From Peter Ackerman and Ramin Ahmadi, writing in the IHT:
For months Iranian activists and even moderate clerics have been concerned about the radical tendencies of Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the past few weeks—after he said that the Holocaust was a myth, called for Israel to be wiped off the map and banned Western music from state-run radio and television, the concern spread around the world.
But there is another development in Iran—this one positive and with great potential—that the world should not miss: civic defiance against Ahmadinejad’s authoritarianism is increasing.
From the outset of his term, the new president’s policies exhibited a volatile mixture of nationalism and radical Islamic social engineering. While touting Iran’s nuclear program, he has promised to redistribute wealth to the poor and curb capitalists (without yet delivering on either promise).
This seems, on the surface at least, to best outline Ahmadinejad’s plan for Iran—to gin up nationalism, tether that to hard line religious edicts meant to channel it, and ready himself for the clash of civilizations that will arise should Iran achieve a workable nuclear weapon.
I am no expert on Iran, but if I had to float a guess about Ahmadinejad’s recent behavior, I’d say that it’s possible he’s simply testing the waters, seeing how not only the international community will react to his stepping up of the aggressive rhetoric and posture, but how Iranians themselves will respond on the several fronts: 1) the appeal to nationalism; 2) the promises of government largesse; and 3) the increase in theocratic authoritarianism as an acceptable trade-off for a socialistic economic system.
Thus far, he’s seen no UN Security Council action—but he has seen a stirring in NATO and some unrest within Iran. Whether this deters him or emboldens him will of course depend upon how serious he takes the various threats; it might be that this first gambit is meant to flush out dissidents in order to increase the internal crackdown as a first stage toward taking the battle outside Iran.
Ahmadinejad’s language has been replete with contempt for religious and ethnic minorities, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, rejection of compromise, and readiness for violence in dealing with the political opposition and minorities, including Kurds and Arabs. His performance is disturbingly reminiscent of those of European fascist leaders of the 1920s and 1930s.
While policy makers and pundits in the West are rightly chagrined by the language coming from Iran’s new leader, less has been said and little has been done by the international community—now or in the past—to support ordinary citizens in Iran who have persistently been pressing for genuine democracy, the rule of law and economic opportunity. Iranians are risking imprisonment or worse by engaging in protests, not to satisfy American or European foreign policy, but because they are fed up living with fear, economic misery and arbitrary edicts from unelected clerics.
Against all odds, nonviolent tactics such as protests and strikes have gradually become common in Iran’s domestic political scene. Medical professionals, teachers and workers have gone on strike. Last month, Tehran’s bus drivers walked off the job, paralyzing the city. In the week of the presidential elections, more than 6,000 Iranian women took to the streets to protest discriminatory laws, especially the ban on women from running for the presidency.
Student activists have frequently resorted to strikes, sit-ins and demonstrations, and the violent response of the regime and repeated attacks of the paramilitaries have not succeeded in silencing them.
Nor, it should be pointed out, has the “student uprising” many have expected for decades now would overthrow the the mullahs ever been able to affect any lasting political change.
Of course, our earlier attempts to aid the student dissidents have occurred under a realist foreign policy that was perfectly content, one imagines, to promote a tension. Now, however, we have a more pressing reason to see the mullahs and Ahmadinejad out of power.
It remains to be seen if such external support of dissidents will be too late in affecting important change in advance of other options. One suspects Ahmadinejad is preparing himself for either contingency and is hoping the international community might tip its hand on how they plan to proceed.
Having said that, it’s possible I’m misreading the situation altogether—and that Ahmadinejad is not so cagey as all that. Perhaps he really is just an apocalyptic nutcase who sees himself as the slayer of Zion, and who believes his destiny rests in an act of annihilation. But there can be no doubt that his seemingly erratic behavior is causing a great deal of movement in the middle east and in the halls of power throughout the world.
ahmadinejad works for “king george mcsmirkingchimp bushitlerburton” – just like binladen, and they all take orders from the skull&bones/likud/house of saud.
they want perpetual war.
the iranian people are hostage to this cabal.
if given the chance, the iranians would form a peace-loving and enlightened Islamic paradise, as other Muslims have in ……
oh forget it.
I can’t think of a successful civil uprising against a repressive government that was serious about holding onto power. The people have won when the government simply didn’t have the stomach to stomp them back into submission. For example, Eastern Europe in the 1980s–and Iran under the Shah. Tiananmin? Not so good. Neither, for that matter, were Czechoslovakia in the 1960s or Hungary in the 1950s.
Unfortunately, I think this matter is going to have to be resolved from outside, and it’s going to be messy. Not only is Iran a tough challenge for our miliitary, but the usual suspects are going to become even deranged and hysterical in their fulminations against BushCo and all its works. Fasten the safety bar and keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle, because we’re in for a spectacularly bumpy ride.
