Here's your second change - don't blow it

Pejman asks whether, based on the arguments for invading Iraq, whether we should attack Iran. He cites Kevin Drum

Let’s turn that around. In Iran we have a country that [a] has clear connections with al-Qaeda and apparently even with 9/11, [b] has a genuine and well advanced WMD program, [c] supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah far more than Iraq ever did, [d] has fought wars against its neighbors, [e] is a medieval theocracy, and [f] is determinedly hostile toward the United States.

Question: that’s a much more convincing case than we had against Iraq, so should we invade Iran and attempt to install a democratic government in Tehran? If not, why not? After all, those student protests don’t seem to be making much progress.

I vote no. How about getting everyone else on the record?

I’ll go on the record as being against an attack on Iran at this time. I think Drum’s case is flawed in several respects.

• It completely ignores the fact that the USA was already legally at war with Iraq. This was no small part of the pro-invasion faction’s argument and to simply elide it is a bit of straw man construction.
• It completely ignores the violations of multiple UN Security council resolutions is ignored as well. While I personally don’t care what the UNSEC has to say, it’s odd for someone like Drum to ignore that strong basis in “international law”. Even for UN skeptics like me, it was a useful lever to bringing along allies (such as the UK). Contrary to many assertions, we aren’t against international cooperation and allies, we just view them as a means and not an end.
• It uses the highly misleading forumulation “fought wars against its neighbors”. While technically true,i t is a formulation that punishes nations for defending themselves intead of surrendering. Note that in the case of Iraq, it is “launched wars against its neighbors”. Just a bit different.
• It competely ignores the ongoing military operations in Iraq, such as the no-fly zones and the Kurdish regions of the north.

If Drum wants to have a serious discussion, he should do the other side the courtesy of stating their positions accurately and not omit major bits of context. Every one of these points makes the case for invading Iraq stronger, so much so (in my view) that it’s far from clear that the case against Iran is, in fact, stronger. But let’s leave that aside.

Another compelling difference, which Drum does touch upon, is that there is a far more active internal resistance. Drum dismisses this with a “don’t seem to be making much progress” but it’s still very significant. One key point is that the protests have been forcing the mullahs to take a much more repressive stance and bring in foreign enforcers. As is often the case, things must get worse before they get better. If the mullahs succeed in repressing Iran as thoroughly as the Ba’ath repressed Iraq, then it will be a different situation, far more comparable and I might well have a different view.

On that thread, I think that the claimed policy for President Bush’s second term to topple the mullahocracy in Iran is an excellent start. My first thought when I read the original Pejman post was “why can’t we treat the mullahs like we treated the Ba’ath in Iraq before the invasion?”. At the very least, we should be providing support (rhetorical and otherwise) to the pro-liberty forces in Iraq rather than cozying up to the mullahs with “engagement” and “dialog”.

I would leave this as a challenge for the non-moonbat anti-invasion faction. You claim that we didn’t have to invade, that there are better, more peaceful means of increasing liberty around the globe. Let’s try them on Iran. Bring forth your energy and policy proposals rather than spending effort on wailing at the unchangeable past in Iraq. Show us that war isn’t the always the answer, that you are as anti-repression as you are anti-Bush. If instead there is simply carping that whatever Bush does is wrong, then we’ll know what’s really important to you. I await in hope, but not expectation.

P.S. And if anyone objects to an American hegemony that dominates the globe, explain to your friends in Europe that watching the genocide in Sudan as they watched / funded the one in Rwanda (and sat idliy as Yugoslavia broke up bloodily) is acquiescing to the hegomony by proving that only the USA is capable and willing to act.