Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiPlaying Games With Iran
By now the structure of the U.S. game with Iran is clear. In the first move, the United States and Iran make some small progress toward improved relations. In the counter move, hardliners in the United States and Israel launch attacks against Iran in order to sabotage these improving relations.
In the latest iteration of this game, the U.S. State Department has made an interesting gambit. It announced that Undersecretary of State William Burns would sit at the table on July 20 as members of the European Union entered into talks with Iran over its nuclear program. At the same time, the United States has been reported to be considering opening a formal American Interests Section in Tehran. These two actions will be the first serious public diplomatic activities between the two nations in nearly three decades. (Three earlier meetings in Baghdad between U.S. Iraqi Envoy Ryan Crocker and Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi-Qomi focused on security in Iraq).
The counter-moves came fast and furious. First, former UN ambassador and prominent neoconservative John Bolton launched a jeremiad against the U.S. government on July 15 in the Wall Street Journal. Criticizing the administration for failing to act militarily against Iran, Bolton placed his hopes on Israel to carry out the military attack that he fervently desires. "Instead of debating how much longer to continue five years of failed diplomacy, we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran," he wrote.
Following closely on Bolton's editorial, The New York Times printed another attack against Iran on Friday, July 18, just one day before the opening of the European talks, by Benny Morris, an historian at Ben-Gurion University. Like Bolton, Morris presents an Iranian nuclear weapons program as an established fact, implies that Iran would make a first-strike attack on Israel, and thus justifies pre-emptive military action on Israel's part.
Both Bolton and Morris base their attacks on false premises. Diplomatic dealings with Iran have, in fact, succeeded on the few occasions they have been tried. There is no proof anywhere that Iran actually has a nuclear weapons program at present, a fact underscored by the National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007. In fact, Iran's nuclear experiments are still at a primitive level, far from any possibility of manufacturing weapons. Iran has never directly threatened Israel and is not likely considering a first strike against Israel.
Such attacks have followed every minuscule improvement in U.S-Iranian relations during the Bush administration. Every first move in a warming trend - such as Iranian support for the U.S. war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, U.S. aid to Iran during the Bam earthquake in 2003, and Iran's formal offer to enter into comprehensive negotiations with the United States in 2003 - has been followed by sharp criticism from both inside and outside of the Brush administration. Detractors have countered these advances with accusations of Iranian support for Hezbullah and Hamas, and support for "special groups" attacking U.S. forces in Iraq. True to form, the U.S. military announced the launching of a new crackdown on weapons smuggling from Iran to coincide with the Saturday talks,
None of these accusations, along with the Iranian weapons program and plot to launch a first-strike against Israel, has ever been proven. The most memorable of these attacks was the labeling of Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" in President George Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address, just as Iran's military aid to the United States was beginning to create a climate of trust between the two nations.
Bolton, Morris, and their ilk may represent the last, weak gasp of the hawks who would embroil the United States and Israel in a disastrous confrontation with Iran. Indeed, for the time being, it seems that cooler heads are prevailing. Though Western commentators described the talks at the one-shot Saturday meeting negatively as a "deadlock," William Burns' official presence at the table was an important benchmark. Iran did not accept the Western proposals on the spot, but was given two weeks to respond. The Iranians appeared pleased. Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief negotiator, called the negotiating process a "very beautiful endeavor."
Despite this progress, the power of the American and Israeli extremists should not be underestimated. They still have the ear of Vice President Dick Cheney and a dwindling coterie of his supporters in the Department of Defense. A group of Israeli politicians, including Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff Gaby Ashkenazi, have arrived in Washington, according to Mother Jones magazine, presumably to convince the Bush administration to allow them to carry out their attack.
