Getting Real About Iran
Last month, President Ahmadinejad of Iran came to New York City for the UN General Assembly. Some brave soul at Columbia University invited him to speak. Dr. Bollinger, the President of Columbia, covered his backside by prefacing Ahmadinejad's speech with an inaccurate catalogue of his and Iran's shortcomings.
In every society I ever visited as diplomat or tourist, I profited from the fact that rudeness to an invited guest was considered despicable. In New York City, however, Bollinger was blasted for allowing Ahmadinejad to be invited in the first place. Speaking at an august American university would "legitimize" him.
It isn't only Michelle Malkin and other genocidal bigots of the religious right who believe this. The whole U.S. political system deludes itself at regular intervals that Americans have the power to legitimize or delegitimize foreigners. We would laugh at any pundit who claimed that accepting an invitation to visit Tehran would legitimize President Bush. But we are apparently sincere in our faith that foreign politicians draw their right to rule from the applause of an American audience.
To simplify a complex notion, legitimacy is that attribute of individuals and institutions that causes their instructions to be obeyed. As a U.S. diplomat, I learned the hard way that legitimacy is too vital a commodity to leave to outsiders to dictate who gets it. Each society awards legitimacy on the basis of internal competition. Heredity, looks, and presumed aptitude for successful violence against aggressors are key factors human use. But chimpanzees have pretty similar criteria.
Profound moral instincts underlie many of the rules governing legitimacy. But legitimacy isn't itself necessarily moral. Hitler was legitimate to millions of Germans, in the sense that they obeyed his abhorrent orders even when it was possible to do otherwise. If traffic lights were not legitimate, we would stop driving or else die painfully. But if President Bush were not legitimate, our troops would not now be floundering now in Iraq.
By being the potential aggressor against whom foreigner leaders burnish their credentials, the United States has some ability to legitimize its enemies. U.S. policy helped render Fidel Castro immune to Cuban domestic opposition for 36 years. As a superpower, we can also delegitimize our friends, by letting them sidle discreditably close to us. By doing so, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines gave U.S. diplomats the ability to hand power to his democratic rivals simply by pulling the plug on support for him. But in terms of day-to-day diplomacy, withholding legitimacy from unfriendly foreign leaders is like holding our breath. Bystanders place bets on long we will last and what shade of blue we will turn.
Non-domestic sources of legitimacy are weak. The most effective of them, one this White House hates using, is strenuous adherence to the handful of universal moral norms hard-wired into the human psyche. Hospitality is such a norm. America's rudeness to a guest did not weaken Ahmadinejad where it mattered. On the contrary, it gave ordinary Iranians another reason to conclude the United States should not be trusted as an arbiter of legitimacy in their own society.
One odd thing is that delegitimizing Ahmadinejad is not really in our best interest, even if we knew how. We are asking Iran to renounce a sovereign right to a full nuclear fuel cycle. No current U.S. politician could make such a renunciation and survive in office, no matter how money and praise foreigners showered on him for doing so. Gorbachev, who nobly relinquished an oppressive Soviet empire, is despised by his own people.
Because Ahmadinejad was elected with a reasonably honest popular majority, there is a tiny chance that he will be strong enough to make a deal. It helps us that he believes nuclear weapons are contrary to divine law. Any less popular replacement would have no choice but to emulate President Bush in putting national security -- in the form of a credible nuclear deterrent -- above the religious ban on mass murder.
Before the Iraq fiasco, the American Enterprise Institute's public intellectuals happily exploited the Bush Administration's ignorance and narcissism. They massively exaggerated America's ability to rig the rules of foreign political competition to legitimize charlatans like Ahmed Chalabi. Now they spread the lie that Iran is Germany and Ahmadinejad is Hitler, not because they believe it - some of them know history and geography pretty well -- but because no honest argument would trump the State Department's national security argument for pragmatic diplomatic engagement with Iran.
