MR Reacts to Bloggers' Conference Call With Israeli Ambassador Uri Lubrani - Public Diplomacy Probably Won't Work, and Counting On It Is Probably a Bad Idea
Last Thursday we were privileged to sit in on the most recent OneJerusalem.org newsmaker conference call, with the guest being Israeli Ambassador Uri Lubrani (link goes to page with audio file). The Ambassador has headed Israel’s Mission to Iran, served as Government Coordinator for Lebanese Affairs, Coordinator of the Rescue of Ethiopian Jews, chief negotiator for the release of Israeli hostages, and Israel's ambassador to Ethiopia and Uganda. There were a ton of people popping in and out of the call, but some of the people we recognized included Lynn-B from In Context, Anne from Boker Tov, Boulder, David Goder from One Jerusalem, Jerry from IsraPundit (where we've also been known to write from time to time), and Dr. Judith Klinghoffer from if-you-don't-know-where-what-the-hell-are-you-doing-reading-this.
Ambassador Lubrani, among the other things that we assume he's doing, is working with analysts in Jerusalem to analyze textbooks from the Arab world. In a few weeks time, this team will release a report that includes an evaluation of the Iranian curriculum. That analysis will demonstrate what even the most myopic Leftist apologist for Islamofascism ought to have recognized by now: the Iranian regime is gearing up for a protracted global conflict and a possible nuclear war. The target is not Israel but the US-led West - and it is not being driven exclusively by religious hatred, but is also influence by geopolitical considerations. The Ambassador repeatedly emphasized the tenor and significance of Iranian educational indoctrination: from the age of 6 until the end of secondary school, every Iranian schoolchild is taught that the United States is the very "incarnation of evil". This insistence on the need for Americans to recognize that Iran is coming after them (and not just after Israel) was also emphasized by former Prime Minister Netanyahu in the bloggers' conference call that occured last week.
Ambassador Lubroni's solution is to to speak directly to Iranians over the Iranian regime. He proposes what is essentially a public diplomacy effort of unprecedented size and scope - a commitment comparable to the one that the JFK made to beating the Soviets in Space Race. The Ambassador's reasoning rests on the following, presumably exhaustive, list of options that the West has in their confrontation with Iran:
(1) engaging the Iranian regime won't work - because AHMENIJAB is a lunatic who thinks that the 12th Imam sits on his shoulder and whispers advice to him)
(2) military options are unacceptable - because they'll start big wars in which lots of people will die (and also because, to be honest, the Ambassador seems like kind of a peacenik)
(3) encouraging the Iranian public to overthrow the theocratic regime might work - because they're sophisticated and will find ways to access Western sources of information
Now in the past, we have opined (perhaps overly glibly, perhaps not) that public diplomacy is intellectualized terrorist-apologism. Actually, we were a little less generous: the phrase was "barely-disguised terrorist apologism". Had we been in a fairer mood, though, we would probably could have been talked into conceding that public diplomacy is indeed intellectualized - making it intellectualized, barely-disguised terrorist apologism. Fair's fair, after all.
Public diplomacy, remember, is government-to-public communication. In the context of the Global War on Terror, the idea is that if we explain ourselves to the Muslim public and counteract the lunatic things published in their newspapers, they'll stop supporting people who are trying to wipe us out. What we don't understand is what the basis for that hope is - where did we get the idea that explaining our way of life to Muslim extremists will make them like us more? It seems that the opposite is more likely to be the case - if they really hate us because of our freedoms, then pedantically telling them about those freedoms is only going to make them hate us more. But even if you're an academic sophisticate who rolls your eyes at the phraes "they hate us for our freedoms" (maybe because you're practicing for a future State Department job), it's not that unreasonable to believe the following: since Muslim extremists really hate gay people, they will like us less when they learn that we let gay people march through the streets and express pride in their identity. Now we could explain ourselves to the Muslim world in a way that minimizes those kinds of freedoms: but defending our way of life by denying that it exists kind of misses the point, no?
But it gets worse - it's not only that public diplomacy doesn't work. It's that there might be harm in even trying. When Karen Hughes goes on "listening tours" through the Muslim world and sits down with Saudi tyrants, they tell her that the reason that there is so much anger in the Muslim world is because of Israel... or because of Iraq... or because of McDonalds. This, with due respect, is not true. Not in that "it is a lie" kind of not true, but more in that "it is an excuse designed to disguise the real cause - a mixture of religious fanaticism and cultural resentment bordering on violent pathology". And again, having Karen Hughes lied to by fanatics wouldn't matter - except that she's then inclined to try to influence American policy because she seems to believe those pretexts are genuine motives.
