Kevin Sullivan

Cornering Quds

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

The U.S. is prepared to announce a new list of unilateral sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. NYT has the story:

The immediate legal consequence of designating the Quds unit as a terrorist organization would be to make it unlawful for anyone subject to United States jurisdiction to knowingly provide material support or resources to it, according to the State Department. Any United States financial institution that becomes aware that it possesses, or has control over, funds of a foreign terrorist organization would have to turn them over to the Treasury Department.

Because Iran has done little business with the United States in more than two decades, the larger point of the designation would be to heighten the political and psychological pressure on Iran, administration officials said, by using the designation to persuade foreign governments and financial institutions to cut ties with Iranian businesses and individuals.

As the article notes, the sanctions will probably have a limited effect on the Revolutionary Guard. We’ve had little to no economic cooperation with the republic since 1979, and it might prove difficult to actually freeze IRGC activity.

But it does create a couple of possibilities:

1. It sends a message to the Russians and the Chinese. Both nations are fighting the U.S. on more multilateral UN sanctions, so the White House is making it clear that they will do their best to work around the body in order to harm Iran economically. This move may create some concern for the two SC states, perhaps bringing them back to the sanctions table with America.

2. This could ultimately give Iran a hand to play with, and the opportunity to strike a deal in the future. By isolating the IRGC’s activities, which are indeed rather expansive, the administration might create an opportunity for Tehran to reign in on the outfit as a concession (not to mention a win for the Bush Doctrine). The other tradeoff might be Ahmadinejad, who may be getting setup to fall on his sword. All of these could be bargaining chips for Iran, if they choose to bend on their nuclear ambitions.

It makes sense to isolate the IRGC and their interests. They are not simply a branch of the Iranian military, as some critics have insinuated. They function more like a fraternity, woven into every aspect of Iranian society. Like a Skull and Bones with guns.

And for the far Left bloggers who keep asking for some realism, well this is what it looks like. If you assume that the global scene is anarchic, and that it’s up to states to engage each other in order to resolve matters, well sanctioning a state that you perceive to be attacking your best interests is part of it. This is not the game Iran wants to play. They’d rather use slow and pseudo-deliberative institutions as a go-between, enabling them to control some of the pace and outcomes.

Realism doesn’t demand equity, it demands a state-driven global order. America is engaging in just that. 

(Cross posted at RCP)

The Putinization of Iran

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Kaveh Afrasiabi has an excellent piece in today’s Asia Times, in which he discusses the important maneuvering and power shuffling going on behind the scenes in Iran.  Coining what he describes as Putinization, Afrasiabi speculates on the resignation of Ali Larijani, and what it might mean for the political makeup in Iran:

Thus the “Putin model” and its applicability, feasibility and relevance to the Iranian milieu. Sure, there are vast and important differences between today’s Russia and Iran, one being an integral part of (Christian) Europe and run by an authoritarian semi-democracy that is secularist, compared to Iran’s theocratic Islamic Republic. The question, however, is less in terms of what Iran and Russia share in political culture and more in terms of the political power structure that has clearly benefited Russia and aspects of which can be replicated in countries such as Iran.

In hindsight, then, it may be appropriate to mention a subtle “Putinization” of Iran, with Ahmadinejad trying to achieve a badly-needed centralization of decision-making authority that until now has been absent. The Putinization phenomenon refers first and foremost to Ahmadinejad’s current quest, reflected in his attempt to centralize nuclear decision-making and to overcome the multiple sources of influence that in effect dissipate the diplomatic prowess of Iran, instead of adding to it.

Clearly, the political bargaining process inside the government that has allotted a new responsibility to Larijani has its own perils, and here a sign of warning has been raised by Ali Khorram, a foreign policy adviser, who has emphasized the need for “unity of voice” and “absolute coordination” among the nuclear negotiation team. Khorram and a number of other Iranian pundits are realistically concerned that the nuclear negotiation team may soon be riven by factional strife, leading to paralysis of Iran’s diplomacy.

—

Providing a clue to the evolution of Iran’s political system, no matter how the pundits put it, Ahmadinejad’s control has grown and will continue to grow, reflecting an active and assertive executive branch that owes its dynamism as much to its internal, self-generated initiatives as to external influences, including Putin’s. After all, historically, crisis situations serve the purpose of centralization of power, and even US history is punctuated with several such examples dating to Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War in the mid-19th century, and Iran is not an exception.

