The Worst of All Possible Worlds

As events move forward in Iran, the range of possible outcomes is narrowing. At this point, it seems highly likely that either the incumbent mullahs or their opponents will win a total victory. The regime will impose its will brutally, or it will collapse. Too many hopes have been betrayed and too many lives shattered to make it easy for the protests to dwindle as they have in the past, and the “Supreme Leader” can scarcely retreat or compromise after throwing his authority so conspicuously behind Ahmadinejad’s “reelection”.

Whichever of these outcomes the future holds, President Obama has positioned himself to make the least of it.

If the mullahs win, they will (at least for a time, though doubtless not for as long as they deserve) be international pariahs, and Barack Obama will be notable among Western leaders for not having condemned their misdeeds. Fairly or not, suspicion will cling to him: Did he want this result? Was he so eager to negotiate with the mullarchy, or so afraid of “instability”, that he felt no empathy with the opposition? The inevitable upshot will be severe damage to his personal reputation and, by extension, to America’s. Meanwhile, only a fanatasist will anticipate gratitude from Tehran.

But what if the other side prevails? Circumstances will then be fluid. The opposition includes disparate elements. Some, we may be sure, are perfectly happy with mullarchy, so long as they rather than their foes are in charge. At the other extreme are advocates of a Western-style democracy, such as many hoped for when the Shah was overthrown. There must be many shades of opinion in between.

In the ensuing conflict of visions, one fact will stand out: None of the victors will have any grounds to thank the United States. The protesters’ banners carry English slogans, in the obvious – so far vain – hope of arousing an American response. Mir Hussein Mousavi’s external spokesman has called for our overt moral support, likewise in vain. President Obama’s passivity will be a heavy cross (er, crescent) for the friends of constitutional democracy in Iran to bear. It is a gift to the forces that wish to change the personnel of the tyranny but not its nature or policies.

In short, whoever wins in Iran, the President’s strategy makes it probable that we lose.

I’m sure that the President has nothing but good intentions regarding Iran. Unhappily, his intentions are overmatched by his monumental bungling. Even his own Vice President and Secretary of State, it appears, are beginning to have doubts about this round of “smart diplomacy”. Rarely has a national leader been handed so promising a prospect and reduced it so rapidly to ashes.

Comments

[pbh]

“Surely the strange bedfellows are the assorted leftists, paleoconservatives and Islamofascists who think that tyranny, oppression and fraud are, ahem, a “normal and healthy development”.”

You are rapidly running out of allies in your pathetic partisan attack on the President:

George Will: “The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don’t need that reinforced.”

Peggy Noonan: “To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous, . . . “the ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week.”

Now, I will grant you, I also consider these two paleoconservatives, but, hey, all conservatives are paleo in my book.

pbh

[Tom Veal]

There are moments, I must say, when Mr. Hodges overtops himself.

I am, as should be obvious to the meanest intelligence, all for “meddling” in Iran’s affairs. Mr. Hodges, Pat Buchanan, the Mullarchy and (until this afternoon) Barack Obama are not. So that makes me a “bedfellow” with the mullahs? Surely the strange bedfellows are the assorted leftists, paleoconservatives and Islamofascists who think that tyranny, oppression and fraud are, ahem, a “normal and healthy development”.

[pbh]

"None of the victors will have any grounds to thank the United States."

My God, you are so invested in your partisanship that you are literally demanding that Obama do what the fascist mullahs are already falsely accusing him of doing. There really is something about fanatic conservatism that makes for strange bedfellows.

I offered a concept in the prior post that, as a fellow Science Fiction fan, I thought you might recall, but you appear to have chosen to ignore it. So, I'll make it plain:

"The Prime Directive:

"As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation."

The recent comparisons of Obama with Spock are proving apt. His Cairo speech looks more and more timely and effective as following events accumulate. His statement today that "the world is watching" had a nice lefty echo to it. Just the right touch, in my view.

Anyone truly interested in the growth of Iranian democracy should observe that the revolution, as always, is in the hands of the people and they will be stronger for it if they succeed.

And, if they succeed, which seems more likely with each passing day, they will find the United States a friendly partner in their democratic future.

For which we should all hope to be thankful.

pbh