I am a fan and a friend of David Brooks, a thoughtful and honest man who writes at the New York Times. A week ago (May 30th) he sent a “letter” about Iran policy to McCain and Obama, that seems to me to reflect the consensus of those pundits who think of themselves as more realistic than the ideologues on either side of the spectrum, and since it’s so well written and so clear, it gives us a good opportunity to evaluate what our expert realists are thinking. It can be summarized like this:
–we don’t know much about Iran, even though it’s the major foreign policy issue for the United States (and will remain the #1 issue into the next presidency);
–not only do we not understand Iran, the Iranians themselves don’t understand themselves either. They don’t know if they’re a global jihad, or a regional power trying to gain more sway over the Middle East;
–there isn’t very much we can do about Iran, because we have feckless allies who aren’t willing to do anything really tough (like stronger sanctions);
–Therefore, our best policy is to do basically nothing, and hope that time works in our favor. And maybe it is, since the jihadis seem to be undergoing considerable stress, and after all, “where Islamists rule, they wear out their welcome.”
As for the hot item in the campaign—should we talk to the Iranians?—Brooks just waves it away. He thinks it’s beside the point. The issue is how to exert pressure (which he says we mostly can’t), not whether we should talk to the mullahs. Oddly, David doesn’t explain just why we should want to exert pressure. There isn’t a word about the nukes, nor about the Americans who have been killed and will be killed by Iranian and Iranian-sponsored forces. Nor is there much of anything about the goal of American policy, except this odd paragraph:
Your job is to restrain Iran’s momentum until the fundamental correlation of forces can shift. For amid all the doleful news, there is a hopeful tide. Opinion is turning slowly against extremism. The über-analyst Dennis Ross says that he has noted it among the Palestinians. Michael Young writes that opinion is shifting against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Peter Bergen, Paul Cruickshank and Lawrence Wright have in their different ways written about the intellectual crisis afflicting Al Qaeda.
Suppose opinion really is turning against extremism. So what? East Europeans and the citizens of the slave states along the Baltic were “against extremism” for decades, but it didn’t help them one bit. We know—contrary to David’s insistence that we really don’t know what’s going on inside Iran—that most Iranians are unhappy with their regime. We know it, and the regime knows it, which is why so many political prisoners are killed and tortured in Iran. But without support from the free world, they’re not able to get rid of the mullahs. Michael Young is no doubt right when he says that “opinion is shifting against Hezbollah in Lebanon,” but this has not prevented Hezbollah—which is to say, Iran—from imposing its will on the country and using it as a base for their next assault against Israel (which, I expect, Michael Young would tell us most Lebanese do not want). Here again, not a word.
I find this very disconcerting. If someone as good as David Brooks can write an entire column in Iran without once mentioning that Iran has been at war with us for nearly thirty years, or that Iranian killers and Iranian-armed-and-trained killers are going after American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (as they have been, ever since we went into Afghanistan in 2001), or that Iran is developing nuclear weapons with which it has promised to attack us and Israel, it’s a bad sign. He deals exclusively with process, not with the facts of the war, not with the serious threat against civilization emanating from Tehran.
It’s unworthy of a person with his talent. I hope he just had a bad day, as we all do. Merely hoping that things will get better isn’t the sort of “policy” that will get us through this very dangerous time.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
11 Comments
a Duoist:There appears to be something fundamental in a democratic body politic which discounts the warnings from alarmists–like Churchill and Dr. Ledeen about the rise of fascism, or even Al Gore on global warming–and then only acts when the necessity for action is thrust upon them at the very last possible moment. In psychology and economics, such chronic delayed action, the constant procrastination, is an observed phenomenon in all human beings.
Still, the alarm must be sounded. The discussions and debates about theofascism in Iran must occupy both presidential candidates during at least one of their debates, because one of them will be in office when theofascism goes nuclear in 2012.
Somehow, sometime very soon, distinguished published scholars of fascism from BOTH of our political parties must get together, even if only by email, and craft an alarm to send over their signatures to both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain…and also to ‘Foreign Affairs’ or some similar reputable publication. The alarm should be utterly non-partisan to be effective, and should pull no punches: By their expert analysis, the Iranian form of governance is nothing less than an evolved, 21C form of fascism and so poses the newest great risk to humanity if it acquires nuclear weapons capability.
