Silence versus Speaking Out for Freedom in Iran
From Bruce S. Thornton, "Standing with Freedom," from FrontPage Magazine as reported in Private Papers (http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton062809.html).
Remember when the liberal punditariat sneered at George Bush for putting Iran in the “axis of evil” in his 2002 State of the Union address? Whole legions of sophisticated, nuanced thinkers rushed to explain the crudity of Bush’s thinking, not to mention his indulgence of dangerous religious ideas like “good” and “evil.” Iran is not a Hitlerian totalitarian state, they sniffed, and elections are held there, offering some level of democracy.
To be fair, the liberals were at least technically correct -- Iran is more authoritarian than totalitarian; but then again, so was the Third Reich in 1933-39. And of course they were wrong about the degree of democracy, as even before 2009 the the mullahs always had the power to set aside candidates of which they disapproved, and they used this power quite boldly. Now, of course, Iran is definitely no longer a "democracy," since they blatantly rigged an election and used the rigged results to re-elect Ahmadinejad. Khameini has clearly decided that he will keep his junior partner no matter what is the will of the Iranian people.
I wonder what the people in the streets of Tehran would think about this “genuine contest,” or whether they appreciate Cohen’s sophistries like “un-free” and “intermittently brutal” and “margins of liberty” and “complete subservience to the state.” What percentage of a citizen’s freedom has to be eliminated before a regime will meet Cohen’s criteria for “complete subservience”? Let’s see, all candidates for office have to be approved in advance by the mullahs, and even then the election is blatantly stolen, after which protesters are killed and beaten, opposition leaders and their families arrested, the media silenced and internet interdicted, the “Supreme Leader” (sic!) Ayatollah Khamenei publicly threatens violence against his own citizens, gangs of paramilitary thugs rampage through Tehran like storm troopers - looks pretty totalitarian to me, though time will tell whether it ultimately lasts or not.
I would argue that it is still merely "authoritarian," though it is drifting toward totalitarianism, and it is certainly no longer any sort of "democracy."
All this “engagement” talk sounds eerily like the British in the Thirties, with their “shuttle diplomacy,” conferences, commissions of inquiry, soothing diplomatic assurances to Germany, and responses to Hitler’s serial violations of the Versailles Treaty carefully worded so as not to alienate or anger the Fuhrer, all of which were exploited by Hitler to pursue his aggression. Of course, Iran is not Germany in the Thirties, but the lesson to be learned from the failure to appease a regime bent on aggression still holds: an aggressor motivated by passionate ideology will be stopped only by force or a credible threat of force.
(bold emphasis mine).
That's the key point. To Khameini and Ahmedinajad now, as to Hitler in the 1930's, ideology dictates that there is an overwhelming goal to pursue, a goal inconsistent with the world order. Hitler wanted to dominate Europe and lay the grounds for future global dominion; Iran wants to destroy Israel, dominate the Muslim world, and begin the march to its own future global dominion. There is no concession America could make to Iran more valuable than this goal.
Indeed in some ways the Iranian regime is more dangerous than was the Nazi regime. Hitler was only somewhat superstitious -- while he considered "racial superiority" a factor in warfare, he did not see it as the only factor, and he assumed that military defeat and devastation would mean that he'd lost the war. Thus, he was restrainable by correlation-of-forces considerations: had there been a "NATO," he might have proceeded far more cautiously, and not launched an actual world war.
The Iranian regime, on the other hand, believes that literal divine intervention will save them if things go badly. Even a threat of nuclear destruction is inadequate to deter them, because it is their official doctrine that such destruction would be seen by God as "the martyrdom of the faithful" and would be merely the preliminary to God's direct intervention on the side of the Iranians.
Nor will the Iranian aggressors care a bit if the President carefully nuances his verbal response to their violence and tyranny. We did that all through the Cold War, to the anguish of millions of oppressed Russians and Eastern Europeans, who desperately wanted the West to call a totalitarian spade a spade, and who rejoiced when Ronald Reagan finally said the obvious in the “evil empire” speech equally derided by sophisticated liberal thinkers.
And thanks in part to Reagan, America is now beloved in Eastern Europe, while the cowardice of the liberals is simply forgotten.
Nor do the arguments in favor of verbal restraint hold up - for example, that we’ll discredit the protestors because they’ll be characterized as agents of the Great Satan and thus more easily crushed. Well, they’re already being called British and American stooges, and they’re already being brutally crushed.
If we're going to be blamed anyway, why not speak out in their favor?
Meanwhile, what we used to call the “leader of the free world” carefully parses his words while brave men and women die in the streets of Tehran.
A disgusting spectacle, and one which promotes contempt for America abroad.
Whatever the President says, the regime in Iran is going to hold on tightly to power and pursue its acquisition of nuclear weapons in order to maintain its pelf and privilege and to pursue its apocalyptic brand of Shi’ism. Nor will they give up until a critical mass of Iranians make them give up. But the President’s words at this moment, assuming they are backed up with subsequent meaningful action, can encourage such Iranians and tell the regime and the world where the United States stands - on the side of freedom and the dignity of man.
