What's New? Iran Tunnels

The NYT headline says: Iran Shielding its Nuclear Efforts in a Maze of Tunnels (link). Mrs. B asks: and what part of this is actually "news?" We knew they had a nuclear effort. We knew it was underground, hard to hit. Is it the "maze" part--the idea that Chuck Norris might have a tough time taking them out? Or just that President Ahmadinejad looks so goofy in a hard hat?

Fun fact: Wiki offers a link to an Iranian presidential blog, but it doesn't seem to be alive just now.

I Must Lead a Sheltered Life

At least I never saw anything like this before:

I don't suppose there is any chance it is a spoof?

(Via Hilzoy, via Andrew Sullivan)

We Are All Iranians Now

Not entirely clear where this started, but it was just forwarded to me by Joel:

Do you twitter? Change your twitter setting to GMT +3:30 (Tehran time) and your location to any city in Iran. If all of us are Iranians then it is a little harder for government censors to track down Iranian tweeters. (See list of Iranian cities at http://is.gd/13UCt.)

Sadly, I don't Twitter, but this might be a good reason to start.

Getting Iran Wrong

George Friedman argues that Western misunderstanding of Iran was more or less of a train wreck waiting to happen:

Limited to information on Iran from English-speaking opponents of the regime, both groups of Iran experts got a very misleading vision of where the revolution was heading — because the Iranian revolution was not brought about by the people who spoke English. It was made by merchants in city bazaars, by rural peasants, by the clergy — people Americans didn’t speak to because they couldn’t. This demographic was unsure of the virtues of modernization and not at all clear on the virtues of liberalism. From the time they were born, its members knew the virtue of Islam, and that the Iranian state must be an Islamic state.

Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization — a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook “iPod liberalism,” the idea that anyone who listens to rock ‘n’ roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran — a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.

I can believe it. Not that I know anything about Iran--I know zilch--but because it fits a pattern that seems to be well-night universal when the chattering classes try to understand mass politics. Friedman's description of Iran sounds like a hundred other such misunderstandings--not least the way urban "liberal" "modernist" "outreach" politicians in the (big cities of the) American south used to understand the (predominantly rural) masses. Heck, it probably has something to do with the way Kerensky misunderstood the Bolsheviks, or the Parisian liberals of 1848 misunderstood Napoleon III.

One corollary: if it's bubba that got us into this mess, it will have to be bubba (if anybody) who gets us out of it. John Kerry, Bill Bradley, Adlai Stevenson,where never able to provide effective leadership for American "progressives;" Happy Chandler and Earl Long (and Bill Clinton?) sometimes did so. Like I say, my knowledge of Iran is zero, perhaps negative. But taking off our secularist urban blinders--putting away our chardonnay-tinted blinders--is almost certainly a necessary first step.

The Vice Minister and the Brothel: A Setup?

These stories about an Iran vice chief being caught in a a brothel (link)—they’re good fun, but they lack a sense of history. Long ago it was Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards (and probably a few dozen other cheerful philanderers) who said the only way he could lose the election is if he were caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy (link). But the corollary is that the charge is likely as not to be a fake. If this happened in, a civilized place like, oh, say, Kentucky, would assume the poor man was just set up (link). Should we assume any different about Iran?

Update: Well, this is no joking matter.

Kinda Sweet, Actually...

The Guardian translates this bit from a Swiss newspaper:

"Israel imports Iranian oil on a large scale even though contacts with Iran and purchasing of its products are officially boycotted by Israel. Israel gets around the boycott by having the oil delivered via Europe. A reliable Israeli energy newsletter, EnergiaNews, reported this last week [March 18] ...

"EnergiaNews got the information about the Iran trade from sources with ties to the management of Israeli Oil Refineries Ltd ... According to EnergiaNews the Iranian oil is liked in Israel because its quality is better than other crude oils.

"The report by EnergiaNews editor Moshe Shalev states that the Iranian oil reaches various European ports, mainly in Rotterdam. It is bought by Israelis and the necessary European bill of lading and insurance papers are supplied. Then it is transported to Haifa in Israel. The importer is the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Co (EAPC), which keeps its oil sources secret." ...

