The blogospheric dynamic often resembles that of a particularly raucous frat party. Someone gets the idea in their head to dance on a table. Suddenly dancing on tables with a bottle in hand is the best idea to occur to anyone, not dancing on tables is a sign of depravity, and the drunken boys surrounding the table chanting “Chug! Chug! Chug!” reinforce the dancer’s dubious choice. Hours later the dancer comes to, facedown in a lampshade, and, at this particular party, wondering what on earth he could have done in his stupor to earn the plastic green beads roped around his neck.
Do not mistake my silence on Iran for a lack of interest. Like everyone else, I’m reading the blogs and the tweets. I find the regime’s violence abhorrent. I sympathize with the protesters. They look like the nearby counterparts of my friends and students. I am impressed by their courage, and I suspect that there is no force fiercer than an Iranian mother.
I’m conscious, however, of how little I know about Iran or Iranian politics, and discretion being the better part of amateur punditry, I didn’t have much to say. Here’s the thing: neither does anyone else know what is going on. We have a narrative that says, truthfully, oppressive regimes that fake election results and beat up their citizens are bad, and non-violent protesters of those results are good. The problem is with the further embellishment: that “bad” and “good” map onto domestic American politics concerns, attitudes, and goals; that the favored protesters would, if they won, be recognized by the U.S. political establishment and chattering classes as allies; that Iranian politics is as familiar to us our own so that we can feel confident in the comparisons.
Would we trust a pundit who thought that Barack Obama was a Republican, or that in the United States, Presidents were elected by a simple majority vote?
Daniel Larison noted last week that with a slightly different spin or simply some more information, Mousavi would not look as favorable to the West. Will Wilkinson’s latest posts on the “vanity dressed up as elevated moral consciousness” of Twitter avatars strike me as extremely perceptive. Exiled Iranian filmmaker Lila Ghobady has a much harsher view of both the current regime and Mousavi as a reformer:
Let us not forget that Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran in the 1980s when more than ten thousand political prisoners were executed after three-minute sham trials. He has been a part of the Iranian dictatorship system for the past 30 years. If he had not been, he would not be allowed to be a candidate in the first place. In fact in a free democratic state someone like Mousavi should have gone on trial before becoming a presidential candidate for his crimes against thousands of freedom-loving political prisoners who were killed during the time he was Iran’s Prime Minister.
Read her whole column. At the very least, it shows how little we should be confident of understanding the situation or of the morality of breathlessly cheering it on. I am not arguing that there is no reason for the protesters to take to the streets. Nor am I arguing that Mousavi would be worse, or that the Iranian leadership is a force for good.
I am, however, counseling sobriety.
It is easy to get swept up in a romantic narrative of someone else’s passionate struggle from behind the safety of one’s keyboard. Revolutions are exciting from far away, and the illusion of participation in something greater than oneself by…. making your Twitter avatar green… by bloviating about it on the Internet….changing your Facebook status… being anti-green Muppets…. protesting the irresponsible consumption of ice cream…is seductive.
It’s unclear right now what will happen. The very real risk on our end is no matter how the Iranian political dispute is resolved, this incident will become grist for a future ill-conceived war. The same groups rending their garments over the murder of Neda will be calling for the bombing of her relatives.
So, I think the intellectually and morally responsible thing to do is to hope quietly and read voraciously.
The Edge of the American West 
22 comments
June 24, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Vance
EotAW, your go-to blog for uncertainty, restraint and untriumphalism.
June 24, 2009 at 1:16 pm
dana
We do aim to cover all the bases.
June 24, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Erik Lund
I had ice cream last night. It was good.
June 24, 2009 at 1:35 pm
dana
I had homemade mint ice cream last week. It was NOT green.
June 24, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Standpipe Bridgeplate
Anti-green Muppets? Like, magenta Muppets?
June 24, 2009 at 2:26 pm
zunguzungu
I wrote something very similar over at my blog just a moment ago (*after* reading your post, I’ll forthrightly admit) and stand by the sentiment. But almost immediately I was struck by what a nice argument it is for not getting involved, a great rationalization for quietism. And while conservative hacks have done a good job to poison the entire argument by misusing the specter of Neville Chamberlain, there is still a moral argument for doing the *something* in moments like these that’s hard to get rid of. Or maybe that’s just the hangover for half a century of American interventions in Iran? You lose even the right to try to do anything *good* in good conscience.
