Iran Mania

Iran is once again back, with a vengeance befitting the summer behavior of its Basij and after a brief post-post-election respite, in Western headlines. And as is customary, Iran experts and analysts and watchers are falling over themselves to explain this frustratingly un-explainable nation and its intentions to the masses. (Of course there are no real Iran experts, not here, not in Iran, not even in the Iranian government, but hey, these days it's an occupation that at least keeps people busy. If you don't believe me, think about this: On June 12th, 2009, there was not one single Iranian, not amongst its population of some seventy million souls (or million or so in the Persian diaspora) or in the government or the opposition; not one non-Iranian Iran expert anywhere in the world, not even working for foreign governments, who correctly predicted what Tehran would look like on the afternoon of June 14th, or the weeks following.)

President Ahmadinejad, or for some of our Iranian friends, ex-President Ahmadinejad, single-handedly orchestrated his nation's return to our front pages and our TV screens by first granting an exclusive, first-since-the-election one-hour interview to Ann Curry of NBC, in Tehran, only a few days before he was due to fly to New York to attend the UN General Assembly. The nature of the interview, which Ms. Curry did not allow to become a propaganda coup for the Iranian administration ("Mr. President, did you steal the election?"), must have raised some alarms in the corridors of the Pasteur Avenue presidential compound for the following day, in a speech at Friday Prayers, Ahmadinejad denied the existence of the Holocaust in terms more forceful than he had ever done (after a long period of relative silence on the matter); a sure-fire tactic to deflect lingering questions surrounding his re-election and the brutality of his government in suppressing any opposition to him once in the media glare of New York.

It was never going to work 100%, not when American journalists actually have friends who've been beaten up, tortured, or are still in jail, but many took the bait and Ahmadinejad enjoyed (as he seems to) explaining at length, for example to Katie Couric of CBS who actually showed him photographs of Auschwitz victims, perhaps hoping to elicit a tear or two from the president, what he means when he denies a historical fact. Or Larry King, who really, really, really wanted to know if Ahmadinejad really believes what he says about the Jews, while outside the hotel room where Larry and Mahmoud convened Iranians from all over the U.S. and Canada, and even as far as Japan who had ventured to NY to protest against Ahmadinejad, struggled to get their voices heard.

Every minute Ahmadinejad spent not talking about the rape of prisoners in Iran's jails, or addressing (as a person who repeatedly proclaimed that Iran has complete freedom of speech) something as simple as why Iran's media had just been banned from uttering or printing the names of the opposition leaders, let alone their thoughts, was a minute won. Every minute not spent discussing why he appears to be singularly unpopular with many Iranians who allegedly voted for him was a damn fine minute as far as he was concerned. He didn't mention the Holocaust at the UN, but he didn't need to. Bibi Netanyahu, not someone one might mistake for political neophyte also took his bait, using the UN pulpit to actually produce Nazi documents to assure a world audience that there was indeed much evidence of a Jewish Holocaust, a surely demeaning and vulgar display if there ever was one, rather than ignore Ahmadinejad's clearly calculated remarks and focus more on what he is willing to do for Middle East peace, an elusive goal that if ever met would defang the Ahmadinejads of the world quicker than a street dentist in Lahore with a pair of pliers.

On the eve of Ahmadinejad's departure from New York, he was even given a parting gift by Messrs. Obama, Sarkozy, and Brown. The dramatic revelation by the three leaders that Iran has a previously undeclared nuclear site in Qom resulted in an Ahmadinejad press conference solely devoted to the nuclear issue, which he is particularly skilled at discussing. No more questions about his legitimacy, the American hikers in jail in Iran, or rape, torture and forced confessions in Tehran's prisons. No, from now on it was going to be all nukes, all the time, even in Iran.

Although Ahmadinejad was clearly caught by surprise when he was informed of Obama's press conference in Pittsburgh that morning by Time magazine editors, his reaction on camera might to some have appeared to be one of being caught "red-handed", but in fact was genuine surprise at what the Iranian government within hours described as a crude propaganda move, and one that they were surprised President Obama would be associated with. (Flatter Obama; demean the French and the British, is the order of the day in Tehran.) As the day wore on and as Iran experts and analysts had the weekend to consider what the revelation meant, it became clearer to many that the "victory" the US media proclaimed was less of a victory than it initially appeared to be.

