.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
Josh Block palling around at Democratic convention with Haaretz's Natasha Mozgovaya and United Jewish Communities' Bill Daroff (Ron Kampeas)
Josh Block, Aipac’s former PR flack and media enforcer, has a new perch at the rather inaptly named Progressive Policy Institute, the place where hawkish Democrats go to die politically. Apparently, the PPI hired Josh because they didn’t have enough street cred with the pro-Israel crowd. Josh’s first initiative since coming there is a doozy. He’s trying to exploit the political prominence of the Arab Spring democratic revolutions by hitching a new anti-Iranian so-called “democracy initiative” to them. He’s doing this with another Bush-era neocon darling with a special interest in promoting anti-jihadi views, Freedom House:
With democratic revolutions shaking the Middle East, a Democratic think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, and the pro-democracy group Freedom House are launching a new task force aimed at shifting American policy on its central regional foe, Iran, toward a more aggressive focus on democracy.
The new “Iran Strategy Task Force” is subtitled “Beyond Sanctions…”
You know what “beyond sanctions” is code word for, don’t you? Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. And don’t ya just love that phrase “aggressive focus on democracy?” Since when is the pursuit of democracy ‘aggressive?’ Since when does democracy come from pre-emptive air strikes or regime change such as the anti-Iran hawks propose? And you know that’s what “aggressive” really means.
The names of the “luminaries” chosen for this august undertaking are also revealing, as they show its clear right-wing pro-Israel bias, and the slow drift rightward of some figures who should know better. Among them are: Ken Pollack, Ray Tayekh, Steve Beckerman (Aipac), Rob Satloff (WINEP), Walter Russell Mead, Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution).
Memo to Josh: Iran doesn’t need your meddling. In fact, if you really want democracy in Iran, butt out. All the ayatollahs need to hear is that people like you are cynically trying to hijack the Arab revolution for your anti-Iran agenda, and they will turn around and yoke the real Iranian democracy activists like Moussavi and Karroubi to you. That will be the end of Iranian democracy for the next ten years.
If Iranian democracy is to develop, we cannot be seen to be meddling internally or even lobbying aggressively outside Iran for to become what we want it to become. That’s poison for the reformers that we support and Josh professes to support. The truth is that Josh Block doesn’t care much about the people of Iran or democracy there. Israel is his agenda and advancing the Likudist vision of Iran as an international hegemonic bogeyman is what Josh is really about. If you scratched beneath the surface (or maybe not even), Josh is likely one of the “bomb Iran” crowd. So his alleged support of Iranian democracy derives from his desire for regime change. What he won’t tell you is that his “aggressive” pursuit of democracy really means he’s in favor of attacking Iran, rather than promoting democracy there. If Iran could re-introduce a new Shah who would be pro-Israel, that would likely be fine with Josh and some of this crowd. The only reason Josh doesn’t overtly support monarchism, as many wealthy Iranian-American Jews do, is that it’s declasse in this age of Arab revolution.
Now, would he prefer that the masses of Iranians rise up and overthrow their masters in a bloodless revolution? Probably. But I think Josh would take an overthrow any way he can get it with or without violence, with or without democracy as the ultimate outcome. Claiming to support Iranian democracy is the ultimate political opportunism.
Tags: aipac, iran, iran-attack, israel-lobby, progressive, regime change
“If Israeli democracy is to develop, we cannot be seen to be meddling internally or even lobbying aggressively outside Israel for to become what we want it to become. That’s poison for the reformers that we support”
Uh…
Israel is supposedly a democracy. Iran is a closed authoritarian system. Now if you wish to argue that Israel has the same authoritarian system as Iran and that’s why we mustn’t meddle in Israel’s internal politics, that would be an interesting argument. Is that one you wish to make?
It was just a hypothetical question really. But, again hypothetically, if Israel were to become as authoritarian as Iran, your sentence implies that the best thing to do would be for foreign elements to leave it be. But don’t get me wrong, I think the two situations are or would be dramatically different. Certainly Jews living outside of Israel could validly be critical of Israel were it to slide into fascism or whatever. I guess the more germane question is, what are relevant differences between Iran and Israel that would necessitate different approaches to humanitarian issues in both countries?
No it doesn’t imply that. I don’t feel the same about Iranians engaging in the struggle for Iran’s future as I do Josh Block or Freedom House or PPI. They are unwanted interlopers. Iranians have a legitimate stake in the future of their country–that includes Iranians in the Diaspora. The same with Jews in the Diaspora regarding Israel.
