Almost definitional, a democratic Iran, by virtue of its democratic nature, would likely have a less destabilizing foreign policy, even allowing for the likelihood it would still pursue the bomb and perhaps support Hamas and Hezbollah.
After all, our problem with Iran is not just that it’s pursuing a nuclear program but that it’s pursuing a nuclear program combined with the fact that it’s a theocracy and/or military dictatorship. We can say there is an interesting interaction effect between these two variables. The authoritarian nature is likely amplified by the active pursuit of nuclear weapons, while the potentially destructive effects of Iran having nuclear weapons is amplified by the authoritarian nature of its regime.
Sure. But what about institutional gridlock or early-democratic political failure? So much depends on the circumstances under which the Greens succeed (presuming of course it will). It’s fairly easy to imagine that the Greens will have their work cut out for them consolidating support from the military, particularly if the rise of the Greens threatens to displace the officer corps’ status in a future Iran. Conditions of foreign emergency are really good for that, as Khomeini demonstrated from the Iran-Iraq war. While I hope that the international community wouldn’t greet any ascendant-Green scenario with the stupidity of a Saddam Hussein, history is often a story of blunder and miscalculation, so who knows. And sometimes militaries in nuclear-armed countries with weak or untested democracies are assertive, adventurous in foreign affairs and unresponsive to civilian concerns. Like for instance.
I want the Greens to win. I want the Islamic Republic to lose. But I’m not going to fool myself into thinking that if and when that happy day arrives, a host of foreign-policy dilemmas automatically unlocks, or even gets set on a glide path to unlocking. Not everything good is good together, or all at once, so let’s stop treating democracy like a children’s fable or magical incantation.



27 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
What? The Greens in Iran don’t have a magic wand?
What’s with this assertion that Iran has a nuclear weapons program? Didn’t the Grand Ayatollah just reconfirm his fatwa that the bomb is unIslamic? And there is absolutely no actual evidence that they are headed in that direction.
I don’t like the Islamic theocrats anymore then the next person here, but who are we to lecture anyone on democracy?
Were I a cynic, I would hope that Iran would not become a democracy because democracies, like the U.S., have a long history of destabilizing or attacking other countries, whether overtly or by proxy.
This is where I type: if voting mattered, they wouldn’t let you do it.
Seriously? There’s circumstantial evidence — not proof positive, but circumstantial evidence — pointing rather strongly in that direction, as the IAEA reminded just today. None of that means we should go to war with Iran, because we absolutely shouldn’t under any circumstance. But it strains credulity to think that this doesn’t hint at a nuclear weapons program:
Again, no war with Iran, no no no never. But this isn’t from a bellicose organization, it’s from the IAEA, which was, recall, Bush’s main institutional opposition to his baseless statements about Iraq’s non-existent nuclear program.
” And sometimes militaries in nuclear-armed countries with weak or untested democracies are assertive, adventurous in foreign affairs and unresponsive to civilian concerns”
Pakistan is ONE data point among seven to ten countries. There are not enough samples to make general statements such as your one above. Each nuclear power is unique.
And the major exacerbating conflict is still Israel/Palestine. Defang that conflict and Iran may retreat from its nuclear program.
Iranian political structure aside, does the (clinically insane) “Bomb Iran” rhetoric seem to be escalating these days?
There’s enough here to make the DLC envious, for sure.
Isn’t that the guy who was always at loggerheads with the ElBaradei when he was head of IAEA? The only thing I know that points to a weapons program is that silly smoking laptop that was made up by Israel.
Hmm, you may be right, I don’t know that about Amano. But the Iranians are going apeshit trying to tear down his credibility, and he doesn’t appear appreciably more antagonistic than ElBaradei.
Fair enough, and you know me, I want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ended m’self. I’m also not saying it’s necessarily irrational for Iran to have a nuclear weapons program.
We may say, “No war!”, Spencer, you, eCahn, Synoia, ShotoJamf, seaglass, dakine01 and I …
But can the political classes resist the opportunity of further filling the coffers of the war-profiteers and the mercenary contractors?
Why, I’ll bet that flag pins for flagitious patriots are being polished even as we speak.