Hostile rhetoric against Iran also plays into the U.S. electoral process. For American politicians, Iran is a universal bogeyman, useful in an election year as a device to show elected officials as tough on foreign miscreants. Indeed, since the Iranian Revolution U.S.-Iranian relations have been a centerpiece in election debates. Conspiracy theorists believe fervently that the Republican Party engineered an "October Surprise" in 1980 with Iranian officials - delaying the release of the American Hostages until after the U.S. Presidential election - and thus denied Jimmy Carter a second term. The purported event -- true or not -- has supplied a permanent political term for American elections.
In every presidential election since, U.S.-Iranian relations have been featured in presidential debates and campaign ads, with universal negativity toward Iran. This year is no exception with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain all expressing hostile attitudes toward Iran. And this year's October Surprise is the rumor that the Bush administration will bomb Iran just before the election to give a boost to John McCain. Unless the Israeli hawks get there first.
Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) contributor William O. Beeman is professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He is president of the Middle East Section of the American Anthropological Association and the author, most recently, of The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs": How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other.
Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies
20 Comments so far
Show AllWe do not want Iran to be independent. The Shah tried to pursue nuclear, so we replaced him the Ayatollah and sent Saddam after them.
As a result of sanctions, Iran can not produce as much oil as they would like. They can not refine as much as they need, so they must import their gasoline. Plus, their oil is more energy intensive to remove than Iraq. Using nuclear power allows them to save oil for export instead of using it for electricity, and to use nuclear power to extract the oil, instead of refined oil they import.
At least we have not had to shoot down any passenger planes like we did 20 years ago killing 290 civilians. Funny how this anniversary passed w/o comment. They would not take our hints to back off and stop fighting Iraq (since we were going to be next to fight them). Shortly after the plane got hit, they backed off, and accepted the UN resolution to end the war.
there is every reason to mistrust our government. as well, to mistrust all the countries with whom the us govt. is allied. and many that it isn't.
the creator of this universe - the ongoing creation - has not precluded the possibility of human species extinction any more than other species of life have endured that rather unfortunate twist of the plot. the sence of "exceptionalism" with which americans are so richly endowed, is indeed almost universally felt. the story simply must have a happy ending..........but if this is your mindset, watch out. because even if that untimely grim demise doesn't come to pass, it'll be getting pretty hairy.
"'m not sure what Iran gains by postponing their legitimate and legal enrichment for civilian powerplants program."
If Iranians "gained" as you say by postponing their legitimate...then the American hawks would find another reason and another reason...for preemptive attack just as they did in Iraq.
Iranians could stand their heads and spit wooden nickels and that still would not remove the hawkish desire for invasion.
you , are incredibly naive.
Excellent discussion. A couple interesting sidenotes: Iran hasn't attack another country in like 280 years and we've attacked how many in the last century alone, including the use of WMD on civilian targets?
Iran is not only within the NPT framework to enrich uranium, there's several huge reasons why Iran, from a military standpoint, would want to have nukes. Pakistan, India and Israel. That's a tough neighborhood. Asking Iran to not have nukes is like telling the only neighbor on the block that he'll have to settle for a slingshot, even though the rest of his neighbors have tanks.
Also, when Israel was first created under a UN mandate, Iran not only recognized Israel as a state but had also harbored some Jews in Iran who had fled the anti-Semitism of Europe. In fact, there is still a vibrant Jewish community in Iran. Don't know how significant this all is but it does seem to poke huge holes in the oversimplified Iran as an axil of evil argument.
Wow! Bush's number three man in negotiations with the last remaining "Axis of Evil" Club founding member, Iran?
Guess Bush too must a traitorous, surrender-monkey, terrorist lover just like Obama. Boy, we better not elect Bush president. Bet he secretly practices Islamism and maybe even fist bumps when no one is looking.
Beware the Ides of August
It is a mutual admiration society. The leadership in Iran and Bu$h the inferior's administration use the same tactics and get the same results. They need each other. When Iran catches the US special forces in their country they should turn them over to Sweden until the disposition of them could be determined by the General Assembly of the UN. Bypass the fascist club in the Security Council.
physicscitizen,
you are right in your assesment that the Iranian theocracy needs this cold war with the US to stay in power and repress their people even more.
