FWIW, Daniel Pipes, for one, has spoken up to say that Ahmadinnerjacket’s reelection (however fraudulent) is great for the neocons, because it helps to have an openly defiant enemy.

Whatever. I’m having a hard time understanding the ultimate significance of the Iranian election, since, AFAIK, this mullah Khameini or whatever runs everything there anyway, no matter who the president is.

Unfortunately, one of the major reasons this is significant for the U.S. is we have a vocal population of people aching to kill a bunch of Iranians, and they’re always angling for an excuse.

Which isn’t to say that it’s not terrible, etc., and whatever else I need to say so that people realize I do care.  But I think it’s wise to point out this problem.

The rule of thumb that states that if a bunch of right wing nuts get up in an outrage tizzy about something, one should be especially cautious about agreeing works here.

Of course, I heard about it over the weekend from leftist friends who follow news in the Middle East.  The sorts of people I tend to trust when it comes to this sort of thing.

Is this what we do now?  Whoever talks loudest “owns” the issue, and the correct leftist analysis is the opposite of whatever the Right says?  If the Right wanks loudly about the Iranian election in a manner that shows that they’re obviously missing the point, we have to be pro-Ahmedinejad, or go back to watching LOST reruns, or whatever?

I agree that this is absolutely not our issue.  But that doesn’t mean we should ignore it, either.  There is such a thing as supporting a cause while keeping one’s distance, and that’s exactly what I see happening so far from most ordinary Westerners who support a free Iran.

BTW, I’m getting steadily more and more annoyed by the “I don’t really know the name of the Iranian president and can’t be arsed to look up the correct spelling, so I’ll just make up a bad pun” thing.  If you know so little about Iranian politics/culture/language/whatever that you can’t even be bothered to try to spell Ahmedinejad, what are you doing commenting on this issue?

Speaking of “it’s not about us”.

Unfortunately, one of the major reasons this is significant for the U.S. is we have a vocal population of people aching to kill a bunch of Iranians, and they’re always angling for an excuse.

That and they’re completely clueless about the fact that US intervention—or even the perception of US influence on the situation—could give Iranian hardliners an excuse to engage in a full-scale military crackdown that would result in both reformist defeat and huge amounts of bloodshed.  And if that does happen, wingnut bloggers will first wet themselves with joy over the Noble Struggle for Freedom and then chastise Obama for not immediately raining tomahawks on Tehran to ‘help.’

I blundered into Iran Twittering Sunday.  I was gonna blow it off, because I was pretty sure it would be over very soon. After I saw the pictures of what did indeed appear to be at least hundreds of thousands of people, I decided maybe I should help.  When I heard they called in 5000 Lebanese “mercenaries” (read Hezbollah) last night I knew I had made a mistake.

This morning I woke up to find neocons clamoring for support of the Iranian reformists.  I threw up in my mouth a little.  I really should have seen it coming.  Twitter really has been changing the way things are happening in our world, and it was easy to get caught up in the enthusiasm.  Today I’d like to find Charles Krauthammer and give him a fudge swirly (eww, right?).

I lost the username I had here.  I was so paranoid during the Bush era, even in 2008, that I used proxies and fake names for everything.  I don’t even remember some of the email accounts, much less usernames and passwords.  I think I used Presto here for awhile.  Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the tons of work you, Jesse, Pam and Auguste put in here.  It’s really a great site.

Joshua Day

Whatever. I’m having a hard time understanding the ultimate significance of the Iranian election, since, AFAIK, this mullah Khameini or whatever runs everything there anyway, no matter who the president is.

A large part of the significance is a generational shift, especially as young Iranians view domestic economic and social issues. On issues of foreign policy and defence (i.e the ones that American pundits obsess over), the candidates are almost indistinguishable.

On the economic front, the Supreme Leader and the grandstanding clown who’s served as his Presidential frontman have basically spent the last 4 years buying the support of the Revolutionary Guard, the military, and entrenched civil servants by giving them control of choice industries and foundations and essentially bribing them with oil revenues. Given such cronyism, younger people and those who don’t follow the party line get shut out, unemployed, and dissatisfied.

On the social front, the Iranian equivalent of Gen Y aspires to a more cosmopolitan and modern (though not strictly Western) outlook—it’s been 30 years since the Islamic revolution that was more about ousting the Shah, and those young Persians who know their country’s history would probably find a secular leader like “Old Mossy” more to their liking. So when Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia Univ. and claims that no gays exist in Iran, they’re embarrassed. When he holds high-profile Holocaust denial seminars in the face of overwhelming evidence, they cringe. And for young Iranians, his enforcement of increasingly irrelevant clerical law in re: sexual, reproductive and women’s rights doesn’t sit well.

Mousavi was promising to remedy these situations—not entirely change them, but to do enough that it threatened the theocrats, their cronies, and thugs. In addition, the Grand Ayatollah (a weak leader who depends on the kind of alliances mentioned above) apparently has an on-going political and personal feud with him.

So yeah, beyond the excitement of the pro-democracy protests there’s significance, but it’s mostly internal. Which is why the warnings about not making this all about America are relevant.

The thing is, it makes Obama’s delicate balancing act all the trickier. Does diplomacy still make Iranians, and by extension the Muslim world (to some extent), feel they have a place at the table? Or does it just look cynical? There’s sort of a sore spot vis-a-vis Americans supporting illegitimate regimes in their neck of the woods, and the popular uprising we’re seeing against this asshat is tremendous. Do we alienate them by shaking hands with Mr. A? And yet, “sanctions” would only alienate them more by directly harming them…

Whatever Obama does, the wingnuts will cry foul, of course. But a shrugger this ain’t.

I’m having a hard time understanding the ultimate significance of the Iranian election, since, AFAIK, this mullah Khameini or whatever runs everything there anyway, no matter who the president is.

1.  It matters because the President does have a certain degree of control over domestic issues.  Obviously if Mousavi tried to turn Iran into Amsterdam his first week in office, the Ayatollahs would crack down, and that would be that.  But under normal circumstances, the President has certain areas of government he’s in charge of, and is free to a certain degree to actually govern in those areas.  In this sense, your comment sounds about as ignorant as “I’m having a hard time understanding the ultimate significance of the Texas gubernatorial election, since, AFAIK, this George Bush character runs everything in America, anyway, no matter who the governor of whatever state is.”

2.  What’s going on right now amongst the protesters is VERY quickly transitioning from “boo, stolen election!” to all out revolution and a call for true secular democracy.  Which is why it scares the religious leaders so much.

3.  Mousavi represents a more moderate path for Iran, and without someone like him, there really is no hope for things in Iran to change (especially for things to change peacefully via orderly governmental reform).  Even though he won’t have much real control and his role would be largely symbolic.  It’s kind of like the difference between McCain and Obama.  Neither candidate would have free reign over American politics, but Obama is still a HUGE improvement over McCain.

4. The West would have a much harder time vilifying Mousavi as compared to Ahmedinejad, and in a situation where we use their president being a total douche as a potential excuse to declare war, that’s a real improvement for the Iranian people.

A large part of the significance is a generational shift, especially as young Iranians view domestic economic and social issues. On issues of foreign policy and defence (i.e the ones that American pundits obsess over), the candidates are almost indistinguishable.

Not so different from our most recent presidential election, in other words.

When I heard they called in 5000 Lebanese “mercenaries” (read Hezbollah) last night I knew I had made a mistake.

