Coming To You Live From An Alternate Reality ...

by hilzoy

Today the Washington Post, fresh from canning one of its best writers, lets Charles Krauthammer send us a dispatch from the alternate reality in which he lives. In that reality, apparently, Iranian demonstrators "await just a word that America is on their side." Joe Klein, just back from the real Tehran, asks:

"They do? Which ones? Name one. And if that word came, what then? Would it be the same as the "word" Dwight Eisenhower sent, and later regretted, supporting the Hungarian protesters in 1956 when he had no intention of supporting them militarily? Or the "word" that George H.W. Bush sent the Iraqi Shi'ites after the first Gulf War, who then rebelled against Saddam Hussein and were slaughtered?"

Krauthammer then lets us know what's at stake in the reality he inhabits:

"This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.

In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 -- the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, the first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt -- was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.

Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception -- Iraq and Lebanon -- becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed."

Is there any evidence -- any at all -- that this is true? Not from where I sit. As best I can tell, there is no particular reason to think that Mousavi will bring any kind of major foreign policy shift:

"Mr. Moussavi began his political career as a hard-liner and a favorite of the revolution’s architect, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Although he has long had an adversarial relationship with Iran’s current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his insider status makes him loath to mount a real challenge to the core institutions of the Islamic republic. He was an early supporter of Iran’s nuclear program, and as prime minister in the 1980s he approved Iran’s purchase of centrifuges on the nuclear black market, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency."

Back in the day, he supported taking hostages in the US embassy and funding for Hezbollah. I suspect that he will not have Ahmedinejad's knack for making crazy and offensive statements, and with any luck he won't deny the Holocaust, but I do not expect much in the way of major foreign policy changes if he prevails -- all the more so since he will, I assume, have to try to reconcile his country, and might bend over backwards not to provide ammunition to his enemies. 

The best way I can see to make sense of Krauthammer's ravings is to suppose that America and freedom have merged in his mind, so that when a people demonstrates for freedom, we can infer that they are pro-American. But this is not just false; it's crazy.  

I hope Mousavi and his supporters prevail. But that's not because I think that he will make everything peachy in Iran; it's because I think that the Iranian people deserve to have a voice in their government. I do not think that a Mousavi government would stop funding Hezbollah or suspend its nuclear program. I do think that if he and his supporters prevail, Iranian society will become more open, and its government less authoritarian. This will probably make a real difference in its foreign policy in the long run, though I think it would be foolish to try to predict what difference it will make. 

You'd think that after getting Iraq so badly wrong, Krauthammer might decide to devote himself to writing op-eds on patent law or food safety or -- well, anything other than how some development in the Middle East would lead to democracy busting out all over. You might think that if he did go on writing about foreign policy, he might at least try to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. And you might think that if the Washington Post has to go around firing people, Charles "I Believe Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast -- Just Wait Til You See How Many I Can Manage By The Time I Finish My Column!" Krauthammer might be first in line. But you'd be wrong.

Comments

[Pithlord]

It's premature to speculate about a Moussavi government's foreign policy. However, it seems likely that he will at least be open to some sort of detente with the US, since most Iranians are and since he said he was during the election campaign. The fact that he used to be a revolutionary is not a big deal: so were Michael Collins and Deng Xaiopeng. (I'd add Sir George-Etienne Cartier, but few Americans would know who I'm talking about).

[byrningman]

The man is beyond parody, so much so that it seems silly to point out that his weird simplification of "Islamic radicalism" complete ignores the fact that Iran and Sunni radicalism are totally separate entities (and it was the latter that attacked the USA on 9/11), and loath each other.

[bob mcmanus]

I'd add Sir George-Etienne Cartier, but few Americans would know who I'm talking about.

Posting rules!!

I find myself amused by this gross insult.

It is of course more courteous and kind, generous, and flattering to your reader to simply include whatever information or allusions you find pertinent and useful, without explication or explanation. Those who know will be most pleased with themselves, those who don't know but know how to find out can be pleased with themselves if they choose to do the research, and the rest can watch TV.

John Quiggin perhaps misquotes Auberon Waugh, but doesn't really care.

Impertinent allusions may be even better.

[Jackmormon]

In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring.

Man, I can't help thinking the regional consequences of an Iranian reformation--if that's even in the cards--would be a lot more complicated, if not disastrous. Iranians =/= Arabs, and it's my sense that a lot of Middle Eastern players have enjoyed Iran's containment.

