A Tehran mob invaded the British embassy and ransacked it today. This is incredibly discouraging. I strongly believe war with Iran would be a total disaster for us and for the world, but there can be no doubt that Iran is not a normal country, and is in fact a thugocracy. One that may soon have nuclear weapons.
Iran: Still an outlaw nation
23 Responses to Iran: Still an outlaw nation
-
JT says:
but there can be no doubt that Iran is not a normal country,
What are you talking about? You say this like you’ve adduced some proof. Are you seriously making the claim on the basis of an invasion of an embassy? We invaded a country for no reason at all. Which you supported, I think.
The mindless hysteria around Iran is terrifying because we just went through it.
-
Hi Rod,
This really isn’t that complicated. People who push sanctions have one of two reasons for doing so: A) to make the people so angry that they try to topple the regime or B) as a pretext for war.
The problem is that A almost never works (see North Korea, Cuba). What in fact happens is that the people get angry at the folks who impose the sanctions (NOT the regime in power). It’s the rally around the flag effect, and is hardly unique to Iran. So we are left with B…
As someone who saw the light on Iraq, I ask that you consider the similarities we are represented with only eight years later. Also, if you haven’t already, I’d encourage you to read anything by your fellow AmCon blogger Daniel Larison on the topic of Iran. Or, listen to this interview with Gareth Porter: http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/11/27/gareth-porter-136/.
Peace be with you.
-
Polichinello says:
Calm down. We’ve had other “thugocracies” come and go, and some even had nukes. Iran is way down on the scale. It’s barely industrial, its population is aging and it’s surrounding by naturally hostile countries who hold religious and ethnic grudges against the Shiite Persians. Patience and isolation will eventually see the mullahs out.
-
Y’all calm down! Stop with the jerking knees. Did I not say in this very post that I think war with Iran would be a disaster? I think it has to be off the table. But come on, a normal country is not one that allows a sovereign nation’s embassy to be invaded and sacked. This just does not happen. One could understand, perhaps, it happening in the immediate fervor of 1979 Iran, right after the revolution. But today?
I think we can and should make the case for why going to war with Iran is not at all worth the risk, without having to pretend that the Iranian regime are not a bad bunch of blokes after all.
-
jacobus says:
“But come on, a normal country is not one that allows a sovereign nation’s embassy to be invaded and sacked. ”
Is a normal country one that allows a sovereign nation’s regime to be overthrown and replaced by a puppet state a la Operation Ajax?
We should probably start trying to have normal relations with Iran before trying to pretend that it’s such an outlaw state.
-
“I think we can and should make the case for why going to war with Iran is not at all worth the risk, without having to pretend that the Iranian regime are not a bad bunch of blokes after all.”
I can’t control whether they are a good or bad blokes. But we can and should have some control over how we perceive and handle that threat. Sanctions are simply a fig leaf so that the War Party can come back and say “See, they didn’t work, now we have to attack them.” Sanctions also serve to hurt, not the leaders, but the lower and middle class who, to my knowledge, are not busy building nuclear weapons.
With respect to their nuclear program, we still have no proof that it is being weaponized. We have a situation where a country is being demanded to prove a negative, even when all fissile material that we are aware of is accounted for and not near weapons grade. We also have a situation of a nation that is surrounded on almost all sides by unfriendly powers that would like to see regime change. Quite frankly, if I were their leader, I would be desperate to obtain nuclear weapons, just to protect my country.
Peace be with you.
-
Brian says:
“We’ve had other “thugocracies” come and go, and some even had nukes.”
Um, name one. I suppose you can only mean the USSR, but it’s not like the miserable failed Russian state with nukes is a wonderful thing.A friend of mine was originally from Iran. She’s Zoroastrian, and her family fled not too long after the revolution. Having your kids forced to stand up on stage in front of the school while everyone else chants “Death to religious minorities!” kind of makes your homeland a bit less desirable place to be.
As for these comments, I don’t understand how “We don’t want to invade country X” somehow morphs into “Country X really isn’t so bad.” Come on, people. China’s regime is an evil despicable monstrosity, and saying so wouldn’t make you a neocon warmonger, and no one would accuse you of advocating invasion. Ditto with Iran and so many others.
-
Thank you, Brian. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s this knee-jerk view on the antiwar Right that tends to elide over the important distinction between “Country X is bad news” and “We shouldn’t invade them.” In my view, we shouldn’t make war on Iran. But I don’t have to pretend that Iran is a decently governed country to hold that view.
