There is a ritual every few years–it was Ukraine first, then Lebanon, then Georgia–where the stirrings of a mass movement in some Third World dump reminds the neocon right of the moral clarity of the Cold War, where nationalists and popular movements such as Poland’s Solidarity were brutally supressed by communist regimes and their security apparatus. In those times, the moral example of the defiant people remained an inspiration to us all and a reminder of the indefatigable human spirit. Today we’re supposed to be seeing that in Iran.
I can’t get too pumped about what’s going on in Iran. Perhaps on balance Mousavi would be better for the United States and the Iranian people. It’s hard to say. But lots of angry people in the streets does not mean he’s a great guy with a great plan to support a more liberal and decent regime in Iran. Muqtadr al Sadr used to get the crowds out too. Indeed, so did Khomenei. It’s just as likely, considering the people and history involved, Mousavi would spend much of his energy oppressing his erstwhile oppressors if elected. This is the way politics runs in the Third World.
We are talking about an Islamic poltical party in an Islamic state. Almost no one talks about how Mousavi ran the show in Iran in the 1980s as Prime Minister when Iran was America’s mortal enemy, and his track record then–when Iran was supporting kidnappings of Americans in Lebanon and attacks on US ships in the Gulf–is chiefly why the Iranians like him. Why should we think his vague anti-corruption platform means we’ll have a friendly regime there? Why do neocons lose their judgment every time some “color revolution” comes down the pike?
I view events in Iran no so differently from the elections in Iraq. Even though the elections were fairly run in Iraq (which may not have happened in Iran, but I can’t be sure unlike so many breathless commentators), nearly everyone voted for sectarian parties in Iraq and also in Iran. It’s Saddam vs. Sadr vs. Badr kind of stuff. There’s no reason to get too pumped about who wins in these kinds of elections, because the problem in Iran and Iraq too is not the elections or the lack of them. The problem is the underlying anti-modern, anti-liberal, pro-sharia viewpoint of the electorate that is rooted in the dominant understanding of Islam itself. I don’t see anything Mousavi or any other Iranian politician has said that will reverse that fundamental aspect of Iranian society.
Subscribe To This Feed
I thought conservatives weren’t all that keen on modernity and liberalism.
Too right, Chris.
You would think after the stinging lesson of Iraq the neocons had learned something. The Iraqi population might be marginally better off for all our blood and money spent there, but our position in the world isn’t notably safer, and our reputation has hardly been boosted.
But the faith is untouched by evidence, which is boring compared with visionary splendor. And ironically, the faith seems to have even affected the Liberal Establishment. Now we see in every angry march the springtime of a new democratic order.
One of the criticisms of the United States I am forced to agree with is that we lack understanding of the values and habits of thought elsewhere, always imagining that inside every crazy dysfunctional country a benign democracy is struggling to emerge.
Such struggles may occasionally happen for real, and we should do what we can to encourage them without getting entangled. But we had best not project our ideals onto situations where they are irrelevant. In most Third World countries, especially in Africa and the Middle East, the fight is only over who enjoys the fruits of victory — power and loot.
Damn, failed to close the italics again. Sleep debtor goofballs like me need a preview function in the comments.
We’re not too keen on modernity and liberalism, although modernity and liberalism combined with an austere culture–as in the case of our Founding Fathers–works quite well. Further, they may be preferable to backwards Muslim theocracy. My personal views are kind of a mixed bag. I think liberal institutions work for some people and places, such as America in the 18th and 19th Centuries. But I think democracy combined with backwards people is not much to celebrate.
The American Neocons are always looking for a place and a way to stir up a war and/or create a situation that calls for American intervention. They care more about their portfolios (fed by the M-I-C) than anything else. Even the “American Empire” and unipolarity that they advocate can’t hold a candle to their insular lifestyles which depend on stirring the pot and receiving nice dividends on their defense stocks. Did you ever notice that, almost to a man (or woman) none of them have served in the military?
I don’t think it’ll make much difference who the president of Iran is, one candidate may be more pleasant than the other; but the real power is held by the Ayatollahs. They are invested in remaining in power, no matter who is chosen by the people. The Iranian people don’t like the “face” of the current government for several reasons; chief among them is the Iranian economy. The upper classes still do what they want behind closed doors and the others are forced to submit to “religious police” and other infringements on life and liberty.
Tell me, can anyone name a country with a Muslim majority that is “modern” and allows for religious freedom and the rights that we take for granted?
(Turkey doesn’t count because only a small fraction of the country’s population is westernized. Even Jordan has friction between the Royals and their subjects, who lead a much more conservative lifestyle.
[...] not as if they’re looking to put Shimon Peres on the Peacock Throne here, you know? Mr. Roach agrees: I can’t get too pumped about what’s going on in Iran. Perhaps on balance Mousavi would be [...]
“Tell me, can anyone name a country with a Muslim majority that is “modern” and allows for religious freedom and the rights that we take for granted? ”
Does Iraq count?
Esmeralda’s right about who really runs Iran. Even if Mousavi were elected, it wouldn’t really matter. The hardliners and the reformers have been at it since the Islamic Revolution and the playing field has always been slanted in favor of the hardliners. (That’s probably one of the factors behind the removal of the post of prime minister from the Iranian political system in 1989 at the direction of Khomeini, which terminated Moussavi’s tenure.) Election fraud or no, it’s obvious who calls the shots. Just look at how hard it was for the reformists under Khatami in the late 1990s to get anything done at all, despite a firm majority in the Iranian parliament.
Esmeralda’s right about who really runs Iran. Even if Mousavi was a true reformist and was elected, it wouldn’t really matter. The hardliners and the reformists have been at it since the Islamic Revolution and the playing field has always been slanted in favor of the hardliners. (That’s probably one of the factors behind the removal of the post of prime minister from the Iranian political system in 1989, which terminated Moussavi’s tenure.) Election fraud or no, it’s obvious who calls the shots. Just look at how hard it was for the reformists under Khatami in the late 1990s to get anything done at all, despite a firm majority in the Iranian parliament. What Moussavi’s actual policies would be if he had real power, we will probably never know.
That said, I don’t think the observation about Muslim countries being “backward” is quite appropriate… the recent political phenomenon of the nation-state is a product of the Western world that has been exported to the East, often to incredibly damaging effect. It would be nice if everyone would change themselves to conform to that model – just like it would be nice if everyone accepted our Western values – but not realistic. Instead of calling them backward, which implies that we already know everything about them, it might be better to go to greater lengths to understand exactly what they believe and hold important. Perhaps understanding them better would even enable them to take the first step in the direction of democracy…