by Eric Martin
After reading this piece from Michael Ledeen and this one from Bruce McQuain, I was meaning to write this Matt Duss post, which Matt has so generously done himself saving me the effort:
In response to the Iranian regime’s violence, the Green Movement protests have grown bolder. The regime now seems stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle, in which almost every action it takes in response to the protests seems to only further erode its standing among Iranians and strengthen the opposition.
And this is at the heart of what the protesters are seeking to do – delegitimize the regime until it simply can’t stand. In an attempt to break out of this trap, the regime today ginned up counterrevolutionary protests – ordering people to attend and offering free metro transit. In a similar vein, the regime has sought to paint the protests as a Western-inspired plot. So what we are seeing is a struggle for legitimacy – for the hearts and minds of the average Iranian.
Yet as Iran erupts, the far-right in the US wants to lend the regime a lifeline. John Bolton said yesterday:
I would say that mere rhetorical support for the demonstrators, for the opposition is not enough. …If we’re going to support them, we should support them tangibly, with financial support, communications, perhaps other support, as well…Will some of the guns go to the side of the demonstrators? If they do, there’s a chance the regime could fall. If they don’t, I think the disparity in power between the government and the opposition is simple too great, and so the most likely outcome is Ahmadinejad and the regime stay in power.
The best way to undermine the movement is to do exactly what Bolton is advocating. It is true that no matter what the regime will claim the protests are part of a western plot – the regime is already doing this – but this claim while perhaps persuading a few, doesn’t appear to be all that persuasive given the breadth of the protests. Yet if Obama were to read a speech from the John Bolton playbook, the regime’s claims all of a sudden become a lot more persuasive. While the regime is not going to loop on state-television a clip of Obama saying the crackdown is brutal, it sure would loop a statement of Obama saying the US is going to work to forcefully support the Green Movement. Such a statement would be music to the regime’s ears and would allow them to regain the nationalist mantel that is slipping out of their grasp.
It's important to remember that Iranians are kind of sensitive to foreign interference in their internal affairs, with good reason considering the history involved. Thus,heavy-handed US involvement would likely backfire in the ways that Duss lays out.
Further, strategically speaking, the Green movement is trying to appeal to certain segments of the national security state/armed forces so that the movement can achieve the critical mass needed to unseat the current regime. It likely won't be able to do so unless it can garner at least some support (even tacit) from the state security/armed forces apparatus.
Those state security/armed forces elements, however, will not go along with a revolution armed and/or bankrolled by the United States. On the contrary, such actions by the United States would likely provoke a massive and violent reaction. Along those lines, the more the Obama administration appears to be meddling in Iranian affairs (such as calling for regime change ala Ledeen), the more twitchy the security forces will get about joining such a bold undertaking whose aims are rather ambitious and, in some ways, revolutionary - with all the attendant uncertainty and anxiety that accompany such change.
But don't take it from Matt Duss or me, take it from Iran's dissident reformers, and the leaders of the Green movement itself, from Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi to Shirin Ebadi, Trita Parsi and Akbar Ganji. There is a consensus in terms of advice for the US government: don't get actively involved, and don't push too hard rhetorically. Trust them. They know Iran better than self-styled "experts" like Michael Ledeen.
I get the idea that this Obama dude understands that too
Posted by: Chuchundra | December 30, 2009 at 06:14 PM
Why does anyone assume the John Boltons of the world have anything in mind other than aggrandizing power for themselves in the United States? John Bolton couldn't give two shts for the opposition party protests in Iran, if he thought supporting the people currently in power in Iran would bolster his standing in the U.S., he'd do it in a heartbeat. See, e.g., Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
Posted by: Ugh | December 30, 2009 at 06:24 PM
I think you're being a bit unfair, Ugh. Bolton simply believes that nothing works except for brute force, and that there is no limit to what brute force can achieve, especially when used by us.
Posted by: Enlightened Layperson | December 30, 2009 at 06:39 PM
John Bolton knows that the Republicans need IslamoFascistCommieMullahs in charge in Iran. This is why he keeps trying to undermine the moderates in Iran.
Remember when there was a moderate regime in Iran, and the Bush Regime ignored it? Remember how the Bushies always put out threats of military action whenever the radicals in Iran seemed to be losing power?
For that matter, I expect the Israelis will be ramping up attack plans as well - they need Ahmadenijad in power to justify their own hardline positions...
Posted by: RepubAnon | December 30, 2009 at 06:46 PM
On the contrary, such actions by the United States would likely provoke a massive and violent reaction.
Feature, not bug. These are, after all, the same people who longed for the "cauldronizing" of the Middle East. Violence and bloodshed are cleansing forces...as long as they're happening way, way over there someplace.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | December 30, 2009 at 08:07 PM
An interesting post, Eric, but I notice that neither you nor Matt Duss get down to dealing with the central, fundamental question WRT possible US reactions to developments in Iran...
which is:... Why The F*** should anyone - anyone with any intellectual achievements greater than that of household furniture - pay the slightest bit of attention to anything - anything - John Bolton or anybody else of his cheapjack warmongering neocon claque might have to say about ANYTHING relating to US foreign policy? At ALL??
ZOMG, what does it take to become discredited in this day and age?
Posted by: Jay C | December 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Jay C: "what does it take to become discredited in this day and age?"
Oppose the invasion of Iraq, point to the weakness of the evidence for NBC weapons, point out the need for a massive and long-running occupation, point out that the military lacks the manpower, and point out that invading Iraq will strengthen Iran.
Being wrong is not enough to discredit a Serious Person; being right is.
Posted by: elm | December 30, 2009 at 10:53 PM
As usual, Bolton is way over the top. All we really should do is parachute Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, and Chucky Norris into Teheran.
Problem solved.
Posted by: bobbyp | December 30, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Based on everything I have ever seen John Bolton do and say, he likes the kind of regime that Tehran has today and wants to keep it that way.
Why else did George Bush do his best to elect the current president of Iran?
Posted by: Free Lunch | December 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Lovely job of buying into every bit of claptrap proposed as reporting on Iran. Do we start with the NATO Colour Revolution run on a $400 million budget just for the Twitter Revolution or the black ops assassinations against government and military ? Perhaps you didn't notice that nuclear scientist who mysteriously ended up defecting to Israel.Or remember Mousavi authorized attacks on U.S. embassies when in power.
Perhaps you still think Ahmadinejad is both antiSemitic ( while also reported as being of Jewish heritage for fun ) and in charge.
The lack of substantive change in American policy is evidenced by Obama still heralding their danger to world peace ( no nuclear WMD just like Iraq ) and ignoring support by surrounding nations and being under the wing of Moscow : not to mention that, unlike India, they submit to an inspection program for dangerous tech !
Try this on for size while remembering the Saavik Secret Police under the Shah : brutal American puppet dictator.
http://current.com/items/91784249_the-other-side-of-the-1979-iranian-revolution.htm
Posted by: opit | December 31, 2009 at 02:03 AM
I kinda think John Bolton and his buddies don't read Dear Abby, but she used to have an acronym for advice they oughtta take:
MYOB.
My corollary: MYOB particularly in the affairs of other sovereign nations.
Posted by: Linkmeister | December 31, 2009 at 02:25 AM
Jay C,
Unfortunately, they continue to occupy prime liberal media real estate (multiple columnists in major periodicals such as the WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc.) and form the backbone of the GOP's foreign policy outlook.
Ignore them at our peril I say.
Posted by: Eric Martin | December 31, 2009 at 09:55 AM
Why The F*** should anyone - anyone with any intellectual achievements greater than that of household furniture - pay the slightest bit of attention to anything - anything - John Bolton or anybody else of his cheapjack warmongering neocon claque might have to say about ANYTHING relating to US foreign policy? At ALL??
Exactly what Eric says. Because they have power and influence, so you have to take them into account.
Posted by: Enlightened Layperson | December 31, 2009 at 03:19 PM
"Marty: Where is your evidence that he's not cooperating? Criminals routinely cooperate with police even when they have lawyers and even when they cannot be compelled to cooperate."
Interestingly today here the Senators responsible for the committee that has oversight disagreed.
"The two senators noted that once Abdulmutallab “was in custody, federal law enforcement officials on the ground in Detroit read the terrorist his Miranda rights. According to press reports, by the time the Miranda rights were read and Abdulmutallab went silent, he had been questioned for just under an hour, during which time he had been speaking openly about the attack” as well as the role of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
They took issue with the “decision to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal rather than a UEB almost certainly prevented the military and the intelligence community from obtaining information that would have been critical to learning more about how our enemy operates and to preventing future attacks against our homeland and Americans and our allies throughout the world.”
Maybe a post with a whole new view now?
Posted by: Marty | January 25, 2010 at 04:33 PM
Later in the same article we read:
Miller said that the interrogation yielded intelligence, only after which was Abdulmuttallab read Miranda rights. “Trying Abdulmutallab in federal court does not prevent us from obtaining additional intelligence from him,” Miller said. “He has already provided intelligence, and we will continue to work to gather intelligence from him, as the Department has done repeatedly in past cases.”
