A War of Ideas?

Azar Nafisi: "In other words, the main beneficiary of an attack on Iran would be the most militaristic and reactionary elements in the Iranian ruling hierarchy." I'm afraid I don't entirely understand the counterproposal:

The most effective war against the tyrants in Iran is through giving voice to the workers asking for their rights, to women fighting for equality and to students, journalists, writers and intellectuals fighting for freedom of expression.

To miss this opportunity not only would be disastrous for the Iranian people, it would have dire consequences for the United States and the world.

I'm all for it, I think, but what would it mean in practice? It seems to me that America's practical ability to impact this situation gets overstated.

Comments

I believe he's calling for the US to support resistance movements within Iran. Which is a stupid, stupid proposal. If it became known that the US were backing any given dissident group, that dissident group would lose all support. The best thing the US can do for the Iranian resistance is nothing at all.

Posted by Minipundit | February 15, 2007 5:52 PM

The way to win is too appeal to the types of people that are hated in the US. Somehow this makes sense to the right?

Posted by jg | February 15, 2007 5:52 PM

What if a foreign country decided that it would be in their best interests for a particular party to win the US elections (surely most of them have opinions)? How much practical ability would they have to affect the result? Surely not much.

Why should it be any different for us, in regards to any reasonably civilized nation whose elections we might have an opinion on? Unless we want to deploy the Farsi-speaking ninjas, of course we don't have significant ability to promote democracy in Iran. Indeed, it is extremely counterproductive for us to speechify on this topic, since the result is that genuine pro-democracy movements within Iran get smeared as fronts for US interests and face dangerous consequences.

Our best hope is probably the China solution, which is to say, democratization-by-McDonalds.

Posted by Steve | February 15, 2007 6:14 PM

The most effective war against the tyrant in Washington D.C. is for the Iranians to give voice to American workers, women, journalists, writers, and intellectuals.

Come on Iran: we need our voice!

Posted by blah | February 15, 2007 6:46 PM

Our best bet to help democracy in Iran is by normalizing relations and increasing trade with Iran. Historically, the transition from a dictatorship/limited democracy to a more robust democracy has been economic growth that leads to an expansion of the middle class. Expanding trade with Iran will create jobs and raise wages among the average Iranian. This will empower the Iranian people to reform their nation. If we combine this with measures that reduce the demand for oil, which largely puts money in the hands of the government and the elite, we can induce a change in the balance of power within Iranian society.

Posted by nelziq | February 15, 2007 6:52 PM

Four decades ago, the People's republic of China was being crushed under genocidal, immiserating, fanatically oppressive Maoist rule. It also faced diplomatic isolation fronm the United States and its allies. Mao was no Ahmadinejad: the latter being a global populist of limited domestic power, maneuvering within a complex and divided government with important competing power centers. Mao was a truly genocidal dictator.

There were people in the US then, as now, who argued that we should never, ever talk to the "Red" Chinese - or at least not in any way other than through the business end of a cannon. China was just too evil, they said, and engagement meant legitimation. If we listened to these moralizing fanatics then, China and much of south and southeast Asia might ultimately have faced war - even nuclear war - revolution and destitution, and they, and we, might very well live in a world of bars and fences and ruins and patrolling gunboats

What did we do instead? We opened diplomatic relations with China, supported China's accession to the Security Council and embarked on a decades long project of constructive engagement with China. It was truly an inspired and enlightened move.

The result? Most of China's people are now vastly more free than than they were in the 60's. They are more prosperous. They are more integrated into the global economy and culture. Is China now absolutely wonderful? No. But the Chinese continue to grow more free and prosperous. In the absence of an atmosphere of external threat and pressure, the kind of atmosphere that tends to promote militarism, they have experienced a rise that is remarably non-militaristic by the standards of great power rises of the past. This process will continue so long as we don't muck it up by listening to those on the right and the left who seek and promote conflict, preach ideological cold wars of various kinds, and seemingly have more faith in the power of confrontation than the power of peace. Beligerance, tension and threat produce xenophobia, secrecy, hierarchical command and militarism. Peace promotes confidence, ease and liberality.

