How Nasty is Iran?

Back in June, Michael Hirsch wrote some articles from Iran persuasively arguing for diplomatic engagement. He also argued that the extent of domestic repression in Iran has been dramatically overstated. George Packer convincingly responds that Hirsch is substantially understating the degree of repression:

Why did a journalist as experienced as Michael Hirsh not notice? Because, justifiably arguing for dialogue and against fantasies of easy regime change, he wants to be able to say that things are not as bad as you think in Iran. The truth is, things are worse than you think for any Iranian who tries to exercise minimal political rights. Just as the neoconservatives concocted a simple case on Iraq and, now, Iran—claiming that the locals would welcome regime change from outside—people like Hirsh want to make a simple case, too. It’s a great temptation to say that, because X is true, Y, which seems to point in a different direction from X, must be false. We all want total vindication. But in politics there is no total vindication, on Iran or anything else. The regime there is brutal, and we should talk to it.

This seems mostly right, but it's worth examining the idea of "worse than you think" in this regard. It sort of depends on who "you" are. For example, Iran is often characterized in the American press as a "totalitarian" regime, by both conservative and liberal hawks. Leading Democratic Party political operatives like Ken Baer will call you an apologist for the Iranian regime if you dispute this "totalitarian" concept. Thus "you" may well think that Iran is, in fact, a totalitarian society.

Which it isn't. The Iranian regime, though harsh on political dissidents, isn't Stalin's Russia or China during the Cultural Revolution. Crucially, it's not more repressive in any clear way than lots of countries -- China, Saudi Arabia, etc. -- we have perfectly normal diplomatic relations with. One of the reasons Hirsch probably overstated the case somewhat is that so many people -- powerful people -- seem invested in overstating things on the other side.

Photo by Flickr user Farshad Ebrahimi used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Good point and cogent post, Matthew. I feel radicalized by this regime; it's a box they put you in. I never said Saddam Hussein was a stand-up guy, but my consistent opposition of this war has led me to reiterate time and time again when people ask is yes, Saddam leading Iraq right now is preferable to the current situation. That makes me no Saddamite, merely a realist. I believe Hirsch is being misconstrued in a similar fashion. Iran's government is a violently repressive, authoritarian entity, but not more so than many other nations on our Pooty-poot nicknames list. Our government oppose sIran because Iran opposes our interests, plain and simple. Not because Iran represses its people. Not because Ahmedinejad minimizes the Holocaust. These justifications are simply made to appease certain necessary human desires for moral rectitude when the true purpose is purely political. As witnessed in Darfur and Rwanda, mere genocide and repression are not enough to inspire military intervention. Hence, follow the oil.

Forgive the crude pun, but whoever justifies invading Iran by pointing to the regime's tyranny is selling you snake oil.

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 5:42 PM

The "worse than you think" versus "not as bad as you think" debate does not strike me as a particularly helpful way of framing a discussing about Iran.

Posted by blah | July 19, 2007 5:55 PM

As witnessed in Darfur and Rwanda, mere genocide and repression are not enough to inspire military intervention. Hence, follow the oil. - Gregorio

I agree with your post in general, but if it were just about places with lots of oil, we'd be in Darfur.

Interestingly, Iran is pursuing nuclear power so they can continue to export oil/natural gas even as their population grows. Interestingly, our involvement in Iraq has actually decreased the availability of oil.

Could it be that it is about the oil -- but not about keeping the oil flowing but rather keeping the supply down so the prices are up? After all, remember corporations are in it for the money -- they do their business for that purpose. And if more money can be made by keeping a lid on what they supply, they'll wanna do that.

Need I note our Whitehouse is populated by oilmen and many organs of the modern "conservative" movement involve big oil (Koch funded think tanks, Buckley, etc.)?

*

Anyway, speaking of oil -- people talk about Iran having a negative involvement in Iraq. But as more and more people are asking, even on National Petroleum Radio -- ain't Saudi Arabia also stoking the insurgency? How come we ain't goin' after that "Islamofascist" regime?

Posted by DAS | July 19, 2007 5:57 PM

I don't know enough about the state of political oppression in Iran to have much of an opinion on how bad it is, but certainly nothing I've heard makes it sound like violent regime change as a humanitarian policy is a good idea. The Iranian people would clearly be worse off after a regime-change war than they are now even if you believe the worst about the political situation there.

But I don't think a humanitarian justification is really what the Bush administration is trying to argue, even in an intellectually dishonest way (or in the way they were arguing humanitarianism as a justification for the Iraq war). Rather, I get the sense that they're trying to use internal Iranian political oppression as a synecdoche for an Iranian threat to the United States. The idea seems to be "Look, they repress their people, they're bad! And bad people are the kind of people who want to kill us! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!" This is, of course, a totally bogus argument--whether a country oppresses dissidents has nothing to do with whether they're a threat to the US. In fact, there are plenty of countries which would be _more_ of a threat to US security if they magically became democratic tomorrow. But the oppression=dangerous line is an effective sales pitch.

Posted by Galen H. Brown | July 19, 2007 6:01 PM

As far as Darfur is concerned, that is a far pricklier matter than I should have tossed off in a quick aside about relative humanitarian crises. William Engdahl [http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Oil_in_Africa/oil_in_africa.html] is not always reasonable, but I first had to read him for a Cold War History course and found his grasp of the slippery nuances oil politics to be quite comprehensive- if a bit paranoid and conspiracy-minded. His May essay regarding Darfur is a fascinating read and demonstrates some of the (Packer would say) Hirschian attributes of diminishing the horrors of one situation because they are being embellished by the other side. Perhaps a better example would have been New Orleans? I'll try harder next time.

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 6:08 PM

DAS,

I give you credit for knowing, unlike Gregorio, that there is oil in Sudan.

I take away credit for your theory that the purpose of invading Iraq was to limit the supply of oil so as to raise prices for oil companies (and oil producing states). Take a moment to think this through, OK? Had we drilled in ANWR (and other currently off-limits domestic fields) this would have increased the supply of oil, thus potentially lowering its price. The Bush administration was in favor of this, and most Dems were against this. Does that mean that the Dems wanted to keep supplies of oil tight and prices high to benefit oil companies? Doesn't seem so plausible, does it?

The rapid growth and industrialization in China and India has probably had a much greater effect on the price of oil than our foreign policy has.

Posted by Fred | July 19, 2007 6:15 PM

How does Matt know anything about which he posts? He talks authoritatively on Iran but has never been there. And Hirsch and Packer have.

