The "Come To Jesus" Moment In US-Iran Relations

With news of an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, U.S.-Iran relations have reached a new low. If the allegations are true, this deplorable act should be strongly condemned. To that end, the Beltway is already buzzing with calls for a "robust response" that will "send a strong message to Iran." But how?

As policymakers, pundits and the American people process this alleged bombshell, it is important to remember that nations have often rushed into conflicts (see: Iraq circa 2003), and we would be wise to let the investigation run its course and gather all the facts.

Indeed, the Justice Department's accusations have been met with skepticism by some experts. Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer in the Middle East, said that the "Quds Force has never been this sloppy, using untested proxies, contracting with Mexican drug cartels, sending money through New York bank accounts, and putting its agents on U.S. soil where they risk being caught... The Quds Force is simply better than this." Max Fisher at the Atlantic questions what Iran possibly could get out of the terror plot. And Muhammad Sahimi at Tehran Bureau raises important questions about why a Quds force operative could enter U.S. soil in the first place.

There are still many details about the case that we don't know, but this crucial point is already on the verge of irrelevance. In Washington, allowing for time to collect all the facts rarely happens. And when it comes to politically toxic issues like Iran, it almost certainly will not happen.

By sending the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, to the podium to drop cataclysmic allegations, the stage has already been set. And you don't send the Attorney General there unless you have irrefutable evidence (which was not presented at the press conference), or if you seek to leverage this as fodder for further escalation.

Despite talking a good game, neither Washington nor Tehran looks ready, willing or able to pursue sustained diplomacy. After the abandonment of diplomacy in late 2009, the Obama administration has returned to a reflexive containment policy that has the domestic political benefit of portraying the Obama White House as tough, while still falling a step short of an actual confrontation.

But containment with Iran is not a stable policy. On the contrary, it's a policy that keeps both sides perpetually teetering on the verge of war. Containment with the Soviet Union proved to be stable for two key reasons. First, because even at the height of the Cold War, Washington and Moscow engaged in direct diplomacy -- that is, effective de-escalatory mechanisms were in place. The two countries could effectively communicate with each other and sort out misunderstandings before they escalated into military conflict.

Second, it was stable because there was ample awareness on both sides that a direct confrontation between the two super powers would lead to the end of mankind. This created a natural resistance against uncontrollable escalation.

Neither of these two factors is present in the U.S.-Iran relationship. There is no direct communication between the two sides (both recently ignored or rejected each other's proposals for direct communication). And their domestic political landscapes do not put a premium on restraint; rather, strong domestic constituencies in Washington and Tehran consistently push for escalation.

Simply put, U.S.-Iran tensions have long been a powder keg, overflowing with nuclear programs, human rights abuses, Stuxnet and secret assassinations. And the alleged terror plot against the Saudi Ambassador shows how easily a single incident can spark a wider conflict. Without serious efforts to defuse a crisis that is steadily spiraling out of control, we are on the precipice of a major war in the region.

This is why a containment policy can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Short of a government collapse in Tehran or strategic shift in Washington -- both unlikely in the short to medium term -- containment has created an environment in which adversaries repeatedly provoke one another, without having the ability to reverse any escalation.

The Obama administration must avoid falling further into this trap -- particularly if there are Iranian hardliners trying to bait the U.S. into a conflict.

In 2008, a war with Iran was considered devastating to U.S. interests. This outcome is no less disastrous today for an America with 9% unemployment, and still on the brink of economic catastrophe.

Hawks in Washington will use these new allegations to support their preconceived notions on why defusing the Iran crisis cannot be done -- the timing isn't right; we need to garner more leverage by escalating the pressure; this regime needs enmity with America for its survival and so forth. Ironically, their counterparts in Tehran will echo similar sentiments.

This is what we call a real "come to Jesus" moment -- some hard decisions on war and peace need to be made, in Washington and Tehran. Unfortunately, given the history and politics involved, all signs are pointing in the wrong direction. It is often forgotten that in crises like this, it takes greater courage to stand for restraint and de-escalation than to opt for war and confrontation.

 

Comments

[Farhood]

11:27 PM on 10/14/2011

It is very obvious that the aim of the writer of the above article is not clarifying the politics of Mullah’s regime.

But his aim is clearly not to show the true nature of the murderous regime of mullahs whose finger prints of murders of Iranian people ( inside and outside of Iran) and the American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are apparent to everyone across the world..

What only remains, it appears to be more concessions to Mullah’ Regime and to its leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad.

Both Writers of this article are well known members of NIAC’.

Did NIAC defraud the Congressio¬nal funds?
Examinatio¬n of NIAC’s internal documents released during a defamation lawsuit suggests that this organizati¬on has violated the rules governing Congressio¬nal funds.

