I want to raise a heretical notion: I actually think that Bush is playing a bad tactical hand well in Iran.
Look, there is no way in hell that he’s going to undertake meaningful military action against the Iranians. A few shells may get lobbed at boats that approach the fleet too closely, and I have no doubt that our Special Ops community is doing whatever it is they do in situations where they don’t get to “blow shit up and kill people.” But the political cards within the US are dealt, and Bush’s hand does not include an “Invade Iran” card.
That doesn’t mean things aren’t happening, or that we should be paying close attention. many sources have commented on the increasingly fragile grip on power of the populist nutjob Ahmadinejad. Having three carrier groups offshore has to be a source of internal pressure, as does unanimous UN resolutions cracking down on international finance, a declining oil sector, etc. etc.
From Global Voices, some Iranian opinions:
[Fa] says US Foreign Secretary Condoleeza Rice’s trip to Middle East was successful enough to unite small and large Arab countries against Iran. The blogger says when the US was in Middle East, Iranian President took a useless trip to Latin America. The blogger adds Iranian people are confused about the current situation.
According to Pouyaon one side their instinct tell them that all these warship and military prepration in the Persian Gulf cannot only be a game and other side the Iranian regime makes propaganda that it is all a game…Maybe the regime welcomes a limited war to fortify ther position inside and outside country….a few billions of damage due to bombings would be covered by selling oil.
Haji Washington [Fa] says Iran should not be afraid of the US as Arab countries in the Persian Gulf are the bigger threat.The blogger adds there is an international coalition against Iran and western banks are pressing sanctions while Japan is reducing its economic activities.
Ali Mazroi [Fa], a reformist politician, talks about Iran’s miscalculation in handling its nuclear crisis. He says the US was not in a rush to send the Iranian nuclear case to the Security Council. According to the blogger, the US convinced all countries that the only solution for the Iranian nuclear crisis was the Security Council.Ali Mazroi says,as a citizen:
I am worried to see that the governing institutions in Iran are pushing the country and Islamic Republic into an endless hole.
View from Iran writes with sarcasm about a conversation between friends about the coming war; I sure hope Iran doesn’t use any Shahab missiles. If they do, it will be the start of WW 3, a friend says. Why do you think that? They’ll hit everything but their intended target. A missile aimed at Israel will hit Saudi Arabia or Russia or some other country. Everyone laughs. Everyone goes about their daily business: hoarding saffron and tuna fish.
Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a reformist politician and blogger, says former presidents Khatami and Rafsanjani as well as Karoubi, the former Iranian Parliament Speaker, have organised several meetings with former heads of states and foreign affairs officials to discuss these very dangerous circumstances.
Abthai reports that according to Mr Sadr, a former vice foreign affairs minister, Iran cannot count on Syria because when they feel they are in danger they will make a deal with US. He adds that it is the first time there are international sanctions imposed against Iran.
From the Financial Times:
The sanctions contained in the Resolution have limited direct effect but they come at a moment when the economy is performing poorly, partly because of Iranian mismanagement. Ahmadinejad is under criticism because of rising inflation – officially at 12 per cent, in reality closer to 20 per cent; economic growth around 5 per cent per annum is not keeping up with the need for job creation. Foreign investment has all but dried up, partly because of the nuclear issue and associated action (e.g. restriction on Iranian banks, greater caution of export credit agencies). Without new investment, Iran risks being unable to maintain medium-term oil production, currently 50 per cent of government income [emphasis added].
From the Guardian:
Iran’s beleaguered president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is facing a powerful challenge from his fiercest political rival for control of the country’s nuclear and economic policies.
Hashemi Rafsanjani, a pragmatic conservative defeated by Mr Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election, believes Iran may have to yield to western demands to suspend uranium enrichment to save the country’s Islamic system from collapse.
He is trying to persuade the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in state matters, that further negotiations are essential to avoid a potentially disastrous conflict with the US or Israel.
…
“Before the sanctions, Rafsanjani hoped Iran could obtain its enrichment objectives through mutual understanding with the west. But now he thinks we have reached a dangerous point and that a step should be taken backwards in the hope that two forward can be taken later,” said Mohammad Atrianfar, a respected political commentator and associate of Mr Rafsanjani.“He doesn’t see negotiation as a sign of weakness. He wants to limit the impact of the sanctions and get Mr Khamenei and the government to accept that if Iran faces mounting sanctions or a military attack or any crisis which damages the economic life of the people, then there is a possibility of the whole system collapsing.”
