| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Gerecht: Bush has lost his nerve |
| 2006-07-14 |
| So what do we do? We can certainly try to support the democracy movement and dissidents in Iran more aggressively. But this is going to be an enormously difficult task even under the best of circumstances. Detest the ruling clergy as they may, Iran’s young men still appear unwilling in any significant number to meet the regime on the streets. Although Iran’s growing democratic culture is unlikely to be stopped, and it’s pro-American disposition is unlikely to change unless Washington goes Scowcroftian and seeks to placate Tehran, a militant, dictatorial Islam remains strong among the country’s ruling elite. And the circumstances in Washington aren’t propitious. The CIA hates pro-democracy covert action (it’s difficult, requires a level of knowledge and linguistic skill which is beyond today’s clandestine service, and is always politically problematic in Washington). The State Department doesn’t like it either, and doesn’t trust the CIA to undertake such action (an astute judgment call on State’s part). And many European officials are equally queasy about such things, seeing them as counterproductive to the spirit of dialogue and the undying European hope that the US will make some “grand bargain”--which means any serious democracy-promotion inside Iran is verboten. The Bush administration ought to begin a crash course in covert and overt Iranian democracy-promotion, firing all those in the bureaucracies who seek to sabotage the mission. But this isn’t going to happen. Although a sense of urgency about Iran is growing in Washington, the administration has not--despite occasional rhetoric from the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State--been shocked into much action. As with so many other major foreign-policy issues, the Bush administration, worn out by Iraq, is operating on momentum, capable only of continuing the logic of policies from the first term. It does not want to see the Iranian train wreck ahead of it. The administration is pushing an approach that it really doesn’t believe will work, but it doesn’t want to break from the process since that, among other things, will inevitably force the administration to have the great Iran debate: Is it better to preventively bomb the clerics’ nuclear facilities or allow the mullahs to have nuclear weapons? And if the administration were to acquiesce to the clerical bomb, it would, of course, empower its worst enemies in Tehran and spiritually invigorate all Muslim radicals who live on American weakness. The United States and the Europeans have now aligned “the West” against the regime in Tehran. Acquiesce and the revolutionary hard core triumphs. We will whet their appetites, externally and internally. As Iranian society continues to sheer away from the ruling elite, that elite has kept its radicalism, especially among the diehards raised in the Revolutionary Guards, like Ahmadinejad. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #8 And the prom is coming up very very soon... :) |
| Posted by: Ebbinetle Uninemp2325 2006-07-14 22:56 |
| #7 Let's try an analogy here. Iran is a zit. A big old nasty puss filled pimple. Now I realize it may have been awhile since your average Rantburger has had to contend with one of these, but I know you've all been there. When excising a zit, you don't just rush in and try and pop the thing. Odds are you'll displace most of the puss further under the unbroken skin and end up with an even nastier mess. What you need to do is carefully lance the bastard with a sterile implement, selectively determine the best vantage points, then slowly apply increasing pressure until until the infected material is forcibly removed. Gerecht is a smart guy, but he doesn't know what he's talking about on this one. Regarding Iran, the administration has all the focus and concentration of a teenager getting ready to remove a major blemish. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2006-07-14 22:50 |
| #6 Gerecht is presuming he knows all the facts, everything that the Bush Administration knows - and more, since they're fumbling the ball in his view. Bullshit. All of these handwringing exercises have that massive presumption in common. Who do I believe? This guy or Bush? LOL. |
| Posted by: Ebbinetle Uninemp2325 2006-07-14 21:26 |
| #5 Iran is a tough nut to crack, and the US wants to get all of our ducks in a row before we give it a go. We are using this interlude to make all kinds of diplomatic preparations, and to rebuild our depleted stocks of weapons, and to procure ASAP the new defensive and offensive weapons we will be needing. This just plain takes time, even at full steam. The White House and Pentagon have been quiet as heck because they are so busy. Clinton's White House produced daily hubbub, because it wasn't doing anything important or useful. Notice you haven't heard anything out of Condi Rice for the longest time? Even with her IQ, she must be pushed to the limit calculating out what's next. Remember also that if we attack Iran, we are going to try damn hard to keep our own casualties to a bare minimum. That raises degree of difficulty in planning by a factor of 10. Ideally, Bush is creating a situation in which the Iranians will defeat themselves by doing something incredibly stupid and weak, right when we are ready to pounce. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-14 17:25 |
| #4 Whatever their failings, the Bush administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice) is NOT stupid, and certainly does not lack confidence. If they are not 'doing something' in Iran, that is not why. Either they don't think it is the right thing to do right now, or they are doing something but you don't see it, or they CAN'T do something because existing politics and law don't support it. Americans don't want a war, and won't support one unless and until they get another Pearl Harbor or 9-11 (or worse). |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-07-14 17:25 |
| #3 CA, Bush said that US will not let mullahs have it. I think he meant it. The apparent inaction may have some good reasons. 1. Bush knows that there is no way Iran can be convinced to forget about the nukes. The diplomacy is, to a large degree, a sideshow, from the POV of US administration. It may net allies in the military sense, but US is not counting on it. What Bush is essentially seeking is a tacit agreement from Uropeons, so that when the time comes, they won't go apeshit. By now, it has to be clear to Uros that the diplomacy avenue has been an abyssmal failure. And that has been the primary goal of this whole exercise. 2. There is no need to advertise what course of action US will take, specifically, to denny nukes to mullahnazis. Remember NYT. I think I don't need to elaborate on this point. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-07-14 17:13 |
| #2 This is only July 2006. Bush's second term isn't even half over yet. Stay tuned. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-07-14 17:00 |
| #1 Bush has been a second term bust except for the two Supremes he brought on (although he needed some prodding with respect to Harriett Meyers). He continues to relinquish Presidential powers to the Judiciary and Congressional branches, particularly a president's war powers. The continuous leaks and MSM publication of same has not resulted in any preventative result. It appears Bush took the 2004 Democratic position that we need to consult more with our "allies" and thereby pretend we are taking action. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-07-14 16:38 |