Harry's Place

All you need to know about George Packer’s view of Iran is what he admits from the first sentence:

“The crisis in Iran has flushed out all the pathologies of American foreign-policy thinking, or feeling, in the post-Bush era.”

In other words, he has no interest in Iran—and no one can really say for certain what is now going on in Iran—- but he is certain of the pathology of American foreign policy towards Iran.

For American jokers like George Packer, 72 million Iranians are of no interest, no account.

Yawn, yawn.

This is quite easy.

Is this a democratic system which allows for people to vote out the government? Answer – no.

OK, then oppose the current Iranian regime.

End of story.

All the rest is just BS.

Gene,

I think there has been remarkable unanimity about the hopes for what is going on. There are some differences about what is going on. On one level there’s a largely spontaneous demonstration by large sections (how large?) of the Iranian public. There is also obviously some sort of struggle among various factions of the ruling class. Krauthammer (another evil neocon) predicted last week that although the elections were a sham, they could release unforeseen passions and consequences for the regime.
I felt at the time he was overstating things. In retrospect he understated it.
After this, Iran will be different. It will either be Ahmedininjad’s show, stripped of any pretense of democratic legitimacy. It will Khatami’s groping to come to terms with passions unleashed by the Mullahs cynically limited and corrupt election.. It probably won’t be Mousavi’s. And that’s too bad.

Read it all? Why?

On the one hand, certain neoconservatives and hard-line defenders of Israel (Max Boot, Daniel Pipes) have sounded not in the least sorry about Ahmadinejad’s corrupt re-election, or even come right out and welcomed it,

Go check out Boot and see if the characterization is honest. Also read other stuff he has written. Check the dates. Criticism is good but Pecker is dishonest. Life is short and shit is common. I can’t take an article that starts like that seriously. It’s crap.

Gene, you should be embarrassed.

Presumably, Max Boots heresy against Hope’n'Change™ is to be found in one of the following paragraphs:

But instead it appears that the mullahocracy was determined to anoint Ahmadinejad the winner–and by a margin which no one can take seriously as a true representation of Iranian popular will. Ahmadinejad is about the worst spokesman possible to make Iran’s case to the West–a president who denies the Holocaust, calls for Israel’s eradication, claims there are no homosexuals in Iran, and generally comes off like a denizen of an alternative universe. Even the Obama administration will be hard put to enter into serious negotiations with Ahmadinejad, especially when his scant credibility has been undermined by these utterly fraudulent elections and the resulting street protests.

That doesn’t mean that Obama won’t try–but he will have a lot less patience with Ahmadinejad than he would have had with Mousavi. And that in turn means there is a greater probability that eventually Obama may do something serious to stop the Iranian nuclear program–whether by embargoing Iranian refined-petroleum imports or by tacitly giving the go-ahead to Israel to attack its nuclear installations.

So in an odd sort of way a win for Ahmadinejad is also a win for those of us who are seriously alarmed about Iranian capabilities and intentions. With crazy Mahmoud in office–and his patron, Ayatollah Khameini, looming in the background–it will be harder for Iranian apologists to deny the reality of this terrorist regime.

Larkin’s correct. Packer’s screed isn’t about Iran. It’s about settling scores in New York-D.C.

Meanwhile, for those interested in news, here is a site with some videos.

mesquito, I agree there has been a heartening amount of unanimity about the sham election and the popular outrage in Iran, cutting across ideological lines. You’ll notice Packer singles out Bill Kristol for praise on this. But it’s still remarkable how people with such different ideologies manage to share a willingness or eagerness to believe that the official results reflect popular opinion in Iran. What’s the objection to Packer pointing it out?

Well Gene, there is either remarkable unanimity or there’s this:

It’s become weirdly difficult for commentators on both the right and the left to have anything close to a normal reaction to what the world is seeing. Instead, everything gets filtered through what you think about Bush, Iraq, Obama, Israel, and other subjects that have extremely tenuous connections to internal politics in Iran and the actions of the people and the state there.

I think you and I are right, and Packer’s having the abnormal reaction. Everyone will likely revert to abnormal when Our President finds a means to blame the Mullah’s actions on George W. Bush.

What’s the objection to Packer pointing it out?

The same as your claim that presumably Boot feels that “the official results reflect popular opinion in Iran.” No, Boot felt the vote was dishonest and prearranged:

“But instead it appears that the mullahocracy was determined to anoint Ahmadinejad the winner–and by a margin which no one can take seriously as a true representation of Iranian popular will.”

You could say that Boot was cynical, but to say that he thinks the results reflect popular opinion is simply dishonest.

As I pointed out earlier and Chuck just ably demonstrated, Packer is writing about Iran. He’s settling scores, dishonestly.

“But it’s still remarkable how people with such different ideologies manage to share a willingness or eagerness to believe that the official results reflect popular opinion in Iran. What’s the objection to Packer pointing it out?”

I can only speak for myself. My first interest is in knowing what actually happened/is happening in Iran.

I am unwilling to take seriously the concerns of a man who freely admits to not caring what actually happened/ is happening in Iran and thinks he has discovered some sort of smoking gun because idealogical opponents concur on historical facts.

I have no opinion on the facts of this particular vote, because I don’t know what they are. My first concern is to learn them.

But I do confess a presumption: that anyone who admits not to care about the historical facts does not deserve to be taken seriously.

After that, Field said it most economically:

“This is quite easy.
Is this a democratic system which allows for people to vote out the government? Answer – no.
OK, then oppose the current Iranian regime.”

There you go Gene. Field has stated an indisputable fact.

Why don’t you just get on the side of right and quit pissing around with your silly prevarications?
.

I think we ought to stop prevaricating too.

