Why doesn’t Bret Stephens quote the Middle East scholar and historian, Bernard Lewis?: “ In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning. At the End of Time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter is the final destination of the dead-- hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement...
9
I suppose you could say we have a "kleptodemocracy" in the United States. The "leaders" enrich the wealthy donor class while keeping the lower classes at bay, without benefit of any significant trickle-down.
85
Some other points:
1) While it is true that Iran is a very imperfect democracy (a criticism that would also apply to Israel, which does not give civil rights to half the population it controls), there is a commitment to democracy deeply embedded in the Iranian soul going back to the Constitutional Revolution of 1906–11. The Pahlavi Shahs, autocrats both, were forced to keep the trapping of constitution and parliament. When the first Shah was exiled by the British in 1941, constitutional democracy immediately reemerged and survived until the British and American sponsored coup in 1953 restored the second Shah to power. When Khomeini, who came from a clerical faction that had opposed democracy and constitutionalism came to power, he was forced to accept a constitution. Even today, despite efforts to manipulate elections by devices like disallowing candidates, Iranians go to the polls not uncommonly elect the "wrong" person.
2) Iranians are fiercely proud and nationalistic. Iranians of all stripes were deeply offended when George W. Bush referred to them as "uncivilized." Foreign meddling will just build support for the regime.
3) The portrayal of Iran as the source of all terrorism and disorder in the Middle East is ludicrous, particularly coming from the United States. Iran has rather more legitimate security interests in its neighborhood than the US does.
73
Is Mr. Stephens totally unaware of what is going on now in Saudi Arabia, with the son of the leader locking up lots of people and extorting money from them in the name of "fighting corruption"? Talk about a kleptocracy!
62
It always puzzles me why the US so bend to bring 'real democracy' to Iran, but seems to be OK with repressive monarchies and dictatorships of other ME countries such as Saudi Arabia. Seems like the US don't worry so much about democracy as much about its own interests on expense of the interests of other countries.
85
Other commenters have made the point - Iran is exactly like America, but the population of Iran is more religious and the relative wealth inequality in the United States is far more outrageous.
How is the Iranian political system any more indicative of a theocracy than America, when Evangelicals elected Trump because he promised to put theocrats on the Supreme Court to impose religious doctrine on the rights of women in the United States? And Iranian theocrats wouldn't vote for a sex offender!
How is the Iranian government more a kleptocracy than America when Trump just signed a tax law that will double the United States deficit in 10 years to the benefit mainly of the top 0.01% - including Trump personally - while justifying the attack on government benefits this paper's experts have been predicting will be the GOP agenda this year?
Why assert the importance of telling the Iranian people the truth about the financial dealings of their elite when Americans just elected a man who refused to disclose his financial records in defiance of established convention and the repeated demands of this newspaper? If you want to see a population goes crazy with outrage, just wait til Mueller exposes Trump's dealings with Putin and the Russian mafia.
However bad Iran might be, no American is in the position to be pointing fingers, so leave scolding Iran to Sweden and start telling us what you plan on doing to remove the evil Supreme Leader you have running your government right now.
75
The way to tell when you are hearing a great idea is in its simplicity and resonance. Self interest pretty much determines everything, and Stephens column seems spot on. Let's focus on the subject as Stephens suggests. I think he just made a real contribution to the discussion.
17
Stephens asks "Democracy or dictatorship?", but the larger question is 'Democracy or Empire?'
While Iran may well be closer to dictatorship than to democracy, it at least is no where near as dangerous as an Empire --- because Empires are the only disease of geostrategic malignancy that endangers both its own domestic 'subjects' as well as all citizens of our world.
While Stephens correctly states that, "Real democracies don’t live in fear of their own people", the only fear that a global Empire would have to fear is precisely its own citizen/'subjects' directly within the metropole of such an Empire --- and only then if those citizens became aware of the diseased state of their own 'nation-state'.
But, of course, such considerations are thankfully of no concern today in this the 21st century because there are no truly global Empires left on earth --- nor any Empires to fool their own 'subjects' in such a metropole.
5
The biggest problem I have is that I'm not sure what to believe about Iran. HAve they been supporting extremist groups? Sure, there is a lot of consistent reporting to back that up. Is Iran a kleptocracy? I haven't seen the depth of reporting to establish that, though it's hard to get any other reporting in the poisonous fog of Trump daily garbage.
I understand that there is ample evidence of common Iranians being upset; the protests prove that. I DO NOT think that there is a wellspring of American support. Rather I'm more suspicious that the Saudi's and others have a hand in destabilizing Iran, as they have made clear their desire to see Iran massively diminished.
America has been deeply involved in the Middle East since the 1950's. Overall, I think our involvement has been a disaster for the US. Companies made billions and billions on oil and arms to be sure, but the US is reviled across the region.
We need a new policy that respects sovereignty in the region with a like footprint od help directed towards people and not regimes.
18
With a few changes the column describes what is happening in Trump's U.S. in making America great again.
34
Here’s a better way to view Iran. Iran had a democratically elected Prime Minster, Mohammed Mosaddegh, until the US overthrew the democratically elected government and installed the Shah, all to prevent nationalization of Iran’s oil. Had the US worked with government today Iran might be a stable democracy. Our meddling in Iranian affairs lead to the current government when the theocrats overthrew the Shah. Those theocrats were always bound to be virulently anti American. Sometimes you reap what you sow.
37
Iran is an Islamic theocracy of hardline mullahs due largely to our interference in that country's internal affairs. It was a pro-Western democracy until our CIA, on orders of a Republican administration, overthrew its democratically elected leader and installed a puppet Shah Reza Pahlavi, seated on a fictional Peacock Throne and propped up by a brutal secret police organization known as Savak. The shah was overthrown in a 1979 revolution that installed the mullahs who have over the years declined in popularity with a young, well educated and increasingly secular Iranian population. Now the mullah's are faced with another popular uprising that may replace them with a more reformist regime -- but only if Trump shuts up, stops giving the mullahs an excuse to call the Iranian rebels American stooges, stops trying to derail the Iranian nuclear agreement and stops listening to Netanyahu's anti-Iranian yammering. In other words, butt out and let Iranians decide how they want to be governed.
64
Thanks Christy! You nailed it.
11
I had an opportunity to visit Tehran on many occasions in the mid to late 1970's while in the Air Force. The people, not the politicians, liked us. It was genuine. People would stop me in the streets to shake my hand, even though I didn't speak a word of their language, the respect they had for America was palpable. I had a business owner close up his shop in the Bazaar one afternoon, put on some tea, broke out bread and butter, and we talked for hours. This man was informed, respectful and concerned. He talked about our overthrow of Mossadeq in the 1950s and replacing him with the Shah. It's ironic that we did worse in Iran than what the Russian have done to us, yet it's not discussed. And we're still paying the price for the Mossadeq fiasco. Iran was stable, had a concerned, even revered leader, and we blew it. They were a valuable strategic ally. Everything that has followed in Iran has its roots in the 1950s. Everything.
59
Corruption is definitely in the eyes of the beholder. It bedevils all governments. And the propaganda depends on whose "ox is being gored."
Oil is the shining goal in geopolitics today. Even though it can be toppled by green energy, the old habits die hard. Access to it still drives wars.
Until we earthlings wise up to the human devastation of war and the inhuman devastation of our habitat by needless pollution, the cave man mentality persists.
9
I sure am glad our middle east allies are all liberal democracies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
26
Many salient points here, Bret, but the key issue not mentioned is oil. Iran, Libya (under Gaddadi), Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (in the Saddam days), Yemen, the UAE and even Russia--all of these are essentially functional or theocratic dictatorships. With the huge sums of money they get from oil, they quash their enemies and buy off their people, acquire or develop weapons to keep themselves in power, and fund other countries and terrorist groups to support them. If we can keep reducing our need for oil, their power and ability to keep themselves in power will erode.
5
You are right on target on this one. The problem is that today we have a regime in the U.S. which shares all too many values with that in Iran: authoritarian, corrupt, and enamored of violence. They wouldn't even begin to understand the strategy you are putting forth here, let alone know how to implement it. Instead, as with Kim, they get into the mud with displays of saber-rattling and button-size contests, which only strengthen the despots in Teheran. Sad.
8
Shouldn't we be trying to better integrate Iran into the western economy and culture so as to moderate Iranian international aggression as well as domestic autocracy?
Does Stephens really want the war pitting the US nd Israel against the Iranian-Syrian-Iraqi coalition that it seems Netanyahu wants?
19
Barack Obama found the way forward with Iran years ago.
Of course, now that our foreign policy is once again in the grip of right wing Republicans, whose modus operandi seems to be engaging in beligerent bombast designed to provoke open conflict with Iran and North Korea, that rational way forward is slipping away.
I keep coming back to George W. Bush's comment regarding Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as being "The Axis of Evil." At the time it seemed to be a ridiculously melodramatic and cartoonish statement, but only a characterization of the regimes, not a pretext for the implementation of interventionist neocon foreign policy.
Yet here we are, years later, having toppled the government of Iraq, succumbed to a manhood contest with North Korea with nuclear war hanging in the balance, and now, as per Mr. Stephens, working to change Iran's behavior- or "break its back."
The people of the United States must break the grip that right wing philosophies, prejudices, and arrogance have had on our economic, social and foreign policies and procedures since Ronald Reagan, before we reach the point of no return.
Repudiate them, and begin anew.
29
amazing how many analogies with the US. A 1% kleptocracy enriching itself further by buying new tax breaks from Congress; still doing executions; widespread protests, disregarded by the leadership; an aggressive foreign policy interfering widely; a partial democracy with a "supreme leader" not really elected, in our case not getting the most votes, with disrespect for a free press, and interested in enriching himself (thru a phony Foundation, University, and bankruptcies) an emphasis on military spending at the expense of most ordinary citizens and using religion to gain and stay in power...
20
Not a great idea to criticize Iranian kleptocracy when we have our own at home. Our president is exploiting his authority by deriving revenues from his Washington hotel, leased from the federal government he controls, while writing off big tax losses from bankrupt casinos and other investments he made with Other People's Money (including small investors who bought his junk bonds through mutual funds). Is his tax audit still going on, with IRS staff depleted and only Trump allies in the US Treasury? What's there to see? The guy is a self-declared total genius -- at exploiting the presidency.
16
Even more relevant questions, if we want to truly understand the history of our relationship with Iran are: Was Iran under the Shah truly a democracy? and, Was the Iranian government which the CIA helped the Pahlavi family overthrow truly a democracy? By Mr. Stephens' definitions, I think the answers are "no" and "yes".
I'm not denying the evils of the current government, but before we approach this saying "we're the USA and we're here to help", we should be mindful of that history. The Iranian people certainly are.
9
I'm thinking Iran's government is not so different than our own these days. Wonder if we will "exploit the internal contradiction" that defines our Trump regime.
11
Are there any governmental systems that *don't* devolve into kleptocracy? The strongman model is the historical norm.
Democracy takes work and it takes the resolve of citizens to stay educated, and to stay morally committed to the ideal of serving the people not ruling them. It takes the rule of law - that a person who gets unelected leaves; that when government breaks the law, the people in it are prosecuted. It takes the resolve of the leadership not to use military force against its own citizens. It takes the resolve of the government to adhere to Constitutional protections - or to even *have* Constitutional protections.
Human nature is not really all that admirable. Democracy requires that we overcome our nature and serve the community first.
Asking if Iran is a democracy is a dumb question - the real question is whether Iran is ruled by a chaotic group or a group more interested in bettering the lives of its citizens. The answer is likely the first.
Few nations are driven by the ideal of being of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a fragile promise, and one we can see here in the US can be undercut pretty easily.
5
If only European countries would stop doing business with that government.
2
Mr. Stephens makes a good case to demonstrate that Iran's government is generally a bad one. It's what to do about his conclusion that bothers me. In the past, while at the WSJ, Mr. Stephens has advocated bombing Iran. This is in the tradition of Thomas Ricks' book, Fiasco, where he documents the neocons successful effort to demonize Iraq and get us into yet another war. The recipe for endless wars is simple: identify either a kernel of truth or a group of really bad actors, convince Americans that our national interest is at stake unless we intervene, bomb from afar and send in troops if necessary. Rinse and repeat. We need to stop fighting other countries' wars.