"It is not clear if the Iranian exporters know about Israeli purchases of their oil. At the other end, the Israeli buyers and governmental offices are well aware of where the high-grade oil comes from, although it is a blatant defiance of the boycott. The EnergiaNews article even made it through Israeli censorship, which asked only for some changes in the text. The fact that the report cleared the censors increases the credibility of the information. In the past, such reports were forbidden.

"When questioned by Sonntag, an energy expert of one of the leading Israeli papers confirmed the EnergiaNews report: Israel has been importing Iranian oil for many years. The expert stressed, however, that the purchases were made on the free market and not directly from Iran."

Link, and H/T: FP Mag. That much oil sloshing around the port of Rotterdam on their dime and it is "not clear" that the Iranians know? Ah huh, translated as "oh, gimme a break." Richard Silverstein at the guardian is sputtering and muttering about "hypocrisy" here and I suppose he's got a point. It certainly ought to be embarrassing to the froth-at-the-mouth hawks in Israel--come to think of it, either place--if indeed shame is still part of their skill set. Me, I think it is kinda sweet.

Reading Reactive Shakespeare in Iran

Someone in Irancheh, Chahar Mahall va Bakhtiari, Iran, just linked to this piece. Go figure.

"I Can Recommend Them to Everyone"

Reflecting on the British sailors and there testimonials to their hosts in Iran, I remembered the story about Freud trying to extricate himself from Nazi-dominated Vienna just before World War II. Peter Gay provides particulars:

Just before the authorities let the Freuds go, they insisted he sign a statement that they had not ill-treated him. Freud signed, adding the comment, “I can most highly recommend the Gestapo to everyone”—Ich kann die Gestapo jedermann auf das beste empfehlen.

Gay is puzzled:

It is a curious act inviting some speculation. Freud was lucky the S.S. men reading his commendation did not perceive the heavy sarcasm lurking in it. Nothing would have been more natural than to find his words offensive. Why, then, at the moment of liberation, take such a deadly risk? Was there something at work in Freud making him want to stay, and die, in Vienna? Whatever the deeper reason, his “praise” of the Gestapo was Freud’s last act of defiance on Austrian soil.

--Peter Gay, Freud: A Life For Our Time 628 (Anchor Books ed. 1989)

Fun fact: I can’t document this, but I swear it is true: in one issue of The Economist about 25 years ago, there was an ad for Lufthansa Airlines, bearing the subscript: “I can recommend Lufthansa to everyone--Sigmund Freud.”

Wish I had kept it. Never saw it again. I would love to meet the guy who wrote it, and to ask him how he enjoyed his new career, scraping the gum off the bottom of bus seats.

Oh Lordy Lordy

Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter in the Times of London report (thanks Joel) that American generals are threatening to quit if the President orders an attack on Iran:

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

Two thoughts, not at all consistent:

• It's about %^&*@#! time! There are few spectacles less edifying than what we now know about the behavior of generals before the Iraq war. It's clear from reading Fiasco and Cobra II (and more) that these guys knew all along that this plan was fatally flawed. They shut up, perhaps in part out of instinctive loyalty, but also because they figured it would do more for the careeers to have the wrong war than to have no war at all.

• I've said it before, I'll say it again: we get to the point where the Generals start mouthing off about policy, we are in one Hell of a mess. For the moment, I'm content to blame the clowns that put us in this spot. But from this beginning, nothing good can follow.
  

Well, Hey

Up this morning in time to listen to the media as they continue to massage us towards a war with Iran. Therefore it is a pleasant surprise to discover this shred of optimism from a guy who tends to get this sort of thing right. It’s about that Defense Department IG Report—the one subtitled “Doug Feith Still an A*hole.” Patrick argues that it’s a shot across the bow, and it wouldn’t have happened unless Robert Gates pulled the trigger. Nice to know that there is someone with experience in bureaucratic warfare who thinks that this larger war just might be a dumb idea.

Postscript: For a supersized serving of Feith hash, go here.

Post-postscript: Carpetbagger catches Gates with his waffle iron on stun.