So how do we promote progress in Iran? Gently. Using the opening to China as our model, we should:

1. Preserve the peace;

2. Communicate frequently and openly with the Iranian government, and from time to time at the highest levels;

3. Drop sanctions, unfreeze Iran's assets, and seek full economic engagement with the country;

4. Instead of isolating Iran, seek its participation in and integration into international institutions. instead of giving xenophobic leaders the means to expolit national self-pity and a siege mentality, give it more of a governing stake;

5. Promote free-flowing cultural exchange between our countries. We want Americans appearing on Iranian TV stations and Iranians on American TV stations. We want artists, intellectuals and ordinary people develoiping ties of friendship and mutual appreciation that become hard to break during inevitable periods of rising tension.

The dissident students in Iran will ultimately become the generation that leads their country. We want to keep them out of the streets and out of the jails, and see that they move instead into the places in Iranian society that are now being prepared for them by virtue of their educational attainments. That's how change will occur. Step by small step, as they move into business, civil and government sectors, they will figure out in their own way, relying on the intuitive grasp of a society's norms and opportunities that is possessed only by native members of that society, how to loosen up institutions, how to gradually and surreptitiously pull power away from clerics and toward technocrats and ordinary people, and how to promote freedom under the banner of prosperity.

Iran already has institutions that are more liberal than many of the other countries in the region, and a foundation of democratic and quasi-democratic institutions that might, if cultivated wisely and without bumbling, brute force intrusions, evolve into more vigorous and autonomous forms, achieving a gradual erosion of authoritarian power.

Let's not bungle this subtle, long-term operation by listening to extremists in the US and naive revolutionary romantics in Iran who think the route to progress comes through Molotov cocktails, chaos in the streets and invading foreign armies. Iran has already had one revolution, with decidedly mixed results. In the chaos and power vaccuum that resulted, it ended up with the odd mix of clerical authoritarianism and republicanism through which it now gropes toward its future.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 15, 2007 6:59 PM

I think he wants wireless. Doesn't everybody?

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 15, 2007 7:03 PM

Actually, the resistance movements in Iran have refused to take money from the U.S. government. (Sorry to be a one-note bore, but I learned this from a talk by, yes, Danny Postel.) They're not looking for any type of government support, but rather support from U.S. civil society. I agree with Matt that practically speaking there are some real problems here--and with the "human rights" NGO framework in general--but that's the route that (the most vocal, anyway) Iranian dissidents have chosen.

Posted by Brian Cook | February 15, 2007 7:09 PM

What is wrong with slow but sure? Yglesias, too, displaying that (in)famous American impatience and short attention span? I thought he was above that kind of thing.

Posted by name | February 15, 2007 7:53 PM

In other words, the main beneficiary of an attack on Iran would be the most militaristic and reactionary elements in the Iranian ruling hierarchy.

It's a little depressing that anyone even has to point out something this blindingly obvious.

It seems to me that America's practical ability to impact this situation gets overstated.

I don't think we have that much influence in this regard, but then I don't see a lot of people overstating it. What I see people overstating (in a potentially catastrophic way) is the efficacy of a military 'solution'.

Posted by Tom Hilton | February 15, 2007 8:13 PM

It seems to me that America's practical ability to impact this situation gets overstated.

America's ability to impact every situation gets overstated. It's the flip side of the "blame America first" phenomenon (not entirely mythical). We have to bring democracy to x-istan, situation y is "unacceptable", blah di blah. At a speech in Hanoi, I heard Condi Rice try to claim that Vietnam's turn to the free market was a successful result of American "engagement" -- this, of decisions taken by the leadership of a country with which we had never had diplomatic relations and who we'd barely even had a policy towards for over a decade.

That said, I agree this sounds like an impatient response from MY. If we can only contribute incrementally to Iranian democratization, and must act cautiously and with restraint so as not to corrupt or instrumentalize civil-society groups, that doesn't make it any less important to advocate US aid supporting the growth of (genuine, not donor-darling) civil society.

