The Rules Of Engagement

President Bush as Napoleon Bonaparte, flanked by Foreign Secretary Condoleezza Rice, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel as The Angel, the painting is called 'Allegory on The Peace of Pressburg' by Andrea Appiani ca.1808

It may very well be that we have to thank the most vitriolic and loudmouthed of opponents of the Iraqi Freedom mission. And all of us, who have been and continue to be exasperated with outrage and frustration in the face of the daily attacks coming from the MSM and the left as a whole, may come to realize that without it, Iran would never have felt emboldened enough to publicly declare its intentions and to take its current stand.

Of course it may have very little to do with the deafening opposition to Iraqi Freedom both here and in Europe, and simply be another methodical step on their 20-year path to nuclear blackmail and/or the nuclear solution of Israel as their opening strike to world domination. Iranian scientists may very well have completed the undercover phase of their program and are now in need of enriched uranium to continue to the finishing line, which is done far easier under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) terms then carried out in secret.

But I think our appeasing friends on the left can claim more credit than they are presently aware of. Thug-In-Chief, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't understand the first thing about us in the West. He fundamentally fails to grasp the core principles of our often messy, but ultimately stable and reliable secular democracies: Many Muslim activists, using broad and sometimes crude notions of secularism and sovereignty, consider democracy to be the rule of humans as opposed to Islam, which is the rule of God. Conservative Muslims tend to view the western world's advocacy of human rights as a modern agenda by which the West hopes to establish its hegemony over the Muslim world. As usual, the adage, "It takes one to name one" says it best. Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad, is thus bound to misinterpret the mean-spirited tone of the opposition as a sure sign of complete western impotence.

Well, I maybe going out on a limb here, but I think irrespective of all the cruel and bitter criticism hurled at President Bush and his administration, most Americans are still able to tell right from wrong and are able to form their opinions based on sound moral values and plain old common sense.

The tragedy of currently unfolding events is however, that it seems destined to require yet another major act of terror, claiming thousands, if not tens of thousands of innocent lives for such core values amongst our appeasing friends to resurface. But then, Ahmadinejad & Co. beware and better fasten your seat-belts, because if you get the left p.....off, you better know that they will stand up and fight in a way they had never even themselves anticipated. Don't ever underestimate the resolve of the American people, if united.

Meanwhile of course, we are pursuing the diplomatic avenue of appeasement: I listened this morning with sad bemusement what kind of sanctions against Iran are likely to be considered - that is of course if our appeasing leaders can first of all agree to take Iran to the UN and before the Security Council:

Not only do Germany, France and Britain now support taking Iran to the United Nations, but Russia has also indicated to Washington that it would permit the matter to go before the Security Council.

China, the council's fifth veto-wielding member, however, cautioned yesterday against a referral, although it did not say whether it would actually block such a move. [...]

It remains unclear what the council would be willing to do to exert pressure on Iran. U.S. and European diplomats privately said they are mapping out a series of possible steps, starting with a stern statement issued by the council president .

A stern statement, indeed. That'll do the trick. But wait, the kind of sanctions under consideration are restriction of travel. Yeah right, that should really hurt. More likely the store figures of Hermes and Dolce Gabbana, than anything else. Or restricting the participation in world-wide sports, like we did to South Africa. "Tell it to someone who gives a damn" will be Iran's response.

But, guess what is ruled out: Oil exports. And why? Because Asia in general and China in particular heavily depend on Iranian Oil, and they are not going to have their supply disrupted, you can be sure of that since Iran is China's second largest source of imported Middle East oil after Saudi Arabia and plans to use an Iranian terminal for the export of natural gas from Turkmenistan (China now imports 60 percent of its oil needs, and Iran represents 17 percent of those imports).

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, and it seems we always do. The West is an incurable romantic at heart, dreaming about world democracy, whether the world wants it or not:

"An ideology must perpetuate itself," said Ahmet Arslankaya, an Hizb ut-Tahrir member in Turkey, where the organization faces harassment by security services. "Our final strategic aim will be to expand the Islamic thought to the world and carry the Islamic banner to the White House, of course."

