Iranians Against Having Their Country Attacked

Via Josh Marshall, Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji's take on America and Iran. Here's a bit of excerpt:

What could justify military action against Iran? Under international law, governments have the right to take military action to repel an armed attack and to preempt a certain and imminent attack. But the United States has not been attacked by Iran, and is clearly not in any imminent danger of armed attack. [. . .] Setting aside the sensationalist rhetoric of Iranian leaders, any realistic look at the Middle East and Iran must conclude that Iran’s military activities are primarily driven by fear and designed to preserve the regime. [. . .] The voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment by the Iranian government will only yield lasting results, however, if it is a part of a broad set of initiatives that guarantee security, peace, and economic development in Iran and the Middle East. Unilateral action against Iran in the absence of an overall plan for regional peace and security will be seen by most of the people of the region as aimed at safeguarding Israel’s supremacy and imposing an unjust peace on Palestinians and the broader Muslim world.

See also this account of a Norman Podhoretz book reading at a Barnes & Noble: "a lady stood to say that she had over a hundred relatives in Iran: Why do you want to kill them?!" Basically, Iranians aren't enthusiastic about the prospect of their country being attacked by the United States of America and this sentiments seems to hold more-or-less entirely across the Iranian political spectrum. Which, of course, is about what you'd expect given that Iran is a country populated by human beings. But if you'd like to unite the population of Iran around the only national government it's got, and push its regime toward firmer alliance with whichever enemies of the United States it can find, then war sounds like a great option.

Comments

Tack this on as a corollary of the five-year-late Ignatius Insight ("People don't like to be told what to do by outsiders"): People don't like getting killed by outsiders, either.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | October 15, 2007 6:37 AM

I'm not in favor of attacking Iran, but there are multiple - and easy - justifications. Start with the 1978 act of war (the taking of the Embassy). Follow through the funding of various acts of terror through the last 3 decades. Finish with the direct and indirect attacks on our troops in Iraq.

Justifying an attack on Iran would be trivial, and legitimate. Whether it makes sense is another matter entirely. It would be nice if Matt actually understood enough recent history to see that.

Posted by James Robertson | October 15, 2007 7:06 AM

I'm quite sure that there were American citizens of German descent who still had relatives in Germany and were less then enthusiastic about the Anglo/American bombing campaign against Germany during WW 2.

Posted by SLC | October 15, 2007 7:42 AM

It is not a good comparison to juxtapose Iran of today and Germany of WWII. In the best case scenario of WWII, gaining legitimacy of the German people was strictly not necessary for the US to win-- the US merely needed to destroy the German war machine, as Germany had-- declared war (shock!) on the US.

In Iran, the game the US should be playing is that of the internal politics of Iran. If the attack does not unseat the regime, then the US confers legitimacy on the current oligarchy, and if it succeeds, than the US really really needs all the legitimacy that it can get (re: Iraq). Attacking Iran is really irresponsible by anyone who actually thinks through the consequences.

Posted by Dean Chung | October 15, 2007 8:13 AM

The expatrite Iranians I know all hate theocrats as much as the next guy, they were after all forced to flee from Khomenei. They love democracy and the freedoms they enjoy in the West.

But the moment US bombings of Iran is mentioned, they turn into raging anti-americans, frothing at their mouths.

remember, this is from expatriate Iranians who HATE the theocrats and wish them only hell...

Imagine how the locals would feel once the bombs start dropping?

Bad.

real bad.

Imagine what the Iranian regime could and would do to dissidents in the shadow of a US attack. It would be the death knell of the democracy movement in Iran.

/Limagolf

Posted by Limagolf | October 15, 2007 8:50 AM

Re Dean Chung

"It is not a good comparison to juxtapose Iran of today and Germany of WWII. In the best case scenario of WWII, gaining legitimacy of the German people was strictly not necessary for the US to win-- the US merely needed to destroy the German war machine, as Germany had-- declared war (shock!) on the US."

Technically speaking, Mr. Chung is correct. However, the US and Germany were in actual fact at war well prior to Pearl Harbor. The US Navy was escorting merchant ships headed for Great Britain. In this regard, a German Uboat sank the US destroyer Reuben James while on such escort duty on 10/31/1941, some six weeks before Pearl Harbor.

