Iran: No Easy Solutions but Kam, Kam...

Since my recent post, "Democracy in Iran: Change Begins at the Ballot Box" there have been numerous points raised which are very valid and certainly need to be part of any calculus in the U.S. administration's approach to Iran. For a variety of reasons, these are very difficult issues to which there are no simple answers or quick fixes.

In approaching this, we must be realistic about what can be accomplished, and how quickly. The U.S./Iran relationship has reached such a low point that we must virtually deconstruct it to its base and reconstruct it brick by brick. This begins with establishing a minimum level of trust on which to build. In the end, U.S. initiatives toward Iran are certain to be met with skepticism and their impact incremental and uncertain. But we need to start somewhere.

A reader asked about a potential, "ideological showdown" between the West's secular, liberal democracies and the Islamic Revolution's ideology of religious, Islamic "democracy" - a great question.

First and foremost, Iran's current exercise of its foreign policy is in fact on the whole quite pragmatic. Pure ideology has been abandoned and is now largely a tool rather than an end in and of itself. This is highlighted by the fact that there is only one truly successful example of a key tenant of the "79" Revolution - exporting the Revolution - that of Shia Lebanese Hizbullah. There are unique reasons why this occurred, most of which are not likely to be replicated elsewhere. Iran's relationship with both Syria and Hamas, on the other hand, is primarily a cynical marriage of convenience - for both sides a question of power politics - and will continue in its current form only so long as it is in the mutual self interest of each party.

While Iran will not easily abandon their Lebanese Shia brethren, to whom they are deeply and ideologically committed, they will back away from the very secular Asad regime or Sunni Hamas as soon as it is in their interest to do so. This is a matter of strategic interest vice ideology or religion. This is not to say that those who comprise the Islamic regime are not true believers, including the Supreme Leader, however, time and again we have seen real world politics trump a religious imperative. In fact, political expediency was a, if not the, key factor in the selection of Khamenei as Supreme Leader upon the death of Khomeini. In the end, while they seek both recognition and respect, the Mullahs in Tehran are intent primarily on survival and are more than willing to manipulate either Islam or the values of the Revolution to that end when necessary. So, a confrontation based solely on ideology is less likely than one might think.

Another important point which was raised surrounded the timing of the "get out the vote" campaign. Of course, there is much debate over whether the U.S. should defer any substantive initiatives towards Iran until after the June Presidential election or risk inadvertently benefiting the hard line Ahmadinejad. There is also the argument that high voter turnout serves to simply validate an illegitimate process. Certainly, these are issues to be considered. Taking a close look at developments inside Iran allows us to develop some sort of preview of how the situation may play out.

For example, Iran's mainstream reformists are well aware that the regime is unlikely to allow most of their candidates to run in the election. As a result, they appear to have virtually abandoned any effort to field a truly serious reform candidate - Karroubi is certainly reformist but does not appear to have sufficient support or the national gravitas to be a true threat to Ahmadinejad.

Instead, it seems that reformist insiders have opted to settle for a candidate from the pragmatic conservative camp, someone who while not as openly reformist as they might like, at least is not Ahmadinejad.

Enter former Prime Minister Moussavi, who appears increasingly to be the preferred candidate of choice for the center-left and center-right. This, coupled with the strong support of the ultimate reformist candidate - Khatami (who dropped out of the race immediately upon Moussavi's entry), makes Moussavi the best hope for someone who is likely to pursue any semblance of a reform oriented agenda, and at the same time who stands a chance of defeating Ahmadinejad. Also, as a former senior government official, a strong nationalist, and a "pragmatic conservative" with impeccable revolutionary credentials, the Guardian Council will be hard pressed to disqualify him. Not impossible, but hard to do. The possible entrance of former IRGC Commander Mohsen Reza'i into the race also falls to an extent into this category.

So, in the end we are very unlikely to end up with a serious candidate who is clearly labeled as a reformer, or who we might consider liberal, but rather one who is at least more pragmatic and less confrontational than Ahmadinejad.

That is really the choice here - four more years of Ahmadinejad or someone less mercurial and ideological, and someone with whom the U.S. can effectively work to rebuild relations. But, by necessity, someone who enjoys enough support from the Supreme Leader to have a chance of being allowed both to run and being elected.

As for timing, if we decide to wait until an "acceptable" candidate (read "true reformist") is allowed to run we could be waiting a very long time. In the end, it is my view that higher voter turnout stands a better chance than almost any other action of defeating Ahmadinejad. At the same time it is also more likely to force the regime to make hard choices. They may prefer that Ahmadinejad be re-elected but his extremely poor handling of the economy makes this problematic. If, notwithstanding the economy's downward spiral, they persist in ensuring the re-election of Ahmadinejad then this exposes their agenda and could serve to accelerate and deepen divisions within the government, thereby weakening the regime. Given their singular focus on survival these are all issues that they must consider.

