The Neocons Strike Back
As we watch the unfolding situation in Iran, one of the most frustrating aspects from the United States vantage point is the credulity granted to neocon commentators. The same coterie of warmongers who got it so disastrously wrong in Iraq are being given a bully pulpit to get it disastrously wrong in Iran. The target of their ire is Obama, who — while speaking out against state violence — refuses to come out in favor of the Moussavi party, or to threaten the regime with “consequences” at the present time. And they are given a voice, on television, and on the op-ed pages of leading newspapers (and the Washington Post is the worst offender). Yet again, we are hearing that the regime is about to fall, that American support will embolden the opposition, that American style “freedom” and democracy are coming to Persia. Remember Iraq? Remember the flowers that were supposed to welcome the American occupation militia? Remember the utopian discourse of “freedom and democracy”, a discourse unmoored from history and context? And now we are seeing it all again, with the same names and the same aims. And, as always, the solution is war, and the creed is the redemptive and transformative power of bloodshed.
A quick history lesson is all that is needed to bury the neocon argument. It would be an understatement to say that American intentions are treated with great suspicion in Iran. Here is Johan Hari:
“The current Iranian leadership’s pursuit of enriched uranium is a response to a long history, too often scrubbed from Western textbooks. By the 1950s, Iran had developed a thriving democracy and its people decided rationally, correctly, to take control of its oil and use the profits for its own people. The governments of the West ruled that this was unacceptable (“it is our oil under their soil, dummy”), so they toppled the democracy and installed a dictator. From 1953 to 1979, the Shah was paid by the Americans and British to suppress the Iranian population and keep the petrol pumping. Khamenei is one of the many people he jailed and tortured.
When the Iranians rejected “our good friend”, we paid for Saddam Hussein to attack their country using chemical weapons. Ahmadinejad saw some of this mass slaughter (death toll: one million) as a young volunteer.”
What people also forget is that the hostage crisis was provoked by a fear that the Americans were trying to repeat history and re-install the shah a second time. I would add to that George Bush’s appalling “axis of evil” speech, which (surprise, surprise!) managed to offend all shades of opinion in Iran. But of course, the likes of Fred Barnes can tell us with a straight face that the younger generation has forgotten all about 1953, and will look kindly on US intervention.
What is also forgotten is that the 1979 revolution was universally popular. Here’s Hari again:
“The Shah, the torturing dictator installed, armed and adored by the CIA was overthrown by a chasm-wide coalition stretching from Communists to Islamists. My parents lived in Iran at that time, and they remember the raw hatred of the Shah that was felt by bearded mullahs and hijab-free feminists alike. Almost everybody rose up in 1979. But, once the Shah was toppled, one wing of the revolution hijacked it. The Grand Ayatollah Khomeini installed himself as the Supreme Ruler and started killing off the democratic wing of the revolution.”
What we are seeing is a domestic Iranian agenda, and internal conflict between different interpretations of the 1979 revolution. I’m sure there are some believers in western style democracy, but they are probably confined to affluent north Tehran. The sheer size of the Moussavi coalition speaks of a more widespread appeal. As Hooman Majd puts it:
“But this is an internal matter. For the U.S. to get involved in any way is a huge mistake in my opinion. It makes Iranians very suspicious. One reason they were able to get 3 million people out on the streets from a broad socioeconomic spectrum across all political lines — you don’t get 3 million people on the streets of Tehran if they’re all students like in 2003 — is because the lower class, the middle class, the upper class, students, old people, families, religious families, women in chadors, men in beards, they all came out. These people also voted against Ahmadinejad or felt the vote wasn’t fair.”
In other words, what the neocons are proposing — a more strident public statement by Obama, threats and bluster — will actually work against the very protestors they purport to support. Majd again:
“The neocons know nothing about Iran, nothing about the culture of Iran. They have no interest in understanding Iran, in speaking to any Iranian other than Iranian exiles who support the idea of invasions — I’ll call them Iranian Chalabis. It’s offensive, even to an Iranian American like me. These are people who would have actually preferred to have Ahmadinejad as president so they could continue to demonize him and were worried, as some wrote in Op-Eds, that Mousavi would be a distraction and would make it easier for Iranians to build a nuclear weapon and now all of a sudden they want to be on his side? Go away.
