previous post next post  

MAD Iran: Rational State or Mad Mullahs?

By Kat on May 29, 2008 | | Comments (19)

[Kat]

I had a lovely long post to split into a series re: Iran, As something important came up that I needed to prepare for, I'll let Amir Taheri speak to some of my other thoughts on the subject. Mainly, another question that we keep batting around like the head of a sheep at a Middle East game of "polo": Is Iran a Rational State or do the Mad Mullahs insist on irrational acts?

Amir Taheri says exactly what I think: Iran is a rational state with the usual needs of a nation guided by crazy men on a mission..

The reason is that Iran is gripped by a typical crisis of identity that afflicts most nations that pass through a revolutionary experience. The Islamic Republic does not know how to behave: as a nation-state, or as the embodiment of a revolution with universal messianic pretensions. Is it a country or a cause?

A nation-state wants concrete things such as demarcated borders, markets, access to natural resources, security, influence, and, of course, stability – all things that could be negotiated with other nation-states. A revolution, on the other hand, doesn't want anything in particular because it wants everything.

It's an excellent read. Taheri asks a good question:

So, how should one deal with a regime of this nature? The challenge for the U.S. and the world is finding a way to help Iran absorb its revolutionary experience, stop being a cause, and re-emerge as a nation-state.

The answer is simple, though execution seems to be in question:

Mr. Obama wavers back and forth over whether he will talk directly to Mr. Ahmadinejad or some other representative of the Islamic Republic, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Moreover, he does not make it clear which of the two Irans – the nation-state or the revolutionary cause – he wishes to "engage." A misstep could legitimize the Khomeinist system and help it crush Iranians' hope of return as a nation-state.

The Islamic Republic might welcome unconditional talks, but only if the U.S. signals readiness for unconditional surrender. Talk about talking to Iran and engaging Mr. Ahmadinejad cannot hide the fact that, three decades after Khomeinist thugs raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, America does not understand what is really happening in Iran.

There you have it. The problem with engaging Iran and "learning to live" with a nuclear Iran. It's a bi-polar state. Unfortunately, the "Islamic Republic" "cause" wishes to do more than improve its military, political and economic power in the region; something that is still a challenge to regional stability. The "cause" seeks to dominate globally and ideologically with the eternal revolution.

And, it has had and still has the reins of state.

So, which one will have its finger on the button?

Share This Article:

Categories:

19 Comments

By BillT on May 29, 2008 6:21 AM
So, which one will have its finger on the button? Some food for thought. Iran, the nation-state, is not at war with Iraq, the nation-state (don't bother with the "Iraq isn't a nation-state because it's fragmented" crap -- nobody over *here* is buying that). Iran's military, under the total control of the mullahs, is shelling Iraqi villages just a few dozen miles from where I'm sitting. And it's been going on for months. Soooo, the leaders of one nation-state which is not at war with a neighboring nation-state is lobbing artillery into the neighbor's neighborhoods. While fomenting terrorist acts and supplying weaponry and explosives in support of the same. Guess *whose* finger will be on the button when Iran goes nuke -- if the current status quo remains static...
 
By hass on May 29, 2008 6:29 AM
The same Taheri who was responsible for the "Yellow Badges for Iran's Jews" lies? Sure, go on, you let him do your thinking for you.
 
By kat-missouri on May 29, 2008 8:09 AM
Well, sir, he didn't do my "thinking" for me. I just happened to find his article and thought it expressed what I WAS thinking. And, you didn't answer the question. Whoever wrote it... he has a point. Is Iran the rational state or is it the Islamic Revolution? I think both of those are exclusive from one another frankly. Bill...you make my point from yesterday. Imagine a nuclear Iran and what it would be willing to do under the aegises of that cover when it does some pretty terrible things today? Of course, Iran knows it can bomb Iraq. Every time someone mentions the possibility of war with them, a whole group of folks going screaming into the proverbial desert. They don't know how to use the threat of war at all. Or...maybe they do and they already know the answer to my question: that Iran is not a rational actor and, instead of being a negotiation tool, threats of war become the fulfillment of dreams for the Islamic revolution? In other words, they are afraid the mullahs ARE mad and would take us up on the offer.
 
