Mr. Bush, Stop Bullying Iran!
One of the most impressive things about this New York Times editorial is that the online tools — email, print, etc. — are sponsored by Borat. Click the link, and unless they are rotating ads, you shall see.
Borat, we know, shares the core NYT mission of undermining the credibility of mainstream, traditional America. Borat, however, is more sophisticated in his approach than the Times, as he plays on the goodwill of American rubes and hayseeds, while also attacking backward third-world prejudices and practices with nuanced yet devastating satire. Here’s Borat:
“I had a very bad Gypsy attack. They steal my wife’s plow, and they touch my horse in a very bad way. He is very depressed.”
“I can make romance inside of you?”
“In Kazakhstan, my brother Bilo, he has a child, born with hair … all over his face and nose … hair, on his arms … everywhere hair … and his wife, she say throw him, but I say no, keep him. And now, he make them very much money, travel around the country in a tent. People pay money to see him and … other strange ones.”
“You walk like homosexual.”
It is necessary to study Borat closely to fully comprehend the deeper messages he is trying to convey. The New York Times is simpler:
Given America’s bitter experience in Iraq, one would think that President Bush could finally figure out that threats and brute force aren’t a substitute for a reasoned strategy. But Mr. Bush is at it again, this time trying to bully Iran into stopping its meddling inside Iraq.
We have no doubt about Iran’s malign intent, just as we have no doubt that Mr. Bush’s serial failures in Iraq have made it far easier for Tehran to sow chaos there and spread its influence in the wider region. But more threats and posturing are unlikely to get Iran to back down.
The New York Times is absolutely right on this score. Threats and posturing have only succeeded in sending Iran’s proxies scurrying for cover, and weakening Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s political support at home. To definitively deal with the Iranian menace, the proxies must be destroyed, along with Iran’s WMD sites.
But the NYT editorial, after taking these important steps of logic, gets skittish and pulls back. Then, it ventures forward again.
… Iran certainly is helping arm and train Shiite militias. But the administration is certainly exaggerating the salutary effect of any cutoff as long as these militias enjoy the protection of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. If Mr. Bush is genuinely worried — and he should be — he needs to be as forceful in demanding that Mr. Maliki cut ties to these groups and clear about the consequences if he refuses.
Agreed again! When al-Maliki sees Moqtada al-Sadr’s head on a stake above the Assassin’s Gate, it could have a significant positive effect on his behavior … and Iran’s.
In what passes for grand strategy in this administration, the president’s aides say he is betting that bloodying Iranian forces in Iraq, and raising the threat of a wider confrontation, will weaken Tehran’s regional standing and force its leaders to rethink their nuclear ambitions.
Maybe they get it. No, wait ….
Never mind that Mr. Bush’s last big idea — that imposing democracy on Iraq would weaken Iran’s authoritarians — has had the opposite effect.
All is right in the world again. NYT: If at first you don’t succeed, quit!
… As ever, the one tactic the administration is refusing to consider is diplomacy. Mr. Bush has resisted calls to convene a meeting of Iraq’s neighbors to discuss ways to contain the crisis. There is no guarantee that Mr. Ahmadinejad can be persuaded that Iraq’s further implosion is not in Iran’s interest. But others in Tehran may have clearer heads.
The experience of the last 28 years has certainly shown this to be true.
… Mr. Bush’s bullying may play well to his ever shrinking base. But his disastrous war in Iraq has done so much damage to America’s credibility — and so strained its resources— that it no longer frightens America’s enemies. The only ones really frightened are Americans and America’s friends.
Hmmm. I am not frightened. Are you frightened? New York Times … frightened. Democratic-controlled Congress … frightened. Moqtada al-Sadr … frightened. Iran … frightened.
I need some logic. Here’s a little cleansing Borat:
“We say in Kazahstan, a man who go to power must have a big … uh, how you say … Hram!”
Welcome Townhall readers. Don’t be strangers, stop in and look around.