If we’re counting on the students to do anything, we’re already in trouble. While their hearts may be in the right place, none of them seem ready, willing, or able, to bell the cat.
We’d be better off hoping that an Iranian general decides to give Ahmadinejad a 9mm headache. Someone like that would have a) access and b) means, and if it means avoiding a war with the U.S. that the general can’t win, then c) motive, as well.
And, if the appropriate mullah gets nervous enough, d) the blessing of his religion, as well.
This is what I’m hoping for. Something akin to the Stauffenberg plot, but executed before this guy consolidates power and eliminates anyone with the means to follow through.
We have multiple precedents for ideological nutjobs with no democratic/constitutional mandate hijacking governments and then doing EXACTLY what they said they would do without check on their power.
(Note to Kostards–insert your gratuitous Chimpy remark here. Then watch chagrined as he flies off to Crawford on 1/20/09. Damned respect for the Constitution that he disrespects.)
Lenin, Mao, Castro, and most of all, Hitler are textbooks for Ahmadinejad to follow. Looks like he’s following religiously (forgive the pun).
There’s still a chance for those of you doubt to read The Gatehring Storm.
tw-“instructive”
I’m curious to see if this nutjob is truly a religious fanatic.
If so, he seems to think he’s the coming of the 12th Imam and shit is about to hit the fan. Did you hear about how he claimed he had a green aura around him and leaders of the world sat and did not blink for 30 minutes while he spoke?
This whackadoo (and his mad mullah enablers) need to go, real quick like.
Thanks for the article and analysis. Adds some hope.
All the talk of the rising young Iranian dissident movement reads like Euro-American lefties of a certain stripeâ€â€yuppified leftover hippies, SWPers and ‘68ersâ€â€projecting their highly polished self-image onto a very foreign situation that they can’t understand otherwise. When they look they see a funhouse reflection.
Check the language in the piece here:
[…] nonviolent tactics […] medical professionals, teachers […] bus
paralyzing the city […] women took to the streets […] student activists […] sit-ins and demonstrations [blah blah blah]
There is Iranian dissidence, and its forms are standardâ€â€they’ve seen our TV showsâ€â€but there is no Western-style bourgeois left in Iran. It’s fucking Iran, not California. These people are not us. Our map is not their territory. Yet what does the press give us? U.C. Davis and environs, populated by the whole dream Democratic demographic, pantomiming their old bedtime stories.
Don’t bet a future on these ghosts.
[Sprinkle apposite “insubstantial pageant” speech from The Tempest as needed.]
Ahmadinejad’s language has been replete with contempt for religious and ethnic minorities, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, rejection of compromise, and readiness for violence in dealing with the political opposition and minorities, including Kurds and Arabs.
Sounds like he has a lot in common with your average wingnut.
Excellent, Phoenician – full points for an interesting variant of patented rhetorical trope #3. Plus, you used that “wingnut” term that really puts the Yanks in their place.
There are a few folks one post down who are still awaiting answers to their questions, incidentally. I, for one, would love to hear your response to Tachyonshuggy.
I dunno, Phoney, he sounds like your kind of chum. Although I’d add ”…and anyone disagreeing with PIATOR” at the very end.
Boner,
Excellent point. I think Ledeen (though inspired by something different) is similarly deluded.
I have a strong suspicion that a rather large number of Iranians like this guy. The westernized urbanites who are protesting against him are a small minority of the population of Iran. I would not be at all surprised if the great rural majority loathes the protestors, and thinks they deserve the brutal crackdown that is sure to come.
I’ll save Child in a time for Grownups the trouble and point out that there are no meaningful differences between this (suspected) phenomenon and the red/blue divide in the US. At least, not if you are an idiot.
The US plan should be to make “student” into “heavily-armed students backed by U.S. airpower.”
Nice to see that some people still live in a fantasy world. And nice to get the self-flagellation in. I don’t even have to dig this stuff up.
<Feingold>PIATOR’s comments are like those that people sometimes make when they find that the truth is causing their doggedly self-centered and largely based in fiction and stretches of given facts to crumble around them, yet they cannot bear to let themselves slip from the pedastal and assent to allowing those whom they not only disagreed with, but looked down upon as stupid for not seeing things the way they did as right.</Feingold>
Keep in mind the economy is bad in Iran. So even those religious rural people might be disgruntled.
Excerpt of e-mail from an Iranian friend:
The Iranian president is sort of a George W. version of a red-neck/dogmatic, except he looks Iranian, though the same principles… But we’ve got nothing to do with politics over here, neither does the nation for that matter… So you’d be very welcome not only by me, but also by the street folks… They love Americans here, and actually miss them because apparently there used to be a whole lotta hippies roaming around in the pre-revolution era, so everyone has good memories and so forth…
—Hippies great, just great.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a fraud. Why?
