Numerous bloggers are discussing the rumors that Bush is planning to invade Iran later this month. More here and here. Andrew Sullivan has also been talking about it, but I don’t have the link right now.
We here at 11D invite readers to speculate about which drugs our president is currently popping. Any room at Promises rehab for W?
Apt. 11d 
Thinking that the US is going to invade Iran at the end of the month is evidence of heavy drug use, too. Congress would need to sign off on it, to begin with, plus there hasn’t been the sort of long run-up that we had prior to the invasion of Iraq. A ground invasion and occupation are not going to happen, not now, and not any time soon. Some sort of bombing campaign seems much more likely, but that would be really just a gesture.
LikeLike
The ICGA thread goes fairly quickly to “mercenary Zionists” and “Likudniks,” but fortunately that’s not all there is to it.
If anything happens, I think it would almost certainly be a short and focused air campaign, probably aimed at hampering Iran’s nuclear research. That’s not such a terrible idea, either.
LikeLike
I don’t remember Congress signing off on the Afghanistan invasion. Just Bush showing up on my TV, interrupting “The NFL Today”. Ruined my whole Sunday because I knew Iraq would be next. Just a matter of time.
If there is an invasion, Bush isn’t going to get permission first.
LikeLike
I looked it up and found a cnn.com transcript from October 2001, in which one of the CNN people said that the House of Representatives and the Senated voted (420-1 and 100-1) on Sept. 14, 2001 to allow the president to attack those behind the Sept. 11 attacks. So there was Congressional approval, but it happened really fast, and it probably didn’t name Afghanistan by name.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/08/se.06.html
LikeLike
Sorry! The transcript said that the Senate vote was 100-0.
LikeLike
No, an invasion is not going to happen – not enough troops, right?
But the bombing scenario that Amy seems to shrug off so nonchalantly… We’re Expats in Armenia working for the US government (as contractors) and Iran is really close. The next Iranian nuclear installation is really close. We were told we would not be evacuated prior to an air strike as not to alarm and warn the enemy. I have three little kids, and whichever way the wind blows, eh?
While I retain hope that they won’t be quite as stupid as that, I need to consider the possibility that they just might. I don’t know what to do then? Pack the kids and run? Where to?
Me, I’m scared.
LikeLike
It does sound scary. But so is a nuclear Iran. I’ve watched a bunch of Iranian movies and that memorable youtube montage of young Iranian women facing off with the morals squads. I’ve read Reading Lolita in Tehran, and I know there is a substantial stratum of educated urban Iranians who would love to give their government the heave-ho. However, how strong are those anti-government forces, anyway, and how long is it going to take? There seems at least a 50% chance that Iran will go nuclear before there is any substantial relaxation. Given the pressure the Iranian government is under from discontented urban youth, it’s not unlikely that the government may become increasingly erratic and irrational in an effort to keep the home front under control.
LikeLike
So, Amy. A nuclear Iran is scary, so a largely gestural bombing campaign that doesn’t actually prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear armaments seems like a really great idea! Because, of course, Iran will just whimper and say it’s sorry when the cruise missiles smack a few targets. It won’t do anything like, oh, ask its numerous clients in Iraq to attack US troops far more aggressively than they’re doing now. Nor will Shi’a Muslims in any other country have any kind of meaningful reaction to a bombing, because they’ll know: it’s just a gesture! Nor will any other population or government in the Middle East do anything: they’ll just watch the news with interest and go back to their business. I don’t think any other major international powers with significant ability to affect the United States economically and politically, like Russia and China, will have much of a reaction to a symbolic bombing campaign.
And of course, if the symbolic bombing doesn’t really have any substantial effect, I’m sure that the Bush Administration won’t be drawn any more deeply into a conflict with Iran in pursuit of their objectives, because this is an Administration that knows how to keep itself within limits and avoid being drawn into relentless escalation of mission.
LikeLike
Frankly, I think that the risks associated with a nuclear Iran are less scary than the potential instability and backlash that a bombing would create. A US attack on Iran would *strengthen* the radicals, not weaken them. Think about the US reaction to 9/11–all but the tiny minority of devoted pacifists supported military action against the perpetrators. I myself stood on the corner of 8th Ave and 56th, watching the smoke plume, weeping and muttering that I wanted them bombed into the Stone Age. An external attack will most likely produce national unity behind a radical faction. And, as Tim points out, we are stretched far too thin to follow up in any meaningful way on a symbolic bombing.
