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
what does "reason" have to do with a military industrial finance media propaganda complex hell bent on global domination? in the minds of these people, there is no life or death or suffering or happiness -- there is only winning and losing.
it's cute to have a democratic-ish dialogue about policy issues, though. as though it made any difference.
yeah, it's "cute" to keep yer mouth and mind shut in a paralysis of apathy, that always works.
if you want to fix a problem, you have to understand it. wishful thinking is irrelevant.
thinking you live in a real democracy does not constitute understanding, since the United States is demonstrably not a real democracy. *that* problem must be fixed before democratic solutions can be effective. do you get it now?
"French President Cautions Against Attacking Iran in Standoff Over Tehran's Nuclear Program" By Angela Doland, The Associated Press, 8-27-07
"Paris - French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned Monday that it would be "catastrophic" to resort to military force in confronting Iran over its suspect nuclear program.
"For me, Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable," Sarkozy said in his first major address on foreign policy, but he stressed that he opposed an attack on the Islamic regime and urged that the West rely on diplomacy.
"Sarkozy also said Iran is entitled to use nuclear power for civilian needs, such as generating electricit
"While France has a history of close ties with the Arab world, Sarkozy said: "I have the reputation of being a friend of Israel, and it's true. I will never compromise on Israel's security."
Despite that, he said, the many Arab leaders who have visited him since his election know they can count on his friendship
"Though he criticized the U.S. over Iraq, Sarkozy showed his commitment to the security effort in Afghanistan by pledging more troops to train the Afghan army - following months of speculation about France's commitment to that international force."
http://www
Thank you Nathan Gonzalez. We'll need words of reason in these days and months ahead, to counteract recent and upcoming insiduous pr campaigns for more disastrous war. It would seem that Maliki is the target of a badmouth campaign by lobby firm BGR (full of recent high-level Bush admin. servants) hired by CIA favorite, Iyad Allawi, and it is affecting bipartisan opinion in that murderer's favor.
Great Post!
I agree that Iran must be engaged diplomatically to help resolve this "mini cold war" of rhetoric thrown both ways, but I'm constantly surprised at the dismissing of the Iranian leadership's fiery anti-Israel, anti-American and apocalyptic statements as empty by "experts" who seem to offhandedly superimpose Western-style separation of State and Religious belief on cultures that couldn't be more different in application of reason and logic.
If I could post pictures in this comment, I would show many from my collection of enormous banners and murals displayed prominently in public gathering places in Tehran and other Iranian cities calling for the destruction of the US and Israel(in English and Farsi), bombs falling on the US, hailing 911, etc, etc, etc. These are not rhetorical statements made to the press as propaganda, but messages of intent and purpose to their own people. Should we dismiss these also?
Ahmadinejad's personal beliefs concerning the re-appearance of the 12th Imam(called the "Hidden Imam" by Shiites) and his belief that he is the one who will usher in the Imam's re-appearance and begin a new age of Islamic domination of the entire earth have been well documented by his own office and news services. Should we also dismiss these?
Diplomacy, not military action is the way, but we must not dismiss the beliefs and heart felt statements of hatred as irrelevant, they are part of the whole, and need to be included in how diplomatic efforts are shaped.
Your caution is wise, but don't forget that the United States has often been another country's "Great Satan". China, in the '70s and '80s, comes to mind.
Wall paintings and banners are quickly forgotten when nations discover mutual interests. If we continue to let Bush and Ahmadinejad set the agenda, we'll never figure it out.
You ask whether we should dismiss Ahmadinejad's beliefs. No, we should not. Instead, we should allow the Iranian people to dismiss Ahmadinejad. Let's provide them a reason to do so.
Good idea Guilty Bystander. What are your proposals to do just that? I'd be greatly interested in concrete solutions instead of the constant whining I read on some of these posts. I do not mean that in a derogatory manner to you.
Ok, so with diplomacy as the tool and hatred as the background, where do we look?
Maybe its Ok to ask: Is it blind hatred?
Or is it a hatred that is based on some solid facts of history that may make it understandable?
Why are we not discussing the fact that the CIA and the British M5 conspired in 1953 to overthrow the legally and democratically elected government of Iran on the guise that the gentleman was too close to his country's communists, and that he was deficit spending his budgets.