The Guardian reported last week that Mr Ahmadinejad’s authority was under pressure from critical MPs and an increasingly concerned Mr Khamenei. The re-emergence of Mr Rafsanjani contradicts widely held assumptions that his presidential defeat had diminished his influence. His increasing prominence comes after he won the most votes in elections to the experts’ assembly, an important clerical body.
So Bush is – against the odds – raising pressure on Iran, and as a result may wind up getting what he wants, which is the fangs temporarily pulled on the worst actors in the Iranian government.
That won’t solve our problems with Iran – not by any means. But it’s an impressive play of a weak hand, and I don’t think anyone is giving Bush the credit he deserves for it. Anyone can take the pot with aces over kings. But to stand your ground playing ace-high is an achievement and we’d all be better off – including those who oppose Bush – for recognizing that.
Having said that, I think we’re still misplaying strategically.
I’ve said in the past that we ought to be talking to the Iranians. Not necessarily in a craven “what have we done wrong, how can we make you like us” mode that many take entering talks to mean. But in the Clint Smith sense of
“You better learn to communicate real well, because when you’re out there on the street, you’ll have to talk to a lot more people than you’ll have to shoot, or at least that’s the way I think it’s supposed to work.”
I fail to see how sitting down with the Iranian leadership and laying out what they’re doing that we want them to stop, and asking them what it would take to get them to do so, and telling them what’s in the realm of possibility (no, Israel will not dissolve itself) and what isn’t, is not in the best interests of the US. Simply being able to clearly state such a set of US interests vis-a-vis Iran might itself be a good thing – a clarifying exercise as it were.
I think that we’ve buried negotiations in the Middle East in complexity and nuance and the speech of diplomacy, and that it’s time for some frank – and clear – thinking and speaking on our part and on the part of our allies.
It is only heresy in the partisan blogosphere to suggest that entities are universally good or bad – outside of this jingoistic realm, balanced assessment can occasionally surface, even survive. That said, I suspect that most of the benefits you cite fall under the ‘silver lining’ clause of the Iraq affair. In the rubble of Iraq, I doubt that you would find much agreement that Bush’s tactical hand was, or currently is, weak. The assessment “no way in hell” needs a ‘this week’ qualifier. Just because Bush mangled the last sortie, in no way precludes the subsequent emergence of legitimate grounds for military action. Afghanistan qualified by virtue of 9/11, and ‘nuts with nukes’ trumps just about everything else on the table. As for the idea that the invasion of Iraq was a carefully thought through strategic ‘lesson’ for Iran – maybe, but I wouldn’t bet the house on it.
Oops – #1 almost makes sense if you make that “… are_not_universally good or…”
AL – Another interesting post of yours. Here are the problems I see followed by what I think are the merits:
1. Another suspension is not necessarily a signal of Iran yielding to US pressure. Iran may want more time to work through the technical difficulties they have had with the cascades. You’d have to see if by suspension they include all experimental work and if that kind of suspension can be verified.
2. The Bushehr reactor is scheduled to begin fueling in March with Russian fuel rods. Will this take place? If it does, suspension of uranium enrichment will be meaningless because Iran will follow North Korea’s example of getting a plutonium bomb before a uranium one.
3. If three US aircraft carrier groups in the region don’t get the results Bush wants, we will look like a paper tiger. Throwing naval forces into the region is a high-stakes diplomatic gamble that could backfire if the Iranians call our bluff.
4. Can it be assumed that a hostile Congress is an impediment to Bush ordering air strikes as opposed to an invasion? You refer to the invasion card but what about the air strikes card?
5. Even if he succeeds tactically in getting the Iranians to agree to another temporary suspension of all nuclear work (including reactor fueling), does it reflect well on Bush strategically to postpone the day of reckoning, in all likelihood to a time after he has left office?
I appreciate your thinking against the grain here and the above reservations are simply those that I think could be raised. In favor of your view, the following might be noted:
6. Although it is an accident that the limited UN and other sanctions may have greater effect because of economic mismanagement by the Iranians themselves, the economy is where Iran is vulnerable if pressure on it continues for some time. Their economy may get worse before their nuclear program gets better. This could be dangerous if in response the regime tries to unify and distract its people by provoking a conflict with us. But provoking us would play into Bush’s hands and reduce opposition in Congress to air strikes.
