Iran: Let's Try Another Way

By: Teddy
Published On: 4/30/2006 10:37:16 AM

Recently Lowell posed a question: "What would you do if you were President about Iran and it's possible nukes?" Answers ranged around the spectrum of options offered by President Bush, but we all know Bush's ultimate intentions, and so none of them strike me as acceptable, or even wise. I responded with a comment, here modified and posted as a separate entry:
We would not be in this situation in quite this way were it not for the Great Decider, who has already decided and so I will not address what I'd do if I were President. That's already settled.
The Cold War was my war, and I base my comments on THAT "long war." We faced an enemy every bit as tough and ready to "bury us," with a leader whose sanity was at times in question, whose finger was daily on the red button ready to unleash intercontinental nuclear missles that we knew for a fact existed and were targetted on our cities. We fought surrogate hot wars and skirmishes around the fringes of each state's national interests (Korea, Vietnam; insurgents (then called "guerrillas") in Greece, and so on), but never each other directly; we employed our great technical superiority in the Berlin Airlift rather than triggering a hot war by sending our tanks down the autobahn to Berlin. We used Containment not War against the Soviet nuclear threat.

What, I ask, is wrong with containment here? It should have been employed against Iraq (it was working, actually, until G.W. employed Shock and Awe). We have lived successfully with a nuclear Russia, a nuclear China, and now a nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India. Of course, it takes a certain maturity of mind and quality of judgment to bring containment off successfully, and therein lies our problem.

The fact is, Iran's Prime Minister is regarded as crazy by a significant number of his fellow Iranians. The odds are that, unless we give the man a boost by rattling our saber excessively and attacking him, the Iranians themselves will take him out in due course... remember, he was elected--- Iran is a kind of democracy, something Bush chooses to ignore. Iranians are not Arabs; they have  different history. Yes, they are largely Shi-ite, and have been meddling in Iraq--- for several thousand years.

What could be accomlished if we respected them, set up a system of non-aggression pacts in the Middle East, spent some of our war money on reassuring Israel and the others their boundaries were secure, their states were not going to be subject to regime change by anyone, including by Iran or by us? What would happen if we powered an economic recovery or development in the region instead of ruthlessly plundering the area through globalization and the World Bank?

To my surprise, General Wesley Clarke, interviewed on (of all places) Fox News, offered much the same solution to the new-found Iranian problem: diplomacy, involving the other powers, bringing Russia and China on board by showing them it is in their own national interests, (despite their recently playing footsie with Iran over oil and nuclear technology), and establihsing a Containment policy.

One absolutely necessary part of this policy will be what we used to call a non-Aggression pact or some way to guarantee the security of the countries in the region, including Israel--- so the neighboring states and their existence will not be compromised. That guarantee will have to come from the United States, hopefully in concert with the other interested powers.

Remember the Treaty of Vienna after the Napoleonic Wars. It worked for two generations after the bitter revolutionary wars and empire-building of Bonaparte, and if they could accomplish it in the 19th Century we certainly should be able to do it today, given modern technology.

Comments



They're playing games (Lowell - 4/30/2006 11:51:12 AM)
That's what Condi now is saying about Iran.


Gamesmanship (Teddy - 4/30/2006 3:26:01 PM)
Thus Bush dismisses the bargaining chip laid out by Iran as "playing games."  What else does he think this is? 

Here is a man, as I've said before, who thinks he's a poker player (he must, because he draws so often to an inside straight); but he surely is not a chess player,

Use that chip--- it doesn't mean we're caving in like poor, deluded Chamberlain facing off with Hitler and "peace in our time." Simplistic answers and simplistic swaggering won't cut it anywhere except in a Western B-movie, and that's not what is going on here. Get the Russians and Chinese on board one way or another, use the chip for all it's worth, and negotiate privately. Give Ahmenidajad (sp?) ways to back down gracefully without going out of our way to trigger a patriotic backlash from those Iranians who dislike the man but will support him out of patriotism if he's pushed into a corner and attacked by the U.S. "Trust but verify," said Raegan, a Republican. Sigh.



Condi has said the UN (summercat - 5/1/2006 10:43:35 AM)
will act on the resolution recommended by Wes Clark.  (Not giving Clark credit, of course.) The oil people on MTP said the US needs to tone down the saber rattling re Iran--as Clark also recommended.
It is interesting that Ahmadinejad was elected because as Mayor of Tehran, he had some excellent social programs and was considered very approachable.  Nary a hint of "Death to Israel."  Similarly, Hamas were elected in Palestine largely because of their social programs.  All politics is local, right?  Or even better, models of how "power corrupts."  Like the US Republicans who get elected because they talk about cutting government spending.  Except I think the Iranians and Palestinians had more concrete reasons to elect their leaders.


Condi has said the UN (summercat - 5/1/2006 10:46:47 AM)
will act on the resolution recommended by Wes Clark.  (Not giving Clark credit, of course.) The oil people on MTP said the US needs to tone down the saber rattling re Iran--as Clark also recommended.
It is interesting that Ahmadinejad was elected because as Mayor of Tehran, he had some excellent social programs and was considered very approachable.  Nary a hint of "Death to Israel."  Similarly, Hamas were elected in Palestine largely because of their social programs.  All politics is local, right?  Or even better, models of how "power corrupts."  Like the US Republicans who get elected because they talk about cutting government spending.  Except I think the Iranians and Palestinians had more concrete reasons to elect their leaders.
BTW, this is a great post, Teddy.  And I still hold to my view that it would be interesting if the US were to cede Iraq to the Chinese, Iran to the Russians, and get out of Dodge, as far as those countries are concerned.


Sudetenland/Iraq to China? (Teddy - 5/1/2006 8:19:53 PM)
Quite a thought, Iraq to China and Iran to Russia? Or, vice verse. China has, in Sinkiang, a large Turco and Muslin population--- along the old silk road. They have signed very lucrative oil deals with Iran; they gave nuclear technology to Pakistan, which then helped Iran in due course. Very cozy. And the Soviet Russians had plenty of techies in Iraq; but we backed Iraq against Iran during their border war, and we were the ones who gave Saddam sohisticated weaponry and the basic ingredients for anthrax production (which may be why the neocons were so darned sure Saddam had WMD, because he got them originally from us under Reagan).

Before we were in Iraq the Soviets were; before them, the Germans, and originally the British, after the Ottoman Turks were kicked out. The Germans also have always had close ties (including engineering and oil technology) with Iran. But, also under Reagan, Bush Sr. had, it now appears, negotiated the hostages' release to be timed with Reagan's inauguration; Reagan, through Oliver North, then instituted the Iran Contra deals, for which we have never had an adequate explanation or accounting. "What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." 

Coincidentally, I have heard that the Turks have just refused a recent US request to use their territory from which to mount an offensive against Iran. Much as they did over  bombing Iraq. Imagine that.

And, mirabile dictu, Negroponte, Intelligence Director, and the supposedly dutiful servent of the neo-cons, has insisted that the Iranians are NOT almost ready to build a bomb, they are still as many as ten years off that success. Cheney doesn't believe it. Imagine that.

No wonder we can't get any traction in this mess.