Let’s You and Him Fight
Kevin Sullivan agrees with something that my own sources in the region say is the real underlying dynamic regarding U.S.-Iran relations — playing one side off against the other. Where I differ from Kevin, however, is in who is doing the playing. Kevin argues that Iran is the one that promotes instability in an effort to keep the U.S. in the region. My source — a highly placed adviser to the government of a major Gulf state — argues that the non-Iran states are the ones who want to keep the U.S. and Iran at each other’s throats as a way of balancing growing Iranian power on the cheap. He argues that what many Gulf states fear most is the recognition by Iran and the U.S. of a common, cooperative interest that would enhance Iranian influence in the region to their detriment.
To be sure, there are many barriers to this scenario. Memories of U.S. shadow puppetry under the Shah remain sharp in Iran, kept alive by nationalist politicians like Iranian President Ahmadinejad who seek to use the U.S. devil as a foil against which to highlight their own political credentials. And memories are equally sharp on the U.S. side of Iranian “students” (in reality sponsored by the government) holding 52 American diplomats for over a year. These memories are also kept alive by evidence of Iranian involvement in attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.
The measures that Gulf states as well as nationalists on both sides make to encourage continuing enmity between the U.S. and Iran highlights the strength of an alternative possibility, however. The fact that enmity must be encouraged shows that it is not an intrinsically natural condition. For example, Ahmadinejad has to demonize the United States precisely because the natural trend among Iran’s restless and youthful population is in a generally pro-American direction. There IS, in fact, the possibility of a bargain — though likely not a “grand bargain” between Iran and the United States on several important issues, including Iraq and even nuclear technology. A position which allows for the possibility of negotiations to identify possible areas of limited cooperation is thus superior to one that rejects all negotiations on face as weakness.
Iran is a threat, but not an existential threat. A blanket hard-line policy of the type advocated by McCain, Clinton, and Sullivan that refuses the possibility of negotiation until politically impossible-to-meet conditions were met is a recipe for continuing to have the U.S. play the role assigned to it by the Gulf states: Let’s you and him fight.
Interesting and it certainly has a ring of truth. I’ve long noticed that the Sunni powers of the area are quite happy to encourage the enmity between US and Iran.
But it’s not really either/or, as you point out, Jason. There’s real reason for the animus which is then inflamed by the taunts of the onlookers in the schoolyard brawl (’You’re not going to let him get away with that, are you?")
And, Iran isn’t an existential threat to US but it is an existential threat to our ally, Israel.
Maybe if you could be more specific on how you think a grand bargain might be possible on nuclear technology?
Absolutely. Anyone who knows me knows how strongly pro-Israel I am. One (highly knowledgable) person I know once called me an “Israel-o-phile”. I endorse negotiations of the Powell style ("here is where our red lines are") instead of the Carter style ("what can I do for you today?"). Israel’s security is non-negotiable.
In regards to nuclear technology, I think negotiations could be a forum to call Iran’s bluff by putting them formally on the record promising to never build nuclear weapons AND spelling out formally the consequences of weaponization. Once those conditions were spelled out and formally presented to the Iranians, the U.S. could follow up with the carrot that matches the stick, offering Iran the opportunity to fully rejoin the IAEA framework (which, if you know the history, you know includes actual international assistance in nuclear power development, including fuel cycle developments), thus providing Iran actual benefits in its legitimate desire to master nuclear power technology but with strings attached in the form of better monitoring and a formal commitment to limits.
Of course, I am aware that some would say that Iran will merely pocket the benefits, lie about its intentions, and build weapons anyway. But those people tend to assume that such actions would come at no cost to Iran. I think once Iran was put formally into a negotiated framework, the political costs of reneging would be catastrophic, just as they turned out to be for North Korea. And if they did weaponize anyway, U.S. military strikes would be greatly assisted by the legitimacy that comes from being able to say, "we warned them and gave them a second chance, they made a promise, and they blatantly broke it".
If you want to point out the nation whose foreign policy has been most devastating to Iran the past 25 years — it’s not the US. It’s Russia. Russia launched the invastion of Afghanistan, creating a huge refugee problem for Iran, and they were not subtle about their reasons: to stop fundamentalist Islam. Second, they provided almost all of the weapons for Saddam’s war machine. These are the very weapons that killed 500,000 Iranians. Okay, so Russia should be the most hated nation on the streets of Iran. The fact that America is still enemy #1 proves Tehran’s position is not based on history alone. Indeed, the Iranians have more than kissed and made up with the Russians (who have never offered an apology for their actions). Western culture represents a far greater threat to their ideology, because it works on the hearts and minds of their citizens. If it wasn’t for Iran’s nuclear drive, the US would pretty much leave them alone, as they did since the end of the Cold War. However, the likely production of weapons by Iran presents all kinds of nightmare scenarios. For all of Ahmadenijad’s nationalist bluster, his regime is still held together by brute force, and that makes it fragile and susceptible to a counter-revolution at some point. One can only imagine what the mullahs would do, fi they possessed nuclear weapons, and they are suddenly faced with being booted from power. The international community cannot allow an apocalyptic government such as Iran to have nukes. It’s too dangerous.
Hey, why not right? I mean this "Great Game" will only have the US soldiers played as Pawns. And I’m sure that private corporations like Halliburton aren’t chomping at the bit to see their profits increase further, they only have our soldiers and Countries best interest in mind. Corporations can’t influence who we fight anyway, right :) . Go right ahead, who cares? The U.S. Taxpayers will take care of the bill!
I know, we can all just say this is "the reality of the world" and feel better about it.
"the non-Iran states are the ones who want to keep the U.S. and Iran at each other’s throats" …
I have a question…So is the U.S. Govt. aware of this? (if this is true, I’m assuming if the source knows, and we know, the U. S. Govt. knows) If that is the case, why wouldn’t the U.S. "call to that carpet" the country who is playing us against Iran?
sorry, "call the the carpet", not "that carpet"