Few Americans have followed Iran and the Iranian resistance more devotedly than Michael Ledeen. In books and articles he has explained the confrontation between Iran and the United States – and the coming crisis of the mullah regime. In his important and urgent new book, Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West, he deploys a lifetime of insight and experience to illuminate one of the modern world’s most dangerous crises. Over the next days, we’ll post here some short extracts from the book – but no extract can do justice to Michael’s work. Read the whole thing, and read it as soon as you can.
Click here for part one and part two of this series.
* * *
The Iranians do not believe they can do it on their own; they think a successful revolution needs American support, and they are waiting to see some kind of real action by the U.S. to support them against Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, the Basij, and the Revolutionary Guards Corps. They know that if we do not actively support them, they will be slaughtered. What would active support entail? Basically, the same strategy we used to support Soviet dissidents and groups like the Solidarity trade union in Poland.
• Above all, this means open political support from top American officials for the dissidents, and open calls for a change in the nature of the regime. Some American president is going to have to call for an end to Iranian Islamic fascism.
• It means accurate radio and television broadcasting into Iran about events inside Iran itself. This seems counterintuitive, but it is actually easier for Iranians to get information about events in Washington and Los Angeles (they are big Internet surfers; Farsi is the number-four language online) than about what’s going on in their own country.
• It means getting revolutionary technology to them, above all, the instruments of contemporary communication: cell phones, satellite phones, phone cards, laptops, servers, and perhaps even BlackBerrys.
• It also means demonstrating the impotence of the regime against American power by taking out the terrorist training camps just across the border from Iraq, and the assembly sites for the lethal explosives the Iranians have been providing to Taliban, Mahdi Army, and al Qaeda killers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are many arguments against this strategy: that there is no longer time for a revolution, since Iran will soon have the bomb; that you cannot expect a Muslim country to risk all on behalf of democracy; that there are no leaders inside the country; that the regime’s instruments of repression are too powerful. Finally, the skeptics add, anything we do to support the dissidents will only make their lives worse. Repression will increase if we push the mullahs against the proverbial wall, and they will lash out against their opponents.
I am not convinced by the arguments. To take them one by one:
“It’s too late.” Nobody knows how much time revolutions require before they erupt. There is no science of revolution, and we are usually very surprised when revolutions happen. Given proper support, the Iranians could move very quickly. As for the “deadline,” Iran’s nukes are hardly a deterrent to revolution. And if anything, if Iran were seen to have nuclear weapons, it would add greater urgency to the need to bring down the regime.
“The Muslims aren’t capable of revolution.” But Iran had three revolutions in the twentieth century! If there’s any country about which it can truly be said that revolutions are “normal,” it’s Iran.
Furthermore, there’s a barely concealed premise of cultural superiority in the objection, assuming that “they” can’t carry out a Western-style democratic revolution. When people say, as they often do, with a glint of ethnic or cultural superiority in their angry eyes, that Arabs or Africans or Persians or Turks just aren’t “ready” for democracy, that such people prefer tyrants, or that they have no history of democracy and are hence incapable of it, or they have no middle class, without which no stable democracy can exist, or they believe in Islam, which brooks no democracy, they need to be reminded that some of the worst tyrannies came from highly cultured Christian countries with glorious democratic and humanistic pedigrees, while Iran already had a good constitution in 1906. They also need to remember that Periclean Athens decidedly did not have a large and flourishing middle class, and that the world’s biggest Islamic country, Indonesia, is impressively democratic.
Finally, it’s silly to claim that a society without long-standing democratic traditions can’t create a democracy; if that were true there would never have been any democracies at all, since no society has been democratic forever. All were once governed by despots.
“Lack of leadership.” There are certainly dissident leaders. We don’t know them all, for the simple reason that they’d be tortured or killed if they were publicly identified. We’ve seen that happen to student leaders like Batebi or labor leaders like Osanlou or religious leaders like Boroujerdi. But the ongoing demonstrations don’t happen all by themselves; each of them has leaders. Indeed, I rather suspect that Iran may have a surfeit, rather than a shortage, of talented leaders.
“The instruments of repression are too powerful.” How do you think Iran’s security services compare to the KGB? Or the Stasi? Yet revolution succeeded right under their noses.
“Anything done to support the dissidents will only make things worse.” We heard this a lot during the Cold War, and it was proven false. After the fall of Communism, the dissidents told us they had drawn great strength from our support, and that their oppressors had constantly tried to convince them that America wasn’t really supporting them at all.
