Richard Haass, the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, has attracted considerable notice with an opinion piece out now in Newsweek arguing that “the United States, European governments, and others should shift their Iran policy toward increasing the prospects for political change” in the Islamic Republic–in sum, that the United States and its international partners should adopt regime change in Tehran as the explicit goal of their Iran policy. For someone who has for a long time been identified as a prominent advocate of foreign policy realism, this is a remarkable statement to say the least.
In the interest of full disclosure, we should state up front that both of us have known Richard Haass for many years. Both of us worked for him during his tenure as the State Department’s Director of Policy Planning. Moreover, Richard was Flynt’s best man at our wedding seven years ago. However, it should come as no surprise to our readers when we say that we disagree profoundly with Richard’s Newsweek piece–both in its assessment of Iranian domestic politics and its prescription for America’s Iran policy.
Rather than offer our own detailed rejoinder, we are pleased to present the following post by Henry Precht, published here with his permission. Henry occupies a unique position in the circle of those concerned about the historical evolution and current trajectory of U.S. policy toward Iran and the Middle East more generally. Henry was involved with the Middle East for most of his diplomatic career, serving in Tehran (1972-1976) and having charge of the State Department’s Iran desk during the revolution and hostage crisis. Blamed for the “loss” of Iran, he was blocked from an ambassadorial appointment by the late Senator Jesse Helms. He is the author of A Diplomat’s Progress: Ten Tales of Diplomatic Adventure in the Middle East.
We are grateful to Henry for letting us publish his analysis of Richard Haass’s Newsweek article. We will offer our own post shortly looking strategically at what we see as the folly of adopting regime change as the explicit goal of America’s Iran policy.
–Flynt and Hillary Leverett
From Henry Prect: Realism about American policy towards Iran ought to start with some awareness of the historical context. Two facts are paramount: First, the Iranian Revolution was, in good part, about gaining independence from foreign powers (i.e., the US and Britain). When Khamenei & Co. blame outsiders for the recent troubles they are undoubtedly speaking from a sincere (if mistaken) perspective and appealing to a fundamental tenet held by most Iranians (if not by those in exile). Second, American efforts over the years to influence Iran’s politics have almost always ended unhappily, reinforcing the fear and hatred of the “foreign hand.” Yes, there have been exceptions: the schools set up by missionaries (which didn’t have a primary political purpose) and the aid programs of the 1950s and 1960s (which did have liberalization in mind). But the negative moments have been more salient — Mossadeq and subsequent efforts to strengthen the Shah, Nixon/Kissinger excluding the Iranian people from their calculations, the assistance to Iraq during the 8-year war. Those are the episodes that define America’s role for many Iranians.
Arch realist Richard Haass is convinced the June election was fraudulent, that Iran is determined to build a nuclear weapon and that the regime’s opposition is close to making a second revolution. More modest realists might ask to see the evidence. They might inquire about the views of those folks who haven’t marched or gone on strike. They might speculate whether the Iranian regime is capable of reaching a compromise with its opponents, whether some give and take on both sides will not be necessary if Iran is to enjoy domestic peace. A modest and historically informed realist might think that one of the factors holding back a significant move towards compromise by the regime could be the feared perception that they were doing the bidding of foreigners or acting under their pressure.
Khamenei’s tentative gestures towards Moussavi should be given a chance to develop a bit, free of outside “help.” What Iran and the US need, I suggest, is a period of quiet, an absence of threats and artfully designed (and foolish) sanctions. Let Iran get on with resolving its tough political dilemma alone and uninterrupted. If Mr. Haass needs an outlet for his new and creative realism, he might look elsewhere in the region for countries which have nukes, oppress people or reject their right to elections, break international law and disregard the views of Washington. Complex and creative sanctions would not be necessary; imagination could be limited to limiting aid.
–Henry Precht, Bethesda, Maryland
Sorry, I missed that vital qualification in your post…even though you put it in caps!
Cheers
I agree it’s not likely. If it were likely, I wouldn’t spend time writing about the need to develop sane policies toward Iran and the Middle East as a whole!