1.  It’s the Iranian authorities which have called in Hezbollah (and/or other groups), not the protesters.

2.  They were already doing this before the election results became a cause celebre on the internets.  Another great example of it not being about us, btw.  Iranian protesters aren’t being killed/maimed/arrested/etc. because the West has taken an interest, or because individual outsiders are lending support.

Whoever talks loudest “owns” the issue, and the correct leftist analysis is the opposite of whatever the Right says?  If the Right wanks loudly about the Iranian election in a manner that shows that they’re obviously missing the point, we have to be pro-Ahmedinejad, or go back to watching LOST reruns, or whatever?

I never said that.  But it certainly strikes me as a time to step back and prudently ask how we can avoid feeding the attempts to roll this injustice into an excuse to start a war.  Again, the right is pretty damn good at exploiting the liberal belief that we should show solidarity, etc.—-think about how some right wingers are still on about how, if feminists care about women’s oppression, we should support any and all efforts to blow women in the Middle East to smithereens on the grounds that this might lead to the end of the hijab.

Not so different from our most recent presidential election, in other words.

Well, let’s be fair ... Obama wasn’t talking about sticking around Iraq for 100 years, or joking about bombing Iran. But yeah, they’re both in thrall to the military-industrial-security establishment to a significant degree —just as Ike predicted.

Similarly, all of the presidential candidates in Iran unqualified support for the Palestinians, villified Israel, promoted the nuclear programme (although Mousavi wants to clamp down on the amount of money swallowed by it), and treated the U.S. as an adversary to Iranian aspirations in the international community.

One wonders how much Obama’s Cairo speech encouraged the demonstrators.  Some, at least, I’ll betchya.  Oh yes, righties, you are wrong again.  There is a new feeling in the world.  Where it will lead us is anyone’s guess.

But yeah, they’re both in thrall to the military-industrial-security establishment to a significant degree —just as Ike predicted.

make that “to a massive degree” and we’re on the same page.

Hey, Colbert declared the war over!  Let’s have another one!

A little Dire Straits:
The work force is disgusted downs tools and walks
Innocence is injured experience just talks
Everyone seeks damages and everyone agrees
That these are classic symptoms of a monetary squeeze
On itv and bbc they talk about the curse
Philosophy is useless theology is worse
History boils over theres an economics freeze
Sociologists invent words that mean industrial disease

I go down to speakers corner Im thunderstruck
They got free speech, tourists, police in trucks
Two men say theyre jesus one of them must be wrong
Theres a protest singer singing a protest song - he says
they wanna have a war to keep us on our knees
They wanna have a war to keep their factories
They wanna have a war to stop us buying japanese
They wanna have a war to stop industrial disease
Theyre pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind
They wanna sap your energy incarcerate your mind
They give you rule brittania, gassy beer, page three
Two weeks in espana and sunday striptease
Meanwhile the first jesus says Id cure it soon
Abolish monday mornings and friday afternoons
The other ones on a hunger strike hes dying by degrees
How come jesus gets industrial disease

If you know so little about Iranian politics/culture/language/whatever that you can’t even be bothered to try to spell Ahmedinejad, what are you doing commenting on this issue?

Are you talking about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

I tease.

I do agree with your overall sentiment on this issue.

But I still like referring to him as Ahmawhackjob… because, well… he is one.  And I had no problems with French or German or even Iranian people referring to our previous president as “Shrub” or even “fucking chickenhawk asshole”.

[T]hey really can’t stand to believe that something may not be about them, or that they don’t have a god-given right to control other people’s affairs and decisions for them.

Interestingly, this is one way of characterizing the essence of borderline personality disorder. And its root is thought to be an unimaginably painful feeling of emptiness and worthlessness.

But it certainly strikes me as a time to step back and prudently ask how we can avoid feeding the attempts to roll this injustice into an excuse to start a war.

Wow, I didn’t know that staying informed about global politics = feeding attempts to start a war.  Seriously, is that really what we’re saying here?  Get your head back in the sand, or something bad might happen?

I’ve been F5’ing the #iranelection hashtag on Twitter for most of the last 2 days.  I’ve seen a lot of solidarity, a lot of link/photo/info sharing, and a good degree of remote digital help.  I have seen no outcry for American intervention. 

The only people I see talking about this being an excuse for war are the wrongest wrong idiots.  Bill Kristol.  John McCain.  And last time I checked, right wing fucktards didn’t seem to be waiting around to see where my consciousness was at before spouting their war-mongering garbage.  Speaking of narcissism, ego, and self-importance…

Are you talking about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

I tease.

Because Farsi is not written in Latin characters, there are multiple accepted transliterations.  One vowel off the most common transliteration is REALLY far away from “Amawhoozywhatsit”. 

Though, yeah, I did notice after I posted that.

think about how some right wingers are still on about how, if feminists care about women’s oppression, we should support any and all efforts to blow women in the Middle East to smithereens on the grounds that this might lead to the end of the hijab.

Yeah.  And we ignore those morons.  We don’t quit feminism over it.

What is about us is the insane stupidity of the neocons.  So we should tend to our own backyard, pointing out how Obama will not get credit no matter how positive the outcome and trying to tie neocons into making actual predictions of failure for Obama’s policies which will then end up being false and which can then be used to mock them whenever they speak in the future.

There is a tniy sense in which this is about us, but one that makes it even more imperative that the Us should STFU about the current situation. We have been horribly messing up Iranian affairs for 60-plus years, so even the well-meaning platitudes a relatively uninvolved outside party are not available. It’s lkike a long-time abusive drunken uncle who has recently gone 12-step thinking about offering detailed relationship advice to one of the neices or nephews (now adult) he abused.

The old saying goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

I don’t think that is something that can be universally applied, especially in cases like this.

For example, most rightwing fucktards think Osama bin Laden is a huge asshole.  Well, “enemy of my enemy” thinking would suggest that since I can’t stand warmonger fucktards on the right, OBL must be my hero.  Not so.  Regardless of what the rightwing says about OBL, I think he’s a ginormous asshole.  So we agree on that… and?

I think folks on the left can hold a stance on this issue that shares one point of agreement with the right - Ahmadinejad sucks - while at the same time having a completely different perspective on what it is we do about it, or more specifically, precisely what we SHOULDN’T do about it.

The right claims that they want to see Ahmadinejad out of power.  I also want to see Ahmadinejad out of power.  But where I break tremendously from the thinking of the right is in how that should come about.  The right is drooling at the prospect of a shock-and-awe campaign to bring about their version of “democracy” to the nation of Iran.  Thankfully, we have a president who isn’t a totally unhinged cowboy serving as Commander-in-chief, so I don’t worry about whether or not he’ll quickly engage our military in an affair that isn’t ours to engage in - I don’t see it happening.  President Obama’s handling of this situation has been brilliant, and the words he’s using are pitch-perfect.  He’s clearly expressing support for the principles of free and fair elections, he’s saying that the violent tactics being used to silence the protestors are disturbing, and he’s saying that this is an affair for the Iranians to sort out amongst themselves - I think he’s picking a side in this fight, but I think he’s doing so very shrewdly and with great subtlety, and telling them that he’ll gladly be a cheerleader, but we can’t get on the field and fight their battle for them.

