It didn’t take long for the neoconservatives to take advantage of Richard Haass’ call for a U.S. effort to overthrow the Islamic Republic.
Robert Kagan, writing in today’s Washington Post, cites Haass’ piece while arguing that the Islamic Republic is on the verge of crumbling – if only the Obama administration would support the protesters.
Two things stand out about Kagan’s analysis.
First is that he correctly points out that the P5+1 uranium enrichment swap would constitute only a small step toward improving relations between Washington and Tehran. But rather than proposing a more ambitious proposal, Kagan seems to assume that one is impossible.
Second, it seems as if every political analyst in Washington has become an expert on Iran’s notoriously opaque internal political dynamics. What evidence is Kagan basing his conclusion that “this is a tear down this wall moment?”
– Ben Katcher
Kagan is as much a “defense” industry shill as he is a shill for Israel. The two go hand in hand these days. There is no “win-win.” The Iranian election fraud meme simply keeps Iran’s “shocking behavior” in the news, building the case, and justifying more defense monies in the US and more military aid for Israel. And it gives the nuclear issue a rest, so that it can be brought back with full force when Mossad magically discovers some new outrage it planted. That finding will justify even more “defense” monies.
Robert Kagan is for whatever he perceives to be in Israel’s interest. Supporting the protesters in Iran is, in his mind, a win-win. Either the protesters succeed in overthrowing the regime (very doubtful), which would give the U.S. (as Kagan sees it) leverage over Iranian foreign policy, or the regime cracks down, which would make sanctions and/or military action more likely. A third possibility would be chaos in Iran. To Kagan any of these possibilities would benefit Israel. And that’s what the man cares about.
Lysander
So you think Mr. Kagan is becoming moderated and an Obama progressive, you might be right on that, so since we can’t get a war with Iran let’s push/ hope for a regime change. Again there is a proverb in Persian that says “If you can’t get the Lady of the house reach for the maid of the kitchen” now we can conclude what he is hoping for
I think I like this lack of realism. This wishful thought of a new Iranian revolution has, amazingly, put a damper on Kagan’s desire for military action. Perhaps Obama can deflect attacks from the right by openly championing the Green movement. It wont do a thing to bring them to power-nothing will do that-but it may make him seem tough, thereby reducing the howls for war from the hounds at his back.
If Kagan were ever convinced the June 12 election was not fraudulent, that most Iranians agree with Iran’s foreign policies, he would start demanding an attack again.
Will the American foreign policy elite and so called experts ever respect any of treaties or accords that this country has committed to?
Has Mr. Kagan or Mr. Haass ever heard of the Algiers Accord, which accordingly the US has committed not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.
Does this accord comply with these advisors recommendations? Or we are so high on our democracy that we do not need to have a UNSC resolution Or need to abide by our commitments to invade, rendition, or make our own color revolutions anywhere in the planet. One would think who will be next on the list China?
1/27/2010 1:26:19 PM