Second, Israel is a democracy at least nominally. Iran has never been a true democracy (except briefly in the early 1950s). I think you treat a country which has never had democracy more carefully than one that has. If Israel becomes as bad as Iran then at least you can say that it has retreated from being a democracy & aggressive efforts must be made to bring it back into alignment with democratic values. Iran has few such values (though it does have elections & a parliament that are nominally democratic). Therefore, I think it’s up to the Iranians themselves to work this out. Outside interference won’t help. Not at this point. If there was an uprising like the one in Libya now & there was civil discord & generals & political leaders defecting to the opposition, then I might feel differently. But unfortunately the regime is in control and rebellion has progressed far enough.
Sigh.
So just because the protestors in Iran didnt have enough military power they dont deserve the wests help?
Does this even make sense to you?
Doesnt it just shows to you the government in Iran is just stronger than the one in Egypt or Libya, and therefore is harder to overthrow? If u assume everybody eventually want democracy (and u do, because me saying its not so is one of the reasons im currently moderated and was called a racist so many times) then whats the difference? Why not to help the weakest ones, who obviously cant help themselves?
Somehow i think if Iran wasnt Israels enemy #1 currently, you’d say somethnig very different.
Not that ur not self convinced its not because of that, though.
It’s not what they deserve. Of course they deserve their freedom. But they have to win it themselves, at least initially. No country “deserves” a revolution bought & paid for by western military might. What sort of revolution is that anyway? That’s imperialism or colonialism, not revolution. The Iranian opposition doesn’t need military power. It needs to overwhelming support of the people, which it doesn’t yet have.
I don’t think it’s the role of outsiders to be sisters of mercy & help the weakest ones. The Egyptians won their revolution not because the opposition was “the weakest one” but because its ideas were more powerful, popular & vibrant than the tyrant’s. That hasn’t happened yet in Iran. I hope it will. But it hasn’t, yet.
Iran isn’t Israel’s number 1 enemy. Israel & its leaders are Israel’s number 1 enemy.
It is about time to stop smearing Israel on all that some individual American is doing. Israel is quite good at it without thier help.
The worst thing American can do is bomb Iran. The mess they have done in Iraq will take decades to clean up already.
Had Bush no destroyed Iraq, true forces would have risen today there to remove the rules. Now we have a torn country that is not able to pick itself up.
Stop thinking you know what is best for the ME. If a country asks for your help, help it (if it does not harm American interest), but don’t use force on them.
You know, i agree with you for a change that most of the people who yell about democracy in Iran dont really care who will rule there – as long as he/she will be west oriented / wont make monthyl speeches aganist israel.
However i cant understand ur positiong regarding when the west should interfere and when not. Ive asked in the past and didnt get a clear answer: whats the difference between Iran, Libya and Syria for you? We saw thousands of people demonstrating in Iran just as we saw in Egypt, Libya and Syria. The main difference between the protests in all those countries is how much the protestors were able to do to overthrow their rulers. In egypt theyve managed to overthrow mubarak, in Libya they managed to start a civil war, and probably will win it with the help of NATO and in Syria we’ve yet to see.
What do u base ur opionion on when u call for intervention and libya and condenm this concept so strongly with iran/?
You wrote about it here:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/02/21/the-shores-of-tripoli-run-red-with-martyrs-blood/
and thats why i wondered.
I actually dont think the west should intefere in Iran or anyone else. I dont think it was a good idea to do that in Lybia, and i doubt anyone still believes the intervention didnt fail in Iraq or Afganistan.
I dont think a democratic regime can be forced on people, and as much as i care – if Iranians prefer their current regime its their right to handle their country that way.
You dont think Iran is Israels enemy, but almost every week we’re provided with quotes of Iranian leaders talking against Israel/Zionism. I think i’d sleep better at night if a country like Iran wouldnt have been developing nuclear weapons, but again, it doesnt mean i think military force is the best/only way to solve this.
I think it’s far too early to say that they did. We’ll have to wait and see if the Egyptians choose true democracy and freedom.
Since you asked, I’m in favor of the no fly zone & attempting to stop a massacre by Qaddafi in Libya. But if the rebel forces can’t beat Qaddafai themselves then there’s little we’ll be able to do in the long run to do it for them.
We have an entire political party that still believes this. They’re called Republicans. And their Jewish neocon friends as well.
And almost every week you’re provided w. equally bellicose statements by Israeli leaders & generals about Iran. But you only notice the Iranian insults but not the Israeli ones.
I think we finally agree on something.