Iran: Strategy and Tactics

As Iranians celebrate the 30th anniversary of the return of Ayatollah Khomeini and the start of the Islamic Revolution and the new Obama administration initiates a review of US-Iranian policy, it is timely to sit back and consider how we got here and how we bring change.

For Americans, the 1979 Revolution is the seminal event in US -- Iran relations. The 444-day hostage crisis, burned into the American psychic by nightly television coverage seems to have frozen the US perception of Iran and its revolution. Iran is still seen as a revolutionary, theocratic authoritarian state, a not entirely accurate view. But their potential nuclear weapons program and Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah are serious issues between the two countries.

For Iranians, the grievances go back not thirty years but at least fifty-five to the 1953 CIA directed coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh. The grievances against the United States range from CIA training of the Shah's brutal secret police, SAVAK to the downing of a Iranian Airbus aircraft in 1988 by the US Navy cruiser Vincennes, killing 290. And continuing and stiffening economic sanctions have imposed hardships on the population.

How to overcome such long-standing suspicion and hostility? Very slowly and carefully.

As the Obama administration begins its review of US-Iran policy, it would be prudent to remember the adage of a chess Grand Master: tactics are what you do when there is something to do and strategy is what you do when there is nothing to do. When it comes to U.S. policy toward Iran, this may be the time for a few tactical moves and only strategic thought.

On the strategic side, the administration must not focus on a single issue such as the Iranian nuclear program. The Iraq situation, Israel-Syria talks, Gaza and the West Bank and Lebanon all affect and are affected by the US-Iran imbroglio. The Middle East is one of the most interwoven political webs on the globe. Everything is connected to everything else. In six months, the region's politics could be very different than they are now. Iraq will hold perhaps half a dozen elections, beginning with provincial elections held this past weekend and a possible referendum on the U.S.-Iraq security agreement. There will be elections in Israel and perhaps the West Bank. The critical Iranian Presidential election will take place in June. This political flux will require constant adjustments as U.S. strategy is devised. The relationship between the United States and Iran may turn out to be the most critical axis around which our Middle Eastern policy spins.

While a comprehensive strategy is being developed, there are also tactical moves that could help soften the ossified attitudes that characterize the relationship. President Obama's interview with Al-Arabyia television set a proper tone. Tactical actions should include opening an interest section in Tehran as well as promoting business, cultural and student exchanges. We simply need a broader and deeper understanding of Iranian society, politics and decision-making. In the meantime, both sides should choose their words carefully so as not to make matters worse. The United States should avoid talking about "carrots and sticks" as if we are dealing with a donkey and not a proud country. "Quid pro quo" is a better phrase in a language not quite as old as Persian.

The suggestion by Dennis Ross, a potential Iran special envoy, that a back channel be opened between Tehran and Washington should be attempted. The message, whether via an intermediary or back channel, should be that the United States seeks to find a mutually beneficial relationship with Iran, not to overthrow the regime. While intelligence operations to gather insight and information should be continued, all intelligence operations to destabilize the Iranian government, should they exist, should be terminated.

The United States cannot afford to get its Iranian strategy wrong. We should take the time needed to get it right and should make modest tactical moves to lay the foundation of a strategy for a more productive relationship, or at least a less dangerous one.

Comments

[Americafirst2008]

Dennis Ross is Israel's lawyer, he's firmly biased in favour of Israel and incapable of being an objective envoy.

Look at his record and involvement in the middle east so far. He just ran to the Israelis and spilled the beans on everything the other side was saying, not exactly an honest broker.

Obama's diplomacy will be a joke if we let AIPAC Ross run the show.

[MagisterLudi]

Yawn.

[Hass]

An accurate assessment.

Sending Dennis Ross to handle Iran is like sending a pro-coal company lobbyist to handle environmental affairs.

[RibEye]

By not threatending the nation of Iran due to israeli influence the USA can take the fuel out of the islamic regime and let the Iranian people make the change.
The regime's number one goal is to stay in power and using the nationalistic pride of the Persians has been their primary source.
Give Iran the respect its people deserve and the fangs of the reppressive rules will go dull.
The pitures of sadam and Rumsfeld shaking hands for chemical and you name it goodies does not go away very easily for the victims, no matter how noble we might be in our own state of selfightousness.

[MagisterLudi]

The defenders of Iranian theocracy, care to to read the below. post?
Here's a small quote. No one is posting on that thread is strangle. Surprising? Not a bit.
A finally prof that most posters are not interested in democracy or freedom in Iran.

Muhammad Sahimi
Posted February 2, 2009 | 12:49 PM (EST)

"Since the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's president in June 2005, the state of human rights and civil liberties has been steadily deteriorating in Iran. The hardliners, who also control the judiciary and the legislative branches, have been cracking down hard on social and political freedoms. Most of the independent newspapers have been shut down, and the remaining few are censored heavily. Many journalists have been forced into exile or into "retirement." A significant number of human rights and political activists have been jailed. The activities of independent university students organizations have been greatly curtailed, with some of them which, in fact, represent the most important and most popular, even banned. Nongovernmental organizations that defend the rights of Iran's ethnic minorities have also been hit hard."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-sahimi/support-shirin-ebadi-and_b_163163.html?show_comment_id=20379526#comment_20379526

[Hass]

Iran is stil far more of an open society than our other "allies" in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Israel.

[MagisterLudi]

Iranian government indulge is constant, non-ending hateful Anti-American rhetoric. Burning of American flags, giant crowds wild chants of "Death America" is a routine part of life of Iranian citizens
But that OK, right?
Whereas Americans should apologize for the feelings of Iranian rulers for what they said
Because....?!
Last time I looked US was a superpower and Iran, a third rate oppressive theocracy.

