1) Leverett argues Iran offered to assist in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 "and establish a new political order in Afghanistan." In return, in 2002, Bush labelled Iran a member of the Axis of Evil in his State of the Union address.
- Leverett knows that it is widely accepted that the Bush Administration was diplomatically deficient before Condoleeza became the loudest foreign policy voice in the White House.
Blaming Bush's mistakes is easy, however, his claims are ludicrous. Why would the United States ask one militant Islamic regime (Iran) to help destroy another militant Islamic regime (Afghanistan)? There is much to be said about cooperation, but the US does not need to worry that the Brits are going to go on a mass Islamic campaign. The Brits also haven't been shouting "death to America" since 1979, and militarily cooperating with the Brits is not completely unprecedented and a possible security risk.
It's one thing to have a verbal endorsement. It's quite another to militarily ally with a country America does not even have diplomatic relations with, which chants "Death to America" and wants to destroy America's ally Israel.
2) Leverett continues:
In the spring of 2003 ... the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." ...
"Finally, in October 2003, the Europeans got Iran to agree to suspend enrichment in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed.
- Mr. Leverett "heard" this from friends in the government. However, if one re-reads Leverett's rather convincing words (Do you have high level government insider contacts?), you'll notice he's rather vague. Iran "acknowledges" that it has issues to resolve with nuclear weapons and Israel, etc.
Leverett paints this as a missed opportunity, but we don't know how much was missed.
It seems he wants the US to bend to Iran's interests. Iran is threatening the world with nuclear proliferation, so, according to Leverett, the US needs to let them get away with it if they "acknowledge" that they have been naughty. Change behavior? Not necessary. Changing their behavior hinges on "acknowledging" their naughty tendencies, but getting something even greater: RECOGNITION.
It seems the 2003 proposal was an Iranian plea for legitimacy. However, it wasn't really a plea, it was a nuclear threat. Why should the US forget the "death to America," "Great Satan," "destroy Israel," fund Hezbollah, proliferate nuclear weapons stuff? So that Iran will "cooperate" with them and "acknowledge" bad behavior without rectifying it?
3) Leverett then switches to criticizing the Iranian regime (gotta look impartial) and their Holocaust denying president, in particular. His effort is to make President Ahmadinejad look bad and place the entire blame for the situation on him. In fact, he goes to extra effort to exculpate the Supreme Leader saying:
"Iranian officials with ties to the [Supreme Leader] Ayatollah Khamenei continue to stress in private conversations that key players on Iran's National Security Council - the chief decision-making body for foreign policy - remain interested in a strategic dialogue with Washington. But the popularly elected President Ahmadinejad could easily marshal resistance to any "grand bargain" with the United States."
- Once again, Leverett takes the easy way out. The universally recognized nutcase is blamed for the current dilemma. Leverett gives the Supreme Leader (the guy actually in control, thus the title Supreme Leader) a total pass. In fact, he tries to make him into the good guy, as if to say, "No, no, he's a good guy. We should take his offer."
This is just ludicrous. The Iranian nuclear problem didn't begin with Ahmadinejad. The Supreme Leader is pulling all the strings to make it happen. He's not the good guy. He's the guy who made it impossible for any truly independent Iranians from running in the Presidential elections. When Egyptian elections are more liberal than yours, there's something wrong.
And, again, we have to rely on Leverett's depiction from an inside contact who provides no details about what is being offered and what the US must provide in return.
4) Leverett concludes saying that the correct tack to use against the Iranian regime is giving it complete legitimacy.
He believes that creating a Gulf Security Council including Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Oman would solve the problem. This organization, in Leverett's view, would protect Iran from potential American aggression, while moderating anything Iran does.
- How much does the UN Security Council get done? What about the African Union, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Association of South East Asian Nations, or the Organization of American States? NATO gets things done, but not without kicking and screaming.
So, Leverett's answer is to create another one of these organizations?
One of the main problems with the UN is that it puts every country on equal footing. Canada and North Korea are made moral equals. Sudan gets named to human rights committees.
The UN was created to prevent war through protecting the national sovereignty of all nations, so we can't complain too much about moral equivalency if we are going to endorse the organization. Thankfully, however, the power of the UN is extremely limited. Could we say this about a Gulf Security Council?
Leverett is proposing grouping together some of the most oppressive governments in the world and then empowering them with another organization. When Saudi Arabia takes action against women's rights, will Iran protest?
There is already a model for what Leverett proposes: the Gulf Cooperating Council, made up of Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and Oman. These countries have some of the worst human rights records on the books, from the abuse of migrant labor to suppression of free speech.
