The absence of US-Iranian rapprochement will perpetuate the new Middle Eastern Cold War, imposing costs on the United States, Iran and other regional and international players. However, in strategic terms, the heaviest costs of continued US-Iranian estrangement are likely to be borne by the United States. In particular, lack of productive relations with Tehran will contribute significantly to Washington’s failure to achieve important policy objectives in the Middle East, thereby conditioning further erosion of America’s regional standing and influence.
This is the most important, “bottom-line” conclusion of our most recent article, “The United States, Iran, and the Middle East’s New ‘Cold War’” , just published in The International Spectator. The article argues that U.S.-Iranian relations “need to be analyzed and understood not only in terms of their bilateral dynamics, but also in their strategic context.” More specifically, we argue that “the relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic both shapes and is shaped by the new Middle Eastern Cold War”:
“As the new regional Cold War plays out, analysts suggest different scenarios for how the ongoing strategic competition between the United States and Iran will evolve. Some, like former Germany Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, see this competition as a struggle for regional hegemony in the Middle East comparable to that in late nineteenth century Europe following German unification; from this perspective, Fischer warns that, without careful handling, tensions between the United States and the Islamic Republic could ultimately erupt in a large-scale military confrontation. Others, like Fareed Zakaria, believe that the United States and its regional and international partners will move inexorably toward a posture of containing and deterring the Islamic Republic and its allies, in a manner reminiscent of the West’s Cold War posture toward the Soviet Union.”
“Against the backdrop of these scenarios, we argue that the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran should transcend the prospects for hegemonial war of strategic standoff and seek a fundamental realignment of their relations, in a manner similar to the realignment in relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China during Richard Nixon’s tenure in the White House. We further argue that such a fundamental realignment of US-Iranian relations can only be achieved through a comprehensive rapprochement between Washington and Tehran.”
On the Iranian side of the equation, we note that, “like the emergence of the Middle East’s new Cold War, the Islamic Republic’s rise has occurred during a still ongoing period of tectonic shifts in the region’s strategic environment”:
“These shifts include the effective collapse of the traditional Arab-Israeli peace process, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the rise of Hezbollah and Hamas as political actors in their national and regional contexts, the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and subsequent Israeli military campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza, structural changes in global energy markets and a tremendous transfer of wealth to major Middle Eastern energy producers. All of these shifts are playing out against what is increasingly perceived, in the Middle East and elsewhere, as a decline in America’s relative power and influence.”
We note that, after President Ahmadinejad’s election in 2005, “the Islamic Republic was able to take advantage of these developments to effect a significant boost in its own regional standing.” But, we also note that a critical mass of Iranian elites, cutting across the Islamic Republic’s factional spectrum, continues to recognize that
“the Islamic Republic has basic national security and foreign policy needs which can only be met—or, only optimally met—through rapprochement with Washington. And, over the course of [the last 20 years], Iranian decision-makers have come to believe that the only reliable way to effect such a rapprochement is by forging a comprehensive set of strategic understandings with Washington.”
After tracing the evolution of the Islamic Republic’s post-1989 foreign policy toward the United States and other great powers, we take on some of the more common—and also more distorted and damaging—portrayals of Iranian foreign policy in the West:
“There has always been a current in Western analyses of Iranian politics that sees the Islamic Republic as too ideologically constrained and/or politically fractious to pursue a strategic opening to the United States. From this perspective a determinative portion of the Iranian leadership sees opposition to rapprochement with Washington as critical to regime legitimation and a weapon to use against political opponents. Since the Islamic Republic’s 12 June 2009 presidential election, such arguments have gained greater prominence in Western discussions of Iranian politics. But the historical record of the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy since 1989 strongly suggests that this view is fundamentally mistaken.”
Notwithstanding an increasing interest in Tehran in forging closer ties to major Eastern powers—China, India, Russia—Iranian foreign continue “to be attracted by the prospective benefits of rapprochement with the United States.” To be sure, Iran does not want rapprochement with the United States at any price and, at this point, wants to define, a priori, a “comprehensive framework” for any sustained US-Iranian dialogue—
“a framework that would be clearly oriented toward fundamentally realigning US-Iranian relations, addressing the Islamic Republic’s security interests, recognising its regional role, and normalizing its international relations.” But, “even after the 2009 presidential election, there continues to be a critical mass of Iranian elites, cutting across the Islamic Republic’s factional spectrum, that is interested in rapprochement with the United States, within the parameters discussed above.”
On the American side, we argue that, “from an interest-based perspective, the imperatives for comprehensive realignment of US-Iranian relations are as compelling for Washington as they are for Tehran”:
“Looking ahead, how Washington deals with the Islamic Republic has become, in the context of the Middle East’s new Cold War, the primary litmus test for the future of America’s regional position. At this point in the evolution of the Middle East’s balance of power and geopolitical influence, the United States cannot achieve any of its high-priority objectives in the region—reaching negotiated settlements to the unresolved tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict, stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, containing terrorist threats from violent jihadi extremists, curbing nuclear proliferation, putting Lebanon on a more stable trajectory and ensuring an adequate long-term flow of oil and natural gas to international energy markets—absent a productive strategic relationship with Iran.”
