Sunday
Dec272009
Iran: The False US Friends of the "Iranian People" (An Open Letter to Charles Krauthammer)
Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 6:50 
Mr Krauthammer,I never thought I would open an letter to you with a word of thanks. To be honest, I have almost never agreed with your past quarter-century of syndicated polemic in US newspapers and magazines. I respect your right to hold an opinion and your skill in writing. However, I find that your analysis is more often propelled by rigid belief rather than evidence, whether that belief is a specific objective (the unbending advocacy of Israel, whatever the circumstances) or a general aspiration, such as your call for an American “unipolar era” in which all others would bow to the dominance of the United States.
The Latest from Iran (27 December): The Day of Ashura
Yet I must note that, in your column on Friday, “2009: The Year of Living Fecklessly”, you ostensibly recognised the post-election demonstrations in Iran as a “new birth of freedom”. I am not sure exactly what a “new birth” is --- I have found that most Iranians with whom I communicate have a long-held desire for freedom --- but any acknowledgement of the public calls for justice and rights is to be welcomed.
So, thank you. And now a request: Go Away.
Please go away now and do not return to Iran as the setting for your political assaults. For --- and let this be acknowledged widely, if not by you than by others --- the “Iranian people” whom you supposedly praise are merely pawn for your political games, which have little to do with their aspirations, their fears, and their contests.
Let us recognise that your column begins with an attack on the “feckless” Barack Obama. The Iranian case, and specifically the US negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, is the platform for another front in your continuing assault on the President. So if I agree with you that the nuclear-first approach gives “affirmation” to an embattled Iranian Government --- and I do --- that agreement starts from a desire not to bolster President Ahmadinead in the current domestic crisis in Iran, rather than your own domestic crisis with an American leader from a political party you do not like.
Let us recognise that your own supposed defence of the Iranian people is propelled by your own nuclear conceptions, bolstered by your emphasis on Israel: “Iran will dominate 2010. Either there will be an Israeli attack or Iran will arrive at -- or cross -- the nuclear threshold.” For, if this piece was completely honest, you would have informed your readers, and the Iranian people, that you have supported Israeli airstrikes. In the columns offering that support, you made no reference to how “a new birth of freedom” would be affected by missiles fired upon Iran. Your frame of vision was limited, as if this was a journalistic smart bomb, to the target of the Iranian regime.
Let us recognise that, if there is a context for you beyond this nuclear arena, it is a supposed geopolitical struggle in which an “Iran” confronts the American presence in the Middle East and Central Asia and participates in the regional battle with Israel. Thus, your support of a “revolution” is not for what it brings Iran's people --- who, incidentally, may not be protesting for a “revolution” or, more specifically, a “counter-revolution” against all the ideals of 1979 --- but for “ripple effects [which] would extend from Afghanistan to Iraq (in both conflicts, Iran actively supports insurgents who have long been killing Americans and their allies) to Lebanon and Gaza where Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, are arming for war”.
(Had I the time and patience to dissect your geopolitical construction, I might note that US officials have been quietly talking to Iran about co-operation in the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan --- strange behaviour indeed if Iran is allied with the Taliban and the Sunni Al Qa'eda in Mesopotamia ---- or that Hezbollah and Hamas cannot be reduced to puppets of Tehran masters. I know, however, that this would be logic falling on your stony ground of politics and ideology.)
Let us recognise, therefore, the slip of the pen in your sentences, when you refer to the apparent silence of Washington to the call of Iranian demonstrators, “Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them”: “Such cool indifference is more than a betrayal of our values. It's a strategic blunder of the first order.” The slip is not your implicit confession that it's the “strategic” that really concerns you --- if these protesters were far removed from your strategy for American power, you wouldn't hear a word they were saying --- but in “our values”.
Assertion of “our” values does not mean acceptance of “their” values; it ignores them or, at most, wedges them into the framework of power that you find acceptable. Simply putting out the word “freedom” as if it were a universal umbrella for any proposal that follows does nothing to acknowledge, let alone, consider the complex negotiation of religious, social, economic, and political beliefs that has propelled movement inside Iran not just for the last six months but for decades.
Let us recognise, therefore, that you can throw out supposed solutions for “them”, not because they are considered measures but because they fit a model of “regime change” which is yours, not necessarily “theirs”. You advocate, “Cutting off gasoline supplies”, even though that cut-off might do far more harm to the “Iranian people” than to the regime you are condemning. You merrily think of “covert support to assist dissident communication and circumvent censorship”, even though overt calls of covert support play into the hands of an Iranian Government invoking the spectre of “foreign intervention”. (Far better to be open, in the name of the values of freedom and communication, in proposing overt funding of anti-censorship and anti-filtering programmes, as well as the encouragement of unrestricted media.)
