The Iran Factor

This week at the United Nations, with President Ahmadinejad once again in New York to deliver an address to the General Assembly, the U.S. was hoping to gather the P5+1 ministers to discuss imposing further sanctions on Iran for its refusal to abide by previous Security Council resolutions demanding that it suspend uranium enrichment. Russia, apparently just a little miffed at the American reaction to its invasion of Georgia last month, blocked the meeting, handing a major victory to Iran and making Ahmadinejad's visit to the UN a little less uncomfortable than it might have been with the major powers discussing new sanctions against his country.

For a number of years now American foreign policy with regards Iran has revolved almost exclusively around how to prevent that nation from joining the nuclear club, and how to rein in its ability to negatively influence the Middle East peace process through its support of groups such as Hezbollah of Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Since the Iraq invasion, an unintended and almost comical consequence of which is that Shiite Iran is now by far the most influential player with its Shiite majority neighbor, US foreign policy has also struggled with how to mitigate that influence. Regardless of specifics, though, the U.S. position vis-à- vis Iran has been, almost since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, that it is an enemy nation with geopolitical interests diametrically opposed to ours. Securing Russian cooperation in pressuring Iran has been, in the American mind, a key to achieving long-term success in at least stopping Iran's drive to becoming a nuclear power. But the recent Russian invasion of Georgia and its subsequent recognition of two breakaway regions should actually be cause for re-evaluation of US policy towards Iran, the only country of significance standing between Russia and the strategically critical Persian Gulf.

The Russian adventure in South Ossetia and a renewed willingness to use raw military power to check Western expansion to its borders may have been viewed with great alarm in the West, but the Iranian leadership quickly recognized the opportunity to once again, as they have over the past two hundred years or so and regardless of regime, play the great powers against each other to serve their own interests. While it became evident at the end of August that Russia would no longer be likely to go along with another UN resolution (and further sanctions) on Iran's nuclear program, much to the delight of the Iranians, there was also in Tehran, among politicians and ordinary people alike, a sense of wonderment at how the U.S. could have so misjudged Russia as well as a sense of how the U.S. was fundamentally misguided in its policy towards Iran, a country, after all, that throughout the Cold War stood as a bulwark against Soviet hegemony and expansionism southward to the warm water ports of the Persian Gulf. Iran's nuanced but pro-Russian position on the Georgian conflict has ensured that the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant, its opening long delayed, will be soon operational, and Iran is also likely to benefit from Russian largesse in future military arms and equipment sales. But Iran is not instinctively pro-Russian and in fact has much to fear from the bear to its north, having fought wars against (and lost territory to) her in previous centuries, and Iranians harbor a deep distrust of Russian intentions. Iranians have not yet forgotten Nikita Khrushchev's assessment of their country as a "low hanging fruit" ready to be picked at any time by Soviet harvesters.

Recent history and rhetoric aside, there is far less distrust of America among Iranians, even among the leadership, than appears on the surface. In my many trips to Iran, most recently during the Georgian crisis and through the two U.S. party conventions, I have yet to come across any Iranian politician, diplomat or ordinary person who doesn't identify, culturally or politically, more closely with the West than the East. Iranians have been, in the last few weeks, as engrossed with the US presidential elections as Americans are, and hopeful that whomever wins the presidency this fall, US policy towards Iran will be in for a change (although most recognize that should John McCain prevail, mending relations with the US will be a somewhat more difficult task than if Barack Obama does). Tehran's summer was one of long lines at gas stations, rampant double-digit inflation, electricity blackouts and general malaise about the state of the economy and the future direction of the country. Iranians are now looking to their own presidential elections in 2009 and Iran's relations with the outside world will play a significant role in those elections, for many Iranians view the current US-Iran standoff as being partly responsible for the weak economy. No one in Iran believes that better relations with Russia, or a strong tilt to Russia, will result in a better economy, better the lives of ordinary Iranians, or will insulate Iran fully from debilitating sanctions of the kind, such as banking, that America can impose, unilaterally or otherwise.