I’m not saying Obama is the most knowledgeable person on Iran, but he’s obviously getting good advice right now. He understands way more about the culture of the Middle East than any of the neocons. For them to be lecturing President Obama is a joke. I have criticized Obama; for instance, I criticized him for having a patronizing tone in his Persian New Year message. But right now I think he’s doing a good job. The John McCains of the world, they’re Ahmadinejad’s useful idiots. They’re doing a great job for him.”
Ahmadinejad’s useful idiots. That pretty much sums it up. The sheer tone-deafness of hyper-nationalism neocons to the sway of nationalism in other countries is nothing short of stupifying. As Majd notes, how would Americans have reacted if Iran had meddled in the Florida recount, and refused to support one side? I think most Americans would have come together against this “foreign meddling”. Daniel Larison also makes this very point:
“Americanists believe that any statement from the President that fails to build up and anoint Mousavi as the preferred candidate is discouraging to Mousavi and his supporters, because they apparently cannot grasp that being our preferred candidate is to be tainted with suspicion of disloyalty to the nation. It is strange how nationalists often have the least awareness of the importance of the nationalism of another people. Many of the same silly people who couldn’t say enough about Hamas’ so-called “endorsement” of Obama as somehow indicative of his Israel policy views, as well as those who could not shut up about his warm reception in Europe, do not see how an American endorsement of a candidate in another country’s election might be viewed with similiar and perhaps even greater distaste by the people in that country.”
Then again, thinking outside the Americanist bubble does not come naturally to neocons. They were so wrong in Iraq — so why does anybody treat their musings on Iran as worthy of anything beyond laughter and derision?
Comments are closed.
I am not sure it so easy to divide the world in the rational sane people and the neo cons that as you put it should are worthy of anything beyond laughter and derision
THe fact is there has a lot of debate on this across the poiltical spectrum. In fact European leaders , in case I have missed it, have not been taken over by the Neo cons and they have been very vocal.
It seems it is a dgree of tone and yes all debate is needed. Personally if the NEO CONS were on a warpath(as with others) that we should not be having 4th of July Barbeques with the IRAN Govt Officals as they are killing people in the street then I find that constructive.
This is a critical time and no time to be shutting down voices and discussion
Well, I think it IS time to “shut down” the voices of those who are absolutely panicked by stuff like this:
In fact, the worst thing about this video is that there are actually people in Iran who believe this kind of garbage–MANY people, and they should be treated with the gingerly respect that Henry Kissinger has saluted Obama for exhibiting.
Why do you suppose the Supreme Leader is pouring such vitriol out about Britain, and not about the “Great Satan”? It’s because, after Obama’s speech in Cairo, very few Iranians could be convinced of America’s nefarious intentions. In fact, Moussavi’s followers are probably sophisticated enough actually to laugh at that piece of idiotic propoganda above.
Frankly, I’m more than a little persuaded that those who are attacking Obama for not attacking Iran’s “Supreme Leader” more forcefully actually WANT the “Supreme Leader” to come out on top, so they can launch an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear installations–an attack that would wreak havoc among that very population of Iranians who are attempting to rid themselves of their evil government.
“I am not sure it so easy to divide the world in the rational sane people and the neo cons that as you put it should are worthy of anything beyond laughter and derision”
MM’s criticism is quite narrow. He is not lambasting “conservatives” or some other vaguely defined group, but the particular set of neocon pundits who supported the war against all prudence.
I can’t imagine why you would bother defending them.
Are we not supposed to call bad advice bad advice?
Jonah Goldberg has already asserted that the reason behind the Iranian uprising was the “successful” democratic election recently held in Iraq (he doesn’t mention the deteriorating security there as the U.S. prepares to exit). Get ready for the “long view” interpretation of the Iraq War: it *did* destabilize the region; it *did* provoke democratic unrest in Iran; and so on, etc., etc. Of course, it’s completely ridiculous–but be prepared for it to be taken seriously by the “liberal” corporate-owned media.
MM, you *really* don’t like the neocons, do you.