So who is he to judge between them?

WAFM.

Posted by ILP | July 19, 2007 6:19 PM

Iran has a film industry that makes some pretty good movies. They aren't propaganda for the regime and they sometimes engage in mild social criticism. All that points toward Iran as being authoritarian rather than totalitarian.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 19, 2007 6:34 PM

Persian broads are pretty hot. But some of them can be hairy. very hairy. a good bikini wax will do them good. then you can have some fun.

bikini waxed persian broads are a blessing.

Landing-strip!!1

Posted by Reality Man | July 19, 2007 6:37 PM

Considering the ways that Iran subjugates half its population -- women -- I think it's safe to say Iran is worse than China in its lack of freedoms.

Posted by Chris | July 19, 2007 6:46 PM

It pains me to say it, but I agree with the last two posts. Iran is more authoritarian than totalitarian because totalitarian is a made-up word that is Americanese for "Stalinism is bad." Oh Steve Sailer, you delightful little racist wordsmith! I knew we'd find some common ground sooner or later.

As for you, Reality Man, I love me a ride on some persian carpet but to much rug is UGH UGH UGH!! Paging Dr. Waxitoff, STAT! 20 ccs of Camel-b-Bald and a plus sized Burqa right away!

Ugh, this is the bottom. Je suis desole.

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 6:51 PM

You're right Chris, China's regime is downright feminist if you can step over the frozen girlbabies to find out.

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 7:01 PM

But Chinese women have velvet landing strips. do not want to disturb the velvet landing strips. don't invade china.

Posted by Reality Man | July 19, 2007 7:03 PM

Gregorio,

Is the sole intent of your comments to out yourself as being pretentious and strikingly ill-informed? If so, nice job so far.

Posted by Juan | July 19, 2007 7:12 PM

We should invade China based on the invention of foot-binding alone! George Tenet channeling Marv Albert calls it a "smoking gun slam dunk reverse 360 monster slammajamma!"

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 7:14 PM

Juan,

Is the sole purpose of your comments to out yourself as loving hairy V's? If so, good job so far and please lay off of Gregorio. He is into persian rug.

would you like a magic carpet ride? Probably not. Probably one of the bomb Iran gang.

Juan, you are not welcome here.

Thank You.

Reality man

Posted by Juan is a douche | July 19, 2007 7:15 PM

Dear fellow Dirty Spic (I hope? If you're actually Spanish then perdoname, senor) Juan,

The point of my posts is to amuse myself while at work.

Love,
Gregorio "Sex Paquito" Sanchez (Durty like a duck QUACK QUACK)

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 7:16 PM

Seems like this is a Spanish Civil War !

Best country in the world. The national flag is a thong. They love trim V.

Juan the douche doesn't. Probably from Cuba.

Posted by Reality man | July 19, 2007 7:19 PM

Well, the whole idea that the upper reaches of the government actually give a rat's ass whether Iran is "totalitarian" is absurd, except maybe to express envy. I just can't believe we have serious debates about whether (as opposed to how) to negotiate with Iran. Surowecki had a good article in the New Yorker a month or so ago about how when we rattle our sabres, it helps Iran's govt by raising the price of oil. (Not coincidently, it also helps ExxonMobil, who can always do a bit of profit-taking.)

On that topic, Fred, ANWR would not have produced enough oil to have any kind of discrenable effect on price. What is more, domestic oil producers would the ones extracting it and then selling it at a profit. It would also represent an "F.U." to the environmentalists and others, and thus please the Republican base.

Posted by David B. | July 19, 2007 7:31 PM

could we implement a 'no mind altering substances while posting' policy please - the HP thread was bad enough

Posted by novakant | July 19, 2007 7:32 PM

Actually, I am of Mexican heritage, but our flag is a fearsome eagle clutching a PRICKLY PEAR CACTUS (UH HUH UHUH [WINKS SALACIOUSLY]) which shall be on the cover of my magnum treatise: The Trouble with Stubble: Wax That Patch on the Double!

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 7:33 PM

could we implement a 'no mind altering substances while posting' policy please - the HP thread was bad enough

Nawssir! Next up'll be a grandfather clause and a poll tax-- I know where this is headed, you totalitarian dingbat!

Besides, I'm sotally tucking fober! Just a little ritalin for my ADHD, a smidge of Cialis for my lapsed mizzen mast, a touch of Zocor for my BP, some Wellbutrin for my bluesies, a hint of Oxy for my carpal tunnel, and some peyote for my stunted spirit. It's all I need to compete in this workaday world! If it's effecting my blog replies, well then so be it. A man has needs, especially a man with Pfizer stock.

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 7:40 PM

Any country that publically exectutes two teenage boys for being gay is totalitarian in my book.

http://gayorbit.net/?p=2459

Posted by Dave | July 19, 2007 8:10 PM

But wait -- your best friend Ezra Klein told me that Iran "just isn't that repressive a society".

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/autocratic_iran.html

Now I'm confused.

Posted by Bill | July 19, 2007 8:15 PM

Iran's so nasty that they put a big hook in that poor woman's head.

Posted by shnooky | July 19, 2007 8:33 PM

"Any country that publically exectutes two teenage boys for being gay is totalitarian in my book."

Careful there, Dave. You start paying attention to the treatment of gays around the world, and you might not like who the offenders are. If a lefty simply wants to embrace anyone who sticks his thumb in America's eye, that's easy; if you start caring about how they deal with their gays, then you have to be a lot more selective.

Posted by Fred | July 19, 2007 8:47 PM

Hugo Chavez has a firm rump I'd like to bump bump BUMP. And I hear he drinks at least 12 espresso a day, so you know he's strong like bull.

PS: Please interpret Fred's post as meaning that if certain left leaning governments mistreat gays, all lefties are closet bigots. That is all. ClASS disMISSed!

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 8:54 PM

Iran isn't more repressive than Saudi Arabia..., but as far as I know, except possibly Venezuala in the near future, none have regimes that have made 'Death to America, the Great Satan' the functional equivalent of their national anthem.

They're also not killing our guys at the present time like Iran is in Iraq. Iran's been at war with us in a 'the world isn't big enough for the two of us' sort of fashion for about 30 years now, bombing Iran wouldn't start a war, it would be called shooting back. That doesn't mean we should bomb or invade them, if an Amazonian hunter gatherer tribe declared the world not big enough for the US and it and meant it, I think I'd be for ignoring them, kind of like that Peter Sellers movie 'The Mouse that Roared'.