Jon,
I agree that hypothetically, the US *could* have a relationship of mutual respect with Iran. But in cold reality, it is not likely.
Ask yourself the following questions.
1) Is the US prepared to accept Iran as the strongest nation in the middle east? With oil, natural gas, arable land, water, strategic location with a large land mass, and a large population with many well educated scientists and technicians? That is without a doubt, Iran’s potential if sanctions are lifted. Also, Iran might even have its own client state in Iraq, extending its power even further.
2) Is the US prepared to accept Iran as a nuclear power? Not necessarily with actual weapons, but with all the technology and resources to go that way at a time of their choosing.
If you believe the US is prepared to accept these things, what concessions do they want in return from Iran?
Your point about Germany not being a client state is well taken up to a point. It is clearly in Europe’s interest to invest in Iran’s oil and natural gas sectors so as not to be entirely dependent on Russia. Yet it does not. Why? Client states need not be as obvious as East Germany. Also, do a web search on Operation Gladio, the death of Aldo Moro to see if maybe, just maybe, the US does indeed interfere with politics of its semi-client states.
Also, The US avoids dealing with nations as equals whenever possible. As a super power it can often get away with that, but nevertheless, it is not the US’ choice. Why did the US distrust Putin but like Yeltsin? He dissolved the Duma with tanks after all. Not the act of a democrat.
In, summary, while the US can have relationships of equals when it needs to (Brazil, India), it prefers being in control in relationships whenever possible. It certainly demands it in the middle east where oil and Israel are involved.
If the US really to show support for the Iranian people, it would start off by dropping the sanctions on the sale of civilian aircraft parts to Iran, which according to a report by the ICAO is not only contrary to international law but needlessly endangers thousands of innocent people daily. How’s that for “realism”?
I disagree with kooshy’s idea that only a client Iran is acceptable to the U.S. U.S. and Iranian interests dovetail in so many respects that a mutually beneficial relationship between equals could be worked out. On the other hand, the majority of American movers and shakers don’t see things that way. So perhaps I should say that an equal partnership is THEORETICALLY possible, as well as desirable. It’s also rather foolish of kooshy to refer to the U.S.’s “western client states.” If Germany was a U.S. client state, it wouldn’t be selling billions of dollars worth of stuff to Iran. This sort of hyperbole tends to vitiate your argument, which is too bad.
Although it isn’t 100% of the story, it is true that the creation of Israel in 1948 warped U.S. policy toward the Middle East. General Marshall and Defense Secy. Forrestal were quite right to oppose Truman’s (political) decision to recognize Israel. At some point, I hope, the American people will elect a government that thinks first of American interests. For over 60 years we have been shaping policy based on Israeli and not American goals and interests.
Obama’s True Options in Iran: Beyond War and Sanctions
Whether Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize or not, he was given the award because of his new approach to the Middle East, including his strategy in Iran. Military intervention is the MO if the United States, but Obama and his commanders realize that open war in Iran is NOT a viable option. However, Obama has many options on his plate, including sanctions.
Obama realizes that sanctions in the past have not worked. Sanctions in Iran, in Cuba, and even sanctions against Iraq before the 2003 invasion, have not created the results that the United States would like. The first problem is that sanctions often hurt the poor more than the regime. The second problem is that not all nations cooperate with sanctions. The third problem is that those in power have a tenacious ability to get what they want, regardless of sanctions.
Obama has a new plan. He wants to target sanctions against the Iranian Republican Guard, Hamas, and Hezbollah. He has already clamped down on smuggling operations in the area, and he believes that if he follows this up with sanctions against the elites and the military arm of the regime, he can ease the pain of the common person while weakening the regime.
Obama and Hillary Clinton have also spoken often of the importance of supporting internet and communication freedom in places like China and Iran. Senator Richard Lugar has written about the importance of social media in dictatorial regimes. Obama can use the intelligence resources of the United States to outhack Iran, allowing the people of Iran to make their own decisions about the countries future, independant from government sanctions or direct Western intervention and Imperialism.