11
"There's no trickle- down economy in the Islamic Republic", No such thing in America, either. Now that that's out of the way, you failed to mention that the Iranian Supreme Leader is a religious figure which makes Iran a theocracy. The young people wear American fashions and listen to American music. They don't like living under strict theocratic dictates and would like to join the rest of the world they see on the internet. It was only a matter of time before this 45 year old regime would change on it's own if the world embraced them back. Their leaders bribe, cheat and steal. They use religious strictures to oppress their people. They involve themselves in outside wars that take money away from their own people. And no on can guess as to the mental fitness of their Supreme Leader. All of those scenarios sound troubling and familiar. I understand why they're protesting, I don't understand why we aren't.
9
“All Islamist movements take the concept of justice (as opposed to freedom) as their organizing political concept, and all of them ignore it at their peril.”
This is not a useful taxonomy. Every conception of justice includes some measure of freedom as an essential component, and none allow for unlimited freedom (e.g. at the expense of others’ wellbeing). So, justice is the broader concept, within which societies choose their ideal points based on tradeoffs between conceptions of freedom, fairness, virtue, etc.
1
“it’s riven between hard-liners who want to make it more repressive and militant and reformists who want to make it less.” You could be talking about the USA here.
This article is one of the standard articles we can expect as the United States Neo-cons build up for an attack on Iran. It is similar to the preparations that were made for the attack on Iraq. It has nothing to do with democracy or anything good like that – after all the present Religious dictatorship in Iran followed on from and was a direct reaction to the Dictatorship installed by the USA and UK after they overthrew the democratically elected government in 1953 to protect their Oil interests.
In this case it is largely a case of Israel driving USA Policy in the Middle East.
45
No use dealing with the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran until they remove or modify the hard-nosed, uncompromising "Islamic" part. Better to deal directly with the Iranian people, who are overwhelmingly supportive of western values.
4
Iran was a pro-western democracy until, under Republican rule, our CIA overthrew a democratically elected pro-American national hero in the 1950s because he would not give a British oil company a good enough deal on Iranian oil and installed the brutal regime of the Shah.
(Reading assignment for Bret: Patriot of Persia: Muhammad Mossadegh and a Tragic Anglo-American Coup)
The educated, democratically oriented Iranians, our natural allies, have had to survive under dictatorships ever since.
We strengthened supporters of the dictatorship with sanctions that enriched the smugglers.
Now they have Trump, who does not believe in democracy (hates a free press and wants to lock up political opponents) and whose travel ban would keep Iranian grandmothers from visiting their grandchildren (yet praises the Saudis, the home of Bin Laden and most of the 9/11 terrorists) , tweeting directions. This cannot be helpful.
33
It was Pres. Obama that ignored the last uprising of Iranian freedom fighters. Pres. Trump is a breath of fresh air for freedom in Iran!
1
I'm the Iranian. I'm no one's friend because no one is my friend. I'm no ones ally because no one is my ally. I don't think about anyone because no one is thinking about me. I hate wars because no matter who the enemy is, I'm the cannon fodder. I have too many enemies, because too many people are thirsty for my blood. I'm in the dark, because no one sees me. I'm the majority but I'm always in the minority. I'm the Iranian.
18
Thank you Bret.
Those who blindly supported the horribly flawed Iran Deal because they blindly supported Obama were quick to change the narrative to “Iran good, Saudi Arabia/Egypt/Israel bad!” As you point out, this past week illustrates with perfect clarity the type of corrupt regime we wrongly supported with the Iran Deal. It also illustrates that sanctions work especially well with a regime that places the burden on its own citizens.
2
This really is an interesting column. I'm willing to bet that most of your readers have little or no knowledge of just how Iran functions internally, that Setad exists or that the nuclear treaty with Iran removed sanctions on Setad. I hope you will follow up with more pieces on the clerical kleptocracy.
5
Perhaps the US could adsopt a more realistic view of the Iranian regime if we acknowledge our role in making that regime a stronger, more effective player in the Middle East. We did that by removing the regime's strongest enemy, Saddam Hussein, and leaving Iraq in political and economic shambles.
One can imagine the Iranian mullahs' reaction to the Great Satan doing for them, for free, what years of bloody and expensive wars failed to do.
So, by all means, let's get real about Iran.
10
Corruption by any other name or conducted under the banner of God or Allah is, well, corruption. When the Shah was in power, we gave him a ton of money and ignored the corruption because he was friendly to us. His government was overthrown and now it's a different set of leaders with similar corruption with one exception: they view the US as the enabler of the system they hated. Then they incorporate the same corruption into the government they establish to take its place. Imagine that a new "government" bought into power under the ruse of listening to the people and helping those who had been "taken advantage of" by the previous government. Only to actually not only to continue the behavior they opposed but to also take it up a notch and then some. And then deny you are doing just that. Where else on the world do we see such hypocrisy? Glass houses, baby.
4
Iran as noted over the years has a young educated populace with interest in American culture. Unfortunately we have Trump and a state department that cannot engage in a smart way other than idiot tweets.
6
First, trickle down does not exist anywhere. The concept is a GOP fraud. Second, from Mr. Stephens description it seems that Iran is just another corrupt dictatorship that takes money from its citizens and keeps uses it to stay in power.
4
While I agree with the benefits of exposing the 'klepto' part to the Iranians, what about the 'theo' part? Would we go around and tell Iranians that they fell prey to a fake religion? That they are exploited by priests of nonsense? On the religion part we are much more careful, because our own population is stricken with priestly superstitions as Thomas Jefferson called them. Rationalism, Atheism and Enlightenment are the antidotes to all forms of dictatorships but all to often the oppressed will kill their prophets, the lies of religions are just too sweet to let go. I am sure the empires of Joyce Myers, Joel Olstein, the Grahams and all their ilk exceed 95 billions, money robbed from people who are kept busy trying to see what's not there.
No need to fight with Iran and expose their hypocrisy. We got plenty at home and are far from an enlightened society that can preach the road to success.
10
... and yet... have you noticed the high quality of Iranian movies? The clear expression of free ideas? Last year, the Oscar winner for best foreign film was from Iran.
15
Thank you!
2
Good points regarding Iran. The same approach should be taken here in the U.S.. Wouldn't you love to know where all the taxpayer money, indeed corporate "charity" money, goes?
16
"Real democracies don’t live in fear of their own people."
Perhaps we should look in the mirror.
24
Excellent piece, thanks.
1
Giving play to the most venal impulses of American politicians regarding Iran, is certainly NOT the "way forward on Iran!!!!!!"
