Bits For Rent

Though I have been trying to steer myself away from too much political blogging, I believe that the current situation in Iran demands a closer evaluation from all free citizens of the world. What we are witnessing in this country, to me, is something beautifully human: a massive uprising from within an oppressed nation that is both peaceful in nature and ruthless in its accusations. It is millions of “free” citizens crying foul at their government, demanding justice and due diligence from a body politic even the United States dares not trifle with. For the first time since perhaps the Second World War, or maybe even the Bolsheviks, we are looking at what may be the start of a political revolution.

I say “may” because, as is the case with any authoritarian or totalitarian state, the workings of government are not as cut-and-dry as we Americans are accustomed to. Censoring, silencing, and propaganda will and have already played a large role in how the Iranian government subverts any public resistance to its “election” and enforces its own will. However, governments are ancient, slow-moving institutions not designed to handle the lightning-fast pace of modern technological innovations, and any dragnet laid by Iran over the voices of its people will almost certainly be subverted or penetrated by those with the power and the will to tell the free world their side of this story. China has been dealing with this fact for years, and in several cases has even conceded some liberties back to its citizens which it had previously tried to withhold. Still, we cannot expect miracles; Iran will do whatever it can to keep foreign powers from meddling in this situation, and its best chances of accomplishing that goal are to limit the flow of information out of the country as best it can.

I also say “may” because Iran has already proven it is more than willing to use violence to coerce cooperation out of protesters should they not submit to “reason”. If there is an official death count being kept by their government, you can bet your ass we’re not going to be seeing it anytime soon. If we do, the Iyatollah will clear out his cabinet so fast that even Stalin would blush. Put simply, these guys ain’t going down without a fight. This isn’t the French monarchy being overthrown, by the vicious, starving masses. This is shaping up into a battle where the side who has more to lose will be the victor, and right now the Iranian government is the one with the greater look of desperation on its face.

But that’s the great thing about political revolutions and upheavals — the longer they are drawn out passively and without violence on the side of the dissenters, the more righteous that side becomes. The Iranian people protesting need to know that time is on their sides: the longer this goes on, the more time they have to possibly unearth the truth, win over foreign interests to their cause, and force the government to play nicely as the entire world watches with keen interest as each day’s events unfold. Like Obama said in his speech, quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Ultimately, whether it be 10 days or 10 years from now, there will be a reckoning for any wrongdoing that may have occurred in this “free” election. The course of nature will ensure this. However, it falls to us, and the Iranian people specifically, to keep the signal fires burning for all to see, so that what has transpired does not find its way swept under the large, smothering rug of history and human disinterest.

But what of our part in this wonderful bit of Iranian Kabuki Theater? There have been cries for our president to take stronger action against Iran, to involve ourselves in the settling of this civil dispute. Personally, I feel that there is no course open to us other than the one we are currently on. Let’s draw an allusion, here. Imagine you are walking through a crowded pubic park and you happen to catch, out of the corner of your eye, a mother slapping her child for something you didn’t see. Regardless of whether the child deserved to be hit, you feel inclined to take action. In America, we know that we are not going to be able to just walk up and punch out the mom while saying, “have a taste of your own medicine, bitch!” It just doesn’t work that way. However, we would be perfectly fine with addressing the mother by saying that it is wrong to strike a child and surely she can find a way to reprimand her children without violence. If the mother is truly abusive, we can notify the police and have the situation resolved by a judicial power that has jurisdiction over something such as child abuse. Ultimately, though the matter may be of our own concern, it is not within our rights to take direct action in response to it.

Now say that the mother is Iran, the child is its people, and America is the bystander. The only major difference between the allusion and reality is that America does not have a police officer to report the wrongdoing to — the United Nations lack jurisdiction over governing bodies and can do little more than a crowd of people would be able to do towards the mother in the story; i.e., it could badger her into submission but mostly just stand there and say, “How could you?” in a really accusatory tone. This is the situation that our president finds himself in, expect in his case the mother would also have a nuclear weapon in her purse. At best, all he can or should do for Iran is let them know that we support the righteous act of seeking justice, and that America is the ally of any party or person pursuing such actions.

As I am a fan of drawing allusions today, I also found it interest that what Obama is faced with now is in some ways not so different than what John Adams was faced with during the first throes of the French Revolution. Back then, Adams was reluctant to rush to the side of France in usurping the monarchy because the nation was still young and reeling from its own violent birth. Also, it would have more than likely shattered ties with Britain, who had become a key trading partner in the late 1700s. For Obama, to side with the dissenting citizens in Iran would be to endanger our already perilous position in the Middle East, to draw the ire of yet another government on the verge of nuclear capabilities, and to cast Americans into yet another foreign war of independence that would put our soldiers in harm’s way and burden us with yet another country to restructure in a region where public opinion of us tends to run rather cold. If Korea and Vietnam weren’t enough proof in the past, the quagmire of Iraq most certainly is. To those of you demanding swifter action and a more hawkish response from the president, I say stay your sabers. There is much yet to gleaned from this fallout, and the one who looks before leaping is almost guaranteed to be better off for it. So watch, wait, and — most importantly — remember what happens next. It could be a long time before you ever see something like this happen again.

Addendum: I don’t know why I bother writing sometimes, especially when the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan says it all so much better than I ever could.