He holds a doctorate, he is not a cleric, he went to university under the Shah’s state and he has little governmental experience. There is a whole lot of things he could be – ranging from a Bush secret agent planted to destroy the current so-called Islamic Republic of Iran to a nationalist communist leader also hellbent on usurping the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei government. Personally, I believe he is somewhere in between:
1. As he holds a PhD (education), he is not a believer in religion (merely pragmatically uses it as a tool as it is a CV requirement in today’s Iran – Ahmadinejad is probably an atheist and there are rumours he drank alcohol at college and probably still does). While his ban on “Western music” was seen as harsh, it has virtually no affect other than encouraging that style of music more and furthering the popularity of Western sattelite channels of TV and also of radio. An educated man knows the consequences of his actions and this is his intention.
2. Since he is not a cleric (and he knows the Persian people do not like clerics much anymore), he can play them at their own game: go over their heads with their extremism to annoy them (i.e. this is what you say you want, yet are afraid to say: Ahmadinejad says it and shows the clerics up as hypocrits by doing so: in other words, Ahmadinejad does not mean destroy Israel but the clerics have always wanted that but Ahmadinejad can trap them by saying so and they act then like the hypocrats they are). Ahmadinejad has the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran (a country with no foreign policy whatsoever, only vague threats, compromised beliefs and weak leadership at all levels) divided in 5, and about to crumble.
3. Ahmadinejad can sit back and watch Khamenei fall, watch Rafsanjani and Khatami migrate, and watch the rest of the clerics disappear into oblivion. Then, he can present himself as the elected Iranian leader who “by employing lateral thinking, ended 30 years of weak government in Iran (first, under the later years of the Shah, then under the elderly leadership of Khomeini and then under the indecisive leadership of the post-Khomeini era)”.
I do not really know why anyone takes these 3rd world leaders so seriously. The US/UK could crush Ahmadinejad in 3 weeks (just like they did Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam). Iran v the UK/US alliance is like a new born baby versus Mike Tyson. If Ahmadinejad is that foolish to think he can win, god help him! But, since he is educated, yes it is probable that he has other plans (eg. to divide his regime deliberately to aid a military takeover, and then present a compromise).
More scary than shotguns and rifles, a few Soviet tanks and a few machineguns (Iran, just like Iraq, may desire to be a nuclear power but are a LONG LONG way from being so, and anyone who thinks Iran (a weak third world backwater) is a threat to the world is insane)) is the prospect of the US/UK alliance taking over the whole world. It is them that are acting like Hitler. Ahmadinejad does not have the power to control his Eastern and Western provinces of Iran let alone invade or attack Israel or Iraq, but Bush could have Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Somalia in his grip within 12 months if he wanted. Hell, he could nuke em all along with Iraq in a day if he really got mad!
The only way the puney 3rd world opposition can fight against the superpower is terrorism and while war will destroy all these regimes in weeks, it will only give al Qaeda (even if al Qaeda are hated in/by Iran and that feeling is mutual) an excuse to really heat things up.
*Sighs* Realitycheck, you forgot to blame the Jews.
OHNOES, I’m disappointed.
Realitycheck and Phoenician(etc.) are both totally representative of the mainstream Euroleftie. Neither of them has presented anything here except boilerplate, although PiatoR has occasionally paraphrased. Among that group, it is Believed (and deserves the capital letter) that the United States is imperialist. That being the case, any and all forms of resistance against the U.S. are justified.
It makes me nostalgic. That particular line of thought was first brought to the forefront in the Sixties, when the Soviet Union was trying to justify the fact that all the spikes in the Wall were on the inside. Reminds me of banging hippie chicks in VW microbuses after draft-card burnings. (Of course Fred, who worked in the Bursar’s office, had access to one of them newfangled Xerox machines, and supplied draft cards suitable for burning at a buck apiece, $5 for a whole page.) I don’t wish for those days back, but I wish I was young enough to think they were fun.
I believe it may have been Boner, on the other thread, who pointed out that their main weapon is taking things out of context. PiatoR was kind enough to remind us that the United States is still the only country to use a nuclear weapon in an actual war. He was careful not to note that if we had not done so, he would now be paying taxes (in Japanese) to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Of course his fallback would be that Japan was not defeated by the United States—it was a combination of diplomacy with pacifism (and steadfast support from Uncle Joe) that caused them to realize the depths of their error, and Americans wading in with guns and explosives nearly queered it.
You aren’t going to break into that cycle of thinking. These are people who’ve reread the second volume of Capital until it makes sense, and the resulting destruction and reorganization of brain cells renders them impervious. But for the benefit of lurkers and those less committed, just supply the context and leave the insults alone, OK?
PiatoR’s stunningly self-congratulatory moniker remains fair game, of course.
Regards,
Ric
Well, I did play that game back when PIATOR gave evidence that the US destroyed power plants in Desert Storm as evidence that the US targets civvies, so I’m not COMPLETELY devoid of understanding the gameplan. But, frankly, Realitycheck’s rambling was SO asinine, I didn’t think there was any way I could give context to such idiocy.
