Our attention has been rightfully turned to the stomach-churning photos of women being dragged by the hair through the streets of Egypt and Bahrain, and reports of yet more deaths in Syria. As this year ends however, it is worth noting with a bit of apprehension that Iran has been relatively quiet compared to its neighbors. In fact, when John Dudin of the New York Council on Foreign Relations reviewed the ten most significant developments in the Middle East in 2011 Iran did not make the list at all--even after the downing of the US drone earlier this month. Either things are improving and we are learning to better deal with Iran, or this is merely a pause in a decades-long estrangement which could turn violent, providing a shock to the global economy it might not be able to withstand.
War with Iran would mean the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, where the Iranian Navy began ten days of war games to practice doing just that on December 24th. At least 30% of all seaborne oil shipments pass through this chokepoint. Oil prices have been rising on the strength of the maneuvers alone: an actual blockade would double the price of oil overnight.
Now that America's withdrawal from Iraq has been formalized, and Osama bin Laden, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Zine el Abidine Ben Ali have all been vanquished, after a year of unbelievable changes throughout the Middle East, my prediction is that Iran is about to regain center stage in the region. As a result of the US withdrawal, Iraq could be prone to more violence, and the Iranian leadership must certainly have taken note that none of the toppled leaders, including Sadam Hussein, possessed formal nuclear capabilities.
Iran's Navy Commander Habibulah Sayari points to the Strait of Hormuz at a news conference on Dec. 22nd
The first act is already being played out in Syria, the only Arab state to align itself with Iran, and in the streets of Bahrain, its neighbor under Saudi control. The Saudis and the Israelis are mulling diplomatic as well as military options to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability in a revolutionary neighborhood. How successful have their covert operations been in 2011? Narimon Safavi, Iran expert and contributor to our book What's Next? thinks that they have been quite effective, and that now is not the time to change tactics. Changing the status quo would be of no benefit to Obama either.
Trita Parsi, head of a Washington think tank focused on Iran and author of an upcoming book by Yale University Press, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran believes that the Obama Administration has abandoned diplomacy often and quickly, and that this could create an accidental crisis that could spin out of control quickly. A desperate Iran--its currency has lost half of its exchange value in the past two months--might make desperate decisions.
Indeed, the US is moving to isolate Iran. The US Treasury Department announced new Iran sanctions in 2011. Congressional action is expected which would make it difficult for financial institutions in third countries to do business with Iran, and for the Iranians to get paid for their oil. Diplomatic overtures by Hilary Clinton and the State Department urged India to join the oil embargo against Iran. This is an initiative that seems to be supported across institutional and party lines, unlike almost any other issue in Washington.
Pressure against Iran can be subtle and pervasive, and is not confined to business. I am a board member of NIAC, National Iranian American Council. Members are mostly Iranian expats here in the US who support cultural exchange and a peaceful relationship between the US and Iran. After submitting a grant proposal, NIAC was recently told that the Macarthur Foundation "does not currently provide support for projects related to Iran". They are not alone; this is true of many major foundations in the US, which I find astonishing. Less knowledge of Iran than we already have will hardly augment our understanding of a country that we all agree is of such strategic importance to our national interests.
Persian, the official language of Iran, and its cousins are spoken throughout the Middle East, and it has been deemed a critical language. The year I graduated from the University of Chicago, one of the few centers of Middle Eastern studies in the US, other than myself there was only one other undergraduate who majored in Near Eastern Studies with Persian as the language elective. Things are not much better today. According to the Modern Language Association, only .001% of language learners in institutions of higher learning study Persian, about 2000 students nationwide. On the other hand, I have seldom (maybe never) met an Iranian college graduate who did not speak English. And unlike Michelle Bachman, all of them know that we do not have an embassy anymore in Tehran.
The point is, and the point that Trita Parsi makes in his excellent new book, is that due to the lack of understanding between our government and Iranian leaders who have been isolated from the rest of the world, war will not be a decision, but a mistake. Both nations face political transition and deadlock, and Parsi says in an oped in the Los Angeles Times that in this impossible landscape diplomacy can falter:
In Iran, political cannibalism within the Iranian elite has reached new heights. While this has not necessarily given birth to a new Iranian adventurism (beyond the harsh rhetoric), it has paralyzed the state and weakened its ability to maneuver in a changing strategic environment. This is particularly the case when it comes to crucial issues such as its relations with the United States.
The U.S. military leadership is rightfully worried about this situation. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, has repeatedly raised the lack of communication between the United States and Iran as a major concern in the last few weeks."We are not talking to Iran so we don't understand each other," Mullen said last month. "If something happens ... it's virtually assured that we won't get it right." The lack of communication has planted seeds for miscalculation, Mullen argued. And miscalculations often lead to dangerous escalations.
