In which seeing Iranians as people ruins our plans.
There’s a pretty abhorrent piece by Michael Moran, formerly of CFR.org, on the GlobalPost.
He writes that the protests over a seemingly fixed election in Iran have harmed the west’s goal to attack the country. His point is disgusting, saying that since the official western line is to support the protesters, it’s going to be much harder when we come back and blow these same people up.
Now the protesters have been shown on TV, and we’re labelling them ‘heroes of democracy’ or what have you, they’re no longer the faceless Iranians that we’ve been saying were pure evil. No, they’re now real people. And boy is that going to give us a headache when we commit the “supreme international crime” and bomb them, and pictures get out of them lying dismembered in their destroyed homes.
It’s remarkably frustrating to write a response to the piece, as that’s just it. Much of the article is padded out in order to hide its core statement.
There’s not even a thought about whether bombing Iran is a good idea or not. (And certainly no attention paid to the grotesque violation of international law it would constitute.) Nor is any attention paid to the extreme hypocrisy of contemplating or threatening an attack ((Threatening to use force against another country is also a crime. See the UN Charter, chapter 1, article 2, paragraph 4.)) when Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades.
Original Wordpress comments:
Shane Croucher:
You might have seen this already, but if you haven’t then here it is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/30/iran-barack-obama-ahmadinejad
Rob Wells:
I hadn’t seen that, but I find the thought that the protests have changed people’s minds about bombing Iran utterly repellent.
It’s not as if we didn’t know they were real people beforehand, and everyone should find the notion of attacking and killing other people absolutely wicked.
Shane Croucher:
I agree. I guess it’s a case of governments being demonised in the press, rightly or wrongly, and readers either forgetting or ignoring that fact that there are ‘real people’, so to speak, in that country.
Would this make it more difficult to build support for invasion in America, though? It could be twisted into a ‘humanitarian liberation’ of the civillians as a means of gaining legitimacy for pursuing a military operation. Kind of ‘America doing its bit by the protesters and democracy’ sort of thing.
Humanising ‘rogue’ states may serve against any military or government propaganda that’s fired at us, but I think they could easily turn it around.
Rob Wells:
I think the chances of an American invasion of Iran are low, what with Iraq leaving a foul taste in elite mouths. We’ll have to wait and see.
A strike by Israel seems far likelier though, as Mr Moran’s article notes, they’re going to have to work harder to sell it. Though their continued, horrific, and utterly cynical persecution of the Palestinians shows that they don’t really care what anyone else thinks. The American reaction to such an attack would probably be very muted, and I’d be surprised if it wasn’t supportive.
The thing with Iran is that—as distasteful as the government and its appendages are—the “demonising” that has taken place in recent years is a breach of international law. The UN charter explicitly says states must not threaten others with the use of force.