Vice President Cheney went on television October 21 to stress that he is deadly serious about war with Iran. I believe him. Until Cheney is safely out of office, international relations remain a life or death issue for the American people. It therefore behooves us to treat the mirage of America's cross-border legitimacy with the seriousness and sophistication the topic deserves.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
While I appreciate this post, it seems to me that all this talk about legitimizing people is a red-herring, or what us simple folk call bullshit. Let's review the history of the U.S.-Iran relationship, shall we? Under Eisenhower CIA props up a puppet government in the Shah. The people grow impatient and angry at the Shah's rule and oust him from government. U.S. transplants Shah out of Iran to Panama, Iranian public goes berzerk (they wanted to murder the Shah). U.S. supports Isreal in their military strike against Iran. Iranian students kidnap American diplomats and hold them hostage. U.S. has a failed attempt to free hostages. Incoming President sells arms to Iran for the hostages (by the way, isn't selling arms to foreign enemies treason?), U.S. supports Saddam Hussien in Iraq's war against Iran. Iraq-Iran war ends in stalemate after several years. U.S. goes to war with Iraq. U.S. again goes to war with Iraq. All this is done by very intelligent, accomplished people.
Show me one good result from U.S. involvement in the middle east! One worries about legitimizing Ahmadinejad? - it is preposterous. This talk about Ahmadinejad wanting to exterminate the Jews (has anybody ever actually heard a recording of him saying this - I haven't) is such fear mongering. The Shah, Saddam, Saudi Arabia were/are all anti-Israel. Doesn't anyone think Iran realizes that if they ever released a nuclear weapon on Israel that the US would annihilate Iran? How can a country with thousands of nuclear weapons be scared of someone with 1 bomb? (And doesn't that discredit the theory of deterance?) Oh yes, because it would upset the wonderful oil deals we currently have. Please, oh please, wake the fuck up America, and read your damn history for once.
I'm sorry, I'm being rude. Let's all welcome the next president of the United States - Rudy Guliani. Yay America! Let's get in our SUVs and go for a delightful ride.
Your impatience with the press and the public is quite legitimate and duly noted. By the way, they used the Germany and Hitler thing on Saddam, and it turned out to be, what was that term you used? yes, Bullshit. Now they are using it with Iran. When that turns out to be, ahem, innacurate, could it still be used against Syria, or Lebanon (again) or any other middle eastern nations the Neocons want to attack? 3 or 4 more times in a row? Is the US public really that braindead?
I just envision a group of moronic villagers with torches and pitchforks being led around by dick cheney, who keeps pointing and at various people and screaming "HILTER!!!, Kill Him!!!"
"U.S. policy helped render Fidel Castro immune to Cuban domestic opposition for 36 years."
Bush is scheduled to give a speech at the State Department where he will declare that he will not allow Fidel to pass control to his brother. That seems to be today's example of how Bush/Cheney/Rice legitimatize leaders by externally declaring them illegitimate. "The internal enemy of my external enemy has my support."
Bush and Cheney have serious delusions about who they are. They are not the "anointed ones", or special in any way, actually. They're small minded, scared little people who have the misguided notion that might makes right. The reality is RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, and those 2 poor excuses for human beings have been wrong in virtually everything they've done their whole lives.
It would certainly be helpful if the USA did not, thru every statement and action, prove to the Iranians that they absolutely need nuclear weapons if they are to protect their soveriegnty.
I don't know if they are developing bombs or not but the Iranians are not stupid. They can see what happened to the (hated) neighbor Iraq because Saddam didn't have a nuclear deterrent.
It appears that it is not only the government of Iran that is in favor of developing nuclear energy but the vast majority of its citizens as well.
If we are afraid of nuclear proliferation why don't we set up a world order in which countries can be secure in their soveriegnty?
It will not be the ruling elites that will suffer if we go to war against Iran. It will be the average men women and children who suffer. The government will be strengthened.
And all those citizens who want a more open and more liberal Iran (by all accounts most Iranians) will be destroyed in an orgy of Iranian patriotism.
And hatred of the USA will be reinforced for at least another generation.
".....But if President Bush were not legitimate, our troops would not now be floundering now in Iraq".
