Whom Do You (Objectively) Serve?
Posted on November 4th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
Reihan advances an unfortunate argument:
[W]hile Parsi is undoubtedly a believer in democratic liberalism who wants to see Iran radically reform its institutions, he objectively serves Iranian interests insofar as he discourages Western efforts to exert pressure on the regime [bold mine-DL].
The charge being made against Parsi is that he serves Iranian government interests, and the point in making this charge is almost certainly to claim that Parsi is in some way a bad, unwise or dangerous actor in public policy debates. People involved in these debates regard the Iranian government as corrupt, oppressive and brutal, as they should, which loads a claim that someone “objectively serves” its interests or lobbies on behalf of those interests with a sinister significance that claims of lobbying for an allied state do not possess. At best, this is a claim that the person is a “useful idiot” of the regime, and at worst it is classifying the taking of a set of policy positions as collusion with a despicable government. As Reihan says, this isn’t that complicated.
One thing that is bothersome about this is that it tries to erase the important distinction between Iranians and the Iranian regime. Parsi opposes “exerting pressure on the regime” because the proposed mechanisms for doing so would harm the Iranian people and do little or nothing to coerce the regime anyway. I repeat myself, but additional sanctions would cripple domestic opposition and consolidate and expand the regime’s control over the economy. In Goldberg’s earlier formulation, opposing this course of action somehow means that Parsi is working in the interests of the regime! Obviously, that’s ridiculous.
Parsi opposes exerting this pressure because he assumes that such pressure will fail to achieve Washington’s objectives and could make them harder to reach, which means that he takes his position in no small part based on what he thinks serves American interests in its relations with Iran. The result of tarring–and it is tarring–Parsi with the label of lobbyist for Tehran and calling his organization Iran’s AIPAC would be to make it that much more politically difficult for anyone, and especially for Iranian-Americans, to “oppose a forward-leaning U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf” with respect to Iran, and of course that’s the point of doing it. Jeffrey Goldberg may think that in doing so he is defending a sanctions policy option that he believes is the only available means of avoiding a war with Iran, but the method he is employing to do that really is reprehensible.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
6 Responses to “Whom Do You (Objectively) Serve?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It also brings back the disgusting concept from the run-up to the Iraq War that anyone who opposed Bush’s war at the time was “objectively pro-Saddam.”
Don’t forget the origin of this “objectively pro-____” in Bolshevik rhetoric — you can liquidate people for things they did with no ill intent, provided you declare that their acts are “objectively” harmful to the regime.
The inspiration behind “objectively” was George Owell, who famously described British pascifists during WWII as being “objectively pro-fascist”. It was a shameful rhetorical trick back then, in my view, as following it to its natural conclusion could lead one to imprison dissenters as seditious. It is even more shameful today. One can fairly argue that declining to impose sanctions will strengthen the Iranian regime, even though I find this wrong, but when you say people are “objectively” serving the interests of the regime you suggest something base about their charachters and their intentions.
Intentions matter. Not in the realm of policy necessarily: whether Parsi represents the mullahs or the reformists does not change whether his recommendations are prudent or foolish. They do effect, however, whether or not his recommendations will be given a respectful public hearing, or whether they will be scornfully dismissed as advocacy for a despicable and hostile regime.
Indeed, one might say that Reihan, a decent enough guy, does not intentionally want to marginalize everyone, but his remarks are “objectively thuggish”, insofar as the practical consequences are concerned. This is the crux of “objectively”: the rendering of intent and motive as absolutely meaningless.
“whether Parsi represents the mullahs or the reformists does not change whether his recommendations are prudent or foolish.”
The mullahs and the reformists are part of the same government and the reformists do not want to change the Islamic character of the Iranian government. Sorry but the shah is gone forever into the ash heap of history. Secularism is an alien ideology to Iran, and it will never work there. They are deeply religious and emotional, much like the Zionist settlers that America supports in that area.
Westerners know nothing about Iranians or Iran, they still think that the recent “Green Revolution” actually meant something. It didn’t. The majority of Iranians support Khamanei because of his Marja Taqlid status and also Ahmadinejad. If the Green Revolution did anything significant, it would have at least broken the back of the Revolutionary Guards.
The real revolution was in 1979. That’s when the Imperial Iranian military realized that the uprising was actually popular and that they were killing their own family members in the process of its suppression. That’s when a real revolution happens.
The recent uprising was nothing and did not have popular support. Recent polling from WPO shows that about 80% of Iranians support the current government.
The more we try to change that government (through threats, our support of terror groups like Jundullah, hypocritical double standards towards the Zionist state), the higher that 80% will go.
I think nrmurra makes an excellent point in suggesting that I’m being “objectively pro-thuggish” insofar as I am encouraging the marginalization of Parsi — which, as he surmised, is not my intention. Suffice it to say, I don’t *think* that my remarks were “objectively pro-thuggish,” but nrmurra has the right idea, e.g., during the run-up to the Iraq war, anti-war voices were often characterized as “objectively pro-Saddam.” I think that this was correct. Yet I also think that the “objectively pro-Saddam” voices could just as easily be described as “objectively pro-U.S.”
It could be that the *idea* of being objectively pro- or anti-something is thus useless. But I don’t think it’s incoherent.
I tried to use fairly careful wording in my post. It should go without saying that I think Parsi merits our attention and respect.
I’m glad we can agree that Parsi merits our attention and respect. Therefore, it makes sense to me that we call out and reject those claims that seem aimed at discouraging both. This “objectively” language definitely creates more confusion and ill will than it aids in understanding the contours of policy debate, so I suggest we just scrap it entirely.