June 24, 2009 at 2:39 pm
dana
I have no problems with doing productive things, or staying informed. I have a huge problem with meaningless gestures becoming shibboleths, especially when the aesthetics of the discourse are reminding me of the build-up to the most recent Iraq war.
SB, I just grab handfuls of hyphens and throw them at the text like chocolate sprinkles.
June 24, 2009 at 2:49 pm
baa
Dana, I understand the point of view you are articulating here, but I don’t think I can endorse it.
You write:
The very real risk on our end is no matter how the Iranian political dispute is resolved, this incident will become grist for a future ill-conceived war
I understand that the shadow of the Iraq war has made everyone very cognizant of the risks of ill-conceived military intervention. But this isn’t the only risk out there.
The other risk is that US government and/or the world community will do precisely nothing. And that they will do nothing in a circumstance where doing something (diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, maybe even military action) would have a high likelihood of decreasing human suffering and helping people like those protesting now.
I think history also gives us reason to be concerned about this risk. Emotional appeals do not always, or even usually, lead to action. The slaughter of Africans in Darfur hasn’t led to meaningful international action, nor did it in Rwanda. And it’s probably useful to note that the counsel of prudence we hear from Larison also counseled inaction in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Gulf War I (at least, this was Buchanan’s position which I would imagine Larison shares). And while NATO intervention in Bosnia certainly was the result of an emotional appeal, it was certainly a long time in coming.
Now it may be that in the case of Iran there are no options which can meaningfully improve the situation. Or that the best option is the type of criticism offered by Sarkozy and Merkel (and now by Obama). I certainly don’t see any great options out there.
But if we think that sometimes US or EU or UN action can do some good, then one thing that one might want to do is makes one’s government aware of one’s concern. That’s what rallies in support do, that’s what turning your avatar green does, that’s what calling your congressman does: it makes the topic a focal point of government concern. So rather than ‘hoping quietly’ I would perhaps advocate ‘hoping loudly.’
June 24, 2009 at 3:16 pm
dana
baa, thanks for your comment. Where I’d disagree is in three points, though I don’t think our positions are far off.
First, that the U.S. can do any kind of good here in this particular case; we’re just not the best or even a good actor. Wrong voice for this message. Like an ex-boyfriend telling you how to treat your wife. I suspect that some of my complacency here is due to the fact that I think our government is playing this very intelligently (the flipside to inaction in Darfur is calling for the people of Iraq to overthrow Hussein in 1991.)
Second, I don’t mean to deny the potential power of emotional appeals, but I am skeptical of that power being put to any good in a situation such as this where the background knowledge is so low. I could write, without stretching facts any further than the current articles, an article which painted Mousavi alternately as a latte-sipping elite (his supporters are university students!) and an Islamist radical who presided over a brutal regime in the 80s whose supporters hope to reinvigorate the Iranian Islamic Republic (they shout Allahuakbar in the streets! etc.) Wearing a green badge might not do all that much, but wearing a green badge when I have a shade of an inkling of clue strikes me as nothing more than fashion.
Third, I’m mostly focused here on the question of whether a blog about American history, toy philosophy problems, chintzy politics, and Muppets needs to have a post on Iran simply because that’s what’s done. I think it’s worth pondering why uninformed commentary (note, SEK had already had something positive to contribute, so we weren’t ignoring the crisis) itself would be something sought for on something so important.
June 24, 2009 at 3:28 pm
TF Smith
Don’t just do something, stand there…
June 24, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Paula
A skeptical hmmph re the Wilkinson link …
I work in a university and I’m not all that far removed from my own days as a student. And I’m a woman. And I have a mother. So when I see folks in Iran who look like me and mine in the street getting mowed by motorcycles and being gunned down just for wanting their effing vote counted, forgive me if I have a visceral reaction of distress and a need to “do something”.
That being said, I’ve refrained from even having an opinion on the matter just because we really don’t know what’s in the minds of these protesters and what the nuances on the ground are. And being an American, understanding how Western media tends to shape ideas about the ME, and knowing our history with Iran specifically makes the idea of even responding this mess beyond “stop killing your own people” feel deeply wrong.
June 24, 2009 at 8:33 pm
jazzbumpa
Dana –
Evidently you felt the need to make the post. That is reason enough.
Greening one’s avatar, etc. is OK because it probably makes one feel good, and it is very unlikely to cause any harm.
I have a fourth point of at least partial disagreement with baa, and TF Smith if I’m reading her/him right. The idea that the U.S. needs to be doing something – or that it is even proper for us to think about doing something – is rooted in the notion of American Exceptionalism. Anyone who still believes in that myth needs some reality lessons. Andrew Bacevich’s The Limits of Power is a good place to start.