Here is Amir Taheri:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6493541.ece

PS: prevarication is especially bad when it’s in the service of ideology and/or “interests”.

I am dismayed that we seem to have fallen into the clutches of the “realists” and/or some fluffy vision of creating a “Grand Bargain” – talk about hubris! – and that so much of our press is either blind or owned.

It was bad enough living in the days of Absolute Good vs Absolute Evil and The Empire of Pax Americana – well this is a wakeup call.

There is no easy path forward, no magic wand.

All those Roger Cohen pieces about Iran – I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I had to wonder if this was really part and parcel of an effort to make us poor fools “see the light” and turn against our own ideals.

Now, he’s writing good stuff, having discovered “real” reality.

There’s no way to hide from it now, now way to claim that the translation was wrong or that Israel is “crying wolf”.

But for awhile there I had this sense of dislocation – that the NYT – let alone certain blogs – was deliberately publishing propaganda.

That is the way a democracy goes down the drain, fast: when the press isn’t strong and vital and free.

So while we’re worrying about the people in Iran I think we’d better start worrying about the democracies in the West.

Gene, correct me if I’m wrong but I have been getting a bit of a sense over the past couple of days that you haven’t been making the necessary distinction between those who have some doubts about the extent to which the forces of reform are representative of the mass of the Iranian population and those who have “a willingness or eagerness to believe that the official results reflect popular opinion in Iran”.

In other words, what we want to be true is one thing. What we can assert with confidence to be true is a different thing. And those who hold back on the confident assertions aren’t necessarily either fans of Ahmadinejad or cynics like Pipes who want Ahmadinejad to win because he’s afraid that a Mousavi victory would lull the West into a false sense of security vis-à-vis Iran.

“Obama’s carefully chosen remarks about Iran yesterday made just the right points in just the right tone.”

And you wonder why Gene likes this article?

I agree with Packer. All too often in newspaper opinion pieces and on blogs people are struggling to fit the events round their ideological viewpoint. The far left has often been accused of this, mainly because they are blatant about it, but the right are also guilty, and have become more transparent since the recent American election campaign, and the victory of Obama.

I don’t see how it is particularly any worse than normal in the writings about the situation in Iran, except that the unworkable amount of incoherent information lends itself well to cherry picking. I don’t see how it’s unacceptable to comment on it now, there are many other threads on this blog and places in the online and offline world where you can find out about the situation in Iran and express sympathy for the people caught up in it if you want. In fact by commenting on this thread you’re wasting valuable time that could be spent reading Twitter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/jun/16/iran-election-khamenei

Mike Tomasky in the Guardian: Is Rafsanjani plotting against the
Supreme leader Ali Khamenei?

Take Islam out of Iran, and it could become an economic tiger. It has the brains, the education, the resources and a long proud history and culture. Before the catastrophe of Khomeini, Iran was being touted as the new Japan.

But Jimmy Carter could only see the Shah’s authoritarian rule with human rights abuses that were not as bad as many, and thought it needed a new shining dawn, a Ghandi to make it a beacon of enlightenment to south west Asia. But his chosen Ghandi turned out to be more like Ghengis Khan, and Iran has declined for 30 years. Even if the current regime is overthrown, its militaristic culture and dodgy neighbours will constrain any Renaissance. I wish it well.

Whose side are you on boy?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1769/slide_1769_23983_large.jpg

Alcuin, are you nuts? You think Carter chose Khomeni? The tragedy of Iran was not Carter’s fault, it was Eisenhower’s.

There are a number of different questions that can legitimately be asked about what has been going on in Iran since last week’s elections. Here is a small sample:

1. Was it rigged or wasn’t it?

2. Even if it was, wouldn’t little Mahmoud still have come first anyway?

3. To what extent, if at all, do the other three candidates for president share western values such as the legitimacy of the democratic process?

4. To what extent, if at all, do the protestors in the silent marches share western values such as the legitimacy of the democratic process?

5. Depending on your answers to questions 1 to 4 above, what is the most suitable response that we should be looking for from our own government (Obama, Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel, Netanyahu, . . . fill in the blank)?

From this snippet, Packer seems to be addressing question 5 exclusively. But we ought to be clear in our own minds what it is we object to. Is it (a) that he is giving the wrong answer to question 5, or (b) that he shouldn’t even be attempting to answer question 5 until he has found the answers to questions 1 through 4?

If it’s (a), then I’d say there isn’t yet a single right answer. The best we can do is look at the alternatives.

If it’s (b), then the objection is valid only up to a point. If we wait until every last detail is filled in about the facts on the ground in Iran, we’ll run the risk of postponing any action until it’s too late.

You think Carter chose Khomeni?

Absolutely.. It was Carter who was mad, and Obama is following in his footsteps.

Hector, you appear to have missed the key fact that Carter was a democrat. Here’s a handy guide to recent US presidents’ most notable acheivements:
Kennedy – Got America bogged down in Vietnam
LBJ – Wouldn’t let army fight with gloves off in Vietnam
Nixon – Ended Vietnam
Ford – Prepared ground for Reagan boom years
Carter – Islamic revolution in Iran, recession
Reagan – Fall of the USSR
Bush I – Victory over Iraq to end the spectre of Vietnam
Clinton – Dot com bubble, credit crunch
Bush II – Victory over Iraq (again) and Al Qaeda
Obama – Turned US into socialist state

Please refer to this handy guide to work out who is to blame for any particular world event.

Stopped reading after this:

demonstrating that neoconservatism is an offshoot of Leninism

He is writing from a position that the only important thing is to show how much he hates the evil neocons. All the rest is of secondary importance at best. This is not analysis, it’s fourth form posturing.

Alcuin: LOL’d at that link. Sorry, I thought you were being serious. Should have known better than to take any comment on Harry’s Place as non-satirical.