Five Conservative Fallacies on Post-Election Iran

Amidst widespread speculation about whether the Obama administration is treating the situation in Iran correctly, it's important to point out that conservative commentary has not only been scattered and incoherent, but totally wrong on the substance.  From what I can tell, there are 5 strains of conservative arguments on Iran - none of them coming close to being credible:

1) Obama administration wrong about robust debate within Iran.  Using his appearance on ABC's 'This Week' as a soapbox, Mitt Romney blasted the Obama administration, remarking that "the comments by the President last week that there was a robust debate going on in Iran was obviously entirely wrong-headed."  Romney's argument doesn't square with the run-up to the elections, which showed a deep desire on the part of the Iranians for engagement and dialogue with the west.  Candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi himself called for Iran to embrace the Obama administration's offer of dialogue, saying that the "taboo in this country about talking to America had been lifted."  The fact that Iranians have protested the results so vigorously after elections widely seen as illegitimate is a testament to the strong desire for better relations with the West.

---

2) Obama administration must intervene on behalf of the demonstrators in Iran.  Of all the conservative arguments on Iran, this is the most compelling, as it plays on American's justified sympathy for the Iranian people.  Commentator Bill Kristol pushed this argument, urging the Obama administration to intervene:

"He should support the demonstrators. He should say that stealing elections is unacceptable, killing demonstrators in the streets of Tehran is unacceptable."

Leaving aside the fact that Kristol is probably setting himself up for a future broadside aimed at the Administration, his recommendations would be incredibly damaging to the Iranian opposition.  Iran expert Trita Parsi defends the policy of non-intervention an interview with the Washington Independent: "If the administration is saying things or doing things before Mousavi and the opposition figures out what the plan is, then that's a real problem, because then it seems like it's between Ahmadinejad and the west and not Ahmadinejad and the opposition. So the administration is doing exactly the right thing."

3) Demonstrations in Iran justify the invasion of Iraq.  I kid you not.  According to Al Kamen, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer made this flabbergasting claim in an email to Gless Kessler:

"Shiites in particular see Shiites in Iraq having more freedoms than they do. Bush's tough policies have helped give rise to the reformists and I think we're witnessing that today." 

Of course in real life, we know that Bush's invasion of Iraq strengthened hardliners in Iran, gave them the ability to "influence all the region's security dilemmas" and left the regime closer to nuclear breakout ability.  As former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns (a guy who spent the waining days of his career keeping Iran policy out of the clutches of guys like Fleischer) put it at last Thursday's CNAS conference, it was in all likelihood Obama's strategy of engagement, not the invasion of Iraq, that "effectively has put Ahmadinejad on [the] defensive prior to this election because of our ability now to open up the vista for the possibility of negotiations."

4) Only the toppling of the Islamic Republic can resolve the crisis between Iran and the West.  No surprise that John Bolton should use Iran's unrest to once again argue that the only solution is regime change.  In a piece for the Politico, Bolton seethes:

"Iranians across the board must resolve to change not just the rules but the entire system, overthrowing the Revolution and its superstructure, and creating institutions that truly allow for representative government."

Not anything new per-se, but the current climate in Iran makes Bolton's arguments especially tin-eared.  What Spencer observes, and what the excellent reporting from Nico Pitney confirms, is that "[t]he opposition to Ahmadinejad is portraying him and his supporters as a corrupting figure, eating the Islamic Revolution at its core."  Intrinsic to the opposition's appeal is that it is seen as defending the 'Revolution,' not opposing it, which is just another way of saying that political change has to be legitimate in the eyes of the people for it to have any chance of succeeding. Bolton would prefer for western-leaning forces in Iran to pass his litmus test.  They won't, and th U.S. will have to deal with that complication going forward.

5) Ahmadinejad won fair and square.  Really Marty Paretz? Really?

"My impression is that the incumbent's margin of victory was too big to have been fraudulent and the loser's numbers also too big. Tyrannies don't play around with the numbers like this...Maybe the regime fiddled around a bit with the numbers at the polls and after the polling. Still, the outcome had a sense of authenticity." 

I'm speechless, but if you want good rebuttals, I'd suggest checking out these posts by Gary Sick and Juan Cole - two experts eminently more reliable than Paretz - which show why Paretz's arguments are in all likelihood baseless. (You wonder why Paretz didn't feel like reading consulting Sick or Cole's blogs before he posted? Their analyses were available hours before his)  Sullivan said it best - only a neocon would "desire an Ahamadinejad victory," but he forgets to add that only a neocon argue a point that so cynically justified his ideological perspective, in the face of sweeping evidence to the contrary. 

Comments

[JohnLloydScharf]

Obama has been a bit more radical than Bush in his welfare for industries, but Congress and public opinion would never have let Bush do what Obama has.

The financial world changed when Chairwoman Pelosi passed the "2007 Supplimental Spending Bill" in her first 100 hours - overspending as a portion of the Gross Domestic Product from that point on.

