I’ll Have What Friedman is Smoking…
Are our columnists learning? (I think you know the answer).
There was a time that I took Thomas Friedman seriously. That sweet summer child moved on a while ago, thankfully. These days, Friedman is a reminder of my ongoing belief that there should be limited terms for NYT columnists.
His current ruminations came to my attention via Paul Campos at LGM, because of this assumingly evocative post title, The Moustache of Understanding Is Back Yet Again to Explain Yet Another Middle East War. This led me to read the whole column, which now compels me to pay it forward (sorry about that). This is probably less an analytical piece than a bit of mental exorcism.
Friedman starts with what I consider a bit of obnoxious condescension:
To think clearly about Middle East wars, you need to hold multiple thoughts in your head at the same time. It’s a complicated, kaleidoscopic region where religion, oil, tribal politics and great power politics interweave in every major story. If you are looking for a black-and-white narrative, you might want to take up checkers. So, here are my four thoughts on Iran — at least for today.
You see, kids, Tom knows that the Middle East is complex! And he, perhaps unlike the dear reader, can see the multiple layers and baffling actors who make up the region! The Middle East is different, unlike the rest of the world, where it is all just black-and-white! Plus, pointing out how fraught it all is means he doesn’t have to be held to anything he says!
Later, he notes.
Life as an opinion columnist would be easy if every war you had to take a stand on was the American Civil War and every leader was Abraham Lincoln. But they are not, so let’s dig a little deeper into these four thoughts on Iran.
Ok, cool. That just seems like a weird escape hatch in case he ends up with analytical egg on his face.
BTW, I will allow that Friedman knows more about the details of the region than I do. I have just long stopped thinking he understands basic politics.
Let me note a couple of things.
First, I hope this effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran succeeds. It is a regime that murders its people, destabilizes its neighbors and has destroyed a great civilization. There is no single event that would do more to put the whole Middle East on a more decent, inclusive trajectory than the replacement of Tehran’s Islamic regime with a leadership focused exclusively on enabling the people of Iran to realize their full potential with a real voice in their own future.
Ok, so I do understand and support, in the abstract, the toppling of this regime. But, what an incredible leap of fairy dust and unicorns it is to go from “I hope this effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran succeeds” to talking about “a more decent, inclusive trajectory than the replacement of Tehran’s Islamic regime with a leadership focused exclusively on enabling the people of Iran to realize their full potential with a real voice in their own future.”
Tom “I Know Things about the Middle East” should know better than to play the role of the Underpants Gnomes:
- Topple the clerical regime in Tehran.
- ?
- A new “leadership focused exclusively on enabling the people of Iran to realize their full potential with a real voice in their own future.”
Then we get this.
Second, this will not be easy, because this regime is deeply entrenched and is hardly going to be toppled from the air alone. Israel has not been able to eliminate Hamas in Gaza after over two years of a merciless air and ground war — and Hamas is right next door. That said, even if this U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran does not lead to the uprising by the Iranian people that President Trump has urged, it could have other, unanticipated, beneficial effects, like producing an Islamic Republic 2.0 that is much less threatening to its people and neighbors. But it just as easily could result in unanticipated dangers, like the disintegration of Iran as a single geographic entity.
He starts with an important point (one that should, actually, make him abandon the whole column), which is that air power is not enough to remove the regime. Further, he notes how difficult eliminating Hamas has been, which is a far easier goal in scope and scale.
He also correctly notes that there are some other bad possibilities, all of which undercut his overall discussion.
He also introduces his overly cutsey concept of “Islamic Republic 2.0” which is basically, as per my post yesterday, a leadership change, not a regime change.
Number three is a reminder that there are broader economic factors at play.
But the hum-dinger is number four (emphasis mine).
Fourth, we must not let this war to bring democracy and the rule of law to Iran distract us from the threats to democracy and the rule of law posed by Trump in America and by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel. Trump wants to promote those ideals in Tehran, even as his ICE agents operated for two months with limited regard for legal restraints in my home state of Minnesota and as he floats ideas about restricting who can vote in our next election.
The most polite way to address the bolded portion is that Friedman is asserting facts not in evidence. Trump did not call for a democratic Iran in his social media post announcing the attacks. The closest he came was this:
For many years, you have asked for America’s help. But you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let’s see how you respond. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny, and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.
Friedman is allowing his priors to read into that Rorschach test what he wants to see. There is actually no indication that Trump cares one whit about democracy in Iran. Indeed, the way he dealt with Venezuela clearly indicates that his goals in these military adventures are not about spreading democracy and freedom.
Indeed, as Friedman does note, Trump seems rather disinterested in democracy at home. Further, he has spent his time in the Oval Office actively courting authoritarians and disrespecting democracies. Friedman is smoking some strong stuff if it clouds his mind to the point that he can see this adventure as being about democratizing Iran.
I know that every prior US administration at least paid lip service to the notion of promoting democracy whenever force was used, but not this administration. I know old habits die hard and all, but if you are going to be well compensated by the paper of record, perhaps paying attention to current realities rather than falling into old ruts is warranted.
It is really amazing how much of the column is wish-casting that feels like leftover from 2003.
Also, the Iranian people are among the most naturally pro-Western in the region. If that impulse is allowed to surface and spread, and replace the divisive, radical Islamist poison propagated by the Iranian regime, we have the possibility for a much more inclusive Middle East.