Ahem, but as I said, maybe, just maybe this very display of vitriolic disunity may have contributed for our true enemies to have played their hand prematurely. And if our continuing and tireless efforts to warn of the looming danger and to unmask these evil leaders with their heinous agenda, contributes to our appeasing friends taking a second look and to question their hitherto unshakeable perspective, than it was a worthy cause and time well spent and may have even ultimately saved innocent lives.

Unfortunately I very much doubt it. Michelle Malkin agrees:

My simple question: Do Americans understand the gravity of the situtation? I fear not. Once again, we are ill-served by a short-sighted, narcissistic, Bush-deranged news media far more interested in playing "gotcha," selling fish-wrap, and serving as Democrat Party adjuncts than keeping readers/viewers informed of the world's biggest threats.

and so does John Stephenson:

Will history repeat itself in America? Will the democrats follow the same path they did in the Iraq war? [...] In two years, remember this: They were for harsh sanctions in Iran before they were against them.

Ed Morrissey:

In a moment where we need to unify the West against a threat that directly impacts all of our forces concentrated in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, the last quality we should display is defeatism and fatalism. The Iranian Guardian Council wants to bluff us off indefinitely until it develops the nuclear weapons that they believe will cause a standoff with the West, and fatalism on our part will create that result.
Unfortunately, what it won't provide is MAD-style deterrence from using the weapons against us. With the Soviets, their calculations remained within the rational limits of existence. They knew if they unleashed their nuclear weapons against us or one of our allies -- say, Israel -- we would have fired back with an annihilation-level counterstrike. That balance kept the so-called Cold War from being fought on a global basis; instead, we fought proxy battles around the world to keep the balance of power until Reagan came along and bankrupted the Soviets through modernization of the weaponry and new efforts such as SDI.

The Iranians do not see the world in the same way. The radical Shi'ites of Qum practice a Messianic vision of Islam, one in which going out with a bang has a higher value than survival. The mullahs will not be deterred by overwhelming American strength in this area, and will consider a Teheran-for-Israel trade to be well worth the effort and loss of Iranian life.

MAD only works as a doctrine when both sides have the same stake in survival.

Memeorandum features my post, more @ The Glittering Eye who has a well researched must read post. Also check Power Line, Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, The American Thinker, Jeff Goldstein, Ed Driscoll, Ace of Spades, AndrewSullivan, Neo-Neocon, Atlas Shrugs, Regime Change Iran, Joe Gandelman, Dr. Sanity, The Belmont Club, The Political Pit Bull, A Blog For All,  The Reaction, A Daily Briefing on Iran, Austin Bay, Gina Cobb, GOP Bloggers, ScrappleFace, Clayton Cramer, American Future, Baloon Juice

Wizbang, and Basil's Blog

Comments

[Dan Nexon]

"What I do say, is that the vocal and predominantly vitriolic criticism from the left and the mainstream media may have "emboldened" Iran, or, to be specific, Thug-In_Chief, President Ahmadinejad, to openly and without veneer "declare" his true military intentions rooted in his religious beliefs and goals vis-a-vis Israel and vis-a-vis the rest of the world. I support this hypothesis with my explanation why Ahmadinejad & Co. are likely to misinterpret such disunity and as such may feel "emboldened" to name a spade a spade, as it were."

Alexandra: I appreciate the correction (I had read "take its current stand" as synonymous with the hardening of its position on proliferation, but I'll defer to the author to clarify her own intent). Still, I think that you don't really provide any evidence to substantiate your claim: that Ahmadinejad pays careful attention to domestic developments in the US, that these developments influence his stance on the nuclear issue, that the influence is determinative vis-a-vis domestic Iranian political considerations, factional struggles, what was happening at the talks, and so on and so forth. I know these are blog posts, not social-scientific papers, but consider this paragraph:

But I think our appeasing friends on the left can claim more credit than they are presently aware of. Thug-In-Chief, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't understand the first thing about us in the West. He fundamentally fails to grasp the core principles of our often messy, but ultimately stable and reliable secular democracies: Many Muslim activists, using broad and sometimes crude notions of secularism and sovereignty, consider democracy to be the rule of humans as opposed to Islam, which is the rule of God. Conservative Muslims tend to view the western world's advocacy of human rights as a modern agenda by which the West hopes to establish its hegemony over the Muslim world. As usual, the adage, "It takes one to name one" says it best. Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad, is thus bound to misinterpret the mean-spirited tone of the opposition as a sure sign of complete western impotence.

