Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Commentary of the Day

CK MacLeod, on Abe Greenwald:

Had the Taliban surrendered bin laden and had Saddam disarmed, both would still be in power today (in fact, one still kinda is)…

Actually, you don’t know that to be true at all. What you mean to say is that, if the Taliban and Saddam had knuckled under to non-negotiable demands from the US and its allies, then there wouldn’t have had to be any fighting. If they had been capable of acting upon our ideas about their and their theoretical constituents’ interests, however, they wouldn’t have gotten into trouble in the first place. Whether organizations or regimes built around cults of defiance can survive in the aftermath of surrender – at least without undergoing transformations that turn them into something different, under whatever name – is another question. The Taliban and Saddam preferred to fight.

The Iranian regime appears to be in a somewhat similar position. Giving up 30 years of “Death to America!” or what all the world perceives to be a drive to an Iranian nuke would either imply or call forth fundamental political changes in Iran, most likely accompanied by violence and an eventual re-division of spoils. The hard-liners will prefer to fight and to defy as they have grown accustomed to doing, and not just because it preserves their access to power and Paradise: It’s who they are and an end in itself for them. The evolution of US-Iranian relations amounts to a continual testing of their relative influence within a maturing, post-revolutionary Iranian polity. But the larger point is that the struggle against them from the West, as against the Taliban or the Ba’ath (or Hamas or Hezbollah), is always already a struggle for political change, a struggle to establish governance that can function according to our concepts of the social contract rather than merely as a rallying point for tribal militarism.

That’s why Obama comes across like such a wimp. The tribalists on both sides will disdain his overtures and soothing tones, whether or not a few “human right activists” can be found, even in a 3rd World Revolutionary Islamist country, who also happen to speak Obamian. I don’t think it means that there’s no hope for progress, but, as they supposedly say in the Middle East, watch the hand, not the mouth. When and if Iran is ever ready to make a deal, the words that dress it up will come easily to both sides.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.