2:09PM
Christopher Hitchens strikes again
Tuesday, March 7, 2006 at 2:09PM One of Tom's readers emailed him today with Christopher Hitchen's latest piece in Slate: Survey Says - Let the exchange of trade and ideas with Iran begin. I don't suppose it would be kosher to copy the whole thing, so you'll just have to go over there and read it, further inspired by Tom's kudos:
Brilliant piece by Hitchens, whom I really admire.
Reader Comments (6)
This is an interesting perspective because it points out that the sanctions, over the years, have given the mullahs tighter control over the economy (through black markets) than they would have otherwise. It is my belief that were we to lift the sanctions the theocracy would rapidly lose its grip on this key lever of power. Therefore, I believe they fear the lifting of sanctions more than the possibility of more stringent economic measures imposed by the UNSC. In addition, they NEED confrontation with the West as a means to justify their suffocating rule and mask their incompetence. This is the rationale for their new found bellicosity.
We will not be able to prevent their acquisition of nuclear technology through confrontation (kinetic or otherwise). Numerous surveys have shown that Iranians universally believe they have a “right” to nuclear technology. Our opposition to that “right” and the government’s strident defiance ignites national pride and rallies people to the regime in spite of its inadequacies. We can only hope to delay them long enough to allow a more pragmatic government to come to power. Increasing the connectivity with the Iranian people will hasten that day. The lifting of sanctions will immediately increase connectivity even if it is seen as a humiliating capitulation by the US.
The short term propaganda value of appearing to make us “back down” will fade as the tide of newly legal goods flow in and the illicit trade disintegrates. Along with goods, information will flow. The regime will try but be unable to stop the flow of information and our perceived defeat will, in fact, be a victory as the “virus” of free thought and free enterprise “infects” the country.
Humility costs nothing.
Forget the nukes, the regime is what's dangerous. The people are with us, but only so far.
So, can we take the regime out without "owning" the susequent chaos?
And how chaotic might it actually be?
Say the mullahs are in session, and a darn big bomb happens to fall on them. And at nearly the same time, the local security forces of the regime are decapitated.
Are there leaders who would step up, and work with the people?
I would generally agree that the exchange of trade and ideas would be a benefit. But I wonder what would happen if the US, and more generally the Old Core, doesn't budge with Iran. Could stubborn political posturing (further) isolate Iran? And since Iran is so deeply in bed with China and India, could this create a cleave between the New Core and the Old Core? Does the Old Core really have strategic advantage here or could the New Core be rallied to be isolationists? If they had to (if Iran causes the US serious 'harm and pain'), could China/India chose Iran over the US? If they had to (by mullah's insistence) would the Iranian people chose the New Core over the Old Core? Could the New Core and the Old Core be separate superpowers?
I think these are questions we should be addressing because I don’t think the Bush Administration (or future administrations?) will allow Iran to have nuclear capabilities.
BJ: i think you've got a really good point there. sounds very Tom-ish ;-)
one, minor quibble: humility, almost by definition, costs pride, and we (the US) have plenty of that. i would say especially the Bush Admin. might not be willing to pay that 'cost'.
Point taken Sean,
I realize that the Administration is unlikely to take any bold steps and the remaining ideologues are dead set against any concession with Iran. However, if the analysis is correct then our concession (lifting the sanctions) will speed the collapse of the regime (our ultimate objective) so it isn't much of a concession after all. Besides, I have always believed pride is of little value in National Security policy.
I appreciate the compliment in saying that the proscription is "Tom-ish" but since it is merely a re-statement of Tom's ideas presented in Esquire, PNM, and BFA, I have to give credit where it is due. Tom is a good teacher.
Keep in mind where we are in *our* election cycle and where our public opinion polls our on the war, ports, Islam in general. There is a groundswell of support for the 'soft kill' of the mullahs, especially in State. Duncan Hunter would wet himself if Bush went to Tehran. Lou Dobbs would self-immolate.