RoR: Forum

Charles Krauthammer's brilliance shines through in this relentless, piercing analysis of the demonstrations in Tehran, the role of Iran in the Middle East, and a pivotal balance point in history. And it tells us about the history-changing power a leader can wield in such an instance... the history-changing power of pronouncing a clear, moral identification of the facts. Sadly, history doesn't wait, and this president is not such a leader and the costs of not saying these truths will be measured in spilled blood.
---------------

Dr. Krauthammer is an interesting man. Wikipedia provided some biographical information:

A Canadian citizen by birth, an honors student in politics at Oxford, he moved to the States to attend Harvard Medical School. During his first year at Med school, he suffered a diving accident that left him paralyzed for life. He graduated with his class, earning an M.D. went on to become a board certified psychiatrist and rose to the position of Chief Resident in Psychiatry at Massachuetts General Hospital.

Now he is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, a conservative who backed the Iraq war as being a strategically necessitated, "preemptive" war, while critizing some of Bush's foriegn policy as too expansionist and utopian. He argued against interventionist policies that put us into "teacup wars" in failed states, and advocated we adopt a "dry powder" foreign policy of nonintervention and readiness. He supports Israel, is not religious, referred to intelligent design as "tarted up Creationism", supports women's right to an abortion, opposes the death penalty, wants a ban on torture but with two exceptions: when the individual has been proven to be a high-level terrorist deeply involved in the planning of future attacks, and when proof exists that a captured terrorist has knowledge of of a ticking bomb scenario. He is a neocon whose focus is on foriegn policy and has not shown much interest in economic issues.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 6/19, 9:15am)

Post 1

Friday, June 19, 2009 - 9:24am

I am proud of you, my son.

Post 2

Friday, June 19, 2009 - 12:59pm

From Wikipedia:

Candidates have to be vetted by the Guardian Council, a twelve member body consisting of six clerics (selected by Iran's Supreme Leader), and six lawyers (proposed by the head of Iran's judicial system and voted in by the Parliament).[3]

The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official news agency, announced that with two-thirds of the votes counted, incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the election with 66% of the votes cast,[4] and that Mir-Hossein Mousavi had received 33% of the votes cast.

So the slightly less repressive candidate allowed on the ballot by the theocrats who actually run the country allegedly lost by a landslide 2-1 margin, and the loser alleges fraud.

While I'm no fan of the incumbent, and would have enjoyed seeing him lose, it may very well be that a large majority of the voters in Iran actually preferred the incumbent. In any event, this election was about symbolism, not substance -- the theocrats would retain control regardless of who was declared the winner.

It's going to take a revolution to change things in Iran, not an election.

Post 3

Friday, June 19, 2009 - 2:35pm

Jim,

The hundreds of thousands of people in the streets of Tehran think that the vote was cooked. If they are strong enough and angry enough they will cause the clerics to choose the other guy. That will be a big thing even if the other guy is only microscopically different. It would mark a shift of power from the clerics to the people. In that instance, it would be clear that at some level the clerics rule because the people let them.

Revolutions often arise from rebellions, from massive civil disobedience. Many a tyrant can mark the end of their reign with an occasion of massive civil disobedience - signs along history's path saying, changes ahead.

Post 4

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 2:27pm

I understand that Mussavi is a 'reformist,' and more classical liberal than Ahmadinejad, but he is still a Khomeinist.

I understand that we should 'care,' but ... why so much? He's still a Khomeinist.

I don't get the recent statements issued by both houses. We're ultimately cheering on folks who regard our own 1st Amendment as an inherent evil in the world.

Why? Do we? Should we accede to that worldview? Accept it? Cheer it on? Or ignore it?

Maybe Obama was right to claim "None of our business," no matter what his motivations were. The posturing by the GOP just seems like yet more pathetic "B" game from the fringe.

Now they have us figuratively standing behind those brave ... Khomeinists. And why not? During the last election, they were asking Americans to cheer on the GOP's plan to 'run THE Economy.'

We'd be better off with a resolution that said "As a principle, we back the 1st Amendment, and have no dog in that fight."

I don't think the GOP could find a principle with both hands if it was stapled to their own ass.

Post 5

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 2:36pm

Fred several posters on RoR have expressed the sentiment that it would be a mistake to equate these protests as simply only being 'pro-Mousavi'. Many of the protesters are internet savvy youths who have written their signs of protest in English, not Farsi, obviously they have an audience in mind. If you think they are only angry that electoral fraud took place, could you address why?

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/22, 2:38pm)

Post 6

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 9:29am

If this is instead a broad protest against Khomeinism, then where was the broad support for a non-Khomeinist candidate?

I don't see the compelling interest either way, of an America with a First Amendment.

As for target audience, somebody should clue them in; we're broke, and can't even afford to spit at Iran, much less stand up to the current OMIR(Old Men In Robes)and back their play for modernity.

They are substantively on their own; we as a nation don't do that. We're figuring out how to pay for free aspirin for everybody.

We can internet savvy Twitter our asses off, 24/7. We can even light candles for them. We can send them a trillion metric tons of virtual good thoughts and well wishes. We just can't help them actually overthrow theocratic rule, for that, the nutbusting rules of Megapolitics still rule, and they are totally on their own with that, we can just watch while millions Twitter and they die trying. The fact that we are all watching is once again inhibiting nobody. I think they like it when we watch, it emphasizes our absolute willingess to ... mostly watch.

The happy ending on this one will no doubt be a UN Resolution, that will tell the world that the good times are officially back.

We're doing all that watching and bumper sticker internet savvy Twittering in the context of building our own totalitarian nightmare, based on quicksand federal rules, and a new game that nobody in their right mind wants to volunteer to prepay their own ransom in and have actual skin in the game.

So, while we are in the hopeful Paul Krugman's 'about $5T in available global credit' stages of the pump priming, I don't really see the US being in any position to care so much which Khomeinist ends up running their local state monopoly on tribal violence.

If and when a more liberal gang of reformist Khomeinists succeed in ousting a more conservative gang of old school Khomeinists, America can afford to pause from its quest to convince the world to float the credit for free Aspirin for every fat ass American, wave the flag, and Twitter several million 'attaboys' to each other.

But, not much else. Which is why Obama is right to s.t.f.u. on this one. Saying nothing is preferable to bullshit we can't and won't back up. That is exactly what we did in Iraq in 1996.

Post 7

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 9:36am