New at Reason
In a feature story from our October issue, Michael J. Totten reports from the coming Iranian revolution.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Mr. Obvious | September 19, 2007, 1:04pm | #
I think this will happen about a month after Ron Paul is sworn in as president.Justin Raimondo | September 19, 2007, 1:06pm | #
More "regime change" propaganda from the Unreasonoids. What's next: General Petraeus on the Wonders of the Surge?Very interesting. However I'm not sure if the situation Abadi is wanting is wise. It may produce a divided Iran at war with each other similar to what's happened in Iraq. That would be a huge problem for the invasion force and it would take years to resolve. America does not need another Iraq situation. Nor do we need greater instability in the Mid-East.
The future question is will General Petraeus lead the surge in Teran.
PeeDub | September 19, 2007, 1:27pm | #
Wow. This is simply one of the most interesting articles I've ever read at Reason.com.And this article is definitely not pro-invasion.
Where are all the editorials, demonstrations and UN resolutions for a Kurdish homeland? Oh yeah, that would run counter to the wishes of the Arabs, Persians and Turks. It's not like they're Jews or anything.
rho | September 19, 2007, 1:37pm | #
It's a very interesting assertion that Islamic law isn't very popular once it's implemented. If true--and I believe that it is, except as a marginally better solution to some other oppressive regime--it puts lie to the claim that all Muslims are looking to convert the world by the sword to sharia.Of course, a lot of people know that already, but Totten is well-respected among the "warbloggers", so maybe this new thought for them will be the thin edge of the wedge.
joe | September 19, 2007, 1:43pm | #
1. Turkic Azeris. Not Turkish Azeris.2. I remember reading about how different Iraq was, too, before that war. Iraq was a ripe target for regime change because IT was so very advanced, compared to its neighbors.
thoreau | September 19, 2007, 1:57pm | #
It is a fascinating article, and I admire the guy for being brave enough to enter a compound of armed rebels.I'm sure Iran is ripe for change. But that's not the same as being ripe for invasion.
Brandybuck | September 19, 2007, 2:00pm | #
More "regime change" propaganda from the Unreasonoids. What's next: General Petraeus on the Wonders of the Surge?With due respect, Michael Totten isn't advocating a policy of intervention in order to create (or hasten) regime change. He may have advocated forms of interventionism in other articles, but not in this one. He's just giving us the skinny on the Iran internal situation. Mr. Totten is one of the few western reporters that understands the Middle East culture, and we would all do well to pay attention to his reporting, even if we do disagree with an occasional editorialization on his part.
BakedPenguin | September 19, 2007, 2:06pm | #
One fact in the "anti" column is the election of Ahmedinejad. If the mullahs are that unpopular, how does someone like him get elected? Fraud?thoreau | September 19, 2007, 2:11pm | #
Ahmadinejad's election is actually a bit of a complicated matter.First, reformers in the mold of Khatami were largely excluded in 2005, or else marginalized, making it hard for them to get votes.
Second, Ahmadinejad ran against a "good old boy" and he ran on a platform of redistribution. Yes, he has his own ties to elements of the ruling elite, but he ran against an establishment politician and he promised to redistribute oil wealth that the ruling elite controls. So it's arguable that voter frustration with the ruling elite was a factor in his election, and it wasn't entirely about hawkishness and religious fundamentalism.
Of course, in office Ahmadinejad has devoted himself to hawkishness and religion, but the point is that his actions after the election do not necessarily reflect the sentiments of the electorate in summer of 2005.
Rattlesnake Jake | September 19, 2007, 2:13pm | #
I wish Bush would leave Iran alone and let the Iranian people take care of the Mullahs.thoreau | September 19, 2007, 2:15pm | #
Let's put it this way: Suppose that theocrats controlled most of America's natural resources, and the American people voted for a crazy guy who promised to redistribute some of the money that the theocrats were taking. Would anybody interpret that election as a sign of a pro-theocrat public?If the crazy guy behaved differently once in office, would that change the fact that the public was in an anti-theocrat mood at the time of the election?
matthew hogan | September 19, 2007, 2:19pm | #
"Mr. Totten is one of the few western reporters that understands the Middle East culture, and we would all do well to pay attention to his reporting,. . ."First -- there is no "THE Middle Eastern culture".