That would be us, the Americans, overthrowing democracy when we don't like the results.
Sound familiar?
Maybe then we can get our diplomacy venture into its proper posture, which would be that we all make mistakes but lets agree to our peaceful co-existence.
Americans don't understand, and therefore do not accept that there is a totally rational basis why Iranians are a little worried now that we have them surrounded and are rattling even our nuclear sabres.
Were I Iranian, neither would I forget.
Peace.
Personally, it doesn't bother mean that there's so much anti-American feelings. I think that that's the only logical response to our Middle East policy.
Plus, I don't think a country's really a threat until they actually strike a blow. Pre-emptive war kills many more innocents than if we wait to actually be struck. If we want to fosture a global culture that's pro-America, we have to start being more pro-world ourselves.
Like Keyman 12 says, I don't think Iran's much of a threat.
Pakistan. Now, that's a threat. Actually, when one comes right down to it, we're the biggest baddest threat to world peace going. Check out our stockpile upon stockpile of nukes and other lovelies. It's our only ace in the hole. I would love to know what the Chinese leaders think of the mayhem and destruction our leaders, past and present have wrought.
Don't forget the Red Heifer.
"Could [a] little calf born... in Israel bring about Armageddon? The concept would have struck many people as absurd the last time such a calf was born, in 1997, and probably makes most readers laugh today. Big mistake: Never underestimate the power of religious faith to shape events, especially in the Holy Land. Especially right now."
"Our eschatological heifer story begins on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where tens of millions of Jews, Muslims, and Christians believe the central events of each tradition's Last Days will play out. The site, the Biblical Mount Moriah, was the site of the Hebrews' First Temple, destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC, and the Second Temple, which the Romans leveled in 70 AD. Muslims, believing the site to be the place from which the Prophet Mohammed ascended into Heaven atop a steed, began in 685 to build the Noble Sanctuary, a 35-acre site in Jerusalem's walled Old City, containing the Dome of the Rock shrine and the al Aqsa mosque."
"To Jews who adhere to ancient tradition, whose number include religious Israeli nationalists, the long-awaited Messiah will return to become the king of Israel and high priest of a rebuilt Temple, which can only be on Temple Mount. For Christian fundamentalists, Jesus Christ's return at the height of the battle of Armageddon, in which forces of the Antichrist clash in Israel with a 200 million-man army from the East, will require a Third Temple from which the Lord will begin a millennial reign. And for Muslims, an Antichrist figure called the Dajal will be a Jew who will lead an all-encompassing war against Islam, which will culminate in the return of Jesus (as a Muslim prophet), the Kaaba, or Sacred Rock in Mecca, transporting itself to Jerusalem, and final judgment in the valley just below the Noble Sanctuary.
http://www
You can hardly blame the Iranians, considering all the damage the US has done to them over the past century.
Thanks for the post Nathan. Its good to see someone clearing up the reality of Iran to counter Joe Lieberman's constant war-mongering.
More than anything, I like your points on what it may do to our policy regarding Iraq, which is becoming more of a mess each day. Iran may be able to help us all to a solution. The problem is, I don't think it will happen under Bush and probably not under Amadenijad either. We are seeing a clear example of what happens when two neo-conservative leaders bat heads. They certainly do not and will not engage eachother. Too much pride for that.
Joe Lieberman doesn't care a fig for America. It is time America realized that and stopped being (mis)led by such.
For as little as I know about the disinclinations of Bush and Ahmadenijad to look into each other's souls, I do believe this -- that that event or non-event would be about as significant as the conflict between two yellow-jackets buzzing around a big cut of tri-tip on my picnic table.
great post. I wish somone in the white house would read it
As do I. I wish everyone in the US would read it.
If Bush read the five reasons he would do the exact opposite anyway to prove he's the decider. This is the way spoiled little Junior's ego operates, because it doesn't require critical thinking. Therefore, we should push for war with Iran. Bush would do the opposite and there would be peace.
Thank you Collie Lady. I've seen this from day one. I was hoping it was obvious to others as well.
This administration likes the idea of war, of power and unfortunately not the idea of negotiation. And most certainly not how to finish what you start. In no way is America going to be able to fight every country that currently has the capability to produce nuclear power, and too many are countries we rely on for our economy. Its better to hold your friends close and your enemies closer.