The U.S. had known about the site since before President Obama's election, the Iranians knew the Americans knew and had already informed the IAEA of its existence. If the Americans knew, the Iranians knew they knew and the IAEA had been already informed, how was this going to put pressure on them or put them at a disadvantage at the nuclear talks on October 1st? If the demand that Iran allow the IAEA to inspect the facility had already been agreed to by the Iranians, how was that "demand" by the Western powers going to put "pressure" on the Iranian government? Yes, there was a disagreement about whether Iran had technically violated its agreement with the IAEA (a contentious "legal point" as Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia later put it), but inquiring minds seemed to want to know what exactly this U.S. "victory" meant. By the end of the weekend, the Russians were already backing off their original commitment to at least consider stricter sanctions once President Obama privately told President Medvedev about Qom. Maybe the Iranian argument, made unemotionally and away from the glare of the U.S. media in Moscow persuaded them that Qom was much ado about nothing, or maybe Putin is pissed that America had known about the facility for a long time but hadn't bothered to tell him, former President Bush's soul brother, after all.

In any event, Iran's nuclear program and the government's defense of it is probably the last thing all Iranians, even the opposition, generally agree on. President Obama was criticized earlier this summer for saying that as far as the US was concerned, there would be little difference between a President Ahmadinejad or a President Mousavi, but he was right. The four issues that concern the U.S. are the nuclear issue, Iran's cooperation or lack thereof in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Mousavi was not going to change Iran's position on uranium enrichment, and when it comes to foreign policy questions of Iran's influence and power, no Iranian president would decide, or even be able to, curtail them. Without their star hitter A-jad, Iran might have shunned talk of the Holocaust or even Israel's imminent demise as a state, and the missing Imam would perhaps be re-relegated to one level above myth himself, but Iran would still be out to win in international competition.

Sure, to President Obama and most in the West it now appears that if the Iranians have gone to great pains to build a fortified enrichment facility deep in a mountain hideout (and maybe elsewhere), then that facility was probably designed for nefarious purposes, but to most Iranians the explanation that they need to build it in secrecy and hidden from view because of constant threats by Israel (and the U.S.) that they might bomb Iran's nuclear sites seems perfectly reasonable. By October 1st, the "so what? contingent on the question of the Qom facility will have probably grown to include the Russians, the Chinese, and certainly many in the Non-Aligned Movement.

Notwithstanding Thomas Friedman's inane argument in the September 23rd issue of the New York Times that we should tell the Israelis not to bomb, but publicly pretend that we're not doing so, just to scare the Iranians (does Mr. Friedman think the Iranians don't read the NY Times?), Iran welcomes threats for the simple fact that they tend to unite a politically fractured but nationalistic country, because they give the government cover for their secrecy in and expenditures on military affairs, and equally important, because they increase Iran's popularity in the developing and particularly Muslim world. "Be afraid, very afraid," does not work with Iranians, Tom. At least not with those in charge, many of them Revolutionary Guardsmen whose world-view is formed by their experiences in the trenches of the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq war. Those guardsmen and their patrons are far more afraid of boys and girls wearing green on the streets of Tehran than they'll ever be of an Israeli warplane.

In the coming days and well after the October 1st meeting in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1 there will be acres of newsprint and hours of TV time devoted to predicting and considering what will happen next in Iran's nuclear standoff with West. There will be shrill voices and there will be reasonable ones, but if anyone thinks the Iranians are going into negotiations from a position of weakness, they are mistaken. Yes, the Iranian government is weakened because of the election crisis and its bloody aftermath, but when it comes to the nuclear issue, it is as strong as it ever was, even with the Qom revelation. The government may know that it is despised in many quarters for its domestic policy, and President Obama may throw them off their game from time to time, but it feels no insecurity or nervousness when it comes to matters of defending Iran's rights.

There is a collective sigh of relief in Tehran that the pesky foreigners will be less preoccupied with Iran's dismal human rights record than they have been in preceding months, and the threat of new or "crippling" sanctions, to borrow Hilary Clinton's words, will never force Iran to do what the West demands of it. What needs to be considered is that although Iran will not ever voluntarily give up enrichment on its own soil, it might be persuaded to accept more intrusive inspections (as called for by the Additional Protocol to the Non-proliferation Treaty, a protocol Iran hasn't signed but has indicated it might within the framework of a deal), perhaps even a limit on the number of centrifuges, as long as it believes the West is sincere in its desire to engage Iran in more than just the nuclear issue and on more equal terms than in the past. The advantage for ordinary Iranians is that if engagement does happen beyond nuclear demands and counter-demands and leads to a form of détente with the U.S., not only will Iran be less inclined to ever actually build a bomb even if they know how to, but human rights might make its way back to the forefront. For the sake of my friends in Evin prison I certainly hope so, but what do I know? I'm no expert.

 

 

Comments

[stevecaudill]

What's interesting is the tag line below the link to this article reads, "Ahmadinejad left New York with no more questions about his legitimacy, the American hikers in jail in Iran, or rape, torture and forced confessions in Tehran's prisons. No, from now on it's going to be all nukes, all the time."

What about the rape, torture, and forced confessions in American prisons? America should focus on cleaning up its own house before we go around the world criticizing other countries.

[jomellon]

- Why is the US in the Middle East?

Three reasons: money, money and money.

- How long has it been there?

About 60 years.

- How long will it remain?

As long as it has the money. Probably about another 20 to 30 years, but it was a close thing last October.

- How long has Iran been in the Middle East?

Oh, a very long time indeed.

- What are the Iranians doing in the Middle East?

Well, they live there...

[buttonz]

Wow! You should get a noble prize for your genius observation.

It's called economics, people make money to survive and improve the quality of their lives.

-Where is a place people do business and make money?

The Middle East

-How long have people been going to the Middle East for trade?

Thousands of years.

[buttonz]

Iran is the largest state sponsor of Terror. Your right about one thing, they can't attack our soil and not nearly the threat as Russia or China could be, assuming that they were threatening us the same way Iran is. However, they do target our interests, they have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq-- which is NOT part of Iran, they are capable of launching missiles at Europe and have repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel-- which was BEFORE Israel's threats to bomb them. They Also threaten the rest of the Middle East, they tried to take over Iraq, they think other Arab countries belong to them. Why do you think Arab nations are buying billions of dollars of weapons? Iran is what is called a pocket empire and they are by far the single greatest threat to Middle East stability.

Iran does not want to use a nuke to wipe out Israel or whatever, they want to use a nuke as blackmail. With a nuke they can extort their neighbors and spread their violence even more so with impunity. It will also insure that no one invades them.

[research]

The USA tortures, goes to war for profit and has a plutocracy for sale to the hiehst bidder.

The USA is the largest terrorist organization on the planet.

Please, prove my wrong.

[ThePeacemakers]

"There is a collective sigh of relief in Tehran that the pesky foreigners will be less preoccupied with Iran's dismal human rights record than they have been in preceding months.."

Human rights are pretty dismal all over the world. You're asking the pots to call the kettle 'black'.

[Romeover]

I'm waiting to hear the western media discuss what must surely be more important to the average Iranian than the Holocaust, or imprisoned journalists, or whether Iran really wants a peaceful nuclear energy program: how can Iran keep from being attacked the way their neighbors to the east and west were? Offering to turn Osama Bin Laden over to a neutral third party didn't help Afghanistan. Opening their country to weapons inspectors didn't help Iraq. Appeasement didn't work for Chamberlain or Omar or Saddam; why should it work for Khamenei?

What can the United States do to make the average Iranian feel secure? That is the first step on the road to peace.

[Foxrun]

Good question. The U.S. can start by stop using threatening language and start dealing with Iran diplomatically to solve issues. The U.S.'s arrogant, command and dictate attitude is not going to work with Iran. Iran has every right to nuclear enrichment and has not violated any of its agreements as a signatory to the NPT; including the development of this second facility. Instead of continuously saying all options are on the table, it should place diplomacy on the table. What I am hearing more from the Obama Admin. resembles the language used by the Bush Admin.

