Five Reasons to Engage Iran
It seems that with every news cycle comes yet another attempt by the Bush administration to pave the way for a war with Iran. As if we weren't facing enough problems in Iraq, there seems to be a degree of laziness across the political spectrum when it comes to understanding Iran's political culture and finding ways to engage diplomatically without sacrificing our interests.
In my new book, Engaging Iran: The Rise of a Middle East Powerhouse and America's Strategic Choice, I shed light on how Iran is a much more complicated (and potentially friendly) country than our media would like to portray it. Here are just five reasons to engage Iran diplomatically sooner, rather than later:
One: Our Mutual Interests
Iran and the White House have two things in common: They both support Prime Minister Maliki's government in Iraq, and they both fear a bastion of al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists forming in Iraq. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," goes the old adage, but this administration seems to be missing an incredible opportunity. When America finally leaves Iraq, Iran will be the number one enemy of al-Qaeda in Iraq. We should be working together, not against each other, in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Two: Iran's Pro-Americanism
Having been to Iran, and having followed global opinion polls closely, I can say without reservation that Iran has one of the most U.S.-friendly populations in the world; certainly the most pro-American in the Muslim Middle East. Needless to say, this support is not unconditional. While Iranians still speak of the United States as a land of "freedom," American bombs dropping from the sky would change that overnight.
In Engaging Iran, I quote a young man in Iran who puts it simply: "I hate the (Iranian) regime and I love America. But if America attacks us, I will join the regime and fight America." The ruling clerics are banking on this sentiment to carry them through any air strike campaign.
Three: If We Don't Engage, We're Stuck in Iraq
Something that news analysts rarely mention is that no matter what the leading candidates promise the Democratic base today, no president, no matter how anti-war, will be in a position to leave a power vacuum in Iraq for a military adversary to fill. Staying in Iraq under those circumstances would no longer be a choice, but a necessity. This means that a war between Iran and America would result in the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq for years, if not decades, to come.
Four: Ahmadinejad's Diatribes Are Irrelevant
One of the most troubling tendencies among cable news commentators is their propensity to take the words of a weak Iranian president and inflate them to apocalyptic proportions. While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite who denies the Holocaust, and has openly hoped that God will one day erase Israel "from the pages of history" (mistranslations of this phrase are bountiful, including the typical "Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map"), this should not be taken to literally mean he plans on having the capability or will to carry this out through a nuclear attack.
Not only does the Iranian president have no power over the country's military, but more importantly, Israel has a formidable nuclear deterrent that prevents the thought from even entering Iranian leaders' minds.
Even if we wanted to imagine rogue elements inside Iran that are so fanatical as to destroy their own 2,500-year-old country, they wouldn't do it by attacking Israel, since the Jewish state houses one of the most sacred sites in Islam: Jerusalem's Dome on the Rock (besides, the Palestinians would go with Israel).
Five: Because We Haven't Really Tried Yet
To make matters of diplomacy more difficult, there are op-eds and studies floating around claiming that the Iranian government has already rejected a "grand bargain," as put forth by the Bush administration. This has even been suggested by the liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress. The problem with this analysis should be obvious: One cannot expect a country to reach a diplomatic agreement during private discussions, when at the same time that country is being aggressively called out in public.
Iran has been repeatedly painted into a corner by the Bush administration, which has loudly claimed that under no circumstances can Iran "be allowed" to develop nuclear energy (later clarified to "weapons"), while it has been quick to rile about Iranian support for the same militias that support the U.S.-backed government in Iraq. Most recently, President Bush has spoken of a need to "confront Tehran's murderous activities." It doesn't take a career State Department official to realize such statements don't pave the way for effective diplomacy, especially when one's coercive military instruments are bogged down in Iraq.
In case there is any doubt, Iran has also made overtures to the United States. One such instance came in the form of a letter by former President Khatami to President Bush at the start of the Iraq War, which put on the table the end to all support for terrorist groups. Not only did the administration refuse to talk, but it "scolded" the Swiss ambassador for passing the message on (source: Christian Science Monitor, 12/15/06).
