Follow us On facebook youtube

 
You got here from Homebreadcrumbs separatorFor the Media
Click to print page

Progressives risk all in blind embrace of the ‘improved’ Iran




Bret Stephens, The Wall Street Journal

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is trying to bring his enemies to heel by blocking humanitarian convoys to desperate civilians living in besieged towns. The policy is called “starve or kneel”, and it is openly supported by Hezbollah and tacitly by Iran, which has deployed its elite Quds Force to aid Assad’s war effort.

So what better time for right-thinking liberals to ask: “Is Iran really so evil?”
That’s the title of an essay in Politico by Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times reporter now at Brown University. “The demonisation of Iran is arguably the most bizarre and self-defeating of all US foreign policies,” Kinzer begins. “Americans view Iran not simply as a country with interests that sometimes conflict with ours but as a relentless font of evil.”

Kinzer’s essay was published this week, as sanctions were lifted on Tehran and four of America’s hostages came home after lengthy imprisonments. The Obama administration publicly insists that the nuclear deal does not mean the US should take a benign view of Iran, but the more enthusiastic backers of the agreement think otherwise. “Our perception of Iran as a threat to vital American interests is increasingly disconnected from reality,” Kinzer writes. “Events of the past week may slowly begin to erode the impulse that leads Americans to believe patriotism requires us to hate Iran.”

What a weird thought. My own patriotism has never been touched one way or another by my views of Iran. Nor do I hate Iran — if by “Iran” one means the millions of people who marched alongside Neda Agha-Soltan when she was gunned down by regime thugs in the 2009 Green Revolution, or the fellow travellers of Hashem Shaabani, the Arab-Iranian poet executed two years ago for “waging war on God”, or the thousands of candidates who are routinely barred from running for parliament for being insufficiently loyal to the Supreme Leader.

This is the Iran that liberals like Kinzer ought to support, not the theocratic usurpers who claim to speak in Iran’s name while stepping on Iranian necks. But we are long past the day when a liberal US foreign policy meant shaping our interests around our values — not the other way around — much less supporting the liberal aspirations of people everywhere, especially in anti-US dictatorships.

Today’s liberal foreign policy, to adapt Churchill, is appeasement wrapped in realism inside moral equivalency. When it comes to Iran policy, that means believing that we have sinned at least as much against the Iranians as they have sinned against us; that our national-security interests require us to come to terms with the Iranians; and that the best way to allay the suspicions — and, over time, diminish the influence — of Iranian hardliners is by engaging the moderates ever more closely and demonstrating ever-greater diplomatic flexibility.

That’s a neat theory, proved wrong by experience at every turn. The Carter administration hailed the Ayatollah Khomeini as “a saint”. Our embassy was seized. Ronald Reagan sent Khomeini a birthday cake, along with secret arms, to facilitate the release of hostages in Lebanon. A few hostages were released, while others were taken in their place. The world welcomed the election of “moderate” president Mohammad Khatami in 1997. Iran’s illicit nuclear facilities were exposed in his second term.

In 2009, on the eve of presidential elections, TheNew York Times’s Roger Cohen celebrated “the vibrancy of a changing, highly educated society” he had found on his visits to Tehran. “The equating of Iran with terror today is simplistic,” he wrote. After the election, he ran for his life from the same street militia that murdered Agha-Soltan.

Now we’re supposed to believe that the change Cohen and others had hoped for has finally arrived. The proof, supposedly, is that the regime has so far kept to its nuclear promises (in exchange for a $US100 billion windfall), that it swiftly released US sailors (after scoring a small propaganda coup), and that it let the other hostages go (though only after very nearly taking the wife and mother of one of those hostages in his turn, and then after an additional $US1.7bn reward from the US).

Are these signs of a new-and-improved regime? Or merely one that is again being given good reasons to believe it can always extract a bribe for its bad behaviour? The notion of moral hazard, fundamental to economics, has a foreign-policy dimension, too. Any country that believes it will never be made to pay the price for the risks it takes will take ever-greater risks. It’s bad enough when the country in question is Greece. This is Iran.

Iran will become a “normal” country only when it ceases to be an Islamic Republic. In the meantime, the only question is how far we are prepared to abase ourselves in our quest to normalise it.

© 2009 New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies - All rights reserved
Site Map - Terms of Use - Privacy PolicyPaymentsDisclaimer

Web Content Management and Intranet Solutions by Elcom

JCA