The Solution

Azadeh Moaveni writes about how Iranians are increasingly disenchanted with the failed policies of their current regime and are generally well-disposed to the United States. That said, "Starting in about 2005, Iranians' historic esteem for the United States gave way to a deep ambivalence that is only now ending." It seems to me that the ideal way for us to take advantage of this situation is for the United States to elect a president who thinks it's funny to joke about launching an unprovoked war on Iran, and who deems all efforts at diplomacy aimed at improving U.S.-Iranian relations as tantamount to appeasement.

People love being threatened with air strikes, there's no more endearing way for a nation to behave on the world stage than to threaten them frequently -- ideally in a light-hearted manner that involves a Beach Boys reference.

Comments

I'm increasingly convinced the "Democrats" who are threatening to vote McCain are really

1. Republican trolls

or

2. People who have never listened to a single word McCain has said. Ever.

Posted by Persia | June 1, 2008 4:23 PM

We have still not paid Iran back for the humiliation of the embassy hostage incident. Sure, we did kill about 250 of them when we shot down that airliner and we did encourage and in our small way help Saddam kill about a half a million of them in their war, but still it isn't enough.

It has to be understood that this is the root of it. We were humiliated and even though that is now as far in the past as the Iranian Revolution was from our replacement of their elected government with the absurd strutting popinjay the Pshaw it's still a fresh wound that must be avenged someday.

Posted by rapier51 | June 1, 2008 4:28 PM

I will be casting my vote for John McCain in November.

Posted by Tim K | June 1, 2008 4:46 PM

Can anyone find a video of the actual answer that follow's McCain's singing?

I'm worried. I really, really want Barack Obama to win, and I'm afraid John McCain is the best possible opponent the Republicans could have put up against him. I actually watched the "Bomb Iran" video, and I'm pretty sure that McCain was making fun of the questioner, who was doing the anti-Iran freakout Yglesias repeated accuses the Arizona Senator of performing.

I think I've said this before, and I should just give up, but that video makes me think that John McCain knows full well that just up and blowing shit up in Iran is a supremely bad idea, and isn't afraid of saying so to unhinged warmongering wingbats. You can see why I think it might be a mistake to constantly bring this up.

It would have been clearer, sure, if McCain'd said to the dude, who ended his question, "When do we send 'em an air-mail message to Tehran?" with something all presidential, like "Look, I don't like the Iranian government, they creep me out. However, just sending in some precision guided warheads and shit... bad idea on a number of levels, man. Let me list some?" That would be, I think, the best possible answer, on Yglesias' terms, one might reasonably expect from a Republican presidential candidate. I'm guessing that this is pretty much what he gave after making fun of the moron who asked the question about the Iranians, who "we all know" are the "real bad guys in the Middle East."

None of the clips of this campaign event that I found in about fifteen seconds of google and youtube searches showed anything after the song, but McCain was obviously about to, like, talk about Iran. That makes me wonder.

If Yglesias, aside from a ton of snark, has given a detailed treatment of McCain's actually being an unhinged wingbat, can someone point me to it? Otherwise, this whole accusing the candidate of one thing when he's actually engaging in the opposite seems exactly like that Karl Rove-style vomit politics that I'm seriously hoping my neighbor and candidate Barack can help us minimize. There's plenty of reasons, I think, to oppose John McCain's election. I think we should avoid trumpeting the ones that could easily blow up in our faces.

Posted by Tyler Simons | June 1, 2008 5:09 PM

For all those people that say they support Hillary, but won't vote for Obama: It has become apparent that you are not interested in policy differences between the candidates you are interested only in a personality cult.
I support Obama but would volunteer for Hillary's campaign if she were to be nominated. Ultimately, this is not about who I like the most, its about who I agree with the most: I agree first and foremost with Obama and I agree with many of Hillary's policy stances.
I do not want another war, I want support for our veterans, I want to fix our public schools (nt just talk about it but actually do it) which will better the economy eventually. I also want to protect reproductive right: Something that McCain vows to overturn is Roe.V. Wade!!!
So for all the supporters who may not support Obama if Hillary is not the candidate take a step back, realize this is not about you this is about the country!! This is not the time to ignore the reality and gravity of what a McCain Presidency would bring.

