Behavior, not regime, change in Iran
JERUSALEM–In an interview published in today’s New York Times, Senator Barack Obama revealed his latest proposal on how his administration would address the continued threat from Iran to the United States.
The Illinois Senator should expect strong criticism from his opponents in both parties for a perceived weakness in confronting the Islamic Republic. But unlike the dogmatic approach of empty economic and military threats, Obama’s plan boldly embraces a course of action that has a much greater chance of achieving America’s two most strategic objectives in Iran: ensuring the Ayatollahs do not obtain a nuclear capability and the ultimate collapse of the Islamic regime.
Like most foreign policy quagmires from the last seven years, the conflict with Iran was born out of the overly simplistic moral outlook of the Bush Administration. In the first months of 2001, the Iranian people re-elected popular reformist President Mohammed Khatami in a landslide. Although the presidency holds no real power in Iran – a fact that both the American news media and government continually obfuscate – Khatami’s massive support put the Mullahs on notice: ease up, or ship out.
This new leadership seemed to indicate a détente. After 9-11, documents show a substantial collaboration between Iran and the United States to overthrow the Taliban and constructively collaborate on the reconstruction of Afghanistan. There even appeared to be a plan on the table to normalize relations between the two countries. Then, in his 2002 State of the Union, President Bush famously lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea as part of the so-called “Axis of Evil.”
This began a string of American actions in the region that signaled to the Iranian regime that they were American targets. After the invasion of Iraq, the United States occupied countries on its east and west. Bush’s rhetoric became increasingly bellicose. Under this growing threat to its clerical regime, Iran began implementing policies aimed at deterring the United States and its allies. It accelerated its long-established drive toward a nuclear weapon. It began financing attacks against US troops in Iraq. It formed a strategic partnership with Syria. It also ratcheted up its financial and operational support to Hamas and Hizballah.
Obama’s new policy is a long overdue recognition that Iranian mischief in the Middle East is likely tied the overt threat of American action against their country. Furthermore, it appears to recognize the implausibility of military regime change and the futility of US-led economic sanctions. Instead, Obama dangles attractive benefits for Iran – including membership in the World Trade Organization and the reorientation of American policy away from explicit regime – in exchange for a significant change in Iran’s regional behavior.
Realistically, Iran would have a difficult time rejecting such an offer. Although the price for obtaining these concessions will be enormous – likely the dismantling of its nuclear program, ceasing its financial and organizational support for Hamas and Hizballah and collaborating extensively with the US in Iraq – such a deal would give Iran the international legitimacy and safety it has long sought.
As Americans are well aware, the threat of foreign attack has a remarkable cohesive effect on a fractured society. In its present incarnation, the Islamic Republic is simply unsustainable. Iran’s populace is highly educated and Western oriented. There is still a strong yearning for real democracy and social progress. The myriad cleavages in Iranian society are likely to result in the relatively peaceful overthrow of the regime in due course, without US meddling.
Detractors of this policy are likely to equate it with Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich. In no way does Obama’s policy amount to the unconditional surrender of the Sudetenland. Rather, it provides an opportunity to not only erase the failures of the Bush Administration but also the creation of a more responsible Iran. Given that Iran’s nuclear horizon is a way’s away, there is still plenty of time to prepare for war if need be.
The War in Iraq has shown the folly of an inevitable march to war. Abandoning this course and pursuing a policy of encouraging regime behavior change not only has a higher likelihood of achieving American objectives than military action. It also substantially reduces the likelihood of a disastrous regional war in the Middle East.
(For purposes of full disclosure, I informally advise the Obama campaign on foreign affairs as part of its policy network but the views expressed herein are mine alone.)
Comments (13)
So what's the proposed Obama policy, only carrot
or carrot and stick? Are all options on the table or the military option is excluded?
November 2, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happens to the democracy movment inside Iran? If we make such a deal with Iran, and it might be the best thing to do, will the U.S. then be seen as a guarantor of one more dictatorial Muslim?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 2, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran does not threaten the US, or any other country, in any way. On the contrary, the US has threatened Iran with bombing, has a large fleet of warships off its coast, is reportedly promoting terrorist attacks inside Iran by the PKK Kurdish terrorist group and funds an effort to overthrow the democratic Iranian government. Iran shares its major borders with Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are on the best of terms with Iran.