Exactly. Even if we can't effectively intervene right now, we do ourselves a disservice, both objectively speaking and in the eyes of the world, if we remain silent.
Remember when the liberal punditariat sneered at George Bush for putting Iran in the “axis of evil” in his 2002 State of the Union address? Whole legions of sophisticated, nuanced thinkers rushed to explain the crudity of Bush’s thinking, not to mention his indulgence of dangerous religious ideas like “good” and “evil.” Iran is not a Hitlerian totalitarian state, they sniffed, and elections are held there, offering some level of democracy.
To be fair, the liberals were at least technically correct -- Iran is more authoritarian than totalitarian; but then again, so was the Third Reich in 1933-39. And of course they were wrong about the degree of democracy, as even before 2009 the the mullahs always had the power to set aside candidates of which they disapproved, and they used this power quite boldly. Now, of course, Iran is definitely no longer a "democracy," since they blatantly rigged an election and used the rigged results to re-elect Ahmadinejad. Khameini has clearly decided that he will keep his junior partner no matter what is the will of the Iranian people.
I wonder what the people in the streets of Tehran would think about this “genuine contest,” or whether they appreciate Cohen’s sophistries like “un-free” and “intermittently brutal” and “margins of liberty” and “complete subservience to the state.” What percentage of a citizen’s freedom has to be eliminated before a regime will meet Cohen’s criteria for “complete subservience”? Let’s see, all candidates for office have to be approved in advance by the mullahs, and even then the election is blatantly stolen, after which protesters are killed and beaten, opposition leaders and their families arrested, the media silenced and internet interdicted, the “Supreme Leader” (sic!) Ayatollah Khamenei publicly threatens violence against his own citizens, gangs of paramilitary thugs rampage through Tehran like storm troopers - looks pretty totalitarian to me, though time will tell whether it ultimately lasts or not.
I would argue that it is still merely "authoritarian," though it is drifting toward totalitarianism, and it is certainly no longer any sort of "democracy."
All this “engagement” talk sounds eerily like the British in the Thirties, with their “shuttle diplomacy,” conferences, commissions of inquiry, soothing diplomatic assurances to Germany, and responses to Hitler’s serial violations of the Versailles Treaty carefully worded so as not to alienate or anger the Fuhrer, all of which were exploited by Hitler to pursue his aggression. Of course, Iran is not Germany in the Thirties, but the lesson to be learned from the failure to appease a regime bent on aggression still holds: an aggressor motivated by passionate ideology will be stopped only by force or a credible threat of force.
(bold emphasis mine).
That's the key point. To Khameini and Ahmedinajad now, as to Hitler in the 1930's, ideology dictates that there is an overwhelming goal to pursue, a goal inconsistent with the world order. Hitler wanted to dominate Europe and lay the grounds for future global dominion; Iran wants to destroy Israel, dominate the Muslim world, and begin the march to its own future global dominion. There is no concession America could make to Iran more valuable than this goal.
Indeed in some ways the Iranian regime is more dangerous than was the Nazi regime. Hitler was only somewhat superstitious -- while he considered "racial superiority" a factor in warfare, he did not see it as the only factor, and he assumed that military defeat and devastation would mean that he'd lost the war. Thus, he was restrainable by correlation-of-forces considerations: had there been a "NATO," he might have proceeded far more cautiously, and not launched an actual world war.
The Iranian regime, on the other hand, believes that literal divine intervention will save them if things go badly. Even a threat of nuclear destruction is inadequate to deter them, because it is their official doctrine that such destruction would be seen by God as "the martyrdom of the faithful" and would be merely the preliminary to God's direct intervention on the side of the Iranians.
Nor will the Iranian aggressors care a bit if the President carefully nuances his verbal response to their violence and tyranny. We did that all through the Cold War, to the anguish of millions of oppressed Russians and Eastern Europeans, who desperately wanted the West to call a totalitarian spade a spade, and who rejoiced when Ronald Reagan finally said the obvious in the “evil empire” speech equally derided by sophisticated liberal thinkers.
And thanks in part to Reagan, America is now beloved in Eastern Europe, while the cowardice of the liberals is simply forgotten.
Nor do the arguments in favor of verbal restraint hold up - for example, that we’ll discredit the protestors because they’ll be characterized as agents of the Great Satan and thus more easily crushed. Well, they’re already being called British and American stooges, and they’re already being brutally crushed.
If we're going to be blamed anyway, why not speak out in their favor?
Meanwhile, what we used to call the “leader of the free world” carefully parses his words while brave men and women die in the streets of Tehran.
A disgusting spectacle, and one which promotes contempt for America abroad.
Whatever the President says, the regime in Iran is going to hold on tightly to power and pursue its acquisition of nuclear weapons in order to maintain its pelf and privilege and to pursue its apocalyptic brand of Shi’ism. Nor will they give up until a critical mass of Iranians make them give up. But the President’s words at this moment, assuming they are backed up with subsequent meaningful action, can encourage such Iranians and tell the regime and the world where the United States stands - on the side of freedom and the dignity of man.
Exactly. Even if we can't effectively intervene right now, we do ourselves a disservice, both objectively speaking and in the eyes of the world, if we remain silent.