Neocon Michael Rubin has been calling for “regime change” in Iran for many years. In other words, letting people on the other side of the Earth decide their own fate is out of the question. In his eyes, it’s the job of the United States government (using our hard earned money) to install a government for the Iranians.
That the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was in reaction (i.e., blowback) to the U.S. pulling the strings in Iran with its puppet dictator (the Shah) doesn’t seem to make a difference. Rubin won’t let a bunch of clerics throw the U.S. out of their affairs, and let them get away with it; even 30 years later.
If there’s one thing that neocon foreign policy has proven in the Middle East, it’s that every stone that is overturned must have the U.S. seal of approval. Iran has bucked the system, and nothing less than removal of the clerics will satisfy Michael Rubin.
For example, back in 2010, Rubin wrote:
“Regime change is the only strategy, short of military strikes, that will deny Iran a nuclear bomb, and it is the only strategy that can end altogether the threat of a nuclear program under the control of radicals in the employ of the Islamic Republic.”
What an absolutist approach. The “only strategy” of Iran not having a nuclear bomb is regime change or military strikes. One should not be surprised that Rubin was a Pentagon advisor for George W. Bush. Aggressive militarism is the only solution.
Meanwhile, there was a man in Congress named Ron Paul who kept voicing that the U.S. should “talk” with the Iranians, that there should be “diplomacy” and “negotiation” to avoid the ravages and immorality of war. During the Bush years, Ron Paul’s words largely fell on deaf ears. However, times are definitely changing.
Now let’s fast forward to 2013, after the embarrassing and destructive failures in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Rubin has not changed his tune.
On June 24, Rubin wrote:
Simply put, the chief impediment to peace and stability in the Middle East is Iran, and it’s long past time the United States begins to realize that there will be no breakthrough on any issue of concern to U.S. national security until the Islamic Republic no longer exists. It should be the policy of the United States to hasten that day.
To neocons, failure is not an obstacle. It’s just an opportunity to begin their insanity once again (provided the American public remains directly or indirectly complicit).
Well, as good fortune would have it, in the summer of 2013, the American public would not remain complicit any longer. Strong public resistance to a U.S. attack on Syria made a subsequent invasion of Iran politically unviable.
In another monumental step towards peace, President Obama would break the 30 year silence between the U.S. & Iran, and would speak by telephone to the President of Iran. Ron Paul’s advice would finally be taken and diplomatic negotiations with Iran are in progress.
Obviously, Michael Rubin was wrong. Regime change and military action are not the “only strategy”. But does that break his resolve? No sir.
Just yesterday, Rubin wrote:
…the most stable outcome for the Middle East would be the re-emergence of an Iran which isn’t subject to clerical rule. That should be the long-term outcome for which the United States strives.
This is classic stubbornness, but it’s also very revealing. Perhaps a nuclear Iran is not the bogeyman that the neocon fearmongers play it up to be. Perhaps it has been nothing but an excuse to justify a military invasion, and to settle a 30 year score.
Peaceful talks are underway and Iran may never have a nuclear bomb (despite the fact that Israel and the U.S. are swimming in nuclear weapons). Yet, Michael Rubin is sticking with his storyline: “The most stable outcome” is still regime change.
Let us hope that history not only proves Rubin to be wrong, but that the U.S. government also gives up (voluntarily, rather than via financial crisis) on its neocon quest to rule the Earth militarily.
