What if Bush went to Tehran?
From my favorite global thinker
“>Thomas Barnett
NEWS: Students Cry Out for Freedom in Large Demonstration at Tehran University“Imagine what Air Force One touching down in Tehran might set off?
Indeed, that’s why I titled the original section in the Feb 05 article in Esquire: “Nixon Goes to Tehran.”
Going on the offensive in the Long War ain’t always about going kinetic, but it’s always about shaking things up and putting the other guy on his heels.
You know what happens when I’m losing? Getting embarrassed? Running out of options?
I crank up the confidence even higher and try another path, another window, another door.
And I do so with maximum offense in mind.
My regime is sound. Iran’s is not.
My economy’s humming. Iran’s is not.
My military is world class. Iran’s is not.
My future is bright. Iran’s is not.
Bush wastes our swagger and confidence on the worst things, like “stay the course,” when our options are many and our strengths profound.
Our biggest boots-on-the-ground asset is staring us in the face–the Iranian people.
If only Bush would cowboy up when it matters and where it matters, it’d be wheels down in Tehran later today.
Dr. Barnett is a realist. He thinks that we should be aggressively building alliances with the folks who have the power and resources.
China in particular.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
23 Responses to “What if Bush went to Tehran?”
The students who would organize such a demonstration are in jail (or at least enough of them to send a signal to the rest: don’t try this). If we could figure out a way to give voice to the educated young Iranians it would indeed be part of the solution, but this suggestion ignores the reality.
(I’m basing this on the summary because the link to Barnett’s article didn’t work.)
Dr Barnett is exactly right IMHO. I believe the changes in countries with authoritarian regimes including Russia and China in the last few decades have been due almost exclusively to their citizens’ desire for the affluence and freedoms they see in the West. The militarists always pretend it is the threat of our military might. Prior to this administration, the world image of the USA was overwhelmingly positive, so much so that these authoritarian regimes did everything they could to keep the news and images of life in the West out. Change happens from within, based on desires of the people. The incessant warlike stance of the US pushes these people into an easily manipulated nationalistic fervor.
Amen to that, but I think a lot of people are ignoring the degree to which Iranian public opinion is currently being suppressed. I would welcome a discussion of how we could influence that situation for the better, but suggestions that ignore the reality aren’t helpful IMO.
Give a mouse a cookie and he’ll want a glass of milk.
Give him a class of milk and he’ll want WTO membership.
In all seriousness, Tommy does bring up a good point, to paraphrase – “The Blue Jeans and MTV Method”. If we could somehow keep good face … Problem is, this administration has shown the foreign PR tact of a slightly charred pecan.
According to the polling reference in this link Americans are in favor of direct talks.
polling
Put a mouse in a cage and he will get what is given to him by his government, regardless of what he wants…
I can’t get the permalink to work for Thomas Barnett’s blog but here is the link for the Article about the Student Demonstration. It seems that it was peaceful and no obvious arrests.
Students Cry Out for Freedom in Large Demonstration at Tehran University
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235062,00.html
But Paul, that story also contained the following information:
I think any demonstration for freedom is promising
and indicates a much large pool of sympathy.
The point of my post was that If Bush went to Tehran it could be that catalyst for change.
Some background on the student situation in Iran.
In 2003, things were hopeful for internal reform in Iran. Times have changed.
Paul,
Catalysts work in some situations, not others. I don’t think present day Iran is a situation where the people need motivation for change, they need the means for it. A symbolic visit doesn’t provide that.
Let’s be careful here and not confuse pro-democracy with pro-west. Most of the young people in Iran do want more economic, personal and political freedoms. Many of them are secularist. Few of them don’t hate the west.
I saw a documentary a couple years ago about the student/reform movement and it was extremely interesting. The pro-reformists very much want to return Iran to its historical amount of global power and influence and one of their primary criticisms is that the Revolution destroyed that. They want nuclear and economic weapons to get the west to take them seriously.