Bottom line - no easy solutions but Kam, Kam some progress perhaps...

Comments

[J G H]

Get real. The Iranian president has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel. He and his masters of the Guardian Council are disciples of Khomeini, who tacitly approved the takeover of the US embassy, a breach of an international norm which goes back millenia; in fact the Persian Empire went to war with the Greeks over their treatment of emissaries in the 5th century BC. I am at least as suspicious of the Iranian regime as they are of us. That they are only attempting to establish a nuclear power industry is belied by their secrecy and by their tests of long range missles which could be used to deliver a nuclear weapon on Israel. This is not just a US issue. Even the normally recalcitrant Russians and Chinese have voted for sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program.

[BiBiJan]

Google "wipe Israel off the map", and likely there will be over 500,000 hits -- web pages that quote the president of Iran in a tone that suggests annihilationist goals. In contrast, everyone seems to understand the tired-and-old phrase's usual usage is figurative. E.g. the BBC report: England 'not being wiped off map'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7362341.stm

However, the metaphor assumes a whole new dimension when the man being quoted (in loose translation) does not command the military, nor foreign policy, certainly is not the decider of war or peace, nor does Iran have the means to wipe any place off the map. Notwithstanding his unimposing stature as a layman in the Islamic Republic, only in Ahmadinejad's singular case "wipe off the map" is understood to mean "commit genocide".

Is Ahmadinejad seriously accused to be the first ever nitwit to publicly forewarn, in 2005, his nuclear-armed adversary that he intends to annihilate them in 2010-2014, when he will be out of office?

You can cry wolfe all you want. It has no effect on Americans.

According to a recent NYT/CBS poll that asked Americans:
"Do you think the United States should or should not establish diplomatic relations with Iran while Iran has a nuclear program?"

"Of those who gave a yes or no response, 59% said yes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/nyt-americans-support-oba_b_192452.html

[Baghooli]

Equating US hostages in Iran with Iranian emissaries in 500BC and/or Iranian diplomats in hands of Taliban in 1990's or any other comparable incidents are like comparing apple and oranges.
Last time I checked, no US hostage died or maimed while being detain in Iran, mater of fact, with all these libel's being through at Iran for being supporter of this and that, not a single Iranian have been suspected let along being charged with any act of terrorism or war crimes, get real, check with UN to see which nation's they're investigating for war crimes presently.

[skeptic 0]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction: I didn’t know that, here, I shouldn’t use for quotations. Whatever is inside the angle-brackets is deleted......so.....I’m posting the first part again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I remember, Noam Chomsky in his famous book Manufacturing Consent hinted “The major misdeed of the Media is not in what they say to the public, it is in what they hide from them”

These days, the phenomenon of “intentional distortion of the facts by the Media” disturbs so many.

Ahmadi-nejad NEVER said “Israel must be wiped off the map”.

[skeptic 0]

In the equation of Iran / world the following issue is not explored sufficiently:

The big powers, US, Europe, as well as Russia, china prefer a backward underdeveloped Iran. Decades ago Iran bought every industrial product including arms, pots, pans and needles from others (mainly the West). Now they are becoming independent, everyday a new factory is launched.....”others” are losing billions and billions of dollars.

Money talks in different languages. In relation to above and other geopolitical issues, the progress of Iran is utterly unacceptable.

All the indications are that the Nuclear issue is just an EXCUSE to stop Iran. A “regime change” or “destroying all their factories” are some of the desired prescriptions.

Most of the ruling mullahs in Iran are smart thieves. Yet when, during the Iran-Iraq war tens of thousands of Iranians who were subjected to chemical weapons dying in horrific ways they refused to buy chemical WMD from the arms merchants. (UN Report: Iran didn’t use chemical WMD).

Even ignoring Saadi and Rumi’s influence on the Iranian culture and mentality, there is ample room for doubt they’ll ever attempt to build what they call an “evil bomb”.

It sounds like the Iranian population is obsessed with scientific and technical grandeur, not in mass killing of “others”. As they believe in Saadi who wrote 800 years ago

If you have no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain.

A poem which is inscribed on the hall of Nations of the UN building.

[Foxrun]

Great post!! I totally agree with your comment!

