Flynt Leverett, former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council and Hillary Mann, a former Foreign Service officer who participated in the United States discussions with Iran from 2001 to 2003, have published a redacted version of an OP-Ed they wrote for the New York Times a few weeks ago that the White House nixed for what appears to be rather specious reasons.
The White House won’t say why they stifled the piece and the authors predictably plead persecution. It could very well be that given the most recent military moves in the Persian Gulf that the White House didn’t want to send the regime mixed signals or, more prosaically, some bureaucrat overstepped their authority.
Regardless, the Op-Ed is instructive in that it gives a short history of Iranian-US relations over the past decade or so while urging the Administration to initiate dialogue with the regime.
The rehash of history is interesting in that while highlighting American “failures” by the last three Presidents to take advantage of diplomatic openings, the piece neglects to mention a few salient facts about what the Iranian regime was up to over the same period that made talking to the fanatics in Tehran extremely problematic.
Assassinations, sponsorship of several terrorist organizations who attacked western interests as well as Israel, unremitting hateful rhetoric spewing from the leadership about “The Great Satan” (even the so-called “moderate” Khatami consistently referred to America this way), and their not very secret push to acquire nuclear weapons indicated that any talks with Iran to “normalize” relations would be an exercise in surrender diplomacy – in effect, handing the Iranians a diplomatic victory by making their criminal and warlike behavior pay big financial and economic dividends.
So what’s changed in the last few years?
Iraq, obviously. But here’s what Leverett/Flynn have to say about the Iranians helping us out in Iraq:
Iran will not help the United States in Iraq because it wants to avoid chaos there; Tehran is well positioned to defend its interests in Iraq unilaterally as America flounders. Similarly, Iran will not accept strategically meaningful limits on its nuclear capabilities for a package of economic and technological goodies.Iran will only cooperate with the United States, whether in Iraq or on the nuclear issue, as part of a broader rapprochement addressing its core security concerns. This requires extension of a United States security guarantee — effectively, an American commitment not to use force to change the borders or form of government of the Islamic Republic — bolstered by the prospect of lifting United States unilateral sanctions and normalizing bilateral relations. This is something no United States administration has ever offered, and that the Bush administration has explicitly refused to consider.
Indeed, no administration would be able to provide a security guarantee unless United States concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities, regional role and support for terrorist organizations were definitively addressed. That is why, at this juncture, resolving any of the significant bilateral differences between the United States and Iran inevitably requires resolving all of them. Implementing the reciprocal commitments entailed in a “grand bargain†would almost certainly play out over time and in phases, but all of the commitments would be agreed up front as a package, so that both sides would know what they were getting.
If their analysis is correct, one might legitimately ask why bother? By the time any kind of a “Grand Bargain” was struck, either Iraq would be somewhat pacified or in even worse shape than it is today. If we’re not looking to talk to Iran about what they can do in the immediate future to help tamp down the violence, then we’re back to where we were prior to the war; deciding whether or not to deal with a state that insists on operating outside the norms of civilized behavior.
I see the efficacy of talking to Iran in a regional context regarding Iraqi security. And reality demands that we recognize that the Iranians have once again become a dominant player in the region – perhaps the most dominant. But “normalizing” relations with an abnormal state would be an exercise in futility. Perhaps we should ask those who so eagerly seek direct negotiations with the Iranians why the US must be the one to make concessions while Iranian support for terror groups like Hizbullah continue to sow political discord in Lebanon and their nuclear program continues to make progress – something the Iranians have made crystal clear is not even on the table at the beginning of any talks.
There is one element in the Leverett/Flynn proposal I find intriguing; a guarantee of sovereignty for the Iranian state: A promise by America not to attempt to overthrow the regime and not destroy their nuclear program.
The second part of that diplomatic equation would be that we would ask in exchange a halt in their enrichment activities under IAEA supervision and a halt to their clandestine assistance to the insurgents and militias in Iraq.
Before the howls of protest erupt over this “surrender,” I would like to point out that we’re doing precious little at the moment in assisting elements in Iran who seek regime change anyway while the bombing option will cause more problems than it will solve. For a discussion of some of those problems, you might want to take a look at this post I did last April about the pros and cons of bombing.