I do feel ok expressing support for the Iranian youth to bring about regime change, provided they are the ones making this happen, without any outside interference.  I don’t equate the support of citizens of the West with direct intervention by the governments of the West.  Those of us on the left who would like to see regime change in Iran do so because we want the Iranian people to be able to enjoy freedom, not because we want American war profiteers to rake in millions in bloody profits.  Which is exactly why one can both be 150% against any sort of Western intervention or involvement AND fully supportive of the rebellious uprising of a disenfrachised Iranian populace.

It isn’t as simple as, “whatever the rightwing wants, I want the opposite”.  Because if that were the case, I would want Ahmadinejad and the oppressive mullahs to remain in power… and frankly, I don’t want that.

If you know so little about Iranian politics/culture/language/whatever that you can’t even be bothered to try to spell Ahmedinejad, what are you doing commenting on this issue?

Oooooh, sorry. I didn’t realize I was posting in the presence of such an expert on Iranian politics/culture/language/whatever. I humbly promise not to try to annoy you from now on.

*eyeroll*

I dunno, to me, avoiding something because the wingnuts have latched onto it makes no more sense than taking up a cause just because the wingnuts are against it. I didn’t start paying attention because some wingnut got into a snit, so why should it matter to me that they did? I don’t read the wingnuts, so I’ve managed to follow the situation and see various expressions of support without encountering anyone who is using it as an excuse for war or who thinks it should be about us.

It’s not about us, and there’s very little we can do, but I believe that expressing that people are paying attention is appreciated because there are people over there who have said that it is. For me, that’s all this is about.

It’s not about us, and there’s very little we can do, but I believe that expressing that people are paying attention is appreciated because there are people over there who have said that it is. For me, that’s all this is about.

This.

I’m surprised that the wingnuts don’t love Ahmadinejad and want to bring him here.

After all, he claims to have accomplished something that they dearly wish to: according to him, they don’t have gay people in Iran!

The Opoponax, DGL in STL, and Ms Kate have said most everything that needs to be said here.  I will only add that Jesse’s foray on this subject was not as balanced or measured as “the delicacy of the situation really requires the maturity to stand back a little and avoid throwing a giant temper tantrum about how this entire Iran situation should be ours to control and own[.]”  Accusations and counter accusations of immaturity are not helpful in this situation, and to suggest we should keep our mouths shut because wingnuts and neocons might just take it out of context or misconstrue it is simply bad (and defeatist) reasoning.

Oooooh, sorry. I didn’t realize I was posting in the presence of such an expert on Iranian politics/culture/language/whatever. I humbly promise not to try to annoy you from now on.

I guess I just don’t really get the point of coming into a thread about a country wherein you can’t even vaguely approximate the President’s name (or be bothered to cut and paste from Wikipedia), blatantly admitting that you know nothing about the way their government works, and then deciding that there’s no reason anyone should care.

Right.

Yeah.

This isn’t directly about this thread’s topic, but I just found an interesting nugget concerning the system maintenance of Twitter in hours that would be conducive to the Iranian protestors having access to the network…

It appears as though someone in Secretary Clinton’s employ may have had a little something to do with Twitter changing its maintenance time…

“We highlighted to them that this was an important form of communication,” said a State Department official, referring to a conversation the department had with Twitter executives at the time of the disputed Iranian election.

Iranians have used social networking sites to send information, videos and pictures to update the outside world on the progress of demonstrations and other events.

The State Department official told reporters on the condition of anonymity that the Twitter service was a key form of communication after Tehran shut down websites, mobile phones and newspapers during the protests.

“One of the areas where people are able to get out the word is through Twitter,” the official said. “They announced they were going to shut down their system for maintenance and we asked them not to.”

Demonstrators in Iran on Monday used Twitter to post battle cries and to spread word about clashes with police and hardline supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I dunno, to me, avoiding something because the wingnuts have latched onto it makes no more sense than taking up a cause just because the wingnuts are against it.

The original comment was “be extra cautious”, which seems entirely warranted.  Wingnuts are not necessarily wrong, but if they feel passionate about something, it is likely someone is going to be suffering.

One broader issue this whole discussion raises is the question of international Leftism.

Is there any indication that the protesters in Iran give a shit about “international Leftism”?

if a bunch of right wing nuts get up in an outrage tizzy about something, one should be especially cautious about agreeing

the correct leftist analysis is the opposite of whatever the Right says?

These are not the same thing.  Using caution before agreeing with evil, angry, violent people is prudent.  Staking out a contradictory position to everything said by a conservative is not.  But you know that.  What I don’t know is why you tried to conflate the two.

Using caution before agreeing with evil, angry, violent people is prudent.

This would be correct if evil, angry, violent right wingers had broken the story or were the only sources.  As I’ve said either here or in the other thread, I heard about all of this via extremely trustworthy leftist sources who have a habit of following news from this part of the world and actually know what they’re talking about. 

I distrust Drudge Report and Fox News and am wary of the stories they break.  But I’m not going to change my outlook because the right has wrongheadedly latched onto something.  Not least because me dropping it and going back to planning my vacation to South America isn’t going to make the idiotic right wing talking heads stop talking.  And, for that matter, what color predominates my facebook avatar or which hashtags I enter into the Twitter search bar didn’t inspire these assholes in the first place.

What Opoponax (and others) said. I agree that caution is important, but I also think that individuals showing solidarity does no harm and likely does some good, however shallow we may judge one another’s convictions.

Also, if we’re on about how we need to follow this Iran issue in a way that isn’t about us being the center of attention, there has to be a limit on how much navel-gazing and self-criticism we are going to indulge in. We could focus on following the events in Iran, learning as much as we can about them, and working together as progressives to find constructive, non-intrusive ways of responding, rather than spending our energy pointing fingers at each other.

I do appreciate that this site is being cautious and thoughtful about this issue. However, I think it would help the conversation a great deal if we could move beyond telling one another what we are doing wrong and work toward finding something right to do.

Is there any indication that the protesters in Iran give a shit about “international Leftism”?

Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “international Leftism” in this specific context, but if the protesters don’t care about our support, don’t want our help, and don’t give a damn whether anyone out there is rooting for them, they’re doing a pretty crap job of expressing that to us.

Yeah, if they didn’t care what the world thought, they wouldn’t be holding up signs in English.

Utne Reader has some decent ideas for supporting the protesters - the first one I especially like, although I don’t Twitter much.

Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “international Leftism” in this specific context,

See th comment to which I was replying, here.

This thread is surprisingly angry, to me. I don’t understand the bitter retorts and barbs that Pandagonians are flinging at each other here. It seems to me that we are for the most part on the same page about this—we support the Iranian protesters, but are aware that our support could be misused by neoconservative malefactors. Our slight tactical differences should not cause such infighting. Perhaps I am just over-sensitive.

I just want to observe that, despite the disappointments in the past several months, I am so glad that Obama is president.  McCain is as unhinged as always.

I don’t understand the bitter retorts and barbs that Pandagonians are flinging at each other here.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but the bloggers who are jumping on this bandwagon are giving me unpleasant “Democracy!  Whiskey!  Sexy!” flashbacks.

Oh, and by “bloggers” I mean Sullivan and Instapundit, not the commenters I’ve been fighting with here.  Just to be totally clear.

And also, an Afghan-Iranian friend of mine posted this link on Facebook: www.nyrpowered.net.  Apparently if you go to the site it’ll help screw up I’m-A-Dinner-Jacket’s website-blocking software.

I think all we can do is to help Iranians access their own news services and communicate their own ideas.

Sorry, wrong link: http://www.nyrpowered.net/iranelectionddos/

Tienanmen Square happened just as I graduated from college.  I was seeing 20 year reminiscences about it on the news, and my husband and I started discussing how different things might have been if they had had cel phones and twitter.

Wow, just wow.

I said this in the green thread, and I will repeat it here: Obama is playing good cop.  He can do this because Netanyahu is the bad cop.  Obama does have some sway over Netanyahu because we can always take our money and go home if Israel decides to start committing more atrocities, but Obama can threaten to not call in the chips if Iran doesn’t play nice.

McSame doesn’t get the whole dynamic.  All he knows is bluster and bullying and some twisted notion that our national pride somehow demands such foolish impulsive behavior.  He is like those old men who appeared out of cars to bellow “there’s no trouble in our town” repeatedly across a parking lot where I and my friends were innocuously tossing around a frisbee.  70+ year old men, declaring their townie space. That’s McSame.  (we weren’t baked, but we did laugh our asses off at the feeble display of MANPOWER!)

Thanks for the link, Maureen. I agree that the first idea is especially good, and it strike as a more meaningful expression of solidarity, since it could actually help protect people in Iran in some limited way. I read the same suggestion over at Obsidian Wings. I’m torn on the whole metaphor they use there (see below) of “becoming Iranians,” since it confers on the act a sortof grandiose I am Spartacus vibe without the element of you risking anything to do it. But this would be a way to show solidarity without trumpeting it or seeming crass and self-promoting:

“Help cover the bloggers: change your twitter settings so that your location is TEHRAN and your time zone is GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location and timezone searches. If we all become ‘Iranians’ it becomes much harder to find them.”

This is one of the few times I wish I Twittered. I suppose I could start an account just to add to the decoys?

That post also has some good “do not” warnings too. I suck at html, but the article is at: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/cyberwar-for-beginners.html#comments

Haven’t read all the comments there, but so far they seem to be having a very similar debate as the one here, only with a bit more emphasis on these more-concrete ideas for what to do.

Yeah, PIOTR, I read that comment. 

Since the situation in Iran is nothing like the Spanish civil war (yet?), and global politics are not what they were then, it’s hard to postulate any meaning of “international left” in any but the most general terms.  It’s not really something iconic you can either be for or against.

But it’s pretty obvious that the protesters are viewing things in a global context, and that they welcome the support and help of non-Iranians.

It seems to me that we are for the most part on the same page about this—we support the Iranian protesters, but are aware that our support could be misused by neoconservative malefactors. Our slight tactical differences should not cause such infighting.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been away for a bit, but, no, actually, it doesn’t.  I was absolutely shocked to see that the only mention of the events in Iran on Pandagon so far has been largely negative and apathetic, and that many of the regulars I’m familiar with seem to have absolutely nothing positive to say about what’s going on.

I definitely got the sense, from this and previous threads, that the general consensus here at Pandagon is not with the protesters (and in fact openly mocking people who are standing in solidarity with them).

To read Pandagon, the takeaway would be that this is all a big right wing conspiracy.  And not, y’know, a popular uprising of oppressed people.

One more post, re Maureen above:

Everyone should be EXTREMELY careful when engaging in “cyberwar” type stuff in solidarity with the protesters.  There is no clear consensus that DDOS is a worthwhile thing to do at this point, or that it helps matters any.  Especially because there are concerns about it hogging bandwidth and making it even harder for Iranians on the ground to use the internet. 

There is also a lot of bad information out there about what to do.  Including Iranian government operatives posing as protest sympathizers.  Absolutely do not trust any request, news, or link that does not come from an extremely trustworthy source.

I would be especially wary of vague claims like “It’ll screw up I’m-A-Dinner-Jacket’s website blocking software”.  Not to single Maureen out, if she is legit.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been away for a bit, but, no, actually, it doesn’t.  I was absolutely shocked to see that the only mention of the events in Iran on Pandagon so far has been largely negative and apathetic, and that many of the regulars I’m familiar with seem to have absolutely nothing positive to say about what’s going on.

There’s not really much to say.  We wish them well in general, we’re very aware of how badly these things can go wrong, and it’s their history to make, for better or worse.  It’s not like Fiji or Mexico, where other countries actually have a significant voice - the Iranians will be working this through without outsiders.

So Opoponax, you are advocating what exactly???  You sound disappointed that many here don’t favor immediate military action or something - please elaborate.

So Opoponax, you are advocating what exactly???  You sound disappointed that many here don’t favor immediate military action or something - please elaborate.

Dude.  Srsly.  How hard is it to understand that we can support a free Iran without wanting to fucking invade? 

I’m not advocating anything in particular.  If anything, I’m advocating that people should educate themselves about the situation and about Iranian politics in general, and try to be informed citizens of the world. 

I’m just a little disapointed that literally the only thing said here on Pandagon is “haha, stupid lefties with their green avatars giving a shit about what happens in some towelhead country!” and/or “zomg this is obviously a rightwing conspiracy of some kind, don’t trust them!”  What fucking planet are you people on?

I’m not advocating anything in particular.  If anything, I’m advocating that people should educate themselves about the situation and about Iranian politics in general, and try to be informed citizens of the world.

So you’re not advocating that anyone do anything in particular, but you’re excoriating us for not doing anything when there’s no actual plan to do anything? 

Will you at least tell us what to do when you figure out what it is we’re supposed to be doing, or are we going to have to guess?

I’m just a little disapointed that literally the only thing said here on Pandagon is “haha, stupid lefties with their green avatars giving a shit about what happens in some towelhead country!” and/or “zomg this is obviously a rightwing conspiracy of some kind, don’t trust them!” What fucking planet are you people on?

Are you really claiming that none of the chatter in the blogosphere reminds you at all of the rush to war in Iraq, or the swooning over the “Cedar Revolution”, or, hell, even Sully’s orgasm over the 2007 gasoline riots in Iran?  The usual suspects have lined up to take a swing at Iran and, yes, I’m skeptical that people who were advocating that we nuke them six months ago are now full of humanitarian concern for democracy. 

Or, as they wrapped up that 2007 post at Whiskey Fire:

My essential point is that I am resentful and disdainful of this attitude that there is some moral value in encouraging American citizens to look at the Middle East or anywhere fucking else like we watch sporting events.

It’s not that we don’t care.  It’s that we realize, ultimately, that it’s not about us.  We are not central players in this drama.  We’re bystanders.  We’ll help if it’s requested, but we’re not going to go barging in claiming we know what’s best.  I think we’ve done more than enough of that, especially in Iran, and our interference could very well make things worse.  Which is why the police are chanting “Death to America!” as they beat people.

Hilzoy has posted a great piece explaining what the difference is between Eastern Europe rebelling against the Soviet Union and what’s going on in Iran.

I do honestly feel that there’s a good chance that visible involvement and support by Americans—even protest rallies by private citizens—could be actively harmful to the protesters in Iran.  And if that happens, once again we will have been guilty of making Iran’s political struggles all about making ourselves feel good.

“What fucking planet are you people on?”

...a planet where I’ve grown numb from all the different ways the Right can figure out how to hate, manipulate, exaggerate, loot, and destroy and all the ways the Left (politicians) have figured out how to fold up and give the Reichwing what they want…which is everything the earth and the humans living on it can be made to give them.

I don’t wish ill on the Iranian people, and I hope they will be able to wear away the theocracy and again rejoin the rest of the world’s nations.  But I’m painfully aware of just how far down our own place in the world has sunk.