Posted by j mct | July 19, 2007 9:05 PM

"bombing Iran wouldn't start a war, it would be called shooting back"

No, it would be starting a war. Just as fun thought experiment, what would you think the US response would be if a hostile government invaded neighboring states and had 100k+ soldiers right next door?

Posted by Al | July 19, 2007 9:27 PM

Okay as probably the sole Iranian here, I have to make some points:
1) Iranians as a people aren't repressive, although they do reflect the same patriarchal/sexist attitudes prevalent throughout the Middle East and in countries like Turkey, Greece, and so on.
2) Iranian women are very intelligent, and I'm saying this as a guy. They totally outnumber men in medical schools and universities.
3) As long as you don't fuck with anyone high up, you can do/say whatever you want.
4) Iran's oil exporting capabilities will probably end within the next decade or so. The infrastructure (refineries, oil rigs, etc.) is simply not there anymore.

Posted by Ohhh yeah | July 19, 2007 10:27 PM

Oh great, someone stole my name. Oh well. At least we can both agree that Persian girls and Chinese girls are hot.

It's funny how the biggest "let's-throw-the-mullahs-out-of-Tehran" revolutionaries tend to be in DC and California instead of actually in Tehran and its suburbs. If neocons actually cared about Iranian civil society, they might find out that the student movement, etc. tends to be anti-revolutionary. They know what their country went threw first with Operation Ajax then with the Islamic Revolution. Having their own society violently torn up a third time in about fifty years isn't something they really want.

Posted by Reality Man | July 20, 2007 12:07 AM

They're also not killing our guys at the present time like Iran is in Iraq.

If Iran wanted to turn up the heat in Iraq, you would know it. Did you pay any attention at all to what Hezbollah did to the IDF that last invasions? Do you think anyone needs Iran to send them washer timers and mortar shells to make IED's? See if you aren't seeped in American exceptionalism, psychotic militarism dressed up as patriotism, and the like and you look at any possible metric of whatever American success was supposed to mean: and the answer there obviously was a client state of at least a level of pliancy of that of Qutar you see where the trend lines are going.

Pick up any history of insurgency from anywhere on the planet you want to think and you will find that when this happens and the insurgency is problematic they pick out a scapegoat third-party state actor to blame their problems on. That's as natural as rain on a goddamn sunday morning. They like fighting with states, you beat the army, raise the flag over the capital and go home and fuck Betty. As a matter of fact that's why you idiots have ground up friends of family of mine in Iraq.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 20, 2007 12:11 AM

Iranians as a people aren't repressive, although they do reflect the same patriarchal/sexist attitudes prevalent throughout the Middle East and in countries like Turkey, Greece, and so on.

I mostly agree with Matt's take on this. Really, is it really a totalitarian, Stalinist dictatorship if the people can turn out in the streets and yell "Ahmadinejad should be killed!" ? However, keep in mind that, unlike Iran, in Greece and Turkey women can wear normal bathing suits on beaches with men. Women's segregation in Iran is legally codified in a way that it isn't in the Mediterranean.

Posted by Tyro | July 20, 2007 12:40 AM

Women's segregation in Iran is legally codified in a way that it isn't in the Mediterranean.

And, paradoxically, it ensured that female university professors, doctors, etc. were hired to work with other women.

Here's the big point: being shielded from a country means it's easier to speculate on its nastiness. That's evident with Cuba: two generations of Americans basically know nothing about life on the island unless they came in on an inner tube. And it's evident to a lesser degree with Iran: a policy of carefully controlled perceptions.

Authoritarian? Sure. But also complex. And if Michael fucking Ledeen can push Iran policy without knowing Persian or visiting the place, I don't see why Matt can't.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 20, 2007 1:00 AM

Watch any Iranian political speech on Youtube, and you will see evidence of a vibrant civil society, albeit one that exists within the very rigorous constraints of the marjas' Shi'ism. That is, an *unfree* society, but a very engaged one. In these videos I am talking about, Ahmadenejad and Larijani and *especially* Khatami and all the rest argue cogently, intellectually, about national issues in front of students and journalists, and have a way of addressing and taking into account the views of their interlocutors that is (and I am very amazed to admit this) something that is hard to find in this country on the level of national politics. The thriving university-government dialogue makes Western political philosophy (Rawls, Habermas, even Foucault) is actually influential on the national level, along with, of course, the Shi'i luminaries of both the distant and recent past.

So that I don't get vilified, I understand fully that Iran is repressive in the Western sense. I am just saying that the ayatollahs do their repressing in the sphere of the religiously-mandated (which is admittedly huge), and that the debate on *political direction* of the country is actually very vibrant. But not revolutionary in the slightest. Iranians of my acquaintance say that the country has full ability to be reformed from within, with or without toppling the Islamic Republic.

In what other country could Jurgen Habermas draw a stadium-sized crowd?

Apologies for incoherence.

Posted by CG | July 20, 2007 1:05 AM

Okay, I'm probably being picky here, but I have to stand up for my people. Iran is segregated and so on - LEGALLY, the same way that in Turkey "religion is banned", in Egypt, any criticism of the government is banned, in Saudi, drinking alcohol is banned, and so on. But Iranians themselves do not reflect this segregation or those attitudes. Women had the right to vote since 1962, and Iran went throught its "ban the headscarves" phase a long time before that.

Posted by Ohh yeah | July 20, 2007 1:52 AM

Demographically, Iran is a very young country. The median age is 25. In the US, the median age is 35.

So the bulk of the population is into things like the internet, cell phones, video games, trying to find a mate, etc.

Young people also make for very strong religious zealots as well.

Posted by beca | July 20, 2007 2:32 AM

However, keep in mind that, unlike Iran, in Greece and Turkey women can wear normal bathing suits on beaches with men.

I watched a TV-documentary which - no, I'm not making this up - illuminated this issue by depicting two leading swim-suit manufacturers in Turkey. One was totally westernized, selling stylish and revealing bikinis and bathing suits and promoting them with Vogue style photos-shoots and models. The other was part of the Islamic revival and sold these odd teletubby suits that reveal only the face. Both were very successful. Turkey's society comprises many parallel worlds and the repression there comes from many directions, including the secular government.

While we're at it, keep in mind that women are allowed to and do go topless on the beaches of many western european countries, while I believe that they would at least get fined for that in the US.

Posted by novakant | July 20, 2007 4:58 AM

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 5:42 PM:"I feel radicalized by this regime; it's a box they put you in."

