Now that Iran’s expulsion of foreign journalists has deprived the world of detailed news coverage of the present turmoil in that nation, we have been forced to rely on the gritty sights and sounds of violence and bloodshed communicated by brave Iranians with cell phone cameras, who courageously photograph and record the murderous tactics of riot police and revolutionary guardsmen on the ground. Amidst this flood of heart-breaking images, there are a few moments that will haunt me forever. Watching the news last night, I heard the desperate cries of a young, terrified Iranian woman who was pleading with the world to do something to stop this oppression.
I have often admired the honesty and conviction of Ron Paul, who has become the most famous spokesperson for the Alternative Right in recent years. Yet I must take issue with his recent refusal to join the House of Representatives in condemning the crackdown in Iran. To be sure, I applaud the moral reasoning behind his view that America has often been selective in condemning the repression in a hostile nation (Iran) while ignoring it altogether in a friendly one (Saudi Arabia). It should also be recognized that Dr. Paul has always opposed the attempts of governments to crush the “democratic aspirations” of peoples everywhere. Yet I cannot support his position that Congress lacks the “constitutional authority” to sit in judgment of actions taken by foreign governments “of which “we are not representatives.” This position is so extreme that it is hard to imagine any crisis overseas which would justify the official condemnation of a tyranny by the government of the United States, at least in Dr. Paul’s view.
Perhaps paleos who have recently gone on record opposing “interference” and “intervention” in Iran need to define exactly what they mean by these terms. Do interference and intervention refer to the unlikely act of sending in the Marines, or do these words also include any moral support for embattled democratic forces in Iran? While I support paleos who condemn military intervention in Iran in light of the sorry history of past interventions in the Middle East, I fail to see why democratic governments should hold their rhetorical fire against the mullahs. Surely we are not condemned to the dualistic and extreme choice between outright military intervention and eerie silence, which offers no hope to human beings like the frightened Iranian woman I mentioned earlier.
Lest anyone accuse me of being a neoconservative mole, it is worth recalling that a great hero of conservatives everywhere understood the difference between recklessly intrusive acts and prudent interference. Alexander Solzhenitsyn was hardly a supporter of US-sponsored democratic revolution by gunpoint throughout the world. Yet he famously pleaded with the West to interfere with the internal affairs of the Soviet state.
On our crowded planet there are no longer any internal affairs. The Communist leaders say, “Don’t interfere in our internal affairs. Let us strangle our citizens in peace and quiet.” But I tell you: Interfere more and more. Interfere as much as you can. We beg you to come and interfere.
It is of course false to suggest that this great conservative was seeking an all-out war between America and Russia as the price of such interference. The choice was not between invasion and inaction. Solzhenitsyn vigorously supported the efforts of the West to shine the spotlight on tyranny and impose further sanctions on the USSR. A clear and vigorous condemnation of what is happening in Iran does not count as unwarranted interference, unless one is a member of the ruling theocracy there. Obama and many others have used the argument that speaking out in favor of the protesters will play into the hands of the mullahs, who can then associate their enemies in the streets with Yankee intrusiveness. No doubt the Soviets conveniently portrayed dissidents like Solzhenitsyn as dupes of America, just as the mullahs in Tehran misrepresent the demonstrators as lapdogs of Anglo-American imperialism. Yet this self-serving propaganda should not deter governments from condemning this decaying, desperate theocracy. Even if western regimes did not interfere in these affairs, they would still be accused of meddling. To date, the mullahs and Ahmadinejad see little difference between the hawkish Bush and the dovish Obama anyway. Obama’s hope that lack of tough talk will encourage the mullahs to dialogue with the administration over their production of nukes is an illusory hope if there ever was one. Isn’t it more likely that the mullahs will sense weakness instead?
Solzhenitsyn cursed America and Britain whenever these nations appeased the Soviets, a sad process that began with Yalta. Will the survivors of the protests in Iran also curse the West if there is a lack of clear and straightforward support for them, all at a time which could well be the defining moment for the history of modern Iran?
Email Subscription
Fill out the form below to be notified when takimag.com is updated.
To Interfere or Not to Interfere?
Now that Iran’s expulsion of foreign journalists has deprived the world of detailed news coverage of the present turmoil in that nation, we have been forced to rely on the gritty … [Read More]
Posted by Grant Havers on June 25, 2009
The Usual Suspects