We can’t even keep our own house in order.  Our political system is probably nearly as broken as theirs, just in different ways.  In the end, what’s the practical difference between having some deluded religious nuts control the levers of power vs. a cabal of the super-rich doing the same thing?  One group pretends to receive guidance from god, and the other is guided by pure, unadulterated greed. When you’re on the bottom of the pyramid it looks about the same.

I guess I’m just burned out…

I’m just a little disapointed that literally the only thing said here on Pandagon is “haha, stupid lefties with their green avatars giving a shit about what happens in some towelhead country!” and/or “zomg this is obviously a rightwing conspiracy of some kind, don’t trust them!” What fucking planet are you people on?

You’re shading into concern trolling here.  I notice you haven’t addressed the effects these events will have on the American occupation of Iraq yet, or how it might affect women’s issues in Iran - does this mean you’re no longer anti-war or feminist?

More seriously, is there a personal connection here that’s making you worried and frustrated about the events?

I assume Amanda hasn’t said anything about Iran per se because - as Mnemosyne points out - what is there to say?  Her comment was about American reaction.  If she makes a comment about Iran, as such, then we might have at it.  Frankly, she’d be foolish to do so at this juncture IMHO.

I’m just a little disapointed that literally the only thing said here on Pandagon is “haha, stupid lefties with their green avatars giving a shit about what happens in some towelhead country!”

Lefties? Which lefties have gone green? Sullivan? Instapundit? Those fucking hippies.

Longtime lurker, first time poster; I registered yesterday thinking I wanted to comment in Jesse’s thread about Iran, but realized I had better take some deep breaths before writing full of frustration.

I love Pandagon, it’s #1 on my (short) list of “must read every day” blogs.  And I love the way the posters and commenters here make me think, argue with my own privilege and biases, and consider many different points of view.  And yeah, sometimes I end up disagreeing with Amanda or Jesse or anyone else, but that’s great, I’m happy to see eloquent and intelligent and often very witty views that differ from mine.  I should say that about 98% of the time, I’m either in full agreement with the positions here, or don’t know enough about the particular issues to have any opinion!

But in this case, I don’t get it.  I feel almost exactly what The Opoponax has said: if I were to come to Pandagon today unaware of the general tone and leaning of the authors and commenters, I would walk away thinking that you’re encouraging ostrich head-in-the-sand behavior, wanting us to ignore and dismiss a massive near-revolution in one of the most volatile geopolitical regions, and on top of that, that you’re making fun of those of us who are interested, who want to be informed, who are emotionally and intellectually MOVED by the images and texts coming out of a historically oppressed society.  I haven’t turned my Facebook profile green, nor do I even have a Twitter account, but I did wear a green shirt yesterday and today, in hopes that someone—anyone!—might notice, ask me why, and possibly get informed themselves and share information with others.  Very much like, as a commenter from Jesse’s thread noted, a European wearing an Obama pin; is that really something that deserves this much mockery?

I’m not agitating for anything other than awareness, intelligence and curiosity about the world outside our borders, and yes, human solidarity.  I don’t care whether Pandagon “goes green,” nor would I even attempt to ask them to—but scolding those blogs and twitterers and facebookers who, in an effort to counteract the huge information gap and general unawareness of hugely important world events, have gone green, well, to be honest, it’s insulting, and I really am shocked by the tenor of the posts and comments about this issue here.  I echo The Opoponax again: what planet have I wandered on to here, because it sure looks different than I expected it to!

Dear lynkali, Opoponax, and others,

I can’t speak for everyone but let me start by saying that I have complete respect for you and your decision to show solidarity for the Iranian pro-reformist protesters. I don’t believe that you deserve mockery or condesension, I think what you are doing makes complete sense. It is great that Americans show solidarity with Iranians, and with others in the world, and please do not let people tell you differently.

Having said that, I think I can also understand the reason that others are cynical, or cautious, or skeptical—the mocking sense that you have noted. If you read a recent AP news item about Iran, several things are evident. First, while the election certainly looks suspicious to most of the world, we don’t actually know that it was faked. We strongly suspect it was faked, with good reason, but it ain’t our country, and we don’t know all the ins and outs. The AP article mentions that along with the pro-reformist/pro-moderate rallies and protests, there was also a pro-Ahmadinejad rally in Teheran where people waved Iranian flags and denounced “rioters”. We should not forget that along with the reformist/moderate elements that we have championed, there are hardline elements who are a significant portion of the Iranian public.

It is like the 2000 US elections. Those certainly looked suspicious to me, and lots of other Americans, as did the 2004 elections. People lamented the fact that not enough people protested afterwards. But what if half the country had protested, would it have improved matters? Maybe. Or maybe it would have kicked off some kind of intensified social conflict.

In addition, we should not forget that while you represent an element that cares about people all over the globe, and truly wishes to help bring democracy to folks in any/every nation through peaceful means, the USA also has a very powerful, very sneaky, and underestimated neoconservative element that has plenty of mindshare in the corporate/mainstream media, and also is quite powerful within Obama’s administration, and they want what they have always wanted: to start a war with Iran so their dicks can feel engorged again. And those fuckers worry me, and they should worry everyone, because reports of their political demise have been greatly exaggerated.

So I have total respect for you and what you are doing, and I think you should continue. And I don’t think you should be mocked, and I agree with whoever said Jesse was over-analyzing it all yesterday in his post. But, I can see where the cynicism/skepticism is coming from. So continue doing this activism you have been doing, and I’ll continue doing mine. Just be aware that some powerful and treacherous motherfuckers would like to take what you are doing and twist it into something deadly and dangerous.

Agreed that particular skepticism is warranted, given that the right wing nuts use human rights ideals as cynical pretexts to launch violent colonial invasions - see, e.g., the plight of women in Afghanistan bemoaned by American conservatives for two covnenient seconds in the fall of 2001, and the plight of dissidents in Iraq bemoaned by conservatives for two convenient seconds in early 2003.

The (as usual) cynical and smug behavior of American conservatives should not discount that many people, by contrast, argue for human rights ideals in good faith, oppose the consequences of relativism in assessing human rights records in good faith, and also argue, in good faith, that the UN and other countries’ governments have a role in ensuring they are upheld worldwide. Feminist and women’s advocacy groups, for example, had been discussing the plight of women in Afghanistan for years before their efforts dovetailed with conservatives’ desire to invade the country. I have worked with a number of asylum advocates, for example, who have grown weary of one common argument here in the EU, to deny asylum seekers the protection they need, that countries must solve their social and political problems on their own. (Tell that to gay Iranians or women fleeing “honour” violence as local police and state officials turn blind eyes). A moral commitment to individual human beings requires, for example, that such claims of persecution be evaluated, individuals in need of protection from state abuse get it, and that states and world organizations exert what pressure they can to make sure people’s dignity is respected when states wish to disregard it.

Sure conservatives often co-opt these ideals to add another oil field to their portfolios. That should not defeat ultimate goals and ideals, and our willingness to hold other countries to standards that can be justified by logical and inductive reasoning about morals and values (rather than simply asserting the superiority of one’s own values and sabre-rattling).

In addition to heartily seconding what The Opoponax and lynkali have stated above, let me also add that I think a large degree of this snark arises solely out of the fact that it is Sullivan, and not someone more amenable to the general political milieu of this blog in general, that has caused the amount of scorn heaped on the “going green” idea.

