Turning up the pressure

One down, two to go in the Axis of Evil. Although it's a Reuters report (and thereby a bit suspect), it still makes an interesting read: the US is accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons. The tone of the article is probably meant to be critical of the US, in the true Reuters style. (Either that or I am becoming paranoid about Reuters coverage). It's full of references of how the US used allegations of WMD programs in Iraq for the war there to depose Saddam. In Reuters-speak, this is no doubt a Horrible Thing, but in this instance they're doing us a favor. Turning up the pressure on mullahs is just what the doctor ordered, and the Reuters dispatch is doing just that.

The ultimate goal is the removal of despotic leadership in Iran, and this may not require a war as it did in Iraq. The mullahs do not have as firm a grip on the country as Saddam had, and the rumblings of discontent have been going for many years. It looks as though the Iranian people will be able to overthrow the mullahs on their own without direct intervention from the US. It's a process that's almost impossible to manage or direct from abroad, but it would be wrong to interfere too much at this stage.

An Iraq-style invasion is a costly thing to do. In Iraq's case, it was a relatively simple matter; taking on Iran in direct military confrontation would likely be less simple. Not that the final outcome would be in doubt there either, as the Iranian people are fed up with the mullahs and the Iranian armed forces are about as effective as the Iraqis. The sheer size of the country would make things more complicated though. It can be done, and will be done if necessary, but the hope is that it will not become necessary.

If a hammer is your only tool, you tend to see all problems as though they were nails. In Iraq, the hammer worked fine, but other parts of the toolkit will be brought to bear in Iran. (One of the criticisms of Bush is that he's a war monger, invading Iraq, but that he's inconsistent in not invading North Korea and Iran; i.e. being too bellicose and not bellicose enough at the same time. But Bush knows he has more tools than just a hammer at his disposal.) Turning up the pressure externally on the theocratic thugocracy in Iran is one these tools.

No option is without its drawbacks though. Doing nothing means capitulating to the Islamofascists and inviting them to have another shot at us. That's clearly not an acceptable solution, and would leave the Iranian people in the lurch. Invading Iran to remove the leadership would work, but it would take time and a considerable amount of military power, and cause civilian casualties. But the current course of turning up the pressure on the mullahs is not without cost either. Part of the calculation is that the pressure will cause the mullahs to feel more nervous and encourage opposition within Iran. The downside there is that there will be more repression in the short term, a price that will have to be paid by the people of Iran. The increased repression will lead to increased resistance and opposition to the regime, improving the chances of an overthrow of the mullahs. This calculation works in Iran because the mullahs had not gone as far as Saddam (or Kim Jong Il) in terrorizing their own people. It's a cold-hearted calculation to make, but there is no alternative in the short-term. This is one of those situations in which there is no neat, tidy answer, just a messy one. All we can do is to try to make as it mess-free as possible, and hope for a quick end to the theocracy in Iran. But at least in that we're on the same wavelength as the people of Iran.

Listen to their friends

Perspective is a funny thing. Changing your perspective can lead to interesting insights. One way of changing the perspective is to go over and read how propaganda agencies like the Iranian IRNA are reporting matters compared to how western media are reporting things. IRNA's reporting is obviously very far from unbiased, truthful, fair and objective, and every report they produce is in the blatant self-interest of the despotic theocrats in charge of that country. It is exactly this propagandistic slant that gives an insight into what's going on there and what they think is important. So it's particularly interesting to read a story from IRNA headlined "France, Iran stress UN role in post-Saddam Iraq:"

Iran and France on Thursday underscored the role of the United Nations in post-Saddam Iraq, with President Mohammad Khatami warning of many problems if Iraq's fate is not immediately left to its people to decide.

"I believe what happened in Iraq is not over yet and if the fate of this country immediately is not left to the Iraqi people (to decide), America, the region and the world will face many problems," he told French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin here.