Leverett's proposal, if it even works in the atmosphere of conflict between Sunni and Shia, could become yet another oil cartel. At least OPEC includes non-Gulf countries. Imagine what would happen if the biggest oil producers in the world decide to limit their production lines for "security reasons."
I don't see how Saudi Arabia and Iran cooperating is in the best interest of the rest of the world. Let's give two incredibly Islamic, revolution exporting countries floating on the world's biggest oil reserves a reason to cooperate? That's something that anyone who doesn't support those countries' agendas will have trouble supporting.
Iranian Plea for Legitimacy
Leverett's real thesis, although he does not state it, is that the United States must recognize Iran. Iran wants to be recognized as an equal, and Leverett believes the US should go ahead and recognize them so that the Iranians will give their word that they will not misbehave.
That's just plain naive.
The Iranian regime must learn what is and is not acceptable before it can be officially recognized and play with the big boys.
Iran must understand that it is not acceptable to:
1) Proliferate nuclear weapons
2) Call for the annihilation of the country with which you are trying to establish relations
3) Make racist statements against historically oppressed peoples
4) Call for the annihilation of countries you never plan on having relations with, anyway
5) Fund organizations trying to annihilate other countries
6) Threaten, and then expect the world to cooperate
Anyone who believes Iran merely wants recognition is naive.
Iran has a regional and international agenda. Regionally, Iran is supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia in Iraq, and Shia throughout the Gulf region that rise up against their oppressive governments from time to time. That's just fine in a culturally relativistic sense. However, expecting the current Iranian regime to stop supporting Shia revolution elsewhere is like expecting the United States to stop supporting capitalism.
However, regionally, Iran also wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, and that's something that the United States, Europe, and Israel - in particular - will never accept.
Internationally, Iran wants superpowerdom. It already has one source of making this happen: the third largest oil reserves in the world. Sadly, they are also threatening the stability of the world by trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and this is absolutely unacceptable.
Iran is not being oppressed. The world cannot give in to their threats. If Leverett is right and they just want recognition, threatening the world is not the way to get it.
11 comments:
Nice analysis
mynewsbot.com
I'd be careful with Leveret's allegations.
1° Leverett blames the US for refusing Iran's assistance in Afghanisant
Well thank God! First of all did the US needed any assistance? Because you can be sure that the Iranian help wasn't disinterested. Iran satellitized parts of Lebanon through HA and is now trying to do the same in Iraq. We all know that they would have tried to crate a state-within-the sate out of the Shias (and maybe the Sunni persians) areas of Afghanistan.
Iran influence must be contained but Leverett wants to put Iran in charge of the Gulf. He says that the US should actually help Iran satellitize the region by supporting an Iranian-led league!
The guy must be out of his mind.
Leverett is an old-school Republican who kept his cold war analytical techniques. He couldn't care less about democratical values & humand rights. He considers Lebanon to be little more than a bargaining chip between the US and Iran.
2° Leverett says that Khamenei wanted a strategic partnership with the US?
Can somebody explain to me why did the Iranian failed to open channels with the Americans in the late 90's under Clinton? I mean it wasn't Khattami who opposed the idea, that's for sure. And it wasn't Ahmadinejad either.
Flynt Leverett has never been one of the Middle East specialists that has ever impressed me. I am in disagreement with many of the things that he says in this Op-Ed but I take issue also many of your points of criticism.
For starters you don't think that the use of the word "acknowledge" was strong enough,you even intimate that "acknowledge" is a rather shifty way of describing a vague commitment toan idea. Last time I checked the dictionary , acknowledge is defined as "to admit as true". I fail to see the ability to read waffle into such a strong clear statement.
As for the proposed Gulf Security Council you fail to explain why do you think of it as a vehicle for Iran to lead and exploit such an institute whose members include "the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council". Mr. Leverett goes on to explain that this council "would not replace American alliances with traditional security partners, but it would operate along side them".
Furthermore you raise the legitimate issue that Iran, and I hope by implication all other countries in the world, have a moral duty to stop nuclear weapons proliferation but you do not address the equally valid issue of why is it that the world has to grant a handful of countries the right to monopolize a technology of mass destruction.Don't you think that it is hypocritical of the bully around the block , so to speak, to make sure that no one can ever rise to challenge his power?
Many generals from the US and Britain have concluded in many a study that no coutry in the world needs nuclear weapons in order to protect itself . If we are serious about ending nuclear proliferation, and I hope that we are, then we have to embark on the road towards denuclearization. The nuclear genie must be outlawed to all and its use must be made morally reprehensible. We need to set an example that others can follow. Never ask others to do what you are not willing to do yourself.
I think that all this Iran spin in the recent months is a game convenient to all sides.