There is no evidence of such a drive, much less an acceleration of it. The Chief of the IAEA, Nobel winner elBaradei, has so certified. Iran is fully justified in enriching uranium under the NPT which states that: "all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in cooperation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, . . .Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."--- Also, the Iran leadership has forsworn nuclear weapons.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm
The US military, without presenting evidence, has claimed that Iran is providing IED components and rockets to Shiite militias in Iraq, but they have never claimed that Iran is financing attacks against US troops.
Obama needs help. If the facts are wrong, then so will the policy be wrong.
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
November 2, 2007 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The portion of the NYT Obama interview dealing with Iran is here.
November 2, 2007 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don Bacon sez:
"Obama needs help. If the facts are wrong, then so will the policy be wrong."
This is THE central problem that encapsulates the "reality" promoted by politicians, their advisors, thinktankers and the American media.
While I do appreciate Obama's efforts in this regard, the tiresome and inaccurate cw common to all of the above about certain elements of Iran & cos' alleged aspirations and actions are creating a roadmap for failure based on the equivalent of those medieval depictions of sailing ships plunging off the ends of the known world.
To take one example, Hezbollah is not dependent on Iran to the extent that most policy advisors to US politicians may think, nor can it be simply defined as some sort of Iranian "proxy". The assumption that they pose a threat to Israel or US misses the important fact that unless Israel attacks them yet again, their weapons and fighters won't be activated. Whether or not Iran ceases it's support for Hezbollah, it will continue to remain a factor in Lebanon because it is, first and foremost, Lebanese.
Like it or not, Hassan Nasrallah is more powerful in the region than the temporary "leader" of Iran or the Ayatollahs for that matter. He has already declined to attack Israel in the event of an Israeli attack on Syria and to attack Israel in response to strikes on Iran would negate one of Hezbollah's long-stated raisons d'etre for their existance as the only entity capable of protecting Lebanon from Israeli aggression.
Two recent reports illustrate the reality of the situation completely ignored by those who should know better:
"In a letter to the United Nations, Beirut alleges that the Israel Air Force has performed 290 sorties into Lebanese air space over the course of the last four months. Lebanon also charges that Israel Defense Forces have illegally crossed the border into Lebanon on 52 occassions over the same time span."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/919160.html
and
"The Lebanese army has raised its level of alert over the past 24 hours due to abnormal IAF activity over its territory, Israel Radio quoted Arab media as saying Friday.
According to the reports, Israeli aircraft carried out dummy runs over southern Lebanon and the Lebanese army fired at them in response.
The reports further stated that the UN had reinforced peacekeeper forces along the border and had appealed to Israel for calm."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380718337&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
This is the second report of the Lebanese Army firing ineffectually at IAF jets in the past week.
As long as Israel is allowed to continue it's aggressive actions against it's neighbors, wink wink, the ME will continue to be a mess despite what compromised American politicians pledge to do about Iran. Israel continues to make Hezbollah's case that it alone has the capability to defend Lebanon.
The ultimate irony is that it is Hezbollah that stands between the AQ jihadi influence in southern Lebanon and their primary "Zionist entity" target. Israel and Hezbollah have a common enemy.
Poor American politicians, including Obama, don't know bupkis about the real situation in the ME as they rely on the advice from people who are similiarly clueless or have an agenda in promoting a picture that has little to do with facts on the ground or even history, for that matter.
As long as this is the case, the US will bumble along scratching heads and whining about why nothing we do in the region ever seems to "work".
November 2, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why would Iran provide them with weapons and money?
Why Lebanon and Hisbolla haven't signed a peace agreement with Israel and started normal relationship (like Jordan or Egypt) if they have no unresloved issues.
November 3, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care if they develop nuclear weapons or not. For all the hypocritical and pius posturing of the U.S. it is still a fact that we're the only country that has actually used them.
November 3, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally:
The point you make which I quote below is an interesting aside that I had not previously considered.
