Iran, Russia, and the End of the World as It Is
Status quo huggers hide behind fear of what might happen instead of confronting the brutal truth of what’s actually happened or is happening.
A big part of what we do at the Renew Democracy Initiative and The Next Move is connect the dots. On this coming Monday’s Substack Live we’ll be drawing a line from Tehran to Moscow, mapping the Russia-Iran axis and digging into what the Israel-Iran conflict means for the international alliance of dictators. Join me and RDI CEO Uriel Epshtein on Monday, June 16 at 5pm ET/2pm PT, right here at The Next Move.
Our Substack Live broadcasts remain open to all—but only paid subscribers get to ask questions and join the debate in the Live Chat. Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription. I don’t receive a cent from your contributions—all proceeds go directly toward keeping the lights on at the Renew Democracy Initiative and getting more content up on The Next Move.
Pour one out for Ben Rhodes. In some ways, The World As It Is was a perfect title for the longtime Obama foreign policy advisor’s memoir, because the illusion of the status quo is all that Rhodes and his fellow travelers could ever stomach in geopolitics. But it was always just that: an illusion. Rhodes never really looked at the world as it is; he simply imagined a facade of post-Cold War stability. The historic Israeli military campaign against Iran that began yesterday represents another crack in that facade, joining the October 7 attacks, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, and the Arab Spring.
After spending the past year and a half knocking out one Iranian proxy after another, Israel dealt the Islamic Republic a heavy blow on Friday. Not just militarily, but politically too. Israeli forces killed a number of senior officials in Tehran, including the chief of staff of the military, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace Force, and a senior advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. And that was just in the first few hours. I suspect that the occupational hazards associated with employment in the Iranian government will continue to grow with each passing day.
Now that the Islamic Republic is severely weakened, the alarmist foreign policy commentariat is apprising us of the unacceptable risks, raising their well-worn red flags (or should I say, white flags?). “Escalation!” “Global war!” And the ultimate enemy of the status quo: “Regime change!” In the shadow of the US-led invasion of Iraq, I don’t doubt that Rhodes and some like him had good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
Under President Obama, American officials frequently stared down the nastiest offenders in the international rogue’s gallery and insisted that there was “no military solution”.
“No military solution” might sound nice to enlightened ears. Unfortunately, it’s a meaningless slogan. Tellingly, Russian officials repeat it all the time too. Just yesterday, the Russian ambassador to the UN used that Ben Rhodes-esque turn of phrase at the Security Council, declaring that “no military solution can be legitimate or viable” in Iran. But Russia does believe there are military solutions to its problems—ask any Ukrainian, Syrian, or Georgian. Yet too many in Washington remain determined to fight armed marauders with flowery words.
The main takeaway from Rhodes on the well-earned battering that the Iranian regime received in the wee hours of Friday morning was that “this war will above all harm innocent people for no good reason.”
Notice the reliance on the future tense. Status quo huggers hide behind fear of what might happen instead of confronting the brutal truth of what’s actually happened or is happening. Call it a preference for deadly reality over frightening uncertainty.
If you are worried about innocent people being killed, as Rhodes claims to be, spare a thought for the millions of Iranians who face imprisonment, torture, or death if they dare deviate from the strict precepts of the Islamic Revolution. Or the hundreds of thousands of Syrians whose murder Iran was an accomplice to. Or the Ukrainian civilians who have found themselves on the receiving end of over 8,000 Iranian-made suicide drones over the past three years. Or scores of Argentinian Jews blown up in a Buenos Aires synagogue without even the thinnest of martial pretexts.
Rhodes still has his students in Washington. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy was quick and confident in his pronouncement that Israel’s operation in Iran “risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America.” Maybe. But a regional war was already underway before this week. Iran was already supporting the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Russia in Ukraine. Israel is simply moving things toward a more decisive conclusion. What does Senator Murphy suppose should be done about what’s already taking place? Put a band-aid on it and wait for the next war?
Republicans are not immune from this malaise, though the root cause differs. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s immediate reaction to the Israeli strikes in Iran was to say “wasn’t us!”—and then to plead with Tehran not to attack US personnel and assets in the Middle East. Murphy is acting out of ideological blindness. Rubio, like nearly all of his Republican colleagues, is wanting for a spine. Whatever the reason, people like Murphy and Rubio lack vision and will end up getting left behind by events.
I am not going to pretend that what comes next for Iranians will be easy. Anyone who suggests that forty-six years of theocratic dictatorship will be replaced by Swedish social democracy overnight is not being honest with you.
