The Iran Dilemma: They Like Us, Not; We Like Them, Not...usw.
Iran may be the fulcrul point of ME stability over the next decade, much as Iraq was in the last. I had a fascinating range of exchange last week prompted by this column by an Iranian ex-pat reporter: "On a recent afternoon, while riding a rickety bus down Teheran's main thoroughfare, I overheard two women discussing the grim state of Iranian politics. One of them had reached a rather desperate conclusion. "Let the Americans come," she said loudly. "Let them sort things out for us." The full article is excerpted more after the break along with a couple of others - including a superb David Brooks editorial that says what I've been trying to say much better, more pointedly and more clearly. Of course it's his job and gets paid a bit for it :). Anyway a friend of mine who's spent time in Iran had this to say in response:
"I had a woman beg me to take her back with me. Those people know their government is screwed up and feel almost like they are being held hostage. But it’s not our place to liberate them even though we have a deep history with Iran going all the way back to 54. It’s their job to save themselves this time no more Olie North or contra crap. But if you went to Iran and saw those people the thought of killing them and ruing their lives would totally escape your brain no matter what the hyped up false threat is. The only way to give them a democracy is to broker a deal between the reformers (mostly youth) and the regime to allow total government restructuring to take place without any American agenda (which will be impossible) because those are the allies we want in that region those are the people you lean on in that region because we can’t trust the Saudis or anyone else in that region. We are setting ourselves up for failure if we ruin that relationship and I hope the republicans understand that. I hope an accomplished scholar says the same thing soon so people can start viewing Iran as the potential great American resource it can be. We didn't have to attack Iraq to have a powerful base in that region all we had to do was help the people of Iran. I kid you not Tehran is like Manhattan."
Not sure I agree entirely with all his arguments but all of them make sense. And he raises an interesting and constructive potential - what could happen in Iran, in the ME and for the world in general if we could get Iran constructively engaged in its' own welfare. Rather than having a minority continue to export terror and develop nuclear weapons to support their own grip on power. Here's what I had to say in reply:
All that you say makes enormous sense and is consistent with my own views and understandings. In fact my first basic principle of US foreign policy is to constructively engage with the world to promote as good a government as possible locally because it is in our own long-term best interests.There is a great divide, as in many times in history, between the people, what's best for the people and good governance and the power structure. In Iran that power structure is fractious, factioned, malfeasant, kleptocratic and pursuing multiple foreign policy initiatives that make it a threat to the peace and stability of the world. In the last week the UN agency responsible has issued a very harsh report on Iran's pursuit of nucs, which is something we cannot allow. And the Iranian extremists in pursuit of their domestic advantages, not I believe, as a concerted national policy, have been exporting terrorism via Hamas, Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq for years. At the end of the day there is no logical reason or advantage to doing that which means something escapes me. I think their reasons are the use of the rhetoric of the Islamist revolution to keep and maintain power. Whether consciously or not. They're certainly not serving the interests of their country or people.And there you have our great dilemma with regard to Iran in a nutshell. Our best strategic alternative is to contain them while trying to slowly wean the government and the polity into a more progressive stance. Hopefully encouraging them on the path toward a self-sustaining virtuous cycle of improvement. But power-seeking factions inside the government are pursuing policies that are truly disruptive and dangerous and may require more massive intervention to prevent from reaching a dangerous point - or crossing a threshold into nuclear weapons.
It will take a clever, insightful, courageous and practically skilled foreign policy to bridge this deep dilemma. We have people who have proven capable of such, including some in the government today (Zoellick, Hill, et.al.). Whether we can raise it to the level of policy is another question. But as you say if some scholar will start the ball rolling then it might slowly accumulate. And this article was a first of many small steps - being as it came from the editorial pages of the Christian Science Monitor that's not a bad starting pulpit.
And there you have it, IOHO, in a nutshell. If we could find a way to contain and constrain Iran while constructively engaging with them and supporting the emergence of more progressive elements we'd all be better off. Especially them with their collapsing economy and increasingly frayed society. Yet in our own and others interests we may be reluctantly forced to measures that are acceptable only because they are less terrible than the consequences of a theocratic kleptocracy with nuclear weapons, a collapsing society and a posture of exporting terror in the name of an extremist religious belief that most of them no longer truly believe in. Sound like anybody else you know ? Like Russia post Stalin ?
A final and key observation - if this is really serious then it's time for the kind of narrow, self-serving posturing we discussed in yesterday's post to be put aside in the national interest. If it's not serious by all means carry the posturing into office, whomever wins, and let the games begin. As Brooks points out once you're in the seat Mr. President the campaign rhetoric must deal with realities on the ground. And we will talk to Iran however we can. And we won't be soft or forgiving either because we've, despite the public image, done a lot of talking over the years.
But make no mistake - this is not an easy, simple nor straight-forward problem. No matter what you're told or would like to believe.
