Mani Basharzad has an interesting CAPX piece on events in Iran. Worth reading.
Iranians are ready for their final battle
- The Islamic Republic was never a regional superpower; it was a regional thug
- Ordinary Iranians now have an opening to reclaim their future
- The 'no war with Iran' crowd fails to grasp that dictatorships do not change through shifts in opinion alone
For years, Iran’s Islamic Republic tried to sell a picture to the world, as George Orwell once put it, by ‘giving an appearance of solidity to pure wind’. Its negotiating technique was never complicated; it was simple stonewalling. Yet it is striking how different administrations interpreted that posture. Barack Obama saw them as complicated, sophisticated negotiators. Donald Trump thought they were fools. What happened on February 28 seemed to vindicate Trump. The tyrant who dreamed of total victory in a civilisational war fell on the very first day of it.
4 comments:
I hope Trump's got it right. If so he and Bush the Elder will be the only US presidents since '45 who have started a non-trivial war and succeeded in it.
At least Truman got a draw in Korea but look at the rest of the list - Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Afghanistan, Iraq II. Should I include Reagan's defeat in Lebanon?Yikes.
If a war lasts only one battle the US can win - if it's an air battle (Serbia, Libya) or a tank battle (Iraq I).
That is, if you think setting up an independent Kosovo or reducing Libya to ruin was a win for the American taxpayer.
dearieme - I hope Trump's got it right too, but yes, the history isn't encouraging. Maybe the only objective is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, not so much major regime change, but more inclined to negotiate. Seems optimistic from any angle.
Trump does high risk, high reward things. One hopes for all their people of good heart.
James - yes he does and that makes it difficult to assess because the risk is high and the reward seems decidedly uncertain.
Post a Comment