The Iranian people deserve better than that.
Sure, help the Iranian people understand looting take place in their country (BTW, do the same for the American people right here at home, Palestinians in occupied territory, all the people of Yemen, non-princes in Saudi Arabia, etc.).
But do stop the unending screeching for "sanctions" on Iran. Sanction Israeli settlements on occupied land before you talk about sanctioning anything in Iran. Haven't we made Iranians suffer enough? Enough for several generations?
If you want to equate the killing of our brave soldiers sent into a battle zone with terrorism, kindly do the same with our shooting down of a civilian Iranian airliner, killing hundreds on board.
If you want to castigate Iran's "aggressive" foreign policy in the Middle East, kindly detail our overthrowing Iran's democracy for a dictator, supporting Iraq's chemical & other warfare against Iran in a campaign killing a million (that's 1,000,000). Do we really need to talk about our sanctions against Iran, half a century of sanctions against Cuba, attacking & kidnapping Panama's president, invading Grenada & the 100s of other instances in which we have disregarded other nations' prerogatives, territory & interests?
As with Trump, there is so much unending rubbish on Iran, that it becomes hard to focus on any one piece of the trash.
24
"Finding the Way Forward on Iran"
Leave them to their own devices is my suggestion. If the forces of democracy are greater than it's current kleptotheocracy, it will rise to overcome the current regime.
We've been meddling in the mideast for decades, it's a mess, and much of it our own doing with the Iraq War. The best way forward on Iran for the U.S. is stay away!
20
“A West that wants to help them can begin by exploiting the internal contradiction that defines the regime...”
How quaint. Bret Stephens, speaking for the West, is looking for ways to help out the Iranian people. Like he — and the West of course — cares for them and wants what’s best, which certainly isn’t that nasty old regime.
Can we get real please. The contradictions and hypocrisy which Stephens wants the US to “exploit” are rife in the Middle East. It’s not just Iran. It’s Saudi Arabia which must take the cake when it comes to hypocrisy. The corrupt billionaire religious fundamentalists, buying yachts, French mansions, enjoying their palaces. How about Israel, the “only democracy” in the region and yet millions of non-Jews who are ruled by Israel lack even the right to vote, because their ethnicity is wrong. How’s that for a contradiction?
I missed the column where Stephens is concerned about any of those hypocrisies or contradictions, or where he is looking for ways to help the people suffering from those particular regimes, or where he recommends the US exploit them.
So then why the focus on Iran? Because in Iran what people like Bret are really after is a geopolitical goal, not a charitable goal: regime change. A new regime that is more subservient to US and Israeli interests. The recent multi-city street protests in Iran, which are likely being helped along by covert action, offer a grand opportunity for the regime-changers to stick their knife in.
34
All of Iran just witnessed 2 very recent events in the the US:
1) the donor bought congress just passed a bill where the US borrows heavily from China to transfer wealth from the 99% to the 1% via the mechanism of tax cuts for the rich, against the will 75% of American people.
2) the my-button-is-bigger-than-yours idiocy involving nuclear weapons.
Would it be possible for Iran to cause a regime change America? I would welcome that interference.
20
When Trump shows an interest for democracy activists in Russia, the Phillippines, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other nations headed by strongmen he admires, then you can tell me it's time to look at what he claims to support in Iran.
10
I woke up this morning to another shockingly shallow Op-Ed about how to 'deal with' Iran. The article cherry-picks 'facts' ((Javad Zarid "laying a wreath", ... "executions rose under the ostensibly reformist leadership....") to suit the author's 'arguments' ("There's no trickle-down economy in the Islamic Republic").
Stephens's 'scholarship' disingenuously ignores the period of Glasnost introduced by President Khatemi from 1997 - 2005, that triggered the greatest period of prosperity and happiness in post-Revolutionary Iran: Foreign Investment rose 1000 %, 30 foreign banks had offices in Tehran, the nation enjoyed 6 % annual growth, unemployment was at a multi-decade low, the stock market rose 500 % in 5 years. Khatemi even de-censored films mocking the Mullahs ("Lizard") and highlighting poverty and homelessness ("Beneath the Light of the Moon"). So popular was the reformist President that he was re-elected with a majority of 79 %, something U.S. politicians can only dream of.
It all came to an end when the lobby-driven U.S. Government panicked and torpedoed the regime's socio-economic and political successes. Their aim was total domination of the Middle East. Iran was the ultimate prize. So when Ayatollah Khamenei's offer to the U.S. of a Grand Bargain was contemptuously rejected by the State Department (or by 'Bush's Brain') Iran decided "No More M. Nice Guy" and we ended up with Ahmadinejad.
It is not Iran, but the U.S., that should change its attitude and behaviour.
36
And a complete false comparisons at the end:
"In 1982, Ronald Reagan praised Poland’s Solidarity movement for remaining “magnificently unreconciled to oppression.”... "A West that wants to help them can begin by exploiting the internal contradiction that defines the regime that oppresses them and which may yet prove its undoing."
It was not because Mr. Reagan had praised something and then t the West did thit or that to raise more fuss.
A part of the history of Polish regime change is told here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1945%E2%80%931989)
Compare this to Iran from 1949 and you will immediately realize: Almost no parallels.
Another part that is not been told in the Wiki article were networks "under the surface" with Eastern and Western nations brokered by Catholic church and a similar way of thinking. Recent Western investments in today´s Poland and the Eastern "Visegrad" alliance are reminiscences of these networks - widely supported by European "Ostpolitik" in these days and not hampered by Polish authorities or army who always were afraid of Russia.
Many Polish firms had worked in Western Europe in the 80ties and transferred billions of DM to Poland the "oilless" state was depending on to survive. (This was the reason to allow).
Also Poles always tend to the West. A Solidarnosc professor (Krakow) told me in 1980: "All Poles know: The best way to avoid new wars is: Both D and PL in EU - then Oder-Neisse doesn´t matter anymore."
Iran?
1
Iranian regime change? Fine by me. Orchestrated by our current leadership? You have to be kidding.
Don't you think that it might be best for the U.S. to take a knee and sit this one out, at least until we have a President who is capable of something more complex than giving silly nicknames to foreign leaders?
The regime change we should be interested in starts right here at home.