However, by “Putinization of Iran” we do not simply mean an effort from the top to cause a greater concentration of power, though that is certainly a key and salient aspect of it. But the process is broader and inclusive of a “presidential cult of personality” hitherto absent in the Islamic Republic. This may invoke the dreadful images of Stalinism, all the more reason for Ahmadinejad and his team to avoid too close an analogy and to be constantly aware of the significant distinctions between the Putin model and the Stalin model.

Political charisma will truly be the key. While his approval is currently low, I truly believe Ahmadinejad is the most politically savvy president in the post-Revolution era. This is important in a society with a rich traditon of determined and charismatic kings and leaders. Some Left-Wing bloggers have recently taken a cursory interest in the Iranian power structure, but seem to misunderstand the complicated layers of power that exist in the republic. As I’ve argued in the past, the regime increasingly resembles a hydra, a collection of bureaucrats, elites and mullahs fighting to hold on to their power while maintaining their check on another’s. It’s all an umbrella that stems from Qom, but the historical source of power in Iran is much closer to the grassroots.

Iran has always embraced the strong and resolute leader. The confused bureaucracy that now resides in Tehran is an anomaly in Persian history. More than simply mirroring Putin, the consolidation of power in the executive “branch” of Iran is consistent with the path to power in modern Iranian history. The cruel and incompetent Qajari Dynasty led to the Constitutional movement of 1906, which, spurred on by Russian and British occupation, culminated in the nationalist reign of Reza Shah. Fighting against the foreign occupier has often been the leader’s role in Iran. The people rallied behind their Shah in order to push out foreign powers, and likewise supported Mossadeq’s campaign to remove the British from Iranian oil fields.

In Ahmadinejad, the people may have that dynamic leader. Nuclear populism was a big part of his electoral victory in 2005, and his reelection may well hinge on the program’s success. More importantly, it could lead to more structural political change in Iran. While the Assembly of Experts, the Expediency Committee and the Guardians Council all devise new ways to trip each other up, Ahmadinejad could distinguish himself as the determined leader who’s getting things done. The elites play politics, while Mahmoud plays to the people. We’ve seen this before.

On the other hand, this could prove to be a brilliant political maneuver by Khamenei. A classic Machiavellian move, the Supreme Leader may be eager to make Ahmadinejad the face of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. If he succeeds, the Ayatollah can still take the credit. If he fails, then the president becomes the fall guy. This keeps the political heat off of the regime, and places it on Ahmadinejad.

(Cross posted at The Van Der Galien Gazette)

Dodd and the Netroots

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

The Netroots may have their man.

A few months back, RCP’s own Jeff Pyatt wrote about Hillary Clinton’s subtle overtures to the Netroots, and how she carved out her niche in the blogosphere in order to atone for her previous errors in dealing with this influential activist group.

Seemingly absent of a flag bearer up to this point, Chris Dodd appears to be making his move. Just yesterday, he posted over at Huffington Post on his role as a senator, his obligation to the U.S. Constitution and why he’s stalling the FISA bill. Today, he held a video chat/interview at FireDogLake, where he reaffirmed his position on these issues.

The video is well worth watching. Aside from its policy implications, it provides us a window into the course the Dodd campaign is taking. He’s frustrated. He’s determined. He’s tieless. This guy is going to the mat for the Constitution, and he wants the Netroots behind him.

While other candidates invoke the name of Bobby Kennedy, Dodd hopes to fill the void he left behind. Glenn Greenwald explains:

The Democratic Party has gone from Robert Kennedy and Nicholas Katzenbach standing up eloquently and aggressively for the rule of law (h/t reader JF) — even in the face of fear-mongering claims that undoing those mergers would cripple the economy — to Jay Rockefeller plotting in secret for months with Dick Cheney as to how they can protect lawbreaking telecoms from the court battles they are losing and immunize them from the consequences of their criminal conduct in allowing warrantless spying for years on American citizens.

That steeply downward fall — from Robert Kennedy and the rule of law to the Cheney/Rockefeller telecom amnesty deal — illustrates so many things about what has happened to our country.

Senator Dodd’s campaign has clearly noticed this frustration, and has decided to make their move for the Left-progressive base. Will it work?