June 24, 2009 at 11:09 pm
TF Smith
JB –
No, I actually agree with Dana – there is very little the US CAN do in Iran that will be of benefit to our nation’s interests, much less those of the Iranian opposition (how’s that for a neutral description?), but there is much that the US COULD do that would actually play into the hands of the current Iranian government.
Hence my crack about standing pat, rather than “doing something,” simply to be seen “doing something.”
Which would be what, again? Withdrawing our ambassador? Don’t have one. Cutting back trade? Don’t think we have much if any as it is…
The Iranian people will forge their own future, by themselves; unless the UN is willing to approve an embargo by all member states against all oil purchases from Iran, there is very little the US should do other than wishing the Iranian opposition well.
June 25, 2009 at 4:59 am
lawguy
I guess I wonder who did in fact win the election. Didn’t all the polls prior to the election show an outcome similar to what the government claimed happened?
June 25, 2009 at 6:51 am
Walt
lawguy: No.
June 25, 2009 at 7:23 am
Ben Alpers
There’s also an ugly U.S. domestic political dimension to some of the blogospheric symbolic politics here: an attempt to shame Obama for his alleged failure to “do something.”
I’m very distressed about the way Obama is handling war, torture, secrecy, gay rights, and health care (among other things). But I think he is handling the Iranian situation about as well as he can.
So since my symbolic “greening” of…well I’m not sure I have anything online to “green,” but if I did, whatever that would be…would have no effect whatsoever on the situation in Iran while pushing our domestic political discussion in an unhelpful direction, I would choose not to engage in “greening.”
On the other hand, I’m all in favor of online efforts to actually give the Iranian people more say in their own future, e.g. proxy activists who are working to give Iranians access to the internet that the Iranian government would deny them.
June 25, 2009 at 8:17 am
Vance
The delusion is catching. At the end of a substantive post on the American journalists held by North Korea, Nicholas Kristof writes:
(Via Roger Ailes, whose permalinks can be rendered functional by a simple trim.)
June 25, 2009 at 8:59 am
baa
whether a blog about American history, toy philosophy problems, chintzy politics, and Muppets needs to have a post on Iran simply because that’s what’s done
Absolutely not.
But with Wilkinson and Larison we see the point being taken a step further — namely that expressions of solidarity with the protesters are incorrect or tools of the nefarious neocons. Seriously, Wilkinson talks about becoming Bill Kristol’s useful idiots in a post about turning your avatar green. I’d also note that the expressions of support or solidarity with the protesters that I have seen have not readily confusable with expressions of support for Mousavi personally, or endorsement of the idea that he represents a New Mandela or any such jive.
June 25, 2009 at 9:14 am
politicalfootball
namely that expressions of solidarity with the protesters are incorrect or tools of the nefarious neocons.
But it is clearly true that expressions of solidarity with the protesters are a tool of nefarious neocons. Whether that makes them incorrect is a different judgment, dependent on circumstances.
One can overlearn a lesson, but if there’s one thing we ought to have learned, it’s that any good impulse – democracy promotion! in Iraq! – can have disasstrously bad effects if it’s carried out in a way that also promotes the goals of neocons.
June 25, 2009 at 9:28 am
Ben Alpers
But it is clearly true that expressions of solidarity with the protesters are a tool of nefarious neocons.
Yes.
And this is not a matter of simply saying “well the neocons are doing it for nefarious reasons, so I have to object to it.” That would be no more sensible than the decision of some vaguely anti-war liberals to stay home from the protests against invading Iraq in 2002 and early 2003 because they were upset by the visibility of ANSWER.
It’s a question of a rough cost-benefit analysis. There is little reason to think that these icon-greening expressions of solidarity will have any positive effect on the ground in Iran. And there are good reasons to think that such expressions will have a nefarious effect on US politics.
So I’m sympathetic to Wilkinson’s view of them.
June 25, 2009 at 10:14 am
baa
But it is clearly true that expressions of solidarity with the protesters are a tool of nefarious neocons.
Oy vey. To use a neocon term of art.
June 25, 2009 at 11:46 am
SEK
SEK had already had something positive to contribute, so we weren’t ignoring the crisis
The thing is, I wasn’t really writing about Iran so much as covering my beat: the way that conservatives who mistakenly think they know X go about flaunting their ostensible authority. So even my posts about Iran weren’t really “about Iran.”