Ahmedi-njad is not a waco. He has serious internal problems (don't forget that 50% of iranians are not persians/iranians at all) and he tries to solve them by showing his people how Iran is becoming a new alternative leader of the region and more.
This is very convenient for Bush- there's still a threat to America (and the world).
As an Israeli, I can tell you it's convenient to many politicians here- they can chant all day "Iran..." and ignore other problems.
It's not that the problem dosen't exict- it does, but it's not so apocalypthic as it is being portrayed (I hope I said it correct).
What do you expect? Flynt was at the CIA from 1992-2000 (Clinton years) and when the CIA got everything wrong.
Not coincidentally, also the years when CIA agents were taking knitting seminars to develop their feminine side.
Nations are NOT individuals. "Individual rights" can be given, equally, to all people -- like Free Speech and Free Religion. They are also costless.
Nations are a convenient fiction, like corporations (Andersen Consulting is gone after many years; no people died.) "Nations" don't make decisions, people do. Some people have more power than others.
It IS, definitely, "unfair" to countries without nukes that some countries have them, others don't. But once a country signs the NPT, like Israel did NOT, but N. Korea did, if such a country violates their prior agreement, this is sufficient justification to ignore their "right" to "national sovereignty."
Iran's gov't shouldn't have signed; or should have repudiated it under '79 when the anti-Shah folk (ghasan, weren't YOU against the Shah?) were successful in booting him.
Those are the rules. Gov'ts choose to play by those rules, or not. Too bad for Iran if they decide they don't like the rules; not all countries have the power to violate the rules at will.
The nuke genie goes back into the bottle only when it is already certain to be unnecessary; for instance, when France thinks cash for its poor pensioners is more important than cash for its nukes. Not soon.
Prolly not until we have ... a world without dictators. After Afghanistan & Iraq; and Lebanon -- maybe Iran is next. Though I still suggest Sudan as the most worthy target for US/ NATO led Human Rights Enforcement and regime change.
Leb.Profile.....the guy is writing for the NY times and you are running a senseless pro-Geagea/Hariri/Jumblatt (criminal/spoilt brat/criminal) and anti Aoun/Hizb (reformer/disciplined) blog.
you must have nothing to do being unemloyed & spending your evenings alone at home...
Leverett is one of those Cold War intellectuals who attempt to find some sort of reasoning, pattern or trend and then try to ingrain that exact thesis he so conveniently believes with such conviction; he tries to establish the importance of continuity of the institutions that have proven so incapable in dealing with our modern threats - look at NATO which desperately needs America to provide a security blanket, without which it would collapse; the UN Security Council threatened North Korea before with sanctions, and look what engendered from empty threats.
It is ridiculous to contemplate that rabble-rousing Ahmedinejad is engineering all this warmongering talk about wiping Israel off the map - the Supreme Leader Khamenei and his Guardian Council of fundamentalist clerics are obviously the ones responsible. Just look back at how ex-President Khatami was sidelined by his own allies in the government and reduced to being a lame duck.
Giving Iran legitimacy is unthinkable. By according it equal status with countries of excellent human rights and respect for international law, it would be tantamount to endorsing radical leaders to pursue policies of dangerous intent. And do we really want to force two brands of Islam to co-exist in the same political spectrum?
My comments are also posted here.
To my regular readers and commenters,
I apologize with the comment infestation. Anyone familiar with this blog knows that I am am, if anything, not partisan enough. I approach politics with an even hand.
I write this comment because it really pisses me off when people harass me. Stop!
Secondly, why isn't it okay to like Geagea and Jumblatt? For some odd reason, it's acceptable to like Hezbollah - a party that promotes violence and has no problem arming people who kill Lebanese civilians - and Aoun - who's made far more outrageous comments recently than Geagea.
Don't complain that Lebanese politics is a sewer if you are the manure making the stink.
I do not agree with Hizballah's methods. I call on them to disarm or join the Lebanese Army immediately. I call on them to abandon the Palestinan cause. But most importantly to me as a Lebanese is that Nasrallah has no Lebanese blood on his hands, in contrast to Geagea and Jumblatt who used to indiscriminately bomb entire LEBANESE neighbourhoods as a hobby...
Furthermore, where is your proof that Hizballah arms people that kill Lebanese civilians? I mean we know for a fact that Geagea and Jumblatt have killed masses of Lebanese people...
Anyhow, the point is not to follow insane, murderous leaders such as Geagea and Jumblatt...Don't follow Hizballah either.
I urge you to strive forward, I urge you to be smart in what you choose for this country. Don't just be an addendum to a party just because it exists.
But you also, like Hizballah, try to sow fear and hatred in people's minds so theres not much I can do here.
Post a Comment