fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Democracy Promotion and Iranian Influence (V)

After plausibly arguing that democratization in the Near East could lead to “geostrategic disaster” for the United States, Ari Shavit concludes that the answer to all this is to embrace the most foolish courses of action available: There is only one way out of this catch-22. Moving from defense to offense. Is Barack Obama the […]

After plausibly arguing that democratization in the Near East could lead to “geostrategic disaster” for the United States, Ari Shavit concludes that the answer to all this is to embrace the most foolish courses of action available:

There is only one way out of this catch-22. Moving from defense to offense. Is Barack Obama the new George Bush? Is David Cameron the new Tony Blair? Is Hillary Clinton determined to implement the neoconservatives’ ideological platform? Good luck to them. But don’t do it only in the West’s backyard. Don’t do it only in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain. Do it alongside forceful humanitarian intervention in Libya as well. Do it in Iran, too.

Oh, okay. Just “do it”! Who knew that it was this simple? The next line is quite amusing: “Take the spirit of freedom blowing through Cairo’s squares and bring it to Tehran’s squares.” If the spirit of freedom is abroad in the region, it is not something that can be directed or controlled. That’s why it’s the spirit of freedom. Like many other critics of the administration’s cautious responses, Shavit wildly overestimates the control Washington can have. He must assume that Washington will be able to mitigate the effects of weakened or collapsing allied governments by supporting uprisings in Libya and Iran, but that doesn’t follow at all. It certainly doesn’t follow that direct intervention on the side of Libyan rebels will help the U.S. On the contrary, intervening in Libya would bog the U.S. down in yet another conflict that is none of its concern.

Shavit also seems to be confused about what has been happening:

Topple Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tyranny as you toppled Hosni Mubarak’s. Fight the Shia’s religious fascism and Muammar Gadhafi’s madness with the same relentlessness you fought the pro-Western dictatorships.

This sums up the odd view held by many hawks that Obama is choosing not to try to undermine the Iranian government, but that he did choose to undermine the Egyptian government. In fact, what we have seen so far is that the administration pushed the Egyptian military in the direction it was already leaning, which was to remove Mubarak for their own reasons, and only after all other alternatives had been exhausted. That doesn’t seem very much like relentless fighting. The hawks’ view is especially odd because it assumes that whatever has happened in allied Arab authoritarian states can happen in Iran. Shavit insists that this is the only way to go:

Only in this way will you be able to implement the West’s democratic values along with its strategic interests. Only in this way will you be able to empower freedom without sparking zealotry and igniting war.

By Shavit’s own reckoning, democratization is directly at odds with Western strategic interests. Taking sides in Libya’s civil war isn’t going to “empower freedom without sparking zealotry and igniting war”–it will be a case of Western powers openly joining one side in an ongoing war, which could intensify zealotry and cause unexpected blowback as Western governments once again try to dictate the political future of an Arab country through the use of force. Supposing that something like Libya’s rebellion could be encouraged in Iran, which is very doubtful, this would be an instigation of warfare rather than the prevention of it.

Not only does Washington have no way of toppling Ahmadinejad or the people who wield most of the real power in Iran, but everything that Washington does to contribute to regional instability ultimately works to the advantage of Iran.

Suzanne Maloney makes this point in The Financial Times today:

Though it has neither inspired the Arab unrest nor conspired to advance it, Iran will be the main beneficiary of regional instability, just as it was in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq.

The Leveretts concur that the regional balance of power has been shifting in Iran’s favor for the last decade and is likely to continue doing so. If Westerners believe that Iranian influence is something that needs to be contained, they should stop enthusing about “the Arab spring.” If Westerners don’t believe that the U.S. and its allies have any strategic interests in the region and growing Iranian influence makes no difference, “the Arab spring” shouldn’t concern them very much. What makes no sense is to argue that the U.S. has strategic interests that democratization undermines and then conclude that the “solution” is more democratization.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here