20
It is insulting to think that Iranian people are not aware of what is happening in their own country. They wouldn't be risking their lives demanding in more than 80 cities, demanding reform. I'm not defending the regime in Iran, but that government isn't that different than what we have in this country. They are both corrupt and dishonest, both take from the poor and give it to the rich, and they're both dictatorships. The only difference is that the mullahs commit their crimes wearing 6th century garbs, and our government does it wearing western outfits.
4
It seems to me that the Middle East is living out the Middle Ages of Europe. Kings, Dukes, Earls and such used power to suck all the resources into their control and became wealthy while the common man was forced to live hand to mouth. Religion us used to keep people in line. All is as it has always been.
As one commenter noted the new tax bill helps push our later discovery of peaceful happy middle class societies back toward the middle ages, using demagoguery and religion to keep people in their place. It also seems to me that this tendency of a few to aggressively take from the many was philosophised by Ayn Rand. So the long road up the hill to the shining city is sometimes paved with shifting footing and we slip backward for a while, optimistically. Or the natural order dictates that the few always win in the end. Lets ask Paul Ryan, the smoothed tongued prince in waiting.
2
Mr. Stephens, do you honestly think that this administration and this State Department, have the expertise, the intelligence and the capability of providing the kind of support you suggest to the Iranian people without screwing it, and them, up in the process?
4
Great analysis...now do you believe that at the end of the day, our President, as he settles into bed with his cheeseburger and coke, watching Hannity, is reading this piece---or even could find Iran on a map.
5
What holds the Iranians together is the common dislike a d distrust of the USA. Remember how the current Theocracy came to power. It overthrew our puppet monarchy, and imprisoned our diplomats.
The Reagan campaign colluded with them to withhold release of our diplomats ;till Reagan took office. Then remember Iran/ Contra? Since then we have constantly applied sanctions that have hurt the people not the regime. Remember that we supported Iraq against Iran in their war. Trump has threatened to break our nuclear agreement with them and to keep sanctions.
Mr. Trump has bragged about the reduced power of ISIS, but their defeats have been primarily at the hands of Iranian and Syrian supported fighters. With the help of the Kurds as well.
We need a new policy for the mideast and an end of our longest war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are in our 18th year with no end in sight. any reasonable person would say its time to change policies. It is time to remember a quote from de Tocqueville "America is great because it is good. If it ceases to be good it will no longer be great"
Mr. Trump may be leading us away from being good.
5
No problem with adopting this strategy but its flaw is that the previous Shah's regime was just as much of a kleptocracy as the current one and right now the US is allied with a legion of kleptocracies around the world. The government of Israel (Stephen's particular favorite) is riddled with corruption.
10
Mr. Stephens was a great supporter of our wars against Afghanistan and Iraq and now he is trying to start another one with Iran.
22
The title of the article states "Finding the Way Forward on Iran".
A reader is therefore expected to think that some meaningful and significant action will be suggested. After reading the article, this reader was not just disappointed but dismayed as well.
Iran is, of course, no angel. No country - NONE - in the world is.
But to distill all the supposed "evils" of Iran to amassing of "assets worth an estimated $95 billion" by Khamenei through Setad, is not just oversimplification but one can argue it to be asinine and dangerous as well. The danger may stem from authorities in the current administration to make a rash decision based on such oversimplification. The current administration has been shown to be quite adept in this.
One MUST consider the complexity of Iran, which is also NOT an Arab country and US CANNOT apply the same mindset to Iran.
Iran is a very large country with a long history. It is a proud country. US usually forgets what CIA did to Mohammad Mossadegh by engineering a coup in 1953 and how it then supported the brutal and corrupt dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who called himself the monarch.
If US truly wants a "Way Forward on Iran", it MUST treat Iran with some dignity. US cannot simply expect to meddle in mid-east that is Iran's backyard and ignore quid-pro-quo while dealing with it. Trying to demonize and browbeat a country such as Iran simply will NOT work. Using a stick and no carrot do NOT work according to Diplomacy-101.
18
Why the fixation on Iran's authoritarian ways when America is so cozy with Saudi Arabia, which is more restrictive and arbitrary across the heavy-handed board? Strange how self-styled Conservatives like Stephens seek most to conserve old, out-dated, approaches to America's world, overlooking our curious choices of allies and enemies, our chronically ineffective, if not outright counterproductive, meddling tendencies, let alone our problems at home, economic and political.
Iran lives in a neighborhood we've helped make more unstable. It does so in ways that oft are unattractive. But it's a far sight more open and vibrant society than our petro-dollar allies and, like Russia, should be approached less demonically, lest we stumble into further blunders seeking regime changes.
16
Why? Probably because they oppose and undermine civilized societies around the world.
2
Iran is a nation being held in a religious grip, not much unlike like Israel. A modern society can't tolerate this and so it comes to upheavels especially when economic problems add to.
In our modern world where information is available at "every corner", such ancient concepts of state don't work anymore. People are up to date what is happening in other nations, and which are rich and which are poor. This leads to revolutions or, as we see in our newer times, to people running away to look "where the grass is greener". This is kind of a natural process.
4
The only thing the Trump administration ought to do is end the travel ban.
The rest is not our business.
4
I think Mr. Stephens misses the point with the demonstrations. I believe they are a crack in the veneer of Iran's Theocracy, which would appear to be a good thing. This saber- rattling espoused by Stephens and his neo-con peers is a road to nowhere. Engagement has led to the demonstrations, which indicate dissatisfaction with the current regime within Iran. This is a good thing Bret. Continued engagement hopefully will lead to more dissatisfaction, and a gradual lessening of Iran's radicalism. Two examples; China and Iraq. We engaged China many decades ago, and although they may not meet with Western democratic standards, they have certainly emerged as an economic powerhouse fully engaged on the world stage. Iraq, where we went the neo-con route is an obvious disaster. Please read some history. Iran is an interesting place with a largely educated populace. They could be poised for an interesting journey into the light. Our political mis-steps decades ago helped to create the current problems. Let's not make the same mistake again.
4
I would suggest that Brett Stephens read the Iranian Constitution if he wants to categorize the government of Iran. Article 110 of that Constitution gives the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dictatorial powers over the government of Iran, including the power to declare war and reject any policy HE feels contradicts the principles of Islam or the Iranian Revolution. The Constitution also gives the IRGC the specific power to defend the principles of the revolution.Under the constitution Khamenei has the plenary power to dismiss president Hassan Rouhani. Democracy in Iran is simply an illusion as any candidate must be approved by the 12 member Guardian Council 6 of whose members are appointed directly by Khameinei.
