This thread by Iranian American Yashar Ali has been circulating, taking liberal commentators to task for not mentioning the massive anti-government protests in Iran. It is circulating in many Twitter accounts I follow, and followed by many liberal mea culpas for not being sufficiently enthusiastic, so the accusation is not wholly just. But it is not wholly unjust either.* Juan Cole's Informed Comment, which I have hitherto seen as a valuable source on the Middle East, has not mentioned them. Daniel Larison, a major anti-interventionist whose weekend content is light, has made four posts this weekend, none dealing with the Iran protests.** Talking Points Memo has many (appropriate) criticisms of Trump's justification for killing General Soleimani, and one article mentioning that Iran shot down the plane, but no mention of the protests.
My opinion of all those publications has declined. But, like many of the commenters following Yashar Ali's thread, I have a certain guilty inability be be cheered by the Iran protests. Am I being purely partisan here? Partisanship probably enters into it, but I don't think that is all. I was alarmed by Trump's saber rattling with North Korea but didn't hesitate to applaud when he agree to meet with North Korean leaders. I recognize that sometimes escalation is a necessary prelude to peace, although that particular escalation was unusually scary.
For the sake of this post, I will follow conventional wisdom and assume that Iran is on the threshold of democratic transformation, although this may or may not turn out to be true.
So part of my problem is Trump's blatant hypocrisy in making clear that he care nothing about democracy anywhere except Iran and Venezuela. Let us all applaud his call on the Iranian government to to kill protesters. But he has been utterly indifferent to the fate of protesters in Hong Kong, or anywhere else.
But a certain amount of inconsistency in applying a moralistic policy is inevitable. What really bothers me, I guess, is that if Donald Trump achieves a successful democratic transition in Iran, it means the bully has won.
Simply put, Donald Trump's approach has been to crush the Iranian's economy and make clear that he will not relent for anything less than either unconditional surrender or regime change. Short of that, no concession will meet with a favorable response. He has not limited himself to a complete economic embargo on Iran, he is using all the powers of the US to punish every other country and business that does business with Iran. He is seeking to crush, not just their oil industry, but their metals industry, ship-to-ship transfers, and all other trade. He goal is to completely cut Iran out of the world economy. Theoretically, there is an exemption for humanitarian goods like food and medicine, but by punishing every bank that does business with Iran and not carving out any channel to trade in humanitarian goods, he has prevented even that. This not only exposes all Iranians to privation (which one might find some way to justify), but cuts desperately sick people off from medical care. All the while claiming to have the Iranian people's best interests at heart. The message to the Iranian people has been -- if you want medical care for your sick relatives, get off your duffs and overthrow your government. And no one in the Administration cares much much what replaces the current regime, in the belief that whatever happens, Iran will emerge from regime change too weakened to be much of a threat. And they are claiming to be champions of the Iranian people.
So, I do see this as the behavior of a brutal bully, and I hate to see the bully win. And it goes beyond Iran. Trump has just threatened that if Iraq orders US troops to leave, which it has the clear sovereign right to do, he will shut down its government account with the New York Federal Reserve, effectively killing its currency.
When I discussed the value of "honest amoralism," the amoralism I was discussing was far from total. I do believe that there are some things our country morally should not do.
When George W. Bush announces the Bush Doctrine of "preemptive war," he was essentially arguing that the US has the right to invade any country it wants, any time it wants, for any reason it wants, and that we would begin with Iraq.*** I opposed the invasion for a number of reasons, but first among them was a sense of moral outrage over the doctrine that we were allowed to invade any country at will
The Bush Doctrine proved to be too expensive and burdensome. Upon invading Iraq, we ran into an insurgency, and over time the war lost its domestic support. This did not discourage interventionism, but shifted it to the form of aerial war, special forces, and arming and training proxies. Large commitment of ground troops lost its popularity.
Well, Trump appears to have found a sort of modified Bush Doctrine. In this case, we reserve the right to crush the economy of any country that opposes us. Because we effectively control the world financial system, we can cut any country out of it and ruin its economy, at essentially zero cost to ourselves. To cut a country off from the world economy used to require a naval blockade, which also called for a serious commitment of money and manpower, and was a clear, recognized act of war. Instead we now have the financial blockade which is equally effective, but essentially cost-free, and not a recognizable act of war because there are no visible forces at work.
And I oppose the Modified Bush Doctrine for the same reason I oppose the Bush Doctrine -- it is a degree of arrogant imperialism I cannot countenance. And that is why I regret the prospect of it having a good effect.
_______________________________________________
*What is wholly unjust is many right wingers claiming that the mainstream media will not cover the protests. When I google "Iran protests" I see plenty of accounts by CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, NPR, the BBC, etc.
**I can guess what he would say, though. He generally opposes revolutions, and with some justification.
***I don't count Afghanistan. We clearly had a good reason, widely recognized, to invade Afghanistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment