by Sanford Levinson

I have no doubt that the Iranian regime is really quite awful and, furthermore, that they have actively intervened, in a variety of ways, including the possible supply of weapons to Shi'ites, in Iraq. But on what basis, exactly, does the United States get on a high horse with regard to the intervention? After all, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan (claiming, of course, that they had been invited in, which is more than we were able to do with regard to Iraq), the U.S. notably supplied all sorts of weapons to the "insurgency," including those who later became the Taliban. These weapons included Stinger missiles that presumably were useful in shooting down some Soviet planes and, therefore, killing Soviet troops. Perhaps it was prudence alone that kept the USSR from sending aircraft carriers to the Caribbean and implicitly suggesting that it might have to consider a direct attack on the U.S. as a means of indicating its displeasure at our intervention, and we don't suffer from the same kind of prudential limitations as the USSR. But, surely, it is entirely understandable that Iran would want to give some aid to its allies, if for no other reason than to make sure that Iraq is never again ruled by somelike like Saddam Hussein, who, after all, invaded Iran and provoked a remarkably bloody and costly war. Moreover, any half- way "realist" account of international politics would suggest that the Iranians are trying to "send a message" to the U.S. indicating the potential trouble they can make for us if we don't ultimately sit down and talk with him about a "grand deal" that would recognize a variety of Iranian security interests. Old-fashioned realist analysis can explain most of Iranian actions; one need not believe they are motivated by "fanaticism" or are otherwise behaving irrationally (just as it turns out that Saddam Hussein rarely behaved irrationally, even if he often behaved evilly). There is also, of course, the independent point, as argued by Paul Krugman in Monday's New York Times, that the unrepentant neo-cons in the Bush administration are altogether silent about Saudi aid flowing to Sunni insurgents who are murdering Shi'ites and, one might think, even some Americans. In any event, I fear that, once more, Americans are being sold a morality play for the purpose of ultimately justifying a reckless attack on Iran. And, by the way, it would be good to know if any of the Democratic candidates are willing to offer a more nuanced account of Iranian actions and, therefore, of potential U.S. responses.

New hope forthe civically exhausted

Subscribe to The New Republic

Must-reads.5 days a week.

New hope for
the civically exhausted

Must-reads.
5 days a week.