[zaz33]

skeptic o - excellent post

Another possible issue with Iran is it's support for Hezbollah. Hezbollah is the only armed group standing between Israel and the much desired access to the Litani river in southern Lebanon.

There is speculation that Israel cannot survive with that access.

[Khirad]

Great article and comment. Nice Saadi quote. Thanks! Nice to see others with a taste for Persian poetry.

[hu.man]

Quote of the day:

"The truth in Iran is often layered in mellifluous rhetoric so finely parsed that it's difficult to discern. It is a game of contradictory images and inscrutable subtext."

Can we say Amen!

From:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saberi-iran1-2009may01,0,352001.story

[Khirad]

It's called T'aarof.

[skeptic 0]

Iran? No easy solutions?

I envision.... two mentally “primitive” persons have a serious dispute. They’ll fist fight whenever they meet (at times bloody fights). Why fight? Maybe since both follow their “apish” instincts and believe they are right and the other side is wrong.

But if two mentally “evolved” persons have a big dispute, they’ll get together, analyse the problem and.... end up with a mutually satisfactory compromised solution.

If humans are capable of splitting atoms, inventing computers and so on, they sure are capable of solving ALL of the simpler social problems of today.... if...

...the big if is, instead of evolved people the semi-primitive people are in charge. Some who have immense powers believe in their God (who is sitting up there watching them), a god who favours them and dislikes those who oppose them!. Many others who run the major shows are committed to expand their powers and wealth in the expense of the misery of the weak.

Iran’s problems are not easy as long as every statesman in US, Europe or Israel despises an image of a developed industrialized Iran. All the indications are that the Nuclear issue is just an excuse

The problems of Iran have very very easy solution only if "humanism" replaces ugly stuff such as “tribalism”, “imperialism”, “self-righteousness” etc. The is a very big “if” indeed,.... it sounds like a dream,...however long ago people dreamt of flying....eventually through the force of necessity, now, flying by aeroplanes is ....routine.

[Soori]

Welcome to the new era of American diplomacy!


The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act explicitly empowers the president to impose new economic sanctions on foreign firms involved in the export of gasoline and other refined petroleum products to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Despite its immense oil reserves, Iran currently lacks the refining capacity to meet domestic consumption and must import as much as 40 percent of its gasoline from abroad. During the presidential campaign, President Obama endorsed the strategy of using Iran's dependence on foreign gasoline imports as leverage in the existing nuclear dispute.

The legislation targets foreign companies that sell gasoline or other refined petroleum products to Iran; firms that provide ships, shipping services, or insurance for this trade; those that finance or broker such activity; as well as those assisting Iran's effort to increase its domestic refining capacity.

“The purpose of this legislation is to give President Obama a new tool in his diplomatic arsenal to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons,” said Senator Bayh.

“As Secretary Clinton made clear last week, the Iranians must understand that, in the event they do not take advantage of President Obama's offer of engagement and suspend their illicit nuclear activities, crippling sanctions will follow,” said Senator Lieberman. “This bipartisan bill will provide him with the authority to do so, at his discretion.”

“This bill gives the president the express authority to target the regime’s Achilles’ heel,” said Senator Kyl.

[zaz33]

Soori -

There is no evidence that Iran has ever pursued nuclear weapons. NONE

It's highly unlikely that Bayh, Clinton, or Kyl used the word evidence in their accusations.

Using the word evidence is a no no.

[Soori]

Of course I know there is no evidence that Iran has ever pursued nuclear weapons. It is this stupid Bill which makes this statement. Iran has been paying a hefty price for its inalienable right because of US and Israel, neocons, and AIPAC!

[Soori]

I like Mr. Fowler to define what he means by a candidate who is less confrontational and more pragmatic? Does it mean a candidate who won't dare ttell the U.S. and Israel about their grave injustices in the Middle East? Does it mean a more wishy-washy candidate who will shut up and take what the U.S. and Israel expect of him? Does it mean a candidate who is wiling to compromise on Iran's inalienable right to nuclear enrichment? Does it mean a candidate who will not speak out against the atrocities committed by Israel? Does it mean a candidate who can be easily manipulated and bought by the West?

[Mollabaji]

Soori,

As to your questions directed at Fowler, his answer will undoubtedly be YES becasue all these so-called experts (former CIA agents) want an Iran that does what U.S. and Israel want not what the Iranian people want, which is a truly INDEPENDENT and SELF-SUFFICIENT COUNTRY in the world. Just heard Hillary expressing her "concern" that Iran has made great inroads in Latin America, U.S.'s backyard. Hooray for Iran and its successful foreign policy around the world.