You move from one claim - that he doesn't understand the political dynamics of secular societies - to a series of intermediate arguments about a belief in western imperialism to "thus is bound to misinterpret the mean-spirited tone of the opposition as a sure sign of complete western impotence." How are these arguments connected, and why does the conclusion follow from the premises? The intermediate arguments, if true, provide a good argument against socialization and/or concession strategies - in other words, the perception of threat posed by "the West" will be constant regardless of what range of policies we adopt - but they don't imply that high levels of partisanship will inevitably be read as US weakness.

[Kenny Pierce]

Joseph, are you not going to have pity on us and answer my questions? Are you going to leave us forevermore to wonder, "What was he really thinking"? I thought liberals were supposed to have compassion?

[Alexandra]

Dan, I am confused.

You make a basic causal claim at the start of your post: that criticism from the left and the mainstream media have "emboldended" Iran to push forward with its nuclear program.

I don't follow you how you can find this claim in my post, at the start or elsewhere. I didn't say that it had "emboldended" Iran to push forward with its nuclear program" (which btw I don't believe for one moment; Iran has been at this for a very long time, even way before Desert Storm, as all the various watchdog organizations have confirmed).

What I do say, is that the vocal and predominantly vitriolic criticism from the left and the mainstream media may have "emboldened" Iran, or, to be specific, Thug-In_Chief, President Ahmadinejad, to openly and without veneer "declare" his true military intentions rooted in his religious beliefs and goals vis-a-vis Israel and vis-a-vis the rest of the world. I support this hypothesis with my explanation why Ahmadinejad & Co. are likely to misinterpret such disunity and as such may feel "emboldened" to name a spade a spade, as it were.

Regarding Robert Farley's argument, I'm tempted to answer in tomorrow's post :)

[Dan Nexon]

"You mean to tell me that your bloody appeasement policies, starting with Carter, have not directly paved the way for Pakistan and North Korea to obtain nuclear weaponry and for Iran to have come this far? What an ignorant bafoon you must be."

This is actually an entirely different issue from the claim advanced by Alexandra (see the above and also the start of her post). For what's its worth, it is a better argument: that US policy towards Iran from the late 1970s onwards has gotten us to this point.

If you want to pin the blame on Cater and Clinton for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, you're also going to have to blame Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George Bush. No Republican or Democratic President has had an effective Iran policy over the last twenty-five years. Reagan tried to counterbalance Iran by throwing support to Iraq. Then his administration made a bizarre attempt to appease Iran in what came to be known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Throughout the early 1990s there was increasing evidence of Pakistani-Iranian nuclear collaboration, but neither George H.W. Bush nor Clinton had an effective policy. All we got, in fact, was the Pressler Amendment which worked so damn well that Pakistan dropped its own nuclear program... oh, wait.

We can debate North Korean proliferation for quite some time. The Clinton administration came extremely close to using military force in the 1990s, but backed down for two reasons: (a) they weren't sure they could hit North Korea's program effectively [this turned out to be correct; we now have reason to believe they would have bombed empty caves] and (b) because they weren't willing to risk provoking the North Koreans into killing millions of South Koreans. These are reasonable decisions - I suspect the latter explains why the Bush administration hasn't bombed North Korea either.

McCain is, in the main, right about Iran and his argument could be extended to North Korea: there are no good options. I made this point, in a rather tongue-in-cheek way, when I defended bribing North Korea.

