« Um... | Main | More On Assault Weapons »
CFR Report
This sounds pretty convincing to me. It seems to me that a harder line policy vis-à-vis Iran probably would have been desirable at one time, but the upshot of the Iraq War has been to increase our need to secure Iranian cooperation on some regional issues while drastically reducing our "hard power" leverage relative to Teheran. Under the circumstances, though an engagement policy is unlikely to produce any really fantastic outcomes it seems preferable to the alternatives of drift or conflict. I'm open to persuasion on this front, though, not someone with really firm Iran-related convictions. Mostly I have deep suspicions about the motives and methods of the Iran hawks, though I'll admit to the possibility that they've somehow stumbled on the right idea through an unsound method if someone can make that case.
July 19, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83421257a53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CFR Report:
» Iran a greater threat? from Rodger A. Payne's Blog
We cannot allow the media, the 9/ll Commission, the neocons, or even Democratic opponents to goad the US into another disastrous military conflict. [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 20, 2004 11:28:34 AM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 7:26:03 PM
Comments
Dropping three mechanized divisions and a basically arbitrary amount of air-power into a historically hostile country on their border somehow decreased our hard power leverage? That makes sense only if you believe we won't or can't actually attack, even in a limited fashion. I know that belief is held by some on the left, but I haven't seen any arguments to make me believe it. There are plenty of military options against Tehran short of all-out regime change, and I'm pretty sure the mullahs realize it.
--Dave
Posted by: dave | Jul 19, 2004 3:58:00 PM
Also, has Zbignew Brezhinski managed to get anything right in the last thirty years. Carter's foreign policy guy woudl seem like the last place one would go for advice on how to deal with Iran.
--Dave
Posted by: Dave | Jul 19, 2004 4:00:55 PM
Dave has good ideas. We should open up more fronts in the Middle East war because the infinite number we already have opened isn't enough. It seems to be taking forever to get to 1000 soldiers dead so an incursion into Iran might speed up the process. I heard that terrorism recruits amonst the Shiites were in the doldrums and this might help kick-start it. One thing I don't get, though, is what's Dave's problem with Brezhinski? Was he too hard on communism?
Posted by: LowLife | Jul 19, 2004 4:08:35 PM
"Dropping three mechanized divisions and a basically arbitrary amount of air-power into a historically hostile country on their border somehow decreased our hard power leverage?"
If the Iraqis had greated us with flowers, and a stable, prosperouse democratic regime had been quickly installed, this idea might make sense.
As things actually turned out, however, the "three mechanized divisions and a basically arbitrary amount of air-power" are scarcely sufficient to keep Iraq under control. They are not available for Iranian adventures.
Posted by: rea | Jul 19, 2004 4:23:48 PM
I actually believe that the Bush administration would very well consider attacking Iran. Again, it hinges on perceptions about whether Iran's nuclear ambitions are incontroverible and whether Iran would hand off nuclear weapons to Hizb'allah. If you believe that it would, then we are headed for trouble. If not, then engagement may well be productive.
Posted by: praktike | Jul 19, 2004 4:31:34 PM
About a week ago, IWPR reported present connections between Iran and Ansar al-Islam, with the latter having an actual camp in Iran. If that is true, we could launch a strike on that just to send the message that we are as crazy as rumored and may not tolerate further collaboration between the RG and terrorism.
Posted by: Brian Ulrich | Jul 19, 2004 4:53:46 PM
does someone seriously think that iran would hand over a nuclear device to hezbollah for use either in israel or in the usa? i dont think they would! it is this implicit assumption that somehow islamic governments are ignorant/suicidal/inferior and therefore prone to all manner of illogical policies that drives these adventures. afghanistan...iraq...iran-> (in some other time in some other continent) austria...czechoslovakia...poland. similar deal that was offered to libya could be offered to the iranians...
1) cease support for hezbollah
2) cease nuclear proliferation activities
and in return;
3) normalised diplomatic/trade relations
4) non-aggression pact
the ideological fanaticism of khomeini is long-gone and i am quite sure the iranians are looking to come in from the cold. afterall, the seeds for democracy were always there, just never given a chance to thrive due to russian, british and later american interference.
Posted by: captainblak | Jul 19, 2004 4:57:56 PM
The problem is that Qadhafi wanted to talk. Sure, some elements in the Iranian government wanted to talk, too (the Khatami faction, most obviously), but Khamene'i forced an end to it all by saying that problems were not solved through negotiation, or some such thing. Now it may be he just didn't want to give the Reformists a victory and would be open to negotiations under other circumstances, but if so we won't know until Khatami leaves office in 2005.