Two Republican Senators say it was a mistake to treat him as a normal criminal.
A guy from the Dept of Public Affairs says no harm done.
I think we're in he said / she said territory.
Posted by: russell | January 25, 2010 at 04:46 PM
"Two Republican Senators say it was a mistake to treat him as a normal criminal."
Actually no, the Democratic Chairman and Ranking Republican said it was a mistake after being briefed on what actually happened. I am not sure how that equates to a Dept of Public Affairs spokesman.
Posted by: Marty | January 25, 2010 at 05:09 PM
Actually no, the Democratic Chairman and Ranking Republican said it was a mistake after being briefed on what actually happened.
Actually, no, Lieberman is not a Democrat. And on all issues of national security, he is an arch-conservative. Remember: he tirelessly campaigned for McCain, and criticized Obama's FoPo repeatedly - and still does!
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 25, 2010 at 05:11 PM
Just because he is an arch conservative doesn't mean we can't stick with the facts. He is not a Republican and holds the Chairmanship at the pleasure of a Democratic Majority Leader.
Posted by: Marty | January 25, 2010 at 05:16 PM
And Marty, they didn't provide evidence, they just cited "press reports."
Need better than the hearsay of Lieberman and Collins.
The FBI head, and agents on the ground (the best interrogators we have) say this was 100% right, and they got the intel they needed/expected from the initial rounds, and will get more if needed going forward.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 25, 2010 at 05:16 PM
Just because he is an arch conservative doesn't mean we can't stick with the facts.
What facts?
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 25, 2010 at 05:16 PM
"and they got the intel they needed/expected from the initial rounds, and will get more if needed going forward."
And we didn't get that info from press reports?
Posted by: Marty | January 25, 2010 at 05:17 PM
"What facts?"
oh sorry if I confused you, this statement:
"Two Republican Senators "
Posted by: Marty | January 25, 2010 at 05:19 PM
And we didn't get that info from press reports?
No, we got that from FBI's testimony before the Senate.
Just because he is an arch conservative doesn't mean we can't stick with the facts.
And the point was just that, other than being factually incorrect to call him a Dem, the critique has no added credibility because it comes from Lieberman. He has relentlessly savaged Obama on FoPo - from the election to the present day.
He might be right. Or wrong. But he gets no benefit of the doubt because he's Joe Lieberman. Honestly, I'd take Chuck Hagel or Richard Lugar's critiques to heart quicker.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 25, 2010 at 05:19 PM
oh sorry if I confused you, this statement:
"Two Republican Senators "
But by the same token, were you confused when you called him a Democrat? He's an Independent (Connecticut for Lieberman Party) if we want to stick to the facts.
Unless they confuse you.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 25, 2010 at 05:21 PM
"No, we got that from FBI's testimony before the Senate."
I like it that the FBI testified and the two senior Senators on the committee they testified before say it was a mistake, but that carries no weight. But the the spokesmans words are gospel. I am sure that I don't believe that the guy responsible for managing the press is more credible than the press.
Posted by: Marty | January 25, 2010 at 05:24 PM
Marty,
Here's how it goes.
The FBI interrogate the suspect. They report on how the interrogation went, and what information they received.
Then, Lieberman and Collins issue a statement regarding the interrogation making rather bold conclusions contradicting those FBI agents, based on nothing.
No cited evidence other than vague "press reports." Not even a citation to the "press reports" in question.
Which as we both know could be recycled hearsay (early on, Lieberman was citing Jeff Sessions' statement as evidence, even though Sessions provided no evidence himself).
My point being that if Lieberman and Collins have actual evidence, I'm all for looking at it. Until they present actual evidence (what you might call "facts") I'll chalk up their carping as little more than partisan sniping (along the lines of senior GOP senators claiming Obama doesn't use the word "terrorist" in speeches). I mean, how many times does Lieberman have to be dead wrong on matters of national security before I take what he says with a shaker of salt.
I am sure that I don't believe that the guy responsible for managing the press is more credible than the press.
What press? How bout I say that "press reports support the FBI's take, and completely contradict Lieberman and Collins." That statement is undoubtedly true, and yet what does it provide the discussion?
You want me to amend a post, or draft a new one, stating that the Obama admin was wrong to try the UndieBomber in civilian court because...Joe Lieberman and Republican Senator said so. Citing "press reports" in the general sense, with no specifics.
Pardon me if I abstain.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 25, 2010 at 05:49 PM