Another fight - Neocons vs. Realists on Iran

Remove all ads!

Some three days ago I saw two headlines when I read a daily news overview and I felt that the tides were going high in Washington again.

„Senior administration officials claim Iran-911 link“

followed by that headline the next day

„CIA denies Iran-911 link“

What was that about?

Well, my first guess was: Neocons vs. Realists, Round 4. I wasn‘t that far off. The story was that on Monday a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued a new report urging Washington to cooperate with Tehran on a selected range of issues of mutual concern: Iran: Time for a New Approach.

The task force, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under former President George H. W. Bush, argues that neoconservative and other analysts who are urging that Washington pursue "regime change" in Iran underestimate the staying power of the current government there and engage in wishful thinking.

Unavoidably the „We-don‘t-negotiate-with-evil-we-defeat-it“ neocons howled : „Blasphemy!“

„Mr. Creative Destruction“ Michael Ledeen uttered that the CFR recommendations were "humiliating" and constituted, as usual when someone wants less then war, "appeasement," particularly in light of leaks this weekend that the soon-to-be-released final report of the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon will assert that Iran provided al-Qaeda members, including some of the 9/11 hijackers, safe passage during the year before the attacks.

One must be awed in face of the neocon‘s stubbornness: Having bitten off more than the US can chew in Iraq, they want to start on Iran?

If you think this is bad judgment, just examine the reasoning behind it: The U.S. Sept. 11 Commission has evidence that "about eight" of the September 11 hijackers passed through Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.

Think about that for a moment. Does this mean that any country – including US allies – through which a Sept. 11 hijacker passed, without his intentions to commit mayhem on the World Trade Center being detected, is a target for destabilization?
If so, then the United States must be at the top of President Bush's list as the greatest threat to the U.S. Only eight of the hijackers got through Iran, but all 22 and a number of others passed through the U.S. Moreover, six months after the World Trade Towers were toppled, the U.S. Dept. of State issued U.S. visas to the dead terrorists!

If the U.S. government is not competent to prevent the hijackers from passing through the U.S. – even after the event – why is the allegation that eight hijackers passed through Iran six months to a year prior to Sept. 11 a justification for war with Iran? Germany too had allowed some of the 911 hijackers to pass through their customs controls, it even „harbored“ the Hamburg cell. Complicity? Hardly.

The news reports do not reveal the source for the information that eight terrorists passed through Iran.

It is inherently easy to cross a border, as long as it isn‘t entirely fortificated as the east-german / west-german border of the cold war – and even there escapes succeeded. And the east germans were sure not that less effective than the US are regarding security issues. The Iranians had a point when they replied to the neocon allegations that the US, unable to control their southern border should ponder a bit before demanding Iran to do something the US themselves are unable to do – effective border control.

So this new fight in Washington is about the fading neocon domination of US foreign policy, and it is interesting to see how they will fare.

Jim Lobe wrote a good article titled Realists, Neocons in New Iran Argument about it, and I copied a few passages from it.


PS: The other big issue with Iran is it‘s alleged nuclear program. In this context it is interesting to recall the neocon pipedream of toppling Iranin nuclear plans – preemptiveley of course.
As the US, wisely considering their situatuion in Iraq, will not do that, the neocons, in analogy to the US approved Israeli bombing of the Iraqi reactor in Osirak, thought LOUD about allowing Israeli aircraft to attack Iran – and leave the US with their hands clean.
That is thought a little short as Israeli aircraft would have to cross US controlled airspace unhindered – and, obviously, thereby would need to have US approval.
The Iranians are not stupid; they know that very well, and to them it would be – with a mountain of truth – as if the US themselves had attacked. That, seen realistically, would make Iran retaliate against the US where it hurts atm: in Iraq and Afghanistan. The realists see this, the neocons either deny it or don‘t seem to care.

Well, that might be understandable when you consider that the neocons seem to feel that the US either is destined to rule the world, or more arcane: that the US can control and accelerate history to it‘s final destination. Fukuyama (and I suggest to read F. Fukuyama‘s „End of History“, quite inspiring) argued that hitory's final destination was liberal, western societies with free market captialism – an understable impression when you watched all the eastern block regmies crumbling and their countries democratise and westernise. I pretty much felt like that too then.
The neocons, of course took it one step further and want to engage in creative destruction to lead history to it‘s historical destination. It is instructive to read Ledeen in this context.

Today I think that it is post cold war (and understandable in this context) euphory or even hubris, but anyway, you are free to disagree. IMO History isn't predictable and cannot be controlled. To think otherwise is hubris, megalomania.

It is quite noteworthy that Fukuyama, now a critic of Bush and his adventures, has quietly distanced himself from his thesis but won‘t engage in political discussion to avoid feuds with old friends. Reminds me of Jimmy Steward in that great film where his students commit murder inspired by his cynical philosophical theories: "Jeezus kids! That was just an academic theory! Not a receipe for action (or in Fukuyama's case: foreign policy)!"

Logically it is understandable why Iran would like to have a nuclear program – they feel encircled by the US – considering US bases in Iraq, the gulf states, Pakistan, Afghanistan, former USSR and Turkey, the militarist rhethorics of John Bolton and the other neocons not that far off a thought.
They see that the US don‘t attack North Korea because Kim has nukes and because that war would likely kill a few millions of South-Koreans (which is why they are not at all amused by US sabre-rattering) no that that would bother the neocons wo defeat evil and don‘t negotiate In the age where the US got rid of deterrence and traded it for pre-emption or prevention the conclusion for the Iranians is clear: Deterrence DOES work!
Iran has already suffered under a US imposed dictator, the shah, and suffered from a US sponsored dicator, Saddam, as punishment for overthrowing the shah – and had ample opportunity to see in Iraq that the US still is in the „impose government business“ – and Iran prefers to be left alone and handle their affairs without foreign intervention. Looking at the mess in Iraq as a result of neocon blundering – who could blame them?

[ July 21, 2004, 19:49: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Hmmm, that was interesting.
I think though, that Neocon people are being silly, as I usually think when I hear one of their latest 'clever plans'.
The point taken is a good one, how can the US government, with it's massive superiority complex, expect the Iranians to achieve what they couldn't.
Yes, it was interesting to read this, but I have little to add, except my agreeing (spelling?).

 

One thing's for sure...I'm so sick and tired of all this "link" bullsh!t I could scream. A simple link, as vague as "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows Osama" is apparantly enough to go to war on these days.

I long for the days when people actually needed a little thing called "non-circumstancial direct evidence" and "just cause" to be taken seriously. Now all we have to come up with is "terrorists were within 20 miles of so and so 3 years ago, so CLEARLY he's in on it! Don't you SEE!?"

Ugh.

 

Yeah. Like: "Terrorists are evil. Iran is evil. And because evil is very, very wicked - they MUST cooperate!"

That's "intelligence work" (and I'm terming it quite generous) on Kindergarten niveau. Bush may call it moral clarity.

Just like Saddam is still believed to have done by many Americans. Wrongly so. Despite all reports and statements (even by the president himself) that there was no Iraq-911 link. But nevermind.

Recent news on Iran and the alleged 911 link:

Bush, CIA at Odds on Iran

And the neocons opened a second front on Iran:
Iraq issues threat to Iran over insurgents

Yep, it's all Iran's fault that the insurgents just won't go, not the US' fault or Allawi's fault.
Accusing them to support the insurgency is an excellent secondary accusation to keep the heat up on them and to label them "evil" and undermine the realists push for normalisation with Iran.
You know: "We don't negotiate with evil!" You can expect more of that in the next time by the neocons.

[ July 21, 2004, 20:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa...breathe in, breathe out...

Well, I'm not a neo-con...more paleo-French...but you put so much effort into your post (as ever, my friend!), it merits a halfway decent response. Not sure this qualifies, but here goes anyway.

Iran is already pursuing internal regime change. Trouble is, they're moving from a dictatorship that was strongly democratic (by regional standards) and moving to one that is strongly unfree. Kinda like Zimbabwe in slow-motion - the democratic shell remains, but the players have been gutted.

This reasoning is indeed perilously thin. It puzzles me that many people are griping that we picked "the wrong target" - Iraq instead of Iran - when the Iraq case was buttressed by reams of global intelligence data while the Iran case rests (publicly) on this li'l scrap of circumstantial evidence.

There may be a reason to target Iran, but this ain't it.

So your point is...that the US is encouraging Iran to get nukes because it sees the US negotiating with North Korea...but the main US neocon problem is that it doesn't negotiate?!? Which reminds me:

Good thing Europe and the UN are using diplomatic means to put Iran on notice about its "alleged" nuclear program. (Alleged by who? By the Iranians themselves, who have gone on a whistlestop tour to inviting places like Sudan to get their public approval of Iran's nuclear program.) Oh, what's that? The diplomatic flurry of commendations and condemnations only INCREASED Iran's commitment? Wow, how ironic - maybe some regimes are so heckbent on WMD that the deterrence threshold is higher than an IAEA slap.

Pre-emption is still deterrence, just moved back a stage. Mutually Assured Destruction theory (truly MAD in both senses) was intended to deter the use of WMD. The threat of pre-emptive strikes is intended to deter the acquisition of WMD. In the case of Iraq, the pre-emption threat failed, and - as is the case in ANY deterrence scenario - when the deterrence fails, action must be carried out to make future threats credible.

This is an important point: deterrence is a continuum. People think of deterrence as applying only to the outbreak of war (especially in the MAD context), but it doesn't. It applies to every stage before and after. There's a different threat implied, deterrence-wise, between intimidating an opponent from attacking a border post than dropping a nuke on a city. Both are acts of war, but both are deterred on different levels. And it's possible to fail to deter the attacker from taking out the border post, but successfully deter him from nuking the capital.

The word "pre-emptive" suggests that the pre-empter is moving first. But actually no - the "pre-emptive" attack is in reaction to the other side's action (developing nukes, harboring terrorists, etc.). That's not a neo-con position - it's purely realistic. But what seems to happen is that people draw the line at some arbitrary point and decide that everything past that point requires deterrence, and everything before that point is pre-emption.

 

Ragusa - I can't really buy that one because Iran was looking at a nuclear program even before some of the events you cite.

Sorry, I would not consider the current medieval and harsh regime in Iran to be populated with "sons of liberty." I agree that the autocrats and despots who run Iran wish "to be left alone," but mostly because they are too busy trying to keep their own people brainwashed to worry about what's happening in Iraq. But the Bush administration could care less about democracy, or any other form of representative government here in America, let alone a place like Iran, or Iraq for that matter. Shurb and his minions have nothing but contempt for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For them it is all about the blantant use of executive power. Besides, Iran has nothing to offer the US, so I doubt there are any serious plans to invade it at this point.

For now, it just makes for good propaganda for the illusionary "war on terror." They will use Iran as another "shining" example of why we need to "stay the course" next door in Iraq.

[ July 22, 2004, 07:51: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Good article on the neocon vs. realist game with the US-Iranian relations.

The US State Department lists MKO, the marxist Mujahideen-e Khalq Organization, ruthless crazy cultists, as terrorists for killing some Americans in the 1970s. Under Saddam they carried out acts of terror in Iran and helped him in killing Kurds and Shiites. Clearly nice guys.
The neocons in Pentagon have declared them "protected persons" because they think they could use them against Iran one day. As you can see, the neocons choose their friends carefully. Again, Pentagon is acting directly in contradiction to State Department policy.

from: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0729/p07s01-wome.html

Something quite similar happens with China and Taiwan. The neocons encourage Taiwan to go for independence, in the full knowledge that China would never accept that - because they want top roll back China via Taiwan (no one ever accused them of lack of ambition). The soon to be held huge US Navy maneuvers are clearly meant as a provocation to China.
With that they contradict 30 years of State Department policy. The realists in State want that the president discourages Taiwant from all provocative steps and want them to keep the status quo.
But the neocons cheerfully on the quest to find new wars to fight are starting something that could well lead into a nuclear conflict. But have they ever been happy with anything less?

from: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FG29Ad04.html
and check: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FG24Ad07.html

 

Well, I find the latest move by the Bushies to remove soldiers from Europe and Korea quite interesting. I would not be surprised to see them reappear "somewhere" in the Middle East after 2006. Of course if there is a Kerry admistration then they may not be going anywhere.

 

Chandos,
a while a go I posted

and you replied

Well, the Iranian regime is not all that harsh and medieval - I know a young, pretty and very western girl that went there a couple times to visit relatives of hers. From what I heared of her it's not about wearing a black sack - skirt longer than the knees and the scarf are musts, but then, in the 1950s it was out of question for a western woman to wear anything else when they went to church too. IMO thinking back to how it was 50 years ago in the US helps a lot to be a little more humble about the actual state of affairs in Iran.

And I would be careful underestimating the Iranians and when saying that they are brainwashed. Even if that may apply to a good deal of American FOX viewers that doesn't mean it is that way in Iran too From my relatives who lived in then communist east germany I know that even though the media reports were next to useless they had their ways of getting information - watching western tv, listening to western radio, and today we have the internet - even in Iran - and people talk a lot there too.

And so they talk about how much their regime sucks, right, but in the end it is their regime. They generally prefer their own a**holes over foreign imposed ones, in this case, US imposed ones. They aren't much different than any other country in that respect.

And the Iranians are smart enough to understand that Iraq has an impact on their strategic situation and they do watch. The Iranian regime has the clerical component which certainly is interested in keeping the people under their religious tutelage. The secular part consists of more or less clear eyed pros who very well know what is happening around them, one has to be deaf, dumb and blind not to notice.

But it is also about the Iranian people. They want to reform the country from within and struggle to do so, despite various setbacks. Looking at the price of US intervention in Iraq they are less than enthusiastic about the US messianism, and that's what I got from them first hand - across the spectrum - from sentimental Shah-lovers to agnostics or pious shiites who prefer separation of state and church.

The bottom line was that US help toppling the mullahs would bring more harm than help. And except for that, they said they would be proud to have nukes ... like the Indians, Pakistanis ... and Americans they understand them as a weapon of prestige and status, and a tool that grants safety through deterrence. ( besides, that point is moot anyway, as Iran has no weapons program - not that that would bother the Bush crew who never let facts come in the way of their policy)

The reasons for the Iranian wish to be able to deter enemies becomes somewhat self-evident when one looks back to the experience of Saddam's onslaught when he thought Iran weak. It is not all about the US.

But then, and there I agree with you again, the Bush crew couldn't care less about the actual will of peoples, be they Americans, Iraqis or Iranians.

[ August 21, 2004, 16:35: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I'm not sure I agree with much of the opitimism of your post. To be sure there is a need for internal reform. The religious clerics, it is my understanding have the real power, have used anti-American propaganda to prop up their own autocratic regime for sometime now. It is understood that there are secular political forces in Iran that would like, and are working towards, progressive reform.

I'm glad that you brought up Iraq, because it was US support for Saddam and his war against the Iranians that could cause more than a little resentment and raise suspicions on the part of the rank-and-file Iranian. The Americans have for too long sought to exlpoit situations in the region for strategic gain, switching dictators and autocratic regimes when it is in the American interest to do so. How about democracy and freedom for Saudi Arabia? Not a chance, by the fat gas tank of an SUV.

It is also much better for any nation to have internal reform, and I agree with all this. And I think we can also agree that the Bushies have only made the situation much worse. But I will, somewhat reluctantly, take your word that political reform is a reality for the Iranians at this point.

[ August 21, 2004, 18:50: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Just a thing that slipped my mind - how credible would their propaganda be without the US messing around in the region, or as in the past, in their country?

The libertarians have a point when they stress that the US does get itself into most of the trouble it has by meddling in other countries internal affairs.

If an Iranian mullah wants to prove the hostility of the US he only has to quote whacky John Bolton or Darth Cheney, or refer to the US/ UK sponsored coup against Mossadeq. But is there really a point to make it so easy for them?