Dissidents know what they’re getting into, and for us to refrain from supporting them is to betray them. They are fighting for our common values against an evil that threatens us all. If America stands for anything, it’s the struggle against tyranny. This is not just an academic or moral question; tyrants hate America, and will invariably try to kill or dominate us. We need to shed all illusions about the nature of such regimes, above all the nonsense that they are, after all, “just like us,” and the false prophecy that whatever differences we have can be resolved by patient negotiation, or cultural exchange, or simple deterrence. We should have learned by now that they are implacable enemies of all free societies, and that the very nature of those tyrannical regimes compels them to attack us as best they can.
We’re morally and strategically obliged to support those fighting for freedom within tyrannical societies. It’s morally right and strategically sound.
To be sure, revolutions do fail. There are no guarantees. But we live in an age of democratic revolution, and tyrants have been falling with remarkable regularity all over the world for more than thirty years. Revolutions have succeeded in some very unlikely places, from Russia to Ukraine and Georgia, from the Philippines to Lebanon and South Africa. Why not Iran?
Support for revolution is by far the best policy option, and it would be the right thing to do, even if Iran were not the world’s leading terrorist sponsor, and were not hell-bent on acquiring an atomic bomb which they say very loudly they intend to use against their satanic enemies.
If we do not bring down the Iranian regime, we will inevitably face the terrible choice so well described by French president Nicolas Sarkozy: bomb Iran, or Iran with the bomb. If we do arrive at that Hobson’s choice, it will be a fitting testament to the great failure of the West to deal with this generation’s most dangerous and most evil enemies. It will truly be Hell to pay.
Courtesy of St. Martin’s Press
11 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Dec 12, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Ledeen wants war.
That is the natural pathway here. We support specific dissidents, Iran predictably cracks down on anyone with the hint of American affiliation, neocons raise the charge that if we don’t swoop in to support them, we’ve abandoned them, and this sets a bad precedent for anyone who would look to America in the future.
One more war of aggression by America against an Islamic Nation. That’s just what we need.
2 mlloyd // Dec 12, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Iranians are indeed perfectly capable of having a revolution. In fact, they had one just a few decades back, when they overthrew the Shah the US had installed. Iran != Poland. He better do a whole lot better job justifying the argument that Iranian reformers want US intervention– and it better be a whole lot more reliable than his trumpeting of the unpopular Iranian agent Chalabi in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. No Iraqis actually living in Iraq wanted to be invaded by the US– any more than Tea Partiers hope for the Chinese to liberate them– and there is no evidence here that any Iranians actually living in Iran look to the US for legitimacy and support.
Just as Donald Rumsfeld failed to understand Iraq despite his Reagan-era role in arming Saddam Hussein, Ledeen fails to understand Iran despite his Reagan-era role in arming the mullahs.
It is emotionally satisfying to fantasize that angry speeches from US politicians can magically move mountains, as in the writings of Michael Ledeen and the 1990s movie The American President, but the actual world is a great deal more complicated than that.
3 mlindroo // Dec 12, 2009 at 4:54 pm
> “The instruments of repression are too powerful.”
> How do you think Iran’s security services compare to the KGB? Or the Stasi?
> Yet revolution succeeded right under their noses.
> “Anything done to support the dissidents will only make things worse.”
> We heard this a lot during the Cold War, and it was proven false.
Ledeen is comparing apples and oranges here. Poland, East Germany and Romania (even Russia) obviously have a lot in common with the Western NATO nations, whereas Iran and the Arab nations seem fundamentally different.
These countries have actually received MORE exposure to Western popular culture, capitalism, secularism etc. since millions of Egyptians, Moroccans, Tunisians etc. work or study in the West. People living on the other side of the Iron Curtain liked what they saw and generally have turned to capitalism and democracy since the end of the Cold War. Why is it that so little of it seems to “rub off” on the Muslim Middle East?? The only logical explanation seems to be fierce national pride and religious fundamentalism, which means the numerous current problems of the Arab world matter surprisingly little.
MARCU$
4 mbilinsky // Dec 12, 2009 at 5:21 pm
So we have a nation with an ingrained suspicion and resentment of outside influences. We have a repressive regime that hysterically trumpets itself as the protector of the people against potential imperialist intruders. We have Ahmadinejad get up every day and say “These protesters aren’t citizens who hate me. They are the tool of the Americans and the Israelis! It is the Americans who are behind all of this!”
And instead of outsmarting the repressive regime and letting them continue to trip over their own feet while providing measured support for the movement, you suggest playing right into their hands with vocal support which basically makes Admadinejad and the Mullahs look like they are telling the truth.
Ok, that sounds like a brilliant strategy.
5 teabag // Dec 12, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“Ok, that sounds like a brilliant strategy.”
Don’t expect nuance or deep thought from the Neocon nutters. Frum and chums are not the brightest students in the class. They have no grasp of history or any sort of learning in the ways of “other” peoples, you know they of a brown skin.
They do not understand the law of unintended consequences. Frum has had his panties in a knot ever since his “Axis of evil” speech met with wide derision. Never got over it. seems this is a continuing thing here. Disparage the Presidents speeches, read into and criticize what is not there. Condemn and stigmatize what they read there even if it is not so. Play up the Bush years and rewrite history even if a five year old could point out the stupidity of the ploy. Ramp up the Iran axis as the next war on whatever.
Dumb and dumber.
6 mbilinsky // Dec 12, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Well, I’ve seen contrasting material from Frum. The “Axis of Evil” was perhaps the most cartoonish and embarrassing (not to mention damaging) talking point ever to cross a President of the United States’ lips. However, Frum transcends that dimness and simplicity in a lot of other areas and actually seems to have substantive ideas in certain areas of policy. He certainly seems more serious and thoughtful about solving the nation’s problems than the majority of Republicans or “conservatives-in-name-only” that I encounter (and that’s why I visit this site). Unfortunate that he reverts to bad habits when analyzing the appropriate ways for America to conduct its foreign policy.
7 Reason60 // Dec 13, 2009 at 1:53 am
I am still waiting to hear why resolving Iran’s internal affairs are our responsibility or obligation.
Not the EU?
Not the Arab league?
Why have we so comfortably accepted our role as global policeman, settler of all accounts, social worker to the world?
We do have an interest in a stable middle east; and we do have a national interest in securing peace, and avoiding a nuclear showdown.
But doesn’t the EU have a much greater interest? The Iranian weapons can’t reach us, but they can reach Europe. why are we allowing them to be on the sidelines, while we act the kingmaker?
We have nearly bankrupted ourselves in the past 8 years of war; and yet we continue to seek out more?
8 jakester // Dec 13, 2009 at 2:30 am
I am for war only as a last resort. But we should go out of our way to support all dissidents there and make sure any maltreatment the Iranian gov’t metes out to them will be trumpeted around the world as a crime against humanity. But I don’t expect too much from Obama who thinks that he can talk turkey with these mullahs/
9 jakester // Dec 13, 2009 at 2:31 am
Fine Reason,
not war, but at least use every diplomatic and press outlet we can to let the world know about them and give the dissidents heart. Are you seriously expecting Saudi Arabia or Germany to lead?
10 Moderate // Dec 13, 2009 at 9:36 am
Michael Ledeen and the neoconservatives have always wanted war with Iran. This is one of the few things that makes me okay with the Obama presidency: at least our Commander in Chief isn’t listening to these crackpots.
Does anyone here think Ledeen gives a crap about civil or political rights?
A) This is a man who once said “Every 10 years or so we need to beat up a small nation to show we mean business.”
B) I don’t see him writing about the declining human rights situation in Belarus or anyone nation with a worse Freedom House score than Iran.
“But Iran is different because of nuclear weapons.” That’s going to happen even if the revolutionaries should take power. They want nukes too. Nukes are popular with everyone in Iran.
Nothing will make me support Obama for re-election faster than if the Republican candidate agitates for war with Iran. I’d rather have my taxes raised and economy weakened than start another war.
11 sinz54 // Dec 13, 2009 at 2:40 pm
balconesfault:
Not necessarily.
Both President Carter (Democrat) and Reagan (conservative Republican) supported Soviet dissidents like Sakharov, and supported the Solidarity movement in Poland–but without taking direct military action.
President Obama can do the same–but he didn’t. He had an opportunity to show solidarity with the Iranian dissidents who want liberalization–but he hasn’t.
Obama’s envoy, Scott Gration, even suggested we should make nice with the Janjaweed genocidists of Darfur. Even some of Obama’s liberal supporters protested that one.
A policy of engagement does not require abandonment of America’s traditional support for human rights. Hopefully Obama will figure that out before too long.
You must log in to post a comment.