Let us recognise, indeed even find common ground on, “robust rhetorical and diplomatic support from the very highest level: full-throated denunciation of the regime's savagery and persecution”. Let us do so, however, not because that denunciation supports your strategy of regime change for the sake of American power --- just as your denunciation of Saddam Hussein merely propped up your campaign for years to extend a US economic, political, and military presence through the “liberation” of Iraq --- but because that denunciation fulfils a morality and ethics beyond “your values”.
Let us recognise that I could have written this letter not only to you but to a legion of others who, in recent weeks, have embraced the “Iranian people” as their vehicle for regime change. Outlets like the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard put forth former Bush Administration officials and former activists for the Iraq War who now see a new platform for a US power which was not fulfilled in the military ventures of 2001-2009. Let us recognise that, in those calls, the “Iranian people” serve as pawns in a game beyond their own concerns.
After all these recognitions, let me conclude by returning to my thanks to you. For --- I am certain unwittingly --- you have re-affirmed this central belief:
This is not “our” regime change, “our” revolution; “our” values. This is “their” movement.
Please respect it as such. If you cannot, move on. Thank you.
Reader Comments (89)
"You forgot to specify that Obama is not just a marxist, he is also a nazi AND the Antchrist"
No, he is just a Marxist. Look closely at the Czars (or advisors such as Van Jones) he has appointed to his administration. Some are Orwellian fruitcakes. His teenage mentor in Hawaii was an admitted, non-apologetic Marxist. How about his campaign rhetoric about redistributing the wealth? His current policies follow the stratagem of Clovard and Pivens who wrote and tried to implement the idea that you have to break the system so that you can rebuild the system and that is exactly what Obama's fiscal policies are doing right now. How abut his best buddy Andy Stearns who has been quoted Marx on several occasions "Workers of the World Unite". You just have to listen to his words and take them on face value. Good thing the American People are waking up to what is going on. Funny how the lame stream media ignored a million Americans marching on DC 9/12.
Anyone who thinks that Obama is a Marxist and that the US won WWII is too stupid to be allowed out of doors without an attendant.
Catherine, Thank you for elevating the debate.
"Anyone who thinks that Obama is a Marxist and that the US won WWII is too stupid to be allowed out of doors without an attendant."
Other than Australia, I didn't see anyone besides maybe China doing anything in the Pacific. Who brought Japan to their knees? Amazing what a couple of atomic bombs could prevent. Hate to have to illustrate the absurd, and 300 million Americans do not need an attendant.
This post is unfair on a number of levels.
To start, Scott willfully misreads the phrase "a birth of freedom." He says that freedom cannot be born because Iranians have wanted it for years. But freedom is the condition of having liberty, not simply the emotion of wanting it. Krauthammer is absolutely right to say that freedom is now being achieved in Iran. Scott's argument is like saying that there is no moment of conception if I have always wanted children - or to use a more political analogy, that the Iron Curtain fell before 1989 because Eastern Europeans wanted freedom before that. Well, that's all well and good, but I think we can all agree that there is a clear difference between pre-1989 and post-1989 in Eastern Europe.
Second, Scott refuses to recognize that people and countries can have multiple goals, and that you are often forced to choose between them even if you desire all of them. To Scott, if Krauthammer wanted to use force/sanctions to stop Iran from getting a bomb, then Krauthammer does not care about the Iranian people's freedom.
Scott would surely reject this argument in other settings. If I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, does that mean I didn't care at all about the Iraqi people, or does it mean that I thought the invasion was too damaging to other values? If I did not support a roll-back of communism in Eastern Europe, does that mean I didn't care about the Czechs, or does it mean that I did not want to risk nuclear war?
So Krauthammer can support the freedom of the Iranian people, yet view the prevention of an Iranian nuclear weapon as even more important. That is a very legitimate viewpoint when you think the chances for freedom low and the risk of an Iranian bomb high.
It is also legitimate for Krauthammer to look at the Green Revolution today and say that this movement can bring these two goals into alignment - providing both liberty and an end to the risk of an Iranian bomb.
Finally, Scott tries to write away Iranian support for Hamas, Hizbullah, and insurgents in Iraq. But the fact that Hamas and Hizbullah are not pure puppets of Iran does not change the fact that Iran is their major supplier of money and weapons. To diminish Iran's role in those movements is like saying that the US does not matter to Israel because Israel often disagrees with the US, or that a US pullout from Afghanistan would not have an effect because Karzai is not a US puppet. Clearly, that's an absurd claim.
