Democracy, Now?

As part of, I guess, the continuing campaign to get the United States to launch a war with Iran, there's going to be an article forthcoming by a liberal hawk that quotes a good friend of mine in a misleading way as part of his effort to make the case that the damn dirty hippies of the blogosphere have become apologists for Iran's ruling oligarchy (we know how this story goes). Meanwhile Jim Henley observes:

Gary Farber is onto important news about the actual effects of America’s “pro-democracy” program for Iran. It’s getting lots of people arrested, and various Iranian reform leaders abroad warned the State Department and others against stamping “Made in the USA” all over Iranian dissident groups within the Islamic Republic.

It's almost as if all this chest-thumping isn't really about putting serious thought into the best interests of the Iranian people.

Comments

Don't want war with Iran? Vote for Ron Paul!

Posted by Zagnut | June 10, 2007 11:45 AM

Go Joe.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181228588702&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | June 10, 2007 1:37 PM

Of course its NOT about the best interests of the Iranian people. Just as Iraq was not about the best interests of the Iraqi people.

Neither are about fighting "terrorists".

Neither are about stemming the development and flow of WMD.

Neither are in the best interests of the american people.

Across the board if you do an analysis of this administration's Iraq and Iran policies there are only two explanations possible:

1) There are unspoken alterior policy interests driving it.

or

2) Its the fucking stupidest foreign policy blunder in the history of the US. Criminally so.

Those who chose to put us into Vietnam didn't have another Vietnam to look back on and say "No, that was fucking stupid, let's not do that again." The current clowns have no excuse.

Posted by Thunderlips | June 10, 2007 2:34 PM

Thanks, Matt.

Posted by Gary Farber | June 10, 2007 2:40 PM

When have pro-democracy efforts to help dissidents in dictatorships *not* led to some getting arrested, from the Soviet era onward?
The Bush efforts in Iran may be ineffective, but the mere fact that some activists are getting arrested doesn't show that.

Posted by rd | June 10, 2007 2:40 PM

"Those who chose to put us into Vietnam didn't have another Vietnam to look back on and say "No, that was fucking stupid, let's not do that again.""

What about our occupation of the Philippines?

"The Bush efforts in Iran may be ineffective, but the mere fact that some activists are getting arrested doesn't show that. "

There's some truth to this; however, the Iranian regime tends to crack down the most on liberals, secularists and democrats when the US puts greater rhetorical pressure on Iran as they fear that such civil society groups could become a hand of the CIA. Clinton toned down his rhetoric, which lead to Khatami's reforms and a freer domestic situation in Iran (probably freer than now).

Posted by Reality Man | June 10, 2007 3:52 PM

Did you notice Lieberman's call to attack Iran today?

Posted by Mr. Noah | June 10, 2007 4:45 PM

Lieberman (D-Israel) is just looking for a new war to replace the Iraq war that people now despise. See, that way, U.S. forces will stay in the mideast longer as an insurance policy for Israel, Lieberman's home state.

Posted by kafka | June 11, 2007 1:33 AM

Re kafka

Actually, describing Senator Lieberman as the Senator from Palestine might be more accurate as he is notoriously soft on the Palestinians, favoring an independent Palestinian state.

Posted by SLC | June 11, 2007 9:22 AM