While the West should be respectful to ANY sovereign governments, there are limits to tolerance of a state represented by someone like Ahmadinejad.

[MajorKong]

I'd say there's a wee bit of difference between name calling and oh, say overthrowing somebody's government, installing a dictator and training that dictator's secret police to torture people.

I might even understand why someone might want to call me names after something like that.

[MagisterLudi]

Current Iranian theocracy cares NOTHIGN about democracy, overthrown or otherwise.
It is a serious misunderstanding of the current regime to think that their opposition to United States and the West lies in the pre-Shah events.
If mullahs cared about democracy there would be domocracy now. But there isn't.
Instead, the mullahs took over using a few convenient revolutionary slogans. Which were promptly discarded, one the power was grabbed. Think about it.

[Hass]

The United States shot down an Iranian civlian airliner inside Iranian airspace, and then tried to blame it on the Iranians.

The United States backed Saddam Hussein in his war of aggression on Iran, including by providing him with chemical weapons which killed over 60,000 Iranians.

Now, who is the danger to whom?

[joebhed]

It's never too late to admit you're wrong.

The Obama administration already has two strikes against it as a result of the statements on Iran made both by Obama himself, and the Herr-Clintons at State.

Today we admit that we overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and stole their oil for 25 years. We should apologize.
But we can't.
This raises other US foreign policy heavy-handedness from the Economic Hit Man in the Zeitgeist Addendum - beyond those of commenter oxi on this page.

Our policy initiative must go beyond the Iran's nuclear program, but it must re-address the nuclear program.

Most interested observers are aware of the pre-Aahmadinejad initiative put forward that sought a comprehensive resolution on the nuclear question.
It wasn't a Bush failure.
It was a USGOV failure.
I saw no Dems raise any concerns about ALL of the UN Resolutions and Congressional Resolutions ignorantly put forward claiming that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Obama was a cheerleader on these.

I know these are history.
But, from where does Obama get any traction towards the high ground under these circumstances?
Are we willing to accept the ascendancy of Iran as a strong Mideast power today, the result of our Iraq boondoggle, getting ready to be repeated in Afghanistan?

Our new Iranian strategy should start with an apology, but Obama is afraid of looking soft on Islamic terrorism, because of his own inane rhetoric a short while back.
Like, last week.

[MagisterLudi]

Our new Iranian strategy should start with an apology.
good idea. Iranians apologize for hostage taking, rescind daily "Death To America" spectacles,
restore some human rights to Iranian progressives, rescind murder fatwas against writers and journalists. At the same time Obama can apologize for ahhhh,,,Americans NOT invading Iran.

[MajorKong]

Sure. And we can apologize for overthrowing their elected government and installing an oppressive dictator for 20-some years.

Then we can apologize for shooting down Iran Air Flight 655.

And then we can finish up by apologizing for helping Saddam Hussein kill a million Iranians.

[Hal Donahue - Huffpost Blogger]

The failed Bush Regime resulted in the Iranian nuclear program developing heads too numerous to attack. Our saber rattling against Iran was futile when our overtaxed military was tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now is the time to restart history. With Iran's election still a bit off, the US should address Khamenei, the real leader of Iran, and open a new approach based upon mutual respect and advantage. Dangerous? Perhaps, but no more so than empty saber rattling and futile threats. You nailed it when you said we should take them time to get it right

[MagisterLudi]

Hal Donahue"With Iran's election still a bit off, the US should address Khamenei, the real leader of Iran, and open a new approach based upon mutual respect and advantage"

While I agree with the majority of your post, you're overly optimistic in some respects.
1. The ruler of Iran NEVER meet with Non-Muslims. I think he made one exception for the Russian President. Once. It is difficult to negotiate through intermediaries.
2. All negotiations with Iran should automatically exclude Ahmadinejad.
3. There points of mutual interest which can be agreed upon.
But as long as religious fundamentalists run Iran, fully normalized relationships would be e detrimental to the cause of freedom for Iranian people.
P.S.
All negotiations should be predicated on official Iranian rescission of murder fatwa against Sir Salman Rushdie.

[oxi]

"The 1953 CIA directed coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh"

Add other things like:

Supporting a military dictatorship over democracy in Greece in the 1960's...

Supporting a brutal dictator of Iraq over democracy in the 1980's...

Supporting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan in the 1980's...

Supporting KLA terrorists in Kosovo...

The U.S. is it's own enemy. The U.S. does not care for democracy and freedom, her history does not indicate this at all.

[MagisterLudi]

"Supporting a military dictatorship in Greece--- NOW Greece has a democratic government,.

"Supporting KLA terrorists in Kosovo"--. NOW Kosovo is independent. and at peace.

"Supporting Taliban in Afghanistan"--- NOW Taliban was ousted from power.

"Supporting dictator of Iraq over democracy"--- NOW said dictator has been executed.

Get it?

[MajorKong]

Oh, so it's OK to support a dictator if you only do it for a little while?

And you accuse us libs of "situational ethics"?

Why don't you just come out and say what you really mean - "Anything we do is automatically good because we're the ones doing it.?

[peterg76]

You mean the way democracy breaks out despite the US' best efforts?

[Hastings]

It is time for the United States to face reality and cut the head off the snake.

[peterg76]

They already did - Bush is gone.

[MagisterLudi]

No they didn't, the Supreme Leader is still around.