Two posts in one day, campers! I told you I feel giddy. Ok, so I think we all need a break from hearing about me, so let's take up something important. What do we make of the events in Iran? I have been doing some informal polling of my friends and neighbors, and many of them seem to think we are on a path to war. I am not sure I agree with that. For those of you who may not have ingested any news in the last few days, waiting with bated breath for the "announcement" promised by Jon and Kate Gosselin later tonight, allow me to give you a brief synopsis.Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, the cur of a gentleman who has repeatedly denied the existence of the Holocaust, and who never misses an opportunity to promise the total annihilation of Israel, has recently won re-election. However, there are more than a few suspicions of electoral foul play afoot. Recently, demonstrations have broken out across the globe, and most promisingly, inside the reclusive nation itself, demanding a recount, or stronger still, a regime change entirely. Personally, I find Ahmadinejad to be a repulsive and dangerous individual, but particularly in light of the Iraq debacle, I say the U.S. needs to step back and let the people of Iran make their own decisions.
That said, President Obama has received a large amount of criticism, in fairness, not only from the right, for taking a relatively measured, hands off approach. I want to know what you think. Why should the Sunday morning talk show pundits have all the fun? I'd like to take this moment to issue a special plea to Jen of All Trades. For God's sake, talk to us woman!
Posts
Right now, it's really hard to see anything constructive the U.S. could do. The ones criticizing Obama are the same ones who think that U.S. military force is the first and best option in all cases. We should be thanking our stars right now that McCain didn't win, because he and Lindsay Graham would surely have ordered the 82nd Airborne in by now.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons the Middle East has always been so damn intractable is that memories are long and grievances are nursed longer. There is a serious blind spot in U.S. foreign policy thinking (and this cuts across both parties) when it comes to nationalism and historical memory. With respect to the latter, our Protestant stoicism makes us think that people should just "get over it," which is something that people who define themselves as a nation (a group of people with a common heritage, history and culture) don't do. And while Americans are good at talking about patriotism, we often don't get that patriotism and nationalism are not synonymous. We cast our nationalism in terms of ideology, not shared history. This can be very powerful - witness how well the U.S. assimilates immigrants as compared to Europe, for example. But it also means we don't really get that people might prefer to be ruled by one of their own or under a system of their choosing rather than having a foreign power (like us) install a ruler or a system of government.
All this is a long way of getting to the fundamental point, which is that Iranian cultural memory remembers 1953 and the U.S. turfing out an elected leader to restore the despicable Shah to power. Any forceful rhetorical or other intervention in Iran right now would allow the government to taint the opposition as an American Stooge.
Obama is playing this just about right, and McCain just needs to get over the fact that more than 50% of the people thought he was not the right guy to be President.
Well said Mr. Sarwate. You have educated me on some points of which I wasn't aware. Apparently my inbred Protestant stoicism indeed caused me to forget that the events of 1953 are still very much in play between the U.S. and Iran. I was operating on the principle that the "bad blood" was restricted to the last 8-10 years of "bring it on!" diplomacy, and our efforts to prevent anyone but us and our buddies from posessing nuclear weapons.
ReplyDelete