Posted by SLC | October 15, 2007 9:27 AM

Hm. Would outsiders using violence against a state to weaken or depose its regime, even a very brutal regime, tend to endear the populace to those outsiders and result in a stable democracy? Or would it tend to inspire some hostility to those outsiders and a spark a potentially unstable situation?

Oh, if we only had some precedent, some contemporary regional experimental evidence, to see what the answer is!

Posted by SDM | October 15, 2007 9:50 AM

"Justifying an attack on Iran would be trivial, and legitimate."

The comment of an amoral moron - but no surprise there.

Posted by Jennifer | October 15, 2007 9:51 AM

"I'm not in favor of attacking Iran, but there are multiple - and easy - justifications. Start with the 1978 act of war (the taking of the Embassy). Follow through the funding of various acts of terror through the last 3 decades. Finish with the direct and indirect attacks on our troops in Iraq."

James,

The last 2 justifications also apply to Saudi Arabia. Combine that with the fact that the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and you have an equally compelling justification for war with Saudi Arabia. It's funny how the very people pushing for war with Iran are absolutely silent about doing anything to stop the Saudis.

Posted by eltoro | October 15, 2007 10:44 AM

I've come to the conclusion that war hawks suffer from a strange delusion: they seem to honestly think that people LIKE to have bombs dropped on them. Everyone will like us if only we bomb the hell out of them. What makes it worse is that they want to bomb those that already like us in effort to get them to like us more.

Posted by fostert | October 15, 2007 10:57 AM

Fostert says it all.

Posted by Jennifer | October 15, 2007 11:06 AM

Hitting Iran is not contingent on them liking us or not. Only contingent on them posing an unaccceptable military, terrorist, or geostrategic threat to US and our NATO allies. (we have no similar mutual defense pact with Israel, much as the AIPAC lobby tries convincing us otherwise.)

Saddam attacked no NATO forces or country when he triggered the Gulf War, but we went after him anyways because the Geostrategic consequences of him controlling Gulf oil and gas on and off the Arabian Penninsula was intolerable.

That Iranians who like us might dislike us if we attack is as irrelevant as those that profess they like us are to present Iranian political leadership. For 28 years, they have been an ineffectual minority to the Islamist extremists. The only realistic way they have a shot at running Iran in the future is if somebody goes in and destroys a good part of the Quds Force, Islamist leadership, Iranian AF and Naval assets under Quds Force control, and Iran's WMD programs. Then finishes off Iran's terrorist cells overseas.

Iranian-Americans will be outraged if the next President decides we must fight Iran for our safety?
Aww! Too bad for them.
If they are really, really outraged and hate America as a consequence, they can move their asses back to Iran or to some other country that will accept them.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 15, 2007 2:56 PM

I don't blame the Iraqis or Iranians for disliking potential invaders and being willing to repeal boarders. I just wish to extend that right to Americans who don't care to be invaded by mass immigration.

Posted by Ashley | October 15, 2007 3:32 PM

Okay - Matt once again comes down TECHNICALLY on being against war in Iran.

He STILL hasn't said what he thinks the US government should be doing (not that it matters to anybody what HE thinks, anyway, but I'd like to know) with regards to Iran.

He hasn't said whether he thinks Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

He hasn't said whether the war option should be off the table REGARDLESS of whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

He hasn't said what he thinks Bush and Cheney are up to with regards to war in Iran.

He hasn't said whether he believes the charges that Iran are "killing US troops in Iraq" are correct or not, or whether we should attack Iran if they are correct.

He's STILL dancing around the issue like a stripper doing a pole dance - but without the actual contact with the pole.

Has "The Atlantic" told him never to actually state an opinion on his blog lest they get sued by somebody?

Why is it so hard for him to simply make a statement along the lines of Steve Martin's "What I Believe"?

Does Matt think they should only be called "hooters"?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 15, 2007 10:59 PM

Ford froths at the mouth thusly:

"Hitting Iran is not contingent on them liking us or not. Only contingent on them posing an unaccceptable military, terrorist, or geostrategic threat to US and our NATO allies. (we have no similar mutual defense pact with Israel, much as the AIPAC lobby tries convincing us otherwise.)"