Furthermore, making weapons-grade uranium is HARD, technically sophisticated work. It will take the Iranians YEARS to get the process right and to produce the quantity necessary even for a single weapon. Frankly, I think it is conceived as 1) a bargaining chip; 2) a matter of national prestige; and 3) a deterrent against US aggression. We taught the Axis of Evil an important lesson by invading Iraq–if you already have nukes, we aren’t going to touch you. It’ll just be all talk (see: DPRK, which we recently bribed with large quantities of fuel oil). The country we picked to invade was the weakest of the troika, and Iran now has a strong incentive to make sure that it is not weak. I also don’t think the Iranians will either use a nuclear weapon or give it to a terrorist–they know damn well that we could figure out where it came from and turn Tehran to glass. If they make a first strike, they know that the US would second strike–and that their first strike capacity is not even going to dent our second strike capacity.
Bombing Iran would be a profoundly stupid move, which is why it terrifies me that it’s even being seriously discussed by the chattering classes. Yet, they have proven in the past that they are capable of nearly bottomless stupidity, which terrifies me even more.
LikeLike
Have mercy, Timothy Burke!
I actually changed my mind mid-thread. I can be open-minded, even when arguing with myself.
My first thought (September 6, 3:12) was that if anything, the US would be launching the traditional futile gesture bombing campaign. Bush hasn’t done one yet (that I can remember), but just about every contemporary president has.
On second thought (September 6, 8:16 PM) I was thinking that maybe a bombing campaign might not be so futile if it actually led to setbacks in the nuclear program. I’m the last person to know if that is feasible, or if not, why not. If you know more, please share more technical detail.
In any case, people keep using the term “invasion”, and that seems totally improbable.
M. Gemmill,
It’s true that a bombing campaign might have the effect of temporarily increasing support for the Iranian government, even among disaffected elements.
What to do about Iran? Yesterday I was looking at some youtube footage of a series of young Iranian women in Tehran getting busted for dress code violations. I had seen it before unsubtitled, but yesterday was my first chance with subtitles. The funny thing is (as I wrote Laura), by the end of it, I was beginning to feel quite sorry for the morals police lady. The young offenders were polite, but totally unapologetic, not to mention a bit passive-aggressive. They kept asking the morals lady to explain what was wrong with their cutting-edge outfits. Based on the footage (and what I was just reading on Wikipedia), it seems that the full-length Khomeini-style black chador is no longer standard female dress in contemporary Tehran. A scarf and outer coat (apparently called a manteau) seem to be accepted now, and a number of rule breakers had very short manteaus, not to mention barely-there head scarves. The youtube video is an amazing depiction of the erosion of Iranian state power.
LikeLike
I forgot to mention that the manteau is more fitted than the chador, and much more Western looking.
LikeLike
Here’s a short 2004 article here, giving a quick overview of contemporary Iranian women’s clothing.
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_90/glimpsesofasubtle.html
LikeLike
Even better, Amy. You randomly decided in the middle of a thread that maybe bombing could accomplish something–based on nothing, no information, just on the idea that bombing might work out.
If the Iranians really are trying to develop nuclear weapons, and they haven’t protected their main sites against most air attacks, that would be surprising. Even some of the people urging an attack acknowledge that you’d probably have to have ground forces of some kind, probably special forces, go in both to carry out the attack and to be sure it had been effective.
None of that covers the likely diplomatic and political consequences, which require no special knowledge of US military capabilities vis-a-vis Iranian nuclear sites.
I find it truly bizarre, especially after the war on Iraq, to hear people blithely endorse something as potentially catastrophic as an attack on Iran based on little more than a feeling that bombs might be a good thing and oh, by the way, there’s some mighty injustices in Iran, can’t we bomb them away? I’m not one for online invective, but that’s pretty shameful. That’s a pathetic standard for the citizens of democracies to give assent to the sufferings and risks of war.
LikeLike
Timothy Burke,
We’re having a discussion, right? So we throw ideas around, read as much as we can, and listen to people who seem to know more than ourselves. We try to write and think at the same time, and sometimes we change our minds. Please try changing your mind some time–I think you’ll find it quite refreshing.
In the meantime, what does one do about Iran?
LikeLike
This foreign policy of blindly supporting “allies” and engaging in imperialism must end.
Iran’s hardline faction is being defeated consistently in recent elections and similar events, and they will not wield power much longer.