The scholars’ alarm about Iran’s theofascism should avoid Mr. Gore’s hysterics, and absolutely must avoid his appalling distortion of statistics and science. Wouldn’t such a scholars’ alarm include a demand that the PHILOSOPHY of Iran’s governance be the focus of the candidates’ debate on Iran? If the debate focused on the Imam Khomeini’s philosophy, it would become impossible not to evoke the strident alarms by Churchill, which fell on so many deaf–procrastinating–ears.
Time is running out. As time runs out, options narrow. As options narrow, the final costs explode. The final costs, according to history, will be incalculable.
Can anyone think of an esteemed scholar of fascism who could assemble a reputable group of top fascism scholars from bot political parties? I can think of one. Wrote a good article on fascism in the weekend WSJ.
Jun 8, 2008 - 3:00 am Ira Zad:It seems that Brooks may have joined in the enemy-appeaser crowd seeing that the tide is turning and B.Hossayn Obama will more likely than not slip in through the cracks in the system and become US President in ‘09. It’s called jumping a sinking ship to ride a winning race camel. Opportunistic at best.
The fact is that none, I repeat none of our policies towards Iran has worked so far. Sanctions have been ineffective and anemic at best and lots of western companies continue to do business with Iran daily; Iran’s nuclear activity has not only not stopped but it has actually gained momentum and speed; and although the populace despises the theocracy of terror in Tehran, there seems to be no sign of a self-sustaining internal uprising to topple the regime, not without western help anyway which has not been coming for 29-years.
As an Israeli minister said today, it seems that the west is basically resigned to Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb of sorts (see link below.)
But I go a step further and exclaim that by their lack of effective and strong reaction to Iran, the west overall, and the US in particular, have shown that they are willing to abandon Israel to fence for itself as they (the west) grazes in the greener (and more populated, i.e., more consumers) middle east, Arab and Iranian markets and trade pastures. Iran’s population is going to reach 100 million by 2050 vs. 10 million projected for Israel according to a recent article by Pat Buchanan who postulates that Israel is going to simply be outnumbered by its Arab and Iranian enemies as time marches on.
Could the west be turning its back on Israel? No one can be sure, but the writing sure appears to be on the wall to that effect vis a vis the west’s almost intentional anemic weakness towards Iran.
Thomas Friedman said the other day in an interview with Haertz TV that the longer term option to fight Iran is to reduce the price of oil which will result in the fall of the Iranian regime. He also added, however, that the only short term option left currently is the military one.
I agree.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080607/wl_mideast_afp/mideastpoliticsisraelirannuclear
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26552
ML:
I don’t agree, as you know (I favor support for revolution), nor do I think that pauperizing the Iranians by knocking the bottom out of oil prices, will automatically produce the collapse of the regime. I do not think that economic misery is often the cause of revolutions, Karl Marx and Charles Dickens to the contrary notwithstanding…
Jun 8, 2008 - 11:10 am David Thomson:“published scholars of fascism from BOTH of our political parties must get together”
There is only one adult party in the United States: the GOP. It often acts hypocritically and foolishly—but it is the only game in town. The Democrats have taken an almost permanent vacation from history. John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, and Hubert Humphrey have been dead for many decades. Those currently representing their party are dishonest pacifists. They “don’t believe in warfare.” Soft power tactics, according to them, should be enough to resolve international tensions. Moreover, we Americans are supposedly responsible for these tensions especially in regards to the Third World. It is our alleged imperialism and racist behavior which enrage the Iranian mullahs. Everything will be fine once we cease filthing on them. Self hating Americanism sadly defines the Democratic Party. This is a harsh reality that can no longer be ignored.
Jun 8, 2008 - 11:31 am David Thomson:“Then there is anti-Semitism. Old Jew-hating texts like “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” now in Farsi and Arabic, are proliferating throughout the Middle East.”
Similar texts are also proliferating on Barack “Barry” Obama’s official campaign website. This madness has been going on at least since April. Take a look:
http://tinyurl.com/6qaaks
Jun 8, 2008 - 11:40 am Nick Guariglia:What are the chances that a McCain presidency would entail support for Iranian prisoners? I’ve read his “rogue state rollback” speech back in ‘99-’00, and he’d obviously be more proactive than Obama.
But is your sense that he’d essentially go after the same strategy that we have today — or a more proactive, Reagan/Solidarity relationship with the Iranian people?
Jun 8, 2008 - 11:36 pm Anthony (Los Angeles):I have a couple of arguments with David’s piece:
The issue is how to exert pressure (which he says we mostly can’t)….
Actually, we can: ideologically, economically, and even militarily.
1) Stepped up propaganda in the form of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty-style broadcasts into Iran would provide moral support to Iranians who oppose the regime. (I have the impression, perhaps wrong, that our efforts so far are generally minimal and half-hearted.)