I agree with Sullivan about half the time.  I disagree with him about half the time.  I also think he is essentially honest in his analysis, even if it is often in error.  Treating Sullivan as if he is the equivalent of NRO or the Weekly Standard (which are both pure neocon propaganda organs) is both wrong and ultimately doing a disservice to everyone involved in this discussion.  Even Jesse had to agree yesterday that Sullivan’s coverage of the events in Iran is excellent, and I am using it on Facebook as a method to try and spread information about what is going on.  (Alas, most of my Facebook friends are far more interested in taking those interminable “How well do you know [person x]?” quizzes.)

Sometimes you can shoot the messenger.  Whatever else you think about Sullivan, I do not think this is one of those times.

Personally I’m of the opinion that an actual new Iranian revolution is probably going to be better in the long term for the Iranian people than anything Moussavi could have done as president. But that’s me being an anarchist and generally having more faith in the people’s struggle than in the officials.

I’m also aware that some of these revolutions of the last decade in Eastern Europe were psyops by the CIA or the West in general, so I keep a skeptical and critical eye as I see events unfold.

I think what I meant to convey is that I’m not particularly worried about whether the election was legitimate or not given that *the government* is not legitimate in the first place, or has at least seemed to lose its legitimacy for a non-trivial subset of the Iranian population.

I’m getting the impression that this mess started out as an in-fight between mullah group A and mullah group B.  Now it’s morphed into something else.  The only thing I know is that the Iran we were dealing with two weeks ago doesn’t exist anymore.  Still, the best thing the US can do for now is SHUT UP.  As the old sage said, “Fools rush in….”  (Are you listening, McCain?)

In addition to heartily seconding what The Opoponax and lynkali have stated above, let me also add that I think a large degree of this snark arises solely out of the fact that it is Sullivan, and not someone more amenable to the general political milieu of this blog in general, that has caused the amount of scorn heaped on the “going green” idea.

If it were just Sullivan, it wouldn’t be a big deal.  But it’s not.  It’s Instapundit and Hot Air and Jonah Goldberg in the LA Times and John Podhoretz.  Pretty much every right-winger who’s advocated nuking Iran in the past decade is now hopping on the “go green!” bandwagon and extolling the virtues of democracy in a country they’ve been itching to invade since at least 1980.  Obsidian Wings has some interesting things to say about the people who are claiming to support democracy in Iran and what else they’ve been supporting recently.

This is not a “I Hate Andrew Sullivan” campaign.  This is us asking why we’re supposed to trust that the people who wanted to bomb Iran into oblivion less than six months ago are suddenly terribly, terribly concerned about democracy there.  John “Bomb bomb Iran” McCain just wants free and fair elections?  Really?

As I’ve said several times, this is starting to unpleasantly remind me of all of the “serious” people on the left who decided we needed to invade Iraq after hearing years of propaganda from the right.  But, hey, people called me crazy for opposing the Iraq war, so I guess I should get used to them calling me crazy for suspecting that the right wing is going to use the events in Iran to gin up an excuse to bomb or invade just like they did with Iraq.

If we were to start a war with Iran, where would the troups and resources come from?

I’m sure that Sullivan and Goldbrick would be the first to enlist!

Not.

This is us asking why we’re supposed to trust that the people who wanted to bomb Iran into oblivion less than six months ago are suddenly terribly, terribly concerned about democracy there.

See, this is where you have the whole thing wrong.  I am not concerned with “trusting” any of the people you mention.  I don’t read Instapundit, Hot Air, Jonah Goldberg, or John Podhoretz precisely because they are intellectually dishonest wingnut jobbers.  (And one reason I do read Sullivan is because he reads and criticizes those people, is not an intellectually dishonest wingnut jobber, and also has substantial disagreements with my own politics, which makes Sullivan a useful analytical tool for trying to get at other points of view.)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but in advocating “going green” I am not commenting in any way on whether you should trust Instapundit, et al, (and by the way, apropro of nothing, you shouldn’t).  Your obsession with the trustworthiness of the bad faith brigade, in my mind, highlights the fact that you are dismissing (and maligning) the concept in toto because of a kneejerk reaction to what some idiots are doing, and not based on good faith analysis of the actual situation.

In other words, I think you and I can agree that the question is debatable whether “going green” has any positive impact on the situation.  (I personally think it helps, at least in small measure, and is probably all we can effectively do at the moment, other than disseminating information as widely as possible.)  Telling me Instapundit did it and therefore I question it is just not the issue.  I like to reason independently of people who are patently not using reason, or who enslave reason to their desired outcome.  When Glenn Reynolds starts screaming that we need to bomb Iran now to save it, well…actually, I won’t say anything directly because I don’t read him.  Sullivan will serve the purpose of informing me of that, and while I may or may not agree with Sullivan’s take on it, I will at least know that Sullivan was being intelelctually honest on the matter.

“If we were to start a war with Iran, where would the troups and resources come from?”

...which is why they were talking up the idea of using the Navy and the Air Force, who feel they’ve haven’t been in on the good stuff in Iraq.  And it plays well with the idea that ground wars are kind of messy, whereas air wars are surgically clean, so no Americans have to soil their hands rooting out the Iranian Evil.  No IEDs, no Abu Ghraibs, no politically problematic “enemy combatants”...

(Just don’t bring up the fact that history contains no examples of a war being won by air power alone…)

I’m sure that Sullivan and Goldbrick would be the first to enlist!

Well Ms Kate, while you are no doubt correct that they would not enlist, Sullivan at least has an excuse: he’s a British national in the US on a visa, is openly homosexual, and HIV positive.  Even if the first did not keep him from volunteering, one or both of the remaining two factors would.

MikeEss: You’re assuming their goal is to win something rather than just “bomb Ay-rabs”.

“MikeEss: You’re assuming their goal is to win something rather than just “bomb Ay-rabs”.”

True enough.  Gotta keep the proles occupied…

Sullivan hasn’t been agitating for war with Iran at all, so lumping him in with the crazies who slipped seamlessly from ‘bomb them’ to ‘help them’ is grossly unfair. The worst he can be accused of in this, is sophomoric and slightly patronising enthusiasm for a really exciting goodies v baddies story.

So you’re not advocating that anyone do anything in particular, but you’re excoriating us for not doing anything when there’s no actual plan to do anything?

I never excoriated anybody about not doing anything.

I’ve criticized the general level of apathy and pessimism.  It’s kind of shocking to me that a democratic revolution would break out in a country with a long history of theocratic repression, and Pandagon’s response is alternately “fucking tree-huggers with their ‘causes’ and shit…” and “meh”. 

And that criticism has nothing to do with urging people to action - it’s just a wish that the response were more positive, or at least engaged beyond, “what, Andrew Sullivan? KNEEJERK NEGATIVE RESPONSE”

Are you really claiming that none of the chatter in the blogosphere reminds you at all of the rush to war in Iraq, or the swooning over the “Cedar Revolution”, or, hell, even Sully’s orgasm over the 2007 gasoline riots in Iran?

I’ve been following this stuff mostly straight from the source (with a little bit of assist from Nico Pitney at Huffington Post), and, no, it doesn’t remind me of trumped up warmongering at all.  It reminds me of Tiananmen Square, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the 2003 anti-Iraq War protests, with a side order of the 15 minutes after the 2008 election was called for Obama.  I’m sure the cheeto circuit is spinning this all to hell, but really, in terms of what is actually going on, they don’t seem to be dominating the discourse at all.

our interference could very well make things worse.  Which is why the police are chanting “Death to America!” as they beat people.