The “heat” Shotojamf has noted as rising appears to be doing precisely that.
War with Iran would be a truly shiny thing, perhaps sufficient, and this “consideration” is being calculated and “calibrated” even now, in certain circles, to raise Americans from the glumness of their winter of discontent.
Nothing like a new, “good” war to get the fervent juices of conquest flowing, to get us out of a slump …
Yet it will not be a good thing, if it comes to that, for my sense is that the consequence which would follow would be well beyond our worst imaginings and whatever illusions we may yet have, of being masters of our own fate, and the world, our oyster … will be shown as being precisely that …
Those who seek war are a constant and deadly danger to the rest of us, no matter “what” the “justification” alleged …
DW
Here’s the last thing I listened to on the subject.
The war propaganda machine is at it full bore. And the O admin is playing it to the hilt. Once Iran agreed to the U.S. last offer, the U.S. declared that wasn’t good enough. Then blames Iran for not cooperating.
If you were Iran and saw a psychotic powerful country invading countries in your region for no reason whatsoever, would you trust that country?
Listen to my link at 14 to see how the O admin is lining up its ducks for doing something military to Iran.
Here’s more discussion of the success of the Iran war propaganda machine. 71% of Americans think Iran already has the bomb.
That is what I am seeing, eCAHN, what you describe.
WHO among any of us can trust our country?
And “they” aren’t planning on killing us.
At least, not yet …
DW
I don’t know whether it’s true of Iran, but Pakistan’s military runs pretty much everything of importance there – banks, major businesses, the ISI. If Iran doesn’t have a similar situation, it might not be a good example at all.
Those who seek war are a constant and deadly danger to the rest of us, no matter “what” the “justification” alleged …”"
Can I quote you on that?
Thanks for both links. Nothing new since the NIE assessment since 2007 except weekly Newspeak in the NYTimes alleging nukes being made in Iran. The NYTimes never, ever, never, ever leaves a comment thread next to any of Sanger’s anti Iran newspeaks. I wonder how much the Pentagon pays that dude for each one of his propaganda newspeaks and pays the Times for printing his cr*p.
You are correct:
“When in trouble at home, go adventuring abroad.”
It would make sense, Why fight separate wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), When one would be easier, the whole area from Iraq to India.
I’m certainly cynical enough to believe that the MIC is hoping and praying for WWIII to break out. Our media seems to be publicly cheering for it as they always do.
And yeah, I don’t see Iran becoming anything like a western democracy anytime soon. In the near term, the best they can hope for is some form of enlightened autocracy with a bit of voting thrown in for show. Granted, the mullah’s are not enlightened.
E and F
http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Report_Iran_18Feb2010.pdf
If ya wish, Tom, better yet I’ll just toss it out into the public domain …
Make of it what ye will.
DW
Macaquer!
Are you still about?
Or is it just your trail I’ve stumbled across, once again?
DW
The problem is, that the warbots need the hardliners that bush helped empower by invading Iraq. No Ahmadinejad bugaboo means no threat to help maintain the national saber-rattling orchestra so beloved by the right and by the defense contractors.
At this point, it’s practically a symbiotic relationship.
Of some interest, is that Hillary Clinton, ever ready to tote the hod for Israel and AIPAC, last week, got off a rant about how the Iranian government was turning into “a military dictatorship”.
The ghost of the Shah must have just about shit himself laughing, along with the Saud family and all those other mid-east despots who used to be so user-friendly to amurka.
I imagine Donald Rumsfeld got a good chuckle out of it, too, thinking about the good ol’ days of furnishing Saddam with those anthrax starter kits, and giving him weather reports to make for a more efficient gassing of those Iranian grunts.
With every passing week, it’s getting tougher to make the call of who were the biggest shits; the bushmasters, who, a fair amount of the time, were at least up-front about trying to put us on a permanent war footing, or the Obama-heads, who seem to have decided that escalating the war in Afghanistan now makes all the sense in the world, while totally buying Obama’s crap about this is the way to peace.
Yeah, I ALMOST fell into believing democracy would bloom as in a “fable or magical incantation” after Obama got in . . .