(Cross posted at RCP)

Obama: Gone Fishing

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

The Swamp on Barack Obama’s latest direct mail drop:

The mailing highlights a recent Senate vote, typically referred to as the "Kyl-Lieberman Amendment," that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization as part of a "Sense of the Senate" measure that was passed by a wide margin.

Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York voted for the amendment, as did Sen. Dick Durbin, the senior senator from Illinois.

Obama missed the vote, but has said he would have voted against the provision, had he not been campaigning in New Hampshire.

The mailing states: "Barack Obama is the ONLY major candidate for president to oppose both the Iraq War from the very start and the Senate amendment that raises the risk of war with Iran."

On the back of the brochure, the text says: "While other Democrats voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, Barack Obama opposed another Bush foreign policy fiasco."

I don’t know that Obama wants to hang his hat on simply not being around to vote on these things. He wants us to turn the page on the Clintons, yet Hillary’s the one who shows up to work. While Obama was giving a speech against the Iraq War in Illinois, Hillary was governing. While Obama was off campaigning in New Hampshire, Hillary was governing.

This seems like a poor strategy for a candidate with an experience weakness: Vote for me…I wasn’t there. It’s the ‘Gone Fishing’ candidacy.

And does Obama really want to talk about foreign policy nightmares? 

(Cross posted at RCP)

Running On (And From) Iraq

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

While delivering his inaugural address before the American people, President Jimmy Carter was given the task of reconciling a scarred American psyche with the enduring hope of national exceptionalism and pride.  Marred by the Watergate scandal and Vietnam, the American morale was low, and the country’s global standing was left in question.  Attempting to juggle this sensitive dichotomy, Carter stated that “our recent mistakes bring a resurgent commitment to the basic principles of our Nation, for we know that if we despise our own government we have no future.”

In addition to this promise, Carter would go on to argue that “America can be better.”  Today’s America is not entirely unlike the one Jimmy Carter was given in 1976.  The role and position of America’s unipolar power in the world is in question, and all of the top-tier contenders for president appear to be acknowledging that prospect.  Many of them talk about America’s leadership, and what needs to be done in order to solidify it.  Indeed, the question of our diminished global standing often comes up when talking about American foreign policy, along with the perceived errors in its application.

This position in the world will undoubtedly pivot around how we handle our departure from Iraq. The candidates obviously disagree on when and how we will do this, while clearly none seem to be advocating prolonged colonial occupation. Iraq is the cornerstone of just about every foreign policy proposal, and we were recently reminded of such in the pages of Foreign Affairs. Senators Clinton and McCain outlined their respective foreign policy agendas for the journal, and each highlighted the significance of Iraq for the future of America. While McCain views a defeat in Iraq as a victory for global terrorism, Clinton instead makes the case for withdrawal. Dan Drezner recently analyzed both plans:

I’m not sure I agree with either Clinton or McCain. The Senator from Arizona is vastly inflating the importance of groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq, but I can’t see how the Senator from New York thinks a complete withdrawal — and the internal chaos that will go with it — will “enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process.

That said, these two essays are easily the best of the bunch. Both Clinton and McCain — or at least, the staffers who wrote these pieces — have a better grasp for policy detail and means-ends relationships than the other candidates. Clinton, in contrast to either Obama or Edwards, makes the connection between a withdrawal from Iraq and a more generous policy towards Iraqi asylum-seekers. She occasionally suffers from the fairy dust that is the word “engagement,” but otherwise she hits the appropriate marks.

Their collective concern for Iraq is well warranted, despite holding contrary views on how to proceed in the region. They both understand that Iraq could be a crushing blow both domestically and abroad, thus Clinton’s retooling and repackaging of withdrawal. According to her campaign, leaving Iraq will enable cooler heads to prevail in the region, hence placing us back in the driver’s seat in fostering peace and freedom in the Middle East. It’s a lofty goal, but the important thing to notice is the preeminence held by Iraq. Few candidates have embraced the role of Jimmy Carter in 1976…yet. His presidency represented the anti-Nixon and Johnson sentiment in the country, and subsequently, served as the anti-Reagan voice in our nation. This is worth exploring, especially since the two most dynamic presidents of the 2oth century—FDR and Reagan—were also the most polarizing and brazen. They governed and spoke boldly, equally determined to see out their respective vision of the world.