Why is it that we are so focused on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, yet we ignore and even aid similar aspirations when the country is Israel, Pakistan, or India? And while we’re on that topic, Iran threatening Israel is a tiresome and pathetic argument. Last time I checked, I was an American citizen, not an Israeli. Perhaps our Congressmen would do well to recall their allegiance to this nation, lest they be considered traitors to the Republic.
We should take the advice of the Founders and steer clear of this infantile game of “good guys” and “bad guys.” The world is not black and white.
Our federal government’s sole obligation is to uphold the Constitution, and I see nothing in that document proclaiming that the Republic of these United States is intended to engage in imperialism (“spreading democracy”). In fact, quite the contrary: I see a document crafted by our Founding Fathers who were overwhelmingly opposed to foreign entanglements and imperialistic foreign policy ambitions.
To hell with double-standards.
LikeLike
Given that Iran’s Guardian Council says who may and may not run for parliament, I don’t think one should pin one’s hopes on the Iranian elections. Wikipedia says that in the 2004 election, 80 members of the outgoing parliament were disqualified by the Guardian Council, a number of reformist parties and candidates protested and refused to campaign, and voter turnout was low.
As to the other nuclear countries Williams named, none of them are swimming in oil as Iran is. In Iran’s case it is nakedly obvious that the regime is seeking nuclear bombs rather than civilian nuclear power.
LikeLike
What does one do about anything that is of concern, Amy? Personally, I first take stock of what is possible, probable and ethical. You appear to think that if the conversation is about “ideas”, it’s ok to start with what is impossible, improbable, unethical and unwise. From that perspective, I wish Superman were here to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. It’s roughly as good an “idea” as the current Administration bombing facilities in order to score domestic political points with the people who are terribly, terribly concerned about the plight of Iranian women (because starting a war is a great way to help out women suffering from cultural and ideological injustice).
LikeLike
What does one do about anything that is of concern, Amy? Personally, I first take stock of what is possible, probable and ethical. You appear to think that if the conversation is about “ideas”, it’s ok to start with what is impossible, improbable, unethical and unwise. From that perspective, I wish Superman were here to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. It’s roughly as good an “idea” as the current Administration bombing facilities in order to score domestic political points with the people who are terribly, terribly concerned about the plight of Iranian women (because starting a war is a great way to help out women suffering from cultural and ideological injustice).
LikeLike
Those beating the war drums would do well to, at the very least, be informed on recent events:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSDAH64072220070906
But, really, Rafsanjani’s new position is outside of the point here. I do not care if Iran is not a “democratic” nation. My allegiance is to the American Republic and its Constitution. We should be focusing our energy on the preservation of freedom here at home.
If it is permissible for Israel, Pakistan, and India to wield nuclear technology, why is it impermissible for Iran to do the same? You may trust these other nations, but I do not, and yet I am not calling for armed conflict against these countries. Heck, why is it alright for us to have this technology? You are trying to justify your irrational fears toward Iran, yet you are evading these fundamental questions.
It is not enough to call for war because you are scared; your fears should not become my problem.
LikeLike
TB,
So what are the possible, probable, and ethical solutions?
I don’t get why I am supposed to be the bad person here. Why don’t you try to persuade me, rather than beating me over the head?
LikeLike
“I don’t get why I am supposed to be the bad person here.”
You seem to be missing the point:
This is not personal nor there is “bad” and “good” here; this isn’t a fairy tale, it is real life. Iran is not a “bad” or “evil” country, regardless of its leader’s propaganda or what our pathetic President suggests they are planning to do.
The whole point is that you are giving nothing solid in the way of reasons for your argument, and in this instance, the burden of proof lies with you, not us, as you are the one calling for conflict.
LikeLike
Williams,
As I have said a number of times on this thread, I hold no particular views. I’m a big fan of the Iranian films “Children of Heaven” and “Leila.” In fact, my husband and I showed both to college students when we lived on campus. They’re both amazing films (although “Leila” can be slow)–sensitive, humane, subtle, etc. So I’m more favorable than not toward Iranian culture. Also, I studied Russian as a undergraduate and graduate, and the depiction of elite Iranian society in “Reading Lolita in Tehran” reminds me a lot of descriptions of Soviet kitchen culture in the 1970s–there was incredible cultural ferment among the Russian intelligentsia in the 1970s, but it was nearly all happening in private homes, rather than in official venues like universities. And as we know, the Soviet Union did not hold out very long after that. So that comparison is a very hopeful one, as long as you don’t carry it too far, since the Russians eventually experienced chaotic liberalization, cultural collapse, and gangsterism, followed by a renewed nationalistic repression kept afloat by petrodollars. So the parallel between Soviet Russia and Iran is two-edged–on the one hand the old order may be doomed, on the other hand, we may not like what will ultimately follow.