[Wozzeck]

Meanwhile AIPAC and its champions in the Senate and House are trying to pass a bill to sanction any country that sells Iran gasoline. This will do wonders at improving relations.

[zaz33]

Wozzeck -

I believe it has White House approval.

[zaz33]

8 comments

Where have all the posters gone to ?

[Quinterius]

Simple, the article doesn't say much!

[zaz33]

Will it be carrots or sticks ?

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22532.htm

[JonSmiley]

Gradually we will reach a settlement with Iran, but we cannot do so with Israel setting time tables and threatening Iran virtually on a daily basis.

[j0em0mma]

Why is their virtually no mention of the truly defining moment in US/Iranian affairs, namely that of our nation's role in overthrowing Iran's democratically elected government and the installation of the Shah dictator? Almost every single discussion I see on the topic starts with the Revolution of '79... like there was no history before, and suddenly, for no reason, religious zealots sprung forth and commandeered the nation. Where is that analysis? How can we possibly hope to understand the Iranians and work with them if we don't tell the whole story? The cynic within me says that is because we do intend to destroy them, like we did Iraq, over ideology and false pretenses. The optimist thinks about our own NIE report that Iran abandoned its nuclear program in 2003. But hte cynic reminds the optimist that no one is talking about that anymore, either. Are we to allow ourselves to be talked into annihilating Iran, for no good reason, too? The mind boggles at the unfairness of the world...

[WarSkeptic]

The more talk from the United States and Israel about bombing Iran
The less we will like who they elect

Its really that simple

[Hass]

Oh, and Iran's nuclear program started under the Shah and has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad anyway.

[Hass]

Iran's nuclear program -- the bone of contention between the US and Iran, thanks to Israeli pressure -- is massively popular amongst the PEOPLE of Iran. So, it really doesn't matter which person becomes a presidential candidate in Iran.

[BiBiJan]

Mr Fowler, there is a diametric opposite view to kam-kam (little by little) laid out by John Tirman

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/04/19/bold_action_needed_on_iran/

What is your view of his views?

[Mark Fowler - Huffpost Blogger]

BiBiJan, Actually, I think Tirman and I largely agree on the major issues. When I say we need to make progress "little by little", my point is that given the deep level of "mutual" mistrust that exists, and the need to completely rebuild a relationship from the ground up, we all need to be realistic as to what can be accomplished. We do need to be bold, and many of Mr. Tirman's points are valid, but we will get nowhere if Iran is unwilling to respond. If we try to push them to respond too quickly, or on too many issues we will likely cause them to back away due to suspicion about our motives - Iran's very conservative leadership is extremely concerned that the U.S. might be engaging in tactical maneuvering to gain advantage vice truly offering to build a new relationship. There are similar concerns on the U.S. side and they will be watching closely to see if Iran demonstrates it is willing to engage constructively and move beyond a simplistic policy of "Death to America". It can't be all about what the US alone is willing to concede. In the end, both sides have numerous serious issues that must be addressed and resolved. But, to reach for too much too soon risks dooming the entire effort to failure. I will be writing further on these and other issues in future posts. Thanks for your interest. MF

[Foxrun]

Mr. Fowler the U.S. can't possibly mis-trust Iran because of "Death to America" chants!! Other countries burn our flag and make the similar statements! You don't put all options on the table (i.e. military) because of chants!!!!!!!!!!

Regardless, we have called them worse names: "Axis of Evil", "greatest threat to peace and security of the world", "Terrorist state"!!

Second what has the Obama administration done to really demonstrate that they are sincere in dialogue with Iran besides a short congratulatory message - while at the same time we call them "The greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world", our Secretary of State states that if they do not agree with our conditions we will "cripple" their economy and then we pass bills to prevent import of refined fuel!

Please explain to us how the Iranians or in fact any other country in Iran's place would interpret our actions - as willing partners interested in "respectful" negotiations? I don't think so!!

[BiBiJan]

Thanks Mr Fowler.

Just to give voice to the majority of Iranians and Americans who wish one another well, I would love to see the future goals spelt out more clearly, rather than dewlling on the tactics of where we go from here today.

Based on surveys taken in Iran in early 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org and Terror Free Tomorrow:

[Iranians] have a mildly positive image of the American people, and believe "common ground" can be found between the two societies. Most Iranians desire closer ties with the U.S."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/527.php


According to a recent NYT/CBS poll that asked Americans:
Do you think the United States should or should not establish diplomatic relations with Iran while Iran has a nuclear program?

"Of those who gave a yes or no response, 59% said yes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/nyt-americans-support-oba_b_192452.html