Neither sought to lead therapeutically, but instead governed through the lens of Western superiority and Western Values. Some candidates—such as Rudy Giuliani—continue to embrace this philosophy. Others teeter between Carterism and Reaganism, not quite sure what the polls and the public will dictate by 2008.

But despite this vacillation, no other candidate has embraced the role of conciliatory steward quite like Senator Barack Obama. While certainly no isolationist, Obama’s rhetoric most closely resembles that of Jimmy Carter in 1976. The America he sees is confused, distracted and defeated. Taking on the role of healer, Obama asks us to “turn the page,” and insists that he would be the president of all Americans. Obama sees a world of problems, the biggest of which being our presence in Iraq. Unlike Clinton and McCain, Obama appears to believe that the rebirth of American exceptionalism begins at home. Much like Carter in his time, Obama internalizes the domestic consequences of what we do abroad. While still respecting the primacy of Iraq, his approach instead sees withdrawal as the first step in healing America. Regardless, whether we’re staying or we’re going, all view this as the biggest policy decision facing their prospective administration.

But Drezner’s concerns are valid. How America can maintain global legitimacy upon withdrawing from Iraq is uncertain. In a recent Newsweek column, Fareed Zakaria proposes that the next president will need to hold America’s hand into the 21st Century, while helping an increasingly confused and nervous America deal with their place in the world. This may in fact be the case; however I doubt its effectiveness on the campaign trail. Americans are divided, and may not be seeking therapy in these trying global times.

Obama’s message has already been questioned, and his presidential peers will no doubt see the same scrutiny. The choice may be between American exceptionalism and American conciliation, all of which hinges on how we leave Iraq.

(Cross posted at The Van Der Galien Gazette)

Two Wrongs

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

In his most recent column for Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria discusses the hyperbolic tendencies of the Right while describing the intentions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Zakaria rightly argues that we have exaggerated some of Iran’s capabilities and intentions, while noting the absurdity in comparing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the likes of Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler.

Zakaria gets a lot right, but here’s what he gets wrong:

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland’s and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

At the tail end of the column, Zakaria implores his readers to get a better understanding of Iran, a NAM country that we have essentially disengaged from over the past decade. This is perhaps true, but such an understanding is a two way street. Zakaria dismisses the hegemonic ambitions of Iran, with never a mention of their consistent financing of global terrorism. Not one mention of the corrosive and destabilizing role they play in Lebanon. No mention of the assassinations this regime has been linked to, or their constant bullying of neighbors, such as Azerbaijan and the UAE.

The kind of imperialism that Iran engages in is far more subtle, and is cultural, religious and ideological. Claims of a new caliphate are of course rather silly, but we have already witnessed the way Iran utilizes proxies and territory to expand their sphere of influence. An Iraq with no American presence would serve as a grand staging ground for insurgent groups like Hezbollah, and also allow the faithful in Qom to fulfill their role as stewards of the Shi’a faith in Iraq.

We mustn’t assume that Iran is weak simply because we’re stronger, or that they are Switzerland simply because they’re not the Soviets or the Nazis. There’s room between those two polarities for a lot of harm and destruction. But this either/or argument is the same logic used by bloggers like Juan Cole, who much like Zakaria seems determined to challenge exaggerations with more exaggerations. However, two disingenuous wrongs do not make a right.

Here’s where Zakaria is spot on:

In a speech last week, Rudy Giuliani said that while the Soviet Union and China could be deterred during the cold war, Iran can’t be. The Soviet and Chinese regimes had a "residual rationality," he explained. Hmm. Stalin and Mao–who casually ordered the deaths of millions of their own people, fomented insurgencies and revolutions, and starved whole regions that opposed them–were rational folk. But not Ahmadinejad, who has done what that compares? One of the bizarre twists of the current Iran hysteria is that conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history’s greatest mass murderers.

If I had to choose whom to describe as a madman, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il or Ahmadinejad, I do not think there is really any contest. A decade ago Kim Jong Il allowed a famine to kill 2 million of his own people, forcing the others to survive by eating grass, while he imported gallons of expensive French wine. He has sold nuclear technology to other rogue states and threatened his neighbors with test-firings of rockets and missiles. Yet the United States will be participating in international relief efforts to Pyongyang worth billions of dollars.

