Thursday, June 18, 2009

Man, It's Hard to Figure Out What's Going on in Iran ...   [Andy McCarthy]

when so many smart people are in such deep disagreement. Danielle Pletka and Ali Alfoneh penned an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday arguing that Ahamdinejad and the Republican Guard had effectively carried out a coup d'etat, shifting the country from an Islamic to a military dictatorship. That seemed a strange assessment to me on a number of levels — suggesting divides where I doubt they exist between the IRGC and Khamenei, and between Ahamadinejad (the guy who had the streets widened to prepare for the Madhi's coming) and radical Islam. 

On his blog, Michael Ledeen describes this assessment as "incredibly silly," and provides a starkly different analysis: The regime (i.e., the mullahs and the IRGC) determined to crush a rebellion still growing strong — with "the most powerful leaders in Iran . . . facing a life or death showdown." Michael elaborates with this dire picture: "Both Khamenei and Mousavi — the two opposed icons of the moment, at least — know that they will either win or die. After nightfall, millions of revolutionaries chant from their rooftops 'Allah is Great' and they are chants of defiance hurled at the Islamic Republic. I cannot imagine a soft landing."

Then there is the American end of this equation. A lot of commentary (including some on the Corner) surmising that Obama the "realist" has made up his mind to stay on the sidelines, holding to his mulish determination to "engage" the mullahs, and therefore taking no steps to undermine their legitimacy. I agree with that, but then there's the rationale offered for Obama's posture (by Rich and seeming accepted by Michael Rubin) : He thinks the central imperative is to stop Iran from getting nukes, and building on his overtures to the regime — so the argument goes — is the key to that goal. With due respect, I find that unpersuasive. I think the Obama administration is resigned to Iran's getting nuclear weapons and has no intention of doing anything meaningful to stop that from happening. From a political standpoint, Obama's goal is to look like he's making efforts to bring Iran around on nukes while concurrently inuring our country to the idea that the Iranian nuke is an inevitability — so that when this self-fulfilling eventuality comes to pass he won't take too much of a hit in the polls.

Considerations of Islamic ideology have been discouraged in this country since 9/11 — lest we detect a nexus between Muslim doctrine and Muslim terror. Consequently, there is general ignorance about the Islamic political program (Islam is not just a religion, it is a comprehensive socio-political program). But for a few nettlesome differences (like equality for women and hostility to homosexuals), the Islamic political program — especially the totalitarian version regnant in the Islamic Republic of Iran — is something the American Left would be very comfortable with. Obama understands this, and I think it is a better explanation for his solicitude toward Khamenei than any hope of reversing Iran's nuclear ambitions.

06/18 08:03 AMShare