So it is Bush's fault that Iraq was vicious dictatorship and instead of letting you ignore it in peace sitting in front of the idiot box they made it a public issue and forced you to express an opinion? Wow. You have been encouraged to take an opinion. If you side with Saddam now, you probably did before. Nothing has changed, it is just that your values have been clarified.

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 5:42 PM:"I never said Saddam Hussein was a stand-up guy, but my consistent opposition of this war has led me to reiterate time and time again when people ask is yes, Saddam leading Iraq right now is preferable to the current situation. That makes me no Saddamite, merely a realist."

Actually that does not make you a realist. I do not know yet what it makes you but I think it is reasonable to assume that that makes most people Soft Stalinists but let's not leap to any conclusions. What you ignore is that the present situation is temporary. Civil Wars end. If America wins, then Iraq will be free and democratic. Isn't that worth it? Under Saddam no such possibility was possible. The alternative was dynastic Tikriti rule until the Tikritis grew weak and were brutally overthrown by some other clan group. The US had a chance to break 4000 years of repression in Iraq. Wasn't that worth it? Of course it is unlikely to happen now, but in no small part that is because the Left continuously incites terrorism by claiming this is all about oil and colonialism when it clearly is not (and wouldn't matter if it was about oil anyway - democracy is worth it) which has an impact on the sort of people who watch al-Jazeera. What do you think the people who listen to Mullahs on a regular basis think when they read this sort of blog except that if Americans say that sort of thing the reality must be worse?

So the question is why do you think continued Baathist rule would be preferable to a process whereby democracy might be possible? Not that the death toll in Iraq *now* is much worse than it was under Saddam anyway. However the obvious question is: if America found a psycho like Saddam and put him in power and he proceeded to do what Saddam did - torture and murder until the country was at peace - would you support Bush in doing it? If not, why not?

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 5:42 PM:"Iran's government is a violently repressive, authoritarian entity, but not more so than many other nations on our Pooty-poot nicknames list."

Really? If that were true, and I doubt it, so what? Just because we cannot change every single vicious dictatorship should we change none?

Posted by Gregorio | July 19, 2007 5:42 PM:"Our government oppose sIran because Iran opposes our interests, plain and simple. Not because Iran represses its people. Not because Ahmedinejad minimizes the Holocaust. These justifications are simply made to appease certain necessary human desires for moral rectitude when the true purpose is purely political. As witnessed in Darfur and Rwanda, mere genocide and repression are not enough to inspire military intervention. Hence, follow the oil."

You may think so but I would call that childish student politics if such thinking can be so dignified. The fact is that being a repressive, Holocaust denying, genocidal government is highly correlated with being an enemy of the US. It is not a perfect relationship, but it is vastly more so than any other country in the world. Look at China or Russia or even France. America is not perfect but it is better than anyone else. Once you have accepted that and stopped seeing the world in black and white terms sensible comments are possible. So is Iran worse than most other governments in the Middle East? Well yes but not spectacularly so. That is enough. As for oil, well Burma has oil. I see no invasion. Sudan has oil. Libya has oil. The argument this is all about oil is like claiming the Jews drink the blood of gentile children - no matter how often you debunk such claims, no matter how little evidence there is for it, it makes sense to some people and provides a convincing moral universe that no logical argument can shift. So the only real question is why do you have a need to think this is all about oil? What is your problem?

Posted by HeiGou | July 20, 2007 5:11 AM

The fact is that being a repressive, Holocaust denying, genocidal government is highly correlated with being an enemy of the US.

Hmm. Current US allies include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Egypt. Shining beacons of democracy every one.

Posted by ajay | July 20, 2007 5:24 AM

The fact is that being a repressive, Holocaust denying, genocidal government is highly correlated with being an enemy of the US.

Hmm. Current US allies include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Egypt. Shining beacons of democracy every one.

Plus, Iran? Not genocidal.

Posted by ajay | July 20, 2007 5:24 AM

Posted by CG | July 20, 2007 1:05 AM:"Watch any Iranian political speech on Youtube, and you will see evidence of a vibrant civil society, albeit one that exists within the very rigorous constraints of the marjas' Shi'ism."

Really? Why aren't those people making those speeches in Iran? What you see is a government that cannot repress the internet as it would like (although it tries) and so people use it to say things they cannot say at home. Surely this is not proof of a vigorous civil society *in* *Iran* but rather in America.

Posted by CG | July 20, 2007 1:05 AM:"That is, an *unfree* society, but a very engaged one."

The last election, when the Iranians realised they were being cheated by the system, shows that if they are engaged they are not engaged by the formal political system. Watch the turn out next time.

Posted by CG | July 20, 2007 1:05 AM:"(and I am very amazed to admit this) something that is hard to find in this country on the level of national politics."

Why should you be amazed? Read Political Pilgrims and you'll see that on the Left people have been finding much better political processes outside America since World War One.

Posted by CG | July 20, 2007 1:05 AM:"The thriving university-government dialogue makes Western political philosophy (Rawls, Habermas, even Foucault) is actually influential on the national level, along with, of course, the Shi'i luminaries of both the distant and recent past."

This be the same thriving Government-University dialog that sees thugs go on campus and beat the living daylights out of students? Like this for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPLkjQF5OIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht4MdB6GBMk&mode=related&search=

There is no denying the vastly more sophisticated intellectual world of Iran compared to any Arab country including Egypt but that does not mean they are nice people.

Posted by CG | July 20, 2007 1:05 AM:"So that I don't get vilified, I understand fully that Iran is repressive in the Western sense. I am just saying that the ayatollahs do their repressing in the sphere of the religiously-mandated (which is admittedly huge), and that the debate on *political direction* of the country is actually very vibrant. But not revolutionary in the slightest. Iranians of my acquaintance say that the country has full ability to be reformed from within, with or without toppling the Islamic Republic."

Considering that the Mullahs who run Iran say that the Quran has the answer to every problem and openly embrace terms like totalitarian about their religion, it is not just huge it is comprehensive. The debate on the political direction might be huge, but the political direction comes down to a choice between people approved by the Supreme Guide. And it is very Revolutionary as can be seen by any demonstration you like and the fact that Iran continues to attack Israel despite having no rational reason for doing so. Some Iranians might like to think it is possible for reform from within but all the evidence so far is that it is not. Iran will have Mullah-rule until either the economy collapses (and Ahmedinejad seems to be doing his best) or someone invades.

