Why is it that the Iranians feel that they are incapable of taking care of their own destiny and that the hands that killed democracy in the first place in their country (remember 1953?) is now eager to come and help them... without wanting anything in return?
This in light of all that has gone wrong in Iraq...
Fair question. First: the regime is much nastier than you'd think, given the elections and progress that's been made on social issues. There are still thousands of political prisoners, and political executions. It's certainly not Saddam's Iraq, but it would be difficult for the people to rise up without a lot of bloodshed. Which leads to the second point: there isn't much appetite for revolution, because most of the people who would consider such a thing still remember the last one, and think of revolution as the prelude to disaster. Which is to say, the romance of revolution (which accounts for much of its appeal), doesn't exist in Iran; people know what it can mean.
What's interesting is that Iranian-Americans are often in the position of making just the points you make to people who've never left Iran: don't trust these people, "we" have to do it ourselves, remember 1953. The response is usually: anything is better than this.
The idea of "anything is better than this" has brought the Iranians where they are today. Anything was better than the Shah and Khomeini became that "anything." Unfortunately, reason and commons sense seem not to be the basis of any discussion regarding this situation. Otherwise, one has to only look at history and see that revolutions--sudden and violent changes in government--has rarely, see never, lead to a better government or one that has been substantively different from the one replaced.
The French may be an exception but, it took them some 100 years after they deposed their King to bring about some positive result... Iran is only 25 years into its experiment. (I am ignoring the US Revolution for reasons that are not relevant to the present discussion).
One thing I fail to understand, and it is probably my shortcoming, is this eagerness by the Iranians to sell their country. I suspect Fanon was right in its assessment of colonial mentality and so the Iranian colonial mentality sees all that is foreign as better and all that is theirs as somehow inferior.
Having said that, I feel I should pre-empt any possible missgivings by any reader and establish that no one says that the current government is the end result of the revolution that, in my opinion, is ongoing. No one disputes the fact that the current regime is nasty and ruthless and infinitely stupid.
What a shame that many in Iran (and many Iranians abroad) think that their only choice is status quo or a return to colonialism. Those are NOT the only choices the Iranians have.
this eagerness by the Iranians to sell their country. I suspect Fanon was right in its assessment of colonial mentality and so the Iranian colonial mentality sees all that is foreign as better and all that is theirs as somehow inferior.
That's not my sense of the "Iranian mentality" at all. (You do know I'm Iranian, right?) The overwhelmingly young population of Iran, steeped in Western pop culture, well aware of the freedoms they don't have, long for a Western lifestyle. It's not nuts, or even strange, that they do.
Others make a realistic calculation: the regime is too brutal and controls too many of the instruments of force to be overthrown by a popular uprising; some of those people think that foreign intervention would be worth the risk, others disagree. There are more splits and deeper divisions between Iranian factions than you find here in America.
How seriously are we to take the idea that Iranians are clamoring for an invasion? I mean, aren't such calls really just a way of expressing the level of their dissatisfaction with their own government than any realistic desire to see the US literally come stomping in?
I'm inclined to think the former is the case, but Ogged might correct me on this point.
Assuming that Friedman isn't a complete bonehead, it would seem to me that he would realize that the former is more plausibly the case and that his remarks shouldn't be construed as literally has they appear to have been by Ted H. and the CT folks.
Of course, I'm assuming here that, you know, I'm not a bonehead either.
How seriously are we to take the idea that Iranians are clamoring for an invasion?
That, C.P., is a great question. I can't even tell how serious people are when they say it to my face. It's surely an expression of dissatisfaction, but I think a lot of them believe that as soon as U.S. troops arrive, Iranians will be emboldened, and take care of the regime themselves; the invasion would be the match that lights the fire, by convincing people that their efforts would succeed. But I can't say for sure one way or the other. I don't think anyone can.
I do not take exception with the Iranians longing for the freedoms they know they do not have. I take exception with the method some advocate in achieving that desired freedom.
Now here is another question: is the dissatisfaction amongst the minority city dwellers or the majority rural population whose life, for all practical purpose, have not changed much from before and after the Iranian Revolution. You mentioned that you were in Iran, and so I am curious as to how many people told you about their desire to be invaded (I wanted to say raped but I thought it may be misconstrued) and in what socio-economic circle(s) were you circulating?