Parsi faults Obama for allowing the same neoconservatives who brought us the war in Iraq to frame the Iran debate as well, for not creating "a new metric of success in our dealings with Iran." He quotes Albert Einstein: "You cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time".
Here in Chicago, I take comfort in Narimon Safavi's opinion that actually things might be getting better between Iran and the US. He agrees that the recent handling of the drone incident, whatever the backstory on that might be, could be an example of a successful handling of a crisis. Both sides have nothing to gain from war, and it is an election year in both countries, so domestic concerns will be a priority.
I hope Safavi is right. I do agree with Parsi however that we need to create a new metric, change our frame of reference and institute smarter policies. If success can only can be claimed if Iran is never allowed to have a nuclear weapon, then we are probably bound for a major policy failure.
Giving up on this goal is just one example of how I think we need to change the way we deal with Iran. Given the neighborhood that Iran inhabits, and the US military presence there, it is not irrational for Iran to consider nuclear armaments. By treaty, Iran is entitled to build and develop nuclear energy, and that is what they say they are doing. The received wisdom however is that the nuclear materials that are used for this purpose are a hop, skip and a jump away from creating a nuclear weapon, and this "we cannot allow".
No matter what the protestations are from Washington or the denials from Tehran, I firmly believe that ten years from now Iran and perhaps many other countries will have nuclear warfare capabilities just as Pakistan does today. We can delay things, by assassinating physicists and also attacking software. But eventually, they are going to have a nuclear weapons capability. Given that, wouldn't it make more sense for us to ensure that we are part of the process, and that development is transparent? I would even give them aid to ensure that we are deeply involved.
Also on my list: stop calling Iran a "failed state" which it is not, it is rather a totalitarian state, reopen diplomatic relations at some level, increase educational funding in the US for all things Iranian, hold high-level discussions with the Iranian-American community and enlist their aid (Obama has never met with Parsi, and should) increase cultural exchanges of all kinds, do everything possible to protest human rights abuses in Iran, increase rather than decrease business ties, link their currency to the US dollar...wait, that all sounds just like Nixon's China policy! Maybe this is something a Democrat just cannot do.
My July article for Yale Books on Iran focused on the threat of a major earthquake in Tehran, and I called it "A Lamentation of Black Swans: Economic Disaster in Iran".
'The Concourse of the Birds' painted by Habib Allah
Given my love of unusual plural words, I was delighted when I was recently given lovely present by a friend who knows of my interest in Persian culture. It is a book, beautifully conceived and illustrated by Peter Sis, based upon the famous Persian poem "The Conference of the Birds". The story is about the gathering of birds of all kinds and types, who are brought together by the fear of an unspecified danger. In order to escape this peril, they fly together to faraway valleys to find their mysterious, god-like ruler, Simorgh so that he might save them. After reaching the mountain of Kaf where Simorgh resides, they see their own images in the mirrored surface, and discover that they themselves are their leader. Simorgh exists inside every one of them.
There is a wonderful lesson here. If there is danger ahead, then perhaps we would all be wise not to depend upon our leaders, and instead, depend upon ourselves collectively and individually, to ensure that we will not find ourselves at war once again. War with Iran would be irrational, and is the biggest black swan event of 2012 with the potential to derail the fragile economic recovery we are now experiencing. Both Safavi and Parsi agree that it is a possibility under certain circumstances, and therefore we need to consider the damage that would result, and do everything in our power as citizens to prevent it. Better not to place all of our hopes in our leaders. Wikileaks in many ways represented the end of the old diplomacy, when everything was kept secret from the huddled masses. We must now become our own diplomats.
This post originally appeared at the Yale Books blog.
What's Next? Unconventional Wisdom on the Future of the World Economy by David Hale and Lyric Hale is available now from Yale University Press.
Follow Lyric Hughes Hale on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lyrichues
Satpal Singh: Shatter The Silence: An Undeclared War On Women
ALL OF THIS IS STAGED, and NOT BY ACCIDENT.
And, for those of you who believe that the same rule applies to Israel, and India, I say that's not so. Both these countries possess nuclear weapons as a deterrence, have never threatened anyone with nuclear weapons, are vibrant democracies and can be surely expected to exercise Nuclear restraint. Even the much misunderstood N.Korea is less of a danger than these radical MErn regimes. But, I do believe with constant diplomacy &/or reunification with the South/or active Chinese involvement the N.Koreans can eventually be prodded to give up their WMDs altogether.
