more diavlogs
|
|
Iran Update
Recorded: September 4  Posted: September 8
Bloggingheads wrote on 09/08/2009 at 08:10 PM
Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
Technical Difficulties
Because of technical problems, some parts of this diavlog were lost. We apologize.
nikkibong wrote on 09/08/2009 at 08:18 PM
Re: Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
Ah, yes: yet more attention lavished on that cause celebre of American "thinkers", the situation in Iran. (Obligatory disclaimer: a generally horrid government in Tehran, indeed.)
Meanwhile, the people of North Korea are still enslaved, there's continued oppression in western (and well, everywhere else in) China, and Obama is ramping up the slaughter in Afghanistan. Yet we only ever hear when about North Korea if they involve nuclear "stategery," about China, unless its about economic growth, and . . .well, crickets about the moral concerns involving Afghanistan. Other than that, it's constant demonization of the Iranian regime. (I state again that its a fetid government, but it is nothing compared to the horrors in NK and China.)
Lastly: all of this attention is only going to hurt the cause of Iran's liberals. That is to say: it's only going to cause further oppression. Do you think it's escaped the clerics' attention that North Korea garners far less attention than Iran? And why that is? The Ayatollah is probably thinking . . ."be more like Kim Jong Il."
Lyle wrote on 09/08/2009 at 11:15 PM
Re: Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
North Korea is not directly behind Hezbollah and Hamas. The big issue with Iran is them building nukes and then their Sunni Arab neighbors wanting to have some as well, and them down the road giving materials to Hezbollah and/or Hamas.
Everyone knows North Korea is worse. China is arguably not as bad as Iran, but has issues up the Yangtze.
piscivorous wrote on 09/09/2009 at 12:56 AM
Off Topic Afghanistan Strategy
This is directed towards the commenter from an earlier Diavlog curious about the our strategic objectives in Afghanistan. I just don't feel like taking the time to go find the comment.
The link is a pretty good article on our strategic goals from a conservative perspective. It contains several links to countervailing thoughts so depending on your depth of interest you can get a broad sense of the arguments for involvement. The Afghanistan Strategy Dialogue: My Thoughts
It is the culmination of series of Post in response to this challenge Maybe Bacevich Has a Point: Introducing the Afghanistan Strategy Dialogue Is the war in Afghanistan in the interests of the United States and its allies? If so, at what point do the resources we are expending become too high a cost to bear? What are the strategic limitations of U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine and operations? And if the war is not in the interests of the United States and its allies, what are U.S. and allied interests in Central Asia – and how do you propose to secure them?
bjkeefe wrote on 09/09/2009 at 07:50 AM
Re: Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
Hey, Chomsky finally made it onto Bh.tv!
;^)
bjkeefe wrote on 09/09/2009 at 08:25 AM
Re: Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
Quoting nikkibong: [...] I take your points, but I have to say that I got a lot out of this diavlog, so in and of itself, there's that to appreciate. I look forward to hearing more from these guys.
I would also say that, whether you like it or not, Iran matters more to the interests of the US than do the other regions you listed, so it makes sense that Iran gets more attention on a US-centric media outlet.
Lastly, while I agree with you that liberals in Iran would be hurt by the US government getting involved in their efforts, I fail to see how a couple of academics talking about the situation in Iran risks anything.
[Added] Actually, I posted the above before listening to the last segment, so I now have to withdraw my objection somewhat, since Jamsheed and Michael were talking about how we could bring pressure for change from the outside. I have to say, though, there is something to their "damned if you do, damned if you don't, so you might as well do" point.
kezboard wrote on 09/09/2009 at 11:24 AM
Re: Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
One of the sort of annoying/endearing things about Bloggingheads is that when you get two experts on one thing in the same diavlog, they tend to get seriously into the weeds and then you have to listen to pieces of it twice. I'm not really complaining, I really kind of like it, although it makes the ones about topics I find sort of dull completely unlistenable. This isn't a dull topic at all, but Jesus Christ, it's complicated. Can we have a diavlog on how Iran ended up with this crazy government structure?
