M.J. Rosenberg, neocons & Iran

Over at TalkingPointsMemo, the Israel Policy Forum’s M.J. Rosenberg has had two recent posts on Iran and the Jews — not the Iranian ones, but the neocon and AIPAC types whom he enjoys sticking it to.

To be clear, he doesn’t use either term. And the only person he identifies by name is Benjamin Netanyahu. But if you’re a regular reader, it’s not hard to figure out which people he’s talking about.

In the first of the two posts, titled "We Will Never See Iranians The Same Way Again," Rosenberg argues that the inspiring images of people taking to the streets in Tehran is sure to transform the way Americans see Iranians:

For thirty years Iranians have been demonized in this country. Ever since the hostage crisis, many Americans viewed them as the worst kind of fanatics. The advent of Ahmadinejad only solidified the general impression that Iranians are, how to put it, nuts.

An interesting observation. And fair enough. But then he goes on to blame this impression on … well, you decide who the "they" are:

For some reason we never viewed them as victims of a horrific regime as we view, say, the North Koreans. No, in the case of Iran, the government was terrible and the people were bad. When New York Times columnist Roger Cohen (now bravely in the streets with the Iranian masses) reported that Iranian Jews were not suffering anti-Semitism despite the loathsome dictator’s words of hate, he was excoriated. How could he report that? How could anyone report anything about Iran that did not fit in with the view that they are hateful human beings.

They are so bad , we were told, that they would destroy Israel and then happily see themselves blown up in retaliation because they are fanatics and don’t even value their own lives. It’s part of their religion and culture They are not like us. Hence, we should prepare to bomb them before they bombed our friends. …

I don’t know how this will end. But I do know this. After this week, no American will credibly be able to talk about Iranians as if they are something other than fellow human beings who want the same things we do. No one will be able to say that they don’t value freedom or that they would cheerfully give up their lives to crush Israel.

To the degree that he is talking about neocons and AIPACers (and I think the Roger Cohen reference makes it undeniable that indeed that is whom he’s talking about) Rosenberg is twisting reality inside out. You can agree or disagree with the hardline stance against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, but give these people their due on the issue at hand: They have been speaking for years about the fate of everyday Iranians, portraying them as hostages to a repressive regime. Yes, they demonize the mullahs at the top, but they do so by contrasting them with the millions at the bottom. Michael Rubin and his ilk have been lambasted over the years by realists and liberals for backing U.S. support of Iranian oposition activities and viewing regime change as the ideal outcome. The conventional wisdom among anti-neocons has been that Iran is an Iraq sequel, with the neocons arguing that a little bit of help from the outside will enable the Iranian people to do what they want to do: topple the mullahs.

In short, M.J. Rosenberg has it backwads: The same people who hate Roger Cohen the most are the ones have been working hardest and longest to portray the Iranian people as victims.

Here’s Rubin back in 2005:

The best option from an American point of view would be a peaceful transition of power leading to an Iranian abandonment of the Islamic Republic’s more threatening convictions. The relevant question therefore becomes whether the Iranian people are ready for democracy and, if so, when they might rise up and demand real rather than cosmetic rights. No one in Washington seeks to use military force to oust the Iranian regime, and rumors that the U.S. government even considered lending support to the Mujahidin al-Khalq are without basis. Democracy advocates within the Bush administration are likely to ask whether they can take any actions which would catalyze the Iranian people’s ability to replicate last year’s peaceful revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine.

Both anecdotal and statistical evidence indicate the Iranian people are ready for change. …

It’s hard to see what Rosenberg is talking about.

To be fair, he came back to reality on this point a few days later, with a post critcizing Netanyahu for … heaping praise on the demonstrators:

Contrast this with President Obama’s cautiousness. He understands that US praise could be the kiss of death. But that is nothing compared to the harm that an endorsement from Netanyahu can deliver. Is that his intent? Or is he just clueless?

It’s not just Netanyahu who is speaking up. The National Security Network has distributed a list of conservatives — many of them the breed of Jewish hawk that Rosenberg loves to take aim at — who have argued that President Obama should be doing more to side with the Iranian people:

• Senator John McCain, former Republican presidential nominee:  "I do not believe that the president is taking a leadership that is incumbent upon an American president, which we have throughout modern history, and that is to advocate for human rights and freedom," and argued on Face the Nation that, "the United States hasn’t done anything." [USA Today, 6/16/09. John McCain, MSNBC, 6/22/09]

• Eric Cantor, House Minority Whip, "The Administration’s silence in the face of Iran’s brutal suppression of democratic rights represents a step backwards for homegrown democracy in the Middle East." [Eric Cantor, 6/15/09]

• Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina:"I appreciate what the president said yesterday, but he’s been timid and passive more than I would like, and I hope he will continue to speak truth to power." [Lindsey Graham, ABC News, 6/21/09]

• Paul Wolfowitz, Former Deputy Secretary of Defense for Donald Rumsfeld:  "The reform the Iranian demonstrators seek is something that we should be supporting. In such a situation, the United States does not have a ‘no comment’ option. Coming from America, silence is itself a comment — a comment in support of those holding power and against those protesting the status quo… Now is not the time for the president to dig in to a neutral posture. It is time to change course." [Paul Wolfowitz, 6/19/09]

• Charles Krauthammer, neoconservative columnist for the Washington Post:  "Our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe." [Charles Krauthammer, 6/19/09]

• Danielle Pletka, Vice President of the neoconservative think tank, American Enterprise Institute: "Just after Iran’s rigged elections last week, with hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, it looked as if a new revolution was in the offing. Five days later, the uprising is little more than a symbolic protest, crushed by the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Meanwhile, the real revolution has gone unnoticed: the guard has effected a silent coup d’état." [Danielle Pletka and Ali Alfoneh, 6/16/09]

• Robert Kagan, neoconservative commentator: "But Obama’s calculations are quite different. Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government’s efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition’s efforts to prolong the crisis." [Robert Kagan, 6/17/09]

• Bill Kristol, neoconservative commentator: "He should support the demonstrators. He should say that stealing elections is unacceptable, killing demonstrators in the streets of Tehran is unacceptable. He could work with the Europeans to say, ‘Let’s bring in international observers to review whether this was a fair election. If it wasn’t, let’s think about having another election.’" [Bill Kristol via Fox News, 6/14/09]

You can say they’re wrong. You can call them clueless. But one thing you can’t do is acuse them of confusing Ahmadinejad with the Iranian everyman.