This is an Obama Nation, now. You voted for him. Now you can whine at a new Democrat instead of the Republicans for the next decade. At this point, I have to assume when I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, I was the only one. The media made a mockery out of Bush since 2004. They picked at every decision.

Since our votes do not determine candidates, we do not have a choice. We vote for the candidates the parties prop up. The answer is letting the people vote on every increase on taxes in every major area. Who would have voted for some of these bailouts as they were done?

The biggest slap in the face to democracy was the exclusion of certain states from the voting process in the primaries of 2008. The Democratic Party is neither progressive nor democratic.

[Rogan]

Uh, you're appending your comment to an article about the Iranian election... not OUR election...

[JohnLloydScharf]

The FALLACY is that a "liberal" writer on the Huffington Post can decide who represents the mainstream of "conservative" thought. Certainly Neocons do not believe in injection of the US in international affairs with troops or most other ways, though I disagree with them - as do other conservatives.

What most conservatives have knownb for the last seven years is that Iran was involved in uranium refining for weapons grade material at Esfahan., What most conservatives have known for over a decade is that Iran has inducted everyone above the age of 15 into their military and issued them semi-automatic weapons.

By no means would Obama engage in war with Iran anymore than Bush did. In fact, Obama has done nothing that convinces me he he is doing other than what Bush did in international politics. I predicted that long before Obama's nomination and is one of the reasons I would have voted for McCain.

[Rogan]

The notion of mandatory military service isn't particularly radical. A lot of our allies in Europe, for instance, require military service, or other government service, of all voting citizens. (And frankly, we'd be a lot better off here, if we had ther same requirements.)

[stuporman]

it all boils down to one conservative fallacy: the military is the only tool in the box, and we should attack anyone who disagrees with the conservatives.

[MikeDu]

The day before the election the necon line was that Obama's posture towards Iran would have nothing whatsoever to do with the election results (no doubt in anticipation of Obama claiming credit for a moderate win). The day after the election the resulting chaos is magically now all Obama's fault! Arguing with a neocon is like arguing with someone with a short term memory problem. They forget their previous position from minute-to-minute.

[essbird]

It's not a memory problem, it's cognitive dissonance in spades, based on a single ideology: If Obama does it, it's wrong. If Bush did it too, they throw Bush under the bus with him. If Bush didn't do it, then Obama's making the country less safe or more fascist/socialist.

[MarciaJ720]

That is how little Conservatives understand other people, or people in social groups.

Obama was talking to the MODERATES in the Middle East - not the extremists and terrorists with his speech in Cairo. He helped embolden the Iranians.

And any election with that many people, who claim an 80% voting turnout and makes sure the winner has over 50% BEFORE all the polls close - well, that was simply predetermined to avoid a runoff.

I've been telling people for years now, especially when Bush was shouting at Iran, that if we play our hands right - change will happen in Iran by its younger people. I feel cautiously vindicated....

[MikeDu]

Your mention of the 80% Iranian turnout reminded me of right-wing tactics in the U.S. aimed at *supressing* voter turnout. They consciously make the political races so distasteful that moderates are turned off and only the looneys show up to vote - and they can count on more looneys. Chief Justice Rhenquist earned his stripes as a California Repub apparachik harrassing black voters at polling places.

[2farnorth]

Really it's typical Republican tactics. Throw stuff at the wall until you find something that sticks. It doesn't even matter what it is. They will use any excuse to gain footing at this point. It's hilarious.

[unitron]

"Iranians across the board must resolve to change not just the rules but the entire system, overthrowing the Revolution and its superstructure, and creating institutions that truly allow for representative government."

At which point we can do what we did last time, send in the CIA to overthrow that representative government and install a dictator. I'm sure the late Shah's got a son or grandson who's available.

[kitkatborn]

Every time I think the neo con's have reached the height of the ridiculous they succeed in pushing the envelope further. This is a great list of absurdities.

[viewfromuphere]

the incoherence on the right just demonstrates further that ...at this point...the GOP have no leader ....and all they can think of to do is position themselves in some fashion as to oppose the current adminstration regardless of whatever outcome of whatever situation they are talking about..

It's not effective and it's not even very helpful..

and really ...GOP...did the US intervention in 1950s and beyond in Iran 's internal affairs which eventually have led us to the "great place" everyone is in today....teach you nothing about sticking your noses in other countries internal affairs... Obama is doing the exact right thing...mouth shut keeping options open...

geez!!!!

[Truthsfire]

Well, ONE thing to keep in mind that would be in favor of Republicans using this argument -- If Obama doesn't send in the troops to force a regime change, they can argue that any future problems with Iran are all Obama's fault because he didn't interfere. If, on the other hand, he DOES re-instate the Shah's son or some other West-friendly government, all they have to do is wait for the Iranian people, who don't WANT a government that's imposed on them, to revolt all over again and they (the Republicans) can blame the failure of that government on Obama as well.