By ry on May 29, 2008 8:31 AM
Ah, the smell of fresh demagoguery in the morning. Nothing like it.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 29, 2008 9:14 AM
Ry - do please expound, rather than bleat and run... You are tossing out a personal attack (not sure who at just yet) without defending the premise. Bad form, boyo. Hass - same thing. You toss out one counter-example, and seemingly I'm supposed to take that as sufficient reason to ignore all subsequent (and, by extension, all previous) thoughts on the subject by Mr. Taheri. By this logic, I can pretty much exclude almost anything any politician says, because just about all of 'em have some issue or another like that. Can I now ignore Senator Obama because he can't count the states, can't keep his WWII history and his family's involvement in it straight, etc? No, I concede not perfectly matching examples, certainly, but sufficient to illustrate the point.
 
By Oldloadr on May 29, 2008 10:25 AM
I think everybody needs to take a time-out and go to their rooms and contemplate treatment of their fellow cyberspace pilgrims. BTW, as Bill pointed out Iran has been playing in Iraq's back yard for a while now. I had a friend taken out by an EFP (made in Iran) in early 2006. But then I also know of 2 soldiers who were "bit" and yet we still here there were never any WMD (BTW, this ain't classified, it was on FOX before the Army asked them to take it down).
 
By kat-missouri on May 29, 2008 10:43 AM
ry's just jealous because my posts are getting shorter than his. ;)
 
By ry on May 29, 2008 11:40 AM
It is, John. It is exactly what i called it. She's even abusing the article. She's only grabbing onto stuff that feeds the idea of a crazy Iran that must be stopped and ignoring all else, like this from the same article:
"So, how should one deal with a regime of this nature? The challenge for the U.S. and the world is finding a way to help Iran absorb its revolutionary experience, stop being a cause, and re-emerge as a nation-state."
You know, the important back half of the article. That's been the idea at heart of the Barnettian plan for over 2 years. Basically, you treat them like 'big boys' and 'grow' them out of being causeheads and into a country, at which point, and Fareed agrees, they're not a problem anymore because countries are rational. But, no, we'll just continue to harp on feelings of fear to stoke up the fire to do Iran militarily, all else is nonsense. It's 100% in synch with dictionary definition of demagogic.
 
By kat-missouri on May 29, 2008 12:07 PM
You know, ry, it must be putting a twist in your panties because, I do believe that I noted Iran is both rational and mad. That wasn't ignoring "half the article" (copyright rules keeping me from putting the entire thing in). That was simply getting to the gist of Mr. Taheri's point. There are two sides to Iran. Mr. Taheri says you have to be careful which one you're talking to. Yes, he did say we need to grow them out of their revolutionary causes, but then he did make an interesting statement about what exactly grew the USSR out of its revolutionary cause. Which, he doesn't say much of except that we need to do the same for Iran. Well...if I remember correctly, Russia was collapsing economically, they had their a$$ handed to them in Afghanistan and Reagan said something like "we're backing out of the Salt II treaty" and "Star Wars". That's when Russia "grew out of" its revolutionary causes. Are you and Mr. Barnett suggesting the same for Iran? I mean, we did just blow a satellite out of mid air and field a missile destroying laser. Maybe we simply haven't been explicit enough to help Iran start growing? You know, something along the lines of a naval blockade and a brief statement a la cuban missile crisis: "get your mitts off Iraq or its on."
 
