Michael Young surveys the current political landscape of the Middle East and sees the Iranians on top; for the time being, at least.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
joe | December 13, 2007, 1:58pm | #
Given that the U.S. went to war in 1991 to prevent Iraq from imposing its hegemony in the Persian Gulf area, does it make sense to assume that Washington would readily allow a threatening Iran to do what the Iraqis failed to?Iraq invaded two of its neighbors in ten years.
Iraq hasn't started a single war in the past millennium.
For someone who claims to look down on realpolitik, Young certainly does prioritize nation-state power relations above stuff like how many people are getting killed.
Elemenope | December 13, 2007, 2:07pm | #
Joe --I'll grant that the states which have occupied Mesopotamia in succession for the past millennium or so haven't been particularly aggressive, I take that with a grain of salt. After all, the *regime* that currently constitutes the state is only almost three decades old, and they are very different in goals and temperament than their predecessor, as they in turn were different than theirs.
I agree that Iran is no aggressor state (in the traditional sense), but just am less sanguine about ancient history being an appropriate guide for that determination.
Alan Vanneman | December 13, 2007, 2:15pm | #
Michael Young wants desperately for the USA to bring secular democracy to the Middle East. I'm sorry, but the future of the Middle East is going to be decided by the people who live there, not by the people who live here. We will have spent a trillion dollars in Iraq in the past five years for the privilege of spending another trillion dollars in Iraq over the next ten years. Do we really want to invade Iran as well?Elemenope | December 13, 2007, 2:23pm | #
And by Mesopotamia I meant, er, Persia.anon | December 13, 2007, 2:23pm | #
Michael Young wants desperately for the USA to bring secular democracy to the Middle East.Wrong. Michael Young wants pro-US governments in the middle east. He has no interest in democratic elections. I didn't see him cheer when the Palestinians held election that were won by Hamas.
Joe: Anglo-Persian war. 150 years is good stretch but a bit shy of a millennium. Click handle for link.
Michael, have you ever considered why the Iranians are advisaries? Could it be the decades the of the Shah's vicious rule instigated and supported by the U.S.? Or the the invasion by Iraq with the encouragement of Washington (resulting in 1 million Iranian casualties). The shooting down of a Iranian civilian airliner in 1988 with NO apology from the first Bush administration? How about invading two countries on its borders with at best, questionable legality? Or the American support of armed guerilla groups within Iran fighting their government? Just a few questions to ask before characterizing that country as an enemy.
joe | December 13, 2007, 2:36pm | #
Rakune and Elemenope are right.I should have limited my comments to the existing regime, since that's what we're talking about.
karlhedderich | December 13, 2007, 3:19pm | #
I am so happy to see people making these comments. when i was reading the article it smacked of poor analysis of the parties motivations and unexplained assumptions.Brian Sorgatz | December 13, 2007, 3:21pm | #
Let's not forget the influence of Bush's bad publicity as the lamest duck in the history of American lame ducks. Hobbesian logic will probably slow (but probably not stop) Iranian saber-rattling in response to the U.S.'s moment of (relative!) geopolitical weakness.Honestly, if you just take a good look at the history of the past 70 years of the United States as well as the history of every major empire the results are the same. Those nations they label as 'evil' or 'enemy' are usually the ones which they are oppressing the most.
edna | December 13, 2007, 6:05pm | #
Could it be the decades the of the Shah's vicious rule instigated and supported by the U.S.?compare and contrast the horrible oppression of the masses by the shah with today's open, free, and tolerant government. you make an excellent point.
Ken Shultz | December 13, 2007, 7:02pm | #
"I didn't see him cheer when the Palestinians held election that were won by Hamas."I'm not convinced that an electoral victory for Hamas is a victory for democracy.
I'm trying to imagine Hamas losing an election and taking its place with the loyal opposition and I just can't. ...it's not as if thoroughly undemocratic parties have never won elections in the past, you know?
Ebeneezer Scrooge | December 14, 2007, 4:34am | #
A dialogue over what?It would start with Iraq, and how Iraq is going to get stablized.
It would probably end just about there.
The fact that politically the Republicans need a stablized Iraq was the whole point of the NIE release in the first place. Decriminalize the Iranians, and it's a lot easier to sit down and talk to them.
American policy in the region suffers from a lack of ideas.
American policy has lacked ideas since at least the end of WWII.
And the fact that our "policy" did not "lack ideas" then, had more to do with our enemies making it easy for us, than it did with our government possessing any sort of innate brilliance.
what is the U.S. doing about Iran's alliance with Syria, and their joint patronage of Hamas and Hizbullah?
What should the US be doing about it? Unless we really do intend to prevent Iran from conquering the region because we want to do that ourselves.
The Bush administration has spent much less money than Iran in Lebanon, and has not pressed its wealthier Arab allies to make up for the deficit.
Ah, now we get to the gist of it....
thanks to parochial politicking, the U.S. government has been denied a valuable stick with which to defend its interests in the Middle East.
Precisely what "interests" does the US have in the region, if it has no ideas about the region?
I mean ideas that rise above cave man mentality, like, "ugh, me want oil, ugh."
In spite of the criticism he gets around here, I often like Michael Young's articles anyway, just because he's got a different perspective and I learn from it. But this time, it sounds like he should have just come out and said "The US isn't saving Lebanon and that really sucks the big one."
AlA | December 14, 2007, 9:17am | #
" Nothing suggests the Iranians have reached that stage yet. "The american's haven't reached that stage yet either.
joe | December 14, 2007, 11:08am | #
Young's article demonstrates something I've suspected for a long time: neoconservatives hate diplomacy because they suck at it, because they don't know what it is.Young's response to calls for dialogue is to refer to them as calls for "appeasement" or being more "concilliatory." These people literally do not understand that diplomacy can be as aggressive or accommodating as the diplomats make it. They just assume that "diplomacy" means "completely caving."
See the recent neoconservative-negotiated deal with India about its nuclear program. They gave away the store, because that's what they thing diplomacy is.
George | December 14, 2007, 3:29pm | #
Mr. Young,If the US and France aren't going to help Lebanese moderates why don't you turn to the one democracy that can help you - Israel?
It's only blind Arab nationalism that prevents you from seeing who your real allies are.
TrickyVic | December 14, 2007, 4:23pm | #
"""Young's article demonstrates something I've suspected for a long time: neoconservatives hate diplomacy because they suck at it, because they don't know what it is."""Do it my way or I'll kick your ass!!!! Isn't that diplomatic enough? ;-)
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?
Roque Nuevo | December 15, 2007, 8:57am | #
Michael Young criticizes democrats for demanding dialog with Iran. Don't they know that the dialog has been proceeding for months now in spite of everything? I'm sure the democrats do know, but are exploiting the public's ignorance as a political opportunity. This will come back and bite them once the dialog becomes more public.The main topic of the dialog is of course stabilizing Iraq. We are stymied by them, they are stymied by us. We both have legitimate interests in Iraq. Yes, in spite of the evil of the Iranian regime, that nation still has legitimate interests. They have had these interests for a thousand years and more.
Young is right that those who simply want to sprinkle a little dialog powder on the problem are misguided; but he's also wrong to condemn power politics. As long as we're projecting our power, we'll be engaged in power politics. It's a fact of life. The only way to avoid it is by not projecting our power. I don't think that Young would advocate our turning into Canada.