Posted by mattsteinglass | February 15, 2007 8:46 PM

Pssst, minipundit and bob mcmanus: Azar Nafisi is a woman.

Just FYI, now that you're all interested in listening to Iranians, and all. She's gotten a bit of press the last few years, sold a few books, been published a bit here and there on the op-ed pages . . .

Posted by d | February 15, 2007 8:48 PM

If we can only contribute incrementally to Iranian democratization, and must act cautiously and with restraint so as not to corrupt or instrumentalize civil-society groups, that doesn't make it any less important to advocate US aid supporting the growth of (genuine, not donor-darling) civil society.

Sounds like a job for George Soros. And no, I'm not being snarky; this is exactly what he does.

Posted by Tom Hilton | February 15, 2007 10:03 PM

Matt may be showing a little impatience, but he does have a point. The Anne-Marie Slaughterites of the US use this talk all the time without explaining what the actual logistics are. Who are we supposed to support exactly via the government? Dropping the sanctions and letting US civil society and business help Iran liberalize internally like posters above have stated makes sense, but I'm not sure that's what writers like Slaughter and Nafisi are saying. How do you, as a government, support somebody if by doing so you de-legitimize them?

Another thing that doesn't get mentioned enough is that the politicians and activists in the region that the MSM labels "pro-American" are often (at least superficially) socialists. IIRC, Walid Jumblaat, who gets mentioned a lot as the pro-Bush leader of what the MSM tends to slyly call "a Druze party," is the head of what is actually called the Socialist Party. As I understand it, the students in Iran often called pro-American include a mixture of relative liberals and socialists. Are we ready to support socialism, whether or not it has the word "democratic" before it? I can't see anyone in the Republican Party willing to sign onto this as part of a long-standing bipartisan policy like how containment of the USSR and the opening to China in the 1970's was such a policy. It would also be hard to criticize the Latin left, including the rather odd ones like Chavez and Morales, while supporting Middle Eastern socialists and not look like naked hypocrites.

Posted by Reality Man | February 15, 2007 10:45 PM

C'mon Matt, all we have to do is send Karen Hughes over to Tehran and everyone will get with the program.

Posted by steve duncan | February 15, 2007 10:46 PM

Sounds like a job for George Soros

The name that came to mind immediately was Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, but he's a Saudi. Do we have any benevolent pro-Western Shiite billionaires?

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | February 16, 2007 12:14 AM

Two snarky reactions (yes, if I had a blog, that's what I should probably call it):

"In other words, the main beneficiary of an attack on Iran would be the most militaristic and reactionary elements in the Iranian ruling hierarchy."

To which I can already hear Cheney saying, "You say that like it's a *bad* thing!"

"The most effective war against the tyrants in Iran is through giving voice to the workers asking for their rights, to women fighting for equality and to students, journalists, writers and intellectuals fighting for freedom of expression."

Well, I won't be holding my breath in anticipation of the Bush Administration supporting *that* policy, unless they decide that they should support it over *there* so they don't have to support it over *here*...

Posted by Chris | February 16, 2007 1:36 AM

MattYglesias wrote:
? It seems to me that America's practical ability to impact this situation gets overstated.

I agree, but Americans can get a lot done. What does it mean in practice -- give a little blog attention, or money, to guys like the Iranian Queer Organization (www.irqo.net). It doesn't all have to be about gvt action.

(Note: This doesn't mean you, matt. You're not an activist, you're a pundit.)

Posted by Ikram | February 16, 2007 12:43 PM

I think he means: Send in SEIU, NOW and PEN (or ACLU, if you prefer)...

Posted by DukeJ | February 16, 2007 2:54 PM

Okay, everyone's abandoned this thread, but still. Go here for real, honest to goodness, as left as you could imagine advocacy for the Iranian people. It gets no more kumbaya/bleeding heart than this, folks. Or comrades, as the case may be.

http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html

Posted by d | February 16, 2007 11:42 PM