OP-Ed: “The Problem With Talking to Iran,” by Amir Taheri, Wall Street Journal, 28 May 2008, p. A17.OP-ED: “How to Have Successful Negotiations,” by Dennis Ross, Wall Street Journal, 24-25 May 2008, p. A11.
OP-ED: “It’s All About Leverage: Countering the strategy of Iran & Friends,” by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 1 June 2008, p. WK12.
Great piece by Taheri distinguishing between Iran-the-revolutionary-movement and Iran-the-nation-state.
Iran-the-movement has been a colossal failure: not delivering at home and not spreading effectively anywhere else—save where the Iranians buy loyalty from those with fewer options than they have.
Taheri points out the dichotomy nicely: some states, like Iraq, are able to deal with Iran-the-nation-state on a host of issues, but with the United States, we remain trapped in battling the revolutionary movement because that dynamic suits the mullahs’ purposes best (and Bush-Cheney’s).
The thing is, you never really defeat the revolutionary movement, you simply get the nation-state to rein it in on its own, because there are better deals to be made.
For now, with Iran, all those better deals run eastward, with states that currently have no ambition to rein in its behavior (just not their definition of a rising great power).
Taheri makes fun of the idea of measly carrots being contemplated: spare parts for this and that. Granted, so long as we elevate Iran-the-revolutionary-movement to the status of Nazi Germany, that does seem weak. But the question begs: why elevate this crappy revolution so? Simply because Ahmadinejad shoots off his mouth?
To me, Iran’s much like the terrorism threat in general: this is all we’ve got left to worry about. So yeah, deal with it, but don’t inflate it beyond all measure, including plans for missile defense in Poland. To me, that’s just greedy programs of record looking for problems to solve, which is pathetic given our casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, Iran “meddles” in these places. Duh! They’re right next door!
You put a neighbor in play with tens of thousands of your “meddling” troops and you expect Iran to sit back? Our expectations here are stunning, given our bellicose rhetoric.
Ross’ point is somewhat better: don’t reward nonstate actors but don’t cut yourself off from dialogue with state actors—just because they do things you don’t approve of. When push really comes to shove, you can always act, but short-circuiting dialogue by—again—preemptively making Iran the equivalent of Nazi Germany or—better yet—the entire Soviet Union (McCain) is silly.
We’re perceived as weak right now by Iran, as Ross and Friedman argue, so talks in our current state of weakness won’t go anywhere. We’ve made our beds in the region and we’re stuck in them for now, and that tie-down impresses no one, so we get a lot of disrespect in return—going all the way back to Katrina.
Don’t want to be fielding so much disrespect? Well, then we gotta build back up our respect in this world, and that won’t happen by making bold threats we can’t follow through on. Hell, that’s what Israel is for right now.
Can we get leverage, as Friedman puts it, quickly? No. All we can do quickly is de-escalate the rhetoric and, in my opinion, stop acting like Iran is the mother of all regional threats. I mean, that sort of myopia didn’t get us solid decision-making on Iraq, so why assume it would work this time with Iran?
Once de-escalated, then we need to approach the situation slowly but surely, building bridges where we can and signaling firm resistance where we must—you know, just like we did with the Sovs.
Ah, but the Iranians are “crazy.” I forgot.
Ever think that’s a bad fallback position? Calling your enemies “crazy” because they want things you don’t want them to have?
| Permalink |
Comments (7)
Taheri? The same "Yellow Badges for Jews" Taheri? Yeah, pull the other one. LOL!