Legitimacy is no longer the question when you have a nation whose government does not hesitate to kill its citizens ( a la Waco or Philadelphia),set aside habeus corpus,survey citizens even in their most private conversations, make public its intent to torture and relocate them at will.
The government tolerates us as long as we do nothing but any kind of earnest attempt to change their goals will show us it is not through legitimacy they rule but through implied violence.T
We are like prisoners who must pay for our own cells.But what well padded cells they are!
Our own military analyst state that Iran has a modest military budget by middle-east standards. Iran's arms pruchases have been defensive in nature. They do not have the capacity to project forces into other countries and don't seem to be arming themselves to do so.
John Brady Kiesling:
"Vice President Cheney went on television October 21 to stress that he is deadly serious about war with Iran. I believe him. Until Cheney is safely out of office, international relations remain a life or death issue for the American people. It therefore behooves us to treat the mirage of America's cross-border legitimacy with the seriousness and sophistication the topic deserves."
Perhaps it behooves to get rid of Cheney/Bush and the rest of the corprocrats. The Bush Crime Family is the anomly in International Diplomacy. The long history of and the Bad Karma of the Bush family's Nazi money needs to become the new master narrative. The Bush's war crimes of the past pre-determined the war crimes of the present. We need to get to the root of the problem.
Because Nancy Pelosi took impeachment of the table, one must assume she is just another corprocrat.
Bush and Cheney and Rice are all out and about these past few days spouting endlessly about the Iranian threat. Granted Iran is a pariah among nations it is within its' rights to develop peaceful nuclear energy and while I would keep a leery eye on them within the treaty they are within their rights. We have Cheney and Bush now spouting about missiles with nuclear war heads soon aimed at the US. This is total bunk, how could anyone fall for such sensationalism? And we have to protect Europe from Iranian missiles too, when did we become the protectors of Poland and Chezkoslovakia etc.? I can think of no reason for Iran to attack these countries, if they even had the weapons, or attacking anyone in Europe. But of course it lets the Bushies push for another war to dump on another president in little more than a year. When will the congress and people in this country realize what this administration is doing. And if we do attack Iran it is going to be an even bigger mess than Iraq. I hope our kids are willing to foot the huge bill all of this war mongering is costing in the name of terrorism. IMPEACH NOW, he still has over a year to get things even more screwed up.
In what way is he legitimate?
Consider this: Worldwide demand for oil is growing, supply is diminishing. The middle east has most of it..
The U.S. economy has boomed over the last 60 years thanks to WWII which decimated the rest of the industrial world creating huge markets for U.S. goods and inspired U.S. advances in industrial manufacturing and science. The U.S. became incredibly rich and arrogant. Access to cheap oil also fueled (pun intended) this surge.
The picture is changing and powerful fatcats in the U.S. feel threatened. The world playing field is gradually tilting against the U.S. at the head of the food chain. Countries such as Iran with their control of oil will eventually, if left unchecked, be in a position to dictate economically and even culturally to the U.S. They won't need to use nuclear weapons if they have the economic upperhand.
U.S. "masters of the universe", especially in the energy sector, have no intention of going "gentle into that good night". They see the train light at the end of the tunnel and they're committed to derailing it before its momentum is unstoppable. These powerbrokers don't give a damn about democracy and the constitution. Why should they when their raison d'etre as a privileged class is being threatened?
Bush and Cheney are products of the energy elites. They've been given the task of stopping foreign usurpers from taking the throne. So Bush, Cheney, et al are using every trick in the books (including "1984") to accomplish their appointed mission. All their lies and manipulations, all their talk about spreading democracy, all their cherry-picking of intelligence data, even their aiding and abetting of right-wing media rhetoric is a cloak behind which they can aggressively pursue their appointed task.
Democracy and human rights are fine ideas but won't matter much when bread is scarce and the "barbarians" are at the gate, or, in the case of the elites, when five-star meals, corporate jets, multiple big houses, fancy cars and fine mistresses are scarce and they have to mingle with "little people".
Great piece of work Mr.Kieslin
"We are asking Iran to renounce a sovereign right to a full nuclear fuel cycle"
== It seems the two of us are voices in the wilderness because I've beens saying the same thing but getting drowned out by the blood thirsty religious Zionists.
"...the American Enterprise Institute'
====Yes, they did this with Saddam and Iraq and with Lebanon and Hezbeollah.
I find it intriguing that you never once mention Israel or Jewish Zionists in your piece, you elude to the lunatic Christian Zionists "genocidal bigots of the religious right" but, you never refer to them specifically. Dancing around the truth is disappointing considering how much is at stake for us and the world, we need to clearly identify and define these Zionists as a terrorist threat and disable them completely but, that will not happen until we all start telling the truth.
The AEI is one of dozens of these groups with innocuous titles that intentionally disguise their intention: to support Israel and to lie for Israel and to promote Israel and to keep arming Israel and to keep the American public in the dark about the truth about Israel and the Middle East. AEI, AIPAC, JDL, ADL, WZO, CFI, PNAC... these are only a tip of the acronym iceberg deeply imbedded special interest groups that are taking us to one war after another for Israel.
This much repeated lie about Hitler was not once challenged by any of the lip glossed, empty headed broadcasters during Ahmedajinedads visit to New York. The basic facts of his visit were ignored or intentionally removed, those facts being the only people protesting were Zionists, the only people calling him hitler were Zionists, the only people demanding for Irans destruction are Zionists and bigots.
It is time for us to get very clear and very honest if we're going to prevent nuclear disaster.
Boobaloo: I too am amazed at how people miss this basic point, and Gordon Brown, another NPT signatory/violator standing next to Olmert (with the nukes, habit of invading neighbors, but non-signatory to NPT), lecturing Iran for insisting on its treaty rights for its peaceful nuclear aspiration (and it does need nuclear power)--sheesh.
I think it is as well *not* to name names though: it doesn't help clarity in the discussion; better to focus on the structure of the situation.
Demonizing others is in this instance an old trick, well used by Hitler and Goebbels. If one can convince the population that the enemy is sub-human, it is easier to treat them contrary to the Geneva Conventions. The logic of doing so may be flawed, but the ease with which those in power can deceive themselves, as well as the populace, is truly scary.
Nuclear power is a human right and the US should help as many nations as possible to get it instead of starting wars. Imagine how people of the rest of the world would view us if we helped them get nuclear power, and, as a result, a modern economy. People would love us out there. Now, what better protection to the national security is there?
I agree, but this argument is NOT about nuclear power, it is about the natural resouces of Iran.
India and Pakistan are both nuclear, and were left unthreatened by the US. Why?
Because they had no resources that interested the Military Industrial Complex of America.
Love is overrated.
If you think the coming war with Iran is about Iran's nuclear capabilities, I have some weapons of mass destruction of the Iraqi kind that I'd like to sell you. Iran may be, in fact, seeking a nuclear deterrent or it may be seeking to develop a peaceful nuclear energy capacity but whatever Iran's true nuclear intentions that is irrelevant to the Bush Administration. As in Iraq, the coming war with Iran is about dismantling the Iranian state, privatizing its assets and looting its natural resources. It may also be about seizing power in the United States under the rubric of martial law. If we continue to take the pronouncements from Bush and Cheney at face value then surely we will find ourselves slipping further into a world war. Given not an ounce of truth from this Administration over seven years, why should we expect any different now? The definition of insanity is do something over and over yet expect a different outcome. Others may have gone insane, I most assuredly have not. Impeachment of Mr. Cheney should proceed forthwith followed by that of Mr. Bush otherwise I fear we may never be rid of them.
``We are asking Iran to renounce a sovereign right to a full nuclear fuel cycle.``
Nice to hear someone finally say it!
It sure is . . . thank you for saying it:
the only way forward for the US is impeachment . . . cheney first . . . nothing will change in our foreign policy nor in our domestic policies unless Congress has the will to put impeachment on the agenda . . . if Pelosi continues to refuse to put it there she has to go!