Topics: Uncategorized
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:22 am on Thursday, February 1, 2007
23 Responses to “Mr. Bush, Stop Bullying Iran!”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:09 am
Snark aside, the problem with the current attitude to Iran is that no matter how bad the regime is, our behavior has the perverse effect of justifying their behavior.
America keeps threatening to overthrow the government of Iran and generally advocating “regime change.” After doing that, how can we turn around and say that Iran should give up its nuke program, when we’re giving them a very good reason why they need nukes? If some foreign country were threatening to overthrow our government, wouldn’t you say we needed to protect ourselves against that? As for meddling in Iraq, every country “meddles” in their neighbor countries, including us.
And from your post, we see that some Americans are advocating bombing Iran — which is to say, you want to wage war on Iran and slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Assuming that people in our government think like you do, and I think many of them do, then obviously that makes us the aggressors. (Think about it: Iran makes vague threats, so you make direct threats to kill hundreds of thousands of their people. Since America contains people like Jules Crittenden — which is to say, genocidal monsters who long for mass murder and destruction — I wouldn’t blame Iranians for feeling worried.)
There is, of course, something we can do. We can tell Iran that if they give up their nuke program, we’ll stop trying to overthrow their goverment. (That doesn’t mean we have to prop them up, just that if Iranians want to overthrow their government, they have to do it themselves; we will not go in and kill hundreds of thousands of them.) If they refuse the offer, we’ll know they’re not negotiating in good faith and we can talk seriously about military action. If they accept it — and I suspect they would — everybody wins: Iran gives up its nuke program, and we don’t invade Iran (since Americans don’t want war with Iran, and do not share Jules Crittenden’s desire to slaughter Iranian women and children, this is a win-win for America too). But you won’t consider that, because you don’t actually want Iran to give up their nuke program; you want an excuse to bomb Iran and kill their women and children.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
The above comment is exactly the kind of misty wishful thinking that is killing us. Frankly, I don’t the Iranians are sufficiently afraid of us. If they were, they wouldn’t be kidnapping and executing American soldiers in violation of the Geneva Convention protocols you people are always bleating about.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:14 pm
The above comment is exactly the kind of misty wishful thinking that is killing us.
Well, speaking literally, what’s “killing us” is being in Iraq, y’know?
But let me ask you this: assuming it could happen, would you be OK with America promising to give up “regime change” in exchange for Iran giving up its nuclear program (for real, I mean; not false promises — again, I’m speaking hypothetically)?
I think many conservatives, if they were being honest, would have to answer “no.” They don’t care about Iran’s nuclear program (as the conservative French president Chirac — yes, in France, he’s considered a conservative — pointed out, if Iran nuked Israel, we’d just destroy Tehran, which is why they ain’t gonna nuke Israel). They just want to invade Iran and slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iranians. And in that sense, they are no better than the mullahs and in many ways worse.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
We’re Bullying Iran?!?!?!?
See previous: Did Iran Attack American Troops In Iraq? [image] BTW, did you notice the new Exit Strategy graphic on my sidebar yet? We’re Bullying Iran?!?!?!? Greg Tinti The New York Times’ editorial board has finally f*cking lost it completely.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Let’s run down the ledger here.
Who is stronger, us or Iran? Us.
Who is threatening to overthrow whose government? We’re threatening to overthrow Iran’s government.
Who invaded whose neighboring country? We invaded Iran’s neighboring country.
So we’re a stronger country invading Iran’s neighbors and threatening to overthrow Iran’s government. How is that not bullying? We’re not bullies because the Iranian government is mean? That’s not the way it works. If someone were doing to us what we’re doing to Iran — making a show of superior strength, threatening to invade and overthrow us — you’d have no problem calling them bullies.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
They just want to invade Iran and slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iranians. And in that sense, they are no better than the mullahs and in many ways worse.
Hyperbolic nonsense. I want the Ayatollahs to lose power and a government that is likely to be more friendly to America and its neighbors to take its place.
Why should we accept any promise from a government that thinks nothing of sending a 16-year old girl to the gallows for “morals violations” or beats a Canadian Journalist to death and then buries her despite the wishes of her family to cover up their crimes?
