Iran's Ahmadinejad Far Weaker Than He Lets On( Victor Davis Hanson)

Real Clear Politics ^ | December 28, 2006 | Victor Davis Hanson

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Pat Buchanan, A "True Conservative!" (Oxymoron alert)

[RedStateRocker]

The Iranian people know their history; you know, how we came flying to the aid of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Kurds the students in Tienanmen square /s

[RedStateRocker]

"But IMO the fact that Iranians are getting into the habit of establishing the legitimacy of government via regular elections is an encouraging sign..."
Hadn't thought about it that way. To me, a failure of the strategy of the 'NeoCons' is that they underestimate just how complex and fragile a democracy is. A dictatorship or a theocracy is pretty straightforward to put into place, but it could be said that it took 'us' (western civilization) from the Magna Carta until the Constitution to put a balanced, effective representative government into place.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

“Hadn't thought about it that way. To me, a failure of the strategy of the 'NeoCons' is that they underestimate just how complex and fragile a democracy is. ”

I’d put it a bit differently: that the Neo-Cons underestimated the importance of an “authentic” political tradition for establishing a representative government – that this sort of transition works best if it arises at least in part at least in part from the evolution of local culture and political life - that while it does not have to work this way (the government the US successfully imposed upon Japan post WWII was in many ways a “transplant”) that it’s more likely to work this way.

I this regard I’m actually a bit more optimistic in the case of Iran than for some other places.

There are good reasons why you don’t see modern examples of durable Theocratic regimes, and as the role of religion in public life changes in Iran reformers will at least have the advantage of living in a country that is already operating under a limited form of representative government that grew out of an authentic national revolution rather than being “imposed” from the outside.

"A dictatorship or a theocracy is pretty straightforward to put into place, but it could be said that it took 'us' (western civilization) from the Magna Carta until the Constitution to put a balanced, effective representative government into place."

Yup – many of these cultures are under intense pressure to make in two or three generations changes on a scale that required 700 years in the West.

The big advantage for Islamic societies are that are already examples of political systems that cope reasonably well with the challenges of modern technocratic cultures and economies, their big problem is how to weave these into their existing traditions given that some of same traditions are horribly maladaptive under the modern conditions.

[humint]

M. DODGE THOMAS: There are good reasons why you don’t see modern examples of durable Theocratic regimes, and as the role of religion in public life changes in Iran reformers will at least have the advantage of living in a country that is already operating under a limited form of representative government that grew out of an authentic national revolution rather than being “imposed” from the outside.

HUMINT: Broad generalizations about what "neocons" think or want aside - external economic pressure on Iran is causing a socio-political bonsai effect on the growth of that nation. Iranians, particularly Iranian officials who survived the Iran-Iraq War, have a warped identity that is deeply influenced by anti-identity. By anti-identity I am referring specifically to anti-Americanism. More importantly, Iranian instability today has a root cause that will no go away. The effect of the 1979 Revolution is completely disconnected from its cause. I think that’s the point that most people banking on "reform" miss. What you are talking about in terms of policy change in Iran is in fact personality change. For the Iranian government to survive as it is defined right now, it has to subject its populace to blatant psychological operations while simultaneously blocking external influences.

Observing individuals approach Iran over the years I've come to realize something about all things external, in reference to Iran. We in the West are not talking about the unique nuances of diverse political platforms when we talk about reform in Iran. What we are actually talking about has more to do with Westerner's connectivity to the Iranian regime in terms of trade and influence. If you think relieving pressure on the Iranian regime is the best direction to move in, then consider these Qs. Do you think the privatization of Iran Air was because of internal pressure on the Iranian government? Do you think that had anything to do with public opinion? When a Rafsanjani figure or a Khatami figure stands in front of you, smiles and shakes your hand - what do you think he's thinking? Those kinds of people’s actions cannot venture too far from their toxic rhetoric without being labeled a “puppet” or “spy”, (remember the anti-identity syndrome) so don't pin your hopes on personality.

I've no desire to rob you of your optimism about Iran but if you look at that country in terms of what it is saying as well as what it is doing, it is the most egregious abuser of democratic rhetoric to sustain tyrannical policy in the world. Look at what Ayatollahs do for a living. You're being bamboozled by career speech making spiritualists. The can spin any event to serve their interests as well as any Sigmund Freud disciple. If you’re banking on them to reform then I beg you, put them under your finest microscope and watch very closely. If you find evidence to contradict what I’m saying, by all means, post it in bold.