Listen - does anyone believe that the people who embrace cartoons of hooked-nosed IDF soldiers stabbing babies and who believe by 60 point margins in international banking conspiracies - does anyone really believe that they'll stop hating Jews if Israel stays out of Lebanon? Seriously? And of course, the answer is that maybe they'll hate Jews slightly less. Fair enough - but not less enough that they can be counted on to help Israel more than the destruction of a single Katyusha missile launcher. So why should Israel not destroy that launcher on the hope-against-hope that a single Indonesian civilian will hate the US just a little bit less - when the US clearly has an overwhelming interest in Israel's security?
So all things being equal, we're not overly enamored with Ambassador Lubrani's suggestion that the United States undertake a massive program of public diplomacy - a program equivalent to the commitment JFK made to land on the Moon. Following the Ambassador's logic, however, forces one to consider the possibility that in the case of Iran all things are not equal. His point that the Iranian population is vastly more sophisticated and modern than much of the Arab and Muslim world can be applied to this critique of public diplomacy (although he didn't do that work in the interview). It could be the case that in the sole case of Iran, his advocacy of "speaking over the Iranian regime in an aggressive fashion" might actually work.
This difference in the sophistication of populations, then, would be the only difference that potentially makes a difference in Iran. Most of the other things that the Ambassador discussed (the persecution of women, the abysmal economy, etc) are endemic across the Muslim world - and resentment about those conditions have been so successfully channeled against the United States (and against Jews) that trying to leverage public diplomacy probably lacks any credibility - it just fuels the broad and deep conspiracy theorization. But perhaps in Iran it's different (although if that's the case, why hasn't a broad-based movement developed? The closest they've ever gotten is former President Khatami, who moderately marched through the streets screaming "Death to America, Death to Israel").
Ambassador Lubroni is no fool, and he does not delude himself about the stakes involved in the West's confrontation with Iran: he states unequivocally his belief that this war will be fought, that it ought to be fought on our ground rather than Iran's, and that it might very well be fought in the shadow of a mushroom cloud. But his solution to wait for the Iranian public to get around to overthrowing the theocrats seems risky to the point of recklessness. Events might well overtake his dreams of a peaceful internal change - events that could come literally as soon as today, when we might wake up to find that a war has been forced upon the West by Iran. And if not today, then by the Ambassador's own analysis, by the week after or the month after.
Even if public diplomacy could work in the Iranian context (which is to say, even though it doesn't seem to make sense in the context of any other Muslim country), Israel, the United States, and the rest of the West simply may not have the time or the luxury to risk the very real possibility that it won't. Iran's missiles can reach Paris and London, and their terrorists can reach New York and Washington, DC - to say nothing about the densely populated Jewish State, which Iran refers to as a "two bomb country".
Ambassador Lubrani, among the other things that we assume he's doing, is working with analysts in Jerusalem to analyze textbooks from the Arab world. In a few weeks time, this team will release a report that includes an evaluation of the Iranian curriculum. That analysis will demonstrate what even the most myopic Leftist apologist for Islamofascism ought to have recognized by now: the Iranian regime is gearing up for a protracted global conflict and a possible nuclear war. The target is not Israel but the US-led West - and it is not being driven exclusively by religious hatred, but is also influence by geopolitical considerations. The Ambassador repeatedly emphasized the tenor and significance of Iranian educational indoctrination: from the age of 6 until the end of secondary school, every Iranian schoolchild is taught that the United States is the very "incarnation of evil". This insistence on the need for Americans to recognize that Iran is coming after them (and not just after Israel) was also emphasized by former Prime Minister Netanyahu in the bloggers' conference call that occured last week.
Ambassador Lubroni's solution is to to speak directly to Iranians over the Iranian regime. He proposes what is essentially a public diplomacy effort of unprecedented size and scope - a commitment comparable to the one that the JFK made to beating the Soviets in Space Race. The Ambassador's reasoning rests on the following, presumably exhaustive, list of options that the West has in their confrontation with Iran:
(1) engaging the Iranian regime won't work - because AHMENIJAB is a lunatic who thinks that the 12th Imam sits on his shoulder and whispers advice to him)
(2) military options are unacceptable - because they'll start big wars in which lots of people will die (and also because, to be honest, the Ambassador seems like kind of a peacenik)
(3) encouraging the Iranian public to overthrow the theocratic regime might work - because they're sophisticated and will find ways to access Western sources of information
Now in the past, we have opined (perhaps overly glibly, perhaps not) that public diplomacy is intellectualized terrorist-apologism. Actually, we were a little less generous: the phrase was "barely-disguised terrorist apologism". Had we been in a fairer mood, though, we would probably could have been talked into conceding that public diplomacy is indeed intellectualized - making it intellectualized, barely-disguised terrorist apologism. Fair's fair, after all.
