As we noted yesterday, Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass has attracted considerable attention with an opinion piece in Newsweek entitled, “Enough is Enough: Why We Can No Longer Remain on the Sidelines in the Struggle for Regime Change in Iran”. As we reflected on Richard’s arguments, we recalled another high profile piece of policy advocacy, in which Richard was centrally involved, that also employed the repeated “usage” of the word “enough” to underscore America’s determination to remove a Middle Eastern leadership deemed too problematic to tolerate any further: “How much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq’s noncompliance before we, as a council, we, as the United Nations, say: ‘Enough. Enough’.”
That quote is from Secretary of State Colin Powell’s now infamous February 5, 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council, making the case for coercive regime change in Iraq. Richard, who was then serving as Powell’s Director of Policy Planning, had an important role in helping his boss prepare for the presentation. Powell’s speech to the Security Council did much to facilitate the herd-like rush to support the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq—one of the biggest debacles in post-World War II American foreign policy. Of course, the presentation turned out to have been based on faulty, incorrect, and, in some cases, downright fraudulent intelligence as well as wholly unrealistic assumptions guiding the analysis of that intelligence. Now, the man who was Powell’s principal policy advisor during the preparation of that speech tells us, regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran, that, once again, “Enough is Enough.”—the United States and its international partners should adopt regime change as the explicit objective of their Iran policy.
In his book, War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars, Richard described his position on the 2003 invasion of Iraq as being only “60/40 against going to war”—even though, before President George W. Bush took office, Richard had been one of the few prominent Republican foreign policy experts arguing against adopting regime change as the objective American policy towards Iraq. Looking back on his service in the George W. Bush administration, Richard writes, “Had I known then what I know now, that Iraq no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction, then it would have become a 90/10 decision against the war, and in that circumstance I would have left had the president gone ahead all the same.”
Against that backdrop, what would Richard say about adopting regime change as the goal of American policy toward Iran if he knew that the outcome of the Islamic Republic’s June 2009 presidential election was not stolen? The basis for Richard’s claim that the election had to have been stolen is eerily similar to the arguments in 2002-03 to justify claims that Saddam had to have WMD: “There’s no other explanation for why the [Iranian government] would have reacted in such a heavy handed manner. If they had the ballots on their side, they could have wrapped themselves in the cloak of democracy…Why would the regime act with the haste and secrecy and heavy handedness if they didn’t have to?” (All of us should recall that, in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, advocates of coercive regime change frequently argued that, if Saddam did not have WMD, he would surely come clean and cooperated with international inspectors to resolve the issue.)
What would Richard say about pursuing regime change in Iran if he knew that the Green Movement did not represent a majority of Iranian society? Richard seems very certain in his judgments about contemporary Iranian politics—a subject about which Henry Precht wisely counseled caution in yesterday’s post —but presents far less evidence in support of those judgments than Secretary Powell presented to the Security Council in support of his (utterly erroneous) judgments about Saddam Hussein’s WMD capabilities.
In keeping with his realist credentials, Richard acknowledges in his current Newsweek piece that “the United States must…work with undemocratic China to rein in North Korea and with autocratic Russia to reduce each side’s nuclear arsenal.” Why does the United States not also need to work with the Islamic Republic to put the strategically vital Middle East on a more stable trajectory? Richard asserts that nuclear diplomacy with Iran is “going nowhere”. But that is not a reason for pursuing regime change—rather, that is a reason for the Obama Administration to make a serious offer, which it has yet to do.
Beyond the nuclear issue, the Obama Administration has declined to address Tehran’s repeated expressions of interest in a “comprehensive framework” for U.S.-Iranian negotiations. How does Richard think that the United States will be able to achieve any of its high priority objectives in the Middle East—Arab-Israeli peace, post-conflict stabilization in Iraq and Afghanistan, curbing WMD proliferation, assuring adequate supplies of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf to international energy markets, etc.—without a more positive and productive relationship with the Islamic Republic?
Richard’s Newsweek article is likely to do real damage to American interests in Iran and the Middle East more broadly. It is altogether too easy to imagine him being asked to testify to Congress on behalf of a new “Iran Liberation Act.” This is especially ironic because, in 1998, Richard had the insight and political courage to oppose passage of the Iraq Liberation Act. But the measures that he now recommends vis-à-vis Iran are strikingly reminiscent of key elements of the Iraq Liberation Act. That law’s stated purpose was “to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.” It roundly criticized Iraq for having ignored UN Security Council resolutions. More specifically, the Iraq Liberation Act authorized the president to support Iraqi opposition groups with broadcasting and humanitarian assistance. (It also authorized the president to provide military training and equipment to Iraqi oppositionists, although Richard does not advocate a similar initiative for Iranian oppositionists in his Newsweek piece.) While the law explicitly did not grant the president authority to use military force to achieve regime change in Iraq, two months after the Iraq Liberation Act was passed, then President Clinton launched Operation Dessert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign against Iraqi targets. Four years later, President George W. Bush used the Iraq Liberation Act as part of his campaign to lay the groundwork for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Following Richard Haass’s advice today will put the United States on a path toward a similarly misguided and counterproductive policy course.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Jon: We all feel that.
One should ask Mr. Hass if his recommendations is in compliance with the Algiers Accord, or our holly super power state has reached such a point in world envied one and only democracy that we can ignore our treaties and accords at the willing and choosing and in the name of our holly democracy. It sounds that the forging policy planers of this country are angry and our speaking out of anger and not wisdom that is going to lead us to more trouble that we are in now.
In 2005,…. Ahmadinejad defeated Hashemi-Rafsanjani with a massive majority; there was no accusation of vote rigging.
In 2007,….Bush ordered covert operation to divide and destabilize Iran and authorized $400 million dollar to finance a regime change.
In 2009,… Ahmadinejad won again with massive majority, But the US and its allies accused him of vote rigging without producing a shred of evidence to back up their claim.
The vast majority of Iranian people still support the regime and the opposition’s supporters are clearly the minority. This is the reality in Iran today.
This reality is almost impossible to stomach “For the western government, their media and the supporters of the opposition in Iran”, hence, they resort to lies and propaganda and allegations of vote rigging to demonize the regime.
In my opinion Professor James Petras‘s analysis is the most credible. I urge everyone, particularly the Iranians to read it.
Here is an extract:
In Iran, Washington resorts to covert operations to destabilize or overthrow incumbent President who do not support the US policies.
The covert and not-so-invisible operation in Iran found expression in a failed
electoral challenge followed by ‘mass street demonstrations’ cantered on the claim that the electoral victory of the incumbent anti-imperialist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a result of ‘electoral fraud’.
Western mass media played a major role during the electoral campaign exclusively providing favourable coverage of the opposition and negative accounts
of the incumbent regime.
The mass media blanketed the ‘news’ with pro-demonstrator propaganda, selectively presenting coverage to de-legitimize the elections and elected officials, echoing the charges of ‘fraud’.
The propaganda success of the US-orchestrated destabilization campaign even found an echo among broad sections of what passes for the US ‘left’ who ignored the massive, coordinated US financing of key Iranian groups and politicos engaged in the street protests.
Neo-conservative, liberal and itinerant leftist ‘freelance journalists’, like Reese Erlich, defended the destabilization effort from their own particular vantage point as ‘a popular democratic movement against electoral fraud.’
The right/left cheerleaders of US destabilization projects fail to address several key
explanatory factors:
1. None, for example, discuss the fact that several weeks before and after the election a rigorous survey conducted by two US pollsters revealed an electoral outcome very near to the actual voting result, including in the ethnic provinces where the opposition claimed fraud.
2. None of the critics discussed the $400 million dollars allocated by the Bush
Administration to finance regime change in Iran, domestic destabilization and cross border terror operations.
Many of the students and ‘civil society’ NGO’s in the demonstrations received
funding from overseas foundations and NGO’s – which in turn were funded by the US government.
3. The charge of electoral fraud was cooked up after the results of the vote count
were announced.
In the entire run-up to the election, especially when the opposition
believed they would win the elections – neither the student protesters nor the Western mass media nor the freelance journalists claimed impending fraud.
During the entire day of voting, with opposition party observers at each polling place, no claims of voter intimidation or fraud were noted by the media, international observers or left backers of the opposition.
Opposition party observers were present to monitor the entire vote count and yet, with only rare exception, no claims of vote rigging were made at the time. In fact, with the exception of one dubious claim by free-lance journalist Reese Erlich, none of the world’s media claimed ballot box stuffing. And even Erlich’s claims were admittedly based on unsubstantiated ‘anecdotal accounts’ from anonymous sources among his contacts in the opposition.
4. During the first week of protests in Tehran, the US, EU and Israeli leaders did not question the validity of the election outcome. Instead, they condemned the regime’s repression of the protestors. Clearly their well-informed embassies and intelligence operative provided a more accurate and systematic assessment of the Iranian voter preferences than the propaganda spun by the Western mass media and the useful idiots among the Anglo-American left.
5. The US-backed electoral and street opposition in Iran was designed to push to the limits a destabilization campaign, with the intention of rolling back Iranian influence in the Middle East, undermining Tehran’s opposition to US military intervention in the Gulf, its occupation of Iraq and, above all, Iran’s challenge to Israel’s projection of military power in the region.
Anti-Iran propaganda and policy making has been heavily influenced for
years on a daily basis by the entire pro-Israel power configuration in the US. This includes the 51 Presidents of the Major America Jewish Organizations with over a million members and several thousand full-time functionaries, scores of editorial writers and commentators dominating the opinion pages of the influential Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times as well as the yellow tabloid press.
Obama’s policy of roll back of Iranian influence counted on a two-step process:
Supporting a coalition of clerical dissidents, pro-Western liberals, dissident democrats and right-wing surrogates of the US. Once in office, Washington would push the dissident clerics toward alliances with their strategic allies among pro-Western liberals and rightists, who would then shift policy in accordance with US imperial and Israeli colonial interests by cutting off support for Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Venezuela, the Iraqi resistance and embrace the pro-US Saudi-Iraqi–Jordan-Egypt clients.