For the record, and because there's a comments board here beneath a link to my post, by "what a bonehead" I meant "what a boneheaded remark." What was boneheaded about it was exactly what C.P. Shaw points out above: that such talk among Iranians should not be taken literally.
It's been ten years since the phase of my life in which I was surrounded by Iranians 24/7, but Ogged will correct me if I'm wrong to note that the pro-American contrarianism fostered by the noxious Iranian regime is not even skin-deep and is easily shed. Any Iranian over the age of thirty-five, at least, remembers the Shah's US-funded Savak and the many other terrors of that US-backed regime. Trust me, Iranians are not at all pro-American. Not if you pierce the rhetorical illusion.
Surely Friedman knows that this superficially pro-American sloganizing is mere rhetorical fluff, yet he appears to reason from it as a premise. That's just boneheaded.
Any Iranian over the age of thirty-five, at least, remembers
Yes, and that's the rub. That's only about a third of the population right now. And I was honestly shocked at how genuinely pro-American some of the younger people were. One fascinating episode: one cousin, who's under 35, said something about SAVAK not having been so bad, compared to what goes on under the current regime. An older gentleman, around 60, came over and silently took him aside and talked with him for an hour. There's a real divide, and the under-thirty-five crowd is hard to read (and not monolithic), but more pro-American than you'd think. But, again, no one knows what the reactions would be if the U.S. really did meddle. And if the meddling is inept, like backing the Shah's son, then all hell would break loose.
Since I haven't talked to any of these younger Iranians I'll take your word about the appearances. Still, it's hard to imagine that this pro-Americanism isn't just escapist fantasy. And it's not as if the 35- to 50-year olds who remember all too well what alliance with the US brings are geriatrics mumbling into their beards. But you're right that the weird demography makes it hard to know what to make of this talk.
Why is it that the Iranians feel that they are incapable of taking care of their own destiny and that the hands that killed democracy in the first place in their country (remember 1953?) is now eager to come and help them... without wanting anything in return?
This in light of all that has gone wrong in Iraq...
Posted by Fuel | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 11:53 AM
Fair question. First: the regime is much nastier than you'd think, given the elections and progress that's been made on social issues. There are still thousands of political prisoners, and political executions. It's certainly not Saddam's Iraq, but it would be difficult for the people to rise up without a lot of bloodshed. Which leads to the second point: there isn't much appetite for revolution, because most of the people who would consider such a thing still remember the last one, and think of revolution as the prelude to disaster. Which is to say, the romance of revolution (which accounts for much of its appeal), doesn't exist in Iran; people know what it can mean.
What's interesting is that Iranian-Americans are often in the position of making just the points you make to people who've never left Iran: don't trust these people, "we" have to do it ourselves, remember 1953. The response is usually: anything is better than this.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 12:08 PM
The idea of "anything is better than this" has brought the Iranians where they are today. Anything was better than the Shah and Khomeini became that "anything." Unfortunately, reason and commons sense seem not to be the basis of any discussion regarding this situation. Otherwise, one has to only look at history and see that revolutions--sudden and violent changes in government--has rarely, see never, lead to a better government or one that has been substantively different from the one replaced.
The French may be an exception but, it took them some 100 years after they deposed their King to bring about some positive result... Iran is only 25 years into its experiment. (I am ignoring the US Revolution for reasons that are not relevant to the present discussion).
One thing I fail to understand, and it is probably my shortcoming, is this eagerness by the Iranians to sell their country. I suspect Fanon was right in its assessment of colonial mentality and so the Iranian colonial mentality sees all that is foreign as better and all that is theirs as somehow inferior.
Having said that, I feel I should pre-empt any possible missgivings by any reader and establish that no one says that the current government is the end result of the revolution that, in my opinion, is ongoing. No one disputes the fact that the current regime is nasty and ruthless and infinitely stupid.
What a shame that many in Iran (and many Iranians abroad) think that their only choice is status quo or a return to colonialism. Those are NOT the only choices the Iranians have.
Posted by Fuel | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 2:19 PM
this eagerness by the Iranians to sell their country. I suspect Fanon was right in its assessment of colonial mentality and so the Iranian colonial mentality sees all that is foreign as better and all that is theirs as somehow inferior.