Posted by Lady | June 1, 2008 5:34 PM

I've always maintained that many of the women who would vote McCain over Obama would also vote Paris Hilton over Obama.

Meanwhile, I love these guys:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xu29F8NfRvI

Posted by 55 | June 1, 2008 5:52 PM

I will be casting my vote for John McCain in November.

Then you're a loon.

Posted by rea | June 1, 2008 6:01 PM

Maybe we wouldn't have to worry about "bomb-bomb Iran" if "obliterate Iran" wasn't busy destroying Obama's chances to win in November. And if the spineless democratic leadership wasn't content to sit there and watch her do it from the sidelines.

Posted by Nick | June 1, 2008 6:09 PM

Surely our support of the Jondallah "rebels" within Iran will cement the Iranians' love for us. Paying some psychopaths to blow up a bus full of schoolchildren is always endearing. Once you kill someone's children, they always come to see that you only want what's best for them.

Aside from that, all any Iranian has to do is look across the border to Iraq and see how wonderful life is when America "liberates" you. Of course, fewer Iranians may remember which side we backed in the bloody '80s WW1-style border war between Iraq and Iran, but that's because it pretty much wiped out a generation of Iranian males. Remember when Saddam was the "good guy"?

Posted by Todd Dugdale | June 1, 2008 6:11 PM

Surely our support of the Jondallah "rebels" within Iran will cement the Iranians' love for us. Paying some psychopaths to blow up a bus full of schoolchildren is always endearing. Once you kill someone's children, they always come to see that you only want what's best for them.

Aside from that, all any Iranian has to do is look across the border to Iraq and see how wonderful life is when America "liberates" you. Of course, fewer Iranians may remember which side we backed in the bloody '80s WW1-style border war between Iraq and Iran, but that's because it pretty much wiped out a generation of Iranian males. Remember when Saddam was the "good guy"?

Posted by Todd Dugdale | June 1, 2008 6:14 PM

Then you're a loon.

Or at least your currency is -- I think Tim K is Canadian, and also that that probably wasn't posted by the real Tim K.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 1, 2008 6:27 PM

We have still not paid Iran back for the humiliation of the embassy hostage incident.

Which maybe--just maybe--was payback for our overthrowing their democratically-elected government and installing a dictator.

Posted by croatoan | June 1, 2008 6:51 PM

Alienating well-educated middle-class people in the Middle East is a great way to keep this War on Terror going strong! You can't win a fight if you don't have opponents!

Posted by Angry Sam | June 1, 2008 6:56 PM

rapier51 writes: "We have still not paid Iran back for the humiliation of the embassy hostage incident. Sure, we did kill about 250 of them when we shot down that airliner and we did encourage and in our small way help Saddam kill about a half a million of them in their war, but still it isn't enough.

It has to be understood that this is the root of it. We were humiliated and even though that is now as far in the past as the Iranian Revolution was from our replacement of their elected government with the absurd strutting popinjay the Pshaw it's still a fresh wound that must be avenged someday. "

Gotta love that 12-year-old-idiot-on-steroids kind of thinking. Yeesh.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 1, 2008 6:58 PM

Ah,Moe, I was channeling the subconscious of the bomb Iraq crowd and those who don't much care one way or another but will get on board if and when it happens since it will provide, you guessed it, revenge for some distant barely remembered national humiliation.

Also, we are now paying back Iraq for having a dictator who, you guessed it, we helped install by winking and nodding at a coup against an elected government. Which of course provides a certain hilarity to the Bush reason #1 for our invasion in the first place, to establish democracy.

Not that those fledgling democracies were exactly shining cities on a hill, destined for peace wealth and benign greatness. They were talking about nationalizing their oil however. Unlike Saudi Arabia who just privatized it. All in the family. Something elites everywhere understand perfectly, especially guys named Bush.

Posted by rapier | June 1, 2008 7:25 PM

Just as the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", Moaveni's observations of what people tell her while she's riding the bus in Tehran are not "data".

An Iranian would get such the wrong opinion of the way Americans think by striking up conversations riding public transportation in New York, Washington or San Francisco.