Read more about it at: James the Hype – Dissecting the News for a Curious World
http://jamesthehype.blogspot.com/2010/01/obamas-true-options-in-iran.html
taqieh:
if your last two sentences were directed at me, I should tell you that I was born in Iran after the revolution of 1979! indeed, I am in my late 20th!! anyhow, you can think of this minor flaw and draw the lines for you other sentences.
Mr Henry Precht gave a good start to this very short reply/comment to Richard Haass article. But after the first paragraph there is not much of substance. The only issues are not that the June election was fraudulent, nor that Iran is determined to build a nuclear weapon and not even that the regime’s opposition is close to making a second revolution. Assume all three are wrong since they may be speculative at this point. Some facts can’t be disputed though. First, politically this regime is a dictatorship, second the economic prospects and financial situation of the majority of the people is terrible and third, there is a growing widespread sense of judicial injustice. Thus, even if you dismiss all specific reasons to this uprising, you must be able to realise that we are on the way for a regime change with the blessing of the US government or without, with the recommendation of Richard Hass or without that of yours and your gracious host Mr. Leverett. When a nation rises against a regime standing on the three pillars of illegitimacy, injustice and corruption, it will be very hard to stop it. The more the regime tries, the more it will have to rely on the unstable structure of these three pillars. The insignificant influence and nuisance that the monarchists or the MEK or even the state of Israel may exert and have for the past 30 years, are neither a catalyst nor the eventual reason for the downfall of the Islamic Republic. And you, sir, may very well make the same error of judgement you made 30 years ago with HIM. The only difference is that you don’t risk destroying your carrer over it this time. I do hope you enjoyed our country and hospitality during your stay.
The problem is Israel, stupid
The Obama regime is penetrated from the top to bottom with Zionists in positions to influence every strategic decision relating to Iran and Middle East policy in general.
The evidence of Zionist control is overwhelming and the consequences are deadly to any ‘balanced’ negotiations with Iran.
This regime is not prepared to open serious negotiations with Iran, or to ‘broker’ an end of Israeli occupation of Palestine.
On the contrary, their close ties with the Israel Lobby and long-term commitment to Israeli militarism and expansionist policies ensure that the Obama regime will proceed toward collaboration with the Jewish State in confrontation with Iran.
USA and Israel will not allow any country in the Middle East to challenge Israel’s supremacy in the region.
Everyone on Obama’s team supported the Israeli carnage in Gaza and endorsed Israel’s efforts to destroy the democratically elected Hamas government and prop up the discredited and corrupt Abbas.
Israel lobby control the media and the world.
Israel is wiping Palestine off the map and committing genocide but there is no media outcry or condemnation from the west.
No leader of the western countries is able to condemn Israel because they are frightened of the influence and the power of Israel lobby.
Ahmadinejad was the only leader who publicly condemned Israel and rightly so.
This is the main reason why he is daily demonised by the western media. Fraudulent election or nuclear weapon is only an excuse.
No matter how many nuclear bombs Israel possesses,
No matter how many war crimes Israel commits,
No matter how many women and children Israel murders.
No matter how many Palestinians, Israel makes homeless.
No matter how many UN resolutions, Israel violates,
The USA and the European countries will not impose any sanctions against Israel but they are so eager to impose sanction against Iran.
If we destroy the power of “Israel lobby”, not only the negotiation with Iran would be possible but also this world will be a better place to live in.
I have just visited Iran; Tehran and some other cities and villages. any Iranian who really really thinks that the election was a fraud is either naive and uninformed or worse a racist (I have excluded those cases who know it wasn’t a fraud but for political reasons don’t endorse it; one would say the outcome is the same). he/she should be so dismissive not to see such an obvious different political and cultural taste or is surrounded by like-minded people. when I talked to those of my friends who didn’t accept the election result at the beginning, they have run out of the arguments within few minutes. I am surprised how disillusioned some high educated people of a nation can be.
these days’ events are different stories than the election episode. I am thinking what has gone wrong with people like Richard Haass, Ray Tekeyh, Suzanne Maloney…(the presumably realists) who came to the point of believing a “fraudulent election”‘ mantra like an heart heated ideologue.