1
"Not nearly enough attention, however, goes to the question of what Iran is."
what that is IS, is what we've had a large share in making and allowing to develop for decades without substantial opposition...(no way to blame trump for that, hard as it is for the press to meet its first amendment obligation and name names).
what iran "has" and "does" cannot be separated from our meddling in its affairs for our own interests, not those of the iranian people.
talk about "40 years spent" in hypocrisy.
see also chile, iraq and libya...how about we "release details" on all of it?
9
One cannot consider Iran outside the context of humiliation, the humiliation of America by Iran in the 1970s. At least that seems to have been the context in which America has viewed Iran ever since, including now. Stephens attempts to make a clear-eyed assessment in this essay, but he falls short. The starting point for assessing Iran is to recognize that it is a Shiite Muslim country located in a sea of Sunni Muslim countries, including its nemesis Saudi Arabia, to recognize that Shiite Muslims make up less than 15% of Muslims worldwide, and to recognize that conflict in the middle east is primarily a sectarian conflict between the two sects, Shiite and Sunni. In that context one can also see Iran's predicament: a substantial majority of Muslims wish to destroy the heretic-led Iran, not least by its nemesis and America's erstwhile ally the Saudis. I say erstwhile because the Saudis have done far more than humiliate America, for it was Sunni Muslims from Saudi Arabia who attacked America on 9/11, who led the Sunni insurrection in Iraq that killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers, and who fund the Sunni terrorists (including ISIS) who have committed unspeakable acts of violence against Shiite Muslims and Christians in the region. In that context, Iran looks less like an enemy: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
10
The battleground in the Middle East, as everyone needs to understand, is between two interpretations of the Koran and the most powerful representatives of each side are Iran and Saudi Arabia. Almost every awful thing that comes out of that region is a result of this centuries old schism in the Muslim religion. I think it is important for the US to retain a balanced approach in our relationships with these two warring sides. Castigating Iran without pointing out the shortcomings of Saudi Arabia makes us the target of more terrorist activity. Frankly there is little that we can do end this struggle except try to keep the collateral damage to a minimum. Only ending our dependence on oil will lower the need for the West to pour money into the region that fuels this conflict.
2
This is an opportunity for the free world to exploit? Fair enough, but in whose interest and how will those interests be determined? The free world involvement in Iran under the Shah was repressive and greedy as well. Israel has no interest at all in a prosperous and militarily strong Iran. The Realpolitik musings of analysts in the Hudson Institute ought to be coupled minimally with some real strategic ideas on next steps, ones that are truly aligned with the genuine interests of the Iranian people, which necessarily involve both justice and freedom.
1
I take Mr. Stephens' point that there's no trickle down economy in Iran. However, why would there be one any place else? Think about our new tax plan, where those that already have will be enriched further, not by confiscating the property of others, but, instead, on the back of government borrowing and a likely reduction in public services--all organized, not by Iranians, but by a Senate and Congress that also similarly describes itself as representative and, even more ironically, as Republican.
76
A very good and timely article. One feature of the regime's structure that is not often talked about is that the three branches of government are kept separate but answer to the leader and are kept on a short leash. A sort of Montesquieu-esq separation of powers with despotism added.
8
Stephens is regressing to type. The comments on Iran from Stephens and others have more to do with politics here, and in Israel, than what is going on in Iran, which even true Iran experts have difficulty in figuring out. Yes, Iran is a problem country, with some ugly features. But is it any more so than Saudi Arabia, that America embraces? Was it a more destabilizing force than the Saudi, who supported some of the worst Middle East terrorists, not to speak of 9/11. And as corrupt as Iran may be, surely Saudi Arabia tops it in that category, too. The Iranian executions are disgusting, but the Saudis chopped off over 100 heads last year. (China executed more people than all other countries combined, and we manage to be on reasonable terms with them.) And as for democracy, when has the lack of it in the Middle East bothered us? As dictatorial as it is, Iran is probably as democratic as any country in the Middle East. I'm including Israel, because while it is democratic for half the population, it is tyrannical for the other half. And we don't even have to discuss Saudi Arabia. Iran's nuclear program is a serious worry, but the administration is now stupidly encouraging Saudi Arabian nuclear fantasies. If we really want to make progress on these issues and to help people in Iran we should start by opening an embassy. The current level of antipathy does not serve American interests.
136
Mr. Stephens points towards a foreign policy which has at its core the cultivation of liberty decency freedom and opportunity; it is a foreign policy the Democrats ought to pursue as well. It is unburdened by Trumpian scapegoating and bloviating and the radical race theories and resentments which is behind so much of the American left's domestic and foreign policies today.
6
All well and good that Stephens decries the Iranian dictatorship/kleptocracy. He states that the wealth is not trickling down. Stephens should add a caveat that this nation under Trump with a Congress funded by profiteers mainly for fossil fuel industries is a budding kleptocracy whose leader threatens democratic institutions. And where wealth is not trickling down and won't any faster with the latest corporate tax gift.
54
Although I despise Trump as much as you, can't we see anuthing except through the lens of our own domestic policy?
2
I'm not exactly sure what Iran is, or that people there even know, much as Americans probably can't say exactly what their own country is at this point. But I am sure that we in the U.S. do not need a war there, and I suspect Iranians would agree. We need to stick with the rational and pragmatic nuclear deal. And let Iran work things out for Iran. Here at home, we need to work tirelessly to ensure that cooler heads will always prevail.
36
When the hooligans take over peaceful protests are doomed. And that was exactly what we saw happening in Iran. Buildings were set on fire, cops were shot and foreign based terrorists (pardon, resistance fighters) streamed into the country. This was no longer an initiative where a law abiding father would participate.
Stephens finds it positive that so soon people were asking for regime change. I consider it disappointing that the protesters were unable to stay on track and that a small activist minority took over.
It was disappointing that the protesters were incapable of showing the maturity that can achieve real results. It was even more disappointing that the US in its eagerness to achieve regime change very likely played a negative role in this.
8
When was the last time that any protest movement stuck to the discipline of civil disobedience? Civil rights in the south, 1960’s? Powerful but application is another matter and maybe it’s not for me to judge. Still, in my idealistic moments I marvel at the possibility.