Francoamerican wrote on 09/09/2009 at 11:27 AM
Re: Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
Quoting nikkibong: Ah, yes: yet more attention lavished on that cause celebre of American "thinkers", the situation in Iran. (Obligatory disclaimer: a generally horrid government in Tehran, indeed.)
..... Other than that, it's constant demonization of the Iranian regime. (I state again that its a fetid government, but it is nothing compared to the horrors in NK and China.) I have to agree. The Iranian regime is both a republic and a theocracy: that may be a difficult concept for the "thinkers" at the American Enterprise Institute to grasp, but there are worse regimes in the Muslim Arab world, to say nothing of the countries you mention. Moreover, it is not self-evident to me that Muslim countries will accept, at least in the foreseeable future, the notion of a purely secular form of government. So I am not altogether clear what Chosky and Rubin mean when they talk about promoting democracy---as if democracy had a univocal and simple definition, applicable everywhere and always.
The "promotion of democracy" has been a permanent feature of American foreign policy since the end of WW II. The idea was inspiring when the main opponent was Marxism or "totalitarianism." Now it just seems to be a lazy habit of
DenvilleSteve wrote on 09/09/2009 at 01:38 PM
Are the Iranians going to deploy nuke weapons?
The only question I have regarding Iran is if they are going to deploy nuclear weapons. I assume that, after years of work, they have the technology and weapons grade nuclear material. Accepting this premise, the fascinating question is, has the leadership decided not to deploy nuclear weapons?
nikkibong wrote on 09/09/2009 at 01:40 PM
Re: Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
Quoting bjkeefe: I would also say that, whether you like it or not, Iran matters more to the interests of the US than do the other regions you listed, so it makes sense that Iran gets more attention on a US-centric media outlet.
. Two things: first, I don't think US-based media outlets should only concern themselves with things which fall within the narrow prism of American "interests." (But that is a more broad, idealistic point.)
But, more specifically, I strongly disagree with your contention here. To bring it down to the crude level of interests and strategy: North Korea has nuclear weapons, and has threatened the United States. Not to mention the 36,000 American soldiers who live in South Korea.
Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and has never threatened the US with attack. (It has only threatened Israel, which was, last time I checked, a sovereign state.) Thus, NK is far more relevant to American interests.
And China, as I'm sure you realize, is the most important economic partner (and competitor to!) of the United States. Therefore, I think both of these countries are actually far more relevant to American interests.
The Iran obsession among American elites is misplaced. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the theocracy's hostility
bjkeefe wrote on 09/09/2009 at 02:00 PM
Re: Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
Quoting nikkibong: Two things: first, I don't think US-based media outlets should only concern themselves with things which fall within the narrow prism of American "interests." (But that is a more broad, idealistic point.)
But, more specifically, I strongly disagree with your contention here. To bring it down to the crude level of interests and strategy: North Korea has nuclear weapons, and has threatened the United States. Not to mention the 36,000 American soldiers who live in South Korea.
Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and has never threatened the US with attack. (It has only threatened Israel, which was, last time I checked, a sovereign state.) Thus, NK is far more relevant to American interests.
And China, as I'm sure you realize, is the most important economic partner (and competitor to!) of the United States. Therefore, I think both of these countries are actually far more relevant to American interests.
The Iran obsession among American elites is misplaced. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the theocracy's hostility towards Israel. And I'm also sure that the religious denomination of many in the American chattering classes has something to do with that. ANTI-SEMITE!!!1!
In all seriousness, though, ...
I don't agree with you about most of that. North Korea is a nuisance, not
Lyle wrote on 09/09/2009 at 02:42 PM
Re: Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
nikkibong,
You're making the "it's them dirty Jews" argument. Are you a WASP or something?
