Legitimacy Issues

Over at The Corner, Mario Layola advises that the President should strike a balance between realism and idealism, in the model of certain former president (hint: he was the greatest president ever). Read:

Obama should think carefully about the Reagan example, because it was a balancing act between principle and pragmatism that proves difficult for even the most talented presidents—as Obama himself has just demonstrated. His statements on Iran so far sounded an essential theme — that Iranian leaders must govern by consent and not by coercion. Yet we still don't know whether Obama considers the recent election to have been illegitimate merely because it was marked by indications of fraud and by violence, or whether he thinks the political system of Iran fundamentally illegitimate, and therefore all of its election results the fruits of a poisoned tree, fraud or no fraud, violence or no violence.

Heavens help us, we don't know! Actually, we do know and Layola is ignoring the clear statements of the President. He has consistently said that he respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, meaning: if the current regime is in place, its legitimate. I'll address legitimacy in a moment, but first let us address Ronald "The Greatest President Ever" Reagan. The notion that one can transpose the moves Reagan made in regards to the Soviet Union to the current Iranian regime is ridiculous. The two situations are not the same. Iran is not a superpower or even a failing superpower. Iran doesn't have batteries of missiles with nuclear warheads pointed at us. Just because Reagan did one thing with the Russians in the 80s does not mean that its strategically sound to do the same thing with Iranians now. For example, we would not want to take the same approach Reagan did towards the Iranians today. Arming the Iranian government now would not be wise.

Layola continues:

A strong realist case can be made that the essential problem we face in Iran is the inherent illegitimacy of the regime, which stages elections among candidates approved on a case-by-case basis by unaccountable clerics whose philosophy of governance, the "mandate of the wise," is by definition anti-democratic. It is because the regime does not represent the long-term interests of the Iranian people, and is founded instead on a commitment to extremism and messianic conflict, that it does not really respect the rule of law, and cannot be trusted with the advanced nuclear technology of uranium enrichment or plutonium separation. It is because the regime is illegitimate that it cannot be a good-faith partner in fixing the problems of the region, and instead makes them all worse. It is because the regime is illegitimate that it depends on other illegitimate regimes (like Venezuela) and on the terrorists it sponsors, and that is also the reason they all depend on it.

Actually, no sound realist case can be made for this. What has the Iranian regime proven to us since the election? It has proven that it is committed to surviving, to maintaining power. The actions taken by Khamenei are not the actions of a suicide bomber or an extremist. He has acted as any dictator would. He is a fascist. A religious fascist perhaps, but a fascist, who cares more about being in power than being true to the Islamic Revolution or Khomenei's Islamic political philosophy or any religious ideology. So, if we know that Khamenei cares about surviving, why can't we trust the Iranian regime with nuclear weapons when we know they can be deterred? Layola seems to think that all our problems with Iran stem from the "illegitimacy" of its regime, as if Iran has no interests at stake in the region which may be contrary to those of the US. Does he think Iran doesn't want the US dominate region only because Khamenei is in power? Does he think that Iran doesn't want a strong and peaceful Iraq only because Ahmadinejad is president? No, these are strategic interests which will remain long after the fall of the current Iranian regime. The problem with the concept of legitimacy is that it is attached to democracy. Yes, we can all agree that it be nice if Iran was ruled by a democracy. However, we don't live in the world of nice. We live in a world where states have interests, whether or not they are a democracy. The current Iranian regime might not be legitimate, but who cares from a foreign policy standpoint? I know I, as an individual, care, but the US should not care. The Iranian regime has a monopoly on force within its borders and is conducting foreign policy, therefore it has sovereignty. This is all that should matter to the US.

Layola is insistent:

The most "realist" view of long-range U.S. interests would put democracy-promotion front and center in the case of Iran. Obama should make it clear that he considers the regime illegitimate so long as its elections are not free and fair; and that he looks forward to its demise even if he is willing to engage with its leaders in the same cordial diplomatic settings that so many other American leaders have used to duel with our adversaries, leveraging American power to make diplomacy succeed.

Why? What does this accomplish? Does it help Iranians overthrow their government? Will it change Iranian foreign policy? Will it stop Iranians from getting a nuke? Will it change anything in any way? Or, would it just be moral hot wind that's dismissed as easily as if the President said he believes all people love freedom?