Month: September 2006

It’s good to see some of the contours of the argument between neocons and realists come into clearer focus. I’m more persuaded by the neocons on this one, precisely because I tend to believe what religious fanatics say about their own motives and aspirations. Iran’s leaders – especially the current president – have been quite clear about what they want. They want the destruction of Israel and the submission of all infidels to Islamic rule. Here are a few recent statements by the Iranian president:

"The anger of Muslims may reach an explosion point soon. If such a day comes, they [Western governments] should know that the waves of the blast will not remain within the boundaries of our region and will engulf the corrupt powers that support this fake regime too."

Here again:

"Open your eyes and see the fate of Pharaoh … Open your eyes and see what happened to the Portuguese Empire. See the final fate of the British Empire … I am telling you [major powers], if you do not abandon the path of falsehood and return to the path of justice, your doomed destiny will be annihilation, misfortune and abjectness."

Annihilation? The choice is between handing Iran a nuke or being annihilated? In 2005, Ahmadinejad was even clearer:

"Undoubtedly, I say that this slogan and goal is achievable, and with the support and power of God, we will soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism and will breathe in the brilliant time of Islamic sovereignty over today’s world."

Two key words here: "achievable" and "soon." Those who favor containment must argue either that Ahmadinejad does not hold ultimate power or that he does not mean what he says. I have no doubt that he means what he says. The question is whether Ahmadinejad holds real power, i.e. whether the president of Iran represents Iran’s true regime.

(Photo: Reuters.)

A reader spells out a realist case:

It goes something like this: the real leaders of Iran are wealthy, well-heeled men, not unlike the Saudi royals. These Ayatollahs are relying on Ahmadinejad to project a frightening and unpredictable image for Iran abroad, but it is not their prime intention to destroy Israel. Rather, Iran’s leaders seek to consolidate power in the Middle East in the wake of America’s disastrous Iraq policy. Ahmadinejad’s pronouncements are meant only to keep the world off balance until the current instability in the region is resolved. To the extent that Iran is fomenting chaos in Iraq, it is doing so only to assist those politicians and religious figures – such as Muqtada al-Sadr – it views as crucial allies in the region. Once these allies have assumed control in Iraq, Iran will, in fact, become an agent of stability in Iraq. Iran’s eventual goal is the formation of an alliance with Iraq that will amount to a Shiite superstate in the Middle East. (To the extent that Iran pursues nuclear weapons, it does so in support of this broad goal – rather than a specific goal to destroy Isreal.) 

The realist position holds that once Shiite control of Iraq has been realized – and Iraqi oil begins to flow – Iran will select from two possible courses of action: either work within established political/economic structures, such as OPEC and the U.N., to consolidate power on a global scale, or, begin allying itself with non-Western industrial powers, such as Russia and China, to challenge the West’s political and economic hegemony more radically. The worst case scenarios in the realist vision are too numerous to count: the breakdown of the world’s established economic and political systems, resource wars, unstable geopolitical alliances similar to those that led to WWI and WWII, etc.  Conversely, a realist may hope that all of this could also lead to a benign reshuffling of Middle East power – with the Shiite allies seizing some of the Saudis’ control over the region without any real impact on the existing global structure. Under the latter scenario, we would find an empowered Iran willing to "play ball" with the West, once power has been secured.

And so the question, it seems to me, comes down to 9/11. Did it reveal a genuinely new and apocalyptic element in global politics, something made more terrifying by the advance of destructive technology? Or was bin Laden a fluke or a marginal figure? Do he and Ahmadinejad represent the real power in the Middle East, or are they just showmen, creating spectacles to distract the frustrated masses, while other, more serious figures wait in the wings, prepared to deal? On the answer to that question a great deal depends.

For me, this week, five years later, I believe the threat is real and growing. And I believe we have to fight, rather than accommodate, it. It seems to me we can be shrewd and deft and guileful in fighting it on our terms. Fighting does not merely mean brute military force. It can mean more skillful global diplomacy with other great powers to isolate Iran’s regime, better counter-insurgency tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan, covert military action, expanded intelligence, as well as subtle but real support for the people of Iran. I’m afraid that under this president none of this will happen, which is why the next two years of continued Western incompetence are so perilous. But no American president can or should tolerate the Iranian regime’s acquisition of nuclear weaponry. And negotiating with theo-fascists is a mug’s game. Their God does not negotiate. And they are nothing if not faithful to their God.

Some grim stories of fear and loathing. (Hat tip: Petrelis.)

It depends who you ask, but Tom DeFrank’s sources are good ones; and some are despondent. Money quote:

"We’ll lose the House," one of the party’s most prominent officials flatly predicted, "and the President will be dead in the water for two years." Even a perennially optimistic senior Bush strategist conceded, "I’m pretty worried about it. The House is not looking good."