Mr. Stephens could have written about a society of silicon rocks on Alpha Centauri and he would have shown pretty much the same knowledge about their world than he has about Iran.
Yes, Iran has a number of problems that direly need saving.
No, the West, especially the US with it's history of coups and murders in Iran has no role to play in the solution of the problems that Iran is facing.
It is an unbelievable amount of arrogance to suggest that regime change in Iran is something the West needs to support or even handle.
Unlike nearly all of its neighbours, Iran is a state and not a collection of clans and families that run a religion based dictatorship.
Iran has a well educated and well connected population which will change the country and probably even drive out the Mullahs.
But they will not do so as long as people like Mr. Stephens and Trump try to press their understanding of what Iran should be onto them.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, unites people even behind the most oppressive regime like a perceived foreign enemy.
Had Mr. Stephens even the faintest idea about Iran and its society, he would never have written this article as it only serves to show what is wrong with the "liberals" of the West.
They know it all while they never understand anything but the view of their own limited ideas.
The same way the Mullahs view their corner of the world.
Let the Iranians sort out their problems on their own terms and refrain from even considering an intervention.
98
Syria's regime, an Iranian client, was on the verge of collapse and Iraq was being stabilized, but US strategic ignorance turned the opportunity to defang not only the Assad regime, but Hezbollah and Hamas as well, into a humanitarian disaster that has benefited the vile strategic interests of both Russia and Iran. Iran, infused with cash, pushed its unexpected advantage, including in Yemen and Iraq. What an unexpected (and still unlikely) blessing if the Iranian people can rise up and topple their evil regime. Thank you for this well considered opinion, Mr. Stephens.
2
Choose: Saudi Arabia or Iran. I choose Iran. They could be, and should be, our best friends in the Middle East. A little help and a lot of encouragement would go a long way to establishing a relationship. Unfortunately, Trump is eager to punish them, as a final, and fatal distraction. Huuuuge mistake. Thanks, GOP.
64
The recent protests against the entire clerical leadership and establishment is a strong indication that the reformist faction of the government is vested in keeping the theocratic regime in power, and has only acted as a facade and protective cover for the hard-liners. The West should support a secular democratic alternative for Iran. The best way to help Iranians is to help them find alternative methods of accessing social media platforms.
2
It is past time for the US to leave Iran alone and stop interfering in its internal affairs. We botched it a long time ago by overthrowing their democratically elected leader in the 1950s. We should be grateful that there is a nuclear agreement and leave them alone. I guess the temptation to control all that oil is just too much for Mr. Tillerson and friends. Just lift the sanctions, do business with Iran and leave them alone!
27
What Iran also "is" is its people, culture, and history. Iran is not just its government or politics. It's a country with rich traditions and a very youthful population. It produces many high-achieving scientists and mathematicians.
We should engage with the youth of Iran, instead of demonizing and stigmatizing the country, so that long-term we have the opportunity to help nudge the country in a more democratic, prosperous, and peaceful direction.
12
If Trump wants to promote the AMERICA FIRST policy, he has to be consistent at any time. Stop interfering with the internal affair of Iran benefits US as well as the rest of the world. Every country has its own system based on its own social environment. Trump has to RESPECT it.
5
It is great idea that American institutions or universities publish data concerning all the money that corrupt leaders of Iran still from the people, but it is not a good idea President Trump who is no good reputation among most intelligent people, Americans or Iranians say anything about Iran. Basically this is a domestic issue and foreigners have no business getting involved in the matter. Having said this freedom loving people of America specially academicians who have no political or economic self-interest are more than welcome to help the people of Iran.
What US government can do is to ease the travel ban and exchange of ideas between the two nations.Iranian people are the most pro West, and possibility of Iran in near future to be a US ally is more likely than any other Muslim country as it used to be the case before the revolution.
Americans know little about Iranian people, even though more than a million Iranians live in US and mostly are highly educated and good tax payer and have higher level of income and assimilation in US than any Muslim people.
For a change US should act based on its value system not its short term economic interest.
35
No, real democracies don’t live in fear of their own people. But point to me a Muslim state that lives under strict Sharia that doesn’t. But, then, it’s hard to argue with God – what purpose legislatures that are other than rubber-stamps and representative government when you have a handy burning bush? A cautionary consideration for our own evangelicals, and specifically Mike Pence, whom so many Democrats seem to want as our president.
I like Bret’s (and Ken Weinstein’s … uh … any relation?) notion of outing Sedat more transparently, just on basic principles. But I must seriously question its prospective effectiveness. Yet again (interminably), a strict Sharia state (perhaps the strictest) has brutally put down popular protests that might have become mini-rebellions. In the unlikely event (surely the Iranians know the details better than we) that an outing of the network of official corruption within the “Kleptotheocracy” were to incite widespread rebellion, what makes Bret think that mountains of skulls in the desert wouldn’t miraculously appear that would put ISIS to shame?
No, these kinds of theocratic dictatorships tend to be very stable – BECAUSE they live in fear of their own people. When they actually fall, it’s almost always at the hand of some external force. Egypt is the only memorable outlier, and who did they hand power to there? A proponent of strict Sharia. And how well did THAT turn out? They swapped one corrupt dictatorship for another, then another.
3
We need to stop these efforts to convert the faux-faithful and the piratical. Joe Biden’s idea remains the sensible one: erect a cordon sanitaire around the whole region, send in Special Forces, missiles, bunker-busters and drones when anything inside the cordon and noticed by satellites appears to be threatening to anything outside it, and just … let them be. Cannibalism likely soon will ensue. But they won’t be eating Americans or Brits or Frenchmen.
6
I agree with most of your sentiments but...Democrats yearning for a President Pence? Do we really have to swallow the impulses of a possibly treasonous lunatic in order to stave off those of a hardline moralist? That's a Hobson's choice if ever there was one but given those options I'd rather the one that would present less damage to the nation. Those who are truly paranoid over the prospect of a President Pence should have kept that in mind before pulling the lever for his boss.
3
It is impossible that the secret of the wealth stolen from the society by the ruling religio-military-social elite is unknown to the Iranians in this Internet age, and it requires the US effort to enlighten the Iranians about it. As about the issue of how the West should respond to the current Kleptocracy in Iran so that the country could be pushed to the democratic road, if the suggestion of further exposure of this reality with a sustained support to the ongoing popular protests is followed through, it is likely that instead of ushering reforms and democracy such Western effort could rather lead to further consolidation of the Kleptocracy, exposing the protesters and the emerging constituency of democracy to new threats of repression by the authorities and the religio-social reactionary forces.