In other words, Obama’s roll back policy is designed to relocate Iran to the pre-1979 political alignment.
Mr Haass makes a big mistake when he says: “There’s no other explanation for why the [Iranian government] would have reacted in such a heavy handed manner. If they had the ballots on their side, they could have wrapped themselves in the cloak of democracy…Why would the regime act with the haste and secrecy and heavy handedness if they didn’t have to?”
More than 700.000 people were involved in the election (high transparency), Mr Mousavi first claims fraud and than gave the order to his headquarter for finding the evidence (what a joke), he had lean 40.000 observers in the polling station (more than any other candidates) and the guardian council is required to give the candidates 10 days time for complaints, he could not deliver, so supreme leader extent it to 15 days and met his representatives, and again no evidence.
The first Interview to BBC from his wife after the election is very informative, she said, how is it possible that the Azeris didn’t elect their son Mousavi (he is Azeri) and how is it possible that the Loris didn’t elect their daughter in law (she is Lori). Wow what a fantastic analysis and evidence. First of all in the election before (2005) only 22 % of the Azeris voted for the only Azeri (Mehralizadeh) among the candidates, further Iranians haven’t voted according ethnic criteria long ago. Second why she suddenly switch and did not say why the Loris did not elect their son Rezaei and Karoubi, both of them are Lori. Sorry Mr Haass your analysis produced due to the lack of profound information.Because besides all this effort described above, the guardian council went further and recount randomly the votes of 10 % of the polls though they are not required per law. What would the regime else to do? It is interesting that Mr Mousavi did not even call for recounting all votes, he called for a commission about investigating the circumstances during the election campaign. Hey man wake up, this election had a TV debate for the first time. You mentor Chatami, the other reformer, had not this as he wanted to be reelected.
I don’t see that what Haass had to say will move the Chinese at all . . . .
Mr. Hass’s article was not for Americans or Iranians consumption it was for Chinas consumption so they would ease up on agreeing with more sanctions. Imagine head of the leading foreign policy TT advocating regime change is more like continuation of Mr. Obama’s warning to Chinese that he may not be able to hold off the Israelis if they want to go it alone. Mr. Hass is” talking to the door so the wall hears” that is another Persian proverb for those you who want to understand how the Iranians will interpolate
this article. Without UN sanctions China will buy Iranian oil and if China buys so does Japan and if Japan buys so does Germany. One can conclude an Iranian client state of US/West is not in China’s best interest, unless Mr. Hass can prove the contrary, this bird wouldn’t fly.
I am not sure Mr.Haass really believes the notion of “fraudulent election” or he does express this notion deliberately. and I am also not, as an Iranian, in the position to say attacking Iran is in the U.S interests are not. however, what is obvious is this: the U.S can’t occupy Iran for obvious reasons (I can’t remember the U.S has ever occupied a country with that size and population in her whole history). and let’s take Haass’s words serious about the regime’s instability. in the absence of occupation option, Iran’s current rulers, unlike the Shah’s regime, if threaten to the point of such an instability, have the luxury of time to slam the door, go from a de-facto nuclear capability to a de-jure one, and conduct a nuclear test, and subsequently guarantee the regime, in a nationalistic society like Iran, for at least a decade or so. I don’t think, except Israel, any other government or any democratic seeking groups, not for sure the U.S and Iran itself would benefit from this scenario.
From my limited experience, apart from northen tehran and some university students (students who are mostly from high strata of Iran society), it’s like a joke to talk about fraud in that scale in the election. in each region, people know the results of all ballot boxes. they don’t necessarily need to be in the streets. they are busy with their economical situation and at some point tired of this prolonged crises. I have found many people in the northen tehran very ideological.it’s very hard to talk to them about political stuff. for example, when you go to a bakery, few of them speak loudly, condemn everybody…and at the same time they think the silent ones are with them! it’s easily recognizable who was watching satellites TV too much the night before! and yet these people think they are the sophisticated ones.
many of my friends and some of family members didn’t vote for Ahmadinejad and they don’t like him either. however, their demand is not election results. what many of them say are actually legitimate demands. they are critical of overreaction to the protests by the government and unknown militia, want the state TV be open and attractive, equal economical opportunities and less discrimination, more open newspapers…. in any case, I have found political dialogue in cities other than tehran more mature compare to places like northen tehran.
Walt is making the same arguments in Foreign Policy. I feel there is a movement toward confrontation and perhaps war. I’m not clear on how coordinated it is. The NYT Christmas Eve op-ed, Haass’ piece, the efforts in Congress — taken together they indicate to me that a push is underway to get this country to “solve the Iran problem.” I think there is a belief in some quarters that Obama can be pushed or carried along into taking the actions that people like Haass advocate. Obama agreeing to most of the military’s wants in Afghanistan has inspired the hardliners on Iran, I think.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy-monger, and perhaps I’m wrong, but my instincts tell me that there are workings behind the scenes, workings that surface publicly in things like Haass’ Newsweek piece. I’d be interested to know of anyone else feels this way.