Posted by CG | July 20, 2007 1:05 AM:"In what other country could Jurgen Habermas draw a stadium-sized crowd?"

I don't want to be snotty about this, but don't you think that betrays your class and ideological preoccupations just a little? Perhaps there is more to good government than being interested in the sort of intellectuals you are interested in? It reminds me of Kolakowski's famous story about Georg Lukacs telling him he (Lukacs) was never sure about Stalin, he couldn't tell if he (Stalin) had read Hegel in the original.

Posted by HeiGou | July 20, 2007 5:57 AM

HeiGou = Troll-for-hire.

Posted by duus | July 20, 2007 7:32 AM

Posted by ajay | July 20, 2007 5:24 AM:"Hmm. Current US allies include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Egypt. Shining beacons of democracy every one."

Sorry but you seem to have missed the relevant bit. Let me quote myself and perhaps this time you might like to read it:

"The fact is that being a repressive, Holocaust denying, genocidal government is highly correlated with being an enemy of the US. It is not a perfect relationship, but it is vastly more so than any other country in the world. Look at China or Russia or even France. America is not perfect but it is better than anyone else."

So sure, the US is friendly with a range of vile and nasty regimes. The US is not, after all, perfect. But the US did not create a single one of those regimes. Arguably it did create most of the present governments in Western Europe and some Americans have played a big role in the present governments in Eastern Europe. So how do they compare with, say, the governments Russia created? Well Eastern Europe has improved a lot don't you think since the Russians ceased to play a large role in those governments? Perhaps you do not think so. The US has an informal area of influence in Latin America. Not as good as Western Europe, but let's compare with France's stronger control over French-speaking Africa. When America cut aid to Guatamala the Guatamalans ran nuts, but then so did the Emperor of the CAR when the French kept him in power. As did the Rwandans as the French defended their regime. And of course Mobotu, kept in power by French and Belgian soldiers, retired to France. As did Baby Doc from Haiti I seem to recall. And that is just France which does not have a bad record in comparison with, say, the Khmer Rouge-supporting, Burma-arming, Sudan and Iran sanctions-busting Chinese. I also suspect that Uzbekistan is not a US ally.

So let's look at America's longest security arrangements - since 1945 it has been committed to the defense of NATO, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Not a perfect record, but at the same time it has opposed the USSR and its puppet states, North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Burma. That indicates something.

Posted by duus | July 20, 2007 7:32 AM:"HeiGou = Troll-for-hire."

Surely it is worse that I actually do this for free?

Frankly I would hope both of you could do better than this sort of childish snide comments.

Posted by HeiGou | July 20, 2007 7:56 AM

HeiGou lost me at 4000 years of Iraqi repression. Please come back Al, your replacement troll sucks.

Posted by daveNYC | July 20, 2007 8:13 AM

Posted by daveNYC | July 20, 2007 8:13 AM:"HeiGou lost me at 4000 years of Iraqi repression. Please come back Al, your replacement troll sucks."

It is a waste of time discussing this here because obviously no one is going to give anything I have to say on the subject ten seconds of impartial rational thought, but the War in Iraq has churned up a debate on cultural values and democracy. One of the things that is said about the Neo-Cons is that they assumed universal values like democracy existed and ignored the specific local factors, like culture, that made that hard in Iraq. There is potential for an interesting conversation on that subject, but not, of course, here.

Perhaps you might like to explain to me when Iraq ever had a period of liberal rule except under Western rule? I know it is a waste of time asking. Here is someone Saddam could probably understand:

"Tiglath-pileser, the powerful king, king of hosts, who has no rival, king of the four quarters (of the world), king of all rulers, lord of lords, king of kings; the lofty prince . . . who rules over the nations, the legitimate shepherd whose name is exalted above all rulers; the lofty judge, whose weapons Ashur has sharpened, and whose name, as ruler over the four quarters (of the world), he has proclaimed forever; the conqueror of distant lands, which form the boundaries on north and south; the brilliant day, whose splendor overthrows the world's regions; the terrible, destroying flame, which like the rush of the storm sweeps over the enemy's country; who . . . has no adversary, and overthrows the foes of Ashur.

"Ashur and the great gods who have enlarged my kingdom, who have given me strength and power as my portion, commanded me to extend the territory of their (the gods') country, putting into my hand their powerful weapons, the cyclone of battle. I subjugated lands and mountains, cities and their rulers, enemies of Ashur, and conquered their territories. With sixty kings I fought, spreading terror (among them), and achieved a glorious victory over them. A rival in combat, or an adversary in battle, I did not have. To Assyria I added more land, to its people I added more people, enlarging the boundaries of my land and conquering all (neighboring?) territories.

"In the beginning of my government, five kings . . . with an army of twenty thousand men . . .--and whose power no king had ever broken and overcome in battle--trusting to their strength rushed down and conquered the land of Qummuh (Commagene). With the help of Ashur, my lord, I gathered my war chariots and assembled my warriors; I made no delay, but traversed Kashiari, an almost impassable region. I waged battle in Qummuh with these five kings and their twenty thousand soldiers and accomplished their defeat. Like the Thunderer (the storm god Adad) I crushed the corpses of their warriors in the battle that caused their overthrow. I made their blood to flow over all the ravines and high places of mountains. I cut off their heads and piled them up at the walls of their cities like heaps of grain. I carried off their booty, their goods, and their property beyond reckoning. Six thousand, the rest of their troops, who had fled before my weapons and had thrown themselves at my feet, I took away as prisoners and added to the people of my country.

"At that time I marched also against the people of Qummuh, who had become unsubmissive, withholding the tax and tribute due to Ashur, my lord. I conquered Qummuh to its whole extent, and carried off their booty, their goods, and their property; I burned their cities with fire, destroyed, and devastated."

From: R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Literature (New York; D. Appleton, 1904) pp. 12-14. Reprinted in Marvin Peryy, Joseph R. Peden and Theodore H. Von Laue, eds., Sources of the Western Tradition, Vol. I: From Ancient Times to the Enlightenment, 2nd ed., (Boston; Houghton Mifflin, 1991) pp. 20-21.

Notice that he is *boasting* about mass murder. He is not ashamed at all.

Posted by HeiGou | July 20, 2007 8:26 AM

We supported Saddam for years because we felt he was more "liberal". He certainly was, generally, fair to women and secular, things a future Iraqi government will surely not be.