As we look to evade yet another protracted conflict in the Middle East, we have to do the groundwork to ensure all stones are left unturned for the American people, so the public is not fooled yet again into thinking war is the only option. It isn't enough to oppose war for the sake of it, but we must understand how it is in our best interest to engage diplomatically. If we don't, our presence in Iraq could very well outlive the architects of the current war.
Follow Nathan Gonzalez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/engagingiran
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
"This means that a war between Iran and America would result in the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq for years, if not decades, to come."
The continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq (occupation) for years and even decades to come is *exactly* what the Neocons want. This is how they intend to control or even break OPEC, among other nefarious ambitions.
MR GONZALEZ -WHILE YOU LISTED 5 REASONS TO ENGAGE IRAN---THERE ARE TWO CHOICES FOR THIS ADMINSITRATION---
ONE IS TO WITHDRAW AND SAY THE IRAQIS HAVE NOT MET THEIR BENCHMARK.
TWO WOULD BE TO WIDEN THE CONFLICT.
LIEBERMAN WAS IN FAVOR OF WIDENING THE CONFLICT.
THIS ADMINISTRATION CANNOT WITHDRAW OUR TROOPS BECAUSE ITS LIKE ADMITTING IT WAS A MISTAKE AND TOO MANY HAVE DIED.
WIDENING THE CONFLICT IS MORE APPRO-PO BECAUSE CHENEY THE WAR-MONGER WOULD AGREE TO ATTACK ANY COUNTRY AT ALL.
IRAN IS BUILDING CONDOS---GOLF COURSES (RESORTS) AND THEY DON'T WANT A WAR WITH THE USA. ITS MOSTLY FLEXING MUSCLES BECAUSE GEORGIE CALLED THEM THE AXIS OF EVIL AND GIVING PEOPLE MORE REASON TO HATE US.
There's some plan the meglomaniac DICK has decided must be implemented before he leaves office (which he'll probably try to delay for National Security reasons he is not at liberty to discuss). They've got a plan for the middle East-but it will only benefit the Treasonous corporations we helped to build up all these years- with Amercian blood, sweat & tears- and the plan is to continue- along with our economy, freedoms, rights, reputation, until we are no more.
Well Nathan, are you going to lead the charge?
Diplomacy is the only way out of an increasingly dangerous situation in the middle East. Iraq was bad enough surely no-one wants another disaster to take place there. Israel has nuclear weapons which are illegal under international law. the U.S. was complicit in assisting Israel to get those weapons. Iran has a nascent nuclear program which may or may not result in the production of nuclear weapons. However Iran is now onside with the original nuclear treaty it signed years ago and has a right to its own nuclear program under international law. Where does the U.S. get off on ordering Iran to cease its legal nuclear program while allowing Israel to maintain its illegal access of nuclear weapons? Gross hypocrisy in my mind!
In my book,"The Bush Diaries," which was published in July 2005, I had advocated the following Iran strategy:
“I think that Shia hegemony as a counter-balance to Sunni Arab supremacy—if allowed to proceed as a natural evolution of the new realpolitik in the Middle East—could benefit us in the long-term, without the need for another preemptive war in the short-term.”
This was over two years ago and we still seem to be engaged in a war of words. Then in my blog post dated April 23, 2006 and entitled, "Crossing the Persian Gulf," I had suggested the following:
"If we are ever going to cross the Persian abyss, preemption is not an option and meaningless threats must stop at the water’s edge. If President Bush is really serious about making headway with Persia before he leaves office, he could appoint President Clinton as a special envoy to head bilateral negotiations between Iran and the U.S. - with carte blanche authority to bridge the gulf between our two nations!"
On May 6, 2006 in response to the Biden-Gelb plan on Iraq, in a blog post, "Seinfeld Option on Iran and Biden-Gelb (+Six Neighbors) Plan for Iraq," I pleaded:
"The Bush Administration must ignore Iran for the rest of its term (I call this the Seinfeld option – “Do Nothing”), as it has ignored North Korea (since the start of the second term), and also immediately initiate another “six-countries” round of talks on implementing the Biden-Gelb plan for Iraq."