"The United Nations must have a fundamental role in disarming Iraq and establishing a legitimate government there as well as reconstructing Iraq," de Villepin, who arrived here on a one-day visit early Thursday, said.

[...]

The president hailed France for leading the world's anti-war front and hoped that "France, given its position in the world, will make more efforts to promote peace, global coexistence and justice in the international scene".

He also praised Paris' stance on guaranteeing just peace and security in the occupied Palestinian lands. "An enduring peace in the Middle East will not be achieved without restoring the legitimate rights of all Palestinians," Khatami said.

It does not even surprise me to see de Villepin visiting the next doomed fascist dictator that he wants to be chummy with. And the theocratic thugs running Iran at the moment obviously are delighted to have French support for their regime. I'm sure de Villepin enjoyed being in the reality-distortion field of like-minded people. When Khatami praises the French efforts to "promote peace, global coexistence and justice," what he really means is that he's grateful that there's still someone stupid enough to stand up for dictators like him.

Note to the French: if you're in a hole, stop digging. Throwing themselves wholeheartedly into the war on Saddam's side, they are now apparently trying to repeat the same mistake again with Iran. Perhaps they're just trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Records as the country supporting the greatest number of fascist states? The country choosing the losing side most often? I'm willing to donate any surplus shovels to the French government, though.

While this visit to Iran may not have made the front page in the western press, I have a suspicion that it did not go unnoticed in the White House.

Next year: snow without the mullahs

Time is running out for the ayatollahs in Iran. The people of Iran have suffered through a generation of theocratic dicatorship which has brought them nothing but hardship and suffering. Michael Ledeen at NRO has been following the developments in Iran with frequent articles on the topic. So when I read stories like this, my sense is that it does not matter. The power struggle between the hardline theocrats and the slightly less hardline theocrats is becoming increasingly irrelevant. It's irrelevant because even if Khatami wins the political battles to push through the reforms he wants, it's going to be too little, too late to satisfy the people. It would have worked perhaps ten years ago, but by now the yearning for a complete break with the headlong dash down the theocratic cul-de-sac has become dominant. Khatami too will be swept away when the revolution comes, because the gap between what is achievable within the system and what the people now want has become too big. While Khatami is rearranging the deck chairs on his Titanic (or trying to, as he's being blocked by the harder hard-liners), the ship of theocratic dictatorship is going break apart on the iceberg of modernity.

A recent report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung corroborates the general tone of the reports we've been seeing in the blogosphere. Under the title "the courtesy of the Persians," the report contains the anonymous quote, "The Iranian peopple know the that system is finished. But we Persians are a polite people. We're too polite to tell our rulers." The machinations of the ayatollahs reflect their growing alarm that they're losing control of society. Khatami is using this to further his own relatively reformist platform against the hardliners. According the FAZ he said, "The main reason for the fall of the regime of the Shah was his opposition to the demands of the students for more freedom and justice."

The article also depicts an interesting generational divide. The younger generation of westernized intellectuals seems confident that profound changes will take place, but without coming to the point of a second revolution. The older ones who lived through the Khomeini's revolution beg to differ, saying that shortly before the Shah's fall people were saying the same thing. Bu the most significant item in the report is the message that the people have lost their fear. Everybody from professionals in Tehran to farmers out in the boondocks are no longer afraid to call for a regime change. The meme doing the rounds is "Next year: snow without the mullahs." It was supposedly said by a child first.

The FAZ article ends describing a political debate by theocrats on a stage:

And while on stage they're preaching anti-Americanism, the audience is demonstratively drinking Coca-Cola. Occasional boos can be heard. Those on stage become nervous. "Look, they're booing us," they say and blame one another. But more and more spectators turn away disinterestedly, tiptoe quietly out of the hall mumbling apologies with the much-abused Persian politeness. [...] The hall empties. The debate on the stage becomes more intense. [...] It's as if their lives depended on it. But nobody's listening anymore.

The snow will return next winter. With a bit of luck the mullahs will be gone.