[Dan Nexon]

You make a basic causal claim at the start of your post: that criticism from the left and the mainstream media have "emboldended" Iran to push forward with its nuclear program. You don't provide any evidence to substantiate this point. Instead, you embark on an (interesting) analysis of the existential conflict between the militant Islamicists and the west. It may very well be that "the left" misunderstands the nature of the threat. As I commented on American Future, I am deeply dismayed by the cavalier dismissal of the dangers posed by Iranian proliferation coming from such bloggers as Atrios, Kevin Drum, and others. But there is a world of difference between criticizing the left for not being wrong on this point and claiming any sort of causal connection between criticisms of the Iraq War and current Iranian proliferation policy.

Indeed, as Robert Farley notes, Iran serves as a better data point for falsifying one of the claims advanced in favor of Bush foreign policy: that Iraq would serve as a "lesson" to other would-be proliferators and hence deter them from pursuing nuclear weapons.

The post of mine that you link to makes the same point as Rob's latest one: one cannot extrapolate from the failure of the EU3 negotiations grounds for "mocking" the Europeans for not "getting the threat." There are a variety of reasons why the EU3 negotiations failed and why there's plenty of blame to go around. US policy makers haven't been particularly effectual either, so far.

Iran is not, and should not, be a partisan issue or a wedge to further the trans-Atlantic split. Indeed, politicians in the US and in Western Europe have, so far, displayed an admirable unity of policy goals on Iran. Let's mock Atrios and company for trying to make this a partisan issue, but by the same token right-bloggers should exercise the restraint lacking in many quarters of the left-wing blogsphere.

[Ken Pierce]

Joseph,

You are, obviously, most enamoured with the Iran-is-impossible-because-our-stupid-President-invaded-Iraq line of argument. There are, however, elements of such a position that I can’t quite work out. Before you pursue that course any further, could you please explicitly enlighten us on the following aspects of your opinion that remain obscure to those of your fellow commenters who are not more intelligent than my own confused self?

First, let’s address your own personal opinion about desirable foreign policy.

I. Are you saying that, had we not invaded Iraq, you would now be calling for us to invade Iran?

I.A.. If so, then:

I.A.1. Do you agree that the possibility that an evil regime may acquire weapons of mass destruction and may be willing to use them, is appropriately met with invasion, regime change and nation-building?

I.A.1.a. If so, then:

I.A.1.a.i. Are you saying that the evidence that Iran is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction is greater than the evidence that Saddam was attempting to acquire them?

I.A.1.a.ii. Or are you saying that the current evidence about how far along Iran is in the process leads you to believe that Iran is closer to actual possession of WMD’s than the evidence in the past could reasonably have led Bush to believe that Iraq was before our invasion?

I.A.1.a.iii. Or are you saying that the evidence that Iran would be willing to use WMD’s once it managed to acquire them is presently greater than the evidence that Saddam would be willing to use them was?

I.A.1.a.iv. Or, failing any of the previous three choices, would you say that there was before our invasion at least as much evidence that Saddam posed a serious WMD threat as there is for Iran’s posing one?

I.A.2. If you would be calling for us to invade Iran (had we not invaded Iraq), but you do not agree that the potential for use of WMD’s is a reason to invade another country, then on what grounds would you have justified the invasion of Iran?

Now let’s address your opinion of political reality:

II. Do you believe that, if anti-war political forces and considerations had been strong enough to restrain the President from invading Iraq, those same forces and considerations – not to mention the continuing existence in the region of Saddam’s own armed forces, potential WMD’s and psychological instability – would equally have precluded any invasion of Iran?

II.A. If so, then do you believe that it is honest to say, “The reason we can’t invade Iran is because we invaded Iraq,” even though ex hypothesi there would be no conceivable political reality under which we could have refrained from invading Iraq and still chosen to invade Iran?

Thank you in advance for the clarification, and forgive the obtuseness that makes explicit clarification necessary.

Respectfully yours,

Kenny

[Joseph Marshall]

Iran would never have felt emboldened enough to publicly declare its intentions and to take its current stand.

There is one--and only one--reason Iran has felt so emboldened. Since the invasion of Iraq the United States has not had sufficient military force to stop them. We still don't.

We have not had this force because we were stupid enough to fight two naval air wars too close together, knocking all but one of our aircraft carriers off the high seas for a full thirteen months, thus removing the capacity for any close air support for ground troops, and giving the Iranians a year's head start before anybody in Washinton could even safely mention what they were doing.