Public diplomacy, remember, is government-to-public communication. In the context of the Global War on Terror, the idea is that if we explain ourselves to the Muslim public and counteract the lunatic things published in their newspapers, they'll stop supporting people who are trying to wipe us out. What we don't understand is what the basis for that hope is - where did we get the idea that explaining our way of life to Muslim extremists will make them like us more? It seems that the opposite is more likely to be the case - if they really hate us because of our freedoms, then pedantically telling them about those freedoms is only going to make them hate us more. But even if you're an academic sophisticate who rolls your eyes at the phraes "they hate us for our freedoms" (maybe because you're practicing for a future State Department job), it's not that unreasonable to believe the following: since Muslim extremists really hate gay people, they will like us less when they learn that we let gay people march through the streets and express pride in their identity. Now we could explain ourselves to the Muslim world in a way that minimizes those kinds of freedoms: but defending our way of life by denying that it exists kind of misses the point, no?
But it gets worse - it's not only that public diplomacy doesn't work. It's that there might be harm in even trying. When Karen Hughes goes on "listening tours" through the Muslim world and sits down with Saudi tyrants, they tell her that the reason that there is so much anger in the Muslim world is because of Israel... or because of Iraq... or because of McDonalds. This, with due respect, is not true. Not in that "it is a lie" kind of not true, but more in that "it is an excuse designed to disguise the real cause - a mixture of religious fanaticism and cultural resentment bordering on violent pathology". And again, having Karen Hughes lied to by fanatics wouldn't matter - except that she's then inclined to try to influence American policy because she seems to believe those pretexts are genuine motives.
Listen - does anyone believe that the people who embrace cartoons of hooked-nosed IDF soldiers stabbing babies and who believe by 60 point margins in international banking conspiracies - does anyone really believe that they'll stop hating Jews if Israel stays out of Lebanon? Seriously? And of course, the answer is that maybe they'll hate Jews slightly less. Fair enough - but not less enough that they can be counted on to help Israel more than the destruction of a single Katyusha missile launcher. So why should Israel not destroy that launcher on the hope-against-hope that a single Indonesian civilian will hate the US just a little bit less - when the US clearly has an overwhelming interest in Israel's security?
So all things being equal, we're not overly enamored with Ambassador Lubrani's suggestion that the United States undertake a massive program of public diplomacy - a program equivalent to the commitment JFK made to land on the Moon. Following the Ambassador's logic, however, forces one to consider the possibility that in the case of Iran all things are not equal. His point that the Iranian population is vastly more sophisticated and modern than much of the Arab and Muslim world can be applied to this critique of public diplomacy (although he didn't do that work in the interview). It could be the case that in the sole case of Iran, his advocacy of "speaking over the Iranian regime in an aggressive fashion" might actually work.
This difference in the sophistication of populations, then, would be the only difference that potentially makes a difference in Iran. Most of the other things that the Ambassador discussed (the persecution of women, the abysmal economy, etc) are endemic across the Muslim world - and resentment about those conditions have been so successfully channeled against the United States (and against Jews) that trying to leverage public diplomacy probably lacks any credibility - it just fuels the broad and deep conspiracy theorization. But perhaps in Iran it's different (although if that's the case, why hasn't a broad-based movement developed? The closest they've ever gotten is former President Khatami, who moderately marched through the streets screaming "Death to America, Death to Israel").
Ambassador Lubroni is no fool, and he does not delude himself about the stakes involved in the West's confrontation with Iran: he states unequivocally his belief that this war will be fought, that it ought to be fought on our ground rather than Iran's, and that it might very well be fought in the shadow of a mushroom cloud. But his solution to wait for the Iranian public to get around to overthrowing the theocrats seems risky to the point of recklessness. Events might well overtake his dreams of a peaceful internal change - events that could come literally as soon as today, when we might wake up to find that a war has been forced upon the West by Iran. And if not today, then by the Ambassador's own analysis, by the week after or the month after.
Even if public diplomacy could work in the Iranian context (which is to say, even though it doesn't seem to make sense in the context of any other Muslim country), Israel, the United States, and the rest of the West simply may not have the time or the luxury to risk the very real possibility that it won't. Iran's missiles can reach Paris and London, and their terrorists can reach New York and Washington, DC - to say nothing about the densely populated Jewish State, which Iran refers to as a "two bomb country".