In one very poignant part of the documentary they talked about how one of the leaders of the movement was arrested during demonstrations. (This was before the election of Khatemi, the reformist President that didn’t do much and thus destroyed many of the movement’s dreams). This caused an increase in demonstrations and so the government tried to “persuade” him to call for an end. He wouldn’t — despite beatings and threats against him and his followers family — until they told him that the USA had taken advantage of the situation to invade southern Iran. He apparently believed this and immediately called for an end to the demonstrations and loyalty to the government so all Iranians could repel the evil invader (the government just cut out the part about Iran being under attack).
Iranians are very highly educated and extremely proud, with a history of regional (and short lived global) dominance. If they do reform, they will become a powerful geopolitical foe and most likely ally with China and Russia to create a reemergence of the East. I’m not against this per se, but just wanted to point it out.
GreenDreams said:
Prior to George W. Bush, the USA was perceive to be so benevolent that Iran and North Korea started weapons-grade uranium enrichment in the 1990s.
The perception was so positive in fact that al Qaeada issued a 1998 fatwa condeming the U.S. support of Israel, U.S. military occupation of the Arabian Peninsula and U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
“Dr. Barnett is a realist. He thinks that we should be aggressively building alliances with the folks who have the power and resources.
China in particular”
………….
This to me is a morally bankrupt, not a “realist” Policy. We should be on the side of freedom, not align ourselves with tyrannies because they have the power and resources.
The mullahcratic regime in Tehran should be destroyed.
C Stanley
What do you suggest?
Laura,
For me being a realist is not about the ends but the means.
It seems to me the most effective way to promote freedom is through free markets that need the free flow of information. China and Russia are fittfully moving towards increasing openness. Sometimes two steps forward and one step back.
I believe that the most efficient way to achieve global stability is through constructive engagement.
It is not about the immediate gratification of force but a quiet faith in the inevitability of market forces.
Miltary intervention has its place but the harder we push the harder they resist.
I’ve been reading Barnett’s blog since you provided the first introduction to it. I also hope to read one or both of his books soon.
Laura
How many people have died at the hands of dictators actively supported by US Governments?
Some would point out to you that coddling dictators was an accepted part of US Foreign policy for years and still is today. I guess if I read your post correctly I can easily conclude what you are suggesting is that US Foreign has and still is morally bankrupt.
Would you agree?
Laura, please define “freedom”..thanks.
Paul,
I wish I knew what would help. It’s certainly interesting to speculate (as MvdG did in another post) on what will happen if Khameini really is ill and if he were to die, but I don’t really think we have any ability to influence the choice of his successor (nor should we, I’m just saying…)
I guess the only thing that can be done short of military intervention (which I oppose both on theoretical and practical grounds- we shouldn’t, and we can’t), is to keep up the international pressure. Which is why I’m more in the “don’t talk to Ahmedinajad” camp than the “talk to him” one. If there was some compelling reason to think that we’d be able to convince him that it was in his best interest to help stabilize a unified Iraq, I might feel differently. But given that I think that’s not going to happen, and the fact that giving recognition gives more legitimacy, I’m generally against such talks.
Mikkel,
Good point, and another reason that a visit from GWB would be unlikely to spur change in Iran.
If not talking to Iran works then I am all for it.
But that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I still ike the idea of getting the Sunnis to increase oil production and force the price of oil to go down for a while. Iran without oil income would be a different adversary.
Do you mean “works” in terms of keeping the pressure on the regime so that it doesn’t become even more hardline against internal dissent, or “works” in terms of helping our interests in Iraq? Those are two different questions, aren’t they? And on Iraq, I’m definitely with you in terms of finding new strategies when old ones aren’t working, but I’m not of the mind that this means we need to try ANYTHING else. I think any new options must be considered on their merits on a case by case basis, as to whether or not they would be likely to have any positive outcome (and weighinng the potential negative outcomes of trying such options)