Gee, I guess this means Chris is against attacking Iran because it is demonstrably the case that Iran presents no military, terrorist or geostrategic threat to the US or NATO.

And he agrees that Israel isn't worth defending from them, either.

Good work, Chris!

Or, maybe not...

"Saddam attacked no NATO forces or country when he triggered the Gulf War, but we went after him anyways because the Geostrategic consequences of him controlling Gulf oil and gas on and off the Arabian Penninsula was intolerable."

In other words, we attacked Iraq because of the oil. Since Saddam could hardly have controlled Gulf oil and gas "on and off the Arabian Peninsula", this would be seem to be a "geopolitical excuse" rather than a "geopolitical threat."

"The only realistic way they have a shot at running Iran in the future is if somebody goes in and destroys a good part of the Quds Force, Islamist leadership, Iranian AF and Naval assets under Quds Force control, and Iran's WMD programs. Then finishes off Iran's terrorist cells overseas."

This is "realistic"?

First of all, none of that can be done by the US military except possibly wreck most of the Iranian Air Force and Navy - which is fundamentally irrelevant to anything since those are the weakest parts of the Iranian military and have little to do with supporting the actual regime.

Second, there are no "WMD programs" to wreck, so that's pointless. Not to mention that just about all the Iranian social groups APPROVE of the Iranian nuclear energy program.

Third, the US is not in a position to destroy a "good portion of the Quds Force", not to mention that the IRGC is larger than said force, and not to mention that Iran can raise a Basij Resistance Force of a minimum of 400,000 with other estimates ranging from one million to 11 million.

In other words, a kid or older guy with an AK-47 on every street corner and behind every window and tree just waiting to shoot a US soldier.

See the scene in "The Kingdom" where the FBI lands in the wrong neighborhood, and everybody and his brother pops up with AK's and RPG's to blow their asses away? Of course, being the heroes of the movie, they win - without even any casualties - in reality, it's not that easy.

Third, "Iran's terrorist cells overseas" are where, exactly? Cite references and strength estimates, please. If you don't know who or where they are, it's a little cocky to suggest that "wiping them out" is going to be at all easy.

Nitwit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 15, 2007 11:18 PM

"The last 2 justifications also apply to Saudi Arabia. Combine that with the fact that the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and you have an equally compelling justification for war with Saudi Arabia. It's funny how the very people pushing for war with Iran are absolutely silent about doing anything to stop the Saudis."

I guess you missed the part of my comment where I said I didn't favor an attack on Iran - merely that it would be easily justifiable.

As to Saudi Arabia, it's more slippery - they've been far, far more clever about keeping the hands of the government (as opposed to fanatical individuals) clean.

What I object to is Matt pretending that there's no case for war. There most certainly is a case for war - I just don't think it's the best policy option. Matt is too blind to even recognize reality.

Posted by James Robertson | October 16, 2007 12:22 AM

There is NO justification for war by any standard.

There might be a justification for engagement with Iran, or for changing US ME policies which may have caused Iran to take hostile measures against the US, but the issue in virtually all cases is either US policies or Israeli policies.

Iran is essentially blameless in almost every case I can think of.

None of that means we need to agree that Iran is some sort of "valid" regime. It merely means that we deal with them in an open, honest manner without ulterior motives and hidden agendas.

You don't go to war with a country for a hostage situation that occurred thirty years ago - especially when the US was to blame for the reign of the Shaw in the first place.

Support terrorism? Iran sponsors Hizbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Mahdi army (al-Sadr's group in Iraq, to some small extent, less than the support given to SIIC which is part of the Iraqi government), groups that Iran doesn't view as terrorist. And neither should anybody else - they are national resistance groups, not "terrorist" groups. Their tactics may be "terror tactics" in some or even most cases, but the groups themselves have some valid motivations in their resistance against either the US or Israel.

And regardless of their tactics, none of them are a threat to the US in the same sense that Al Qaeda is - as long as the US doesn't attack them or their sponsoring states.

Even Al Qaeda would not be a threat - or at least as much of a threat - if the US would modify its ME policies.

So there is ZERO justification for war with Iran by the US.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 16, 2007 9:26 PM