[john miller]

I read Krauthammer's column trying to find some nugget in it that made sense. After the third read I gave up.

He has always had a tendency when looking at the ME to conflate all of Islam into one homgeneous mass, which of course it isn't. And for some ridiculous reason he believes that Islam in a democratic society is somehow going to be radically different than Islam in a non-democratic society.

The Iranians are not radical Islamists as a group. In fact, I don't perceive either Hamas or Hezbollah to be examples of radical Islam. Much of Saudi Arabia, that's radical Islam.

But Krauthammer is representative of much of the writing from the Right these days, Juvenile, absent of any awareness of reality and about as non-pragmatic as it can be. Unfortunately, those on the Right who have real ability to make a difference through tgheir positions, like being members of Congress, fall into the swame juvenile category.

[bob mcmanus]

Daniel Larison

I hope Mousavi and his supporters prevail...it's because I think that the Iranian people deserve to have a voice in their government.

Does this mean that if Ahmadinejad "prevails", there are no Iranian people who have a voice in their government, even the 30-60%+ who voted for Ahmadinejad? A pure tyranny, with no popular support, would be a diplomatic concern of the US. It could not possibly be stable.

But this is not the case. Ahmadinejad does have the support of a large percentage of the Iranian people, and the support of many of the most important institutions, including the Supreme Leader.

If Moussavi and his supporters do prevail, I can imagine the situation being comparable to a scenario in which Al Gore had prevailed in December 2000. Civil War, which I doubt even Khamenei could calm.

But with Khamenei's leadership and the cancellation of the rally. it looks over. Rafsanjani & Moussavi will now wait for another chance, or use other means. It is tragic that they, and irresponsible voices abroad, so excited the young supporters for their private purposes with the talk of illegitimacy and stolen elections that deaths were probably inevitable.

[John Spragge]

Bob, I think Pithlord simply intended to (gently) lampoon the habit many Americans have, of trying to learn all they can about countries half-way around the world, while learning nothing about their largest trading partner (the one from which they import more oil than any other country, yes, that country).

[Zach]

Krauthammer knows Iranians aren't Arab, but knows that his audience doesn't know that and that "Arab spring" is rhetorically powerful even if it's nonsense.

The big take-home lesson from what's going on in Iran right now is that treating the country as if everyone except the exiled pro-Democracy (and generally pro-Shah) crew were hardened radicals was absurd; that even within those that support and continue to support the revolution, there are people we should ally with. We disasterously lost sight of this in 2002 with the Axis of Evil policy (it's not really fair to term meaningless name-calling policy, but whatever).

Now Krauthammer's willing to treat the whole region as some hive mind.

[wj]

I find it far easier to understand Krauthammer's words (and those of the others ranting about how "weak" our government has been in this situation) by remembering one little thing. For them, the demonstrators, and their fate and the fate of their nation, are totally irrelevant -- not even real even. All that matters is domestic American political positioning. Anything happening beyond our shores is relevant only to the extent that it impacts the one and only thing that matters.

[Fred]

Krauthammer was waxing somewhat too enthusiastic. This doesn't make him "Crazy".

Diagnosis as insult isn't a civil or meaningful kind of politics.

[Enlightened Layperson]

You don't get it. Charles Krauthammer doesn't see our invasion of Iraq as a failure. Sure, establishing democracy there was slower and messier than he originally anticipated, but so far as he is concerned, we have now succeeded. What this means is that he still believes in Iraq as a model of freedom and democracy others will emulate, and a positive example for us to repeat in the future. Seriously.

[Woody]

"we have now succeeded (in Iraq)"

It is a not inconsiderable feat to have 'succeeded' in destroying Iraq as a meaningful adversary for Israel, which is what that statement implies.

That was one of the three purposive pillars of the invasion. The other two were: to provide a land-base in the region from which to 'exercise USer influence", and to seize power over the distribution of Iraqi sweet crude.

I still anticipate the eventual dissolution of Iraq into three, perpetually feuding Bantu-stans: one Sunni, one Shi'a, and one Kurd. I persist in the belief that that is/was one of the primary objectives.

[Peter K.]

Krauthammer's wrong in that the Lebanon invasion in 2006 and the Gaza blockade just hurt things.

Egypt and the Saudi Arabian govenrment aren't for democracy but at least they don't proclaim they're going to wipe Israel from the map or want nukes. Although they probably will after Iran gets them.

But yes democracy and freedom are happening in the Middle East and you're being ideological if you think having a friendly Shia government next door in Iraq didn't help the climate in Iran.