7. The Iranians may also be having second thoughts about the reaction building in the Sunni world. The United States performed an immense service to Iran in getting the Taliban and Saddam Hussein out of power. If the US withdraws and more intense Sunni-Shia conflict follows, the Taliban will return to power and Saudi Arabia will go nuclear, cancelling any nuclear advantage Iran may achieve. A continuing American presence in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, if not in Iraq, may be sufficiently to Iran’s advantage to suspend enrichment on an indefinite basis.
No, AL I could not disagree more.
The Carrier groups are useless because Congress will not allow them to be used. Iran kills our troops in Iraq and Congress, the Media all demand nothing be done. The military offers proof and David Gregory calls it lies.
Putin and China are acting as Iran’s protectors, sending them SAMS and nuclear equipment. Europe has already called Iran’s nukes a fait accompli and suggested the world “live with it.”
The Left/Dems/Media would welcome Israel’s nuking as a positive development that would finally satisfy those Muslims (Munich 2.0).
Bush has played a bad hand badly.
A more competent player would have used Special Forces to provoke Iran into an action that cannot be ignored; allowing him free reign to destroy Iran’s infrastructure and leave the population in a state akin to Japan in Aug 1945.
Bush has decided to do nothing as all Presidents since Carter have done, and give that problem to another President.
I agree he’s playing the hand well and think talking directly to Iran is risky. The name of the game is to do everything possible to get a moderate regime in Iran. That means at most very covert and indirect actions to destabilize the present regime (the options in that sphere should be better left alone if there’s much risk of them being discovered), encourage liberal opposition with moral support and application of external but reasonable pressure that takes the moral high-ground — keep asking for increased sanctions based on the continued flouting of the Security Council on the nuclear issue and providing arms to non-government groups in Iraq.
Talking to Iran directly at this point would be a victory for the present government, which will be able to claim its present diplomacy is working. It is therefore not a good idea unless and until Iran there is a point when offering to talk weakens the regime. Our line should be that Iran knows what the “international community,” (not the US) expects of it. I also think the present talks with North Korea is also helping to further isolate Iran. The time to offer to talk may come when we can make the offer in a way that weakens the present government. The furthest we should go would be a very subtle hint that we might be willing to talk to a “serious” (read more moderate) Iranian president.
Something I find interesting is a “series of bombings in Iran in recent days.”:http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/17/iran.bombing/index.html I don’t understand much about the “Jondallah group” which claimed responsibility, but I do wonder if this is a sign that the U.S. has decided to start using the “Mojahedin e-Khalq”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKO against the mullahs. That’s a risky strategy – the MEK is pretty universally disliked across Iran, think ETA in Spain, and their ideology is pretty violent and twisted in and of itself. However, if the Coalition has concluded that Iran has set “Quds Force”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qods_Force operatives into Iraq to attack our troops, freeing the MEK from their confinement camps across the border into Iran could be construed as a proportional response by the Powers That Be in the Pentagon.
#4 Jim,
The problem with your 1945 solution is that a very significant portion of Iranians are well disposed towards us. It would be a good idea to keep it that way.
#3 ricg,
A revolution would be in our best interest.
A.L.
All in all a good post, at least up to the point where you write, “I’ve said in the past that we ought to be talking to the Iranians.”
Good idea, just tell us “which” Iranians!
Their nutjob President?
The mad Mullahs actually ruling the Nation?
The Saudi/Ba’athist terrorists setting off bombs?
Or, the no power to negotiate average Iranian all other factions want to kill/subjugate?
Mike
AL – “… it’s time for some frank – and clear – thinking and speaking on our part… ”
I have to agree but when are we going to dismantle the Dept of State? Because unless and until the career “diplomats” (SPIT!) are retired and we can get truth tellers in those positions, we are not going to be doing anything ‘frank’ in the diplomatic arena. Those leeches have a vested interest in NOT doing anything constructive. They would just be working themselves out of a very cushy job.
Otherwise, another informed and intelligent post. Keep ’em coming. It helps us rubes get smarter, by degrees.
The Hobo
M Simon —
It seems to me that estimates of the incipient reform and dissolution of the Mullahs regime has been going on since 1990 with no results. I think 17 years is long enough to wait. Though Iran may have some people positively disposed to us they have just as obviously no means to influence Iran to act on that disposition.