But I will try harder. Thankees.
OHNOES,
I’d Fisk Realitycheck’s post—what it really needs; remarkable the amount of bullshit in one short piece of prose—but for the first time this week there aren’t any grass fires on the horizon, and I’m going to bed.
Regards,
Ric
Mr. Locke, if you don’
A ridiculous notion. We are not in the habit of “crushing” dictators, as shown by the immense leadup to such actions and the time spent in Iraq and Afghanistan to attempt to rebuild (though the “re” part of the word is a bit of a misnomer at times). I do appreciate that you think so highly of the American and British militaries, but they aren’t some unstoppable steamroller. The political machines behind them have to be worked, maneuvered, and maintained to even get a small scale military action started.
You grossly underestimate them. Heck, the LONG LONG way from getting nuclear weaponry simply doesn’t stand against a simple search for the facts.
…
…
…
Wow. I’m sure the American military is flattered by this description, but it definitely is not such a behemoth. Our troops are spread fairly thin. Heck, the odds of gelling up popular support to continue gaining enough volunteers to LAUNCH such a campaign would be preposterous. This, again, presupposes that we’re in some kinda business of toppling countries like dominos. This also presumes that President Bush is some sort of miltaristic emperor, commanding the troops wherever he pleases, without fear of public backlash or worrying about the long term effects on the countries you assume he would want to invade. Ridiculous.
The nuke bit? I hope the Good Lord grants you a bit more sense than that. A preemptive would cost Bush everything. The very suggestion is ridiculous.
Wait, let me get this straight. So, because a country is militarily outmatched, they then have a right to deliberately target the citizens of their opponent? Is that what you are saying?
So, if Bush wages your fictional war of swift destruction without caring for the consequences, that gives them the right to target civilians? How about the REAL world?
And al-Qaeda is not the ONLY terrorist organization out there, but I’m not certain it is wise to trust your analysis of Iranian politics.
PIMF
what is it with these commie morons? what, we are supposed to only fight an evenly matched enemy? so this imbalance justifies the intentional slaughter of civilians? next they will demand the we arm, train and fully equip the enemy so we can have a “fair” fight?
If America was truly an imperialist power, then Harry S Truman could have chosen to be the American Cesar on September 2nd 1945. On that day, we had 16 million men under arms, the largest Army, Air Force and Navy in the world and half of the worlds industrial output and GDP, not to mention that we were the only nuclear power in the world. No one, not even Stalin, could have stopped us. Can anyone think of any other country having such an immense amount power NOT taking advantage of such an opportunity? we did not. that is all one needs to know about American Imperialism.
He was careful not to note that if we had not done so, he would now be paying taxes (in Japanese) to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
You seem to be forgetting the teeny tiny fact that Japan was defeated before the bombs dropped. I was sympathetic to Paul Fussell’s argument, until I dug further into the subject. See here , and here .
Of course his fallback would be that Japan was not defeated by the United Statesâ€â€it was a combination of diplomacy with pacifism (and steadfast support from Uncle Joe) that caused them to realize the depths of their error, and Americans wading in with guns and explosives nearly queered it.
You are, of course, a liar.
Phoenician, you almost managed to present an argument here and in the threads below – here’s a hint, however. Gar Alperowitz’s thesis regarding Japan is far from universally accepted by the historical profession (of whom I can claim to be a minor member) and I have yet to come across any Japanese historian (outside of those interested in defending the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere) who would agree with the assertion that Japan was effectively defeated before the events of August, 1945.
My own late father, a QM3 aboard a light escort carrier, was required to give up his normal duties of navigator’s mate and helmsman to engage in daily drill with the M-1 rifle as part of a potential invasion force for the Japanese Home Islands. As he told it, it was widely understood that any and every warm body, even sailors like himself, would be needed for the upcoming assault on Japan itself. Unspoken, but understood, was the notion that, given what they had witnessed on Okinawa, the invasion would be a nightmarish blood bath.
Curious, that, isn’t it, if Japan was already, by that time, effectively defeated? Try reading a little more widely, Phoenician, and with special attention to the works of Ronald Spector and John Toland on this subject.
I have yet to come across any Japanese historian (outside of those interested in defending the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere) who would agree with the assertion that Japan was effectively defeated before the events of August, 1945.
Try harder.
“By August of 1945, Japan’s leaders knew the war was lost, but they split on whether to surrender immediately or hold out in hope of negotiating peace conditions favorable to maintaining the imperial system of government. Both sides in the dispute hoped to petition the Soviet Union to mediate peace with the United States and its allies.”
And let’s take a look at the Pacific War timeline for 1945 prior to August:
January 3, 1945 – Gen. MacArthur is placed in command of all U.S. ground forces and Adm. Nimitz in command of all naval forces in preparation for planned assaults against Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Japan itself.