What is more "liberal"? A dictatorship that supports womens' rights and secularism but is hell on political enemies or an elected government that relies on militias and death squads, sectarian violence and outdated religious ideas? And is it promoting democracy to change a country's government without it's citizens' consent in the name of freedom?

Does it ever occur to you that Iranians may hate their government AND have no interest in the US involving itself in their affairs? Your attitude is patronizing: Poor Iranians/Iraqis can't help themselves, we'll save them!

Posted by john | July 20, 2007 8:55 AM

Notice that he is *boasting* about mass murder. He is not ashamed at all.

It's cute how you have to go back, what, how many centuries in order to prove your racist case? And then a 1904 book quoting it.

Hell, you find worse things in the Holy Bible.

But here's a hint for you, though.

Check carefully the name of the name of the 1991 book you're quoting from.

From: R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Literature (New York; D. Appleton, 1904) pp. 12-14. Reprinted in Marvin Peryy, Joseph R. Peden and Theodore H. Von Laue, eds., Sources of the Western Tradition, Vol. I: From Ancient Times to the Enlightenment, 2nd ed., (Boston; Houghton Mifflin, 1991) pp. 20-21.

Western Tradition? Oh, yeah, that's right. Lest we forget, the tradition of boasting about mass murder is our tradition, too.

Posted by Kiva Oraibi | July 20, 2007 8:59 AM

Posted by john | July 20, 2007 8:55 AM:"We supported Saddam for years because we felt he was more "liberal". He certainly was, generally, fair to women and secular, things a future Iraqi government will surely not be."

Sorry but when exactly did the US *ever* support Saddam? At best America treated him as slightly more noxious than Libya. The best he ever got from America was slightly less than normal relations. He was never liberal in any real sense. He was Stalin-lite if you like, who also was "fair" to women (Saddam legalized honor killings by the way if soldiers were involved) and secular.

Posted by john | July 20, 2007 8:55 AM:"What is more "liberal"? A dictatorship that supports womens' rights and secularism but is hell on political enemies or an elected government that relies on militias and death squads, sectarian violence and outdated religious ideas? And is it promoting democracy to change a country's government without it's citizens' consent in the name of freedom?"

A very good question. I'd support the democracy myself. The militias and death squads are only temporary. Once a proper theocrat gets into power he will slaughter enough people to make the violence stop. It can be promoting democracy to do so. Ask the Germans or the Japanese.

Posted by john | July 20, 2007 8:55 AM:"Does it ever occur to you that Iranians may hate their government AND have no interest in the US involving itself in their affairs? Your attitude is patronizing: Poor Iranians/Iraqis can't help themselves, we'll save them!"

I agree that most probably do - in fact I would claim the absurd shame culture of the Middle East makes accepting any help from anyone, especially kafirs, extremely hard. Iraqis would prefer to die and suffer dictatorship than be "humiliated" it seems. But that does not change a thing. It is not patronizing to Iranians to say that the Iranian theocracy is solidly in power and is not going to be shifted any time soon. Since the USSR started advising Middle Eastern regimes on internal security coups and overthrown governments have become things of the past - the Shah was truly exceptional and he did not have any Soviet advisers. The Iranian government has learnt from the USSR and I don't see anyone removing it. That applies to Iran, it applies to Syria, it applies to Libya and probably Egypt too. It applies to Cuba, China and anywhere else where people have copied the Soviet model. Governments that are utterly unrestrained in their use of violence can only be removed from outside. It takes a total moral collapse a la Gorbachev to end a Soviet style government and Islam has lasted a hell of a lot longer than Communism did. Had Jefferson and Washington faced a Soviet-style Party-State we would never have heard of them and New Jersey would be a loyal province of the British Empire.

Posted by Kiva Oraibi | July 20, 2007 8:59 AM:"It's cute how you have to go back, what, how many centuries in order to prove your racist case? And then a 1904 book quoting it."

You know I expect rudeness, I expect stupidity, I expect people not to follow the thread or even read me, but it is very rare that I get all of those in one reply. You ought to be proud. Some one else criticized the 4000 year claim. That would necessarily involve going back, Oh I don't know, centuries now wouldn't it? Perhaps you could explain to me how I can make a point about Iraq's political culture in 1000 BC without, you know, going back "centuries"?

This case is racist? An argument explicitly about culture is racist? That is so pathetic I am not even going to bother with it. Find a hint of any suggestion of race in any of my comments. This is simply Leftist Mcarthy-ism.

1904? You have a problem with the date when that was published? I don't know who you are or what you know, but they published excellent books on Oriental studies back then. They cared a lot about accuracy in translation, they worked hard teaching their students the languages, hell, they taught things like Assyrian at all - very few people bother any more. It has been a progressive decline ever since even though modern scholars have the older texts to improve.

Posted by Kiva Oraibi | July 20, 2007 8:59 AM:"Hell, you find worse things in the Holy Bible."

Sure. And?

Posted by Kiva Oraibi | July 20, 2007 8:59 AM:"Western Tradition? Oh, yeah, that's right. Lest we forget, the tradition of boasting about mass murder is our tradition, too."

Or more accurately, this text was claimed to be part of the Western tradition. Even though it is not really. A claim by one book, or even several, does not a fact make. By what piece of logic could Assyria be called part of the Western tradition? Cultural appropriation that is.

Posted by HeiGou | July 20, 2007 9:26 AM

A claim by one book, or even several, does not a fact make.

It's really funny how you're thrashing about here. Especially when the book in question, which you dispute, is the book you cited.

The Right really needs to hire better blog trolls.

Posted by Kiva Oraibi | July 20, 2007 9:49 AM

HeiGou, you gotta learn to edit, man.

And by the way:

Perhaps you might like to explain to me when Iraq ever had a period of liberal rule except under Western rule?

So... you're advocating permanent US rule in Iraq? Good to know.

Posted by Ryan | July 20, 2007 9:57 AM

Posted by Kiva Oraibi | July 20, 2007 9:49 AM :"It's really funny how you're thrashing about here. Especially when the book in question, which you dispute, is the book you cited."

Let's see how many things I can think of that you got wrong in the next ten seconds:

1. I did not cite that claim.
2. I did not make that claim.
3. I did not claim the book was infallible.
4. Citing a translation is utterly different from citing a value judgement.
5. Your comments have no relation to anything I have said.
6. As usual.
7. Even if the book title was correct it would still not invalidate anything I have said - both Iceland and Italy are part of the West but have different political traditions at least in part.
8. I do not dispute the book. Just your claim about the title.
9. I am hardly thrashing about.