The historical forces at work in Iran – demographics as well as a massive unease and chafing at the rule of the mullahs – could mean that changes might be on the way faster than we dare hope. Michael Ledeen:
The recent protest on the campus of Amir Kamir University in Tehran was no surprise; Iran is constantly riven by public demonstrations against the regime. The news was not the demonstration, but the amount of attention it received. Why this one and not the scores of others? The answer, I think, is that this protest was covered by the official Iranian media, which made it safe for foreign correspondents to report it. And why did the official media cover it? Because it was the first move in a campaign—culminating in the “election results‗to demystify Ahmadinejad and his messianic allies, one of whom had declared himself a candidate to succeed Khamenei. So Act One was the protest and Act Two was the “election.†Maybe there will be a third act, maybe not.At the same time, Act One served another function: it helped the thugs in Tehran identify the current student activists. “The Amir Kabir Newsletter,†as reported by the intrepid passionaria of the Iranian-American community, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, says that the student demonstrators have gone into hiding, most notably the student who bravely held up the sign “Fascist president, you don’t belong at the polytechnic.†Thoughtlessly, various foreign newspapers published his photograph.
This is a dangerous game for the regime to play, and the repression at Amir Kabir provoked, of all people, Italian Youth and Sports Minister Giovanna Melandri, to call for a demonstration in Rome, supporting the Iranian students. Another demonstration is scheduled for tonight, sponsored by a truly bipartisan group of young people, including Jewish organizations already enraged by the Holocaust Conference.
It is possible that the mullahs are feeling a little less secure in their position lately. If so, we may be able to extract some of what we want from them by offering something that they have made clear they would like; a guarantee of sovereignty.
Not the “Grand Bargain” offered up by Leverett/Flynn. But then, the idea that we’d unfreeze Iranian assets and allow that regime into the World Trade Organization while it builds nuclear weapons and undermines other nations is ridiculous – despite the author’s protestations that no agreement would be reached unless all issues had been agreed to “up front.” As the Iranians have proved with IAEA, they are perfectly capable of delaying inspections and hiding parts of their program as well. That’s why de-coupling Iraq and the nuclear issue from the normalization process is what the Administration has had in mind all along. If the Iranians prove they can be trusted, other issues can then be brought to the table. But the mullahs have a long way to go to earn that kind of trust.
Talking is always better than bombing – especially if you can achieve more by talking than you can by bombing. I don’t know if the latter is true as it relates to Iran but I know that it would be unconscionable not to try.
10:00 am
AP whitewashes Ahmadinejad (again)
Ali Akbar and the AP can’t find time to report the highlights of a December 20th article on Ahmadinejad from AFP. In it, the Iranian president’s message appears far more ominous and certainly more relevant to American readers than the AP’s whitewash…
1:02 pm
[...] Rick Moran’s take on negotiating with Iran is closely related to but not completely congruent to my own.  For example: I see the efficacy of talking to Iran in a regional context regarding Iraqi security. And reality demands that we recognize that the Iranians have once again become a dominant player in the region – perhaps the most dominant. [...]
1:20 pm
“Assassinations, sponsorship of several terrorist organizations who attacked Iranian interests as well as Israel Iran proper, unremitting hateful rhetoric spewing from the leadership about “The Great Satan†“The Axis of Evil” (even the so-called “moderate†Khatami McCain consistently referred to America Iran this way), and their not very secret push to acquire nuclear weapons more advanced nuclear weapons.”
You’re right. If I were Iran, I’d be pretty icy viz. the U.S., too.
1:21 pm
test
1:22 pm
Strikethrough doesn’t work. HTML enabled? I’ll restate my post, without the strikethrough effect…
“Assassinations, sponsorship of several terrorist organizations who attacked Iranian interests as well as Iran proper, unremitting hateful rhetoric spewing from the leadership about “The Axis of Evil†(even the so-called “moderate†McCain consistently referred to Iran this way), and their not very secret push to acquire more advanced nuclear weapons.â€
You’re right—If I were Iran, I’d be pretty icy viz. the U.S., too.
3:46 pm
ya but you were the guy who said that iraq was not going to be a civil war last year buddy.
6:03 pm
Yo Wingo (#6):
But last year Iraq was not embroiled in a civil war, buddy.
Now on to the current reality. Since 14 of 18 provinces (containing 2/3 of Iraq’s population) are relatively calm, any assertion the country is gripped by civil war is ludicrous on its face.
