We’re All Neocons Now

Last Friday, RealClearPolitics ran in its lead feature spot an essay by Gregory Scoblete, a free-lance writer in New Jersey. The essay had the headline “The GOP, Ron Paul & Non-Interventionism,” and was subsequently commented upon by, among others, guest-blogger Stephen Bainbridge on Andrew Sullivan’s blog.

Scoblete’s premise is that, just as Barry Goldwater’s failed campaign for president led the Republican party to embrace a limited-government philosophy, so too Ron Paul’s presidential campaign today, doomed though it is, will cause the GOP to embrace his philosophy of “non-interventionism.” Scoblete goes on at great lengths to “distinguish non-interventionism from isolationism.” He writes, for example, “The former seeks a more rigorous and delimited definition of America’s interests, while the latter a walled garden that completely cuts America off from the world. Non-interventionists are not pacifists, but they do reserve war fighting for moments of actual national peril.”

first of all

1) he was not trying to topple the shah. he was the elected prime minister. the shah was an unelected tyrant

2.) the idea that he was a communist front man was a creation of British intelligence. The Anglo-Persian oil company stood to lose a fortune if he nationalized Iran’s oil wealth-—so they went out of the way to make sure that the UK, not Iran, would control the oil there. The British tried to sell this to truman, but he didn’t buy it. He saw right through the smoke screen the brits created. Eisenhower did bite, however, when all kinds of manufactured evidence (that even you are buying into, 50 years later) was layed out for him

3. I do not care one iota if Mossadegh liked or disliked Israel. he was an elected leader, and we should have respected that. On top of that, Mossadegh wanted good relations with the US.

4. How can you say that Mossadegh “had dictatorial ambition and was abusing his power” when you are defending his overthrow by a military coup that installed a tyrannical monarch with a hideous human rights record?

1) Yes he was trying to topple the Shah, abolish the monarchy and establish a “republic”.

His supporters from the “Jebhe Melli” destroyed royal symbols throughout Tehran. hand in hand with the communist mobs from the forbidden Tudeh.

Ironically 30 years prior, in 1923 when Reza Khan (later Reza Shah Pahlavi) was Prime Minister, the then member of Parliament Mossadegh was the only one, apart from the islamist Aytollah Modaress to oppose the abolition of the corrupt and vile Qajar dynasty. Back then Reza Khan tried to make Persia a secular republic (after the model of Turkey) but it was the islamists and those “loyal to the constitution” (which prescribed a Qajar monarchy) like Mossadegh who prevented it. Bowing to the pressure from the clergy and othe opponents of a republic Reza Khan decided to keep the Monarchy and became the first Pahlavi Shah in 1925.

2)He was a socialist, cooperating with Soviet pawns from the Tudeh party and Kashani Islamists. This was more than just Brit propaganda. He may have been elected, but he was a threat nontheless. 1953 was the peak of the cold war. The Soviets have been expelled from Iran just shortly (1946) and the communists were a constant threat in Iran. The deposing of the Monarch in 1953 would have signified an incredibly weak Iran in face of an aggressive Soviet Union.
This is a what if scenario. But from US, UK, Western standpoint the decision to support the Shah is obvious.

3)The USA has to respect it’s interests and those of it’s
allies. Israel is an ally and the Shah was an ally.

4) Mossadegh gave himself dicatorial and
extraordinary powers in spite of the constitution.
Even elected politicans can turn into tyrants.
The Shah was the constitutional head of state and CiC.
Yes, he later turned into an autocrat with unchecked
powers and established in 1976 a one-party rule
(Rastakhiz), however this was well after the 1953 coup.

Obviously you think it’s just great that the US state department supports brutal dictatorships and arms jehadists and others that later become our enemies. Any criticism of that and you call the critic un American.

I on the other hand would call our state department un American in the sense that they consistently provide funds and support to regimes and ideologues who are anti American. How do you explain Washington's support for FATA or China?

The enemy of our enemy is not always our friend, but Washington hasn’t yet figured that simple lesson out.

Neo-Cons are some of the stupidest people on the planet. They just don’t realize it.

“Obviously you think it’s just great that the US state department supports brutal dictatorships and arms jehadists and others that later become our enemies. “

I sure do. History has shown this can greatly reduce casulties and achive a primary objective. This is why we stopped at the Elbe and allowed the Russians to sacrifice 300,000+ casulties in their efforts to take Berlin.

“Any criticism of that and you call the critic un American.”

Um, no I don’t.

“How do you explain Washington’s support for FATA or China?”

Define ‘support’.

“Neo-Cons are some of the stupidest people on the planet. They just don’t realize it.”

I think the bigger question is, if a neo-con becomes a isolationist shrimp salesman, is the person still a neo-con?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.