Iran folks are dying in the street speaking for Freedom and I might say principles that are close to the Catholic Social Justice
I find it ironic that most neo conservativesa are pointing out that the differences between the regimes are narrow. But we are looking for hope. On breaking the regime that is despotic regime and between one that can offer some hope. Why are American Catholics trying to make a line in the sand between narrow interest in the USA. I never thought I would say this but why is CONTENTIONS making a broader arguement than VOX NOVA. Perhaps we can get past narrow partisan interest and see people crying off for freedom
Yet we are the enemy? Amazing
jh,
“Iran folks are dying in the street speaking for Freedom…”
Some Iranians probably do want “Freedom” in the sense you mean–the young and wealthy inhabitants of North Tehran in particular. But many more simply want a return to the principles of the Islamic Republic, and others are invested simply in switching over the governing power in Iran from one set of elites to another.
What would happen, do you think, if the uprising were successful, Mousavi became president, articulated a political program directed toward the restoration and renewal of the promise of the Islamic Republic, and continued the immensely popular program of enriching uranium for domestic use (a right that Iran has under international law)? The very same people that are now expressing platitudinous “support” for the protesters–people like Krauthammer, Kristol, Barnes, etc.–would decide that we must bomb them.
Let’s not forget, after all, that these people were advocating a comprehensive air attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure just several months back, an attack which no doubt would have killed many more innocents than those which have been slaughtered by the current Iranian regime.
However corrupt and destructive the regime of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, the proposals of neoconservatives are much more corrupt and would be much more destructive were they ever put into practice.
MM,
I believe you are putting too much weight on reason, and facts and information.
When it comes to the Middle East, the Neocons care nothing about either. In fact, it matters NOT whether Iraq has turned out to be a messy affair or whether history would caution a different course in Iran. All this is beside the point. Even after the debacle in Iraq, the Neocons remain undaunted.
What we are seeing with the Neocons is a willingness to use American military power to achieve ends that they alone have determined to be necessary. Their objective flows out of a grand scheme that was formulated in the years immediately following the end of the Cold War. It has to do with the dominance of the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East.
Given this starting point, neither the end nor the means are a matter for debate. The only challenge for them is to get the power to act and thereby achieve their aims.
This explains why they are willing to go counter to all rational arguments, all historical lessons, and all countervailing opinion. Their end is simple: they need to get their hands on American power. Once it is theirs, they can do whatever they want.
The posture of the Neocons reduces to a brute Nietzchean “Will to Power.” In this mindset, there is no appeal to an objective intellectual order. Everything significant is a function of WILL. They have no intention to engage in honest intellectual debate. INTELLECT and IDEAS have no strategic significance.
The SOLE challenge for the Neocons is to marshall opinion such that they have a free hand to do what they want without regard to the credibility of strategic intention, a truthful consideration of circumstances, or a dialogue about what is truly in the national interest. All resources — truth and untruth alike — are to be morphed into instruments of persuasion to achieve a predetermined objective.
The cost matters not. Power and THEIR objective are all that counts.
Gerald – You seem to be moving toward this in your comment, but do you see a resemblance between the attributes of Neoconservatism you describe, and what Umberto Eco calls (if I recall) “ur-fascism”?
Gerald: Isn’t the suppression of the intellect and the sole reliance on the will the essence of voluntarism? Are you seeing a voluntarist strain here?
Well, actually, Gerald is right, because some of the “neocons” have admitted as much. Didn’t one of their number say, at one point, “We make the facts”?
Matt,
I’d have to re-read Eco in the current context to answer your question. Eco describes a number of characteristics of ur-Fascism, but I haven’t analyzed the Neocons with those in mind. One thing for sure is that Neocons are not known for their timidity. They seek to win. Would they hesitate from using Newspeak (Orwell)?
MM,
Yes, Neocons fall within the nominalism/voluntarism tent, as does much of modern thought including the Religious Right.
But the more one analyzes its particular aims, and its willingness to use whatever power is available to achieve those aims (including a deceitful use of language), the more dangerous these people can be seen to be. To me, this is the real story.
Recall how many “rationales” they used in Iraq? Why did they use so many? Did they expect to find WMD? Or did it matter? Was their intent to JUSTIFY the war? Or were these rationales subsets of a larger Fear Strategy whose aim was to capture the hearts and minds of the American people and thereby give the Neocons full sway in the pursuit of their strategic goals?
If using the term “conservative” is inappropriate because it’s so misleading and nonsensical, why is using the term “neocon” OK?
Things like this are what drive people away from this site.