All Iranian dissidents are routinely labeled shills for America/the West.  American attention to the issue is not inspiring the authorities on this count.  Speaking of how everything isn’t always about us.  Not to mention that the US is not even remotely the only country outside Iran that is interested in what’s going on and lending support to the protesters. 

I find it hilarious, by the way, that the “ahmedine-who?!” crowd are playing the “it’s not always about America” crowd in order to try to convince us that it’s better to stay completely uninformed about the world outside America, as well as assuming that the USA is the only country taking an interest in what’s going on and that everything the Iranian authorities do is all about America, and the people of Iran are just deluded pawns.  It might be time to take your own advice—it’s not always about America, you know.

Thank you The Opoponax and lynkali. I’m not quite as passionate as you seem over this, but you put into words a lot of what I’ve been feeling about this conversation.

I do think I understand where others are coming from, but I feel similarly surprised at the content and tone of the discussion here. That’s not necessarily a bad thing - I can go to Huffington’s live blog if I want coverage of Iran rather than coverage of our reactions to Iran. But I similarly had a desire to see a different kind of approach taken here. OTOH, it’s not my space, so *shrug*. What can you do? So far this has been a sometimes-contentions but nevertheless interesting internal debate about relationships between the left, the right, and international liberation movements. The debate currently does seem to be dipping overmuch into the pool of smug and snarky, which feels a big jarring because my feelings are more like hopeful and admiring, but looking beyond differences in tone, I think there’s a lot of important stuff being said here.

The main difference, in my opinion, between show of solidarity with Iran’s protesters and the initial response of some liberals to the Iraq war is that most people are not saying “oh, those poor Iranians, they need someone to come in and stand up to their government for them! We’ll be their heroes” It’s more like “look at those Iranians who are standing up to their government! They are heroes!” And for many of us the follow-up to that thought is “how can I be of service to them, if at all?” and “how can I express my admiration for them in a meaningful way.”

It’s also helpful that we have an Obama government which, despite its many flaws, is at least not going warmongery over Iran. People calling for military action against Iran come across as pathetic and attention-seeking.

To be honest, the comparison to the Iraq war build up is confusing to me, since the two situations seem so different.

First, while the election certainly looks suspicious to most of the world, we don’t actually know that it was faked. We strongly suspect it was faked, with good reason, but it ain’t our country, and we don’t know all the ins and outs. The AP article mentions that along with the pro-reformist/pro-moderate rallies and protests, there was also a pro-Ahmadinejad rally in Teheran where people waved Iranian flags and denounced “rioters”. We should not forget that along with the reformist/moderate elements that we have championed, there are hardline elements who are a significant portion of the Iranian public.

This is an extremely inaccurate reading of the situation on the ground.  The election is almost certainly a fraud, and at this point we’ll never know because the Iranian government has spent the last several days destroying ballots so that they cannot be recounted.  At this point, Mousavi’s supporters are asking that the election be declared void and new elections be held.  While it isn’t America’s place to decide whether the election was stolen or not (I would be APPALLED if Obama or any other US government official came out and declared it to be the case), there is absolutely nothing wrong with Americans digesting the information for ourselves and standing in solidarity with the Iranian people.

The pro-Ahmadinejad rallies are basically shams, by the way - they’re pitifully underattended, and the people who do show up are civil servants made to do so and rural people bribed with food and bused in.  There are also allegations that some of the photographs of pro-Ahmadinejad rallies have been digitally altered.  Ahmadinejad’s people are also using the tactic of holding their rallies in the exact time and place as the opposition is planning to hold them, and claiming that the opposition protesters are actually supporters of the regime.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with Americans digesting the information for ourselves and standing in solidarity with the Iranian people

There is, however, something rather distasteful with cheerleading rah-rah go protesters! sentiments devoid of any larger understanding of the situation.  This gets more superficial and distasteful the more gimmicky the solidarity expressions get - green links, etc.  It is on a par with the get pink for breast cancer this or that crap - like wearing a green Iranstrong bracelet does anything.

Oh, and:

The main difference, in my opinion, between show of solidarity with Iran’s protesters and the initial response of some liberals to the Iraq war is that most people are not saying “oh, those poor Iranians, they need someone to come in and stand up to their government for them! We’ll be their heroes” It’s more like “look at those Iranians who are standing up to their government! They are heroes!” And for many of us the follow-up to that thought is “how can I be of service to them, if at all?” and “how can I express my admiration for them in a meaningful way.”

Yes.  This.

There is, however, something rather distasteful with cheerleading rah-rah go protesters! sentiments devoid of any larger understanding of the situation.

Uh, yeah.  Which is why I’ve repeatedly stressed that the absolute most important thing to do is to develop a larger understanding of the situation.  People who don’t know anything about it jumping in and saying HACK THIS WEBSITE! RT THIS TWEET! etc. are quite possibly doing more harm than good.  It is extremely important to educate yourself on exactly what is going on before attempting to become involved (even in seemingly small ways), because lives are at risk and it’s easy to hurt more than you help.

None of this, however, is an excuse to simply say, “eye-ran? that country with the shah? meh, well, did anybody catch The Bachelorette last night?” and call it a day.

On the other hand, several members of Team Iran playing in the early World Cup rounds wore green armbands ... that’s courage!

This is not a “I Hate Andrew Sullivan” campaign.  This is us asking why we’re supposed to trust that the people who wanted to bomb Iran into oblivion less than six months ago are suddenly terribly, terribly concerned about democracy there.  John “Bomb bomb Iran” McCain just wants free and fair elections? Really?

As I’ve said several times, this is starting to unpleasantly remind me of all of the “serious” people on the left who decided we needed to invade Iraq after hearing years of propaganda from the right.  But, hey, people called me crazy for opposing the Iraq war, so I guess I should get used to them calling me crazy for suspecting that the right wing is going to use the events in Iran to gin up an excuse to bomb or invade just like they did with Iraq.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here.

Yes, many of the same assholes who are talking “democracy” in Iran today were responsible for ginning up public support for war in Iraq in 2003.

That said, it isn’t 2003.

We aren’t 18 months removed from the worst terrorist attack on American soil in US history.

The Republicans have no significant in power in Congress.

And most important of all…

GEORGE BUSH IS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

President Obama is not George Bush.  While I know many are less than thrilled with his approach to Afghanistan/Iraq, he has never been one to advocate starting pre-emptive wars.  Ever.

Let me say that again.  Barack Obama is one-hundred bajillion percent agaist the concept of starting pre-emptive wars against countries that have not attacked us.

Now, it is fair to be troubled by the fact that he isn’t acting faster to get us out of Iraq sooner.  Valid.  Totally valid.  But struggling with getting our military out of a war that we were already in when he took office isn’t anywhere near the same planet as starting a brand new war with a completely different country.  In regards to Afghanistan, while many of us aren’t thrilled with him ramping up forces, HE’S DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO THROUGHOUT HIS ENTIRE CAMPAIGN ON THAT FRONT.  He didn’t tell us that he was gonna get us out of Afghanistan right away… quite the opposite, he told us that he intended to ramp up efforts there in hopes of capturing Osama bin Laden.  Now it is completely fair to be critical of that approach, but it isn’t fair to argue that he breaking campaign promises on that front.  Because he isn’t.

