In The Blogs

Dealing With Iran

| Fri Mar. 6, 2009 9:12 AM PST

Over at Marc Lynch's place, Gary Sick argues that the change in U.S. policy toward Iran since Obama took office is much greater than most people think:

There is a flurry of signaling by the US — both positive and negative: keeping pressure on Iran (Stuart Levey and restrictions on banks), reassuring Israel (appointment of Ross) & Arabs (Hillary's downplaying of expectations at Sharm el-Sheikh), providing some funding for the Palestinians while pressing Israel to relax entry into Gaza, renewing an opening to Syria, talking about cutting US nuke stockpiles (US Ambassador Schulte in Vienna), talk of including Iran in Afghan security discussions (Holbrook), willingness to remove (anti-Iran) missile defense in E Eur while cajoling Russia on Iranian missile development, nice words from Obama (sometimes), harsh words from Susan Rice (always?), tough words from Adm Mullen, more soothing words from SecDef Gates, unified declaration about Iran by all five UN veto powers at the IAEA (without threatening new sanctions or return to the UNSC), etc etc.

Sick may be overstating things a bit here, but that's still a pretty impressive list — especially, as he says, for a guy who's only been in office for six weeks. But will it work? Iran has run hot and cold in the past, and either by coincidence or design they seem to run hottest when we're running coldest, and vice versa. Because of this, there's rarely been any sustained period during the past couple of decades when both sides have been genuinely interested in rapprochement, and that seems like it might be the case right now too. For that reason, my own guess is that this dance is going to take quite a while to produce any results. Obama and Hillary Clinton are probably going to have to keep up the pressure, keep up the overtures, stay calm in the face of provocations, and display almost inhuman patience for several straight years if they want to see any progress. We'll see if they can do it.

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Comments

Yes, but...

Submitted by junebug on Fri Mar. 6, 2009 9:31 AM PST.

It's worth pointing out that many of the things that Sick lists are good policies, in & of themselves (approaching the situation in Gaza more evenhandedly, engaging Syria, reducing nukes, abandoning harebrained Cold War era missile systems) irrespective of what we are or aren't able to achieve with Iran.

Let's Just be Patient With Terrorist Iran?

Submitted by BJF (not verified) on Fri Mar. 6, 2009 11:06 AM PST.

I really like Kevin as a smart and honest commentator on domestic politics, but on foreign affairs, he often displays a naive innocence or lack of knowledge. Read his perscription below for progress in Iran -- it is like he is describing a difficult high school romance, rather than how we deal with a tyrannical terrorist regime which would like to eliminate not just Israel, but also the U.S., from the face of the earth. Kevin thinks we need to show a lot of patience, and then everything will work out. I think Kevin's approach may reflect the naive view that underneath the terrorist rhetoric, Iran actually is like us. Based on what has happened to date with Obama taking appropriate action in Iraq and Afghanistan (by the way, very comparable to what Bush was doing) versus his incompetance thus far on issues related to the economy, I think there is more reason to be optimistic on Iran than on the economy, at least in terms of Obama not messing up badly. KEVIN'S PERSCIPTION: "Iran has run hot and cold in the past, and either by coincidence or design they seem to run hottest when we're running coldest, and vice versa. Because of this, there's rarely been any sustained period during the past couple of decades when both sides have been genuinely interested in rapprochement, and that seems like it might be the case right now too. For that reason, my own guess is that this dance is going to take quite a while to produce any results. Obama and Hillary Clinton are probably going to have to keep up the pressure, keep up the overtures, stay calm in the face of provocations, and display almost inhuman patience for several straight years if they want to see any progress."

what is your alternative

Submitted by Arash (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 3:44 AM PST.

tagged as:

solution

BJF A diehard neo-con like you haven’t learned anything from the past 8 years of Bush regime policy in the Middle East, that intimations and threats have not succeeded in producing any tangible results for US . So what is your alternative, what do you suggest, bomb Iran and kill millions. You have the audacity to call “Iran a Terrorist”, while ignoring the terrorism perpetrated by the Bush regime and the Israelis, because they have the backings of the western governments somehow it is acceptable. How about 1500 people more than half children killed in Gaza, that wasn’t terrorism committed by the criminal regime in Israel.

Obama is hemmed in by AIPAC et al.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Mar. 6, 2009 1:12 PM PST.

tagged as:

solution

I think the best description of Obama's Iran policy is thus far: "Confused" and "divided" You can't satisfy Israel while at the same time approaching Iran. THe Israeli lobby views this as a zero-sum game, and will do its best to place obstacles to an Iran-US rapprochement. That's the REAL threat that Iran poses to Israel -- that the US and IRan may get along, in which case who needs Israel? Remember, before Nixon went to China, he had to cut off Taiwan. THe pro-Taiwainese lobby was powerful, but could not prevent a US-China rapprochement. Israel does not want to be come a Taiwan, and their lobby will see that doesn't happen.

sex, drugs and islam

Submitted by alan (not verified) on Fri Mar. 6, 2009 2:56 PM PST.