LikeLike
Again, Amy, you’re missing the point:
None of this should be about whether we “like” Iran’s culture or government.
Our only goal in dealing with other nations should be to trade peacefully with them. That is it. We should defend against attacks, but Iran has made no direct threats to that end nor do they currently have the capacity to attack us.
When we stray from these basics, we find ourselves in the current world situation: we are hated by many people for our imperialistic actions over the last century.
Iranians remember when the CIA helped British secret forces bring down the elected leader of Iran in 1953 in order to prevent said leader from nationalizing Anglo-Iranian Oil (now known as BP). With those actions, we helped restore the Shah of Iran, who, ironically enough, was the son of the Shah who supported Adolf Hitler during WW2. This was one of the reasons cited for the Hostage Crisis — they did not forget it.
We cannot continue to play this childish game of “good” and “bad” and help people we “like” while getting rid of the “evildoers.” The federal government of the Republic of the United States of America has no business changing the governments of other nations.
So let’s grow up, remove the sanctions (which are acts of war), and start acting like adults.
LikeLike
Williams,
I’m not sure how much the installation of the Shah is a black mark against the US, since life under the Shah was far preferable to life under Khomeini. Check out, by the way, the Shah’s 1963 “White Revolution” policies (the list is more or less verbatim from Wikipedia):
1. land reform and abolition of feudalism
2. nationalization of forests and pasturelands
3. privatization of government owned industry
4. profit sharing for workers in private industry
5. women’s suffrage
6. formation of Literacy Corps–draft duties could be discharged by joining
7. formation of Health Corps for villages
etc.
There are 19 points in the Wikipedia list, and they make the Shah sound like the Persian answer to FDR.
LikeLike
“I don’t get why I am supposed to be the bad person here. Why don’t you try to persuade me, rather than beating me over the head?”
Posted by: Amy P
Let’s see – first, war is bad. It’s to be done only if necessary, not because you don’t like somebody. And you’ve had two recent lessons in that – Iraq, and Afghanistan (otherwise known as Resurgent Talibanistan). So, in fact, you are a bad person.
Second, your contribution to this thread wasn’t persuasion, it was clearly unthinking advocacy of war. If you wish for war, perhaps persuading *us* is called for.
LikeLike
Sorry, for falling down in my umping duties. My computer was down for a couple of days.
Amy, this is a blood-boiling topic. You have to expect a certain amount of anger to the notion that bombing Iran is a good thing. Perhaps we could have had a level-headed, unemotional conversation about the merits of a strategic strike on Iran five years ago. Now, that is impossible. We have gotten ourselves into such a huge mess in Iraq that the thought of expanding the mess into neighboring states is so awful, so offensive, so counter-intuitive that the idea can’t be playfully batted about.
LikeLike
“I’m not sure how much the installation of the Shah is a black mark against the US, since life under the Shah was far preferable to life under Khomeini.”
Are you kidding me, Amy? Are you seriously going to justify a foreign coup by the US & UK that was overtly for oil? Are you seriously going to say that our removal of an elected leader of Iran was somehow justified?
And you have your history mixed up: Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq was the man who the US & UK tossed out, and if you read up on him, you would know that he was leaps and bounds ahead of both the Shah and Khomeini. (Coming from me, that’s saying a lot considering I am a staunch opponent of socialism.) After he was gone, the Shah increased his power over Iran, and all of these events eventually led to the 1979 Revolution, for which this coup was cited as a reason.
And as for your list, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t trust somebody who tries to justify imperialism with Wikipedia articles.
And, of course, you have missed my point once again: this should never be about what we “like” or “think is better” for anyone else. That’s not our place; we have no mandate, and I want no such mandate.
I’m going to end my participation in this thread with this last comment because I see no point in arguing with somebody who will justify such clearly unconstitutional, internationally illegal, morally repugnant, and imperialistic actions.
Laura is right on here, and my hope is that our next President has knowledge of history and respect for our Constitution.
LikeLike
Williams,
Of course I know that Khomeini came after the Shah. I was simply pointing out that the Western-imposed Shah had more than a few good points, especially when compared to the Khomeini regime that Iranians eventually imposed on themselves. If the West is responsible for creating an autocratic Iran, you should also give it credit for the Shah’s positive achievements and efforts. If you can prove that the White Revolution list from Wikipedia is incorrect, please post corrections and I will apologize. I checked women’s suffrage (1963) and that is certainly correct. I also checked out Iranian land reform, which apparently started in 1962. (Land reform provided allotments to huge numbers of people. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough land to go around, and the plots weren’t large enough for subsistence, and this naturally led to discontentment.) The Literacy Corps (1963) also checks out. Given that those three items check out, I’m assuming that the rest will too. But as I said, I will be more than willing to apologize if the Wikipedia White Revolution article list is erroneous.
I for one am opposed to the sort of historical discussion that assumes that all there is to world history is Western imperialists oppressing non-Westerners, with non-Westerners having no agency at all. I’m thinking that things are a bit more complicated than that, and that there are more players on the stage than that account allows for. (I’m thinking of Azar Nafisi’s account of the turbulent relations between the leftist Iranian nationalists and the Islamic Iranian nationalists during the Iranian Revolution.)
LikeLike
Williams,
One more thing. At the risk of sounding relativistic, “knowledge of history” is not that simple. There are many different ways of stringing together real historical facts and creating narratives out of them. For instance, there’s the narrative you have chosen: Imperialistic Western countries impose dictator on democratic Iran. But another narrative works just as well: Imperialistic Western countries impose dictator on democratic Iran, dictator pursues many worthwhile reforms (and repression, too), dictator is overthrown by more repressive elements, etc.
That’s a simple example, where the difference between the stories is just the addition of a few details. More difficult are the cases of “invisible” history, facts, persons, and incidents that are mostly ignored because they do not fit into the dominant historical frameworks. Being an American who became a Catholic as an adult, it has been very interesting to discover that there is a whole shadow American (and world) history that does not make it into public school text books or into mainstream public discourse. Just take for example the episode of the Ku Klux Klan in Oregon in the 1920s, which attempted to shut down Catholic schools and ensure that all children would go to public school. Or take for another example the mob arson of the Ursuline convent in Charlestown, MA in 1834.
I heartily agree that we should all know more history, but it’s really an endless task, and every time you shake the historical kaleidoscope you get a different picture.
LikeLike
Indeed there are cracks in the current Iranian regime. But I am skeptical that bombing Iran would do anything other than shore up the current regime, having precisely the opposite effect of what we desire. Look, for example, at the position of civil society groups in Iran. The US Congress has appropriated significant funds for their support, but few groups want US money, because they know that it would instantly discredit them and draw the attention of the government. It is a similar dilemma to the one we face in Russia and Belarus: US support undermines a group’s claim to authenticity and confirm the government script that democracy activists are just a CIA plot.
A bombing attack will strengthen the fanatics, who would now have a point to rally nationalist support around. It might feel vaguely satisfying to us to think that at last we have “done something”, but there is every reason to the believe that the “something” is at odds with our larger strategic interests.
My knowledge of Iranian history isn’t extensive, but in the beginning, the revolution had the support of many westernized intellectuals, who didn’t anticipate the radicalization that occurred. The Shah was widely hated and feared–and a broad swathe of Iranian society was very happy to see him gone. At least, until they realized what had replaced him. However, Khomeni would not have been possible without US meddling in the first place, and our ongoing military and political support for the Shah’s regime help to create the conditions for the revolution.
Finally, I hope that Laura will give me a free pass on Godwin’s Law here, but we should be wary of lauding the creation of a welfare state as proving that a nasty dictator wasn’t all so bad.
LikeLike
Arguably, Iran might be one of those cases (like pre-Revolutionary France or pre-Revolutionary Russia) where what precipitates revolution is not heightened repression, but the perceived weakness of the regime. 100% repressive regimes seem to have excellent staying power (see North Korea). (Communist Romania is a possible exception, it having been very repressive up until the end–but I don’t know enough to say.) From the Wikipedia list of White Revolution reforms, I suspect that the Shah made too many enemies all at the same time.
Godwin away! I haven’t made it much further into “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” but the introduction is brilliant. I think the Iranian situation is rather different because the Nazis were only able to create a lavish welfare state by looting most of Europe. In any case, I think that one has to address the list of reforms when deciding what kind of critter the Shah was and what his policies were, rather than treating him merely as some sort of bogeyman. Likewise, if we were discussing the nature of Soviet communism, I think it would only be fair to mention that (among other things) it created a really model educational system, in fact one that the US could learn a lot from.
LikeLike
Also, when I compared the Shah to FDR, I didn’t mean that as a compliment to the Shah. No, sirree.
LikeLike