Throughout my decades of pro-democracy activism in Russia, I have faced the same dilemma. Generations raised under Soviet communism and a quarter-century of a KGB mafia state have not exactly made the Russian Federation fertile ground for freedom. Whenever I call for the end of Vladimir Putin’s regime, someone inevitably asks: What if the next guy is worse?
What if? There is no way of knowing for sure. Today, we Russians can tell you with our five senses and the names of friends who’ve been beaten, jailed, and assassinated that the current guy is that bad, and that he is worse than he was the year before. We have to face the real dangers of letting a murderous crime boss remain at large rather than agonize over the theoretical risks that a more ruthless capo replaces him. It’s our responsibility to meet the enormous challenges of the world as it is so that we don’t wait forever to realize the world as it ought to be.
Related content:
General Ben Hodges: What the West Still Doesn't Get About Russia
The former commanding general of the US Army in Europe offers a clear-eyed assessment of the war in Ukraine—and what it will take to end it on terms favorable to the Free World.
I Survived the Bucha Massacre
A Ukrainian journalist's harrowing story of survival: "Ceding land to Russia isn’t about drawing lines on a map. It’s about the lives of the people who live on that land. The families and communities torn apart by the invaders’ brutality. For American and European diplomats now bandying about the idea of a compromise solution, the conflict is abstract. For me, this is reality."
Iran, Russia, and the End of the World as It Is
A big part of what we do at the Renew Democracy Initiative and The Next Move is connect the dots. On this coming Monday’s Substack Live we’ll be drawing a line from Tehran to Moscow, mapping the Russia-Iran axis and digging into what the Israel-Iran conflict means for the international alliance of dictators. Join me and RDI CEO Uriel Epshtein on
Kasparov, as a Ukrainian-American I am a fan of both your political work and your illustrious career, but one specific line from this piece echoes the sentiments, in my view, that directly led to the catastrophe which was American involvement in the Middle East post 9/11. “If you are worried about innocent people being killed, as Rhodes claims to be, spare a thought for the millions of Iranians who face imprisonment, torture, or death if they dare deviate from the strict precepts of the Islamic Revolution.” I am in no way a moral relativist, and I revile state led religious extremism, with Islamism being, unfortunately , at the forefront of some of the most vile human rights abuses in modern history. This being said, this is exactly the type of slop that was shoveled into American’s heads from the Bush administration in partially justifying militarily involvement in the Middle East, framing it as a global struggle for freedom, liberation, especially that of the women in Iraq and Afghanistan (https://naapr.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/saving_muslim_women-_feminism_u.s_policy_and_the_war_on_terror_-_university_of_san_francisco_usf.pdf). Unless you opt for a complete occupation, you cannot and will not externally end the human rights abuses that Iranian citizens face (I wrote a piece about the role of militarily occupations earlier this year for anyone interested) and suggesting so is a slap in the face to the Iranian civilians which have already and will continue to suffer under Israeli bombs. The question for you is how morally culpable is a civilian population, especially a suppressed one like in Iran, to the actions of its government. Further, I think there is one other line of reasoning which connects the current conflict with Iran and American justification for Iraq: how long has Iran supposedly been on the precipice of nuclear strength? I looked it up the other day, the first American report that Iran was approaching weapons grade uranium was 1989, I believe. 36 years and they still aren’t nuclear capable (unlike Israel, I should mention if your concern is staying within the boundaries of international law regarding nukes). To me, this smells of the justification in Iraq, supposed WMDs which were never found, and appeals to human rights abuses there. We must stop repeating history.
War can clearly change circumstances in massive, quick, and/or unpredictable ways. It just happened in Syria last year for example.
This attack by Israel may be one of the times in which more war brings positive benefits. Iran was already weakened by Israel smashing its proxies, it’s loathed by its neighbors, and its drones kill Ukrainians every night. The Iranian government is an enemy of the US and ally of Putin so hurting Iran is often helpful.
And Netanyahu mostly takes the short-sighted and immoral choice. Support Hamas to weaken the PLO - check. Expand illegal settlements - check. Avoid a hostage deal in order to keep fighting in Gaza - check. Continue fighting in Lebanon even after destroying Hezbollah leadership - check. Kill the Oct 7 attack’s leaders and continue to bomb children - check.
All these aim to ensure Palestinians never have a state which is both immoral and short sighted because it means Israel will always be at war. So with the attack on Iran I am cautious about hoping when I don’t trust Israel’s goals.