On Oct 13, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Julio Huato wrote:
> Even if Dabashi doesn't intend it, his perorations against Ahmadinajad
> translate into moral grandstanding from the academic Mount Olympus of
> a prominent U.S. university. As influential as a Columbia professor
> may be (or may believe he is), the broader terms of the conflict won't
> bend. I mean, the terms of the conflict between Iran and U.S.
> imperialism -- because the terms of the conflict over the allocation
> of resources at Columbia University may end up affected.
Besides, who's your presumed audience? You're never going to convince the American public, elite or mass, that the Iranian regime isn't terrible. So if the antiwar position is seen as contaminated with an apologetics for the Iranian regime, or even an unwillingness to criticize it, it will lose all credibility. There's a substantial portion of the American public, elite and mass, that would be persuaded by the argument that while the Iranian regime sucks, it's not our business to fix it - that's an Iranian affair. They're especially receptive to such an argument after the Iraq adventure, based on a pack of lies, turned into such a wreck. If the Bush admin is fixated on attacking Iran, nothing "we" say or do will stop them. But if you're hoping to stop it with popular agitation, then you have to be concerned with your credibility.
Doug