What to do about Iran? The entire spectrum of options seems to have evolved into two major schools: either the President takes a more forceful position in support of the demonstrators as the riots continue, or he stands to the side and lets the Iranian people decide, and then deals with whomever is the final winner.
Unfortunately, once again we aren’t asking the right questions. And the first question has to be: what do we want to achieve? Notice that the ‘we’ in that question is not ‘the world,’ and it’s not ‘the west.’ The ‘we’ is the US, because that is the only ‘we‘ that the President can effect, and it is the one he is legally and morally responsible for.
So, what does the US want to achieve? What does the US want to happen?
The answer seems simple enough: the US wants an Iran: with a moderate, preferably democratic, government (in the sense of a liberal, that is western democracy); with greater individual freedoms and rights for its people; at peace with it’s neighbors; supporting the fight against terrorists and Islamic extremists; that is not building nuclear weapons.
If that is the case (let us assume that it is), then waiting to see who wins leaves four possibilities: first, the current regime wins, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continue their rule of the country, though almost certainly with a heavier hand, and Iran continues her current policies and builds nuclear weapons. The US achieves none of its aims.
Second, the Ayatollah squeezes too hard, the country rises up, the mullahs are thrown out and former Prime Minister Mousavi wins and the country sets out on a new course. The US may achieve some of its aims, but it will be by accident.
Third, the violence continues and, in an effort to end it, the Ayatollah decides to seek some sort of interim agreement, with a temporary power sharing arrangement followed by another election. This one would perhaps be more carefully rigged, but the outcome would still be in doubt. The US has achieved none of its aims.
Fourth, the violence continues and escalates the government collapses, the army steps in to seize power and real revolution breaks out throughout the country. This would result in one of two outcomes: either the army manages to seize control and a dictator seizes power, who may or may not bring back the mullahs, or the army eventually loses and then, if he is still alive, Mousavi becomes the president. If Mousavi is killed, then the confusion will continue. The US may achieve some of its aims, but again it will be by accident.
The long and short of it is that things have changed in Iran. It will not return to where it was, at a minimum the mullahs will rule with an even tighter ‘leash.’ What that means for the US and the west is that there is essentially no chance of getting any concessions on such issues as nuclear weapons or the infiltration of weapons into Iraq or the support to terrorists or the anti-Israeli rant if Khamanei remains. The situation is such that he must become more controlling and that means more rigid in dealings with the west and the world.
Furthermore, no matter what, if the US doesn’t get involved whatever happens just happens and the US is along for the ride. You can’t possibly affect the outcome if you refuse to get involved.
The US does not need to say that it supports Mousavi irrespective of the results of the election. But it could say that it believes that Mousavi won the election and that there should be an open recount with many international observers (it won’t ever happen, so it’s a free card, but it is worht it that we insist upon this). Failing that, the US should make it clear that it will insist on tightened sanctions on trade with Iran – that is, use of something approaching a third party embargo ('we won’t trade with you if you trade with them)'. We could aggressively apply that policy without affecting the oil trade simply because Iran must trade oil and the Ayatollha knows it. Without oil he becomes a dictator trying to sit on a broke government. Ergo, despite the rhetoric, the oil will flow.
As for those who say we should never get involved in another country’s politics, there are several obvious responses. The first is that we are involved, that is part of being the most significant political entity on the planet as well as the largest economy. The fact of just the US news media covering the story means we are ‘involved.’ When the US does nothing, that sends a signal. If that is the signal we want to send, so be it. In some cases, it is the signal we want to send. But, in issues as important as the largest country in the Mid-East, with nearly 80 million well educated people, and huge oil and mineral reserves, it is in the US interest to get involved.
As for the argument that we were involved before and it led to disaster, that story is not completely true: while the US machined the return to power of Shah Palavi in 1953 and the ouster of Prime Minister Mossadegh, the following 26 years in Iran saw massive modernization and the beginnings of an effort to bring universal education to the country-side. That Iran is as literate and as modern as it is today is to some degree a result of US involvement.
In the end there is no upside if the US stays out and tries to see ‘what the Iranian people want.’ For the US’s sake the only play is to voice real support for democracy and for those who seek it., and to apply what pressure we can to bring about deomcratic change. This happens to agree with our national mores and it also happens to support what is in out interest when viewed from the perspective of realpolitik. The President needs to speak out in strong support of the people of Iran who are rioting against their government, and use the tools available, such as a selective third-party embargo, to squeeze Tehran.
Unfortunately, once again we aren’t asking the right questions. And the first question has to be: what do we want to achieve? Notice that the ‘we’ in that question is not ‘the world,’ and it’s not ‘the west.’ The ‘we’ is the US, because that is the only ‘we‘ that the President can effect, and it is the one he is legally and morally responsible for.
So, what does the US want to achieve? What does the US want to happen?
The answer seems simple enough: the US wants an Iran: with a moderate, preferably democratic, government (in the sense of a liberal, that is western democracy); with greater individual freedoms and rights for its people; at peace with it’s neighbors; supporting the fight against terrorists and Islamic extremists; that is not building nuclear weapons.
If that is the case (let us assume that it is), then waiting to see who wins leaves four possibilities: first, the current regime wins, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continue their rule of the country, though almost certainly with a heavier hand, and Iran continues her current policies and builds nuclear weapons. The US achieves none of its aims.
Second, the Ayatollah squeezes too hard, the country rises up, the mullahs are thrown out and former Prime Minister Mousavi wins and the country sets out on a new course. The US may achieve some of its aims, but it will be by accident.
Third, the violence continues and, in an effort to end it, the Ayatollah decides to seek some sort of interim agreement, with a temporary power sharing arrangement followed by another election. This one would perhaps be more carefully rigged, but the outcome would still be in doubt. The US has achieved none of its aims.
Fourth, the violence continues and escalates the government collapses, the army steps in to seize power and real revolution breaks out throughout the country. This would result in one of two outcomes: either the army manages to seize control and a dictator seizes power, who may or may not bring back the mullahs, or the army eventually loses and then, if he is still alive, Mousavi becomes the president. If Mousavi is killed, then the confusion will continue. The US may achieve some of its aims, but again it will be by accident.
The long and short of it is that things have changed in Iran. It will not return to where it was, at a minimum the mullahs will rule with an even tighter ‘leash.’ What that means for the US and the west is that there is essentially no chance of getting any concessions on such issues as nuclear weapons or the infiltration of weapons into Iraq or the support to terrorists or the anti-Israeli rant if Khamanei remains. The situation is such that he must become more controlling and that means more rigid in dealings with the west and the world.
Furthermore, no matter what, if the US doesn’t get involved whatever happens just happens and the US is along for the ride. You can’t possibly affect the outcome if you refuse to get involved.
The US does not need to say that it supports Mousavi irrespective of the results of the election. But it could say that it believes that Mousavi won the election and that there should be an open recount with many international observers (it won’t ever happen, so it’s a free card, but it is worht it that we insist upon this). Failing that, the US should make it clear that it will insist on tightened sanctions on trade with Iran – that is, use of something approaching a third party embargo ('we won’t trade with you if you trade with them)'. We could aggressively apply that policy without affecting the oil trade simply because Iran must trade oil and the Ayatollha knows it. Without oil he becomes a dictator trying to sit on a broke government. Ergo, despite the rhetoric, the oil will flow.
As for those who say we should never get involved in another country’s politics, there are several obvious responses. The first is that we are involved, that is part of being the most significant political entity on the planet as well as the largest economy. The fact of just the US news media covering the story means we are ‘involved.’ When the US does nothing, that sends a signal. If that is the signal we want to send, so be it. In some cases, it is the signal we want to send. But, in issues as important as the largest country in the Mid-East, with nearly 80 million well educated people, and huge oil and mineral reserves, it is in the US interest to get involved.
As for the argument that we were involved before and it led to disaster, that story is not completely true: while the US machined the return to power of Shah Palavi in 1953 and the ouster of Prime Minister Mossadegh, the following 26 years in Iran saw massive modernization and the beginnings of an effort to bring universal education to the country-side. That Iran is as literate and as modern as it is today is to some degree a result of US involvement.
In the end there is no upside if the US stays out and tries to see ‘what the Iranian people want.’ For the US’s sake the only play is to voice real support for democracy and for those who seek it., and to apply what pressure we can to bring about deomcratic change. This happens to agree with our national mores and it also happens to support what is in out interest when viewed from the perspective of realpolitik. The President needs to speak out in strong support of the people of Iran who are rioting against their government, and use the tools available, such as a selective third-party embargo, to squeeze Tehran.
No comments:
Post a Comment