Iran

Apparently black is white and up is down when it comes to some people’s analysis of events in Iran. Here, for instance, is our old friend Stephen Hayes: Obama says he doesn’t want to be seen as “meddling” given the long history of US-Iranian relations. Leave aside the question of whether simply stating the obvious is “meddling.” If the majority of Iranians believe that Ahmadinejad’s re-election is not legitimate, isn’t it more likely that Obama’s silence in the face of a stolen election will be viewed as another chapter in that long history rather than the end of it? There’s a simple answer to this: no it is not likely

Ezra Klein has copped some stick for his observation that: There are a couple things to say about this, all of them depressing. First, those of us who have long argued for the fundamental rationality of the Iranian regime have seen our case fundamentally weakened. A rational regime might have stolen the election. But they would not have stolen it like this, where there is no doubt of the theft. I a) disagree with Ezra and b) think he’s being too hard on himself. That is, there is a difference between the rationality of the Iranian regime’s foreign policy and its attitude towards domestic dissent. One can believe that Iran

For real: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday accused his election rivals of adopting smear tactics used by Germany’s dictator Adolf Hitler and said they could face jail for insulting him. Ahmadinejad was speaking at a rally in Tehran on the final day of an increasingly bitter and hard-fought election campaign, in which he faces a growing challenge from moderate former prime minister Mirhossein Mousavi. Mousavi and the two other candidates say Ahmadinejad has lied about the state of the economy which is suffering from high inflation and a fall in oil revenues from last year’s record levels. Ahmadinejad said his rivals had broken laws against insulting the president. “No

Marty Peretz makes a sensible point: A story by Parisa Hafezi at Reuters knocks the wind out of the expectation that, if Dr. A’jad loses his re-election campaign, Iran’s nuclear policy will be changed. These matters rest in the head and hands of the Ayatollah Al Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, successor to the revolutionary founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini. Well, it’s a sort-of-sensible point. I’m not sure how many people really think that Iran’s nuclear policy might change, regardless of the result of the elections. However, it is important that more people understand that Ahmadinejad is not the man in charge when it comes to

Of all the many reasons to be wary of bombing Iran, one of the best is also one of the simplest: it won’t work. Or, rather, whatever advantage there may be in delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions by a year or two is unlikely to be worth the unfortunate consequences involved, merely increasing the risks of a nuclear Iran further down the line. As Deence Secretary Robert Gates says: Using his strongest language on the subject to date, Gates told a group of Marine Corps students that a strike would probably delay Tehran’s nuclear program from one to three years. A strike, however, would unify Iran, “cement their determination to have

Ross Douthat suggests that rather than look to US-Soviet relations, it might be more useful to recall how the world was terrified by the prospect of a nuclear China in the 1960s. There’s something to that and, equally, as Ross says the fact that deterrance worked with the USSR and China does not mean that it will always work again. As he puts it, a nuclear Iran is a serious “risk-multiplier”. That’s why it’s possible to be gravely concerned by the implications of a nuclear Iran while also being extremely reluctant to endorse the idea of pre-emptive military action. Meanwhile, James writes: Diplomacy, sanctions and a blockade should all be

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg has a very interesting interview with Benjamin Netanyahu which includes this passage: Netanyahu offered Iran’s behavior during its eight-year war with Iraq as proof of Tehran’s penchant for irrational behavior. Iran “wasted over a million lives without batting an eyelash … It didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness. It wasn’t Britain after World War I, lapsing into pacifism because of the great tragedy of a loss of a generation. You see nothing of the kind.” He continued: “You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” I asked Netanyahu if he believed Iran would risk its own nuclear annihilation

Dan Drezner asks his “realist colleagues” if they can think of any reason why Iran should or would give up its nuclear ambitions. Stephen Walt offers some reasons why, unlikely as it might seem, Iran should consider doing so for its own advantage. I think Walt makes some good points but that they may not seem quite so persuasive when viewed from Tehran. In the end, too much of his argument is based upon the notion that the United States is Really Crazy, which risks leaving Walt making an argument that is the mirror image of the Mad Mullahs are Mad and Cannot Be Trusted Not to Do Mad Things

Jonathan Freedland warns Guardian readers today that Obama is not a dove but, rather, a “smarter hawk”. Fine. Here’s how he summarises Obama’s approach to Iran: The new disposition on Iran is similarly nuanced. The noises are much less warlike. Obama promises diplomacy and dialogue, and relegates force to where it should be: a last, not a first, resort. But his own advisers counsel that Obama is firm on this matter. He has concluded that Tehran cannot be allowed to become a nuclear power, not least because it would trigger a regional arms race. He will use negotiation to thwart that possibility. But if that fails, the use of force

I’m talking about kidneys of course. Over to Alex Tabarrok: Only one country in the world has eliminated the shortage of transplant kidneys.  Only one country in the world has legalized financial payments to kidney donors.  That country is Iran. In an important report, transplant surgeon Benjamin Hippen argues that the Iranian system has saved thousands of lives and it should be used if not as model then to inform America’s efforts to eliminate its deadly shortage. Want to solve the organ donor shortage? Learn from Iran and permit donors to be compensated.