-
SteveM says:
Rod, the pathological relationship between Iran and the U.S. did not happen spontaneously. The U.S. installed and maintained a corrupt, autocratic stooge regime in the Shah. The Iranians overthrew him and because they had the nerve to take back their own country, the United States made relatively backward Iran an “existential threat”. I.e., as if Tehran has any intention or desire to heave ballistic missiles at Warsaw or Prague.
Ron Paul has it right. Neo-conned America is a War-Monger bull in a china shop. If the U.S. backed off and allowed the countries in the Islamic arc to be whoever and whatever they are, we all be the better for it.
-
eep says:
Do sanctions do anything other than hurt the people and push them to defend the Iranian regime?
Also why the dead silence about countries like Saudi Arabia seeking nuclear power in the media. Osama’s hunting companions in the U.A.E received Uncle Sam’s blessing to go nuclear:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/27/post-fukushima-nuclear-power-changes-latitudes.htmlThe US will make deals with Salafist thugs who have helped bankrupt the country but not Iranian Shi’ite thugs? No proposed sanctions on Saudi Arabia. No threat of war. America knows who it’s master is.
-
Um, name one. I suppose you can only mean the USSR, but it’s not like the miserable failed Russian state with nukes is a wonderful thing.
The Chinese have nukes, and so do the N. Koreans. They’re a problem, but the world has hardly come crashing to a halt. The Iranians have less longevity than them, as they have active and influential dissident movements inside their country.
Moreover, the Iranians have no means of delivering nukes. The most they could do if they even got a working bomb (still a big question) is threaten other Middle Eastern countries, but that’s really not our problem (or, at least, it shouldn’t be).
BTW, let’s be clear. I never trivialized the totalitarian nature of the Iranian regime. I’m not giving them a pass, but I don’t want to push the panic button either. Despite our goof in Iraq, we’re still in a strong strategic position vis-a-vis the Iranians.
A friend of mine was originally from Iran. She’s Zoroastrian, and her family fled not too long after the revolution. Having your kids forced to stand up on stage in front of the school while everyone else chants “Death to religious minorities!” kind of makes your homeland a bit less desirable place to be.
Yes, yes, so now that you’ve finally found the moment to unload that bathetic anecdote and get all righteous up in this hizzie, what would you have us do?
-
Do sanctions do anything other than hurt the people and push them to defend the Iranian regime?
Sanctions can act to stigmatize a regime, if they’re coordinated internationally. I’d say we’re well into the territory of diminishing returns now, though.
-
JonF says:
Re: Um, name one. I suppose you can only mean the USSR
China under Chairman Mao comes to mind. As tyrants and megalomaniacal mass murderers go old Mao makes the mullahs look like Little Bo Peep.
For a present-day example there’s also Dear Leader Kim in North Korea. -
“As for these comments, I don’t understand how “We don’t want to invade country X” somehow morphs into “Country X really isn’t so bad.””
Me neither. So who said “Country X isn’t so bad”?
-
the important distinction between “Country X is bad news” and “We shouldn’t invade them.”
Well, it would be an important distinction if you had actually said, “Iran is bad news.” What you actually said is, “Iran is not a normal country, and is in fact a thugocracy.” Here is a list of countries. Walk your way through it and count the countries about which you would say “Country X is bad news.” Or even “Country X is a thugocracy.” Neither would make Iran particularly abnormal.
As to why people think you’re suggesting maybe we should ould invade? Probably because you brought it up. In response to an attack on someone else’s embassy, while claiming something (“Iran is not a normal country”) that needs a lot more justification. That’s why.
-
So, if I say that I “strongly believe” that war with Iran would be a “total disaster” for us, yet say that Iran is a “thugocracy” — both of which I did in the same sentence — then clearly I’m suggesting that we should launch that war. Which would be a “total disaster.” Good grief.
-
bones says:
Sanctions? Heh. That worked perfectly against Saddam’s Iraq. Kick Iran out of international sporting events if you want to embarrass the ruling regime. Sanctions, I think, will simply convince already perturbed Iranians that the American-lead West is simply using economic pressure as a precursor to an eventual military attack.
-
Another “thugocracy” with nukes: Pakistan. They’ve actually blown them up in tests and they have delivery systems, AND they’re in bed with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Why no freak out over them?
-
Rod,
This may or may not elicit another ‘good grief’, but here goes. I know it’s not really fair to you and/or the statements you made, but they sound awfully familiar to things those of us who have been following these things for years.
Country X is:
1) Bad.
2) Close to getting WMD’s.
3) Sanctions aren’t working.
4) Can’t have nuclear WMD’s.In a more thoughtful, restrained, and Constitutional age, there would hopefully be some debate about how best to handle the situation once we get past 4 (or even if we should be involved at all!). However, what actually happens is a lot of bluster about how, if we’re against war, we must–by default–be liberal, Khomeini-loving hippies. If someone is convinced that all four of these things are true, then the next logical step for many folks is 5) Attack Iran. It is inconceivable to many that you can simultaneously love America, recognize Iran’s faults, and be against attacking Iran. So please forgive us if some of us are a little touchy on this issue.
Peace be with you.
-
tbraton says:
“Another “thugocracy” with nukes: Pakistan. They’ve actually blown them up in tests and they have delivery systems, AND they’re in bed with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Why no freak out over them?”
You forgot to add that we are subsidizing Pakistan to the tune of $2 to 4 billion a year, part of which they use to fund the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which are fighting us in Afghanistan. That should make a lot of Americans freak out.
-
SteveM wrote, “Rod, the pathological relationship between Iran and the U.S. did not happen spontaneously. The U.S. installed and maintained a corrupt, autocratic stooge regime in the Shah. The Iranians overthrew him and because they had the nerve to take back their own country,…Blah Blah Blah.”
It get tiring of hearing all this BS about Operation Ajax. I knew and was a close friend of the CIA operative who planed Operation Ajax, Donald Newton Wilber PhD.
You don’t approve of Western intervention in the internal affairs of Iran. So what do you think of the previous operation to replace the old Shah with the last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. That operation kept Iran from joining the Axis during WWII? Should we and the British have stood back and watched the Nazi’s establish a base in Iran? What do you think – Nazi’s bad, USSR good?
According to mythology, Mossaddegh was the democratically elected Prime Minister who was pushed out by the evil USA and Great Britain. Sounds great except he was elected by the cabinet not the populace. The Shah had every right under the existing constitution to demand his resignation. When he refuse, it was he, not the Shah who created a constitutional crisis. He unilaterally nationalizing British Oil assets in defiance of this monarch and was a neurotic, unstable nitwit to boot.
Operation Ajax was a success. It allowed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to pursue a Turkish style modernization, creating a large middle class with a Western orientation that served the interests of the broad mass of the Iranian people.
This is all History, but none of it justifies the violation of the rules of civilized diplomacy. The Iranian regime has a long history of ignoring the norms of international behavior. There is simply no excuse for the Iranian regime to allow it’s citizens to sack an embassy, and your specious appeal to bogus History, even if, true would not support any such behavior.
-
Dimitry Aleksandrovich says:
I don’t think Iran is a thugocracy. I think Iran is a nation that has powerful enemies that are constantly pushing for regime change in Tehran. CIA and MI5 are not only involved in assasinating Iranian nuclear scientists but are also actively supporting Wahhabist/Salafist terrorists called Jundullah (not unlike Al Qaeda) in the Sunni southeast of Iran who have carried out a campaign of bombing Shia mosques and targeting Iranian military personnel. With all that it is not suprising that the Iranian people would burn the British Embassy given that there was no US embassy in Tehran to burn. We can’t forget that when we supported Husseins war with Iran hundreds of thousands Iranian citizens perished many from chemical weapons that were manufactured in New Jersey. Iran shouldn’t be our enemy and if we were truly wanting to combat terrorism Iran should be an ally because the wild card Sunni Wahhabist/Salafist terrorists that our supported by oil rich sheiks in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere hate the Shia Iranians just as much if not more than they hate the West. Don’t believe me just read about the Iranian Shia pilgrims to Karbala and how they have been a constant target of Al Qaeda but no matter how many of them are butchered they continue to return to the shrines of Mohhamed’s grandchildren Hussein and Hassan. However for some strange reasons these sheiks who fund the Bin Laden’s and Al Zawahiri’s of the world are our allies and the Wahhabist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has even granted permission to Israel to fly over their airspace to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Just some food for thought Rod. The Russians are smart to be close to Iran and we would be too, but of course the best option is Ron Paul’s non interventionism where we stay out of this hornets nest all together.
So how is Iran supposed to react when high-handed Western powers impose economic sanctions? Just sit back and take it like a lap-dog? As far as I can tell Khamenei’s assessment of the UK is totally accurate.