Dan Spencer, my fellow Examiner at Right Side Politics wrote a post today about Time magazine's new article on Iranian's view of our 2008 presidential election. In what, perhaps, could become an occasional occurrence, I would like to provide another view.
Scott MacLeod, the author of the Time piece, writes that Iranians are very interested in our presidential race. Dan fails to emphasize what I consider the most important part of Mr. MacLeod's article: an interest by reformist Iranians to develop a dialog with the United States and the Iranian's belief that Barack Obama may be more open to repairing the relationship between the two countries.
Dan points out the breakdown in U.S./Iranian relations came with Iranian's abduction of 52 American diplomats, and imprisoning them for 444 days before their release in January, 1981. Since then, the U.S. has enforced an embargo and promoted international sanctions against Iran, particularly as the stakes have risen with Iran's intent to develop nuclear capability that can be leveraged into nuclear weaponry. Concurrently, U.S. policy has been to encourage reformist Iranians frustrated with their theocratic national government.
In his post, Dan expresses a concern that any overture towards Iran by the U.S. government would be viewed as a sign of weakness. I would argue any policy that's been ineffective for 27 years should be considered a failed policy and one that needs to be reconsidered.
Since a policy of embargo and sanctions has been ineffective, two options remain: military and diplomatic. Based on Mr. MacLeod's article, many reformist Iranians believe Barack Obama may be more willing to explore a diplomatic solution to the impasse between the U.S. and Iran.
There's a precedent for developing a dialog with Iran: North Korea. North Korea seized the Navy's USS Pueblo, engaged in an intelligence mission off the coast of North Korea, in 1968. Eighty two crew members were held by the North Koreans for 11 months before their release. North Korea went on to develop nuclear weaponry and share the technology with a number of rogue states, including Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Yemen and Syria. Those are real similarities between our relationship with Iran and our relationship with North Korea. After years of a failed strategy of embargo and sanctions, a diplomatic breakthrough finally occurred once the U.S. became directly involved and progress was finally made towards disarming North Korea's nuclear capability. The Bush Administration touts their success in North Korea as a significant foreign policy accomplishment. The same opportunity lies with Iran; negotiation from a position of strength to change the Iranian government's conduct.
Dan failed to mention a couple other things in the Time article. According to the article, some Iranians believe Henry Kissinger's (a John McCain's advisor) recent call for direct negotiations with Iran may prove influential to Senator McCain. The Time piece also notes many in Iraq reckon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supports a McCain presidency, believing his own long term political success rests with an antagonistic relationship with the U.S.
While I agree with Dan that the retreat by President Reagan in Lebanon and insufficient response by President Clinton after Mogadishu and the first World Trade Center bombing did little to address the threat from a radical Islamic contingent, I also think it's a fundamental mistake to lump all Muslims together and formulate a strategy that isn't nuanced enough to consider the differences.
A smart U.S. strategy towards Iran is able to differentiate between the Sunni Muslim al Qaeda's ugly hatred of the West and the burgeoning pro-Western reform movement in a Persian, Shia Iran. My take on the Time article is that an opportunity exists for a new, smart strategy of engagement with Iran.
Comments
You will get no argument from me, I think that Western policy makers find a hard time in differentiating the different muslim factions. I do think Senator Obama would be more prone to listening to people as opposed to adopting a non-diplomatic measure which is a great thing since force should be a last resort. I guess we will wait to wait until Senator Obama becomes President.
The breakdown in Iranian/US relations began in 1953 when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected secular regime of Mohammad Mosaddeq and installed the Pahlavi regime of brutal Shahs.
-marc
Thanks Marc. I was referring, in my post, to the collapse of relations between the state of Iran and the U.S. government.
I think your point is that the U.S. betrayed the Iranian people with it's involvement in the the coup that installed the Shahs. Certainly, the U.S. and Iran had diplomatic relations through the 50's, 60's and most of the 70's. Is that right?
Jay
The US had relations with the Pahlavi regime during its tenure. Those relations involved military hardware going to Iran and petroleum back to the US.
The cost of this period of "good relations," was the brutal SAVAK secret police which terrorized Iranian citizens. Only to the US was Mossadeq a dangerous radical, and anyone to the left of far right was subject to SAVAK's brutality.
One cannot analyze the 1979 Islamic revolution, a reaction to the Shah, absent staunch US support for the Shah, as history did not begin in 1979.
The US needs to apologize to the Iranian people for overthrowing their democratically elected government in 1953 and for supporting the Shah's regimes as a basis for normalizing relations.
Failing to own our historical actions is a sign of weakness. Stepping up and acknowledging the terrible consequences of our actions is a sign of strength.
-marc
Thanks Marc. I read an interesting article a few months back about the history. One thing stuck out: while most American's don't know much about the history of U.S. involvement in the coup and the subsequent tyranny (including, as you note, the SAVAK), this history is very well known by Iranians. That resentment is a factor, whether we like it or not, when studying U.S./Iranian relations.
Especially when the response to the Iranian revolution by the US dismissed Iranian resentment towards the Shah and resolved and stoked Iranian resentment against the US.
Had the US not overthrown Mossadeq, Iran would have probably proceeded on a secular path and arguably would not be considered a threat to the US. It is also possible that, had the US not supported the Shah, that Iran would have been a secular beacon to other states in the region.
The US, it could be argued, holds sole responsibility for the rise of political fundamentalist Islam based on its history of antagonism towards secularism and outright support for fundamentalists against US opponents in the region.
-marc
What would you suggest as a reasonable U.S. policy towards Iran?
Jay, I must quibble with your characterization of my "Obama With Iran" post. I don't think I said, and I certainly didn't mean to say, that "any overture towards Iran by the U.S. government would be viewed as a sign of weakness." What I did say was, "Like Carter's failure to free the hostages, Obama's proposed 'aggressive personal diplomacy' will also be seen as a sign of weakness that will only encourage this state sponsor of terrorism." I also said, "I prefer the current approach to fighting the war the Islamic extremists continue to wage against us and McCain's 'Realistic Idealism' to the false hope of Obama's 'aggressive personal diplomacy.'
I meant to convey my concern about Obama's naive statement that he will "meet with any leader of any state, including Iran's Ahmadinejad, without pre-conditions."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel; is pursuing nuclear weapons; and his Revolutionary Guard is training Iraqis to kill American military personnel in Iraq.
It is dangerous to offer to meet with Ahmadinejad without insisting that the rogue state change its belligerent ways -- serial statements about a world without America; parades in Iranian cities with participants shouting “Death to America”; active efforts to kill and maim Americans and Iraqis; Iran’s support for the Hezbollah terrorists, and Iran's refusal to obey the UN Security Council's demands that Iran cease its nuclear weapons development.
Talking for talking sake will not move Iran any closer toward acceptable conduct. No, such an unsophisticated policy will only convince the Iranians that their current abhorrent behavior got them what they wanted.
Let me first say, I agree with you completely about Ahmadinejad. He's mad and dangerous. That said, it's important to recognize he's just the President and the real power in Iran rests with the mullahs (who, by most accounts, are growing dissatisfied with Ahmadinejad's antics).
I suppose this is my major point: the politics of the Middle East are complicated and a one and only one approach to fighting a radical Islamic contingent (which is what I consider John McCain's policy) is not going to allow us to make any real progress. There needs to be some nuance. Iran is not Egypt is not Syria is not Indonesia.
I can make an argument that Saudi Arabia represents a significant national security threat to the U.S. Their madrassas educational system, a large number of Saudis support al Qaeda (bothw with their allegiance and financially) and Saudis undoubtedly provided support to Sunni insurgents in Iraq prior to the Sunni Awakening (and they, therefore, had a hand in killing American military personnel). The Middle East is filled with countries whose citizens shout "Death to America" and fund anti American activities. But only talking to our true friends will 1) not provide us an opportunity to negotiate win-win agreements with nations previously considered enemies and 2) eliminate any prospect of negotiations with any Middle Eastern nations.
The success to date with North Korea should provide a template for a strategy with Iran. Embargoes and sanctions didn't work (as they're not working with Iran). It was only when focused diplomacy began that progress was made. Not talking for talking's sake, but discussions with clear objectives and demands. That's what I would expect from either a President McCain or a President Obama.
I think that US foreign policy is a direct threat to the security of Americans.
There are two things that need to happen to recast relations between the US and the Islamic world:
1. Cease unilateral support for Israel and its occupation of Palestine.
2. Cease gaming politics in the region in an effort to keep locals in poverty through tyrannical regimes so that cheap petroleum can be had in the US.
3. Apologize to the victims of 1 and 2 above.
Fortunately, due to the house of cards upon which the US economy has been based since the 1980s and Bush II's debt financed war, the US has lost its military stick which it used to exact what it wanted from poorer regions. Absent a credible military threat, the US political position is destined to dwindle.
Without a credible military threat, those nations have no incentive to sell their raw materials to the US on the cheap. Starved of cheap raw materials, the US' military falters and this exacerbates the death spiral for the US empire.
Through sheer greed, hubris and voodoo economics, Bush II has effectively dismantled the US empire.
They say it takes a Nixon to go to China, no?
-marc
Well, I don't think it's quite as dire as you do. But we do have some common ground.
I think your first sentence is really important. We, as Americans, have tended to think of security only in military terms. In fact, it may be our economic security that is most in jeopardy.
With respect to Israel and Palestine, the U.S. absolutely has to be seen as a fair broker. There's no guarantee any meaningful solution comes in the near term, but the U.S. indifference is a source of anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East.
I disagree with you about raw material rich nations and the open market. They will still be at a disadvantage. It may not come from U.S. efforts to impose it's will anymore, but will now come from increased price pressure and the manipulations from a new cast of characters like China and India.
Please explain the Nixon/China reference. Not sure I understand.
The world is not about US security. There are 5.7b other human beings here who have valid interests.
Bush said they hate us for our freedoms. That 'they' hate us, they hate us for the bad things we've done to them so that we can live unsustainably comfortable lives.
Iran is a textbook example of this--one of the most cosmopolitan and secular societies shoehorned into islamic fundamentalism in reaction to US foreign policy.
The US cannot be seen as a fair broker in Israel/Palestine if it is biased towards one side, and $3b/yr in subsidy to Israel pretty much preludes the reality of US fair brokerhood. Whenever the US speaks of a mid east "peace process," it means moving away from peace.
The Palestinians, Arabs and Moslems are not stupid, they can read the papers and see that the US is walking down both sides of the street.
Continuing on further, since US political power has been diminished by the military being asymmetrically held down in Afghanistan and Iraq which has been diminished by economic meltdown, that has created the space for other nations and blocs to coalesce in their spheres of influence.
We see China, India and Russia, predictably, flexing their economic and military muscles in their peripheries, as well as the Islamic world and Latin Americans coalescing as well. These poles don't have much in common other than resentment of US hubris directed at them since WWII.
Had a Democrat presided over the melt down in the FIRE economy that led to the mortgage and credit crisis, then s/he would be lambasted as if a Democrat would have gone to China in the 70s.
So the US economy has thrived on its ability to keep resource rich nations populated by non-whites poor and disorganized, see apartheid South Africa, Indonesia, and Borneo, for instance. Without that comparative advantage, the US will have to compete for resources on the open market without the benefit of a credible military threat.
No, it took a right wing Republican administration to dismantle the US empire by overreaching militarily based on a hollow economy that could not sustain it. Thus, Nixon/China.
This is an historical lesson on how to go from a monopolar superpower to one of many in seven short years. Remember how quickly the Soviet Union crumbled?
We Americans have no legitimacy commenting on the sanity or rationality of the leader of any other nation until we clean up our accumulated mess and put our own house in order.
I mean, has Ahmadinijad said anything as consequentially dangerous as "Iraq supported Al Quaeda when it attacked the US?" Wouldn't you want nuclear arms if your neighbor was just reduced to the murderous danger and the stone age by an "honest broker?"
-marc
Economic power, at the end of the day, trumps military power. The U.S. will (need to) learn to adapt to a changing world, full of new economic rivals and more complicated power equations.
Iran has gained a great deal from our botched efforts in Iraq. A Shia governed neighbor, an embarrassed U.S. and the opportunity to leverage their broadened influence throughout the Middle East.
I would argue it was that damn "axis of evil" speech that put Iran and North Korea on a course to confront the U.S. It was meant to intimidate. It antagonized instead.
It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude that entities threatened with a credible threat of violence take steps to protect themselves from that credible threat.
That the US paints that defensive posture (Iran, NK) as offensive indicates that the US takes umbrage at the notion that it is not able to impose its will on other states. It did the same with Nicaragua a generation ago, with Panama and Noriega more recently and who can forget the threat that Greneda posed to those poor c-class med students?
Again, with Bush as president, we have no standing to criticize Kim Jong Il (the dear leader) or Amedinejad.
After several generations of the US taking what it wants, would anyone expect for the victims of that to simply forgive and forget? Should we be able to get away scot free after committing more than half a century of war crimes and crimes against humanity in order to provide a comfortable life for most Americans (at one point)?
For every convenience any of us have been afforded, ten others have been forced to live in unspeakable poverty, destitution, hunger and illness the likes of which we could never imagine.
Our weakness combined with the ascension of others indicates to me that we'd better prepare ourselves for chickens coming home to roost.
-marc
You have the last word on this one. Thanks for the discussion Marc.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!