May 15, 2004
LOW HANGING FRUIT:
Velvet Hand, Iron Glove (NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, 5/15/04, NY Times)
The embarrassing point for us is that while Iran is no democracy, it has a much freer society than many of our allies in the Middle East. In contrast with Saudi Arabia, for example, Iran has (rigged) elections, and two of its vice presidents are women. The Iranian press is not as free as it was a few years ago, but it is now bolstered by blogs (Web logs) and satellite TV, which offer real scrutiny of government officials.I was astonished that everywhere I went in Iran, people would immediately tell me their names and agree to be photographed — and then say something like, "There is no freedom here."
All this means, I think, that the Iranian regime is destined for the ash heap of history. An unpopular regime can survive if it is repressive enough, but Iran's hard-liners don't imprison their critics consistently enough to instill terror. [...]
Many Iranians believe that the Iranian leadership is pursuing a "Chinese model," in which the authorities tolerate personal freedoms but rigidly control politics. But it won't work. In China, the greatest expansion of personal freedoms was followed, in 1989, by the biggest antigovernment demonstrations in Chinese history.
In one country after another (including Iran in 1979), repressive governments have tried to buy time by easing up a tad, and dissidents have used that as leverage to oust the oppressors. I'm convinced that Iran will be the same (although I should acknowledge that my Iranian friends, who know the situation much better, tend to be more pessimistic).
One can follow all of that except for why it's embarrassing to us? They don't want their regime, neither do we. They realize the Shah was a worthy ruler, so did we. Soon this brief experiment with Islamicism will be over and we'll be allies again. Why should we be embarrassed? Posted by Orrin Judd at May 15, 2004 8:40 AM
Mr. Kristof is embarrassed because the facts on the ground in Iran tend to support Mr. Bush's position. What could be worse?
Posted by: L. Rogers at May 15, 2004 9:15 AMEmbarassing is a knee-jerk term that reveals Mr Kristoff's leanings and lack of imagination. If you agreed (as the reasonable Left must) that most if not all ME states are autochratic and illegitimate; and if you foreswear regime change by force; then you will want regime change, and you will push it harder and first on those countries where their own people have done some of the heavy lifting. (Whether this reflects more guts on the part of the oppresed, or more liberty granted by the oppresors is ultimately not relevant.) I would use ironic, at worst, and perfectly logical.
Posted by: MG at May 15, 2004 10:49 AMMaybe by "us" he means those people who still think Jimmy Carter has (or had) a brain. I don't and didn't, therefore, I am not embarrassed.
Posted by: NKR at May 15, 2004 11:09 AMI'll believe that the Iranian regime is doomed when there is are sustained popular rebellions where the rebels are willing to take casualties. For now, I think the Chinese model is working for the regime.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at May 15, 2004 12:23 PMWith Robert.
Mullahs came to power willing to shed their blood and others and they will leave the same way.
Yeah, those 1989 massive anti-government demonstrations in China sure led to democratic reforms didn't they? Why doesn't he mention the location of those demonstrations? Does he think his readers are that historically ignorant? The mullahs aren't going to blink either, not on the brink of obtaining nukes...
Posted by: brian at May 15, 2004 2:27 PMOJ
I'll amend what I said, by saying that in the Long-term, (long,long) that everybody in Persia will get sick and tired of Mullahs and the Mullahs themselves will be bored with running the country and they will change their system in order to get X-rated movies on cable and a new McDonald's Franchise.
Similiar to Eastern Europe. (after 70 years)
Posted by: h-man at May 15, 2004 5:12 PMOJ
Excuse my sad attempt at humor, I don't support an invasion of Iran for similar reasons that you have suggested, in other words perhaps (as in maybe) there will be a change in Iran to everyones benefit.
In the meantime the US should remain vigilant to the Mullahs exporting terrorism to the rest of the Middle East, and hopefully be willing to invade if "Necessary".
Posted by: h-man at May 15, 2004 5:22 PMh:
Except that we propped up the Soviets when they hit the wall after 25 years. No one's there to do the same for the Mullahs.
Posted by: oj at May 15, 2004 5:45 PMOne should recall, that Mossadecq, who was older than Sistani at the time of his great moment, was
leading a very small movement, mostly supported
by the Tudeh (Communists). We know now that the
key stone of his program, nationalization was a
failure. That and other reasons is why he was kicked out; the AngloAmerican campaign against
him was a very small factor. The Shah's problem, was that he imposed through the White Reforms, a very radical political program; which fed discontent among the Shia, that Khomeini was
willing to exploit; and thanks to Carter Vance
Hersh, Falk & co; was given an opportunity to
export. Ask yourself, is SAVAK worse than Saudi
General Intelligence, or the various Moukharabats
from Syria to Iraq, or the ISI
The Shah did himself no favors by the opulence he flaunted, especially at the great anniversary of the Empire that he held.
Posted by: oj at May 15, 2004 7:08 PM