All well and good, but when has a bombing campaign resulted in that kind of outcome?
And this just sounds too much like “we will be greeted as liberators.”
It might be a good week, though, for Beijing to look at all the Iranian people spontaneously dancing in the streets to celebrate the death of Khamenei and ask itself if the People’s Republic of China should have been propping up his regime with oil purchases all these years. Maybe it should have been on the side of the Iranian people.
He does seem to actually understand this fact, as he mostly then reverts to a lot of “Islamic Republic 2.0” talk. He even notes the following:
As this column has noted before, in the Middle East the opposite of autocracy is not necessarily democracy. Often it is “disorder.” Because when Middle East dictatorships are decapitated, one of two things happens. They either implode, like Libya did, or they explode, like Syria did.
Really, as a general matter, just taking out an authoritarian head of state, smashing much of the state apparatus in the process, does not lead to spontaneous order, let alone of the democratic variety.
Every time Friedman seems to get semi-realistic, he can’t help but revert to wishcasting.
The opportunity for Israel could be enormous: If the Islamic Republic of Iran is either toppled or defanged, I have little doubt that Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and maybe even Iraq would feel much more comfortable normalizing relations with Israel — on the condition that Netanyahu does not annex Gaza or the West Bank, but agrees instead to a plan for separation and a two-state solution. Would Netanyahu rise to that opportunity? Would Israeli voters punish him if he doesn’t?
But I get ahead of myself.
Gee, ya think?
Look, it is all well and good to hope for the best, but it is better to plan for what is realistic. Replaying fantasies from 2003 about Iraq and the transformation of the Middle East seems unwise, to put it mildly.
It seems worth noting that not only does Trump not have a clear roadmap for how to proceed, but he is also already signalling a willingness to deal with the current regime with new leadership.
I would again stress that Venezuela, he left the regime utterly intact. Indeed, as Friedman’s employer reported today:
Mr. Trump appears enamored of using a Venezuela-like model in Iran.
“Everybody’s kept their job except for two people,” Mr. Trump said of the outcome in Venezuela.
Friedman concludes:
I expect by Wednesday there will be at least three more points competing in my head to make sense of it all, because this is the most plastic, unpredictable moment in the Middle East since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Everything — and its opposite — is possible.
Except, of course, some outcomes are more probable than others–and pretending otherwise is analytical malpractice, in my view.
I guess the ghost of ‘Maverick’ McCain will be looking down and smiling.
One of the things that Friedman does consistently over many years is to mistake the lines the European powers drew for national boundaries in the Middle East for actually matching all of the important ethnic/cultural differences. When Iraq fell apart, the Iraqi Kurds immediately began trying to carve off a piece for themselves; they were Kurds first, Iraqis second. When Syria fell apart, the Syrian Kurds immediately began trying to carve off a piece for themselves; they were Kurds first, Syrians second. If Iran falls apart, or even looks like it might fall apart, it seems quite likely that the Iranian Kurds will immediately begin trying to carve off a piece for themselves; being Kurds first, Iranians second.
Friedman is of a type I’ve seen a lot in the foreign policy space: certifiably smart and well-credentialed and yet so stubbornly tied to an optimistic view of the future that they just can’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
He actually gets paid to write this. Not just his salary at NYT, but book royalties and speaking fees in excess of 50K a pop. He also has a staff helping him to be terribly wise, as well as extensive experience and access throughout the world.
Yet, in addition to the headliners, there are a dozen people here giving away better analysis for free. And then, there’s this guy. His first name is Chet or Chat or something like that, last name initials: GPT. I asked Chat for a 700 word piece on the long-term prospects for middle eastern peace in light of the US attack on Iran and killing of Khamenei. Here’s what Chat had to say:
ETA: And I don’t think Chat even has Bibi on speed dial.
I so wish that Matt Taibbi had stuck to his strengths of despising Tom Friedman.
If you told the me of 2003 I’d be nostalgic for that period of time, I would have laughed and laughed.
Will this new democracy in Iran that Friedman hopes for include minority religious representation in their legislature? Because the current one does.
They have a deck-stacked democracy, in favour of the existing apparatus. So does the US.
Just for a brief moment, Friedman dared to ask himself “Are we the baddies?”
But he just couldn’t stomach the answer, I guess.
While Iran is undoubtedly a (very) bad actor, the actions of both the US and Israel (both of which have nukes, btw) have turned out far, far worse for those living in the Middle East.
From a Middle Eastern perspective, there is a rather more convincing case to be made for regime change in Washington and Jerusalem than in Teheran.
Fight me on this, if you dare.
I read the column. Wasn’t that bad. It just reads like a stream of consciousness, hestitantly glass-half-full immediate reaction — not aa rigorous analysis. Basically this:
Most of Friedman’s musings are unobjectionable. But yeah, it’s interspersed with head-stratchers: his pretense this is a war to bring freedom/democracy, his repetitive “But Iranians are celebrating!” refrain while erasing the upset Iranians now chanting “Death To America,” his curious hope this could lead a two-state solution and regional peace.
These are born of Fall of Saddam style optimism, though notably more tepid this time. Okay fine whatever. Let them hope. Reality will set in, I truly do hope it’s not a mugging. It’d be an unexpected relief.
But… has Friedman ever been good? Some problems can’t be solved with term limits. Sometimes they’re a problem from day one.