January 4, 1945 – British occupy Akyab in Burma.
January 9, 1945 – U.S. Sixth Army invades Lingayen Gulf on Luzon in the Philippines.
January 11, 1945 – Air raid against Japanese bases in Indochina by U.S. Carrier-based planes.
January 28, 1945 – The Burma road is reopened.
February 3, 1945 – U.S. Sixth Army attacks Japanese in Manila.
February 16, 1945 – U.S. Troops recapture Bataan in the Philippines.
February 19, 1945 – U.S. Marines invade Iwo Jima.
March 1, 1945 – A U.S. submarine sinks a Japanese merchant ship loaded with supplies for Allied POWs, resulting in a court martial for the captain of the submarine, since the ship had been granted safe passage by the U.S. Government.
March 2, 1945 – U.S. airborne troops recapture Corregidor in the Philippines.
March 3, 1945 – U.S. And Filipino troops take Manila.
March 9/10 – Fifteen square miles of Tokyo erupts in flames after it is fire bombed by 279 B-29s.
March 10, 1945 – U.S. Eighth Army invades Zamboanga Peninsula on Mindanao in the Philippines.
March 20, 1945 – British troops liberate Mandalay, Burma.
March 27, 1945 – B-29s lay mines in Japan’s Shimonoseki Strait to interrupt shipping.
April 1, 1945 – The final amphibious landing of the war occurs as the U.S. Tenth Army invades Okinawa.
April 7, 1945 – B-29s fly their first fighter-escorted mission against Japan with P-51 Mustangs based on Iwo Jima; U.S. Carrier-based fighters sink the super battleship YAMATO and several escort vessels which planned to attack U.S. Forces at Okinawa.
April 12, 1945 – President Roosevelt dies, succeeded by Harry S. Truman.
May 8, 1945 – Victory in Europe Day.
May 20, 1945 – Japanese begin withdrawal from China.
May 25, 1945 – U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff approve Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan, scheduled for November 1.
June 9, 1945 – Japanese Premier Suzuki announces Japan will fight to the very end rather than accept unconditional surrender.
June 18, 1945 – Japanese resistance ends on Mindanao in the Philippines.
June 22, 1945 – Japanese resistance ends on Okinawa as the U.S. Tenth Army completes its capture.
June 28, 1945 – MacArthur’s headquarters announces the end of all Japanese resistance in the Philippines.
July 5, 1945 – Liberation of Philippines declared.
July 10, 1945 – 1,000 bomber raids against Japan begin.
July 14, 1945 – The first U.S. Naval bombardment of Japanese home islands.
July 16, 1945 – First Atomic Bomb is successfully tested in the U.S.
July 26, 1945 – Components of the Atomic Bomb “Little Boy” are unloaded at Tinian Island in the South Pacific.
July 29, 1945 – A Japanese submarine sinks the Cruiser INDIANAPOLIS resulting in the loss of 881 crewmen. The ship sinks before a radio message can be sent out leaving survivors adrift for two days.
Now, the Japanese in WWII were racist, pigheaded and arrogant, but I suspect even the most obtuse would regard 1000 bomber raids over your home territory as a sign that not everything is going well…
They had no hope of winning the war, but until they admit it and accept defeat, the war is not over.
Two words for you PIATOR, if you are seriously going to use enemy plane counts as indicative of defeat: North Vietnam.
Your view of the world is so anti-American as to be comical to some anti-Americans I know. Rather than respond to critical thinking about world events, your chosen tactic is to raise moral relativism and Chomskyesque contortions to new heights.
You prattle about “the rule of law” without citing one instance of American violation of same. No, the invasion of Iraq did not violate “the law” (such as it is by UN standards); exisiting Security Council resolutions provided more than enough justification for action against the Hussein regime. However, Iranian intransigence over the NPT, to which they are still an active party, is a violation. And just to be clear, the President of Iran has directly threatened Israel (another UN member) with annihilation. He has not threatened US troops in Iraq with annihilation, which would seem to be the natural tendency if he were trying to deter American action against his country.
Somewhere else you noted the tragedy surrounding the Vincennes shoot down of the Iranian passenger jet. Responsible authorities do not allow their civilian airliners to fly directly into an area where a shooting naval engagement had been raging for a couple of days. Your reasoning is akin to those who claim that US forces deliberately target civilians–nope, the other guys do that. If the American military really wanted to kill civilians or take the Iranina civilian aviation industry out–there are many more effective ways to do so. Your ignorance of military tactics, strategy, and technology does not lend itself to thoughtful analysis.
And just to be clear, let’s imagine a world where American power were not the ultimate insurance against barbarity. We have precedents in Timor, Bosnia, and Haiti. Without US power–or its threat, tragedy on a grand scale would have been assured.
