--great post --as are all by VDH--
Perhaps, but kill him anyway
VDH is an intellectual that defines intellectuals, unlike anti-semitic hacks like Chomsky.
I wonder if he does frat parties? I think he'd be a real moneymaker if he was part of a "dwarf bowling" act...
Iranian theocracy is based on an imperialist idea of spiritual supremacy. The only way to validate the ideological foundation of that uni-polar idea is to spread it. Not surprisingly, the Iranian government's bad idea has not found much traction in the world. The only way they've made any progress at all is by spreading around a toxic blend of chaos and cash. For those that recommend talking to Ahmadinejad, I would be interested to hear what they think American officials should say to him, but only after they've read his speeches and letters. He has backed himself and his country into an unapproachable corner. VDH is right on target as usual. Great post.
The United States always maintained open channels with the Soviet Union. After all - unlike with Iran or Libya - we had little choice when thousands of nukes were pointed at us and Red Army troops were massed on the West German border.
But Ronald Reagan nevertheless embraced a radical shift in U.S. policy by actively appealing to Russian dissidents. He used the bully pulpit to expose the barbarity of the "evil empire" in the world court of ideas. All the while, Reagan further enhanced America's military advantage over the Soviets to speed the regime's collapse.
After the fall, courageous Russian dissidents from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to Natan Sharansky did not applaud Jimmy Carter, who had smugly pronounced the end of his own "inordinate fear" of such a murderous ideology. Instead, they preferred Reagan, who had challenged Soviet Premier Michael Gorbachev "to tear down" the Berlin Wall. America came out ahead when we were on the side of people yearning for change rather than coddling the regime trying to stop it."
For starters, Hanson confuses two different issues: Ahmadinejad's administration and Iran's nuclear program. Ahmadinejad's government may well fall in an election or two, Iran's nuclear program preceded his Presidency and will almost certainly outlast it.
Second, a policy of "non-engagement" was practical in the case of Lybia because it is a country with little real ability to influence events outside it's borders. Iran - which has substantial and increasing influence in Iraq and beyond - is a quite different challenge.
Third, Lybia is a dictatorship, the only way to influence its behavior is to influence Gaddafi. Iran has a much more complicated political structure composed of multiple competing power centers operating in a situation in which quot;public opinion" has real if limited ability to influence policy.
A Realist point of view would take into consideration that any "talks" would require concessions, most likely on Iran's nuclear issue. Therefor talks would be a total waste of time and also provides American diplomatic and political legitimacy to those who don't deserve or appreciate it. Any talks would be used by the Iranians to project a weakened and desperate U.S. asking for help strengthening Iran's political clout.
"When you are weak, act strong. When you are strong, act weak" - Sun Tzu.
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
New Link! http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/