Hanson wonders, if it is arguably true that President Bush's support would have tainted Iranian anti-regime protesters, why doesn't President Obama's self-proclaimed ability to reach out to the Islamic world allow him to support such democrats without tainting them? And then allow him to explain to the wider world why we need to support the removal of the mullah regime?
The regime pretends we support the dissidents, regardless of our lack of support.
Given that our choices are negotiating with Iran (and Iran won't give up nukes--just pretend to do so if we pretend to believe them), attacking Iran (which does have the potential to trigger a backlash in the Islamic world and in Iran, although I believe both worries are overblown), or changing the regime, why are we not looking at the latter? Especially when there are lots of Iranians who already hate the regime?
Hard-headed realism increasingly looks to be stripped of realism, when it comes to our Iran policy.
About Me
- Brian J. Dunn
- I live and write in Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Michigan AB and MA from Eastern Michigan University. One term in the Michigan Army National Guard. Former American history instructor and retired nonpartisan research analyst. I write on Blogger and Substack. Various military and private journals have published my occasional articles on military subjects. See "My Published Works" on the TDR web version or under the mobile version drop-down menu for citations and links.