And the fact that the US has had conversations with Iran about Iraq does not prove anything. By Scott's logic, since the US has talked to Iran, Iran cannot be working against the US in Iraq. Who knew that as soon as you talked, you shared interests and were no longer in opposition. I guess the Soviet Union and the US had the same aims in the Cold War, since they had summits, and the US and Taliban have the same aims now because the US meets with them to try to peel off some of them, etc...
drgarym, for examples of people who call themselves neocons, see the blogger who calls herself Neo-neocon -- http://neoneocon.com/. Or see, well, me: http://blog.kirkpetersen.net/2009/06/iran-revolt-vindicates-neoconservative-ideals-and-the-iraq-war.html
Scott Lucas, you and I are not going to agree about Krauthammer's world view, which I generally share. But even within your own context, I fail to see how Krauthammer's column makes him a "false friend" of Iran.
I suppose it would be accurate to say the column shows that Krauthammer is more concerned with America's welfare than with the welfare of the Iranian people. But that's not an unreasonable position for an American to take.
America and the Iranian people have both a common enemy -- the Iranian regime -- and a common yearning for freedom. Sounds to me like a pretty good basis for a friendship.
Kirk,
Since neocon seems to be antithetical to progressive and seeks to promote Democracy and freedom throughout the world maybe I am one after all. I wonder how the Iraqi people feel about our intervention, and their freedom being paid for with the blood of over 3000 Americans. No way is there anywhere near enough oil to balance the scale. Maybe I don't need an attendant after all.
Iran supports groups in areas within 50 miles of any large city in Israel.
Does it make sense for Iran to use a nuclear weapon in that neighborhood? Perhaps we imagine that Iran would give its friends in the area a few seconds notice to get out of the blast circles. Silly me, for thinking that.
No, that is not possible. So, Iranians must have decided to use to follow West's examples, destroy your friends to save them. Maybe they will treat their friends to some cool-aid first, just to save their eyes form the flash!
Talk about "unoccupied territories" for a couple of decades - no Jews, Palestinians, or Lebanese to worry about. Well, actually add a few hundred thousands of Moslems in Syria and Jordan to that. Lots of cool-aid will be needed.
Frankly, I have no explanation why Iran rattles the nuclear rods so much. Perhaps to help the international military complex?
The basij and the Revolution's Guard make billions by raising the fear of US and Israel threats. Wonder if the opposite doesn't happen on the other side. We all make a few bucks, and keep on rattling.
Kirk/Josh,
Your well-argued points are appreciated, but with respect, I think the defense of Krauthammer (even assuming he is concerned as much with virtue as with American power) relies on a simplification of the "Iranian people". I am firmly behind a recognition of the Iranian people's quest for autonomy and freedom of expression but that is far more than an opposition to a "regime". What the "Iranian people" desire --- politically, culturally, economically, and socially --- is far more complex and well beyond Krauthammer's agenda such as an abandonment of Iran's nuclear programme or a radical shift in Tehran's foreign policy.
All it takes is a slight change in Kirk's sentence to point out both the manipulations and the dangers of Krauthammer's supposed defense of Iranian freedom, as well as the columnist's past record: "America and the [Iraqi] people have both a common enemy — the [Iraqi] regime — and a common yearning for freedom."
S.
[...] Originally Posted by WantFreedom This article has apparently been removed from Enduring America. Does anyone have it captured or is it available anywhere else? Iran: The False US Friends of the “Iranian People” (An Open Letter to Charles Krauthamme... [...]
Gloumdalclitch,
I agree with you that the Green movement changed everything. What I find most remarkable about it is the fact it is a testament that democarcy is alive in the Middle East. It may not be what we would entail as democracy in the West but none the less it is a wonderful sight. The trick is to get everyone to pay attention to it!
Thx
Bill
Mike,
Tend to agree labeling Obama as a Marxist is a bit overboard. However I think you may need to put down your "crayons" and "coloring book" regaring WWII(just taking a playful jab at you.) Instead you need to pick up some history books on WWII and study them. The reality is the aid in the form money, equipment, food, and manpower from the US is the main reason the allies prevailed. The Axis powers completely underestimated the will and ability of the US during the war. What they did not realize is that they unleashed and industrial juggernaut that literally outproduced the enemy. An example of this is the Lend Lease Program done with the soviets. I provided a link in an earlier post about the numbers the US provided the Soviets.
