Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think the USA should even be in Iraq, but that's probably not really germane to this discussion. Both sides are trying to effect their goals. The USA is doing so in a misguided fashion but at least the USA has good (if unachievable) goals in Iraq. Iran has bad goals because their system and ideology is bad. You have to be willing to make a value judgment and say that human and civil rights (Western style) are good whereas Shari'a is bad. Iran's regime wants bad things (though they think it is good).

It's not about who "has the right" to try to spread their ideology, but whose ideology is at core good or evil. Hanging gays for being gay and hanging teenage girls is bad. Many laws under Shari'a, oppressing women, denying women and religious minorities equal rights, giving Muslims civil rights ABOVE non-Muslims: those are EVIL laws. The Shari'a is EVIL. Naziism was evil. Laws and beliefs to oppress Jews are EVIL. Iran's regime is working towards evil things, though deluded as they are, they think it good.

The USA is doing evil things in Iraq, but not because the underlying belief system of the USA is evil. Rather, the Neo-Cons have developed doctrines and philosophies that are misguided and unworkable, which has led to doing evil. Democractizing Iraq will not free Iraq; it will only free and empower the Shi'ite majority to defeat and oppress the Sunnis and Kurds. Democracy in the Middle East will generally empower Shari'a, not free the Arabs to enjoy Western style human and civil rights. The Neo-Cons had a quixotic dream, and trying to implement it by force was (and still is) a huge error.

I guess my point is that the fact that both sides have similarly distasteful thoughts about each other is largely irrelevant, because the problem is not about just getting along. The problem is a fundamental clash of underlying ideologies and values. So it is a bad thing that Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, two genocidally-aimed organizations. It is a bad thing that Iran is trying to kill Americans in Iraq. It would be a bad thing if Iran's regime gains any more power.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is that the international rules of engagement can't be different for our two countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I agree with this statement in all cases.


[ QUOTE ]
I understand that we all think Iran is an evil force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran's regime, actually. Not all of Iran.

[ QUOTE ]
This does not mean that we are allowed to wage war and they are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but it doesn't mean the reverse, either.

[ QUOTE ]
Because we think they are evil doesn't make it okay when we do something and them wrong when they take the same action.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might (arguably) be not wrong to bomb their nuclear development sites and/or defang their military's capabilities. Since the Iranian regime's goals are evil, though, it would definitely be bad for them to launch an attack on a neighboring country.


I don't accept as axiomatic that reasonable and reasonably enlightened governments, and evil regimes, should both be held to identical rules of international conduct. The evil regime forfeits some of its rights and expectations of being treated equally by virtue of being for evil. And it would be silly for the USA to consider France to be equally as likely a threat as Iran, or to treat them both identically.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

It might (arguably) be not wrong to bomb their nuclear development sites and/or defang their military's capabilities. Since the Iranian regime's goals are evil, though, it would definitely be bad for them to launch an attack on a neighboring country.


I don't accept as axiomatic that reasonable and reasonably enlightened governments, and evil regimes, should both be held to identical rules of international conduct. The evil regime forfeits some of its rights and expectations of being treated equally by virtue of being for evil. And it would be silly for the USA to consider France to be equally as likely a threat as Iran, or to treat them both identically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you see the difficulty with this though? Who gets to decide who is evil and who is "reasonable and enlightened"? Is it majority rules? Does whoever have the most nukes get to decide? I'm pretty confident that those in power in Iran don't believe that they are evil.

I also didn't mean to imply that we should treat all nations the same in terms of our foreign policy. But I do believe that all nations should be treated the same with respect to international law. We can't take one action and then denounce that same action performed by one of our enemies.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It might (arguably) be not wrong to bomb their nuclear development sites and/or defang their military's capabilities. Since the Iranian regime's goals are evil, though, it would definitely be bad for them to launch an attack on a neighboring country.


I don't accept as axiomatic that reasonable and reasonably enlightened governments, and evil regimes, should both be held to identical rules of international conduct. The evil regime forfeits some of its rights and expectations of being treated equally by virtue of being for evil. And it would be silly for the USA to consider France to be equally as likely a threat as Iran, or to treat them both identically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you see the difficulty with this though? Who gets to decide who is evil and who is "reasonable and enlightened"? Is it majority rules? Does whoever have the most nukes get to decide? I'm pretty confident that those in power in Iran don't believe that they are evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the real world we're talking about, not some abstract philosophical debate. A muderer/rapist and his victim might each believe they are right and the other party is wrong (the rapist might even believe his victim is wrong for resisting), but one of them is wrong and the other is right. The murderer/rapist is wrong, and the question of "who gets to decide" is irrelevant to the moral question (though it might be applicable to the pragmatic question).

You might think that there is nothing that is absolutely wrong, that all values are malleable and equally interchageable based on point of view, or something like that. I don't believe that. Some things are simply morally wrong regardless of prevailing opinion. You might dispute that in some abstract philosophical vacuum, but in the real world, I'd bet that the closer you are to actual evil, the more you will KNOW it is evil (like if you witnessed some of the inhumanities and atrocities in Hitler's death camps. At that point, wouldn't your speculations as to "who has the moral right to decide" go out the window? You'd KNOW the Nazis were wrong and committing evil, even if they thought they were doing good).

Who gets to decide? Everybody has that responsibility to become capable of making good moral judgments. You have that responsibility too. The only caution, as you point out, should be the awareness that occasionally you might be wrong or overlook someting, but that should not stop you from making judgments. It should only caution you from taking precipitous action on minimal evidence or on matters that are not highly consequential. You have the ability and right to determine and state that aspects of Shari'a Law are wrong, and evil in their implementation, or that the Iranian regime is wrong and acting evilly by hanging 16-year-old girls for accusations of promiscuity. You have to have confidence that you can make a good moral judgment and moral or ethical estimate.

[ QUOTE ]
I also didn't mean to imply that we should treat all nations the same in terms of our foreign policy. But I do believe that all nations should be treated the same with respect to international law. We can't take one action and then denounce that same action performed by one of our enemies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Inherent in your statement seems to rest the assumption that all countries should be treated as equally responsible and equally meritorious of having any weapon or being permitted any action.

That just isn't so, any more than it is true of individual humans: some you really can trust better than others, some are more maliciously minded, some are more or less responsible, etc.

There is no reason all countries or regimes should have equal access to weapons. Some human beings must be forcibly denied certain leeway: the criminally insane must sometimes be kept physically quarantined so that they won't harm other people. An axe-murderer isn't permitted to walk freely around the city and countryside carrying a couple of hatchets. His rights are abrogated, and rightly so. How does your argument stack up against that? So why should certain states not be quarantined, so to speak, or have their access to dangerous materials and weapons restricted? If they are bad actors, if they follow an evil ideology, if they are even simply our enemies, then perhaps their leeway and capabilities should be limited.

[Taraz]

I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I'm perfectly fine with everyone claiming that Iran is an evil force and that we should fight against them (even if I disagree with the threat that they pose).

What I am arguing is that you can't claim that their tactics are somehow unfair or war crimes when they are the exact same actions that we take. What if Iran was taking no military action in Iraq right now? Would this inaction be evil as well because they represent evil ideals? Every action they take is not evil simply because they are making it.

I just can't believe that people are so shocked that Iran would take certain actions. I'm just trying to point out that many Iranian tactics are perfectly reasonable from their point of view. You would expect them to take all these actions. Our quarrel with them is completely ideological and has little to do with the means by which they act. I just don't see any reason to be outraged by their actions when it is the regime they are trying to establish that we find fault with.