Pubs are REAL big on lose-lose situations like that.

[ClevelandTom]

Conservative opinion on the situation on Iran is incoherent, just as it is on so many other issues. But there is one consistent thread in conservative opinion that runs through this and other issues. That is the almost visceral fear that the conservatives have that Obama will succeed. If Iran ends up with a more moderate government and Obama is able to resolve the nuclear weapons issue with them, his more diplomatic approach to the issue will have been _proven_ correct and Bush's cowboy diplomacy completely descredited beyond any doubt. Conservatives simply cannot face that prospect even though it would be a very good thing for America.

[Johnagain]

I totally agree. I've been saying this since just after the presidential election. Any success for Obama, and I mean ANY success, is bad for Republicans politically. And we know that the good of America is never a priority for the Republican power structure. For this reason, the Democrats should forget about bipartisanship, and move forward with what they and those of us who voted for them, know to be right.

[JEdgarH]

If only we Americans had protested the first Bush election by taking to the streets like these Iranian citizens. We caved in and the recount was stopped in it's tracks. Who are we to intervene and tell them what to do at this point?

[viewfromuphere]

very good point but there were those who did try....

[doctorbabble]

Exactly!

[buttonz]

The big issue pointed out by conservatives here is that Iran can't be negotiated with. While it may be more expedient to deal with a government that suppresses its people it is simply wrong. The Iranian govt has made compromises in the past to deal with people like this and has had revolutions of sorts (I'm talking past 1979) but this is situation is a very tense standoff that can easily result in a Tienanmen Square style massacre. Obama's current position is wise because he will destroy whatever legitimacy he has if if Iran resolves this problem on its own with as little bloodshed as possible. But as tense as things are, this may be unlikely. So the question remains, what will Obama do if there is a massacre? The right choice isn't always the easiest one.

[KrugnacTheMagnificent]

Unless someone can conclusively demonstrate that this election result is fraudulent, meaning that the reform candidate actually received more votes and the outcome should have been different...

1) Mitt Romney is right. A landslide re-election of Amedinejad refutes Obama's speech about Iran having a robust debate. That's like saying that Cindy Sheehan stimulated a 'robust debate' when she ran against Pelosi. Whatever. It doesn't matter how loud she was, or how much the media liked her, she got trounced.

2) Obama attempting to "intervene" is ludicrous, and Kristol is a wingnut for even suggesting it.

3) Ari may be onto something. Iraq would be expected to increase the fervor of reformists, but not necessarily the breadth of the reform coalition. Those most interested in reform will want more reform, and those more interested in Iranian power and influence will want more of the status quo. So, although the number of people who oppose the result may not have dramatically increased, the number willing to demonstrate and protest against it would.

4) Bolton is right either way. Iranians want more democracy, and more control over all levels of the government. That's only possible if the Islamic system is fundamentally changed.

5) Those blogs are almost sad in their hand-wavery. We shouldn't be meddling in Iranian elections, and we certainly shouldn't consider denouncing elections without any concrete proof. If the Iranians want to do that, it's their prerogative, but trying to inject US influence is a lose-lose situation.

[cheforacle]

We may never know th true results of this election. Or maybe we will. But if we don't that does not mean, as Romney said that there has not been debate. Debate is the advocacy for and clashing of differing ideas. That has occurred. Whether the results of that debate are determined is another question.

If a debate occurs between two debate teams and the judges are hijacked before a ruling is rendered does not mean the debate did not occur. It should be recalled that everything Mitt Romney says is calculated to hurt Obama and prop himself up personally as a future candidate. Of all GOP candidates I have never seen anyone so lacking in any core convictions. The one area in which I give John McCain respect is he recognized that and that is why he has utter contempt for Romney.

[wonder6789]

Obama seems to understand it would be in poor taste for America to trump the "democracy" and "regime change" card too hard:

In 1953, Iran's Mosaddeq and the first democracy in the history of the Middle East, were brutally deposed in a CIA-engineered coup d'état that brought the Iranian People the US oil-profit­s-friendly Shah and a quarter century of ruthless dictatorship.

Americans may be amnesiac -especially when it comes to what's done to other nations- but Iranians remember.

[majii]

Exactly, with the help of the CIA and president Eisenhower. The CIA had approached Truman, but he refused to authorize it. This action led to difficulties between our two countries that last to this day. We also interfered by propping up the Shah during the 70s, and we see how that turned out. As soon as the shah abdicated, Khomeini returned from France, and the stage was set for what we're witnessing today. This is what the prez was speaking about in his Cairo speech. We did it, and we need to face up to it. No progress is made by maintaining the lie of, "Oh, no, we had nothing to do with THAT!
Smithsonian online has an excellent article on the history of Iran and our role in changing it from a struggling democracy into a hardline theocracy.

[DBtv]

republicks continue to flee from reality towards mindless partisan obstinacy and ever more irrelevance.