2) Iran is incredibly vulnerable to a cutoff in fuel supplies, given their reliance on imports of gasoline. It would cause havoc in Western economies but, if deemed necessary, I think it would cripple the regime quickly. Also, I don’t think we can underestimate the effect of financial sanctions that hit the black-robed mafiosi where it hurts — in their bank accounts.
3) Disaffected subject peoples within Iran have already been striking back, attacking government security forces in the Kurdish and (IIRC) Khuzestan Arab regions. Iran’s been killing our people, and I suspect we’re providing support to anti-government forces in their area. We can always ramp that up.
Then:
Opinion is turning slowly against extremism.
I have to take issue with David and the other experts, here. While Zawahiri’s old ally may have turned against violent jihad, it is the “violence now” part he and others are rejecting, not the doctrines of Islamic supremacism or the pursuit of “cultural jihad” through the exploitation of Western liberalism. It’s an argument about tactics amongst revolutionaries, not a renunciation of the revolution.
Jun 9, 2008 - 8:44 am David W. Lincoln:It seems to me, Michael, that victory (to paraphrase JFK) will have a multitude of fathers.
Supporting dissidents, like what was done for the likes of Bukovsky, Sharansky, et al., came
from various governments plus the Roman Catholic Church, plus other entities.
So, why fix what isn’t broken?
Jun 9, 2008 - 9:36 am j green:Everything you mentioned in your blog is dead on correct, as usual. Its incredible that those points were not even mentioned.
Michael, a lot of people don’t subscribe to the theory that TV/radio can do the job in Iran. Why is this? Is it because it sounds too simple so people don’t take it seriously? Is there another reason? Frankly, it is that simple since the Islamic Republic is hollow. Also, there is a history of this tactic working in the eastern bloc.
But lets not oversimplify this, we still need to have a policy where the left hand knows what the rights doing, and TV needs to be fully integrated in–indeed a part of–the policy. The moment the president says something which is a policy shift or significant, we need to drive that home to the Iranian people.
Jun 9, 2008 - 9:53 am Ira Zad:Let’s face it, I have said this before and I say it again: our Iran policy has been a total and utter failure under mishandling, appeasement, and desperation of Rice’s state department vis a vis Iran; and all of this with the tacit acquiescence of a President who clearly seems to be too weak and too timid to meaningfully confront the now emboldened remaining members of the ‘axis of evil’.
It’s painfully funny, even Israel is now threading softly on Iran as if Iran was some powerful superpower of some kind: today, Israeli Defense minister and Olmert himself blasted Mofaz for saying a strike on Iran is ‘unavoidable’.
I have an idea: Why don’t we all get together with the Israelis, the President of the United States, the whole of the US senate and Condi’s state department and chart 10 planes to Tehran while wearing no clothes with white flags in our hands and bow to Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and also to the European mullahs like Khatami and Rafsanjani right there on Tehran airport’s tarmac and get this whole farce over with?
We might as well do it to save face, before President B. Hussein does it in ‘09. Maybe in this one thing we can beat him since it looks to me that it’s going to be a landslide Hussein’s way anyway. At least then, we won’t have to worry about anything since we know it will be all over.
Whichever way you choose to call our stance towards Iran for the last 29 years, it still boils down to one word in the Iranian dictionary: surrender and weakness. And you wonder why they are so emboldened now?
All because we don’t have the gumption anymore to face history and shape it the way we want to anymore. Perhaps WWII was an aberration the way we shaped the ending our way with an almost non-victory. Today, we rather all be at Costco gnawing on a hot dog, instead, happy that we have our lives this way while saving on toilet paper today. Thinking all will be fine forever. We are perceived in the east as complacent, lazy, fat, too out of shape politically, economically, too degraded socially and culturally to confront serious threats to ourselves any longer.
This country is in deep deep trouble if it continues to conduct its foreign policy towards the head of Islamic Fascism in Tehran the way it has so far. Deep trouble. Otherwise, get ready for the fall of the western system as we know it.
Jun 9, 2008 - 2:01 pm Winston:May be he is not brave enough to admit to the fact that Iranian regime has waged war against the US since 1979.
Jun 9, 2008 - 2:56 pm Ron Kean:True.
Right when I was starting to like Brooks.
If he isn’t scared of the threat, it shows a gap in his perception of worldly affairs.
It may be a NYT virus or something that infects their employees.
They think we’re duped by Bush propaganda.
Better safe than sorry.
Jun 10, 2008 - 9:15 pm