To hear Moaveni tell it, everyday Iranians do not want Iran to enrich uranium any more. That's the exact opposite of what every poll I've come across says.

But Moaveni says there are no polls, the only source of information we can trust is her. A "rival" of Ahmadinejad is elected to power in Parliament and is just as strident on Iran's nuclear issue as Ahmadinejad? Well she spoke to a street vendor, and saw some graffiti.

Posted by Arnold Evans | June 1, 2008 7:38 PM

rapier replies: "Ah,Moe, I was channeling the subconscious of the bomb Iraq crowd and those who don't much care one way or another but will get on board if and when it happens since it will provide, you guessed it, revenge for some distant barely remembered national humiliation."

Yeah, I understood what you were doing - that's why I didn't call you any bad names.

You're quite right about the mentality of the warmongering dipshits. I'll give Reagan some credit here - he didn't go in and bomb the shit out of Iran after talking office. Dumbya & the Bushpigs would have done just that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 1, 2008 7:42 PM

Fucking A, people. Type your post, click submit, then either wait or close the window. Goddamn.

Posted by User | June 1, 2008 8:31 PM

Matthew's post here would be making a good point if it were a given that the United States's #1 and all-encompassing goal is to make Iranian people like the United States and to subsume all other interests to that single imperative.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | June 1, 2008 10:31 PM

How do you think their Parliament chanting "Death to America" makes us feel? Do you think that makes us like them?

Iranians should ask themselves why we hate them, and seek to understand the root causes that result in our desire to bomb them.

Posted by Adam Herman | June 2, 2008 1:27 AM

How do you think their Parliament chanting "Death to America" makes us feel? Do you think that makes us like them?

Hell, I love it when they get that chant going. It lets you know where you stand with them. Given the limited amount of death that they've been able to bring to America in the 20 some years since the revolution, I have a hard time getting too worked up over it.

Posted by daveNYC | June 2, 2008 1:53 AM

Tyler Simons: I actually watched the "Bomb Iran" video, and I'm pretty sure that McCain was making fun of the questioner, who was doing the anti-Iran freakout Yglesias repeated accuses the Arizona Senator of performing.

Couldn't find the video of the answer, but here is a news article that quotes part of it:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_unplugged_Bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_0419.html

"Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That alone should concern us but now they are trying for nuclear capabilities. I totally support the President when he says we will not allow Iran to destroy Israel."

The paper notes that McCain stopped short of answering the actual question and did not say if he supports an invasion of Iran.

Posted by fp | June 2, 2008 2:02 AM

Square one in any serious negotiation would involve our acknowledgement of error in supporting the coup against Mossadeq and completely dropping the ball on the Islamic Revolution, and their acknowledgement of error in instituting a rogue-state foreign policy starting with the embassy take-over and running through causing an "amount of death" that may not impress dave, but seems pretty significant to me.

Great points on the campaign--going totally Rovian/Goebbelsian on McCain's actual positions on things like how to conclude the war in the Persian Gulf will cost votes in the end. Truth works best, and those expecting McCain to attack Iran are as foolish/dishonest as those predicting a last-gasp Bush move to do so.

Posted by robert powell | June 2, 2008 3:06 AM

How do Khamenei and company feel about Mosaddeq? I can't imagine they would think much of him back in the day, or did. (I'm not sure whether Khamenei was very politically aware when Mosaddeq was around -- he was 12 when Mosaddeq took office, 14 when he was overthrown, although Mosaddeq continued to live until Khamenei was 28.)

Still, I suppose given that Mosaddeq was prime minister over fifty years ago, they might let him pass into "martyred national hero" status and not quibble over they actually like much of what he stood for.

Posted by Julian Elson | June 2, 2008 3:42 AM

Re: Also, we are now paying back Iraq for having a dictator who, you guessed it, we helped install by winking and nodding at a coup against an elected government.

There is zero evidence that Saddam Hussein was installed by American efforts. He took power in 1979 and I very much doubt that the Carter administration had anything to do with it. And Iraq was certainly not a "democracy" before that. Saddam simply replaced another Ba'ath party dictator.

Posted by JonF | June 2, 2008 6:52 AM

JonF:

There is zero evidence that Saddam Hussein was installed by American efforts.