Posted by hass | June 17, 2008 9:17 AM
to be honest Dr Barnett,even though i found your view on Iran falls
on so called pragmatism,the truth is as follow;United States is not the country it used to be like in 50's,60's or even 70's,where it had
more than 50% of the production of the world,it owned 70% of the
gold reserves,dollar was valued more than gold.it was a vey powerful country where it didn't need to use force hardly at all,it simply and easyly changed goverments by coupe,it did at least 30-40
coupe around the world,but now it is different US is weak,it couldn't carry out coupe in Venezuela,it failed,it is trying hard in Bolovie,it can
not even imgagine doing that in Iran.So that's why all these disrespect,it has to turn to the last resort in order to maintain respect; WAR ,and in turn get more stuck,and gets weaker and loose
more respect.if we accexpt that war is the end result of polices;and
the policy on Iran is regime change,how are you going to do that,you
can't do a coupe,you can't do what you did in Iraq,ocupiey,there is no boots to do that.you think about bomb bomb Iran,what that gets
you;many iencent people killed,mullas get more stronger as the result.so what is left to do; is for the Iranian to put thier own ture
national government in place(that is the trend in all third countries).
in fact as the developed countries get more shock up(economiclly,politically,and power wise),and get weaker, the more third countries try to rid themselves from the chokehold,and release
from the arm of octupoce.
Posted by farhad | June 17, 2008 9:31 AM
A key phrase from Tom's Comments: "just like we did with the Sovs." Just remember that the left and right in American politics and media never did accept our long term rational balanced containment strategy. Some of our key successes were not noticed ... like the 'weak' Ford administration getting Russia to agree to certain legal ground rules for its relations with its European client states in return for Ford's recognizing the legitimacy of those relationships. Then, a few years later, the public in those client states used those rules to start demonstrations that eventually caused Russia's European occupation to collapse. Eventually we may see a modern version of the Reagan-Gorbachev duet. Meanwhile, just enjoy the Ahmadinejad versions of Khruschev pounding the UN desktop with his shoe to get attention from and for his movement.
Posted by Louis Heberlein | June 17, 2008 4:48 PM
Zealots in Iran are not "crazy", they are the faithful.
From May 7, 2008 ...
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/05/07/49515.html
"Earlier this year, Iran's former top nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani complained that superstition was growing in the country and that people were even putting out food for the Mahdi in case he returned that very night."
"The Imam Mahdi is in charge of the world and we see his hand directing all the affairs of the country," he said in the speech, which appears to date from last month but has only now been broadcast."
"We must solve Iran's internal problems as quickly as possible. Time is lacking. A movement has started for us to occupy ourselves with our global responsibilities, which are arriving with great speed."
Only when we understand our own deaths as a victory, as our enemy views their own deaths, will we be on their political battle field. It is not always about the economy. Why is this reality missed or denied by Dr. Barnett?
Posted by VoteWithTroops.com | June 18, 2008 9:31 AM
P.S. Our containment policy was just meant to contain Russian paranoid driven expansionism, it was also designed from the start to reward rational and mutually beneficial cooperation. That aspect was overshadowed by hot button talk by those that did not digest the whole concept.
Posted by Louis Heberlein | June 18, 2008 2:35 PM
“Ever think that’s a bad fallback position? Calling your enemies “crazy” because they want things you don’t want them to have?”
Surely we all find it appropriate in some discussions in some circles to fling out a well-considered or ill-considered “crazy” or some other such descriptive term to give added emphasis to our disbelief and/or disapproval of the speaker’s/writer’s action/position/intention/rhetoric. And we do this without having necessarily signaled an intention to take extreme actions or to have it be a guiding negative light of further discussions/negotiations/diplomacy. Still maybe such name calling and/or characterization are clearly inappropriate in international diplomacy and rhetoric with/about an “enemy” state. I don’t know the rules? I suspect there is no fixed universal rule on this.
Posted by Gilbert Garza | June 18, 2008 6:43 PM
all interesting comments - for more food for thought see Vali Nasr's Wash Post op-ed today 06/19:
Nasr's key point:
"It is a frequent refrain in Washington that the United States needs leverage before it can talk to Iran. In Iraq, Washington is getting leverage. America has the advantage while Iran is on its heels. Engaging Iran now could even influence who wins the Iraq debate in Tehran."
I think the situation is more forthright - the "debate" he describes in Iran is more a growing rivalry between Ahmadinejad and Khamanei... the US should exploit this opportunity...
Posted by prescottrjp
|
June 19, 2008 7:18 AM