“…could only have been coined by someone who never had to bet his life on it”.

Fouad Ajami on the folly of trying to expect “diplomacy” in the traditional sense from the Mullahs:

But in truth Iran had never wanted an opening to the U.S. For the length of three decades, the custodians of the theocracy have had precisely the level of enmity toward the U.S. they have wanted — just enough to be an ideological glue for the regime but not enough to be a threat to their power. Iran’s rulers have made their way in the world with relative ease.

The US – whether ruled by benign neglectors like Clinton, dithering dilettantes like Obama, or, within limits, Wilsonian firebrands like Bush II – always serves as any enemy (that’s not actually in the process of conquering you) serves to dictators; providing a boogieman to wave at the people to justify your power:

The Cold War and oil bailed them out. So did the false hope that the revolution would mellow and make its peace with the world.

Mr. Obama may believe that his offer to Iran is a break with a hard-line American policy. But nothing could be further from the truth. In 1989, in his inaugural, George H.W. Bush extended an offer to Iran: “Good will begets good will,” he said. A decade later, in a typically Clintonian spirit of penance and contrition, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright came forth with a full apology for America’s role in the 1953 coup that ousted nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

Iran’s rulers scoffed.

Ajami goes on to explain why; you really do need to read the whole thing.
Conclusion:

That ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom has not served American policy well in this crisis. We had tried to “cheat” — an opening to the regime with an obligatory wink to those who took to the streets appalled by their rulers’ cynicism and utter disregard for their people’s intelligence and common sense — and we were caught at it. Mr. Obama’s statement that “the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as had been advertised” put on cruel display the administration’s incoherence. For once, there was an acknowledgment by this young president of history’s burden: “Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.” No Wilsonianism on offer here.

Well, actually, I believe there is.

Remember:  Wilson is known today for his aggressive foreign policy toward US ends; it’s why Bush and the Neocons were called “Wilsonian” after all (like you couldn’t see that coming?).

But there was an earlier Wilson, the one that was in power as the US slid toward war; given to issuing grandiloquent statements and waving around what a “smart guy” he was compared with his predecessor (he’d been president of Princeton, you dumb peasants!) but not really doing a whole lot, trying to keep the US above the war in Europe but getting us inextricably entangled with it, and finally into it (at a time when we were almost comically unprepared for war of any kind)…

I’m seeing plenty of that Wilson on offer.

This entry was posted by by Mitch Berg on Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 at 7:43 am and is filed under War On Terror, World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.