Why Iranians like America again - On a recent afternoon, while riding a rickety bus down Tehran's main thoroughfare, I overheard two women discussing the grim state of Iranian politics. One of them had reached a rather desperate conclusion. "Let the Americans come," she said loudly. "Let them sort things out for us." Although their leaders still call America the "Great Satan," ordinary Iranians' affection for the United States seems to be thriving these days, at least in the bustling capital. This rekindled regard is evident in people's conversations, their insatiable demand for US products and culture, and their fascination with the US presidential campaign. It might startle some Americans to realize that Iran has one of the most pro-American populations in the Middle East. Iranians have adored America for nearly three decades, a sentiment rooted in nostalgia for Iran's golden days, before the worst of the shah's repression and the 1979 Islamic revolution. But today's affection is new, or at least different. Starting in about 2005, Iranians' historic esteem for the US gave way to a deep ambivalence that is only now ending. President Bush's post-9/11 wars of liberation on both of Iran's borders rattled ordinary Iranians, and Washington's opposition to Iran's nuclear program added to their resentment. In early 2006, when I lived in Iran as a journalist, I had only to step outdoors to hear the complaints. The most interesting aspect of the revival of warm feelings today is that the US has done so little to earn them. Instead, Iranians' renewed pro-American sentiments reflect the depth of their alienation from their own rulers. As a family friend put it: "It's a matter of being drawn to the opposite of what you can't stand."
A critical mess over Iran Both John McCain and Barack Obama say Iran must not be allowed to make an atomic bomb. Whomever wins in November may need to act on this pledge early in his presidency. A new UN report cites "serious" concerns about "possible military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear programs. The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency is extraordinarily tough. The IAEA isn't known to exaggerate and even openly opposes the Bush administration's tough and sometimes threatening talk against Iran. Up to now, the United Nations agency has largely given Iran the benefit of the doubt about its claim that this petroleum-rich country simply seeks a new energy source.But evidence of Iran's intent is reaching critical mass, compounded by its secrecy in dealing with the IAEA, not to mention direct threats against Israel and pretensions to dominate the Middle East in the name of a flagging Shiite revolution.The IAEA found "substantial parts of the centrifuge components were manufactured in the workshops of the Defense Industries Organization." It also describes evidence of detonators, testing systems, and missile configuration that can only go with a nuclear weapon. So much for last year's estimate by US spy agencies that Iran suspended its weapons program in 2003. If all that isn't enough to persuade Russia and China to help ratchet up UN sanctions on Iran, then there's more. A report last week by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies found that Iran's nuclear threat has already helped create a dangerous ricochet with a surge among Iran's rivals in the region to develop a nuclear-energy capacity.
The Reality Situation We don’t understand the Iranians because the Iranians don’t understand themselves. Until they resolve their internal ambiguity, they won’t be able to make a strategic shift. You are now engaged in a campaign debate over whether to talk with Iran. As I’m sure you both know, this is a political exercise that will have little relevance should you actually take office. In the White House, you will find yourself spending more time on Iran than any other foreign policy issue. You’ll be reminded that the 1979 Iranian revolution is one of the signature events of modern history, akin to the 1917 Russian Revolution, and the U.S. has never figured out how to deal with it. You’ll gather your intelligence experts to help you understand the Iranian threat. They will tell you what they have told the current administration: We don’t know much about how the Iranian regime operates. There are at least four internal factions that seem to regulate each other, but we have little idea how. We don’t understand the Iranians because the Iranians don’t understand themselves. The regime isn’t sure whether it is an ideological movement championing global jihad or whether it is merely regional power seeking Middle East hegemony. Until the Iranians resolve this internal ambiguity, you can talk to them all you want, but they won’t be able to make a strategic shift or follow a more amenable path. As you sit in the Oval Office contemplating how to engage Iran, you won’t be reliving the campaign debate about when to negotiate. You’ll be thinking about how to exert pressure. You will develop newfound sympathy for your predecessors in the Bush administration. There are a hundred things they could have done differently, but the primary fault for the failure to contain Iran does not lie in Washington. It lies first with the feckless international community.
The United Nations has passed resolutions demanding an end to Iranian nuclear enrichment. Iran ignores them. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 forbids the rearmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran rearmed them without consequence. Fault also lies with the terrified but nearly immobile Sunni world. It lies, too, with the axis of the avaricious. The U.S. and Europe try to organize economic sanctions against Iran, but the oil-rich Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed in Indonesia, and Iran signed a pipeline deal with India. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a security group headed by Russia and China, granted Iran observer status, while denying the U.S. the same status in 2005. This is the problem with multipolarity. When everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible. A rich rogue nation can flout the will of a disparate majority.
Related Posts
- Weekly Reader 30Sep07: Middle East, Iraq and Iran
- WRFest 1Mar08(Middle East): Some Different Perspectives
- WRFest 16Mar08(Middle East):Diversity, Complexity & Confusions
- WRFest 30Mar08(Middle East): Progress, Reform, Stability, Devolution
- ME Faultlines(Readings): Values, Culture & Conflict