Could the Pentagon’s strategy to “destabilize” the Iranian government in an attempt to institute regime change lead to a greater unity of the Shiite Muslims in the area? Possibly creating a sense of unity in the face of a mutual aggressor?
Will we force the kind of government they really want on them?
I would be willing to bet that our policy regarding Iran has strengthened the position of the mullahs, most especially Fearless Misleaders ham-fisted diplomacy in the “Axis of Evil” speech.
“Look! The Great Satan hates us! We must be doing something right!”
Nothing unifies people like an external theat. Which we thoughtfully provided. Damn, but we’re dumb!
I don’t understand your last sentence. Can you clarify?
As to your first question, seems like that’s happening now, without any destabilization in Iran. Witness the large Shiite demonstration in Iraq. A more democratic Iran, still keeping it’s Shiite sense of itself, would be better for the world than what is there now. And better for many Iranians, too.
I don’t think so. I’ve known quite a few Americans who have travelled to Iran and report back that, for the most part, the Iranians really do like the Americans. And from what I’ve read form reporters who have been there, many, if not most, would welcome efforts by their gov’t to forge closer ties to the US. THe “Great Satan” matra is from the mullahs, not the populace. It might harden their The mullah’s) stance, but I don’t think the people are behind them. If they were, the mullahs wouldn’t be so afraid of elections that might loosen their grip on the gov’t. Elected officials, as you well know, are still largely lacking in power relative to the clerics.
In the Wash Post there’s a report about how the Pentagon has decided to engage in active destabilization efforts in Iran. The State Dept is agin it, (again).
The last sentence was sort of a sarcastic one. I forgot my sarcastic smilie. Since regime change was mentioned for Iran, I thought we’ll be hearing about how Iranians don’t really want to live under the form of giv they have now. The kindly US would bomb them into the kind of gov that they “really want”.
From the cited WP article:
JM,
Do you think that the new position will push the populace’s position more in line w/ the mullahs?
Well Iran IS one of the most democratic countries in the middle-east, (yes, of course you do have the theorcratic elements competing against the reform elements). Also it seems like a very foolish thing to do, the whole reason why Iranians hate the US and the Ayatollah came to power was because of simlair such meddling by the US in the past.
Simon:
Interfering in the nternal affairs of other nations is very tricky business. How would we like if China decided to “destablilze” the US (if they haven’t already)? I’d hate to have to predict the outcome.
I really think that the best way to deal with them is to reward them for every step they take in the right direction. Encourage as much cultural exchange as possible, and generally mind our own business, while being wary of any possible hostile actions. The last time we fooled around in Iran, we got Khomeni as a result.
I think that destabilizing Iran an ass-backward idea myself.
I think the US’d be much better off engaging Iran in positive ways than the policy that is reportedly being advocated.
It seems to me that a greater influx of the good things of Western culture would lead to greater tolerance, understanding, cooperation, and other generally good things between the two countries.
Animosity has a tendency to breed animosity.
IMHO.
Here is an indepth report on the state of Iranian democracy (a few years old as it from the last Iranian election in 2000):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_election_news/627344.stm
I’ve been under the impression that Iran had one of the most functional democracies in the region.
The only way that I can picture the destbilization policy being sold to the general populace of the US is through an AQ link. I started a separate thread on that here.
Still, if the American public can believe that Hussein was personally involved in 9-11 maybe they can believ that Iran was behind Iraq.
Iran is already progressing towards a more democratic and free society; what porpouse serves destabilize that? Not a good one… not a good one, I´m affraid.
Let´s make a collect and buy some history books about Iran´s recent history for the genious behind this idea, shall we?
Please try to obviate the spelling mistakes because I couldn´t do it… :rolleyes:
Simon:
I am not an expert on Iran. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable will step in with some better info, but for what it’s worth, here’s my impression (gleaned from reading whatever I can get my hands on). Iran has the outward trappings of a democracy. Votes, a parliament, a Prime Minister, mayors, etc. But there also exists a parallel gov’t, or power structure consisting of the “clerics”. The clerics, in the end, have the say over legislation as well as which candidates are allowed on the ballots in the various nationaly elections. So, there are all these democratically elected officials, but they pretty much have to toe the line set by the clerics. I do get the impression that the more local the official, the more independent that official can be.
But you may be right. Other than Turkey and Israel, Iran might be one of the most democratic states in the region. Unfortunately, that’s not saying much…
Your not quite right John Mace, the elected officals to have a large say in running the country, the big problem is that you have two competing power bases one democratic the other theocratic but neither is strong enough to impose it’s power on the other.
Largely in the judiciary, of interest one may also note a disjoint between the politicized ‘clerics’ and the more traditional politically neutral clerics (generally more senior ironically or not). There appears to be a backlash growing within the clerical ranks against direct exercise of power. It was traditionally seen as demeaning, and it seems to be actual exercise is proving the traditional view correct.
Well, the best thing about Iran is the degree to which the institutions have “gone native” and the struggle for power is in some important ways, taking place within those institutions’ framework. This is more real democratic process than anyone outside of Israel perhaps, and maybe Turkey depending on one’s analysis.
I would differ with MC insofar as the conservative judiciary clearly can impose its will on the reformers, but then the reformers keep battling back with sentances being overturned etc. Moderate advantage to the conservatives, but not not unlimited.
It’s still difficult and costly for the Conservatives to impose their power on the reformers.
Also, just out of interest Iran’s president and leader of the reformers also happens to be an Ayatollah too.
Very good point: it is something of an error to contrast “reformers and democrats” with “clerics.” It does so happen, however, that most of the ‘clerics’ directly involved in politics are ‘conservative’ in regards to keeping direct clerical power.
Funny situation in all, and I do not see the Pentagon as having the sophistication required to handle such. Twas DoD that generated the cockamamie ideologically driven analyses in re post-Saddam Iraq that badly misunderstood the dynamics. Bloody idiots. (I should note in my experience the mil. intel folks on the ground here are rather more realistic.)
From my armchair, the reports that I can find lead me to believe this. Re Iraq: The Joint Chiefs and the CIA had some noticeably different ideas as to the correct course of action than the Pentagon. Even Bush1 had some different ideas as to how to go about things.
I had to cite these sources to fend off accusations of advocating a naive view of the situation. ( I am naive, but I don’t think that what I was saying was naive.)