That is not two minutes but frankly I've got bored. Go back to being rude. You do it better.

Posted by Kiva Oraibi | July 20, 2007 9:49 AM:"The Right really needs to hire better blog trolls."

If the Right wants to hire me I am sure they know where I am.

By the way I have noticed a total retreat from every single argument you have made. Good for you. Especially that racism one.

Posted by HeiGou | July 20, 2007 9:59 AM

the War in Iraq has churned up a debate on cultural values and democracy.

This reminds me of when I used to work for a high school publication. When a contributor would write something particularly stupid, his/her reply to the LTE writers pointing out how stupid his/her arguments were would be to fall back on the argument that, "Well, I feel I accomplished what I set out to do-- provoke thought on the issue."

It wasn't impressive when this defense was used to defend bad writing and poor argumentation, and it's even worse when used to defend a stupid, unnecessary, incompetent war that's killed lots and lots of people.

Posted by Tyro | July 20, 2007 10:00 AM

Posted by Ryan | July 20, 2007 9:57 AM:"So... you're advocating permanent US rule in Iraq? Good to know."

Come on now, you can do better. Culture is not destiny. Nor are cultures unchangeable. What would it take to create a viable democratic culture in Iraq?

Posted by Tyro | July 20, 2007 10:00 AM:"It wasn't impressive when this defense was used to defend bad writing and poor argumentation, and it's even worse when used to defend a stupid, unnecessary, incompetent war that's killed lots and lots of people."

Which would be a more interesting argument if anyone started a stupid, unnecessary and incompetent war in order to stir up a little debate.

But they haven't.

America has lost the war in Iraq. Now you could take your approach and like the Generals in the early days of most wars remain determined to learn nothing and change nothing. Or you could think about what went wrong and what can be done to win next time. I know which I would call sensible.

The Neo-Cons, as former Marxists by and large, thought that universal values were universal and that violence, in the best Marxist tradition, was acceptable to force those values on the stupid and conservative (with a small-c) backward looking forces of reaction. I am not sure if the Left is going to retreat from that second position although it looks like they will. Which leaves a debate about that first claim. If Iraq is not "ready" for democracy, if it has a dysfunctional culture that means democracy is impossible - the position of the traditional Right especially in Europe - then that has to be accepted before anyone tries anything anywhere else. If Iraq can only be ruled by a vicious dictator America will have to decide if it is worth imposing one. Or not. These are debates people are going to have to have. Whether you want to learn from America's defeat or not.

But as I said, I strongly doubt that this is the place to do it.

Posted by HeiGou | July 20, 2007 10:09 AM

Which would be a more interesting argument if anyone started a stupid, unnecessary and incompetent war in order to stir up a little debate.

You, clearly, miss my point. No one purposely writes stupid, morely reasoned essays. Bush didn't go into Iraq with the midset, "I'll get us bogged down in a guerilla war." (though he did probably tell himself, "I will only surroundmyself with people who tell me what I want to hear")

However, when the final screwups have been tallied, when people present arguments that expose your poor reasoning and you can't refute, and when the incompetence of your execution has been exposed for all the world to see, people resort to the final line of defense of, "well, I was just trying to provoke thought and debate!" It's nothing but a dodge, a way to salvage what's left and attempt to to credit for it, and when someone uses that line of defense, we know it's a dodge to avoid saying, "I was wrong and didn't know what I was talking about/doing."

Posted by Tyro | July 20, 2007 10:20 AM

The US supported Saddam himself during the 60's (through the CIA), sold him munitions (including chemicals), trained his officers and military and maintained decent relations with him until the moment he invaded Kuwait. If that's not support I don't know what it is.

All of those time wasting quotes and you ignore basic facts.

HeiGou:
"A very good question. I'd support the democracy myself. The militias and death squads are only temporary. Once a proper theocrat gets into power he will slaughter enough people to make the violence stop. It can be promoting democracy to do so. Ask the Germans or the Japanese."

Sounds delightful! REAL democratic. Kill everyone who doesn't agee with you and then you get a theocratic democracy (kinda like Iran!). The Germans and Japanese? What the hell? What do they have to do with the situation in Iraq? There were no violent religious insurgencies in those countries. Do you read your own writing?

You are a time waster and a thread killer, I'm sorry I tangled with you.

Posted by john | July 20, 2007 10:26 AM

I'm glad HeiGou is further perpetuating the improper usage of the term 'kafir.' Traditionally the term has referred to either apostates or those whose interpret the Quran differently. Lately it has been bastardized to refer to non-believers in general. However, the fatwa received by Usama bin Laden that justified the murder of 'kafirs,' delivered after 9/11, was considered a big deal in the Muslim world. Before thent UBL had already been given clearance to murder infidels; at that point he was absolved of guilt for the murder of other Islamic sects, paving the way for Al-Qaeda to intervene in Iraq's internecine war.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | July 20, 2007 11:26 AM

HeiGou, you can be naive or you can be a jerk, but if you choose to be both it's just funny. You can't deliberately misread other people's stuff just so you can feel righteous anger and then claim no one is understanding your posts.

Also, considering the fact that about 20,000 Jews live in Iran and could go to Israel (or just about anywhere else), yet choose to stay in Iran brings up questions of domestic Iranian oppression. Numbers are kind of hazy on this at this point, but it looks like there actually might be a net migration of Persian Jews from Israel to Iran because they feel that growing anti-Persian racism in Israel is stronger than the anti-Semitism in Iran.

Posted by Reality Man | July 20, 2007 12:14 PM

Before thent UBL had already been given clearance to murder infidels

Quick question-- what's Arabic for "infidel"? I had always thought that it was "kafir."

Posted by Tyro | July 20, 2007 12:19 PM

"The US supported Saddam himself during the 60's (through the CIA), sold him munitions (including chemicals), trained his officers and military and maintained decent relations with him until the moment he invaded Kuwait. If that's not support I don't know what it is."

Plus, when the Democratic Congress wanted to criticize Saddam for his genocide against the Kurds, Reagan and the Republicans killed the motion because they felt he was too important an ally to piss off.

Also, Japan and Germany had a few features that made it different than Iraq.

1) Japan under Taisho democracy in the 1920's and Germany under the Weimar Republic had both been democracies, complete with elections, civil society, etc. We didn't so much establish as restore democracy. Iraq's most liberal and democratic period, by contrast, was a monarchy that ended over forty years ago, compared to half the time passed between the death of democracy in Japan and Germany and its restoration.