Posted by: Brian Ulrich | Jul 19, 2004 5:08:59 PM
ansar al-islam is an ULTRA-ORTHODOX SUNNI ARAB group operating in northern iraq against the PUK and other secular groups there.
iran is a farsi shi'ite theocracy that has little affection for things arab and/or sunni. Some sources claim ansar was supported by saddam and yet others that it "maybe" supported by Iran. Still, all cute reasons aside, I fail to see the lovefest.
BTW, if it could come to pass that khamenei prematurely ended his participation in the political process, iranians and the west would be presented with a very good opportunity to hammer out differences. unlike the iran of the 80s and the iraq of 80s-90s which were characterised by leader worship, presentday iran has the machinery of state to handle a transition smoothly.
Posted by: captainblak | Jul 19, 2004 5:31:53 PM
I think the Sunni/Shi'ite thing is badly overplayed when talking about nation-states. After all, the U.S. is not any sort of Muslim fundamentalist, and worked with them in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Don't forget the links between the Revolutionary Guard and Palestinian groups of all stripes. In any case, here's the evidence, from a pretty well-respected source. It's not 100% convincing, of course, but I think we should take it seriously.
The trend in Iran over the past couple of years has been toward greater autocracy and not less, despite the headlines about the student protests. The political reform movement is basically dead, and the hard-line mechanisms of government are being replicated at local and regional levels.
Posted by: Brian Ulrich | Jul 19, 2004 5:37:55 PM
Dropping three mechanized divisions and a basically arbitrary amount of air-power into a historically hostile country on their border somehow decreased our hard power leverage?
Yes, *destroying* a hostile regional power and tieing up much of our own combat power pacifying it does reduce our hard-power leverage over Iran.
It is less credible that we would choose to use massive force in Iran now than prior to the Iraq War.
There are plenty of military options against Tehran short of all-out regime change, and I'm pretty sure the mullahs realize it.
Any military options short of regime change provide a convenient external enemy that, historically, reinforces the strength of a totalitarian regime by reducing the salience of internal opposition in the face of severe external threat.
We could target known and suspected nuclear sites, but that won't stop Iran from seeking weapons, won't stop them from funding terrorists, and won't reduce the long-term threat.
Posted by: cmdicely | Jul 19, 2004 5:50:27 PM
Unless we plan to occupy Iran and Iraq for a VERY long time, regime change ultimately leaves the natives in charge. In the case of Iraq, that was clearly a step in the wrong direction as we traded a secular (albeit despotic, but since when did the conservatives have a problem with that?) regime with what will surely be a much more religious regime with closer ties to Iran than the US.
But this is all based on a vast over-estimation of the risk that Iran would give a nuke to terrorists. It makes no sense. They would keep it for their own defense. Not risk suicide for the Palestinians.
If we wanted to do something bold, why not just lock Jimmy Carter in a room with a map and a red pen and have him draw the new state of Palestine. Fighting would ensue, but it will whenever this new state is formed, let's get it over with.
Posted by: epistemology | Jul 19, 2004 5:52:12 PM
Again, it hinges on perceptions about whether Iran's nuclear ambitions are incontroverible and whether Iran would hand off nuclear weapons to Hizb'allah. If you believe that it would, then we are headed for trouble. If not, then engagement may well be productive.
Iran is as likely to hand nuclear weapons to Hezbollah as we are to hand off nuclear weapons to the Iraqi interim government.
Posted by: cmdicely | Jul 19, 2004 5:52:14 PM
cmdicely,
"Iran is as likely to hand nuclear weapons to Hezbollah as we are to hand off nuclear weapons to the Iraqi interim government."
Unless of course, we indicate that we are committed to regime change no metter what, and if some how they get the idea that even if they dismantled all of their weapons and allowed weapons inspectors to verify this, that we would prematurely pul out the weapons inspectors and attack anyway.
Posted by: theCoach | Jul 19, 2004 6:01:11 PM
Unless of course, we indicate that we are committed to regime change no metter what, and if some how they get the idea that even if they dismantled all of their weapons and allowed weapons inspectors to verify this, that we would prematurely pul out the weapons inspectors and attack anyway.
Still, I think its unlikely, although if they saw an attack as imminent or in progress, they might transfer them to Hezbollah -- or to Iranian intelligence officers who would leave a trail indicating that they were Hezbollah to muddy the waters -- for immediate use, if they thought that made for a more effective delivery method than missiles.
Posted by: cmdicely | Jul 19, 2004 6:11:42 PM
i don't believe much of that story. it sounds spiked and reeks of being part of the current coordinated media blitz against iran (complete with direct quotes of interviewees). i wonder how much these folks were risking to talk to reporters abt a potentially very scary group. not that i dont believe ansar al-islam is a dangerous fanatical organisation, i just do not see the intimacy with iranians.
but nomatter what is happening in iran now, i think there will be war with iran in the next 4 yrs. iraqi armed forces are quickly being trained and armed to take over, freeing american troops for another campaign.
Posted by: captainblak | Jul 19, 2004 6:13:08 PM
Gentlemen,
There is good reason to believe that Hezbollah, or its ultimate authority, are in fact the political factions in Iran that are running the nuclear program.
Consider that a large part of the Iranian internal security apparatus seems to be manned and run by foreigners, mainly Arabs, according to a lot of Iranian dissidents.
The problem with Iran is that it is apparently not under firm central control. There are factions running different aspects of the state, and there are parallel military/security organizations.
Posted by: luisalegria | Jul 19, 2004 6:21:45 PM
luisalegria:
I don't believe Iranians are not in control of Iran. Where did you hear otherwise? Sounds like dissidents playing conservatives for fools once more a la Chalabi. Doesn't sound likely at all. We have nothing to fear but fearmongering itself.
Duck and cover, everyone, here come the brown men with suitcase nukes. I would feel a lot more secure if someone would just frisk me every morning as I left for work.
Posted by: epistemology | Jul 19, 2004 6:29:23 PM
captainblak:
There will be no war in Iran in the next four years. I recall, just after 9/11, Bush officials saying that another attack in the US within a year was almost certain. These people have NEVER been right. Their fearmongering is essential to their agenda.
Posted by: epistemology | Jul 19, 2004 6:32:03 PM
"deep suspicions about the motives and methods of the Iran hawks"
What bad motives would lead somebody to favor attacking Iran? Not too much oil there, I haven't heard anything about pipelines. Or are these motives more sophisticated.
I think a Serbia like line of attacks would work for Iran. THe people there are ready for a new government. Air strikes could avoid excessive collateral damage, and we aren't using our fighter bombers in Iraq much. Sustained strikes would force the mullah's hand. They are already meddling in Iraq, its unclear what they could do against us.
Posted by: Reg | Jul 19, 2004 6:36:41 PM
"What bad motives would lead somebody to favor attacking Iran? Not too much oil there, I haven't heard anything about pipelines."
You're being sarcastic, right?
Posted by: Brian Ulrich | Jul 19, 2004 6:41:47 PM
i thought we settled this...
iran funded hezbollah largely due to imam khomeini's ideological fanaticism in the 80s. the hezbollah of the 90s and the 21st century is largely supported by syria.
bottomline is that iran fund(ed) hezbollah, not that hezbollah funded iran. that is a very obvious distortion of known facts.
Posted by: captainblak | Jul 19, 2004 6:57:36 PM
the only reason iran would go to war with israel is if syria went to war with israel because they have a defence agreement. this was put in as a condition of the syrians allowing hezbollah to operate in lebanon when hezbollah was truly an iranian proxy. this nolonger holds true to any meaningful extent.
Posted by: captainblak | Jul 19, 2004 7:04:04 PM
Mr. Epistemology, Captain Blak,
It is not that Hezbollah is funding Iran (absurd), but that parts of the Iranian regime depends to a considerable degree on foreign "muscle" because of their political reliability.
As for the confused state of the Iranian state - even if you don't believe dissident reports, there is plenty of evidence that this is the case. Iran has at least three parallel militaries, under different commands - the regular armed forces, the revolutionary guards (Pasdaran), and the religious militia (Basij).
It has at least two security structures, state and religious, which itself seems to have official and unofficial branches.
If you want the latest evidence of confusion, look at todays news - consider the case of the case against the security official accused of torturing to death a Canadian woman. Charges were brought by the official public prosecutor apparently OK'ed by the security service. But the trial was abruptly shut down in full swing by - who ? Another layer in the security service, or a parallel source of authority. A regime in full control would have either prevented the prosecution, or cleared the way for a satisfactory trial. But this ?
This sort of thing is becoming typical Iranian behavior. This jerking, intermittent switch and backtracking in policy is evidence of divided command.
Posted by: luisalegria | Jul 19, 2004 7:31:17 PM
Whatever. It is a good thing y'all are discussing the Conquest of Iran. Feel free. I am short of good ideas.
I read Brzezinski's little memo, and said "Oh Shit! Bury this thing til after the election."
Republicans would have a field day, and probably will, if this turns out to be Kerry policy. At least phrase it in less Frenchy language.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 19, 2004 7:47:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
