- ‹ previous
- 764 of 2716
- next ›
The Future of Engagement
If the Iranian regime successfully beats back the challenge of Mir Hussein Mousavi and millions of protesters, what happens next? Matt Yglesias says it makes engagement with Iran impossible:
The hope behind an engagement strategy was that the Supreme Leader might be inclined to side with the more pragmatic actors inside the system—guys like former president Rafsanjani and former prime minister Mousavi. With those people, and most of the Iranian elites of their ilk, now in open opposition to the regime, any crackdown would almost by definition entail the sidelining of the people who might be interested in a deal. Iran would essentially be in the hands of the most hardline figures, people who just don’t seem interested in improving relations with other countries.
But what if Mousavi wins? Jonah Goldberg says it doesn't matter:
If the forces of reform and democracy win, Obama's plan to negotiate with the regime is moot, for the regime will be gone. And if the forces of reform are crushed into submission by the regime, Obama's plan is moot, because the regime will still be there.
Put me on Matt's side. If Khamenei wins, Obama's engagement policy probably becomes impossible, both on practical and moral terms. But if Khamenei falls, what's the problem? Sure, "the regime will be gone," but there will be a new regime in its place. Engagement would most likely be on hold for a while as it finds its feet, and it's possible that even in the longer term the new regime would find it impossible to negotiate with the U.S. But it's also possible that they'd be more likely to negotiate with the U.S. We don't know, and neither does Goldberg, who never explains why he thinks Obama would find it impossible to engage with a new regime in Iran. He just seems to hope it's true.
Why even bother?
I really don't know why it's even worth quoting the NR crowd like McCarthy or Goldberg. They're intellectually bankrupt and I can't imagine that they even believe in what they're saying half the time But they do have a professional and financial stake in maintaining their ideology, so they carry on with the same old BS no matter how absurd. Why even pay attention?
Still, I do read NRO every day just for the laughs. But now that K-Lo is gone, I doubt I'll visit as much.
K-Lo is gone? ...
What happened? Did she get fired?
I thought I read she was
I thought I read she was being re-assigned to other duties, but it's hard to follow what they're talking about on NRO sometimes. I hope I'm wrong, she's one of my favs. I loved her predictions about Rick Santorum's comeback senate win. She's a real gem.
Engagement is never impossible
It was not impossible with respect to the Soviet Union, a nuclear power with as formidable an army as ours, that crushed resistance in Czeckoslovakia and Poland. It was not impossible with China (as soon as we decided it wasn't). It is, in fact, what's required to be a real power in the world. There will be times when it doesn't pay off much, but non-engagement never pays off. And when engagement works, it is well worthwhile.
What have you been drinking Kevin? You sound like the guy who supported the Iraq War. This game is diplomacy, right? And it takes time. Quit being one of those instant gratification Americans.
What's the difference?
Lost in all of this hoohah over "stolen elections" is the fact that no matter who wins in Iran, he'll still be a complete jerkface.
Does it really matter whether he's elected in an "open and democratic" election or not? The end result is the same.
All the rest is posturing and bloviation.
Huh? This is helpful how,
Huh? This is helpful how, exactly?
The president can normalize
The president can normalize relations with Iran any time. Nothing prevents the US from opening up to trade and diplomatic relations with Iran. China's Tiananmen Square protests and government crackdown on the protesters did not prevent the US from continuing trade and diplomatic relations with China, and there is no reason why a limited democracy like Iran should be treated worse than an oligarchy like China by the US.
I suspect what will happen
I suspect what will happen is the regime will win, because they have to and have the power to do it, but will also realize they can't go through this again, so the next election will be a lot more fair, even if the ayatollahs' pick doesn't win.
As for why Obama can't engage Iran, huh? As previous posters have noted, we engaged China, the USSR, South Africa, Indonesia (remember Timor?), etc. This is international relations, not kid's pickup soccer where whoever owns the ball takes it and goes home if they get upset.
Progressive Realism
tagged as:- solution
Kevin, I'd like to remind you of the letter you published from Robert Wright back in 2006.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_07/009261.php
Yglessias is advocating more and harsher sanctions. Wright, the guy who invented the term "progressive realism" said that's exactly the wrong thing to do.