While Iran will not hesitate to continue to take advantage of the Georgian crisis in bolstering its nuclear position (with the Russians happy to go along, perhaps hoping to once and for all bring Iran into its sphere of influence), the U.S., which often misreads Iranian intentions, appears to be failing to take an advantage of its own in countering Russian moves in the region. Iran has time and again indicated its willingness to enter into direct negotiations with the U.S. on all matters of mutual interest, but will not do so with pre-conditions, something the Iranians view as humiliating and beneath their dignity. The emergence of the Russian bear from its enforced hibernation might have had American diplomats dusting off the archives in Foggy Bottom, looking for clues as to how the US can entice Iran to its side and away from Russia, but if the State Department has indeed weighed in with an opinion, the administration seems to have ignored it. The time has probably run out for the Bush administration to do anything with or about Iran (and the financial crisis has probably killed any idea of a pre-emptive strike, once and for all), but the next president, whomever he is, would be wise to examine the situation in the new light of a Russia, one whose president's eyes may not be as revealing of his character and intentions as President Bush once assumed, and one that intends to challenge America's self-proclaimed status as the world's only superpower. With American naval bases firmly established in allied Persian Gulf countries, projecting American power in the Middle East, one might wonder if, or worry that, in the future a Russian naval base might be built on the north side of the Gulf, i.e., on Iranian territory.

As one Iranian in Tehran said to me (only half-jokingly) at the height of the crisis in the Caucasus, the best U.S. reaction to Russia's invasion of Georgia would be to arm Iran to teeth with the latest American weaponry. Dick Cheney's late-summer visits to Georgia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan may have been intended as a strong statement of support for the former Soviet republics and a warning to Russia, but it was toothless gesture (much like Condoleezza Rice's silly scolding of the Russians last week) that did little other than annoy the Russians. The truth is, had he instead visited Tehran, he would have truly frightened them.

www.hoomanmajd.com

Comments

[BEYAZRENKLERORG]

Iranians chanted "Death to Israel" on Friday as Islamist students unveiled a book mocking the Holocaust in an Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day annual parade to show solidarity with the Palestinians.
And in Gaza City, the Islamist Hamas movement that has ruled the impoverished Palestinian territory since June 2007 marked the day by calling for more suicide attacks on Israel.
----------­----------­----
As an American I dont care about what happens in Jerusalem. With all the advance weapons the US has sold them, they can take care of them selfs just fine, Im worried about our security here at home, energy independence and ofcourse our economy...­.thats whats really important, we need new priorities­...and smarter leaders...

[Passenger57]

If the US had no enemies - we would create some.
Here are some crazy ideas:
- Stay out of other countries' business.
- Ask for stuff ; don't steal it.
- Talk to other countries' leaders with respect.
- Stop ignoring the United States' history of violence against other peoples.
- Stop making "noble cause" excuses for the United States' history of violence against other people.
- Maybe things will be better!

[arvay]

Amen!

[RedDogBear]

Great ideas. I would add: Stop equating "US interests" with "interests of large corporations that used to be based in the US"

[arvay]

Clearly, we need to abandon our Israel-centric mideast policy. It's the poisoned fruit that continues to make us all sick.

The real reason we're being prodded by Israel to "do something" about Iran has little to do with their nuclear program. Israel wants Iran hobbled so it can't support Hizbollah, which originally forced the withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon and most recently pierced the IDF's cloak of invincibility.

Israel should solve its Hizbollah problem by negotiation an honest and comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians.

That means changing itself from a religion/race based apartheid state into a real democracy, which can repatriate the Palestinians who destabilize Lebanon, the West bank and Gaza. Failing that, the only issue is how messily the Israeli state will come to its end, how many more people will be killed and may possibly feature a nuclear exchange in the area.

An economically crippled US is going to prove an increasingly impotent Israeli protector. Once advanced Russian weapons re-enter the mix -- thanks to out idiotic NATO provocations -- the military balance will shift even more markedly. Think of Syria and Hizbollah with shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, antitank and anti-ship missiles.

[Hrotea]

AHMADINEJAD OF IRAN CAME TO NEW YORK FOR UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY SPEECH, EXTENDED THE OLIVE BRANCH, BUT AS USUAL BUSH AND U.S. DELEGATION SNUBBED HIM

By Hermie Rotea

A different President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran who came to New York City this week as head of the Iranian delegation to the UN General Assembly session to deliver a speech. This time he didn't threaten to wipe out Israel from the world map. He listened to President Bush deliver his speech. When Ahmadinejad's turn came, Bush and the U.S. delegation walked out and snubbed him.

The United Nations headquarters is located on international territory. Heads of state may attend sessions of the UN general assembly and are entitled to respect and recognition. Hospitality and diplomacy are expected to be the norm of conduct regardless of differences among nations.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad was not as fiery and warlike as before. He was reconciliatory. He did criticize the United States as a bullying power that pushes its weight around in the Middle East. The truth may hurt, but that is true. The Iraq and Afghan wars are the bext examples. They are both illegal, immoral, and phony.

Even then, the United Nations is the best place to pursue diplomacy, peace and harmony among nations. There is nothing to gain by disrespect, snubbery, and hostility. Thus it can be said that in foreign affairs, the United States is part of the problem, not the solution.