This is fair, and the conflation of Ahmadinejad with the likes of Mao, or even Kim Jon Il, only muddies the conversation and makes the debate about Ahmadinejad as opposed to the entire Qom-controlled regime as a whole. While I understand Rudy’s point (Communists have earthly goals, Ahmadinejad does not), Zakaria is correct to dismiss the comparisons of carnage and death unleashed by these 20th Century despots.

Others Blogging It:

Crooks and Liars

(Cross posted at RCP)

Dove-Tailing

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

I’ve mentioned it before, but there seems to be a campaign on the Left to dismiss the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Eager to avoid another costly war on yet another front, it would appear as if these bloggers and activists are engaging in a questionable brand of exegesis. Though their intentions are noble enough, their tactics are slightly misleading.

The latest example of this comes from a surprising blogger. Juan Cole, whose blog I highly recommend, has published a piece in Salon on what’s really becoming a tried and true topic for the far Left…Iran Hawks. While I found myself agreeing with much of the article, I was puzzled by this little nugget:

Iran has not launched an aggressive war against a neighbor since 1785 and does not have a history of military expansionism. Its population is a third that of the United States and its military is small and weak. Aside from the Republican Party’s long history of fear-mongering as a way to get power, throw public money to their corporate clients, and scare Americans into giving up their civil liberties, what is driving this obsession with Tehran?

Hmmm…well, inserting 1785 in there is sort of irrelevant. Many flags have flown over Persia since then, and this current cult-like regime has only been around since 1979. So if we’re really talking about Iranian territorial ambitions, well we should focus on their behavior.

So let’s take a look at their behavior. I certainly can’t agree with Cole on the republic’s behavior, and I think some of their neighbors would likewise take issue with that argument. Maybe ask the UAE, who had island territory grabbed from them in 1992, which now serves as an Iranian weapons caché. Perhaps the jittery Azeris might disagree, especially since Iran disputed Azerbaijan’s claims to the Caspian by sending a gunship into their waters. I’m sure the Qataris might take issue with Cole, especially since their national gas interests are tied to land under joint stewardship with Iran.

These land disputes don’t even begin to address the regime’s imperialism via proxy. Whether or not the land that’s currently called "Iraq" becomes "Iran" is an antiquated way of looking at global power and influence, and sort of beside the point (Iran has been Iran since 1935, and it was a creation of the hated Pahlavis). This Iranian regime is the poster child of the Bush Doctrine–a terror financing state, using cells and radical groups in order to exert influence and power throughout the world.

This is Iran’s modus operandi. Multiple sources, including the 9/11 Commission, have linked Iran to the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, which resulted in the murder of 19 American servicemen. We also know that Iran exerts their influence, an imperialism of ideas and religion, over Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. We know that they sent their Quds forces all throughout Islamic Africa during the 1990’s, and helped finance infrastructure and military projects in terror-harboring Sudan. They’ve been linked to assassinations of retribution in places such as Germany and Argentina.

Adding all of this up, it makes it difficult for me to understand Cole’s position on this. It has become pretty obvious that the Left is eager to dovetail the buildup to war in Iraq with the rhetoric we’re now hearing on Iran. This is certainly a fair point, and talk of World War III may only hurt a serious debate on the matter.

But let’s not be naive. Iran has made it abundantly clear that they will use every available piece of turf to extent their influence and launch attacks upon the West. They have also publicly stated their intentions to take our place in Iraq. Our departure from the region would permanently change the makeup of the region, leaving the door wide open for a hegemonic Iran. Hence, our efforts in Iraq are tied to Iran.

They know it, so why don’t we?

(Cross posted at RCP)

Iran’s Forgotten Revolution

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Chanting “independence or death,” the shrouded women of the Persian revolutionary movement stormed the government building in Tehran. Demanding national independence and liberty, these women boldly unveiled, tossing their chadors to the ground in mass, public protest. Questioning the very manhood of the men who were an embarrassment to their fathers, these patriots threatened to take the lives of their sons, their husbands, in addition to their own, lest they live their remaining days in an occupied and stunted Persia.

This dramatic scene did not happen recently, nor did it occur during the more commonly understood Iranian Revolution of 1979. This happened during the waning days of a vibrant constitutional movement that would forever change the nation of Iran. From it they gained a parliament (or Majlis), and for the first time in Persian history, a set of rights and entitlements that didn’t flow from the crown or the cleric. Tradesmen, clergymen and secular intellectuals, men and women alike, desperately attempted to salvage the last vestiges of their young constitution from a despotic shah and his Cossack thugs.