It’s quite fortunate the sensible, non-partisan, non-ideological middle of our great nation speaks and acts out of concern for what’s right for the country, rather than crowing about being right should one of the arrows in the constant barrage of negativity, masquerading as “activism,” actually come close to hitting its mark.
Chip
7:49 pm
America seems worried about the likes of Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda and other terrorist supporting states and terror groups. The country we really need to be concerned with is Russia. Russia is the primary supporter of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and other American enemies. Russia is the only nation on earth who poses an existential threat to the US and it supports all of America’s enemies. Islamic extremists are simply useful idiots that Russia uses in it’s proxy war with the US.
Without the support of Russia Iran is nothing. It would be farily easy to contain. If we can use diplomacy to get Russia to withdraw its support from Iran, this would go a long way toward winning the Global War on Terror. In order to do this, we will need to admit that Russia is an enemy. Unfortunately very few leaders have the courage to admit that the country with the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world is actuallly an enemy.
2:47 am
If only somehow Islamic fundamentalism in Chechnya would stab Russia in the back instead of being a “useful idiot” in the proxy war that you speak of.
Agreed that Russia is something we will have to take care of as soon as possible. Iran can only boast of its invulnerability and violate each and every international law with impunity because Russia and China are too invested in it, pacified by economic interests.
Either
1) we remove the external patrons to the Iranian economy and curb their investments; or
2) we wait and pray that in the future, the Saudis will be convinced to unload oil in great supply and drive the price down, thereby crippling the Iranian economy
I say we take the first option, because firstly, time is not on our side; secondly, the Saudis aren’t our friends.
11:20 am
Harrison:
“Agreed that Russia is something we will have to take care of as soon as possible”
Your arrogance is breathtaking. It’s about time people in this country realized that we’re not running the show any more. China holds our dollars, Russia, Iran and Venezuela have oil, both China and Russia have veto powers in the U.N… the list goes on.
12:04 pm
Harrison
I agree. Option number 1 seems to be the best option. One way to cripple the Iranian economy would be to commit enough troops to secure Iraq. As I understand it, the lift cost per barrel of oil is lower for Iraqi oil than it is for Iranian, Russian, or Saudi oil. This would enable us to neutralize the threats of our enemies. Unfortunately this policy cannot be implemented right now. The political climate would never allow it.
In any event, what we are currently doing is contributing to the instability in the Middle East. This drives up the price of oil. To date, the chief benefactor in the GWOT has been Russia. We will need to alter some of our policies or at least execute the ones we have better.
A good place to start would be to actually recognize Russia for what it is. It is not our “friend.” It is our most dangerous enemy. Simply recognizing it for what it is does NOT necessarily we go to war with them. If we can use diplomacy to get them to withdraw support from Iran, winning the GWOT becomes much easier.
Gredgn
You write: “Your arrogance is breathtaking. Its about time people in this country realized we’re not running the show any more.” It is clearly in America’s interest to formulate an effective policy to deal with the threat posed by Russia. Part of this policy will be strategies on how to fight a war against them should it become necessary. Naturally we hope to avoid it but it may be inevitable. In any event, a successful policy to counter Russia, will go along way toward neutralizing those who you say “run the show.” Refusing to capitulate before one’s enemies is not arrogance. It is prudent policy. It begins with recognizing one’s enemies for what they are. Russia is the most dangerous enemy of America and the free world.
You write: “China holds our dollars.” This is true. It is also true that their economy would be seriously hurt if they were to lose access to the American market. This at least gives us some leverage. We can get even more leverage against them, if we would be willing to abolish the highly expensive well-fare state that currently exists in the US. If China unloads our dollars, this hurts their economy making it more difficult for them to invest in their vast military machine. Also, it would mean the end of deficit spending in the US. This would mean the end of the well-fare state. To that I say, GOOD RIDDANCE!!
“Russia, Iran, and Venezuela have oil.” This is true. We do also. we have huge oil and natural gas fields that we are unable to tap into because enviro-whackos have to much control over American energy policy. We also need to build more refineries and we need to invest more in nuclear power plants. We have been unable to do much of this becuase of the concerns of the same enviro-whackos. In any event, by developing more of our own resources this will give us more leverage when dealing with these people.