[politicky]

Most Americans don't read or write Farsi or Hebrew, or Russian. Kinda makes it hard to figure out what the real scoop is don't you think?

*sigh*

[RedDogBear]

Ahmadinejad was interviewed on Democracy now today. He is not the madman the MSM makes him out to be. See for yourself:

http://www.democracynow.org:80/2008/9/25/iranian_president_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_on_the

[politicky]

Ok I watched it. Ahmadinejad and Bush have something in common. They both make my skin crawl by couching Machiavellian political ambition in sickening religious language.

[chirps]

The mainstream American media sure does paint Ahmadinejad darkly. I think this vilification blends in nicely with their months’ long effort to condition the American people about the inevitability of some kind of attack on the evil empire of Iran, just like that media did in the lead up to War Based on a Lie in evil empire Iraq. Sorry, msm, but your efforts haven’t worked this time around because the American people are largely and surely against such an attack. Stuff it.

[RedDogBear]

I agree. Ahmadinejad is the latest in a long line of evil doers: Hussein, Kim Jung IL, Bin Laden, Kaddafy, Castro. None of them are good guys but they are seldom the madmen they are portrayed to be and they often go from being people we support (Bin Laden, Hussein, even Castro got money from the CIA) to the most evil man in the world that we must destroy. Its an excellent propaganda move because it gets the American people to focus on one evil person rather than on the larger issues or the horrors that will be visited on the people of the countries we destroy. You might find this article interesting: http://counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html Its by a political scientist who speaks whatever language Ahmadinejad speaks and has analyzed the way his speeches have been deliberately mis-translated in the west.

[VikingQuest]

There is no Iran factor any more . . . they are going to do what they want, we aren't going to stop them and they aren't going to go along with any talks.

Myabe the UN will do something of significance . . . nevermind.

[RedDogBear]

Mr. Majd, like so many Americans your historical memory is quite selective. It goes back to the Iranian revolution and also goes back to a comment Kruschev made about Iran but it has a big hole in it regarding what happened in Iran BEFORE the Iranian revolution. So let me help. In 1951 Iran elected a government that would be a model of liberal democracy by current Middle East standards. The prime minister, elected in a free and fair election was Mohammed Mosaddeq. Mosaddeq was no communist, not even really a socialist, except he made the unpardonable sin of wanting Iran's oil revenues to benefit the people of Iran. So Mosaddeq was overthrown by the CIA and British intelligence and replaced by the Shah of Iran. The Shah was an open admirer of Hitler and he ruled Iran with a brutality that was extreme even for that region. His secret police were legendary for barbaric techniques of torture. The Shah terrorized Iran with the overt support of the US. It was after 20 years of this that the Iranians managed to get their country back. A true understanding of how Iran feels toward us requires this history. I can guarantee you although you seem to have forgotten the Iranians have not.

[VikingQuest]

Great . . . now what? They want nukes and have threatened Israel.

[RedDogBear]

They want peaceful nuclear power as do virtually all industrialized nations. They have developed their nuclear power according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Our OWN intelligence organizations (CIA, DIA, etc.) in the latest National Intelligence Estimate that dealt with Iran have affirmed that they have no nuclear weapons program. Regarding Israel they have said that Israel's continued occupation of lands captured as a result of war and their apartheid oppression of the Palestinian people is unjust and should not be allowed to stand. That puts Iran in agreement with virtually every country in the world except the US and Israel. The so called "threats" are propaganda and mis-translations: http://counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html

[evilzed]

And yet again, there unbelievably, with all of Bush's psychic powers, seems to be no, none, nada proof has be put forward that Irans can produce let alone want Nukes. Even the CIA said so and also the Weapons Inspectors.
But hey, dont let the, "there are WMDs in Iraq" story haze you this time.

[11907281]

America has never done wrong to no one USA USA USA.

Thank you for pointing out what initiated the blowback known as the Iranian revolution. Imagine what the country would be like if they were allowed to decide their own fate, without interference, back then.

[RumiSouth]

Is the Mosaddeq story the ONLY thing that ever happened in Iran? What about Truman's face-off with the Soviets over their continued occupation of the northern third of Iran in 1947? That little incident is what started the Cold War. Oh, but geopolitics have nothing to do with it...it's ALL ABOUT MOSADDEQ.

I think if you knew some Persians (I do) then you'd understand they are far less obsessed with Mosaddeq than you are.

[MajorKong]

We play checkers, the Iranians play chess.

