Comments on: Why Engage?

By: WUZIs Philosophie » Blog Archive » The Junta’s Apologists

WUZIs Philosophie » Blog Archive » The Junta’s Apologists — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:07:31 +0000

[...] only seen pieces of, by calling it constitutional and less awful than Tiananmen. Eric Martin and John Schwenkler are able to advocate for engagement without prettying up the [...]

By: The Junta’s Apologists · Iranian Election Coverage

The Junta’s Apologists · Iranian Election Coverage — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:22:25 +0000

[...] only seen pieces of, by calling it constitutional and less awful than Tiananmen. Eric Martin and John Schwenkler are able to advocate for engagement without prettying up the [...]

By: steve

steve — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:10:22 +0000

I would hope that people have now learned that Iran is not a monolithic society of crazy mullahs, contra the neocon portrayal. There is a large population which is unhappy with the strict religious rules, economic stagnation and foreign policy of the Supreme Leader. We start with such a low baseline of credibility there because of our part there in 1953 and our support of the Shah. Recent public statements about bombing Iran do not help either. Long term positive engagement has the potential of bringing those unhappy with Khameini an option for foreign policy. They may still reject it, but it is a possibility. Please notice that in almost every Petraeus guidance statement, and in McChrystal’s new guidance statement, there is emphasis on living up to our values. Put another way, as John Boyd would have it, the moral component of conflict is the most important. Let’s maintain that moral advantage.

Steve

By: E.D. Kain

E.D. Kain — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:47:59 +0000

I think the important question to ask is whether we think we might be in a better strategic position vis-a-vis Iran now had we not severed diplomatic ties with their government. I think the answer is yes, and I think that is enough of a reason to pursue talks with the regime regardless.