Can or should the US answer every crisis? When humanitarian in nature (even in Iran)–we do. When military, we have interests and domestic politics like any other country. The reality is “It depends.”
Having said that, we’re so imperial that our two closest geopgrahical neighbors have demilitarized borders with us. We handed the keys to our largest European airbase back to Germany–so they could build a bigger airport in Frankfurt to serve all those pro-American EU travelers. Our economy supports approximately 20 million undocumented workers who remit billions of dollars to their homelands every year. We’re spending 15 billion dollars on HIV programs in the hardest hit countries in the world. And you think it’s all a plot to do…exactly what you leave blank, because that’s the great hole in conspiratorial thinking. The US acts against its own self-interest every day–for the benefit of others.
And lest your attempted history lesson from World War II go completely to waste–try reading up on the Battle of the Coral Sea, where your islands were saved from eventual Japanese threat by those nasty Americans.
This is the final time I’ll respond to anything you write. You just don’t think enough for me.
Phoenician – now that is much more like it! Hasegawa Tsugoshi’s thesis is perhaps a trifle less revolutionary than the link suggests, but has the power to impress those outside the profession who haven’t kept up with the historiography. Of course, his assertions have still to be reviewed, confronted, and tested against those of other researchers, but that will come in time.
Your contention reminds me of the long-running debate among historians of WWII’s European theater of conflict over the efficacy of area bombing, a controversy that actually began with rival assessments from Allied evaluators at the time. To argue or even to discuss it requires an immersion in the relevant literature that cuts across a variety of categories, embracing everything from political science game-theory to economics and a lot besides. A comparable situation exists in regard to the last days of the war in the Pacific, where as a specialist, I hesitate to make the sort of confident assertions you offer.
For example, were you aware of the near-coup that took place on the grounds of the Imperial residence during the hours leading up to the bombing of Hiroshima? Have you assessed the role of Hirohito in this, especially in light of some of the recent revelations challenging the conventional idea of the Emperor as mere “figurehead”? How do you refute the assessments provided to Truman and other Allied leaders that any invasion of Japan would, at a minimum, lead to 1 million U.S. casualties, and perhaps five times that number of Japanese deaths? How do you explain the fact that on orders coming down from Nimitz himself, people like my own father, a sailor whose responsibility was navigation and manning the helm of a light escort carrier, spent the last summer days of 1945 gearing up for an invasion? Have you examined the accounts left behind by Truman and his advisors regarding the decision-making process that led to the events of August 6 and 9, 1945? Could you (God knows I had to, in my written and oral comprehensives in grad school) trace out the case for and against Alperowitz’s thesis? How up-to-date are you on the diplomatic history of the period?
All of these, at a minimum, would be necessary to speak with the confidence you assume about the conclusion of the Pacific War. I sincerely respect the fact that you made what I regard as a good-faith response to my rather snide assertions above, and moreover raised some compelling points – no snark there in the least, I assure you. Although this discussion concentrates on an area of great personal interest, it would be presumptuous of me to continue to hijack this thread and the blog any further on the matter. I cede the last word on this to you, if you’re so inclined.
The way to deal with Iran?
Iran is not Saudi Arabia. This has to be remembered. It is more like 1980s Czechoslovakia (i.e. a country yearning for democracy but gripped by a by-all-means unpopular and corrupt government that is a dictatorship but likes to talk about a popular peoples’ revolution).
The Iranian revolution, like the Russian one in 1917, was one that was waged to get rid of an unpopular, unelected leader. However, both revolutions basically gave back the people (instead of democracy) another corrupt, unelected leadership. The Russians for their efforts of 1917 got Stalin. The Iranians for theirs got the Pasdaran and Basiji gunmen (even the clerics, who are not the true power in Iran but the spokesmen, cannot control these – in Iran, “Islam” is used by the irregular military as a justification for the survival of the state).
At least 70% of the Iranian people are either atheist, secular Muslims, Christians, Bahai, Jews, Pious but apolitical Muslims or Zoroastrians.
The other 30% are fanatic Muslims: but, some are (most are) in government or in the army and doing it for personal gain. At least 10% of these are women forced by their husbands to uphold stoneage values. The rest then are Sunni Muslim fanatics who hate the Islamic Shiite Republic of Iran.
To deal with Iran: Pour money at the government to moderate, offer them more for their oil if they moderate, but also treat them as a partner and as an equal (remember, the USSR moderated for one main reason: it needed cash). Bribe them. Then, the people will have a say and the fanatics will:
A. See the light and come into the real world.
B. Turn sides.
C. Divorce their husbands.
D. The Sunni extremists (al Qaeda) will go elsewhere (Iraq).
Ahmadinejad is a symptom of aggressive policies against Iran. He was insulted left, right and centre from the start (usually, leaders (inclusive of the first (1979) IRI) get a period of grace. Ahmadinejad is aggressive because everyone else is, too. Khatami (even) became more hardline in his later days, too.
Nicely stated, RS! Wars are so much more than armies marching into battle, although that who gets the biggest share of the history books (and rightly so). The diplomatic and political struggles are less obvious, but can be of vital importance.
And one comment for B Moe:
Spot on! Strategically, Japan was in a losing position by 1945. Their backs were against the wall, but in a tactical sense, they were still a force to be reckoned with.
Given that the Japanese culture places much on “face”, their adherence to Bushido, and not to mention the way they defended the various islands in the Pacific campaign, the conclusion that the Japanese were going down kicking and screaming was perfectly reasonable. And still is, IMHO.
Therefore, the Allies had two choices. Either invade and kick the living crap out of Japan, with heavy casualties as the price, or convince the Japanese that they were indeed defeated, and reduce the overall casualties. The Allies chose the latter, and dropped The Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People complain about that, but the Japanese started the war, and conducted it in an aggressive and viscious fashion. They (and any modern apologists) have no cause for complaint.
All of which is immaterial to the current situation with Iran, except that it highlights that PIATOR has absolutely no clue as to what he/she is talking about. That anti-American obsession has manifested itself as a psychosis.
Just a further note on revolutions:
The Iranian revolution was waged because of the Shah’s neglect of the poor in his country (e.g. his denying of leprosy). Islamic militia hijacked the revolution and spoke on behalf of the peasant poor (who were fools to believe them). So, Islamic gunmen seized every village in rural Iran when the Shah fled. The city and educated people also wanted the Shah gone (graduate unemployment was rife) but wanted democracy, socialism and republicanism instead. Others wanted a monarchy but as less authoritarian one. No one really wanted Sharia law forced on them (who would).
Like many revolutions (Russia: the Russian people wanted bread and money, not Stalin), the 1979 Iranian one proved to be a massive disappointment and failure. Ayatollah Khomeini’s tapes spoke of a very DIFFERENT republic than what came about in reality. Even Khomeini himself was probably disappointed at what became of his revolution. Why? Khomeini only got back in 1979 when the Basiji and Pasdaran thugs had taken over Iran and made the official Baktiari, then Bazargan and then Bani Sadr governments fall. Khomeini, like all Iranians, had to fall in line with what the gunmen wanted. I’m sure he was a lot better a person than the West realise and he was too old to be a real leader.
Codswallop. This approach (aka “paying the Dane”) has never worked.
Want more money. And figure out another threat to get it. Rewarded behavior is repeated behavior.
You prattle about “the rule of law†without citing one instance of American violation of same.
Uh-huh.
No, the invasion of Iraq did not violate “the law†(such as it is by UN standards); exisiting Security Council resolutions provided more than enough justification for action against the Hussein regime.
Uh-huh:
“Eventually the war started without a further resolution, which was seen by many governments throughout the world as a breaking of international law. A similar event had taken place once before when Russia had vetoed the intervention in former Yugoslavia. However, that intervention was later justified by a UN Security Council resolution.”
See also Richard Perle admitting the war was illegal, Wilmshurst’s resignation letter and Lord Goldsmith’s caveat in his opinion on the war:
“29. However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider extremely carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.”
coupled with El Baradei and Blix’s actual reporting, Blix’s opinion on this argument, and this analysis of Goldsmith’s argument and especially the subsequent discovery that the UK government thout the US was “fixing the facts”, dissent from legal experts here and here . A brief on the opposite argument can be found here.
As the After Downing Street organisation says, the evidence supports the conclusion that, by teh summer of 2002, George Bush:
1. secretly decided to go to war;
2. decided to deceive and mislead the Congress and the American people with false claims about both weapons of mass destruction and ties between Saddam Hussein and 9-11;
3. secretly diverted $700 million from the War in Afghanistan and started bombing Iraq to provoke a war;
4. agreed to go to the UN only to “legalize” an illegal invasion – and then walked out of the U.N. when inspections worked.
violsting international and US law.
We have a term for a country where a leader is appointed due to who his father was, asserts a right to act without regard for the law, and uses the military in adventures without restraint. This is a “monarchy”, specifically an unconstitutional monarchy.
We also have several terms for people who enthusiastically support the right of kings to rule over them, to “affect to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power”. These include the term “serf”.
You lot are serfs, not citizens. Deal with it. Embrace it, in fact.
You lot are serfs, not citizens. Deal with it
Although, of course, there is the opinion that you’re merely bed-wetting cowards instead.
“Pay no attention to Wimp Lo, we purposely trained him wrong… as a joke.”
We’re serfs now, and not sheep anymore? What did we do to earn that promotion?
TW: you’re a million laughs, PIATOR. But you gave decent advice to Jeff on his current illness. So there’s hope for you yet.
You can’t argue with someone who still believes Bush was “appointed”. That depth of self-delusion is impenetrable.
Well, I’m gonna count to three, and if I hear one more friggin’ squeak, I’m gonna take his shoes, and shove em’ up his…
I guess we were fucked in 2000 no matter who won.
I guess we were fucked in 2000 no matter who won.
Pretty much. Wasn’t Kerry connected as well?
“I’m bleeding, making me the victor.”
OT: More news on how well Iraq is doing…
Not the first time that’s happened, Phoney. Nor will it be the last. Yawn.
Better watch out, I’m told that schadenfreude loses the adrenaline like buzz after constant use. Probably aggravates your other problems as well.
And, actually, Kerry is wealthier and better connected than Bush…..and he still lost the election. Go figure, eh?
Pasdaran = revolutionary guards.
Guarding what? Certainly not the Iranian revolution. Definitely not. These guys were and are a crowd of thugs: drug dealers, rapists, murderers, gangland leaders, etc. who broke jail once the chaos started after the Shah left. Others were not in jail but waiting for the opportunity to take over once the Shah was gone. The Pasdaran and Basiji are the Iranian Mafia and they control the country now. I resent the fact that these common criminals wield so much power over decent people.
The Iranian revolution was a just revolution fighting for the cause of decency over a corrupt monarchy. The Pahlavis did deny poverty, lived lavish lifestyles and so on. Iran wanted them gone but it didn’t want the Pahlavis replaced by a motley crew of bank robbers, murderers, rapists and gangsters who took up arms and harmed Persia in every way. These guys are evil and Ahmadinejad is one of them (like all thug organisations, they need their educated members so as to look more decent and Ahmadinejad (who probably wouldn’t have looked twice at such thugs in 1976) joined for opportunistic reasons and became one of them – bad company and all that has terrible affects).
Ayatollah Khomeini’s tapes: Yes, Ayatollah Khomeini’s tapes preached liberation and democracy. He even stated the clerics had no right to tell people what to eat, drink, listen to or dress. This may seem strange to the West, but it was true. Khomeini is not the one who caused all the repression and war Iran has had – it was the damn Pasdaran and Basiji. They seized Iran for their own before Khomeini got back from France and appointed Khomeini as figurehead. The Pasdaran have always pulled the strings in the background and allow figurehead clerics to be the official government. YES, Iran is a military dictatorship. Now Ahmadinejad has decided to be president and – an ex-Basiji without a criminal past (RARE) – become official military dictator. At least, he is honest.
The Pasdaran and Basiji are scumbags. If they did not exist, Iran would be a very different country today ..
These guys can do what they like and do. They can pillage and rape, they can get drunk/take alcohol off decent people, whip them and then drink it themselves, they can kill all they like, they shut down colleges, newspapers, they can take US hostages, they can kill Iranian politicians, they can sell alcohol back to rich people on the black market for inflated prices, they can summon anyone to join them or else shoot them as a deserter ..
No one, certainly not an aged bunch of Mullahs and Ayatollahs, can ever ever crush these bastards. The Shah tried, Ayatollah Khomeini caved in to their ever demand, Ali Khamenei does the same, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of them or at least is for opportunistic reasons. Only Bush can crush this illegal army that is destroying my country.
You know, 20% of Iranians join the Pasdaran/Basiji (Iranian Mafia) in the last 30 years because of the unemployment problem. The problem is that employment and success in my country only goes to those who join these scum.
What has it come to that you have to be a member of an illegal terrorist/gangland organisation before you can get ahead in life back home? I love my country but damn them bastards to hell and may Allah quench these murderers soon and let proper rational good people and not criminals rule my country.
You know, Iran is one of the FEW nations in the world where 50% of its armed forces in the last 26 years have serious criminal records and were in jail for murder, rape or torture.
Iran is the only country in the world where a proper government cannot control a Mafia organisation that took advantage of a revolution.
Iran is the only country in the world where a dictator sets up a proxy democracy and a proxy clerical system to hide behind. I still do not know the name of the well hidden one, the guy who really runs Iran since 1979.
What is for sure, the well hidden one will not die in the US air raids of 1385, it will be everyone else.
Iranians have no love whatsoever for Palestinians. Actually, if truth be known, some 75%-80% of Iranians would have a positive opinion of Israel. During the Pahlavi times, Israel and Iran were partners against Sunni/Arab/Baathist fanaticism. Only for an Israeli strike against Saddam Hussein’s nuclear site, which was real then, the West and Central parts of Iran would be a nuclear/chemical wasteland.
What the Ahmadinejads and the like do not realise is that when they support the Palestinian fanatics like Hamas, they are supporting anti-Iranian and Shiite bigots who loved Saddam Hussein, the biggest threat to Iran for nearly 3 decades. Israel (along with Iran, the only non-Arab state in the Middle East region) is a natural ally of Iran, only the Pasdaran/Basiji controlled government do not see it like that. But, forming strategic alliances does not form part of the thinking of a gang of amateurs like the 1979-2006 Iranian administrations.