Persian culture is a better- and longer-established culture than either Israel or the United States. They will persevere, we won't. The only thing that could change that is nuclear annihlation of the Persian state, and I'm pretty sure that as moronic as the leaders of the US and Israel are, they aren't that stupid.
When John Bolton and Ehmud Ohlmert are spokesmen for your respective societies, you know you're on the losing side.
The whole US/Iran thing is hilarious. The Iranians are master chess players and toy with us at will. We are way out of our depth with these guys.
Look, they know we can't attack without wiping out our whole economy and possibly causing an international economic depression.
If we do attack, we lose. If we don't attack, well, we've pretty much lost already.
You think oil is expensive now? Wait until the Iranians shut down the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.
You think the dollar is weak now? Wait until oil spikes over $300 a barrel and everyone switches to buying oil with Euros.
You think our boys in Iraq are under fire now? Wait until we bomb the Shia homeland of Iran and their supply lines are cut off. Not to mention the defeat of our naval ships in the Persian Gulf.
Anyone who doubts the Iranians have us over a barrel (literally), consider the fact that they manipulated us into defeating their worst enemy (Saddam's Iraq) through their salesman Chalabi and his INC, enabling the Iran-friendly Shia majority to effectively start running the country. And the biggest prize of all was that they got the Great Satan itself (at whom they are still pissed off because of what we did to Mossadeq and our installation of the Shah) to overextend itself militarily and drive up oil prices fivefold (which is enriching Iran to no end).
The first question when sorting out a complex case is: who benefits? And since the Bush Leaguers started calling the shots, the answer is Iran every time. Every time.
Who benefited when we invaded Iraq?
Who benefits from high oil prices?
Who benefits from having its greatest threat (USA) tied up in knots and bogged down in an unwinnable war?
It's sad. Watching these guys go up against the Iranians is like watching pre-schoolers play poker against Doyle Brunson and Johnny Chan.
Your words ring true Samson except for one problem. Iran has large areas of dessert. Surely if the resources that were pushed in to development of nuclear power were instead diverted to solar power stations quite a lot of the need to pump their reserves down quickly would subside.
And this would not twig the nose of anybody or tie the US's panties in a knot.
Indeed, with their oil revenues they could create a hot-spot of renewable energy research that would be the envy of the world...kind of like Japan has done.
You told me nothing I didn't know already about Iran's oil fields. But while it is clear what you say is true, and it is also clear nuclear power is ONE solution to this 'problem', it is equally clear that there are other solutions out there as well.
So then we come back to asking why choose that one Nuclear solution as opposed to the myriad of other technologies that would mitigate their future energy crisis?
Surely it's partly related to one of The scourges of the modern age, nationalism. Iranians can be made to do many stupid things by leaders that promise to recapture the glories of the Persian empire, just as US leaders managed to get Americans to do stupid things by invoking a nationalist military response to a criminal act.
There seem to me to be many layers of reasons why Iran wants to pursue this path.
1). you are right, they will have an energy problem to solve and should not be blamed for being forward-thinking (just because WE aren't doesn't give us the right to force everyone else to be as stupid)
2). They are well within their rights under the Non-proliferation treaty. We are behaving illegally by sanctioning them..if we do not like the terms of the damm treaty then we should strengthen it (but this was tried countless times and the US fought it every time).
However, these are not really very GOOD reasons in of themselves for nuclear power. Number 1 has alternatives and Number 2 just says 'allowed' not 'compelled'.
One other reason...the one that has erased all US state deparment thought...is that this is being done as a stepping stone to weapons development.
But yet another reason is the one I mentioned before. That the Iranian leadership NEEDS this cause to stay in power. They probably need an attack too. We would be fools to hand the Theocrats an attack from the Israelis or from the US acting like their puppets.
Which is precisely why I fear such an attack is imminent.
physicscitizen:
I would suspect that there are a couple of things going on here as to why the Iranians are so adamant about their enrichment program..
- It IS within their rights as a signatory to the NPT to enrich Uranium for nuclear fuel.
- It is a matter of national pride.
- Entering into some sort of arrangement where a 3rd party provides the fuel for Iran's power plants, puts Iran into the position of being reliant on a foreign entity for it's nuclear fuel needs. This could lead to fuel being used to extort Iran at a later date.
- By suspending enrichment, the Iranian leaders will appear to be 'weak' before the western imperialists, something that the people won't like.
Also, your assertion that Iran is 'thumbing their nose' at the UN is incorrect. The IAEA is a UN body, which Iran is cooperating with completely. A more accurate statement would be that Iran is 'thumbing their nose' at the security council, which of course is a US dominated entity. The security council has lost all relevance as it is fully 'owned' by the western imperial powers.
To those who think 'postponing' enrichment until January would make a huge difference should review Obama's statements to the last AIPAC convention. He clearly said he would do 'everything, repeat everything' to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons.
Once again, there seems to be this mythical belief that Obama is something that he is not.
Also remember, back at the start of the campaign when the Bush\Cheney crowd was using specific language about 'all options are on the table' to signify a NUCLEAR strike on Iran, Sen. Obama gladly used exactly the same words to express his policy. Between that and the 'everything' above, I get the impression that he is not only threatening to attack Iran, but also to use nuclear weapons in such a strike.
Given that, and the constant signals of support from the entire Democratic leadership for such an attack, I'm not sure what Iran gains by postponing their legitimate and legal enrichment for civilian powerplants program.
physicscitizen...
There are very logical reasons why Iran might pursue nuclear power. The argument that they shouldn't is usually presented in bumber-sticker length simplicity, which alone makes it suspect. Ie, you usually hear about Iran 'sitting on a lake of oil', thus, why would they need nuclear power.
Two points. First, Iran\Persia was one of the earliest areas to go into oil production. Before WWI, the British Royal Navy switched from coal to oil powered ships for better performance. To do this, they needed steady, secure supplies of oil, and Persia was their answer.
Given that we know oil fields decline in production after they hit their peak, it seems rather logical to think that an area that was one of the first to go into production would see this.
Secondly, right now I'd say that any fool in the world can see that oil left in the ground will be more valuable in the future than it is today. Thus to me, it would make a great deal of sense for any oil producing country to try to move its own power needs to another source. That way they could leave the oil in the ground for days in the future when it would be much more valuable than it is today.
I of course have no idea as to whether there's a secret military component to Iran's nuclear plans. I can only read the reports of the IAEA and the CIA that say they don't see any evidence. But I can easily think of reasons why a domestic nuclear power plan might make sense to the Iranian leaders.
If the Democrats were not just another war party, they could easily innoculate themselves against an "October Surprise" attack on Iran. War is very unpopular in this country right now. Not so much among the media or the Republican base, but with the rest of the people it is.
The poll numbers on Iraq show this, with a huge majority wanting us out as soon as they think we can get out. And the very negative response among the Democratic electorate to Hillary's war-monger comments shows the same.
While most Americans are not to the place where they view war as morally wrong, they do largely agree that the war in Iraq has been a disaster, and that the economy can't afford the billions we keep pumping into it.
Thus, the Democrats, if they were not themselves just another war party, could use an "October Surprise" attack to clobber the Republicans.
I think the Republicans know this, as the current dates being floated by the NYT Benny Morris piece and others all fall in the lame duck period between the election and the inauguration.
Democrats could stop this by letting the military know that they don't support this and that there would be heck to pay in the next budget cycle for the military if they go along with this.
Instead, the leading Democrats are all sending signals of support for this policy. They seem to really like the idea of such an attack as long as it happens on Bush's watch.