By ry on May 29, 2008 12:49 PM
"That's when Russia "grew out of" its revolutionary causes. Are you and Mr. Barnett suggesting the same for Iran?" Actually, Kat, if you're following history you know they stopped being revolutionaries long before Reagan. That's the point. Containment caused them to. They stopped being revolutionaries and an empire probably in the 50's. Long before Reagan. Reagan just kicked them to the curb. Big difference. Part of it was that someone started treating them like adults instead of a bunch of wannabes or a passing fad. That would be Kennan, in the late 1940s. They stopped supporting revolutionary causes(wars of national liberation) in 1974, Barnett's Ph.D. thesis work is on this. So, no, you're a tad off there too. "You know, something along the lines of a naval blockade and a brief statement a la cuban missile crisis: "get your mitts off Iraq or its on."" Sigh. DIME. That's what we're talking about. A little sabotage here, a little economic carrot there, assassination of a zealot or two, engagement with red telephones, visits to Camp David, maybe even a Diem puppet type thing(but better, no incompetence and further assassinatin of our own puppet.). The full spectrum of national power for the least cost in lives, treasure, and suffering. But saying 'hands of Iraq or it's on!' isn't going to get it done. It didn't win the CW because the USSR didnt end as aftermath of the CubMissCris and it didn't fall because Reagan did a mil build up(it was a critical component, but still only one of many). Taheri's point isn't that the only path out of this is violent removal of the Mullah's but simply that the Mullah's are a problem. He's bought into the idea that they can't grow out of it. Sort of like Kruschev or Eisenhower couldn't grow out of their misconceptions when they enetered office either. Or St. Ronny for that matter. If all you see in that is 'kill the Mullah's, take over their country' you're not seeing everything that's there. Remember, they say they aren't scared. Think about that. They aren't scared. UNless you're really willing to go all the way, committ troops and the whole shebang, you can knock it off. They're not going to blink. Saber rattling isn't gonig to work. They want that. It helps them. And committing troops, which may or may not be the right choice, is something they want as well because they believe they can win(see Brecher for naval. Look at a map for all the nice places the Pasdaran can hide with AT munitions and high explosive to make an advance into Iran really costly. They're already winning the 4th Gen Battle by making the cause very essoteric in the media to begin with. So, yeah, let's just say screw it and go. Might makes right, just like in the musical Camelot, right?) And if there's panties in a twist their yours. You're the one who leaves all kinds of stuff in the bathroom of Argghhh! afterall. It's not my fault if we tripped over them, got angry, and tied knots in them.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 29, 2008 12:57 PM
Children - enough talk of panties and similar metaphors. Stick to the point, and quit poking each other in the chest.
 
By ry on May 29, 2008 2:25 PM
Dude, I was being totally humorous with panties-talk. Geez.
 
By BillT on May 29, 2008 2:33 PM
Dude, I was being totally humorous with panties-talk. Yeah, but that's Cassie's job.
 
By kat-missouri on May 29, 2008 3:50 PM
I'll go all "dude" with Ry. I can't poke him in the chest or twist his panties? It's not like he's some stranger or something. I did wrangle chickens with him. ;)
Actually, Kat, if you're following history you know they stopped being revolutionaries long before Reagan. That's the point. Containment caused them to. They stopped being revolutionaries and an empire probably in the 50's.
Long before Reagan? 50's? You've got to be kidding me. I think you misunderstand the context of "revolutionary" here. We're talking about exporting their ideology, supporting Communist guerrillas, etc. How many counter efforts did we have to do all the way into the eighties? Africa. South America. They did not give that up until the eighties and even that was because they got froggy and jumped into Afghanistan where they discovered they weren't the revolutionaries any more, but the establishment. "Stop being an empire"? So, Reagan's whole "evil empire" thing was a complete misnomer of their status or intentions? Of course, there is a smidge difference between soft empire and hard empire, but it certainly had not stopped them from trying to influence countries, economies and politics well out of their immediate area. Even outside of their hemisphere and region. And, these groups that they funded and trained were a seriously ideological, vicious lot. My point with the whole "who's going to die first?"
 
By ry on May 29, 2008 4:30 PM
Yeah, but that's Cassie's job. Okay, you got me for usurptation of job of higher organism. How many potatoes does gollum have to peel?
 