You still aren't getting it. The U.S. has bases in the Persian Gulf states and Turkey. There's 100k plus American personnel in Iraq right now and there will be a presence there for the foreseeable future. Iran is right next to door to the Gulf states, Turkey, and Iraq right? Do we really want to give the Saudis nukes to counter-balance Iran's arsenal?
It's about nuclear proliferation in a very important part of the world. If North Korea had as much oil as the Saudis have, we'd have already knocked the regime there over, but they don't, so it's less of a pressing matter.
A country even more ignored than North Korea is Myanmar. Priorities are priorities though.
piscivorous wrote on 09/09/2009 at 05:14 PM
Re: Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
Quoting nikkibong: North Korea has nuclear weapons, and has threatened the United States. Not to mention the 36,000 American soldiers who live in South Korea.
Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and has never threatened the US with attack. (It has only threatened Israel, which was, last time I checked, a sovereign state.) Thus, NK is far more relevant to American interests.
And China, as I'm sure you realize, is the most important economic partner (and competitor to!) of the United States. Therefore, I think both of these countries are actually far more relevant to American interests.
The Iran obsession among American elites is misplaced. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the theocracy's hostility towards Israel. And I'm also sure that the religious denomination of many in the American chattering classes has something to do with that Right they don't threaten the US they just train and pay surrogates to actually attack and kill us. Sort of a reversal of the old adage "All talk and no action" so to speak.
What is the connection between N.Korea and Iran as far as cooperation in the ballistic missile and nuclear weapons arenas. What quid pro quo do the Iranians get
a Duoist wrote on 09/09/2009 at 08:08 PM
Re: Iran Update (Jamsheed Choksy & Michael Rubin)
Comparing the possible future threat from Iran with a possible threat from North Korea or from any other state is to miss the actual nature of the form of governance in Iran compared with other hostile governances. Iran's governance is grounded in Khomeini's 'Hukumat-i Islam-i,' and all of Khomeini's political thinking is a reflection of theological purity.
In such a puritan-based politics, the greatest "danger" is from a form of "corruption" which MUST be "cleansed." Despite having an army, Iran has the IRG, as a parallel army for purity. Despite having municipal police, Iran has the Basidji, a parallel organization to enforce purity. The last religiously-oriented puritan in charge of a government was named Hitler. The Jews, experts on puritanism, have seen this political beast in Iran before, and are understandably growing increasingly concerned. After all, the most effective means of initiating a cleansing is by nuclear incineration.
|
|
uncle ebeneezer: We know how you feel, Mike! 
bjkeefe: Hear, hear!
uncle ebeneezer: What does it really mean?
uncle ebeneezer: Is Tom purposely trying to steer interest away from his profession?
themightypuck: Bob the Baptist comes out.
uncle ebeneezer: Will formulates a scenario where the terrorists, literally, win!
sapeye: Hmmm, is Bob guilty of serious stereotyping?
Stapler Malone: No, Bob. It’s not. Nothing ever is.
d7greene: Lawrence Lessig knows a juice-boxer when he sees one.
Toryentalist: Matt is great, Matt is great—listen and repeat.
thouartgob: Joel’s elegant refutation of Bob’s point.
uncle ebeneezer: George Johnson, hopeless romantic!
themightypuck: Robert Wright, Asteroid Cowboy.
bjkeefe: Spelling is fun-damental!
nikkibong: The joy of taking stuff out of context.
bjkeefe: Who stole Matthew’s tie?
uncle ebeneezer: The Art of Subtlety.
bjkeefe: Heather slaps the entire BhTV community.
bjkeefe: Can anyone find a case where this is not ultimately Mickey's advice to Dems?
Ken Davis: The racial blind taste test.
Stapler Malone: Go forward, not backward; upward not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom....
Simon Willard: Bob steps outside himself here.
JonIrenicus: Puzzle spelled out.
uncle ebeneezer: George's response here was absolutely priceless.
graz: Bob takes Tom Jones down a peg.
|
collapse links