Murali-Atlanta-USA
Dear Ms. Hale:
Firstly, I totally disagree with you on your thinking that America should allow Iran to develop Nuclear weapons. Everyone knows that after Iran, it will be Saudi Arabia and Turkey next. A Nuclear weapon in the hands of these radical regimes is a sure recipe for disaster. Already America has erred big time by letting Pakistan develop nuclear weapons given their leaders' well known bonhomie with Islamic terrorists.
The greatest reasons that the world has not seen a nuclear fallout for the last 6 decades are b'coz of the restraint exercised by the big powers, their fear of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), and the fact that these countries have very effectively protected their nuclear assets from falling into the hands of dangerous terrorists.
With more & more unstable/religious ideology driven countries (who believe in martyrdom as a path to salvation!) possessing nuclear weapons, nobody can be sure that they will themselves not use them, or at worst hand them over to stateless terrorists intent on wreaking havoc.
So, call it Nuclear apartheid if you like…..but, irrespective of the costs, in the interests of all mankind it only makes perfect sense that we stop the Iranians and other radical regimes/peoples from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The brutal clerical regime is doubtless threat to its own people, though it hardly outranks US allies in that regard. But the threat lies elsewhere, One element is Iran's potential deterrent capacity, an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that might interfere with US freedom of action in region. It is glaringly obvious why Iran would seek a deterrent capacity; a look at the military bases and nuclear forces in the region suffices to explain.
Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld wrote that "The world has witnessed how United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy," particularly when they are under constant threat of attack in violation of UN Charter. Whether they are doing so remains an open question,
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/noam-chomsky-american-empire?page=2
The Iranian desire for a nuclear weapon is driven by defensive considerations, not a suicidal attack on Israel or the US. We were responsible for overthrowing their (democratically elected) government in 1953 (to protect the interests of Anglo-Iranian Oil, now BP). We installed the brutal Shah and we also armed and supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war that cost a million lives. The Iranian leadership has seen how carefully we treat the North Koreans now that they have the bomb. If I was them I'd want the bomb too, to make others think twice before attacking.
The Straits of Hormuz must stay open, but the means to ensure that should be the minimum needed to accomplish the mission. "Sweeping Iran's Navy from the seas" is overkill. As for encouraging the Saudis to get involved in Iranian revolutionary activities, they are in no position to lecture any other country on democracy and human rights.
We can expect a steady push for war with Iran from MIC lobbyists and the Israeli Right. Sanctions and careful diplomatic engagement are the way forward, backed with the threat of military action. They know we can crush them, we can afford to talk.
Are we all just pawns on the Grand chess board?
“We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
http://constitutionpartyoftennessee.com/2011/03/07/are-we-all-just-pawns-on-the-grand-chess-board/
Zbigniew Brzezinski
It really appears that many US special interest have far more to gain and Iran has far more to lose with war. A change in the US administration will be highly relevant here. So if it does occur it probably won't be by accident, and regardless of it's blustering and threatening, Iran seems least likely to start it.
Thank you very much for your many comments. Whether positive or negative, all were instructive, and I have enjoyed reading your opinions even if they differ from my own.
Based upon the large number of responses to this post, my initial conclusion is that the possibility of war with Iran is an issue that concerns many of us, and it should be given a lot more attention by all presidential candidates in the upcoming campaign. I will be writing another post to follow up on some of the most important comments that were made, including an update on recent events.
Lyric Hughes Hale
--------------------------------------------------->
If 30% of the world oil shipments pass through mathematically it makes no sense that cutting it off should result in doubling the price.
Oil speculation is as much a danger as war.
Most media news is written by corporate and government propagandists.
p.s. The Iranians were developing nuclear weapons long before 9/11. Our presences in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be used as justification for the program. Not to mention the fact that their suspected weapons program is the only reason anyone is talking about the possibility of conflict.
After the last great run-up, Saudi Arabia realized that it enriched Iran as well. Having more capacity allows Saudi Arabia to sell more, and still make more at a lower price.
Saudi Arabia actually built excess production capability, to be able to ramp up their own production to stabilize prices and avoid enriching Iran the same way again.
BTW, we thanked them by devaluing our dollar, and their holdings of them.
A war with Iran has been in the works for quite a long time. People should read the 1996 Israeli document - "The Clean Break" in order to obtain a full-understanding what we are witnessing and have taken place in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria has been in the works for quite a long time with the ultimate objective of targeting Iran. The same folks which brought us the Iraq war based on false premise of WMDs are doing the same with Iran.
Iran does not constitute a nuclear threat.
The threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which contemplates --under the CONPLAN framework-- the use of thermonuclear weapons against a non nuclear state.
An attack on Iran would have devastating consequences, It would unleash an all out regional war from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia, potentially leading humanity into a World War III Scenario.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100702.htm