Mr. Hass can knock himself out with another 50 articles and seminars in CFR regarding Iran’s nuclear program and how to stop them, but for sure he wouldn’t admit that this is not about the Nukes, or moping the Middle Eastern map, but rather it’s entirely about Iran’s independence in a region that all other countries are client states of the US. And we all know why that will create a problem for US interests in the region.
But the irony is that every Iranian including the Greens knows the facts, the past history of Iran US relations are in every Iranians mind. There is an Iranian proverb that says
“One who’s been bitten by a snake will be scared of a black and white rope”. Mr. Prect correctly points to where and why Iran’s and US interest are currently colliding.
The real facts are that an independent Iran is not in the interest of US and its western client states and they could not agree to anything less than an Iran that she is a client state of the western hegemonic powers, Mr. Hass correctly knows that Iran can’t be militarily invaded because the population will not accept a foreign military occupation the history of Iran is the proof of this, therefore the only way to reverse the Iranian Islamic revolution is a replacement with a new color revolution that brings a friendly puppet regime. But he out to know that Iranian’s already had their share of experienced with a color revolution, which was inspired by another US “Democratic” government, the color of that revolution was white it was then called the White Revolution and some say, that American prescribed revolution was one of the causes of the Islamic revolution of the later day. For sure that was the start of Ayatollah Khomeini protest against the Shah’s regime. Good luck Mr. Hass
I’m a realist and yes, I’d like to see the evidence. How does an outsider determine that the June election was fraudulent? What evidence is there that the Green movement is on the brink of success? If the gurus over at the CFR know something, they should share their evidence. The wish is the father of hope, from what I can see.
Now, on the nuclear issue, my personal opinion is that Iran wants the bomb, or at least wants to be able to go nuclear quickly if it so chooses. It has indeed been working toward that goal. I base this opinion on my observation of events and what I like to think is my realist view of human nature and state behavior informed by history. In any case, I agree with Haass on this point. But I say to Mr. Haass: So what? The U.S. has thousands of nuclear weapons and the most sophisticated delivery systems on earth. What difference does it make to America if Iran possesses one or two or twenty bombs? Deterrence will work if Iran gets the bomb; Zbig B. and the late General Odom made this point quite cogently in a Washington Post op-ed back in late May 2008. And deterrence would work for Israel as well.
Now, Haass and the CFR are no doubt worried that a nuclear Iran would compel other states in the region to go nuclear. Maybe so. But it seems to me seeking regime change is the wrong route to take on this matter. In the first place, there is little reason to believe regime change will work. Secondly, we have no assurance whatsoever that a more pro-Western Iran would eschew nulcear weapons. We would do better to guarantee the non-nuclear states in the region against Iran nuclear blackamail (the route we took with West Germany during the Cold War) than to chase the chimera of regime change in Iran. Even better, we could seek to engage Iran, and forge a mutually beneficial relationship between the two countries, rather as that arch-realist Richard Nixon did with China. U.S.-Iranian friendship is the best safeguard against any danger of proliferation (to terrorists or others) stemming from the Iranian program.
The boys and girls over at the CFR are supposed to be smart. They ought to try thinking about our real interests in the region. In fact there is but one: access for the American people and economy to the oil and gas reserves located there. That is the alpha and omega of U.S. interests in the Middle East and Central Asia. Pursuing that interest does NOT require regime change in Iran. We’d all welcome a Green victory in Iran, but we would be foolish to undertake a dicey effort to effect that change ourselves. No American interest requires us to do this.
The CFR is still living in the pre-Bush 43 world of America the world hegemeon — the America of a balanced budget, full employment, and a military yet to be stretched and worn by interminable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CFRers are going to find, perhaps quite soon, that they no longer have the means — in terms of military power, money, or public support — to play the great game in distant lands.