Iran is a complete basket case. Sex Drugs and Islam, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KB24Ak02.html Contrary to conventional wisdom, it appears that Islamic theocracy promotes rather than represses social decay. Iran is dying. The collapse of Iran's birth rate during the past 20 years is the fastest recorded in any country, ever. Demographers have sought in vain to explain Iran's population implosion through family planning policies, or through social factors such as the rise of female literacy. But quantifiable factors do not explain the sudden collapse of fertility. It seems that a spiritual decay has overcome Iran, despite best efforts of a totalitarian theocracy. Popular morale has deteriorated much faster than in the "decadent" West against which the Khomeini revolution was directed. . . . . Two indicators of Iranian morale are worth citing. First, prostitution has become a career of choice among educated Iranian women. On February 3, the Austrian daily Der Standard published the results of two investigations conducted by the Tehran police, suppressed by the Iranian media. [1] "More than 90% of Tehran's prostitutes have passed the university entrance exam, according to the results of one study, and more than 30% of them are registered at a university or studying," reports Der Standard. "The study was assigned to the Tehran Police Department and the Ministry of Health, and when the results were tabulated in early January no local newspaper dared to so much as mention them." . . . . Second, according to a recent report from the US Council on Foreign Relations, "Iran serves as the major transport hub for opiates produced by [Afghanistan], and the UN Office of Drugs and Crime estimates that Iran has as many as 1.7 million opiate addicts." That is, 5% of Iran's adult, non-elderly population of 35 million is addicted to opiates. That is an astonishing number, unseen since the peak of Chinese addiction during the 19th century.

Sealing with Iran

Submitted by Anonymous 57 (not verified) on Fri Mar. 6, 2009 6:48 PM PST.

In talking about dealing with Iran: Robert Baer has written a book, "The devil We Know". Kevin should have read it before he wrote his article. If you want to be current on your discussion about Iran, Baer's book is a must. I've read it. It points out an excellent "option" to the past failed policies. Have any of you read it?

"dealing with Iran"?

Submitted by flubber (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 2:01 AM PST.

What's the problem? I don't understand the assumptions built into the question. What is Iran doing that is any of our business? "But will it work?" To do what? Mr. Drum accepts many of the neo-con/liberal-hawk frames much too easily.

Nuclear State and Nuclear Bomb

Submitted by Saint Michael Traveler (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 12:20 PM PST.

tagged as:

solution

In fact Iran is already a nuclear state. The states with this capacity are many; among them are Japan and Germany. But, there is a great difference between being a nuclear state, i.e., nuclear fuel cycle capacity, and a state with nuclear bomb, such as India, USA, Russia, England, France, China, Israel and Pakistan. Iran already has provided a window for cooperation with USA. They have invited USA and other states such as Germany, Japan to participate as a member of an International consortium to enrich uranium in Iran. We must accept their invitation. We must be very careful not to push Iranian people by our over aggressive posture. President Bush's aggressive posture changed the Iranian internal politics during their last Iranian election. Are we going to affect the Iranian election once more?

Arash, there must be something between "inhuman patience" and

Submitted by BJF (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 2:12 PM PST.

"bomb Iran and kill millions." I don't pretend to know the best wasy to deal with Iran. My point was that Kevin's post seemed particularly naive and like describing a high school romance. I think there is a lot of ignorance and guesswork in people who talk about Iran. I would like to know what the author Kevin Baer suggested. In a very general sense, I think Carter made a big mistake in abandoning the Shah and allowing the crazies to take over - it largely started the last 30 years of terrorism. With hindsight, Carter should have tried to help Iran transition from the Shah to something moderate and better. Also in a general sense, I think the current extremists running Iran likely would be thrown out by the people of Iran, if there is enough time before they get nuclear weapons. So, I think that means I am in favor of aggressive steps to stop them from having nuclear weapons. I think Obama's idea of talking to them and working things out is naive. Perhaps little harm in trying, but little chance of success.

Response to BJF comment

Submitted by Saint Michael Traveler (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 4:45 PM PST.

tagged as:

solution

Reply to BJF:
The thrust of your comment is that we should have kept Shah in power even when the people of Iran did not want him! Your statement reflects an attitude that has brought us so many international problems. You think of other nations just as a puppet master thinks of his puppet.

Our adventurism in Iran during 1953, where we replaced an elected president with our puppet dictator, created our present problem with Iranian people. We created an internal spy agency (SAVAC) to intimidate and kill the Iranian intellectuals and advocates for democracy. Ever since 1953, we have been paying for our great mistakes. How would we act if a foreign power forcefully would replace President Obama with Rush Limbaugh?

We affected the internal politics of Iran by the over aggressive attitude of President Bush. Our mistake adversely affected Iran and made their stance toward us much harder. When they offered us a hand, such as in Afghanistan, we insulted them by our sophomoric Axis of Evil trash talk.

STM, you misread my comment and state the left wing view of Iran

Submitted by BJF (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 6:31 PM PST.

I said "Carter should have tried to help Iran transition from the Shah to something moderate and better" which is something obviously far different that your characterization that I said "we should have kept Shah in power even when the people of Iran did not want him!" The result of the overthrow of the Shah has been a disaster for the Iranian people and the world. Yet, you seem fine with it. You attribute our current problems to us supporting the Shah in 1953, as liberals always do in a presumptious know it all sort of way -- the seizure of Iran by Ayatollah Khomeni [sp?] and his cronies in 1979 [?] supposedly is the result of what we did 26 years earlier. And I guess you blame the bad things that have happened for the past 30 years also on the events of 1953? It seems like a very superficial causation analysis involving many unknowns. What we know is that for about 25 years -- from 1953 to 1978 -- our actions in supporting the Shah paid benefits for us in our cold war with the Soviet Union and in our relations in the Middle East. From our perspective, things went south in Iran with the overthrow of the Shah. I don't know what specifically Carter should have done or whether an attempt to guide Iran slowly from the Shah to a better place would have been successful, but we do know that standing by while Khomeni to come to power produced 30 years of bad results. You casually blame in on events in 1953. It obviously is not that simple.