“China and Russia have veto powers in the UN.” So do we. Most countries act in their best interest regardless what the UN says or does. Only the US is expected to capitualte before the UN. The UN cannot do anything to stop China’s raping of Tibet. The UN could not make Saddam Hussein cooperate with weapons inspections. The UN could not stop the genocide in Rwanda. The UN cannot stop Mexico’s illegal alien invasion of the US. The UN cannot or will not do anything to stop the Palestinian Arabs from trying to annihilate the state of Israel. The UN is a hopelessly corrupt entity. It should be abolsihed. I would not be opposed to withdrawing from it entirely.
“...the list goes on” A prevailing myth is that the US is some sort of “hyperpower.” I’m glad you recognize this.
12:08 pm
What I meant by my last sentence is I’m glad you recognize that the US is not some sort of “hyperpower.” I just wanted to be sure the last sentence was clear.
1:43 pm
Gregdn (#10),
It’s about time people in this country realized that we’re not running the show any more.
We never were running the show, sir, but rather enjoyed the fruits of some mutually beneficial alliances with Western Europe during the Cold War.
If only these same allies would appreciate the true nature of the evil the “free world” collectively faces from the various ‘cists and rogue militias, but alas they think they can safely pursue different priorities.
Chip
8:04 pm
gregdn, with all due respect, when I meant “take care”, it meant shaking loose of this frustratingly quiescent intransigence that our leaders have been luxuriating in – even though we don’t “run the show”, we must recognise that Russia under Putin is going to be strategically obstructionist in a growing number of issues, especially in the Caucasus and the Iranian nuclear crisis.
We have to take measures to make sure Russia doesn’t get too comfy with its rising diplomatic power status.
Russia has made it clear to the Americans that it does not take too lightly upon the subject of domestic interference, and that it will use its influence over critical areas of America’s interest to prevent any sort of bullying or coercion to pressure its government into reform, or instigating secessionists within Russia to protest against Putin.
Ironically, American intervention in its affairs has set an opportunistic precedent for Putin to re-establish Russia as a modern superpower: with the potential to control oil supplies in the Caspian Sea alongside Iran, as well as the deterrent of a nuclear-armed Middle-East and the fate of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in its hands, Russia is watching and matching every single American move on the proverbial board, chesspiece by chesspiece.
11:53 pm
Harrison
As I point out earlier, I want a diplomatic solution for the situation for Russia. In order to resolve the issue, American political leaders will have to acknowledge that at best Russia is a strategic competitor and at worst an enemy. I think it is probably the latter. Right now they are clearly not a “friend.”
Any possible diplomatic solution would involve the concept that I think is commonly known as “realpolitik.” Russia is probably the only country on earth who is capable of defeating the US in a military confrontation. In a case such as Russia, a “realpolitik” solution, while I don’t like it, might be the best we can do.
Part of a negotiated settlement with Russia could include the US agreeing to withdraw all support from former USSR republics. In return for this concession by the US, Russia will agree to withdraw all support from Iran, Syria, Hamas, Venezuela, and all of the other terrorist supporting states and organizations that they currently support. If this type of agrement can be reached, the GWOT becomes much easier to win. Without the support of Russia Iran and the other Islamic terrorist supporting states can be defeated much easier.
I don’t really like this solution. Some of the former USSR republics are willing to work with the US and the West becuase they don’t want to fall back under the totalitarian rule of Russia. Under this agreement they would be sacrificed. Also, the US would have to give up legitimate business interests with these former Soviet Socialist Repblics. These are mainly oil interests. This would have a huge financial cost for the US.
Russia would lose its weapons sales to Iran, Syria, Venezuela and others. The US and the West could compensate Russia for this loss by some type of financial arrangement. Russia certainly does not need Iranian oil. They have plenty of that. Yhis type of agreement will cost the US more than it costs Russia. If Russia has any interest in peace, this should be an acceptable agreement to them or at least it should be a good starting place from which to negotiate.
We should develop more of our own oil and natural gas resources. This will give us more leverage at the negotiating table.
Before we can do anything constructive it is necessary to recognize that Russia is not a friend nor or they an ally in the GWOT. It seems to me that the Cold War is back on. In fact, I don’t think it ever really ended.
As stated previously, I don’t like the agreement. I specifically don’t like the part about sacrificing people to the tender mercies of Russia who don’t seem to want any part of that. To be honest, I don’t think this agreement would work any way. I think Russia would either not agree to it or they would promptly violate it.