Following a defamation lawsuit brought in 2008 some of the internal documents related to these projects have become available. Examinatio¬n of official documents and NIAC’s internal memos, including email correspond¬ence and grant programmat¬ic and financial reports suggests that NIAC lied to NED about its accomplish¬ments and used federal funds for non-grant related activities¬, thus violating many of the rules governing the use Congressio¬nal funds. As a non-profit tax exempt organizati¬on, NIAC’s program related activities and expenditur¬es during a period of 2002-2007 deserve a full congressio¬nal investigat¬ion.

government website http://www¬.usaspendi¬ng.gov/,
:
.
NIAC internal documents indicate that it failed in almost all of the above mentioned indicators

[Naseem Azadi]

11:00 PM on 10/13/2011

The Iranian regime has a LONG, LONG history of such terrorist acts. It killed numerous Iranian dissidents in Europe during the 1980's and 1990's. It killed hundreds of American servicemen in Lebanon in 1983. It killed a dozen American servicemen in Saudi Arabia in 1996. It killed over 80 people in embassy bombing in Argentine in 1993. It has been killing American soldiers in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The list is long. Way too long.

The NIAC apologists have one and only one mission: that of defending the Iranian regime at any cost, even that of accusing the US President and the US Attorney General and the FBI of lying. Shame on NIAC. Why don't you people pack your belonging and go live with Ahmadinezad and Khamenei?

[Magic 62]

12:28 AM on 10/15/2011

NIAC advocates dialogue and engagement to avert disaster. This is the position that nearly 2 million Iranian-Americans support, and that's who they work for.

[Sassan K Darian]

01:33 PM on 10/17/2011

They self-proclaimed work for the Iranian community when in fact Iranians despise them. They are henchmen for the Islamic Republic.

[amacd]

07:37 PM on 10/13/2011

Well, for sure there's not the courage nor humanism in the White House to avoid a serious conflict, as was the case with JFK and the Cuba missile crisis, despite Mad Dog LeMay lobbying for nuclear war.

But the shoe may have switched to the Generals and Admirals being the peace lobbyists against the war-mongers at the White House and State Dept.

It would be ironic if the Revolt of the Generals refused (again) to unleash hell on Iranian civilians.

Best luck and love to the Occupy revolution "Against Empire" [Parenti]

Alan MacDonald

Liberty & democracy
over
violent/Vichy
empire

[Seawolf56]

08:14 PM on 10/12/2011

Boy FAUX sure is the anything Israel does is ok network. And now all FAUX is trying to do is get the US into war with Iran! Americans, stop whatever you are doing and call your representi­tives and let them know the NO MORE WAR for Israel!! Remeber what happened in IRAQ!! It was all about the WMD's and there were none!! Now this ficticous story appears and FAUX is ready to send more Americans to WAR and Trillions more dollars we don't have!! NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL! NO MORE DOLLARS TO ISRAEL!!! turn it off!!

[madsen26]

08:01 PM on 10/12/2011

Who killed ex-PM Shahpur Bakhtiar and the Shah's nephew Prince Shahryar Shafik in the 70s? The Iranian regime is kind of relentless in its targets so I don't put this latest incident beyond them. Although the Saudi ambassador makes more sense. The fact that it was done sloppily this time can be accounted for by the fact that the logistics of doing it in the U.S. are much more difficult than just going over to Paris and oh well, a place with a long history of political assassinations of exiles. I also sense the need to create a diversion away from events in the ME and maybe within Iran itself.

[laborgrunt]

10:47 PM on 10/12/2011

Or maybe a diversion from Fast and Furious.

[gaudeamus]

07:17 PM on 10/12/2011

To that end, the Beltway is already buzzing with calls for a "robust response" that will "send a strong message to Iran." But how?

I say we kidnap Amadenijhad and forcibly shave his scraggly beard, give him a make-over (what's up with those dark circles under the eyes?), and provide him with a dress tie!!! That'll show 'em we mean business ;-)

[Rudabekia]

03:50 PM on 10/13/2011

I volunteer you to do it!

[Reza Varjavand]

07:07 PM on 10/12/2011

This is a more realistic, all-encompassing, account of the alleged assassination plot. Given the fact that presidential election is near and Obama administration needs to boost its approval rating by showing American voters that it is serious about national security, I doubt the truthfulness of the assassination plan at least unless more detail information is disclosed. It seems to me that the administration might be on to something.

[Pablo Gonzales]

06:34 PM on 10/12/2011

Tim Padgett at Time Magazine argues that Arbabsiar, who used to live in Corpus Christi, Texas, would have had to be pretty stupid to think the Zetas would bomb an American target for only $1.5 million. “The Zetas, after all, are part of a Mexican drug-trafficking, kidnapping and extortion industry that rakes in as much as $40 billion a year,” he writes. “To risk that kind of cash flow by carrying out a five-alarm international hit for a million and a half bucks seems a non-starter. It also seems an organization like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, for whom the Justice Department says Arbabsiar may have been working, should know better. Arbabsiar, who lives near Mexico in Corpus Christi, Texas, certainly should have been wiser.”

