But it would be a lie to pretend we doves never enjoyed our work. Do you think I didn’t have any fun at all explicating the absurdity of the arguments for starting and continuing the conquest of Iraq, digging into the monthly electricity statistics, cataloguing the endless examples of RSN Syndrome or explicating the government’s transparent lies about torture and treatment of civilians? People. I did that for six years. Nobody puts that much effort into something that isn’t satisfying on some level. Of course it was fun, for certain grim and bitter kinds of “fun.” ~Jim Henley

This is true up to a point. What is important to remember here is that any satisfaction that we took after the invasion was at the expense of the people who had cheered on and backed the war. Any fun we had came from pointing out their failures and deceptions. This is not because we were indifferent to the suffering their errors caused, but because we were all too aware that the suffering was unnecessary and could have been avoided. There was no glee or satisfaction in having our opposition to the war vindicated with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement and suffering of millions more. Indeed, the prevaling feeling during that time and even now was not satisfaction that we were largely right, but an abiding anger at what our government has done and continues to do in our name. Unless it can make the next foreign policy blunder less likely, it really makes no difference whether we were right or not.

Coming back to Iran, when it comes to Western enthusiasm for and confidence in the Green movement we have seen much the same bandwagon effect among pundits and policymakers that occurred in the months leading up to the invasion in Iraq. Fortunately, the consequences of this have so far been far less grave than it was seven years ago, but all the same bad habits that plagued us then have reemerged. We see the tendency to identify U.S. interests and the interests of the Iranian people, which usually means replacing the real interests of the latter with Washington’s interests, and we see once more the conceit that regime change is the only solution to major international disagreements. Anyone who tries to pour cold water on the new enthusiasm is usually treated at best as a moral idiot, if not a “useful idiot” for an authoritarian government, and at worst as a regime “apologist” or an “objective” agent of a foreign government’s goals.

Some Green movement sympathizers have tried very carefully to distinguish themselves from the pro-sanctions and pro-bombing crowds that have been exploiting the protests for their own ends. I don’t doubt their sincerity in rejecting sanctions and military action, because they understand just as well as the protesters do that either course of action would be disastrous for that movement. What I continue to find troubling is the rhetorical and political cover they are unintentionally providing for the push for sanctions and/or military action. Movement sympathizers view the current Iranian government with contempt and strongly desire its defeat. That is understandable, and even commendable after a fashion, but as a practical matter this means that the only other main policy option that will not directly harm the Green movement has automatically been taken out of consideration. Even though the Green movement has faltered and will likely continue to weaken, sympathy for the movement has already made meaningful, sustained engagement politically impossible here at home, and the moralizing rhetoric of its sympathizers has provided the political protection for whatever destructive “anti-regime” measures might come from Congress. Much of this has come about because sympathy for the movement has led to very poor analysis concerning the stability and strength of the Iranian regime and the prospects for internal political change, and it has also led to the creation of a new political consensus that says that there should be no negotiated settlement with Tehran. This means that the worst policy options gain additional support.

As I said before, none of the skeptics can be pleased with what has happened. Once again, we seem to have been largely right, and this gives us no real satisfaction. It seems fitting to quote Henley’s conclusion here:

Lastly and most importantly, it doesn’t matter how awfully gleeful doves are or aren’t. It doesn’t matter how gleeful Larison and I were or weren’t about being right about the disaster the Iraq War became, or how happy the Leveretts are or aren’t to have the better case about the strength of the Green Revolution in Iran. It doesn’t matter exactly how much that intellectual pleasure is swamped by horror at the suffering of the victims. The premise of liberal society is that arguments stand or fall on their merits, not the state of the souls of the arguers.