Thx
Bill
Gloumdalclitch, right on. Even if we assumed that Krauthammer has good intentions (just humor me...), it's stupid of him to pay no attention to the possible (and probable) unintended consequences. Yes, the road to Hell can be paved with good intentions!
As for Drgarym's contention that Obama is a marxist??? What an incredibly funny joke! I'd refer him to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) to get some minimal understanding of what marxism is. (or if you prefer, read Marx's Das Kapital, at least in the Reader's digest form).
Scott, thank you for the civil response. You seem to be implying that my position is self-evidently wrong-headed if you substitute Iraq for Iran.
But your "Iraqi" version of my statement also works for me. Like roughly 40% of Americans -- http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_031909_iraq.pdf -- I believe America did the right thing in going to war in Iraq.
I think "what the Iranian people desire" is not as complex as you make it out to be. They want regime change, and they see that as a step toward a government that does not oppress them. Krauthammer wants regime change as a step toward keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of the world's foremost government sponsor of terrorism. Win-win.
As a concerned U.S. citizen, we here pray that you have the strength to carry your beliefs to a solution that will benefit your generation. You deserve better than what you are getting which started back when Iraq and Iran were at war while your religious loons in charge got things going which killed many people.
Willie,
Obama was fairly tepid the week after the elections. A lot of us were openly frustrated that he didn't do more. He didn't want to come on too strong and offend the regime in power because he wanted a deal on nuclear weapons. HE was more concerned about nukes than the people.
Hamid,
I have read Marx and his economic philosophy "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs. I have heard in his own words the people he chose to call his friends and see the people he has surrounded himself with. Look at his advisers, not just his cabinet. Obama promised to fundamentally change America. His advisors such as Van Jones were open in their ecomarxist beliefs. That from their own mouth. Wealth redistribution is a primary tenant of Marxism. People are finally waking up and the juggernaut is slowing down.
Scott,
Ignore the Neocons, most of the American People support the Green movement, and don't want to interfere w/the will of the Iranians.
Funny, everytime I see Krauthammer I think of the movie The Kiss of Death where James Cagney pushes his wheelchair bound mother down a flight of stairs. Always fantasize that I'm Cagney and Krauthammer is mother.
It's very difficult for American conservatives to be rational about Iran, just as it was difficult for King George III to be rational about America, and for much the same reasons.
Thank you for a superior article against Krauthammer's beliefs. He is a hateful Conservative neo-con that America could easily do without. His brand of politic and hate should disappear. America and the world would greatly benefit if people like him were silenced by a backlash from thinking Americans.
Dr. Krauthammer is a brilliant person and a true friend of the people of Iran. In fact, the people of Iran do not need morons like Sullivan and Obama in their yard. Long live liberty, down with tyranny in America (obama) or in Iran (khamenei). Long live neo-cons who have been our true friends.
"It’s very difficult for American conservatives to be rational about Iran, just as it was difficult for King George III to be rational about America, and for much the same reasons."
Like we are a despot controlling Iran like King George controlled the colonies?
You really have to put this puzzle together for me. Forgive my ignorance but inquiring minds REALLY want to understand your premise and view regarding America and its fight against King George for freedom. PLEASE enlighten me.
"Dr. Krauthammer is a brilliant person and a true friend of the people of Iran. In fact, the people of Iran do not need morons like Sullivan and Obama in their yard. Long live liberty, down with tyranny in America (obama) or in Iran (khamenei). Long live neo-cons who have been our true friends."
The American People see and understand what the people of Iran are going through. We watched what the oppressed people of the Soviet block went through for many years since WWII. Ronald Reagan chose to go head to head against the Soviet Regime and won the Cold War. We see what Iran is going through right now. The information is overwhelming. Forgive us because our govt. is more interested in playing geopolitical chess and know that our hearts and prayers are for your people. You will win, at a great cost, and savor and appreciate the fruit of your victory. You will appreciate more from the victory you have won than we Americans who have taken for granted the blood shed by our forefathers to give us our nation (which we are flushing down the toilet as we speak). We as a nation have taken for granted the freedom you now seek.
Robert, I certainly understand how someone could disagree strongly with Krauthammer's world view. If you were to name your favorite pundit, I suspect I would disagree strongly with that person.
But how do you justify describing Krauthammer as "hateful," and referring to "his brand of politics and hate"? I've read Krauthammer regularly for years, and while he takes strong positions and criticizes his opposition, he's hardly a hate-monger like, for example, Ann Coulter. In the column discussed here, he has harsh words for Obama, but the only object of anything like "hate" is the Iranian regime.
Loved it. Deep Fried Chuck !