We didn't install Saddam personally, but we did support the 1963 coup that brought the Baathists to partial power and then the coup in 1968 when they took total control, with Saddam at that point second in command. There isn't nearly as much public documentation on this as the coups in Iran and Guatemala, but it's clear both were CIA operations.

So in that limited sense, rapier is correct that "we helped install" Saddam.

Posted by 23456 | June 2, 2008 7:51 AM

MY - People love being threatened with air strikes, there's no more endearing way for a nation to behave on the world stage than to threaten them frequently -- ideally in a light-hearted manner that involves a Beach Boys reference.

Lets, be frank, MY and admit along with your fellow Lefties that Iran is hardly attempting to endear itself to anybody and there is no moral equivalency...no matter how hard you try.

1. "Death to America" chants have been a fixure in nearly every Iranian government meeting and rally for 30 years. Number of times a Republican or Democrat President, Congress, official body has led chants of "Death to Iran" in the last 30 years? ZERO!

2. Iran has provided the missiles, EFPs, explosives, mortar shells, sniper rifles and training to "special groups" that is associated with the deaths of 300+ Americans in 2006-2007 and the severe maiming of 500+ other Americans.

3. Iran has worked through it's proxy Syria to destabilize the elected government of Lebanon.

4. Iran has provided the missiles, HE and solid fuel compounds used by Hamas and Hezbollah to attack civilians in Israel indiscriminantly. Iran also in the major funder and trainer of Hezbollah and now, Hamas.

5. Iran continues with its nuclear and ICBM programs, with even the Germans now conceeding that 20 years of Euro "talks" and sole reliance on "Soft Power" have gotten them no where with Iran.

All these activities, except Quds Forces helping kill and maim Americans in Iraq, preceeded George BUsh and the "Axis of Evil" speech.

Posted by chris ford | June 2, 2008 9:17 AM

Ok, but does anyone actually know how the Iranians feel about the Beach Boys? Or are we just projecting and making shit up?

Posted by aleks | June 2, 2008 9:24 AM

None of the clips of this campaign event that I found in about fifteen seconds of google and youtube searches showed anything after the song, but McCain was obviously about to, like, talk about Iran. That makes me wonder.
... this whole accusing the candidate of one thing when he's actually engaging in the opposite seems exactly like that Karl Rove-style vomit politics that I'm seriously hoping my neighbor and candidate Barack can help us minimize.
Posted by Tyler Simons | June 1, 2008 5:09 PM

Couldn't find the video of the answer, but here is a news article that quotes part of it:
Posted by fp | June 2, 2008 2:02 AM

So Tyler asserts that he suspects for no apparent reason that McCain probably gave a serious, moderate, presidential answer after starting with a joke. On the other hand, we have a link to a story saying that although he didn't come right out and advocate war, he went on to echo discredited and exaggerated claims about the threat posed by Iran. I found the same thing as fp, and what do you know, I found it on my first try googling. (If you're curious, I googled for mccain "bomb bomb iran" transcript.) Hmmm, I just don't know who to believe here.

Posted by Cyrus | June 2, 2008 11:36 AM

Here's a suggestion: leave the Iranians alone.

Bush and the Ayatolla have been love-hate partners who need each other with desperate abandon. Whenever the Iranian people have an opportunity to think about something other than being invaded by Iraq, which is moot now, or bombed by the US they start electing moderates. The younger generation in Iran is as fed up with their conservative revolution as the youth in the US is with ours. So the simple answer is LEAVE THEM ALONE. If one of their wing-nut leaders spouts off about world domination or destroying Israel, don't beat the war drums, just laugh... it's about the most appropriate response considering the state of their military.

Oh, and spare me the suggestion that they're a dangerous regional superpower. The Iranians don't want the problems in Afghanistan, Pakistan has nukes, Russia is Russia and wants to be their best friend, and Turkey is tight with the EU. Besides, there are still only a couple hundred thousand US troops between Iran and Israel. If Iran is the worst the US has to worry about, we are truly a post super-power and down to the schoolyard bully stage.

Posted by Jaycal | June 2, 2008 12:06 PM

Why do you bother posting about Iran, Matt?

You have absolutely nothing of interest to say.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 3, 2008 6:04 AM