I have no idea what arthurplang thinks “real promises” might include, but I know enough about the character of the current Iranian government not to trust them to keep their promises.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Funny thing, that: they aren’t. Again, I’m not saying the Iranians are all sweetness and light, but if you hear stories about Iranians killing people in Iraq, it usually turns out that it was actually Iraqis killing each other (which is why we need to get the hell out of there).
You’re never gonna get that if we bomb Iran and overthrow its government like you guys want to. Again, think of it from our perspective: some foreigners come in, overthrow America’s government — will that make us more or less friendly to those foreigners?
February 1st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
You’re never gonna get that if we bomb Iran and overthrow its government like you guys want to.
I don’t know that arthurplang and neither do you. It might be that the Iranian people, who have marched in protest against their government might take it as a sign that someone is finally willing to stand with them against the mullahs. In any event, I favor blockading them over bombing. Regardless, I am not content to sit back while Ahmedinejad gets the bomb and you still didn’t answer as to what would constitute “real promises” that we can trust the Ayatollahs to keep.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Americans sometimes march in protest against their government too; that doesn’t mean we’d welcome a foreign invasion. People often hate their government and want to change it — but nobody, nowhere, no how, longs for foreign invasion or occupation. In fact if we want to make the Iranians like their government better, a sure way to do it is to keep threatening to invade.
Obviously they’d have to back the promises up with deeds, inspections, etc. Much like Saddam didn’t just say he had no WMDs, but backed that up with deeds by letting the U.N. inspectors in to verify that he didn’t have WMDs, and that showed us we didn’t have to invade.
Oh, wait.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Well now you’ve skipped from “bombing” to “threatening to invade” (then again as you seem to be confused about what Saddam allowed or didn’t allow-at least until he was faced with the real prospect of invasion-I shouldn’t be surprised).
However, I would be willing to accept an inspections regime-although not from the oil-for-food scandal-laced UN. If they let in U.S. inspectors, and I doubt that they would seeing as how this would effectively undermine their government, I would be satisfied.
But then again, I’m not the one who is faced with making that decision. Only the President has the responsibility for that difficult choice. If he decides-against all reason-that the Iranians can be trusted he will have to live with whatever consequences come from that as would be true if he decided otherwise.
Tough decisions suck, but pretending that they aren’t really tough decisions-only a pretext for the “slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iranians” is truly irresponsible.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
CavMedic, while I agree that a tough stance should be taken against Iran, I doubt bombing them would have the desired affect. Sanctions bordering on an embargo, plus a carrot in providing them with a nuclear plant with international monitoring could do it.
Bombing is the worst idea of them all.
Oh, and Arthur, don’t act like Iran isn’t knee deep in blood (both ours and Iraqi’s) inside Iraq.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
SouthernCal92-as I said I favor a blockade. At this point what are the Iranians offering? Unless they are willing to allow inspectors in, this is all pointless.
And frankly, I think an Iranian a-bomb is the worst of all possible outcomes.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
The foriegn policy of the United States is first to protect this contry from threats to its people and their well being. The people responsible for formulating and carring out US foriegn policy have the following characteristics:
- They are humans that make well meaning mistakes.
- They depend on other humans (see above) to collect and interpret information.
- They make decisions based on information we may not know or understand for many years to come.
- They make decisions and fomulate actions that are like a chess match where moves to achieve an objective are not supposed to be easily understood.
Our view of current events will bear little resembence to the view that will be developed many decades from now.
Advocating change and even directly manipulating ciscumstances has a better chance of serving to protect the US. I hope the Iranians feel the pressure.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
[...] That I, a staunch Republican from a long line of genealogical Republicans feel so strongly about our need to win in Iraq and Iran if need-be, am willing to drop my support for the round heels in the party who are more interested in their own status and electability than in winning, we are in pretty bad times. They are not listening to us, they are not even listening to Petraeus, Fallon and Gates. They are, however, sending out their spokesmen to try to correct us! [...]