And no, he's naive for the most part but here he is trying to catch on a little better, and the whole tone is: it might be right to invade on one hand or maybe not on the other hand -- like a Cathy Young article.
It's suggesting but not advocating. TO his credit, he does get somewhat more informed than the average warblogger-type.
But I love this: "Iraq’s tribal and medieval culture, the brutality, the lawlessness, revenge—Iraq was very primitive and still is, apart from Kurdistan."
Kurdistan is a contender in the region for championship title in the area of "honor killings" of females.
http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1980
Totten's a simpleton but far better than the worst.
BakedPenguin | September 19, 2007, 2:28pm | #
thoreau - thanks, I'd heard about, but forgotten, the economic populism policy planks.Happy Jack | September 19, 2007, 2:32pm | #
Thanks matthew. I was laughing so hard I couldn't see through the tears to reply. I still remember his amazement that they had supermarkets over there, "with Red Bull!"wsdave | September 19, 2007, 2:46pm | #
"Of course, in office Ahmadinejad has devoted himself to hawkishness and religion, but the point is that his actions after the election do not necessarily reflect the sentiments of the electorate in summer of 2005."You mean politicians would make promises they have no intention of keeping, just to get elected? Say it ain't so.
To bad these guys don't live in America, where that never happens.
robc | September 19, 2007, 3:06pm | #
Iraq was a ripe target for regime change because IT was so very advanced, compared to its neighbors.It worked. In Kurdistan. Of course, if Nixon had just made them the 51st state as they offered, all these problems could have been avoided. We would have just had a different set instead.
shecky | September 19, 2007, 3:06pm | #
Totten always strikes me as a honest, but credulous writer who conjures wonderful stories about the Middle East. Despite his wide travels throughout the area and associations with so many people of the region, I can never quite shake the feeling that he's somehow managed to misread his surroundings in some small, yet crucial way.joe | September 19, 2007, 3:22pm | #
robc,We didn't change the regime in Kurdistan.
They developed their own democracy, all by themselves, during the 1990s. Without Uncle Sam having to take over their country and show them how to behave at all.
Exactly, wsdave. We can't assume that Ahmadinejad's actions in office reflect the attitudes of the people who voted for him (or against Rafsanjani) in 2005.
TrickyVic | September 19, 2007, 3:36pm | #
"""I wish Bush would leave Iran alone and let the Iranian people take care of the Mullahs."""And miss an opprotunity to give President Hillary Clinton more problems to deal with? Not a chance.
Brandybuck | September 19, 2007, 3:44pm | #
First -- there is no "THE Middle Eastern culture".Of course there isn't. Likewise, there isn't any Western European culture either. But we use those glommings as a shorthand. I will try to avoid it in the future, though.
To his credit, he does get somewhat more informed than the average warblogger-type.Which is largely what I meant. I know next to nothing about the cultures in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Pakistan, etc, etc. (and all their myriad subcultures, factions, and yes, even individuals), but compared to the average reporter "embedded" in a greenzone hotel, he's a fricken genius.
If you read the average non-Totten article, you would think that the Middle East (as a region, not a culture) consists of only Shiites and Sunnis. Heck, many reporters don't even realize that Iran isn't an Arab nation.
I don't care whether Iranians choose to let mullahs or rodeo clowns govern them, and I'm certainly not about to countenance an invasion in order to make the choice for them. This article, whatever its faults, makes it pretty clear (and not the first I've seen), that the mullahocracy is basically just another kleptocracy but with goofy hats and ugly robes.
BakedPenguin | September 19, 2007, 4:17pm | #
If you read the average non-Totten article, you would think that the Middle East (as a region, not a culture) consists of only Shiites and Sunnis.And even that is an improvement over the average article a few years ago.
BakedPenguin | September 19, 2007, 4:21pm | #
Oh, and it looks like the Syrians just killed another Lebanese MPChris S. | September 19, 2007, 4:23pm | #
If you read the average non-Totten article, you would think that the Middle East (as a region, not a culture) consists of only Shiites and Sunnis. Heck, many reporters don't even realize that Iran isn't an Arab nation.Totten isn't immune to similar charges. In fact, he comes off as incredibly naive. He appears to assume that the will of a few ex-patriots is a fair representation of the will of "Iranians" in general. At the very least, his article takes statements by Komala exiles about "the people of Iran" at face value, e.g., the Komala official's statement that "[t]he people of Iran are thinking politically. The people have had many bad experiences since the 1979 revolution. They want the American people to topple the regime..." In response to this invasion, which would presumably put Komala into power (convenient, no?), Totten muses that "[h]e did not only mean that the Kurds of Iran want a war, as the Kurds of Iraq wanted a war. He also meant most Persians want an invasion." Oh? And I happen to know that "the American people," not just the small group loyal to me, want a revolution that puts me, personally, in power. This is all particularly odd in light Totten’s repeated reminders that the Iranian people are not a monolithic, homogenous group. Why doesn't bother connecting the painfully obvious dots here?
Anyway, I didn't particularly like the original Iraqi flavor of Chalabi, and I'm not convinced that Totten has discovered anything more than Chalabi 2.0.
vanyava | September 19, 2007, 4:28pm | #
I can never quite shake the feeling that he's somehow managed to misread his surroundings in some small, yet crucial way.Well, he mostly just visits these places, doesn't live there. As far as I know, he's only spent significant time in Lebanon. Also he neither speaks nor reads any of the local languages so by necessity Totten either learns via a translator, or (a common trap for Westerners)he makes friends with English-speaking Westernized locals. Totten thus tends to assume that the views of these people are representative of a large portion of the population, when in reality these Westernized Middle Easterners are often very marginalized people in the context of their own culture. But for all that, he really does make an effort, he does have fresh angles and explores issues other reporters ignore, and his "gosh, gee whiz" attitude can be a refreshing break from the cynicism so prevalent in most of the reporting profession.
tk | September 19, 2007, 4:28pm | #
"We didn't change the regime in Kurdistan.They developed their own democracy, all by themselves, during the 1990s. Without Uncle Sam having to take over their country and show them how to behave at all."
Nope, no regime change there - just a Giant Protective Bubble called "The No Fly Zone".
Kind of a cool experiment in allowing people to determine their own destiny without coercion.
JBinMO | September 19, 2007, 5:18pm | #
It's good to know that only 51% of Iranians are presians. In the event of an invasion I can now call a bookie and get money down on another sectarian war.K.T. | September 19, 2007, 9:14pm | #
Wow. This is simply one of the most interesting articles I've ever read at Reason.com.Ditto... I'm not much for sending Internet articles to people, but I forwarded this to most of my "well-read" friends and colleagues. A great piece of journalism.
Michael J. Totten | September 19, 2007, 9:45pm | #
Interesting discussion. Thanks, everyone, for reading.I would like to respond to a couple of points without intruding too much here.
Happy Jack: I still remember his amazement that they had supermarkets over there, "with Red Bull."
You do not "remember" my amazement at this, you are hallucinating it. I've spent way too much time in third world countries, and in the Middle East in particular, to be amazed at a supermarket.
Chris S.: his article takes statements by Komala exiles about "the people of Iran" at face value
Some of his statements, yes, if they credibly line up with what else I have heard and read. Others, no. From the article: "Mohtadi could be wrong. Maybe he’s talking about a minority that looks to him like a majority. Perhaps his analysis is slightly deceitful, a little self-serving. These things happen. We know how inaccurate Ahmed Chalabi’s rosy predictions about post-Saddam Iraq turned out to be."
R C Dean | September 19, 2007, 10:34pm | #
I wish Bush would leave Iran alone and let the Iranian people take care of the MullahsWhat exactly is Bush doing to prevent the Iranian people from doing just that?
Happy Jack | September 19, 2007, 11:27pm | #
You do not "remember" my amazement at this, you are hallucinating it. I've spent way too much time in third world countries, and in the Middle East in particular, to be amazed at a supermarket.Hallucination
What I think they don't understand is that what's normal in the Middle East somehow amazes (and comforts) people who have never been here.
Jack's been in the happy juice again - and it ain't Red Bull.
Michael J. Totten | September 20, 2007, 12:23am | #
Happy Jack,I see where the misunderstanding is, and it's at least as much my fault as yours. Other people, not me, found grocery stores in Dokuk, Iraq, amazing, and I knew that before I went there.
Michael Yon, for example, when he visited Dokuk after spending months covering the Battle of Mosul.
"Once in Dohuk, American soldiers removed helmets and body armor, and carried only their weapons. The commander set them free, with orders to return later that day. I walked with some soldiers to a department store where we passed by the kiddie rides outside. The storefront may well have been in Colorado Springs, or Munich. There were big push-carts for the adults, and little carts for the children.
Inside the store was a grocery section, where the people smiled, fresh canteloupes smelled sweet, the apples were red and green and yellow. There were oranges, bananas, and more. Nearly half a year had passed since I had seen such things."
I had that in mind when I took a picture of the grocery store. I lived in Beirut at the time, where grocery stores are mundane and uninteresting.
If I casually mention Starbucks in Beirut, for example, almost everyone I know is amazed that they have Starbucks. I'm not, I see such things in the Middle East all the time, but lots of Americans picture a vast Afghanistan-like region. I do what I can to show the normal stuff and break down that stereotype because it annoys me.
Michael J. Totten | September 20, 2007, 12:25am | #
Also, Jack, that sentence you quoted: What I think they don't understand is that what's normal in the Middle East somehow amazes (and comforts) people who have never been here.I lived in the Middle East when I wrote that and obviously did not (and do not) fall into the category of people who had never been there.
matthew hogan | September 20, 2007, 12:32am | #
I think Happy J has made his point, but he left out this:"So I took pictures of the grocery store. It’s not all burkhas, camels, and caves out here."
Good Lord.
Thanks for sharing.
matthew hogan | September 20, 2007, 12:36am | #
Actually I am being too harsh as I did something similar by sending a Hard Rock Cafe postcard from Dubai and elicited that type of reaction from recipients. Deliberately.But I suppose it shows the state of mind of the readership back here that things like that need to be said or done.
Still, praising Kurds as less traditional and tribal may be a bit premature . . .
Timon19 | September 20, 2007, 10:49am | #
Matthew, you were at the Hard Rock in Dubai, too?Terrible food, but I got to see an autographed single of Faith No More's "Epic" signed by Patton.
And a guitar from the same band.
I've had similar experiences in eliciting such reactions, intentionally or not. Have you ever seen the malls in the UAE in November/December?
Talk about a cognitive dissonance check.
I'm amused by the commenters dismissing Totten as "naive" when it's more likely than not that they've never traveled to those regions. How many of you have been to Iraq or Lebanon? Met with Peshmerga or anti-mullah communists? Somehow, reading a few articles in the Economist or the Nation makes you a better expert than Totten.
dianainsa | September 20, 2007, 2:30pm | #
"Naive" and "war-blogger" are not accurate descriptors for Michael Totten or his writings. I see no evidence of a stated agenda either, perhaps those comments more accurately represent his readers innate bias.After reading this article I am left with the realisation that there seems to be no shortage of ill-advised alliances for the United States to make.
Clearly the current lunatic in charge cannot be allowed to develop an atomic weapon, but how to proceed is more complex than most of us realise.
matthew hogan | September 20, 2007, 8:12pm | #
I'm amused by the commenters dismissing Totten as "naive" when it's more likely than not that they've never traveled to those regions.Traveled and even lived there and known intimately people from there for decades. Met people of all stripes. And do read the Economist. Mostly jeer at the Nation but it's tragic that even they can make more sense (or less nonsense) these days on foreign affairs than many of the people I supported for office and are in it.
Also, at some points, if you apply the principle that human nature is universal, some things should set off innate skepticism, including wide-eyed responses to "the exotic."
What a wonderful article! My only regret is that the author did not say anything about the effects of Tehran becoming a nuclear power on the ability of the current regime to survive or prosper.