Negotiation with Iran with the aim of solving issues will help build a bridge of trust. Once the threat of sanctions, war and regime change are removed - this will also enable the Iranian government to be less paranoid about its own people.

[buttonz]

Give me a break. Do you actually think being nice is going to stop them?? Do you know anything about the history of this regime?? We are calling them out. You should take a class on negotiating and conflict resolution and you will realize it is far more vicious than the pleasantries which you are assuming are key to diplomacy.

[Romeover]

A mutual defense treaty with Iran would help build a bridge of trust. If Israel bombs Iran without provocation, we bomb Israel. What an outrageous concept: mutual defense. Sort of like what the United Nations is for, except with teeth.

[Liberal Angel]

I believe Ahmadinejad is a horrible man. I believe the Iranian government is corrupt and oppressive. What I don't believe is the bull that somehow Iran is a great threat to the US. We could level the whole world if we chose to, they would be relegated to a war of atrition if we fought each other. I really don't care if they get the bomb. Why? Because they would be utterly destroyed if they tried to use it. Can we really expect a country like Iran to trust that Israel and the US won't attack it? All we hear are Israeli threats to bomb Iran, and talk of the possiblitiy of US strikes. If Russia and China were having an open conversation like this for the worldto hear, we would also be preparing to defend ourselves any way we could. Is it any wonder why they want nukes? I've never thought it was ok for any nation to tell any other nation that they can't have nuclear weapons. If someone with a bazooka is telling you to trust that they won't use their hidden AK on you, would you?

[Romeover]

Thanks for your words of reason.

[buttonz]

We tell them they can't have nukes because they plan on using it for blackmail and to increase their regional hegemony. They were working on getting nukes many years before we had the confrontation we know today. The leaders of Iran don't care if their actions destroy the ME, all they care about is their power.

[Liberal Angel]

I agree that they want hegemony, and that have been trying to get nukes for years. My point is that we have no ligitimate reason for trying to assert our hegemony in that part of the world. The Middle East is not ours to run. The aggressive stance of Tehran is our own fault. We shouldn't have overthrown their democratically elected government, and installed a puppet shah. We started this, not them. I don't think their government is a good one, but they have chosen that for themselves. Israel is the only player in this whose motives actually are for national preservation, other than Iran of course. We work with China and Saudi Arabia, we can work with Iran.

[Nargit]

The perpetual hysteria about Ahmadinejad holocaust remarks is quite useful for forming US public opinion about "evil" Iran. That's why Israeli politicians favored Ahmadinejad reelection over his rival Mousavi, as reported at the time, despite (or because) the latter had repeatedly criticized Ahmadinejad for damaging Iran's image by questioning the holocaust. When one writes or reads articles like this, one has to remember that the vast majority of countries, including about 150 non-aligned states, are explicitly, i.e. on paper, on Iran's side on nuclear issue, so US media has to be quite persistent to keep up anti-Iranian attitudes within the US .

[BluestateGuyInTX]

But I have this feeling that US whining about Iran is less compelling than it has been in the past. You can only cry wolf so many times. Bush really wore that "oh my God the WMDs" whine out with over use. And I think Iraq and Afghanistan are a sort of inoculation against an attack on Iran. The US knows that all hell will break loose in Iraq the instant anyone, Israel or the US, lays a hand on Iran. They also know that they are dependent on the Russians (through influence on former Soviet Central Asian states) for resupply in Afghanistan that doesn't involve the Khyber pass. The US and Israeli goose is cooked and I think they know it. Hitting Natanz or especially Qom would accomplish little and cost alot. Can you say $30/gal. gasoline? I knew you could. You think we got economic trouble now? You ain't seen nothing. Rest assured cooler heads in China and Russia are making it very clear that nothing so destructive would be tolerated. China could shut us down economically in a heart beat and Russia could make easily make some Israeli widows with their anti-aircraft technology. Do we feel lucky? Well do we?