Amen!
This administration doesn't want peace in the middle east. They want to control the oil and Iraq and Iran have plenty.
Israel was the first Middle East country to develop and stockpile nuclear weapons, fully sanctioned and helped by the United States of America. 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 (and the U.S. indirectly) 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 has declared you to be evil, and who has consistently meddled for 30 years 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 the aggressive actions taken by a superior power which threatens its existence.
The United States 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 United States foreign policy._
_
i've said it a thousand times and i'll say it once more...Isr
The issue isn't defense. Both Israel and Neoamerica want hegemony. Neoamerica (as declared in the famous PNAC document that shows the reasons for Bush's invasion of Iraq) is not the America I care about. Nor does Neoamerica care about ordinary Americans like me.
By the way all those billions given to Israel in "aid" are in violation of our laws because of her nuclear weapons, but what Neo- cares a hoot about laws?
If the billions in aid to Israel are in violation of our laws then why are we giving it? So obviously there have been no check and balances for a long time when it concerns Israel. Both parties are certainly involved.
I'm afraid they are making all these changes and creating all of the diversions while in the background no one is watching what they are up to. I am somewhat concerned about another false flag and of course they will blame it on Iran.
America is stupid enough they just might go for it again. I wouldn't put it past whoever to do it again and the people became so frightened they allowed them to steal all of America. :(
You're obviously not recognizing the fact that Israel has a God-given right to defend their sacred land which was being held in reserve by the Palestinians until God's real estate agent - Britain - recognized the fact and moved all non-ethnically divine desert dwellers into the ghettos where they continue to disturb the peace with their angst. Now, if Palestine had a real army with weapons - this would have been harder to implement - sticks and stones, as they say. Now, if Iran got weapons, how the heck will the Corporation invade? Think on it.
God-given right? Held in reserve by the Palestinians? God's real estate agent? What poppycock!
AS USUAL ITS THE U.S.'S FAULT. WHY DO YOU STAY IN A COUNTRY THAT IS ALWAYS WRONG.
Fortunately, I'm not a U.S. citizen.
_
Please don't yell - yelling removes all credibility from you.
I'm a Democrat and a liberal, but first and foremost, I'm an American. Because of that I oppose all things Bush. But, I can't for the life of me figure out why the radical left continually dismisses and distorts the facts when it comes to enemies of America, democracy, peace and freedom.
Iran is a Fascist theocracy. This is a consensus fact period! Tell us "dotmafia" would you rather live in the U.S. or Israel or Iran?
If you we're living in Iran you would not have the freedom to criticize policy as you do here or in Israel, another consensus fact.
When you incorrectly say Israel's "repeated attacks" on Lebannon, you convienently leave out another undisputed fact that Hezbollah a terrorist group and part of Lebbanon's government, and financed by Iran, kidnapped Israeli soldiers and fired missles into Israel without provocation, and Hezbollah's leader declared war on Israel, in the last military action between Israel and Lebannon.
But in the anti-semitism of the radical left, Israel is the bad guy. Israel has showed great restraint in it's handling of Nuclear weapons, considering they are surrounded by hostile governments and terrorist groups that openly deny Isreal's right to exist in peace and have vowed to to wipe them off the earth. Iran being one of the foremost in hating Israel and supporting terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hammas to provoke them into military action. All undisputable facts, except if you are part of the radical left that turns a blind eye to military aggression unless it is on the part of U.S. If the radical left had any political power pre WW2. We would all be speaking German and Japanese now.
Q: "Tell us "dotmafia" would you rather live in the U.S. or Israel or Iran?"
A: None of the above.
I live in a fairly liberal country, which is thankfully free of the perpetual monitorings of Big Brother, free of the hypocrisy of the extreme religious "good and evil" causes espoused by a leader or party, and, most importantly, free of any bias which you most certainly share with your fellow Americans - left or right.
I have no agenda and I'm therefore free to make neutral observations about your increasingly fascist police state culture as it becomes more apparent and evident. Whether or not you choose to allow yourself to see and speak truth, instead of biased propaganda, is either your gain -- or your (and your country's) loss.
_
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