February 1st, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Bullying Iran? I am a middle aged woman but I was young and trim and light on my feet the first I saw a deranged mob of Iranians screeching Death to America in Farsi, so it seems to me that the Iranians have been doing some bullying of their own for decades before Bush ever came to office.
Most Americans support taking action against to prevent them from getting a nuke whether the editorial staff at the NYT agress with that stance or not.
But who cares what they think anyway? I can remember back when Clinton was office and the NYT was always running storied about Saddam’s weapons and how dangerous and bad and evil he was. It was only when a Republican president got rid of the dictator that being Saddam was cool. The hypcirites.
They may not like the idea of imposing demcracy by force, but imposing a dictatorship by force is ok fine.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:26 pm
[...] 4. Jules Crittenden figured out who writes NYT editorials: Borat! [...]
February 1st, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Plang is waiting for Iran to really be mean to us before we can say mean things to them. He is a good example of why few trust the left with the defense of our country. Iran has been killing Americans more than thirty years, we’ve ignored the blood spilled because the violence they offer has been limited to bombing UN soldiers and American citizens overseas. Our response has always been to stoke internal revolution; we’ve been told for years that the young Iranian population want to free themselves. But if your a rabid leftist who sincerely believes America deserves the bloody bodies pulverized on New York city streets, America is always trying to take over the world.
He’s giddy about Iraqi generals possibly being involved in the atrocious attack in Karbala, because now he’s proven Iran is innocent - it’s all Bush’s fault ( and of course all those genocidal monsters who long for mass murder and destruction), that’s his thoughtless answer to the possibility that Iran was involved - but who is surprised that the attack had inside help? It was well planned and was implemented to achieve a defined objective - the kidnap of soldiers. It almost worked, and it is the sophistication that should be chilling to all of us.
Plang has no credibility because he cannot see that those who are wary of a nuclear Iran may have good reason to be - namely Iran’s publicly stated intention to murder Americans and Jews, whereever they find them. I have no patience for simpletons ( or as is the case here, KOS logic ) who choose to ignore the complexity of this issue for the warm, wet hand of political hatred. All he knows that is conservatives “don’t actually want Iran to give up their nuke program; you want an excuse to bomb Iran and kill their women and children.”
That comment right there says all one needs to know about Arthurplang - he doesn’t think hard enough for anyone to take seriously.
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:11 am
The New York Times: a Dreadful Parody
Why do I feel so happy? The New York Times is writing off $814.4 million of the value of its New England newspapers…
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 am
Well who does Plang think those generals were working for, if indeed they were involved?
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:48 am
Still about $600 million overvalued, if you ask me, Ross.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
“Bullying Iran? I am a middle aged woman but I was young and trim and light on my feet the first I saw a deranged mob of Iranians screeching Death to America in Farsi, so it seems to me that the Iranians have been doing some bullying of their own for decades before Bush ever came to office.”
Gee, Terrye, don’t you think our overthrow of their elected government in 1953 might have had something to do with the Iranians attitude towards us?
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
A military strike on Iran would be catastrophically stupid. Although Ahmadinejad is deeply unpopular with a large swath of the Iranian populous, but a military strike by the US would fuel anti-American anger and swell the ranks of Ahmadinejad’s hard-line. Moreover, it wouldn’t slow down their nuclear program; it would accelerate it because it would convince them (quite rationally) that they can only defend their interests by acquiring the bomb. After our attack, Iran will release a wave of suicide bombers against available US & Israeli targets and they’ll mess with the Strait of Hormuz. Our position in Iraq will grow weaker and our position in the world will become more isolated. There are ZERO military options in Iran: http://thinkprogress.org/iran-military-o...
The Bush administration is overstating their case against Iran as a pretext for an attack. They did it before & they’re doing it now.
“British Find No Evidence of Arms Traffic from Iran”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
“Scant Evidence Found of Iran-Iraq Arms Link”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Temperance-the word you are looking for is “populace” not “populous”. They are homophones, but have somewhat different meanings.
Iran is already pursuing the bomb. If we do nothing they will continue to pursue the bomb. Iran with the bomb is worse than any of the scenarios you list. Please tell us what you think can be done to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.