The Danger of Neoconservatism...
... is that it doesn't know where to stop. so we've got John McCain singing "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" to rounding applause (tho, in truth, McCain is less of a neo-con than old-school hawk).
thankfully, the reality-based community seems to be holding sway on this issue. Obama gave a speech in which he comes off as more hawkish than he has before, and sent some liberals into a tizzy. Jonathan Chait parsed it nicely at The Plank, and i don't think an Obama presidency would have any interest in an Iranian invasion unless we were *massively* provoked.
Still, the mood in some circles on the right seem to think that invading Iran may be done with the same justification of the invasion of Iraq. But the these arguments aren't transitive - they were specific to Iraq, and the same conditions don't apply to Iran. Yes, Iran is pursuing WMD, but that wasn't the case for invasion didn't hinge on that point. Iran is not committing genocide; they didn't invade Kuwait, fire on American planes patrolling no-fly zones every day for a decade, pervert the Oil-for-Food program, etc.
But the most telling difference is in the structure of the governments. Iran, despite bestowing large power upon whichever Grand Ayatollah is the current Supreme Leader, has some semblance of actual democracy, which we found out when Ahmadinejad's party did exceptionally poorly in Tehren's most-recent city-wide elections. how significant this was is up for debate, but such a thing was inconceivable in Saddam's Baghdad. the people of Iran are relatively free to show dissent, and anti-Ahmadinejad protests are relatively common.
a pair of recent articles, from outposts on the right, gives us a glimpse into the nature of the people of Iran, and give some hope for intra-country reforms. good reading.
thankfully, the reality-based community seems to be holding sway on this issue. Obama gave a speech in which he comes off as more hawkish than he has before, and sent some liberals into a tizzy. Jonathan Chait parsed it nicely at The Plank, and i don't think an Obama presidency would have any interest in an Iranian invasion unless we were *massively* provoked.
Still, the mood in some circles on the right seem to think that invading Iran may be done with the same justification of the invasion of Iraq. But the these arguments aren't transitive - they were specific to Iraq, and the same conditions don't apply to Iran. Yes, Iran is pursuing WMD, but that wasn't the case for invasion didn't hinge on that point. Iran is not committing genocide; they didn't invade Kuwait, fire on American planes patrolling no-fly zones every day for a decade, pervert the Oil-for-Food program, etc.
But the most telling difference is in the structure of the governments. Iran, despite bestowing large power upon whichever Grand Ayatollah is the current Supreme Leader, has some semblance of actual democracy, which we found out when Ahmadinejad's party did exceptionally poorly in Tehren's most-recent city-wide elections. how significant this was is up for debate, but such a thing was inconceivable in Saddam's Baghdad. the people of Iran are relatively free to show dissent, and anti-Ahmadinejad protests are relatively common.
a pair of recent articles, from outposts on the right, gives us a glimpse into the nature of the people of Iran, and give some hope for intra-country reforms. good reading.
Labels: Iran
posted by Kindred Winecoff at
6:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home