Moreover, domestically GWB and all other Presidents will only have nuclear weapons to use. Dems/Media have rejected anything but talking, and talking to the Iranians has not produced anything worthwhile since 1979.
Iran and the US are on a collision course. Iran and their overt allies and defenders the Dems/Media overestimate their control over US response; sooner or later the Iranians will do something provocative enough that the US will be forced to respond to, and the only means will be nuclear.
“tagryn” is dead-on in pointing out the double Zahedan bombing recently. The first bomb incinerated a bus full of Quds Brigade fighters (the same unit that has been getting getting blamed for ‘paramilitary’ actions in Iran)
Oh, hell, I’ll just repost from my blog. Shameless, I know… but you might still like it.
Bush providing Rafsanjani cover?
Bush has said repeatedly that the Quds Brigade, which appears to be Iran’s vehicle for influencing events in Iraq via weapons shipments, soldiers, etc., is not “clearly linked” to the Iranian leadership.
His statement is both true and ludicrous.
Stratfor has postulated for some time now that there is a political power struggle currently taking place in Tehran, between Shiite Islamists who are ready to throw in the towel over either Iraq or Iranian nukes, and the Ahmadinejad risk-all-to-win-all faction.
Turns out the Zahedan bombing, which I noted a couple of days ago, claimed as victims 18 Quds Brigade fighters. Knowing that fact, the bombing “fits” much better as a US-instigated act/ “sending a message,” as opposed to random Sunni-Iranian violence.
However, Bush does see the Quds/Ahmadinejad faction as very distinct from Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the billionaire realpoliticker who forms the nucleus of anti-Ahmadinejad forces within the Iranian political establishment. (Liberal Iranians have been very marginal players for a long time.)
Bush wants to weaken Ahmadinejad to the point that Rafsanjani can impeach Ahmadinejad. Once that happens, Bush will want to be able to deal with the new Iranian government, and not be constrained by prior rhetoric labeling the entire Iranian governing establishment as his enemy. So he invents a pseudo-fiction, that the Iranian government isn’t behind violence in Iraq. (Part of the Iranian government is responsible for a lot of the violence.)
But to make Ahmadinejad appear weak enough to be an easy impeachment target, Bush has to ratchet up the pressure [implied future military action]. To that end, DC has also made noises about re-legitimizing the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, funding them, and getting them to blow up Ahmadinejad-Iranian assets.
Ahmadinejad, to all appearances, is running out of cards to play, but not entirely.
In terms of both popular opinion and geopolitical power, Russia has become the most radically anti-American presence in the world outside of the Middle East. Putin loathes the United States for the US’s perceived involvement in the anti-Russian revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan (is that how it’s spelled?), and for America’s tacitly cheering on the uber-Islamist Chechens by screeching about “human rights violations” every time a Chechen guerrilla is killed. (American sympathy for Chechnya, in my opinion, gets to the heart of why the US war on political Islam/ war on terror rings so hollow to KGB, I mean the Russian government’s ears.)
Putin can throw Ahmadinejad a lifeline, if he wants. The only thing Putin seems to have more of, other than money, is a desire to continue bleeding the United States dry, and if anyone can bleed the US/Israel dry, it would be Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah.
That said, the “American axis” — Israel, the Christian/Siniora Lebanese faction, the Kurds, the Iranian “insurgents,” the American military, the Saudis and other assorted Mideastern groups — are pretty clearly gearing up for a second round. An infantry hawk has replaced the failed air-force general Dan Halutz as the Israeli military’s commander-in-chief. The Israelis are pretty eager for some Hezbollah blood (as are most Lebanese Christians I think, who were not fooled, let alone happy with Hezbollah using Lebanon’s future as a bargaining chip). Three American carrier battle groups are now in the area. American money and materiel are flowing to Iranian domestic terrorist organizations to weaken Ahmadinejad. Syria seems to be wavering. Ahmadinejad’s domestic support base is crumbling, as well. Not to mention the probable Mossad hit on Hassanpour.
Barring Russian intervention, the odds are pretty clearly not in Ahmadinejad’s favor. The mutual hardship of the Bush and Ahmadinejad factions is now Putin’s golden opportunity.
But is the concept of frankness even understood by our conterparts? Granted, the Iranians don’t have the same history of Ghost Dancing Par Excellence that the Arabs do, but some of them come close.
I agree A.L., which is why I would totally be against taking any options “off the table” if I already didn’t suffer from so much BDS.