But this is why everything from Obama's speech to AIPAC to HR 362 and the other anti-Iran resolutions that sail through Congress with little dissent are so important. Its the Democrats signaling their support for just such an attack.
Ah, but lest we forget: Iraq, like Iran dissed the great H. Kissenger when he
tried to get them to agree to accept the US dollar as the oil currency as the sole currency. And with Iraq out of the way, that leaves only Iran to be neutralized. If it is not, the IMF and World Bank will continue to have knipshin fits. Ergo, it should be clear that Iran is a leftover of the Cold War, a communist power hell bent on totalitarian control of the world. Iran MUST be stopped. To argue is, as Chomsky would say, moot. By definition, Iran is Evil, and those who agree are Good. End of discussion. Revisionist history about the horrific dangers Iran poses is already well established. Hamas? Hezbollah? Like the Sandinistas and other populist movements begun in reaction to progressive democracy (i.e. the richer, the freer) are, by definition, terrorists. When we support the death squads of our clients (e.g. Bin Laden) they are freedom fighters. When other support them against the corporate aristocracy, they are then deemed terrorists. And if the world does not accept that label, then as Next Generation Admiral Pickard would say: we will 'make it so'; by crushing them to the point that those who remain might ultimately be so desperate as to resort to those actions we desire of them. I could go on, but who would listen? America was founded in genocide and slavery. Hence, it should be no surprise that it continues to this very day. Iran will be attacked; there is no doubt about it- at least in the eyes of a multitude of military analysts. But there will be a price; not only at the gas pump, but in the level of squalor that poor Americans and more and more the middle class will be sunk into. It makes me sad; but no sadder than the deaths of so many innocent people, and of the planet. There is a truism: what goes around comes around. It will only be averted to any meaningful degree if the masses revolt against our government and all its sycophant appendages: the press, and powerful special interest groups such as AIPAC. Unfortunately, given the success of the lobotomy on the masses sense of caring and love, a revolt is a fanciful thought at best; and is more likely to lead to severe depression. And so, I hope and pray to the great Spirit that I am wrong, when I say to my family in Iran- I am sooooo sorry for the hell my government will rain on you.
I've read two pieces recently that take a different view of the conflict. Iran is in the process of selling off their state owned business interests. All countries are welcome and are participating except US corporations because of our policies. The objective is for Iran to be like Iraq where US capitalists get first dibs. Screw our allies. We come first.
I agree too. Would be the smartest thing Iran could do....internationally.
But maybe there is a reason they need to enrich Uranium and thumb their noses at the UN. Just like Bush, when he did it, gave the sports-fans their wet dream, so Iranian nationalism can drive and keep a conservative theocracy in power longer than it should stay in power.
Perhaps the Iranian theocrats are being driven internally in order to cling to power and prevent their own progressives from gaining the upper hand. ???
I agree; it would be a wise tactical move by Iran to postpone until January.
It will NEVER happen.
Too much history - bad history - between the U.S and Iran.
Its just going to devolve into something unfortunate and unnecessary...
Barak, Ashkenazi, et. al. "have arrived in Washington . . . presumably to convince the Bush Administration to ALLOW them to carry out their attack"??? In a recent London Times article, Bush gave the "amber" light. Israel has "permission." The real point is that Israel cannot easily do this alone, and they're trying to get reassurance that the US will do a JOINT attack, or at least be "drawn in." Bush has in fact (according to the article) told Israel NOT to expect logistical support, that Israel will go it alone. Thus, Cheney's Office must work to show Bush that talks have broken down, the Iranians are running the clock, and will not abandon their (perfectly legal!) uranium enrichment program. (Israel is a member not of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation club, but of the nuclear club. It's rich that it would attack Iran for (they allege) developing technology that would allow them to join the more elite club.)
Anyway, it seems to me that Israel is bluffing a unilateral attack. They want to push Cheney to push Bush into doing an attack before his term is out. I wish Iran would simply suspend enrichment as a "good faith" gesture until oh, late next January.