Their efforts would ultimately prove futile, and the combination of Russian and British imperialism would soon stifle the constitutional revolution that had been drafted and codified in 1906. Based heavily off of the Belgian constitution of 1831, the ulema (Islam’s learned) and the secular intellectuals, albeit momentarily, set aside differences in order to strip from the shah the authority they believed he had long ago abdicated. The constitution, structured to take the reigns of Persian justice carried down from Cyrus to King Abbas, also granted unprecedented rights and liberties to people of all faith, tribe and region.

This ambitious movement was short lived. Just a year later, Islam would be declared the official faith of the land and outside occupiers would dismiss the legitimacy of the Majlis. Later, the hyper-nationalistic Reza Shah Pahlavi would distort the democratic principles established in 1906, and impose a brutal, Franco-style Westernization on his people that was more cosmetic than cultural. This oppressive brand of Persian Maoism would be a catalyst for the Khomeini revolution, thus killing secular constitutionalism in Iran.

Why does this historical anecdote matter? Much attention has been given as of late to the reformers and dissidents throughout the Muslim world. While Americans and political candidates seem to embrace the idea of a freedom agenda, few can agree on what such a movement should actually look like. Some have proposed the ill-conceived idea that Islam is the problem, thus requiring some kind of Islamic “reformation.” Ali Eteraz, in a recent series written for the Guardian, dismisses this argument by noting that the patent on Muslim dissent has already been claimed by the extremists. “Many hopes (and careers) are pinned on the idea, but there is no such thing coming. The Islamic reformation has already happened. The Muslim equivalent of nailing the 95 theses was the desecration of a graveyard and the stoning of a woman for adultery.”

The same might be said of misguided democracy movements. While women adorning purple fingers are an inspiring sight, it contributes nothing to civil society and freedom if not supported by the law. The most vaunted example of Muslim democracy today is Turkey, where the legal foundation established under Atatürk stands as a monument of national pride. Not far behind is Jordan, where the constitutional monarchy enables the crown to protect the law from Islamists who seek to veto secular legislation. Toppling dictatorships and setting up polling places does not create the foundation for civil society to flourish. Furthermore, supporting separatist groups, whether they are Baluchi separatists in the Iranian southeast or Kurdish separatists in the Iraqi north, gets us no closer to a democratic and free Middle East. Kicking the ant hill over doesn’t rid us of the ants, it merely spreads them all around.

We must remain leery of the calls for Islamist democracy. We’ve already witnessed what that looks like in Gaza and Lebanon. In rushing to emancipate and arm the masses of the Muslim world, we’ve skipped over a very crucial step. Save your moderates, dissidents and democrats, and show me the constitutionalists in the Muslim world. It’s in these activists that Western support has the greatest potential for success. Islam is not the problem, nor is gross commercialization the answer. Promote the religious benefits in a secular society, one which enumerates the rights of the individual, and you may find yourself on the right path to freedom and liberty in the Muslim world.

This won’t be easy, as it would require that the clerics choose the secular over the Sharia. It would mean relinquishing their traditional role as the anointed jurists, and accept the notion that a society that protects the rights of all includes the rights of Muslims.

Embrace secular constitutionalism, and the rest will follow. We witnessed it briefly in Persia over 100 years ago. Why can’t it happen again?

(Cross Posted at The Van Der Galien Gazette)

On Feelings

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Andrew on Ezra on Cohen:

Klein slips in a bogus word here: feels. Cohen doesn’t feel he is a liberal hawk; he believes he is. He has arguments to make, arguments that can be agreed with or disagreed with, but that have merits of their own that should be addressed regardless of the arrangement of political power at the time. This isn’t narcissism; it is the duty of any writer and thinker to state his own views as best he can without concern for how the world might greet them, who might use them unfairly, or who might expropriate them for insincere purposes. Without this independence, a writer is merely a hack. Or, worse for a writer, an activist.

Amen.

I wrote about the Cohen piece a couple of weeks ago, and found Klein’s argument equally puzzling. Aside from labeling all dissenters as enablers, it also seemed to imply that there should rarely ever be consensus on matters of foreign policy. I argued the following:

Consensus on foreign policy apparently strikes Ezra as enabling and unthinkable, even though Democrats and Republicans often agreed on matters of war and diplomacy throughout the last century. This is why Senator Johnson could mobilize his party to support a Republican president’s war effort. This is why Republicans and Democrats alike could support the same approach in dealing with the Soviet Empire. This is why two of the top-tier Democrats, both currently courting the anti-war vote, could authorize the invasion of Iraq in support of their president.

This behavior, or similarity in tone, surprises Ezra. Forget the very Liberal merits in staying in Iraq, those are irrelevant. To approve of such a thing would make you a neocon, thus dismissing you from the table. The appropriate behavior for any good Democrat would be to apologize for the invasion, and get out. Anything short of that enables the scary neocons, and PNAC and other bad stuff.

I didn’t touch upon the feelings argument, but yes, I find it to be the puffiest of straw men, as did (Andrew) Sullivan. I don’t think it’s a question of honesty, but rather a question of fairness.

It’s not fair to accuse someone you disagree with of narcissism. This should probably go without saying, but it’s unfair to warn someone on the impact of their words simply because you don’t like them.

Why? Because that can go both ways. If the words of Roger Cohen are enabling the administration, well who does Klein et al. enable?

Who might take comfort in hearing that American bloggers, journalists and politicians don’t support their president?

That’s a dangerous path to go down.

Others Blogging It:

Protein Wisdom
Brian Beutler
Ezra Klein

(Cross posted at RCP)

Agenda: Democracy

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

From Michael Gerson in today’s WaPo:

In the backlash against President Bush’s democracy agenda, conservatives are increasingly taking the lead. It is inherently difficult for liberals to argue against the expansion of social and political liberalism in oppressive parts of the world — though, in a fever of Bush hatred, they try their best. It is easier for traditional conservatives to be skeptical of this grand project, given their history of opposing all grand projects of radical change.

—

The unavoidable problem is this: Without moral absolutes, there is no way to determine which traditions are worth preserving and which should be overturned. Conservatism assumes and depends on an objective measure of right and wrong that skepticism cannot provide. Without a firm moral conviction that independence is superior to servitude, that freedom is superior to slavery, that the weak deserve special care and protection, the habit of conservatism is radically incomplete. In the absence of elevating ideals, it can become pessimistic and unambitious — a morally indifferent preference for the status quo.

History does teach that reform is easier to start than finish well. But history also teaches that some organic social arrangements are rotten and wormy; that it is not utopian to rescue a human life from oppression, it is justice; that events without reference to universal ideals of freedom and human rights can become a hell of permanent, unchallenged slavery. It is not a coincidence that the great movements of conscience have generally come not from skeptical traditionalists but from men and women of faith and conviction who taught that loving your neighbor is inconsistent with enslaving him; who rescued children from the nightmare factories of the Industrial Revolution; who asserted that the long tradition of racial segregation created 10,000 petty tyrants; and who believed that the Declaration of Independence is actually true, for us and for all.

Aside from unclear or codified international values, the other problem with a Burkean approach to the democracy agenda, especially in the Middle East, is the lack of feudal land owners that transcend dynasties and empires. Conservatives that argue for the "organic" development of society must also acknowledge that this region has never really had the underpinnings of a Middle Class, at least not in the way we know it.

Iraq resided under many flags, as have the Iranians. Whether it be the Qajaris, the Mongols or the Pahlavis, the head of state often divvied out rights to followers of their respective dynasty. Once these regimes were toppled, the land often changed over.

Even in modern day Iran, while much of the country’s industry is state run, it’s done so often by families and names loyal to the Revolutionary regime (see Rafsanjani and the copper industry). It’s true that you can’t make people care about a constitution simply by writing one, nor can you call it a democracy by simply having elections.

Certainly, this must flow up from the people, and there must be the desire to have a democratic, civil society. But we mustn’t assume, for example, that this current regime ruling over the Iranian people stemmed from something organic. Their claim to power in Iran is really no better than that of the regimes and dynasties before them, and mustn’t be granted more legitimacy and respect than it deserves.

Sadly, you see this happening on both ends of the spectrum. As we’ve seen in the past, the progressives and the Ron Pauls of the world are working to push us further away from the world. Who knows if their voices will be heard in the next administration, but it’s something we should all be concerned about.

Others Blogging It:

Eunomia
Brian Beutler
Publius Pundit

(Cross posted at RCP)