So, for that entire year, none of our fire-eating neo-cons in charge ever mentioned it.

Then, having been stupid enough to invade Iraq on a wild goose chase, the United States pursued that wild goose so obssessively after it's "Mission Accomplished", that it virtually solicited the current insurgency to develop, when an attentive military occupation could have prevented it.

In the interval, we have done nothing really serious to suppress the insurgency our inattentiveness created, because we have never fielded enough troops to do so, and we are still running around in circles in Bagdhad.

Hence this Iranian mess.

Do you disbelieve this? Then why have we not seen our Grand Imperial Chickenhawks waving the Bush Doctrine at the Iranians? They are part of the Axis of Evil, and we've known this from the first, right? We were ready to assert our right to pursue the nations trying to procure Weapons Of Mass Destruction, and had no problems doing so in Iraq, right?

So why haven't we done this?

We don't have the military cards in our hand. We haven't had since March of 2002. And we have only our own decisions to blame for it. It's that simple.

The most discouraging thing about the whole business was that anyone with eyes could have seen it coming. I certainly did. Absolutely nothing that has happened over there since March 2002 has surprised me one jot.

Iran's nuclear capacities [and intentions] have been well known for decades, by 2002 Iraq's were a mere Tom Clancy fantasy.

The most obvious outcome of a successful invasion of Iraq was the development of an insurgency, if we didn't take proactive steps to prevent it.

The private character of the current president, particularly his lazy inattentiveness to business, made it highly probable that we wouldn't take proactive steps to prevent it. And we didn't.

Our swift initial victories in Afghanistan and Iraq sent one clear message of realpolitik to Iran: Get nuclear weapons while you still have time. The forseeable fact that we have flubbed the follow-through to those victories has given them the time.

So why should we expect anything else but what we have?

[North by Northwest]

If you have any evidence to substantiate a link between opposition to the Iraq War and Iranian nuclear proliferation policy, do please enlighten us.

You mean to tell me that your bloody appeasement policies, starting with Carter, have not directly paved the way for Pakistan and North Korea to obtain nuclear weaponry and for Iran to have come this far? What an ignorant bafoon you must be.

[Alexandra]

Dan,

You link to no less than two of my posts in your post which you are referring to: Stop Or I'll Say Stop Again, and Europe Thy Name Is Cowardice, both under the umbrella of:

A great many right-wing blogs advance a strange interpretation of the latest developments in Iran's apparent quest for nuclear weapons: the current failures of European-Iranian negotiations provide more evidence that Europeans are soft, ineffectual, and otherwise feminized.

You link to my posts, within the word "strange" linking to the first and referring to my view, and the other "ineffectual" linking to the second, referring to Europe’s stand vis-à-vis Islam.

Now you say:

[...] A good dose of counterfactual analysis, process tracing, and even systematic evidence about the behavior and motivations of proliferators would do the trick[...]the argument I seek to rebut is narrow, and carefully laid out at the start of the post.

You call that narrow and carefully laid out? Have you read the amount of information accumulated in my two posts? I suggest YOU start "counterfactual analysis, process tracing, and even systematic evidence about the behavior and motivations of proliferators", and I say to you "that would do the trick".

You are arrogant and condescending, and I don't appreciate it. Who do you think you are talking to? Don't write a five short paragraph post and think you have rebutted anything, albeit supposedly “narrowly defined”. You cannot quote long and well researched posts and then think that calling one strange is even defining the lines drawn.

I will not change the link to your "narrowly undefined" left’s appeasement view, just as I am not asking you to take out your link to my post under "strange" interpretation. But I will certainly save myself the argument within “your narrowly defined” point which The American Future has already dealt with at length in his response to you.

If you have any evidence to substantiate a link between opposition to the Iraq War and Iranian nuclear proliferation policy, do please enlighten us

Dan, I don't know what nonsense you are talking about here. I am obviously referring to the outrageous comments Ahmadinejad made recently in relation to Israel and to his dreams of Islamic world domination; I am contemplating as to whether the vocal disunity in the West in relation to regime change may have encouraged him to step up the rhetoric. Many commentators have indeed welcomed Ahmadinejad's bluntness as it smashes the carefully crafted duplicity previously practiced by his predecessors, mollycoddling the West whilst simultaneously relentlessly promoting at home the teachings of hatred against our secular democracies.

Of course if our MSM would have done their job properly, they would have reported on Iran’s true colors long before Ahmadinejad’s kind illuminations, as all it would have taken is to listen in on the domestic Arab official voices.

[Edd]

It seems to me, at least, is that the West must develop a synthetic oil under a program with the same enthusiasm as JFK put us on to reach the moon!

[Dan Nexon]

"outrage and frustration in the face of the daily attacks coming from the MSM and the left as a whole, may come to realize that without it, Iran would never have felt emboldened enough to publicly declare its intentions and to take its current stand."

This causal claim is so absurd that it doesn't even pass the laugh test. If you have any evidence to substantiate a link between opposition to the Iraq War and Iranian nuclear proliferation policy, do please enlighten us. A good does of counterfactual analysis, process tracing, and even systematic evidence about the behavior and motivations of proliferators would do the trick.

I'm curious why you think that my post is a call for "appeasement." Perhaps you ought to review it more closely: the argument I seek to rebut is narrow, and carefully laid out at the start of the post.

[North by Northwest]

What Muslims need to vigorously debate is "What is sharia?" Most of what is called sharia today are opinions of scholars who lived centuries ago - it's not in the Koran or sayings of the prophet.

The Sisters of Islam in Malaysia, for example, have fought a proposal by the Islamic party to implement the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam, and harsh penalties against women. The group has spurred debate through the media, challenging clerics over their failure to see Islamic law in a historical context.

That's the problem isn't it - I mean, look where their starting point is. Google "Islam and Democracy" and you get a multitude of great essays all more or less proclaiming that Islam and Democracy are not at odds, but compatible. There's but one snag with all of them. They argue around ruthless and fanatical leaders who in all seriousness wish to make it law that anyone who leaves Islam should be put to death. Leaders who are corrupt and/or believe to follow a 'devine' calling. And Islam gives all these psychopaths the perfect platform:

Can Islamic countries be compatible with our Western ideal of democracy? It appears that among the clergy, there isn't necessarily an acceptance of church-state separation in the basic doctrine. The Quran, according to doctrine, is the word of God about how to behave in this world, both in ethical and political areas. According to the fundamentalist doctrine, it is the ultimate source of knowledge.

This belief may present a basic conflict of Islam with democracy. Democracy implies that all people should have an equal voice in government. Islam can be interpreted to say that the clergy, who have the most detailed understanding of the Word of God, should have more to say about government than the average person. Moreover, their understanding should be absolute, as dictated by the doctrine, and not subject to vote or negotiation.

However, the picture is not that simple. Even according to Islamic doctrine, individuals are not bound to accept the word of a particular leader. They are free to choose a mosque or a leader whom they agree with.

As long as it is a Muslim leader, otherwise you're dead; and our psychopathic Head of State made sure that only Muslim leaders stick around who adhere to his divine interpretations. It's a vicious circle which can only be broken with an uncompromising regime change. And that is dirty work, requiring immense sacrifice, and, worst of all, as we hear every day, it's insufferably thankless.

The alternative can sound all too often benign:

Iran’s former President Mohammad Khatami, noted last year that “the existing democracies do not necessarily follow one formula or aspect. It is possible that a democracy may lead to a liberal system. It is possible that democracy may lead to a socialist system. Or it may be a democracy with the inclusion of religious norms in the government. We have accepted the third option.” Khatami presents a view common among the advocates of Islamic democracy that “today world democracies are suffering from a major vacuum, which is the vacuum of spirituality,” and that Islam can provide the framework for combining democracy with spirituality and religious government.

Thanks to the Khatami's successor, President Ahmadinejad we now know how he intends to fill this vacuum of spirituality. Regime change. It's the only way. Are we up for it?