I'd suggest this needs deeper thought rather than kneejerk liberal interventionism.
Regards, Steve
major stumbling block either way
If TPTB win (which in the short term is highly likely), it will be politically too costly for Obama to engage them. He would be reinforcing their talking points about never meeting a dictator he doesn't like yada-yada. If the reformers prevail, the remnants of the ancien regime will be trying to undermine Mousavi and company's credibility by casting them as stooges of foreign colonialist powers. They will have to beef up their Iranian nationalist bona-fides by playing the anti-USA card. Either way engagement is off the table for at least a couple of years.
k-lo
yep, k-lo will be at NRO in a diminished capacity. who will there be to not-edit posts now?
*the hunting of the snark* had an amusing post on this revolting development here.
your pal,
blake
"kneejerk liberal
"kneejerk liberal interventionism"
Yes! Thank you Steve Hynd, this will save me lots of words when I comment here. It all reduces to: "Kevin, cut out the kneejerk liberal interventionism!"
Future Engagement
On the upside of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad staying in power (which seems pretty definite now) there is this paragraph from an article in the Asia Times, a news organization I tend to trust more than any other source. Their authors go into great detail in explaining all the historical background and political backstory of any given event. I'm not sure if it was this story or another where I discovered that Mousavi was the person who started Iran's nuclear program back in the '80s when he was PM. Mousavi still thinks that Iran has the right to enrich uranium for nuclear energy purposes, so he wouldn't be a pushover in that area. By the way, Taheri is described as the 'well-informed chronicler' of the mideast. (I've never heard of him before of course).
'From another direction, Taheri came to virtually the same definitive conclusion as the Israeli intelligence chief reached. Namely, that a weak interlocutor without a "Khomeinist base" like Mousavi could never make concessions that the US, the Europeans and the Arabs demanded, whereas Ahmadinejad can afford a softening of position as it will only seem a clever maneuver. Paradoxically, negotiating with Ahmadinejad might prove easier for the West, as he has a genuine constituency.' - Bhadrakumar
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF23Ak02.html
Iran
The most important thing right now is that the current power structure in Iran needs to remain unchanged, so that the Israelis can have the war they're all looking forward to.
Nuclear apocalyptic humor aside, considering that we are on such good terms with China, a country that murdered nearly one million Tibetans a while ago, there will be no problem opening a dialog with whatever government is in Iran whenever we want to. So why don't you get off the idealist bandwagon long enough to see how silly it is to be making such pronouncements about the near future of the middle east ?
I don't think Goldberg and
I don't think Goldberg and Yglesias disagree here as much as you think. "It doesn't matter" refers to Obama's old plan to negotiate with the old regime -- it will be moot, because there will be a completely different ball game. E.g. my plan to negotiate with President George H.W. Bush becomes moot in November of 1992.
I'm not sure it was worth pointing out in the first place, but please correct me if you think Goldberg doesn't believe Obama can negotiate with a Mousavi regime.
ONly Nixon can go to China.
rbe1: And that translates into Obama, cannot go to Tehran, whereas someone whose kneejerk patriotism is not in question (such as J McCain) could. Reformers (and that includes Obama, have dangerous enemies on the right. These domestic enemies are constantly trying to discredit him -using every trick they can think of. The obvious trick here, is "Obama loves the murderous Ahmadinejad". Now that a brutal crackdown has occurred, he cannot afford to risk that.
The situation in Iran if the reformers won out, would be very similar. Protecting their right flank from domestic political enemies would have the highest priority.
moral terms?
"If Khamenei wins, Obama's engagement policy probably becomes impossible, both on practical and moral terms. "
Kevin, did you feel it was impossible to negotiate with either Mao Tsetung, or the Soviet Union, on "moral terms"?
If not, how does Iran differ, exactly?
For me, the bottom line is
For me, the bottom line is whatever report they are doing, I want it before the election. If Palin has acted with abuse of power, or has tried to cover up such an action, I have a right to know that BEFORE I vote.