Finally, in a February 27, 2007 blog post, I called for a "Paradigm Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy" much along the lines that you have recommended:
"In attempting to resolve the current mess in the Middle East, President Bush might want to opt for a paradigm shift in the FPOTUS. The enemy (Shia Iran) of my enemy (Sunni Al Qaeda) could radically alter the dynamics of the global war on terror and help return control of the FPOTUS to a weakened presidency."
Note: FPOTUS = Foreign Policy of the United States.
Bush and the neocons don't want diplomacy, they want endless war, which they sell as ''protecting the American people.'' One hellish legacy for the next president.
Yes indeed. Bush and Cheney and a few others are Ministers of Death. Praying for war. Try reading Thomas E. Ricks book "Fiasco." It may give you some additional insights. I have read it (twice) and I highly recommend it. You may also want peruse "Nuremberg Diaries" if you can find it. A good on-line site might help. Diaries was written by Hermann Goering after WWII from his jail cell and parts of it tell how easy it is to get a people to follow even a maniacal leader like Hitler. Watch for the parallels to today.
I think that Ahmadinejad is a loose cannon but when
diplomacy was handed out,G,Bush was last in line.
You can always try to talk your way out of conflict.
Give and take are not dirty words.A few more good
diplomats would help the killing of innocents to the
minimal.I'm sure that intelligent Iranians really don't
hate Americans or the west as much as is reported.
As for having the military power to attack Iran,I don't
think so.
The only way would be nukes.
After Hiroshima and Nagasaki nobody would ever
forgive the US for that,believe me.
Dick Cheney smells blood in Iran. Facism in America is his goal.
The destruction of the United Sates will come from within... just look to the White House.
Bush is the terrorist.
Impeach.
I'm sure the Iranians would love to engage us on Israels fate- would you sit at that table?
With the Iranian people? I sure would. With the mad mullah's, probably not. I'm willing to wager that the Iranian people themselves wouldn't have a problem with the existance of Israel nor would they have a problem with living in peace with them.
The US accused Iraq of having WMD. Iraq denied it to the end, but America is always right, so we respond by attacking and continue to destroy that country.
The US accuses Iran of wanting WMD. Iran does not deny it. They have a nuclear capability, they are building Smart bombs, they are building their own fighter jets, but America is always right. So we respond by saying that they are only kidding, they don't have WMD capability.
Israel has never signed the NPA but has admitted to Nuclear capability. But America is always right. Isreal is our friend, let us sell them more arms.
And so the Middle East continues to be a side show for the guys in Washington. Frankly, they need the Middle East to distract from problems at home.
With the current crises in the US, Politicians are just holding back until they need Iran to take centrestage away from Healthcare, Katrina,
Unemployment,and Corruption. And then of course, they will engage Iran , not in dialogue, but in war.
Is it any wonder that most people in the Middle East are just fed up with Western Hypocrisy?
Do you know who is a terrorist? Someone who is just too fed up to care.
PS Call that manufactured black ops from the Pentagon.
It's not laziness per say but INTENTIONAL IGNORANCE that keeps us from engaging. Why see what is behind THE CURTAIN when we can follow the same black and white policies that we have already planned out for? you mean there are different facets of world diplomacy other than our way or the highway?
How about they aren't doing anything that threatens us?
There is no evidence that they have a nuclear weapons program and they have a right to develop nuclear energy. They have made an agreement with AEIA to deal with unresolved issues about their program.
The "ravings" of Ahmadinejad are deliberate mistranslations. He has tried several times to engage Bush who has refused to respond. Maliki and Karzai have both said he is doing a good job.
There is no credible evidence that they are active in Iraq. It's all manufactured black from the Pentagon and innuendo.
Their support of Hezbullah is a red herring. The US is one of the only nations who thinks Hezbullah is a terrorist organization. It's a nationalist organization.
When can you get an invite to MSM venue(s)?!! Your voice, your book needs to be heard/read. Just looking at a map of Iran, surrounded by 5 countries hostile to her, then add Sunni Saudis (many of whom are fighting in Iraq now--our friends,so we won't mention that nasty) would like nothing more than for U.S. to begin bombing her (and it will be bombs, not foot soldiers). Interesting...I believe Iran sent aid to Afganistan after 911. Not exactly a hostile act.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