Gerry-mandering and a good ground-game could help the GOP, of course. And one should never under-estimate the Democrats’ gift for losing. But still …

As the weeks go by, the initial narrative put out by the Bush administration and Blair government is in tatters. John Judis picks up the thread at TNR. Money quote:

While those arrested were British Muslims, they were thought to be acting on behalf of or in coordination with Al Qaeda. A "senior US intelligence official" told The Boston Globe, "There are suspicions that there is a real Al Qaeda connection – not just Al Qaeda wannabees or inspire-ees." Pakistani and American officials claimed that the "operational planner" of the conspiracy was Rashid Rauf, a British citizen, whom the Pakistanis said had admitted under interrogation of having met with an Al Qaeda leader in Pakistan …

Was the plot an Al Qaeda operation? Rauf himself had been busted by the Pakistanis the day before the London arrests, and, according to the Pakistanis, had admitted – allegedly under torture – to having made contact with Matiur Rehman, whom the Pakistanis claim is an Al Qaeda operative. But that’s hardly proof of Al Qaeda direction. Moreover, Rauf’s role remains unclear. A British counterterrorism official told the Los Angeles Times that Rauf was not the plot’s "mastermind." And Rauf’s actual connection to Al Qaeda is also suspect. Rauf has been linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed, which operates in Kashmir. There could still be an Al Qaeda link. But, like all the initial details of this case, it remains in doubt.

As the details have become murky, what has also been cast in doubt is the explanation of why the arrests were made in the first place. According to British officials, the Brits did not want to arrest the plotters; they preferred to see who else, over the next months, the plotters recruited and made contact with. But their hand was forced when the Pakistanis arrested Rauf on August 9. Why the Pakistanis did so remains unclear, but there is a speculation that they did so at U.S. urging. "There have been reports that U.S. officials pushed for the arrest," the Los Angeles Times reported on August 20.

Hmmm.

There’s a sane and smart op-ed in the WaPo today arguing against the rage on the right for constitutional amendments to deal with contentious social debates. It’s by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III. Money quote:

Ordinary legislation – not constitutional amendments – should express the community’s view that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." To use the Constitution for prescriptions of policy is to shackle future generations that should have the same right as ours to enact policies of their own. To use the Constitution as a forum for even our most favored views strikes a blow of uncommon harshness upon disfavored groups, in this case gay citizens who would never see this country’s founding charter as their own.

Let’s look in the mirror. Conservatives who eloquently challenged the Equal Rights Amendment and Roe v. Wade for federalizing core areas of state law now support an amendment that invites federal courts to frame a federal definition of marriage and the legal incidents thereof.

This, of course, is the authentically conservative argument. But it seems to me that Wilkinson misses an important aspect of the phenomenon: there is an integral philosophical connection between religious fundamentalism and the push not just for legislative but constitutional action on social matters. For the fundamentalist, the truth never changes, and the truth, i.e. God’s law, must be applied at all times. And where else to instantiate that truth in the most authoritative sense than in the Constitution? When matters of life and death and the nuclear family are concerned, why should Christianists stop at mere legislation? On the issues they care most about, they can see no compromise between the "culture of life" and the "culture of death."

Within Christian fundamentalism, after all, there is no internal argument for restraint or moderation. In fact, restraint in the face of evil is a sin, just as doubt is a failure of religious will, and moderation is, more often than not, the fruit of "relativism" or evil. Hence the Republican party platform that calls for amending the federal constitution to ban all abortions and to bar gay couples from equality for ever. You can see the inexorable fundamentalist logic: if we have a chance to prevent future generations from succumbing to terrible sin and social decay, why should we refrain? It was the same Christianist impulse behind Prohibition – which insisted on amending the federal Constitution to reflect God’s law rather than simply banning booze by state law or county ordinance. In Christianism, there is no Burkean sense of generational or organic social change. Such Burkean change is terrifying for the Christianist, whose truths cannot change. There is merely eternal truth, to be implemented as thoroughly as possible, as soon as possible – or face divine judgment. And so the constitutionalization of social policy is integral to Christianism, which is now integral to Republicanism. I’m glad Wilkinson sees that there is a difference between this and what we once knew as conservatism.

It’s a good one.

Fareed Zakaria asks us all to take a deep breath and "contain" Iran. He debunks the Nazi analogy by pointing out that in 1938, Germany was the second biggest economy in the world, while today, Iran barely makes the top 20 and is going backwards. He thinks of Ahmadinejad as a populist Huey Long not an apocalyptic Adolf Hitler. Count me unpersuaded. The one huge difference between today and 1938 is technology. in 1938, you needed a massive economy to wage conventional warfare. Today, you need some loose nukes and a few religious fanatics to bring the West to a halt. Moreover, the Soviets were rational compared to the Jihadists. They saw nuclear annihilation as something to be avoided. Ahmadinejad and other radical Islamists see it as a prelude to the Eschaton they devoutly hope for (along with vast numbers of Christianists). Fareed also declares the major powers "united" in facing down Iran. Really? Russia? China? Not so much. We have five years, Zakaria argues, until we face a nuclear Iran. So it’s not 1938, after all. It’s just 1934. Reassured? Actually, I am. There’s a chance to stop Iran without depending on George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. So there’s hope.

A new book says he was gay, and that Rove had a good and loving relationship with him. So today’s Republican hierarchs don’t seek merely to persecute their own gay sons and daughters, they also retroactively demonize their own parents. Hey, if bashing your dad’s relationship gets you Ohio, you do what you gotta do. It’s called family values. Or the pursuit of power. Take your pick.