2) Japan and Germany were rather homogeneous and did not have the dynamic of an ethnic/sectarian divide like in Iraq.

3) The German and the Japanese people had supported the fascist governments that they believed would use warfare to rule the world. When their oppressive regimes turned out to be militarily weaker than the Democratic ones, especially the American one, their populations became disillusioned with militarism and oppression and came to embrace our superior system. Similarly, when Thatcher showed that the democratic military of Britain was stronger than the military oppression of Argentina's junta, the military government was shown to be a paper tiger and ended up collapsing. The Ba'athist system was fundamentally unpopular under all but the Sunnis, especially well-connected ones. As such, their was no general consensus that could develop after Saddam was forced from power.

The nearest success we've had in a similar nation-building project was Korea. However, Korea also had several advantages Iraq doesn't:

1) A largely homogeneous population.

2) An agreement based on what the nation actually is (uri) and a long history as a nation going back as far as the Choson Dynasty, or perhaps before that. Iraq is mostly a product of the 1920's British imperial imagination.

3) A lack of purging of those that belonged to the previous militarist regime. President Park Chung Hee, for instance, had been active in the Japanese Imperial military.

4) A coherent anti-philosophy in anti-communism. The communist part of the country eventually became its own country.

5) A lack of an oil curse.

In addition, Korean civilian democracy existed for only one year (1960-1961) before being restored in the the early 1990's.

Posted by Reality Man | July 20, 2007 12:40 PM

I hope HeiGou decides to invade Iran all by himself and gets shot in the head.

Won't these armchair-Marines put their money where there big fat bushcocksucking mouths are and suit up? I have friends out there who are real soldiers dying for this trumped-up, arrogant abortion of a war-- why do they have to die when fucks like Krauthammer, Peretz, & HeiGou get to stay at home perfecting the Next Big Lie? If these idiots love war so much, why can't they just shoot each other in the head? Someone give Krauthammer an armor-plated wheelchair with off-road tires and have him hunt down insurgents in the Sunni Triangle or chase after "UBL" in western Pakistan. Shut up you wussy wingnuts, you have no fucking credibility; if you pimp death, you should be willing to face it. Enough of the NeonCons blaring, blatant hypocrisy! Smash the bulbs and let the gas out. This store is closed.

Posted by Gregorio | July 20, 2007 1:15 PM

How has this thread progressed so far without mention of Mossadegh? Iran has a legacy of Democracy brutally snuffed out by foreign intervention-- specifically, US and UK intervention, on behalf of their oil interests.

HeiGou-- spin that, you boring crank.

The real hope of Iran lies in a new Mossadegh movement-- nationalistic and democratic coalition of forward thinkers and patriots, commies and mullahs, professors and goatherds. Those who have no business butting in? The US and UK. We cashed in our chips with Shah Reza Pahlavi. Like betting on the fucking Buffalo Bills.

Posted by Gregorio | July 20, 2007 1:21 PM

Iran is a midly repressive "pluralistic authoritarian" state with "mixed economy". Oasis of liberalism when compared to Saudi Arabia, probably a bit better than Pakistan and comparable to Egypt.

Each state has a different mix of autocracy, pluralism and repression, and in each case things are not constant over time.

Groups that Pakistan supported in recent years seem to be more clearly terrorist than Hamas and Hezbollah.

Is Iran more of a threat to Israel than PRC to ROC? Hard to tell, but we clearly have some way of copying with the latter situation, in spite of PRC having a nice dollop of nukes. It is not clear that Iran is really pursuing nuclear weapons, and that would that be the case, it is not clear that such weapons would considerably alter the geo-political balance.

Clearly, we are capable of nuanced and, on the balance, productive mix of cooperation and disapproval in respect to PRC, and the same could be the case with Iran.

Posted by piotr | July 20, 2007 3:03 PM

Re: Tiglath-pileser, the powerful king, king of hosts, who has no rival....

By this logic Nero and Caligula (and lesser company) should imply that Italy is today a sinkhole of autocratic horrors.

Re: We supported Saddam for years because we felt he was more "liberal".

We did not ever "support" Saddam in the sense that we support, say, Denmark or Japan. At most we courted Saddam to see if we could lure him onto our slate of client states. The Soviets and the French did the same. Saddam took money and weapons from everyone, but not wishing to be anyone's puppet he pretty much spat in their faces afterwards. (And during the Iran-Iraq War we followed the Machiavellian policy of secretly supporting both sides in hopes that they would destroy, or at least permanently cripple) each other.

Re: Lest we forget, the tradition of boasting about mass murder is our tradition, too.

It's pretty much a universal tradition of "civilization". You'll find the same sort of thing in a diversity of cultures, from the Aztecs to the Zulus.

Re: The US supported Saddam himself during the 60's

Did you make a typo? Saddam did not even come to power until 1978 or 1979 (I forget which year).

Re: However, the fatwa received by Usama bin Laden that justified the murder of 'kafirs,' delivered after 9/11

Who exactly gave bin Laden the fatwa? It's my understanding that no one remotely reputable (in Islamic religious terms) will have anything to do with him. Unless of course he gave himself a fatwa despite the fact that he has no claims to clerical standing whatsoever?

Re: Japan and Germany were rather homogeneous and did not have the dynamic of an ethnic/sectarian divide like in Iraq.

Germany did have a religious divide, two of them in fact. Protestant vs Catholic (a divide that once launched some very bloody wars) and Gentile vs Jew-- and we know what came of that one.

Posted by JonF | July 20, 2007 3:45 PM

We should show as much respect for Iran as the police show to gangs. Why? Because in 1979 - and to this day - they act no better than gangsters.

Posted by James Robertson | July 20, 2007 7:01 PM

Could it be that it is about the oil -- but not about keeping the oil flowing but rather keeping the supply down so the prices are up?

DAS, that's not credible. Cheney knows, as well as anyone, that the worldwide crude oil extraction rate (approximately 80 million barrels per day) is gradually falling behind increasing daily demand. Cheney's concern is not for short term oil company profits, but rather for long-term U.S. control of Middle East oil fields. Cheney hopes to take control and maintain control of the area by the use of military force.

It won't work. The U.S., though a fearsome military power, is geographically too far away from Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan. No empire in history has been able to project enough military power over 6,000 miles to conquer and hold a region of that size in which nationalism is fierce. In that respect the U.S. is nothing unusual: it's still impossible.

Posted by Ralph | July 21, 2007 12:44 AM