That's not my sense of the "Iranian mentality" at all. (You do know I'm Iranian, right?) The overwhelmingly young population of Iran, steeped in Western pop culture, well aware of the freedoms they don't have, long for a Western lifestyle. It's not nuts, or even strange, that they do.
Others make a realistic calculation: the regime is too brutal and controls too many of the instruments of force to be overthrown by a popular uprising; some of those people think that foreign intervention would be worth the risk, others disagree. There are more splits and deeper divisions between Iranian factions than you find here in America.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 2:26 PM
How seriously are we to take the idea that Iranians are clamoring for an invasion? I mean, aren't such calls really just a way of expressing the level of their dissatisfaction with their own government than any realistic desire to see the US literally come stomping in?
I'm inclined to think the former is the case, but Ogged might correct me on this point.
Assuming that Friedman isn't a complete bonehead, it would seem to me that he would realize that the former is more plausibly the case and that his remarks shouldn't be construed as literally has they appear to have been by Ted H. and the CT folks.
Of course, I'm assuming here that, you know, I'm not a bonehead either.
Posted by C.P. Shaw | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 2:42 PM
How seriously are we to take the idea that Iranians are clamoring for an invasion?
That, C.P., is a great question. I can't even tell how serious people are when they say it to my face. It's surely an expression of dissatisfaction, but I think a lot of them believe that as soon as U.S. troops arrive, Iranians will be emboldened, and take care of the regime themselves; the invasion would be the match that lights the fire, by convincing people that their efforts would succeed. But I can't say for sure one way or the other. I don't think anyone can.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 3:21 PM
I do not take exception with the Iranians longing for the freedoms they know they do not have. I take exception with the method some advocate in achieving that desired freedom.
Now here is another question: is the dissatisfaction amongst the minority city dwellers or the majority rural population whose life, for all practical purpose, have not changed much from before and after the Iranian Revolution. You mentioned that you were in Iran, and so I am curious as to how many people told you about their desire to be invaded (I wanted to say raped but I thought it may be misconstrued) and in what socio-economic circle(s) were you circulating?
Posted by Fuel | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 4:11 PM
Misconstrued? To mean, say, raped?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 4:14 PM
Hey, I am new here, and people may take my facetiousness too seriously. I am sensitive that way!
Posted by Fuel | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 4:23 PM
For the record, and because there's a comments board here beneath a link to my post, by "what a bonehead" I meant "what a boneheaded remark." What was boneheaded about it was exactly what C.P. Shaw points out above: that such talk among Iranians should not be taken literally.
It's been ten years since the phase of my life in which I was surrounded by Iranians 24/7, but Ogged will correct me if I'm wrong to note that the pro-American contrarianism fostered by the noxious Iranian regime is not even skin-deep and is easily shed. Any Iranian over the age of thirty-five, at least, remembers the Shah's US-funded Savak and the many other terrors of that US-backed regime. Trust me, Iranians are not at all pro-American. Not if you pierce the rhetorical illusion.
Surely Friedman knows that this superficially pro-American sloganizing is mere rhetorical fluff, yet he appears to reason from it as a premise. That's just boneheaded.
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 5:10 PM
Any Iranian over the age of thirty-five, at least, remembers
Yes, and that's the rub. That's only about a third of the population right now. And I was honestly shocked at how genuinely pro-American some of the younger people were. One fascinating episode: one cousin, who's under 35, said something about SAVAK not having been so bad, compared to what goes on under the current regime. An older gentleman, around 60, came over and silently took him aside and talked with him for an hour. There's a real divide, and the under-thirty-five crowd is hard to read (and not monolithic), but more pro-American than you'd think. But, again, no one knows what the reactions would be if the U.S. really did meddle. And if the meddling is inept, like backing the Shah's son, then all hell would break loose.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 5:18 PM
Since I haven't talked to any of these younger Iranians I'll take your word about the appearances. Still, it's hard to imagine that this pro-Americanism isn't just escapist fantasy. And it's not as if the 35- to 50-year olds who remember all too well what alliance with the US brings are geriatrics mumbling into their beards. But you're right that the weird demography makes it hard to know what to make of this talk.
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 01-20-05 5:29 PM
This just popped up via Ed Felten's clip blog:
http://hoder.com/weblog/archives/013290.shtml
Apparently US ISPs are shutting down Iranian accounts rather quickly. So much for creating a US that is welcoming to everyone.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-22-05 1:16 PM