"The ultimate irony is that it is Hezbollah that stands between the AQ jihadi influence in southern Lebanon and their primary "Zionist entity" target. Israel and Hezbollah have a common enemy."
Who are the Lebanese in southern Lebanon who might tend to be sympathetic to AQ jihadi elements? Hezbollah's Shiite base? Do I wrongly assume that sunni-based AQ is incompatible with the shiites of southern Lebanon? Am I being overly simplistic? Thanks.
Bruce
November 3, 2007 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deleted
November 3, 2007 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I sincerely hope Obama has a better feel for logical consistency than you do, Will. Your title suggests that we should only be interested in changing Iranian behavior, not changing their regime. But in your second paragraph you identify the "ultimate collapse of the Islamic regime" is one of our "strategic objectives".
I also trust Obama is not going to go out and announce that the ultimate collapse of Iran's regime will be one of his objectives as President. Obviously, such a declaration would severely undermine his ability to achieve the other objective. I also trust he does not underestimate the Iranian's basic intelligence, and think he can pursue regime collapse as a quiet, unannounced objective - known only to a few insiders and blog readers - without the Iranians noticing.
You know, when regimes collapse lots of people typically get killed and brutalized. They get hung, shot, guillotined, beaten, shipped to gulags, etc. Hasn't the world seen enough of these violent revolutions? And isn't it time for the US in particular to stop dicking around with the internal regimes of other countries? How's that meddling been working out for us and those other countries?
Iran already has the most democratic institutions in the Middle East. It would be good for us and Iranians if the reformists once again came to power and strengthened and solidified the democratic elements of the Iranian constitution. But we don't need more blood in the streets in the Middle East.
November 3, 2007 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce.
From most accounts, the jihadi influence has taken root among some, not all, of the Lebanese Palestinian refugee camps which are the worst in the region. But, many of them also live in Beirut and other cities, I believe. There has been reporting that some morons; Saudis, Hariri Inc, US, thought to encourage them to come to Lebanon and take on Hezbollah. Getting rid of Hezbollah is THE primary goal of US foriegn policy in regards to Lebanon.
When trying to get a handle on Lebanon, it's best to forget what one knows about classic sectarian differences as the damn place is a kalidescope of shifting alliances. One of Nasrallah's recent allies is an influential Christian leader, ex-military man Michel Aoun. Recent news indicates Hezbollah being joined by some of their former Shiite enemies from the SLA who were Israel's allies. They are also supposedly recruiting among the Druze and Sunnis. The reasoning is that they are first and foremost, all followers of Islam and Lebanese.
The jihadis are not welcome in Hezbollah territory because as they explain, they don't want what happened in Iraq to happen in southern Lebanon. It's THEIR turf.
Which is why the Spanish UNIFIL forces have ignored the US dictat that none of the peacekeepers are to have interactions with Hezbollah. After losing 6 of their men to a still unknown group, they would be suicidal if they didn't take advantage of Hezbollah's intelligence. (Right after the fatal bombing, the Spaniards learned that Hezbollah had received information that a strange Mercedes was noted in one of the larger villages near the border.) I doubt they're the only UNIFIL group that ignores rules made by some idiot sitting in Beirut.
Hezbollah has no objections to the UNFIL forces or the Lebanse Army.
Without Hezbollah's militia presence in southern Lebanon, there would be little to constrain veterans of the wars in Iran, Afghanistan, Africa, Chechnya, etc from taking root there.
I speculate that Sharon tolerated the situation on and over the border in part because he knew he could deal with them and make deals with them. It's almost as if he and Nasrallah had more-or-less agreed upon rules of engagement.
November 4, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Lally:
You really, again, went above and beyond with your reply. I was aware of Aoun and where he seems to placing himself, but you have really described the setting in a very descriptive and, to the extent it is possible in Lebanon, comprehensible way. Many thanks.
Bruce
November 5, 2007 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
What behavior would be consistent with their beliefs that the US is the Great Satan and the imminent arrival of the 12th imam, and at the same time be non-threatening to US interests?
The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir
November 5, 2007 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink