Two On Iran

In case you were wondering, here's the Spartacist take on the Iranian nuclear issue:

Photo by Whiskeygonebad

More nuanced ideas are also available this fine weekend. Laura Secor's excellent look at the Iranian political scene makes several points explicitly and I'd recommend you read the article yourself though you can also find Ogged's take here. A couple of additional points are made implicitly by the article. One is simply that Iranian politics is complicated. It's complicated institutionally, it's complicated ideologically, and it's complicated in terms of personalities and factions. The other point is that while you'd certainly rather live in a liberal democracy than under the Iranian political system, this is no kind of totalitarianism and the many people throwing that word around are just warmongering ignorantly.

The other must-read, via David Kurtz, is The Observer's look at the actual state of the Iranian nuclear program. It's not so hot. Building nuclear bombs is hard. The Iranians don't have access to the method materials, nor is the program funded as heavily as it might be. Right now, they aren't making very much progress.

Comments

this is no kind of totalitarianism and the many people throwing that word around are just warmongering ignorantly.

It's very charitable of you to chalk it up to ignorance, rather than malice.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 2:55 PM

It occurs to me that MY's position is very reminiscent of the Spartacists. The Spartacists believe that the Iranians are seeking a nuclear weapon for essentially defensive reasons and so does Yglesias (perhaps so does Wes Clark?). The merits and motives of the arguments surely differ in important respects, but they are similar in important respects too.

Posted by otto | January 28, 2007 2:59 PM

It makes one wonder what Lindbergh would have thought about Iran's nuclear ambitions, no?

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 3:04 PM

That's a very important point about Iran having a pluralist political system that is far from being totalitarian. The script of Iran being nothing but some benighted clerical facism is raw propaganda.

Actually, I think Iran has in certain ways just as good a claim to being a "democracy" as Israel does. Israel is more democratic for the 50-60% of people in their territory who have citizenship rights, but the other 40-50% are far worse off than they would be in Iran.

Posted by MQ | January 28, 2007 3:41 PM

i'm eagerly waiting for some nutjob to argue that since our intel was so wrong on Iraq, we can't trust our evidence on Iran. It's-a-comin'.

Posted by MP | January 28, 2007 3:43 PM

I'm tempted to respond to claims of Israeli democratic practices but am resisting out of a desire to keep this OT.

Otto, I think there's a distinction you're missing between MY and the Spartacists or else you're simply being facetious. Not that there's anything wrong with being facetious, mind you. The Spartacists think its a good thing that the Iranians are seeking a nuclear weapon for what they see as defensive purposes. MY is simply taking an analytical approach - a la most political scientists or defense analysts - to determining the causes and drivers behind the Iranian nuclear program. FWIW, I think the motivations behind Iran's nuclear program are more complex than a simple drive for deterrence against the United States - the deterrent issues, I would argue, stems more from the experience being attacked by chemical weapons during Iran's war with Iraq than anything else. Combine that with regional ambitions, considerations of ethno-nationalist pride, and the inertia of Iran's nuclear bureaucracy, and you've got a bunch of motivations for wanting the bomb.

Posted by woot | January 28, 2007 3:49 PM

According to Alan Dershowitz on C-Span today, Iran is 1938 Nazi Germany.

Posted by ponte | January 28, 2007 3:53 PM

Otto, I think there's a distinction you're missing between MY and the Spartacists or else you're simply being facetious.

Pretty sure otto is simply being facetious. See the Lindbergh posts of the past few days for more.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 3:54 PM

Re; That's a very important point about Iran having a pluralist political system that is far from being totalitarian. The script of Iran being nothing but some benighted clerical facism is raw propaganda.

Oh good grief! The Soviet Union had a legislature, president, courts etc. Even the Third Reich had the trappings of a democracy! Such are just Potmekin structures to give the theocrats (commissars, Nazis) a degree of legitimacy. In reality Iran's Parliament is no more likely to challenge the powers that be than England's 16th century Parliament would have gone up against Henry VIII. A few have tried of course and they came to bad ends. Now to be sure if the Mullahs ever do go the way of the Commissars then maybe some real life can be breathed into these institutions, much as happened in Eastern Europe after 1989. So yes, there's hope, but in the meantime don't mistake hope and illusion for reality.

Posted by JonF | January 28, 2007 4:14 PM

Pretty sure otto is simply being facetious. See the Lindbergh posts of the past few days for more.

Oh, good. I enjoy facetiousness. It helps me sleep at night.

Anyway, I think it's fallacious to compare the Iranian regime to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. They're simply not comparable. While it's in no sense anything near an open regime, there are multiple centers of power operating - Ahmadinejad vs. Khameini, for example. Even if JonF's analogy is correct (which it isn't), then all the hullabaloo over Ahmadine-Zsa Zsa Gabor-ijad's Holocaust denial and otherwise foolish and imflammatory rhetoric is pointless. If the clerics really rule with an iron fist, then Khameini - who's generally described as a tempermentally conservative, non-intellectual, and not an especially bold or charismatic figure - would be the one with his finger on the button. In fact, he's been warning Ahmadinejad to back off recently - so what would that tell us if Iran were a totalitarian state? In any case, Iran isn't a totalitarian state - it's an authoritarian one with competing centers of power and internal contradictions, and not amenable to the theorizing of dime-store Arendt crowd.

Posted by woot | January 28, 2007 4:52 PM

"Oh good grief!"

At last, a blast of common sense. "Iran is far from being totalitarian" As if! Don't you recall Tutor England!
And let me raise more historical examples--like the Soviet Union and the Third Riech--because they have everything to do with modern day Iran! Wait, what's that you say? "Provide an analysis of the Iranian political system as it is, as well as a history and sociology of the forces that undergird it." But why should I do that? After all, as everyone knows, the Kaiser ruled Germany!

Look, just as every democratic society is the same and therefore liable to mindless generalization (you know, Singapore=the United States=Scandanavia=the Paris Communes) so are authoritarian governments (or should I say, totalitarian dystopias). This, people, is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. I mean, good grief!

Posted by Mark | January 28, 2007 4:56 PM

People, would it have been possible for Hitler and Stalin not to have had their nominees for energy minister approved? Would it have been possible for anyone to have suggested this without being killed (not that there aren't political prisoners in Iran)? Would the Nazis or Communists have lost local elections? As for the fact that the mullahs (who are NOT and to a certain extent are in opposition to President Looney-Tunes) seem unwilling to cede their power at this juncture, the reason for pointing out Iranian multipolarity is that authoritarian governments are supposedly less likely to go nuts and do terrible stuff than totalitarian governments. I don't want to go into examples because this is just a comments space, but the late, sainted Kirkpatrick theorized on this.

Posted by Wido | January 28, 2007 5:20 PM

Re: my first post on this thread
...Not that "examples" would prove anything. Also, the rhetorical question about the Nazis and Communists and elections applies to the period when their countries were more or less one party states. And as defense against counter-examples the Enabling Act made German legislative and judicial participation basically irrelevant and whatever communist party disagreements existed did not go out in public as regularly as it seems those in Iran do today. I'll stop wasting y'all's time now.

Posted by wido | January 28, 2007 5:27 PM

It's certainly a legitimate question to ask why we-- or Israel, France, India, etc.-- can have nukes and no one else can. I'm aware of the NPT, but there is a moralizing element to how this dialogue goes on that is disturbing. The USA doesn't have a moral right to nuclear weapons that Iran doesn't.

Posted by Freddie | January 28, 2007 6:32 PM

I haven't talked to any sparts about Iran. I'd be very curious to hear what one would have to say given that they uniquely among left factions didn't endorse the Iraninan revolution. I can't imagine Iran would qualify for "critical support".

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 28, 2007 6:33 PM

Sounds like Jonny-boy needs the differences between Nazi Germany and the Weimar Republic spelled out for him.

Posted by Reality Man | January 28, 2007 7:09 PM

Greatest fact ever: The Spartacists once condemned Noam Chomsky for being a lackey of the capitalist system.

Posted by Walt | January 28, 2007 7:18 PM

The Spartacists once condemned Noam Chomsky for being a lackey of the capitalist system.

They spend half their time telling you that outfits like the ISO or the WWP are reformist, capitalism scum or worse. The fight to differentiate out on the left end of the spectrum does that. It's why I was somewhat suprised to see the Iran signs. When you mention Iran around a spart the expected reaction is an attack on any number of other communist organizations for giving whatever form of support to the Mullahs. That's what I've come to expect anyway.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 28, 2007 7:42 PM

There are American agents in Iran fomenting dissent and revolt. The U.S. is engaged in very public sabre rattling towards Iran, with military strikes at least implicit. All this with no independent (U.N.?) official findings or investigations of U.S. allegations that Iran poses a threat to either Iraq, the United States or the Mideast in general. What oversight is made public indicates much of what the U.S. asserts is false or exaggerated. I wonder what the reaction would be if Iranian leadership made public, as Bush has, they'd ordered the killing of antagonists and meddlers known to be a direct threat to their government? Like say, oh, George Bush and Dick Cheney. Tit for tat. Seems fair to me.

Posted by steve duncan | January 28, 2007 10:07 PM

this is no kind of totalitarianism

It is, in fact, vastly more open and democratic than China, which we no longer call "totalitarian" and which we obviously don't include in the Axis of Evil or contemplate as a target for "regime change". China has some democratic elections at the village level, but that hasn't moved up to any national or even city-level bodies, as it has in Iran. And politics take place openly in Iran: people know who the candidates are, they have discrete and open policy positions which can be compared to each other, and they openly belong to different factions (which would be a dirty word in China, I believe).

Posted by mattsteinglass | January 28, 2007 10:47 PM

yeah, sure, but it still sucks, can we agree on that?

Posted by novakant | January 29, 2007 4:33 AM

Sucks compared to what?

Posted by mattsteinglass | January 29, 2007 5:32 AM

I realize the Sparts are grade-A nuts, but, "Iran needs nukes to deter US attack": is this really wrong?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 29, 2007 10:51 AM

I'm aware of the NPT, but there is a moralizing element to how this dialogue goes on that is disturbing.

Yeah, especially if one takes it one step further, and says that the NPT need not be followed at all by the "good guy" nations, while its provisions are insufficiently strict when applied to Iran. If the NPT were actually the keystone of the argument about restricting the nuclear club, Iran is more compliant with it than the US, which recently blatantly violated it to provide India with nuclear tech.

Posted by mds | January 29, 2007 11:34 AM

Sucks compared to, oh, I don't know, a place that guarantees freedom of speech, assembly, press and such things - stuff the Iranian students seem to cherish.

See, compared to Russia the GDR was a swell place to live in, but that didn't make things any better if you were a Stasi victim.

Posted by novakant | January 29, 2007 3:05 PM