher their state of alert, and the harder it will be to launch a quick military strike of the kind Reuel Marc Gerecht advises here. (Though he adds that the strongest argument “against attacking Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities is that we may not technically be able to do it,” which doesn’t entirely inspire confidence.)
Finally, even if the mullahs were toppled, it seems extremely likely that a democratic Iran would still pursue a bomb — and more importantly, would continue to be the U.S.’s (and certainly Israel’s) major strategic rival in the region. (There’s no evidence that democracies, and particularly poor, nationalistic democracies, can’t be just as nuke-happy and bellicose as the next nation.) So it’s by no means clear that “democratic revolution” is a solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East at all.
Look, I’m not at all sure what what our Iran policy should be. But based on their comments, Roger Simon and Michael Ledeen seem to think that we should put our faith in the Iranian dissident movement. I’ve listened to their arguments, and I’m not convinced. I’m not trying to “throw stones at the optimist”; I’m trying to figure out what the posture of the United States government should be. And I think that on an issue as grave as nuclear proliferation, resting the security of “our people” (by which, yes, I mean Americans first and foremost) in the hands of Iran’s would-be democrats — many of whom, as Gerecht notes, “have a very jaundiced view of the United States” — is a dangerous gamble. And foreign policy is too serious a business to gamble with, just for the sake of “driving the car forward,” as Mr. Simon puts it.
A NOTE ON REALISM (AND IRAQ): I should add that I don’t consider myself a realist, and certainly not of the classic Metternich-Kissinger school, though I have respect for both men. (Well, okay, mainly Metternich.) I certainly think idealism of various kinds has a place in foreign policy, though I’m not always sure what that place is. (For instance, I would have backed intervention in Rwanda, but I’m less sure about Kosovo. Of course, we did the reverse.) And I don’t have any problem with the United States making democratization the large-scale goal of its foreign policy.
What I do have a problem with is in the notion that the proper approach to foreign policy is a mix of willy-nilly optimism about “democratic revolution” and foot-on-the-gas bellicosity — and I detect both of these qualities in Mr. Ledeen.
He might well retort that in a world filled with terrorists, loose nukes, and the potential for more 9/11-style attacks, we must at times take some significant risks in whom we support, whom we condemn, and whom we invade. And he would be right, up to a point — just as he’d be right that whenever possible, when we take such risks, we should err on the side of promoting human rights and republican self-government.
However, the last time we undertook such a risk was in the invasion of Iraq, which, whatever you think about its wisdom (and I think I am in good company in having serious doubts), has placed us in a difficult position vis-a-vis the threat posed by Iran. And I hope that at the very least, everyone (
left and right) can agree that at least a few mistakes were made during the run-up to the Iraq War . . . and that among them was a significant over-optimism about the ease of installing democracy in a Muslim dictatorship in the heart of the Middle East. So perhaps, just perhaps, we should have a little humility — heck, call it a little “conservatism,” if you want — about our ability to bring about a “democratic revolution” in the country next door.
FINALLY: Since I’m fairly new to this whole blogging thing, I’d like to thank Mr. Simon for thickening my skin. I hope that my initial seething fury has been translated into a fairly cogent post — and I apologize to the weary reader for its length.
— Ross
The Dish 