5
I absolutely agree with everything that Mr. Stephens asserts and recommends in this op/ed piece, but with this caveat: the U.S. is presently governed by a man whose own authoritative impulses have far more in common with those of Iran's leaders than with the freedom-seeking instincts of their critics. Indeed, it's clear that Trump's opposition to the mullahs and the military is predicated on his aversion to the deal forged by his predecessor to curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions; it has nothing at all to do with consumer prices in Mashhad or progressive attitudes in Tehran. Let us by all means call out Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards, but making common cause with the equally oppressive Saudis, Egyptians, Turks and (yes!) Israelis- let alone The Donald's old ally in Moscow or his new one in Beijing- doesn't afford him much in the way of credibility when he tweets his encouragement to the brave citizens of Iran.
44
Still thinking in terms of regime change, eh? How about respecting local customs, history, values, and traditions and not imposing our liberal Jeffersonian Western Democracy judgments with such abandon?
This doesn't have anything to do with Trump, but mentioning him does take our attention away from our own attitudes, doesn't it?
1
“Is Iran a democracy or a dictatorship?”
Compared to what?
It is a democracy compared to US allies like Saudi Arabia, any of the Gulf, Egypt's military dictatorship, Jordan's absolute monarchy, Pakistan or Afghanistan.
It is a dictatorship compared to Canada or Sweden.
And compared to Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell? Really?
It has real elections, with some real choices, albeit limited to only some choices. Then again, Americans only get the choice of who is put up by the donors of two parties, so it is much the same here.
The disorder is exaggerated, and so is the crackdown. Israel kills more Palestinians each year. The Saudis are slaughtering people in Yemen. The disorder in Iraq kills about 2,500 each month, and that is the freedom and democracy of which we boast bringing there.
This is hype for a war. No. We should not have a war with Iran. We'd be lucky to do a deal with North Korea that works as well as Obama's with Iran, and there is no sign we are even trying for that.
161
Well said, Mark.
5
Thank you, Mark Thomason, for putting things in perspective.
Yes, Iranians are miserable, and our Government is corrupt, as are all Middle Eastern governments (and the U.S. Government). But these are not the reasons Iranians rioted. If sanctions had been genuinely lifted there would have been no riots, because $$$ billions of unpaid invoices to sub-contractors would have been paid, workers' salaries would have been paid and there would have been a palpable sense of improvement.
The U.S. used exactly the same dirty tricks in 2003. I was deeply involved. The blatant torpedoing of Iran's reform movement created Ahmadinejad. Do you want the same again?
Lift the sanctions and I guarantee there will be no more rioting for the foreseeable future. In fact, you may reap even greater rewards by establishing trust. Right now, Iranians wouldn't trust the U.S. any further than they can throw it.
So, yes, I attribute Iran's misery of the past 40 years entirely to U.S. misdeeds and miscalculations, from U.S. encouragement of Saddam's invasion that killed one million of my countrymen to demonizing Iran after receiving its sympathy and invaluable assistance in the aftermath of 9/11;
And please don't mention corruption and human rights with a straight face while you are propping up the sickest nation on Earth, you know, the one that destroyed the Twin Towers, bombed the Pentagon, inspired Orlando and San Bernardino and caused massacres in most major European cities and across the globe.
12
Anyone who thinks that the United States of America under Donald Trump is as bad as Iran under the Mullahs has lost their grip on reality. Nobody in the United States is jailed for expressing their opinions (though liberals often advocate for doing so). Nobody is seizing people's property to enrich the leaders (except when liberals condemn "blighted" neighborhoods through eminent domain so that their contributors can develop the property). Elections results are not rejected by a shadowy deep state (but liberals are trying to undo the results of the 2016 election).
4
It would seem that Iran is a kleptocratic theocracy. So it looks to me the best way to fight theocracy is with theocracy.
You make the people aware of how the religious leaders are stealing from them and ask them, is this what Mohamed would do? It is not different when we ask those good old boy from Alabama, is this what Christ would do?
Making them aware of the violations of the Koran and encouraging them to make their leaders adhere to it would be a powerful weapon. They could not disobey the word of the prophet, they could not claim exemption, that would be heresy. of course grand arguments over what he did say would ensue, but they can not deny their religion without fear of exile or even death.
You do not fight theocracies from the outside, you fight them from within. As Lincoln said, a house divided can not stand. So divide the house. Attack it and it solidifies against a common enemy. Tell the citizens of Iran what the Ayatollahs are doing with their money, how they are being swindled in the name of Allah, and they will revolt.
16
in case you hadn't noticed, it did not work so well re: Roy Moore in Alabama, who had overwhelming support from the religious Christian in name only fundamentalists that usually supported him. They really are not very interested in what Christ would do from their actions that are mostly opposite -- supporting and comforting the rich at the expense of the poor and needy.
But, by all means it is worth trying, although unlikely they will accept the West as the authoritative messenger of what is wrong with their religious leadership.
6
@David Underwood, your proposal, while well intended, is esoteric. How can you "make people aware of the violations of the Koran" when each has its own interpretation of it? The Sunnis and Shi'ites each consider the other's faith as 'heretic'. Literally.
As for 'naming and shaming', what good does this do other than to raise the hackles of the Kleptocracy? The ordinary Iranian on the street, unemployed and devoid of hope, doesn't want to read about who stole what: He/she knows this already. He/she needs a job, money, to provide food and shelter for the family. Lifting of sanctions would have enabled this. Reimposing sanctions merely augmented the misery of ordinary Iranians, not only by discouraging foreign investment in Iran but by cementing the regime's 'siege mentality'.
What the U.S. is practising is the worst form of Economic Terrorism. It didn't effect regime change in tiny, poor, defenceless Cuba for 60 years, and it certainly won't effect regime change in 2,500 year old Iran. No Iranian, other than the Shah's son, the terrorist MKO and a few other opportunists, wants to see Iran become a client state, whether of the U.S., Russia or China. But U.S. bluster, threats and economic terrorism are giving Iran no choice but to let the Trojan Horses in.
I hope the U.S. wakes up before it's too late. If only your nation were run by NYT readers (No, not you, Richard) ........
7