Especially Iran, surrounded on three sides by armies of a nation hostile to it , the leaders of these hostile nations (U.S. and Isreal) threatening it weekly for years as evil incarnate.
.Wasn't that Isreal's excuse?
Not really. We're telling them, not asking.
Israel was the first Middle East country to develop and stockpile nuclear weapons, fully sanctioned and helped by France and, indirectly, the United States. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus has had no external safeguard checks which are mandated by the United Nations. Therefore, Israel can be accurately said to have first started a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Iran would be crazy to not want to develop nuclear weapons, having witnessed the U.S.'s invasion and occupation of its neighbour, as well as Israel's repeated attacks on Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. If your country felt threatened by an enemy who declared you to be evil, and who has consistently meddled in your own sphere of influence, would you not take steps to defend your sovereignty? Of course you would. Iran is naturally only reacting to aggressive actions taken by a superior power which threatens its existence.
The U.S. and Israel's longstanding policy of self-exclusion from international laws and signed treaties has created the problems in the Middle East, and reveals the true hypocrisy which lies at the foundation of U.S. foreign policy.
This is one of the most important questions which has never been addressed in any meaningful way -- why is the U.S. self-excluded from international law and signed treaties and obligations? Other nations are expected by the U.S. to keep to the laws and deals they have signed, but the same does not hold true for the U.S. It automatically accords itself the right to police the world and adhere to or disregard law as it sees fit.
Noam Chomsky deals with the question of America's self-exclusion from international law and world order in his books "Failed States" and "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance". He states that if the U.S. doesn't respect law and world order according to the standards by which it expects other nations to follow, then anarchy and nuclear holocaust could result.
The U.S. needs to lead by example. (cont'd below)
_
Patriotism, or more accurately ultra-patriotism, is a source of strength for America, but can also be a source for America's weakness if not properly wielded by responsible leadership.
The Bush "administration" has deviously manipulated the American public's inherent ultra-patriotism for 7 years, generating an incredible amount of patriotic strength, but for intentionally wrong and misguided reasons.
The end-game result of this, is an entire country consistantly told to fear and be afraid, taking on a xenophobic mentality. Those in the culture who question the leadership about what is happening around them, and, more importantly why it is happening, are branded a potential traitor who's patriotism should be questioned. 1930's Nazi Germany and America today share many similarities in how patriotism through symbolism has been used effectively against their citizens, although their ideology is different.
These are textbook propaganda activities undertaken by the leadership in a fascist, totalitarian police/military state against its own population as a form of direct control. First control, then belief.
"The world's hegemonic power accords itself the right to wage war at will, under a doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" with unstated bounds. International law, treaties, and rules of world order are sternly imposed on others with much self-rightous posturing, but dismissed as irrelevant for the United States " a long-standing practise, driven to new depths by the Reagan and Bush II administra
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it is destroyed from within." ~ W. Durant
_
,,Patriotism, or more accurately ultra-patriotism, is a source of strength for America,,,
No, its your biggest weakness! why because when you become a `patriot` (in the extreme sense that is everywhere in America) you begin to think you are superior & above the law to all other races,species & NATURE.
`Patriotism is just Propaganda in disguise!
Great points, man. I have(had) a Jewish friend from high school, 25 years ago, and now he won't talk to me because I brought up the obvious points you did.
Well, some people just can't handle the truth. Israel has enough nukes, bombers, subs, whatever to defend themselves. There is not one word in the US Constitution that says America is obligated to be the blood and wealth of Zionism.
This matter is going to be an issue, no matter how hard the neocon hit-squads try to repress it.
You can be Jewish and still not support Zionism or its racist apartheid policies.
I was born and raised as a Jew, although I no longer consider myself one. I am now purely a devout atheist.
Sometimes, the hardest thing one can do is look in the mirror and recognize one's own faults and weaknesses. It's not an easy thing for most people, but truth and moral principle should always be the ultimate ambition.
_
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