By ry on May 29, 2008 5:05 PM
Long before Reagan? 50's? You've got to be kidding me. I think you misunderstand the context of "revolutionary" here. We're talking about exporting their ideology, supporting Communist guerrillas, etc. How many counter efforts did we have to do all the way into the eighties? Africa. South America. By this definition we, the US, is a vile revolutionary gov't. We supported how many different guerrilla movements, toppled how many gov'ts(in Africa, in S. America, etc), and shoveled our ideology with Radio Free X. You're setting yourself up. NO, they stopped being revolutionaries when they took up Great Power concerns and turned away from the whole message of the revolution(the little guy). They became an empire, concerned with Power instead of the People, long before Reagan. And let's not forget that there's a difference between what the Sovs supported and what Cuba or China did. They aren't all the same. Che going to Bolivia is not something you can hang on the neck of the Sovs. Much of Africa was under the direction of Maoists(there's a diff between Marxist-Leninism and Mao-sim) or by Fidel. They all didn't play on the same team all the time. Afghanistan was where they propped up one of their pre-existing puppets. Not the same thing as, say, support for the Sandanistas which was to take down a gov't(you know, revolution). I left out a word. They became an empire instead of a revolution. "They stopped being revolutionaries and an empire probably in the 50's" insert became before the "an". And you seem to be skipping on my point in the rebuttal: how many more are you willing to kill in a muscular approach? If death matters so much to you don't you need to take that element into consideration? And you videotaped. You didn't wrangle, you videotaped and then tried to run some kind of extortion scam on me, She-who-could-pass-for-Brunhilda-in-the-Liebelungeleid(which is why if I was poking Kat in the chest, John, Unka Bill would be hearing me scream all the way in the local market.)
 
By Argent on May 29, 2008 8:11 PM
I disagree Armorer, I think hass made a very relevant point. I find it always relevant pointing out weaknesses in the source. If the source is known for porky pies it is not a good source. I think it's quite reasonable to let the matter rest at that for hass. Others like me or you can decide for ourselves if that's enough for them to reject an article. Man if you put a lot of stock in pollies i'm actually shocked. Hass did not make a personal attack apart from below nor did he make his point unclear. (hello Ry if s/o is a practicing demagoguery you really need to make it clear who and why and it's damn risky business wrangling at that personal a level). hass' only error imo was deciding Kat's thought confluence means Kat let him do the thinking for her, which is not too unreasonable to say because of the use of his source but is still a presumption which is unnecessarily inflammatory. Cmon Kat you are cherry picking this article. If this is really about *your* opinion just put it out there without a source. And you know full well copyright may prevent you from quoting the whole article, it most definitely doesn't prevent you from responding to or talking about 100% of it if you desire to. I really think the ideas aren't too bad at all. Ry's poking holes in them well enough so i don't have to bother. It just seems this is more from you then some dubious source and frankly i have more stock in you. I'd rather you use a source to back up your views with evidence. Oh Ry, poke holes carefully. You know Kat's pointy finger is sharper and can do it back with great adroitness when you have a little idea of your own to expound.
 
By kat-missouri on May 29, 2008 8:23 PM
What? You all want a psycho-analysis of Iran? The guy's an opinion writer and I referenced his opinion as being similar to mine re: split personality. And, I did not have time to go all detaily on it last night as I had other things to prepare for. Figured you guys could read it and do some of the talking.
 
By ry on May 30, 2008 8:24 AM
Oh Ry, poke holes carefully. I haven't gone nullo, Argent. There's a position to defend. It's just someone pretends that because they've stamped QED on it there can be no other valid line of reasoning applied. That, again, they declared QED, a certain interpretation of facts(like, say, proxy wars by someone means they're still revolutionaries while ignoring that we're still supporting revolutionaries too(such as Iranian dissident groups and indirectly the PKK)) so that definition means we're eeeeevil too.) that other looks should not be performed and can never be valid, they've declared with a QED on the matter. Basically, we've got to accept that we *must* invade Iran post haste without reflection or one's being Sen Obama. Which, in my mind, is just silly and wrong.