Anyway, I’m not overly concerned about wingnuts having a bloodlust to engage in war with Iran.  Had McCain won the election, I’d be scared shitless.  But if George Bush, the guy who really wanted to get us into pre-emptive war with Iran while he was in office was unable to pull it off with a much more Republican Congress… I have very little fear about Charles Krauthammer’s finger-waving being a force that is able to push us into another pointless and totally unjustifiable war anytime soon.

In 2003, the neocons were manipulating a very scared public with visions of planes crashing into buildings fresh in the mind into buying into the notion of a pre-emptive war in Iraq.  They had the White House, Congress, and the press all joining in with them in their bloodlust.

Today, it’s the same clowns talking the same game, but they are totally impotent.  Having been so horrifically wrong on Iraq, the American public has generally turned on these assholes.  THIS White House won’t do their bidding, Congress won’t do their bidding, and I don’t even think the spineless press will do their bidding.  Not on a pre-emptive war we absolutely cannot afford, morally or fiscally.  And I cannot possibly fathom 70% of Americans supporting us getting into a pre-emptive war with Iran today.

So the concern that if we support Iranian reformers in spirit that we will somehow enable Bill Kristol to lead us into a shock-and-awe campaign against Tehran in the next year is utterly ridiculous.  It ain’t happening.

Elections have consequences.  The last two have taken away the neocons’ ability to start a pointless pre-emptive war against Iran anytime in the near future.

They are neutered.

Your obsession with the trustworthiness of the bad faith brigade, in my mind, highlights the fact that you are dismissing (and maligning) the concept in toto because of a kneejerk reaction to what some idiots are doing, and not based on good faith analysis of the actual situation.

That is in some ways true—I do think that a lot of the “going green” thing in the blogosphere is being driven and promulgated by the right wing, and by doing it, I think you could be allying yourself with them, whether you mean to or not.  I also think you’re putting way too much faith in Andrew Sullivan—he may hate Bush, but he loves war, and he’ll cheerlead you right into the middle of one.

I also think you’re ignoring that this year is the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution where they overthrew the Shah.  You may not know how Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA overthrew the elected government and installed the Shah in the 1950s but, believe me, the Iranians are still pretty pissed off about it and are very, very allergic to anything that looks like interference from the US.

We had a chance to start mending relations with Iran when they sent their condolences after 9/11, and we slapped their hand away and called them part of the “axis of evil.”  Any hint that the demonstrators are being supported by the US—even private citizens—could cause the whole damn thing to collapse.  So, yes, I think the people who are trying to interject themselves into the situation are doing it to please their own egos, not because they think that’s what’s best for the demonstrators.

None of this, however, is an excuse to simply say, “eye-ran? that country with the shah? meh, well, did anybody catch The Bachelorette last night?” and call it a day.

And I said that ... where, exactly?  I pointed out that watching the events in Iran like it’s a football game is about as useful as watching “American Idol” and all of a sudden to you I’m a counterrevolutionary who must be destroyed.

I do hope that you’re right and I’m wrong.  I really, really do.  But considering how much we’ve fucked around in Iran and the Middle East for over a century, I don’t have much faith that we’re going to do the right thing for the very first time ever.

So the concern that if we support Iranian reformers in spirit that we will somehow enable Bill Kristol to lead us into a shock-and-awe campaign against Tehran in the next year is utterly ridiculous.  It ain’t happening.

If our Secretary of State hadn’t spent the past two years telling us all that she was right to vote for the war in Iraq and it was the right thing to do, I might agree with you.  But she did.

If our Secretary of State hadn’t spent the past two years telling us all that she was right to vote for the war in Iraq and it was the right thing to do, I might agree with you.  But she did.

Which is why I suppose it is good that she is the Secretary of State, and Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

If for no other reason than because he doesn’t want to be a one-term president, there is absolutely no way, no chance, no remote possibility that Barack Obama will lead us into a pre-emptive war with Iran that absolutely NOBODY OUTSIDE THE EXTREME RIGHT WANTS.

Again… if George Bush was unable to start a war in Iran that he really wanted to start when he had a Congress that was much more amenable to a neocon pre-emptive war agenda, while the economy at least appeared to be relatively stable….

What in God’s name makes you think that President “I unequivocally oppose starting dumb wars” Obama will sign off on a war that Congress won’t support, the public won’t support, and that we cannot possibly afford given our economic crisis?

Bob Gates isn’t the president.  Hillary Clinton isn’t the president.  I don’t know what they want, but I imagine if they tell President Obama “We need to launch the airstrikes now” against a country that has never once attacked us, they would quickly find themselves out of a job.

For whatever ways that President Obama has disappointed me, I have absolutely no fear that he is secretly a fan of pointless pre-emptive wars.

He is not George Bush.

And well… if I’m wrong, fuck it.  If we do actually engage in a pre-emptive war with Iran, we’re all dead anyway, because this country will collapse if it happens.

But it ain’t happening.  At least not anytime before January 2013.

Mnemosyne: Yes, I am familiar with the sordid history of US/Iranian relations, and particularly the CIA’s role in this.  (Given how incompetent the CIA traditionally has been in regard to these things, it’s actually kind of a mircale they ever managed to install the shah in the first place…and I highly recommend “Legacy of Ashes” by Tim Weiner as to this subject.)

Merely by worrying so much about what the bad faith brigade thinks, you are giving their views far too much cachet.  I’m really not concerned with what they think or say.  And I do not think “going green” is being rah-rahed by the “right wing”—I think you believe it honestly—though some of them do seem to have jumped on the bandwagon.  I don’t care who is on what bandwagon, I care about getting this question right in the here and now.  (As an aside, particularly if the protestors in Iran are successful, I await wingnut claims that, “This all happened because George Bush scared the piss out of them with his brilliant invasion of Iraq, and boy aren’t all you libs ashamed you didn’t support it and hate the troops! What?  No no, this had nothing to do with Obama, he’s only been president a few months!”)

I also think you’re putting way too much faith in Andrew Sullivan—he may hate Bush, but he loves war, and he’ll cheerlead you right into the middle of one.

Funnily enough (and leaving aside whatever privileged insights you have into Sullivan’s mental operations), the tone of his coverage (other than his obvious excitement at events on the ground) is precisely that Obama has responded correctly, that official caution is warranted, and that the last thing we want is calls for open intervention in Iran.  To the extent you claim otherwise, I suggest you are projecting onto him. 

Sullivan supported the Iraq war, made some bad comments about those who opposed it, and basically got the whole thing wrong way back when, agreed.  He has also publicly reversed himself and admitted it was all wrong that he did that—quite different from the wingnuts who are convinced that Saddam himself somehow miraculously survived personally piloting one of the 9/11 aircraft, that those WMDs will be found any day now, or else that “libruls” somehow snuck into Iraq and ate the WMD’s just because they hate America.

THIS.  Amanda pretty much nailed it in her post.  The West is all atwitter (sorry) with it’s delusional projections, and discernment is the advice for the day.  I think raised eyebrows and hairy eyeballs are sensible reactions to doo-gooder calls to take sides in the Iran election issue. 

We’ve been played so badly by propaganda put out by Western intel ops since, well, since the end of WWII.  It hasn’t mattered one whit which party was in the Oval Office, the shadow agendas have been consistent and relentless, and arrogant meddling in the Middle East is always their order for the day. Are we going to allow our energies, collective goodwill and humanitarian instincts to be co-opted, again and again and AGAIN, for the sake of Empire? Enough already. Aren’t we on to them by now?