[buttonz]

Where do you learn this?? What do you mean all hell will break out in Iraq? Do you understand that the Iraqis and the Iranians are mortal enemies (not all though). Do you understand that the Iraqis are fed up with Al Quds killing their people and trying to topple their government? As for Russia we aren't dependent, we only recently passed a deal to let our supplies go through their country since it is more expensive to run things through Pakistan, not to mention we are fed up by their ineptitude. China can't shut us down but we can utterly ruin their economy to the point they would have a civil war. Remember, China NEEDS us to buy their things, their economy is 90% plus export as where it is the opposite for us.

[research]

The USA tortures, wages wars for profit, and has a government controlled by big money.

Iran invaded a country when, again????

The USA toppled Iran Democracy, and the USA constantly threatens Iran.

Of course they want deterrence, and I trust them more with it than Pakistan.

I don't want any nukes or other WMD, but the USA's constant threats of attack are only accelerating the process.

[Gib]

I tend to agree with you.

[cplKlyde]

The last time Iran invaded another country it was called Persia and Jesus of Nazareth would not be born for another 500 years.

[buttonz]

Actually they tried to invade Iraq in the 1980's (even though Saddam started it). They are also the largest sponsor of terrorism. They support revolutionary groups throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. They also prop Hizbollah, and contribute largely to Hamas.

[averygard]

"it might be persuaded to accept more intrusive inspections"

How do you suggest one persuade the current government?

[Romeover]

Perhaps if we offer to let Iran inspect our nuclear facilities, they will let us inspect theirs.

[buttonz]

Actually, they would be allowed to inspect ours (if they weren't a belligerent nation). Europeans and Asians already do, and we do the same to theirs. Stop assuming.

[Tavallai]

Mr. Majd - you need to stop looking at things from such a balanced, nuanced perspective. All this sense you make when you provide these well-conceived articles about Iran is counter to the endless sabre-rattling and warmongering we're thirsty for. Don't you want more readers? Won't the Huffington Post release you if you don't garner enough hits?

[buttonz]

Warmongering? What makes you think we actually or ever wanted war. Bush easily had the chance but didn't. Why is that? Stop assuming and over simplifying the complexities of geopolitics.

[sixyfivepercentwater]

"Warmongering" is an appropriate word in this context. It's pretty much what the Bush administration was doing for eight years.

[audadvnc]

Another example of the pot calling the kettle black. How many people have been killed and injured by US military action in the past 8 years? I believe the numbers stretch into the millions.

Outraged American patriots, clean your own house first.

[buttonz]

Something like ten thousand. Stop making up numbers. The actual death toll in Iraq is somewhere between 90k to 150k. Nearly all those deaths were done by insurgents using bombs on civilians.

I can't believe people would make up numbers like that. Millions of deaths look like WWI or WWII, even over the stretch of 8 years. The streets would be piled meters high with bodies.

Stop making stuff up.

[Romeover]

How many did we kill in Vietnam?

[stpmdn]

great post. The west should make the human rights issue front and center and the sanctions should be base on those not nukes

[Romeover]

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

Sanctions. Human rights issues. Front and center.

Human rights. Half a million children dead.

I weep for humanity.

[Foxrun]

Let's be honest the U.S. doesn't care about human rights in other countries and the rest of the world knows this as well. What the Obama Admin. is doing right now is trying to appease the hawkish, neocon and Zionist elements in this country as well as Israel.

[buttonz]

So are you for the Iraq War then???? You can't have one or the other. The White House has been talking about invading Iraq and getting rid of the horrible sanctions since the Clinton era. What choice is there? Lift sanctions? They weren't punitive, they were to keep Saddam from building WMD's, chemical weapons, bio weapons, and conventional military hardware. Do you really think that he would not have, after we beat him so bad??

You certainly like pointing out the problem but fail to list any solution.

[confidance government]

I'm curious if the end result of this will look more like Libya or Iraq circa 2003....

[Hammersmithman]

Well done Mr Majd. Well balanced article. Something for our neo-con friends to chew on for a while. Eager to read more from you on this subject.

[valhalladad]

Me thinks the nuclear issue is a smokescreen. Ahmadinijad's real crime is his ability and means to broadcast questions of certain alleged historical events.

[Foxrun]

Me think you are quite right!!