[Infokronea]

I think you're right about the mess we've made of our relationship with Iran, especially after 9/11. (Not that Iran hasn't contributed to said mess, sad but true.) Unfortunately, Cheney and company have no interest in anything beyond war with Iran, as a recent report we provided to members of Congress indicates. Why else would a large number of terrorist events previously credited to others have been shifted to blame Iran? (Remember Iraq?) When ideology becomes the hand maiden of commercial interests and genuine intelligence is superseded by little more than propaganda, what we have left is not foreign policy, but Armageddon for fun and profit. Let us all pray that this element can be contained until someone that is more reality based is in the White House.

[PSM42]

A mess? Treason, Sir, Treason!

George Bush is a GENIUS. No, really. The British have proved it absolutely. U.S government policy has been a stunning success in Iraq ...

Bremner, Bird and Fortune on UK TV. @6:10, or so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptzml1qQvZE

Other British people take a darker view, but they are university-educated academics, world-class researcher types. They don't reason with their gut.

Instead, they do that other thing. So rare in these times. What is it called. Oh, yes. Thinking. Done with a brain. http://nafeez.blogspot.com/

[RedDogBear]

"(Not that Iran hasn't contributed to said mess, sad but true.)" Really? How has Iran contributed? What could we reasonably have expected them to do differently? After 9/11 they offered to meet with us and "put everything on the table". They offered to help destroy Al Queda who was their mortal enemy. We not only refused to meet with them we actually rebuked the country that brought us the offer. Since then we continually accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons even though our own Intelligence services say that is not true. We accuse Iran of sending EFP's to Iraq but offer absolutely zero proof. We continue to bully the UN into passing sanctions against Iran for their peaceful and lawful pursuit of nuclear energy (not weapons). And now as Sy Hersh has documented we are already waging a covert war against Iran and constantly threaten to turn it into an overt war possibly with nuclear weapons. I would seriously like to know what Iran could have done differently. I agree their president sometimes makes stupid statements about the holocaust so OK, I'll agree he should stop doing that but compared to the behavior of the US Iran seems a model world citizen.

[brutus948]

its about oil and gas. If Iran didn't have any oil we wouldn't even be talking about this. They'd be another Turkey.

[MagisterLudi]

"the U.S. position vis-à- vis Iran has been, almost since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, that it is an enemy nation with geopolitical interests diametrically opposed to ours."
The hostage-taking and abuse of American citizens by Ayatollah's regime may have something to do with it. hmmm.. Don't you think this COULD have been a terrible way for a new regime to begin relationships with American superpower ? Don't you?!

[Mogamboguru]

Why don't you ask, who kindled a military coup in Iran in 1953 to oust the Iranian democraticlly elected president Mossadegh? Right: The USA via the CIA.

The USA spilled first blood in Iran. But when the Iranian people rose up against the US-sockpuppet Shah Rehza Pahlavi, the American Embassy became a beehive full of CIA-agents, who were trying to initiate a counter-revolution - until they got seized by the Iranians.

BTW - it was soon-to-be US-presidident NIXON, who deliberately prolonged the US-"diplomats" stay in Iran by secretly negotiating with the Iranian government, because he didn't want the US-captivees be freed still under then-president Jimmy Carter's administration.

The US-amerian history is full of very interesting details. Why don't you just go and learn them, before you accuse other people of your own government's misdeeds?

[RnR]

I agree with you with one exception:

"BTW - it was soon-to-be US-presidident NIXON, who deliberately prolonged the US-"diplomats" stay in Iran by secretly negotiating with the Iranian government, because he didn't want the US-captivees be freed still under then-president Jimmy Carter's administra­tion."

I think it was gwhb pulling the strings.

[Pedestrian]

The Abuse of Americans?

The hostage taking was a stupid, pointless act ... But after having destroyed Iran's only hopes for a democracy in the 50s, the only thing left would be to sell chemical weapons to Iraq and gas more than 100,000 Iranians.

Whoops, America had that covered too!

[MagisterLudi]

Ayatollah had ZERO interest in democracy. Surely even you know that. Ayatollah was looking for a convenient country to demonize ( America the Sa tan ring the bell?) as every despot does. America fits the bill.

[MajorKong]

Yeah, and then we shot down an unarmed Iranian airliner and helped Saddam Hussein kill close to a million Iranians. I'd say we're a little bit ahead of them in the "abuse" game.

[Passenger57]

Again,we're back to Mossadegh.­..the Iranians revolted because they were sick of the US puppet,the Shah,who took the place of democratic­ally-elect­ed Mossadegh after the US and Britain decided that he "had to go " after wanting to nationalize Iran's oil.

[PSM42]

The U.S and Iran.



On the one hand a country run by a religious oddball and an elderly man given to uncontrollable rages, which some speculate is stroke-induced dementia. A country with nuclear weapon ambitions, no rule of law, a danger to the entire world. http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/a_cheney.htm
http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/bypasssurgery/a/pumphead.htm



On the other hand a country run by a man who likes 70s blousons (vai Rory Bremner, UK TV). Called Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcYkn9e3OOw



Which is more dangerous? You decide.



I know, I know its an old one. But it is still a goodie.

[MagisterLudi]

Iran is run by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He's superior to all national political figures and governmental instituations. This concept is called Velayat e Faqih. Supreme Leader does not meet or talk with infidels. But rules Iran with an iron fist.
Become informed on the subject.

[PSM42]

>The truth is, had he (Cheney) instead visited Tehran, he would have truly frightened them. (The Russians).

I don't think so. Why would any nation with a couple of thousand nuclear weapons be frightened of the U.S visiting anyone?

[BEYAZRENKLERORG]

The meeting in Geneva on July 19, between representatives of the 5+1 (U.N. Security Council permanent members plus Germany) and Iran, should be heartily welcomed by all those who seek a diplomatic solution to the hoked-up case against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear energy program, and, thus, an end to the threat of a new war in the region. Although, as both sides stressed, no final agreement was struck at the talks, the fact that they took place at all was significant.


Yet, the spin in the establishment press on the event, has been most unhelpful, often bordering on sabotage. One line had it that, since the Iranians did not immediately bow down and lisp, “Yes, sir,” to the call for a freeze on its uranium enrichment activities, they were rejecting the 5+1’s bargaining position tout court. Others claimed Tehran were only stalling, in hopes of averting any military aggression until the U.S. elections in November. Still others seized on reports of Iranian military maneuvers, conducted prior to the talks, as “proof” of Tehran’s commitment to develop nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Regional military maneuvres by Iran, which came on the heels of Israeli exercises simulating attacks on the Islamic Republic, featured the firing of 9 middle-range missiles. In response, Secretary of State Condi Rice issued usual complaints, and both presumptive Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama reiterated that Iran is “a threat.”

[Mogamboguru]

There's an old, roman saying (written herein English, of course): "If you can't beat them, join them!"

Well - the USA will NEVER "beat" Iran - i.e. force it to surrender under their boot. Iranian people are PROUD. They would rather DIE, than surrender. (Go ask some Iraqi Veterans from the Iraq-Iran-war in the 1980ies. They will approve me - you bet!)

Iran, the ancient Persia, has 5000 years of recorded history and is one of the few old cultures, which exist incessantly from their beginnings in the dawn of history until today - comparable only to great nations like Aegypt, India and China.

If you can't beat them, join them: Imagine, which IMMESURABLE business-o­pportuniti­es Iran would offer to american investors?

Iran needs EVERYTHING. And, being one of the biggest Oil-nations in the world, IT CAN PAY FOR IT!

Iranian people are well-educated, multi-lingual and openminded as people from any modern society are. I KNOW this - because I am working with Iranian-bred people on a daily base MYSELF!

Forget about that constant Ajatollah-babbling. Religion only flourishes, were people live in peril and suffering. Give people a good life, and they will part with their religious masterminds with a snap!

Thank you for this well-written contribution, Mr. Majd!

Choda hafez!

[RockySoldier]

the iranian backed group hezbollah killed 200+ of bravest Marines in their sleep.

never forget that.

never.

[Mogamboguru]

What was your Marines' business to be in Lebanon, in the first place?

You got socked in Vietnam, you got socked in Mogadishu, you got socked in Lebanon, and actually, you are getting socked in Iraq and Afghanistan. For WHAT, I ask?

Can harm be done to people, who keep themselves out of harm's way?

But IF you sent people into harm's way, were you sure that, it was ABSOLUTELY in your country's and people's best interest?

With all due respect: I doubt that THAT was the case in every single military engagement by the USA after the Korean war.

[chaos4700]

...And never forgive? You don't consider yourself a good Christian, by any chance, do you?

Anyway, the situation with Iran (and the Middle East in general) is much more nuanced than most Americans are willing to make an effort to comprehend. The problem with Iran is a deep-seated consequence of the fact that our country backed the shah, to the point that we overturned the original democratic revolution in Iran to put him back into power when he fell. And why did we do it? For oil, obviously.

I suppose some things never change.

[MajorKong]

And the US backed (at the time) Saddam Hussein killed close to a million Iranians. Never forget that.