Middle East expert Juan Cole speculates on his blog that Arbabsiar’s patron, allegedly a member of the Revolutionary Guards, may have had a side business in drug trafficking. Cole thinks the plot seemed so amateur that it makes it more sense that it was the work of an Iranian drug cartel angry over the Saudi war on drugs than Iranian government operatives. The Iranian cartel may have been hoping to find new markets for Iran’s opium and heroin supply that typically go through Afghanistan

[Mishal Zeera]

06:31 PM on 10/12/2011

The United States recent siding with the authoritarian regime in Bahrain against a majority movement for democracy says it all. The US gvt accepted the Bahraini regimes' assertions that the massively popular protest movement was an "Iranian plot" - this is a very common refrain with Saudi backed dictatorships.

The USA is continuing to arm the Bahraini monarchy despite all the evidence that there are unprecedented human rights violations going on, particularly in regards to health care workers. Worse still, they are continuing to validate the absurd latent brinksmanship between Saudi and Iran.

I am not one for conspiracy theories, they wear out their welcome very quickly, but I can see very little to indicate the case is otherwise.

[Rudabekia]

03:54 PM on 10/13/2011

"The United States recent siding with the authoritar­ian regime in Bahrain against a majority movement for democracy says it all."

The US siding with the authoritarian regime of Bahrain is anything but recent. In fact, Bahrain is not the home of the US 5th Navy fleet for nothing. Nor are they repressing and slaughtering civilians with Made in the USA weapons that were recently provided to the regime either. And, oh, yeah, add the repressive and corrupt sold out Wahabis of Saudi Arabia to the mix. After all, it was their US-issued tanks that marched into Bahrain and quashed the protesters with fire.

[Mishal Zeera]

04:55 PM on 10/13/2011

Damn right, Rudabekia. :)

[morristhewise]

06:14 PM on 10/12/2011

More police informants are needed to root out those with violent dreams, a harmless nightmare can become a reality. Ordinary people can also become crime fighters by opening their eyes and ears to all conversations, hoping to nip violence in the bud.

[Rudabekia]

03:55 PM on 10/13/2011

Apparently, somebody's been reading "1984" - Nothing like advocating for more police state. Whilst demanding less government, I'm sure....

[LondonDavid]

06:11 PM on 10/12/2011

I'm yet to see a single article on this event which addresses anything other than the last 5 years. You talk about "toxic" politics and then say nothing about Mossadeq in 53 and the destruction of the first democractic government in the Middle East by a colonial Eisenhower regime.

You talk about a lack of sustained diplomacy as though that has always been the case, yet CIA envoys to Iran were always the staple diet of a public pretense of "no talking to terrorists"; that is what ensured the hostage crisis didn't end in murder - giving Khomeini the option to save face in public by being privately assured that war was on the cards.

This article is more sensible than the Bomb Away McClay-style of GOP nonsense we are currently witnessing, but it's not an article which addresses the issue at heart: the Al Saud family illegally called on the US to invade Iran and sanction Iran's people to death as the US did in Iraq to the tune of 1,000,000 lost innocent lives - mostly women and children. If Bin Laden could be assassinated over 3,800 western deaths then to what extent should the regime in Iran be expected to allow the Al Sauds to threaten Iran's national security when colossal risk to life is at stake?
http://todayfreedom.blogspot.com/

[huffpaddy]

06:11 PM on 10/12/2011

Revoke embassy and diplomatic immunity for all. Revoke all Iranian visas. Perhaps this will cause problems at home(Iran).
Saudi Arabia can afford to fight their own wars!
Don't let CIA draw us into another war!
Fine with me if other countries want to close our embassies. Just saves us money.

No more WAR. No more WAR!

[Seawolf56]

08:10 PM on 10/12/2011

well said and fanned

[Rudabekia]

03:57 PM on 10/13/2011

Great idea! And let Iran revoke ALL of its oil to the West.

[The Mighty Cynic]

05:58 PM on 10/12/2011

Do you guys hear that? That's the death-knell ringing for the Israeli lobby and the politicians who cried Iran one too many times. Let them go through these last spasms before their demise. The world will be more peaceful and productive without merchants of death, war, and power-hungry occupiers of another people's land.

[jhNY]

05:25 PM on 10/12/2011

Re the plot: Like Reagan said: Trust, but verify. Only he got it backwards. Verify, then trust. Our own recent entry into intractable war based on falsehoods makes this necessary.

[AG creative]

05:01 PM on 10/12/2011

Iran is the safest country in the world. If the US did any military action against then, they'd pull their oil off the market and crash the world economy.

[Rudabekia]

03:59 PM on 10/13/2011

Well... Iran doesn't need to pull their oil off the market and crash the world economy. The US beat them at that already.