Against this backdrop, we take on some of the more frequently-heard criticisms of our analogy between the reorientation of American policy toward China undertaken by President Nixon during the early 1970s and what we believe is the optimal course for America’s Iran policy today:
“Some observers question the parallel between the policy challenges confronting Nixon regarding China and those confronting decision-makers today regarding Iran, arguing that there was an immediate Cold War rationale for US-China rapprochement (to “triangulate” against the Soviet Union) that is absent in the Iranian case…Such a [perspective] defines both Nixon’s accomplishment vis-à-vis China and the contemporary challenge of Iran too narrowly. The primary impetus for US-China rapprochement was not a common enemy, but the need to align US and Chinese interests to deal with an array of strategic challenges; that is why the relationship established by Nixon and his Chinese counterparts has become even more important in the post-Cold War era. And, as with China in the 1970s, the United States today cannot address some of its most important foreign policy problems without a strategic opening to Iran.”
Not surprisingly, we argue that,
“to achieve this, Washington needs to pursue a genuinely comprehensive and strategic approach to diplomacy with Tehran. Such an approach would be grounded in a reaffirmation of America’s commitment in the Algiers Accord not to interfeere in Iran’s internal affairs and in the prospect of a US guarantee not to use force to change the borders of form of government of the Islamic Republic. It would seek to resolve major bilateral differences and channel Iran’s exercise of its regional influence in support of US interests and policies.” We note though that, “unfortunately, the United States—even with the Obama administration in office—has yet to pursue such an approach.”
Why has the United States—even under the Obama administration—not moved more purposefully to embrace comprehensive engagement with Tehran, aimed at a fundamental realignment of relations? We acknowledge that “part of the answer lies in domestic politics”. But
“a larger part of the explanation, in our view, lies in ongoing confusion among American foreign policy elites about two critical questions: The first of these questions is the relative stability/fragility of the Islamic Republic’s political order…The second of these questions is whether Tehran’s national security and foreign policy strategies are designed to resist aspects of US hegemony that threaten Iranian interests and regional prerogatives or to replace American hegemony in the Middle East with Iranian hegemony.”
We, of course, offer what we believe are clear and compelling answers to these questions. But,
“in the absence of intellectual consensus on these critical questions—or a clear presidential choice to deal with the Islamic Republic as it its presently constituted and seek rapprochement based on a balance of US and Iranian interests—US policy toward Iran has been and will remain, at best, incoherent.”
We conclude with a forecast that,
“because of the intellectual confusion and policy incoherence described above, US efforts to encourage internal liberalization and contain perceived Iranian threats will continue to undercut the credibility, in Iranian eyes, of whatever attempts Washington makes to engage diplomatically. And, thus, the United States—even under the Obama administration—will continue to fall short of the Islamic Republic’s minimum threshold for determining that Washington is finally serious about rapprochement.”
And that brings us to the closing passage that we cited at the outset of this piece:
“The absence of US-Iranian rapprochement will perpetuate the new Middle Eastern Cold War, imposing costs on the United States, Iran and other regional and international players. However, in strategic terms, the heaviest costs of continued US-Iranian estrangement are likely to be borne by the United States. In particular, lack of productive relations with Tehran will contribute significantly to Washington’s failure to achieve important policy objectives in the Middle East, thereby conditioning further erosion of America’s regional standing and influence.”
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Some observers question the parallel between the policy challenges confronting Nixon regarding China and those confronting decision-makers today regarding Iran, arguing that there was an immediate Cold War rationale for US-China rapprochement (to “triangulate” against the Soviet Union) that is absent in the Iranian case.
How about US-China rivalry today?
Fiorangela,
Maybe Clawson is an idiot after all. Iran does not need the US to flourish as an industrial power in its own right. The talent and resources obviously are to hand.
Germany was doing a great deal of business with Iran, until Aipac and its stooges in the US Congress intervened.
James Canning – Pirouz 2wrote this in the Iran Nuclear Target thread:
“3) It is not just Iran! Eversince 1970’s the West has been trying very hard to make the third world believe that development and advancement in technology without the support of the West is IMPOSSIBLE. That has been their biggest weapon in forcing the peripheral countries into submission! What happens if Iran manages to make even MODEST advancements in technology against the will of the West? ”
this is the essence of Clawson’s argument, with respect to economic development:
“development and advancement in economic/capitalist/financial/international trade without the support of the West is IMPOSSIBLE.”
Clawson did his research during the reign of the shah, when Iran WAS the puppet of the US and Israel, one might say almost as much of a piggy bank for Israel, at least, as Iran was a piggy bank for Great Britain from 1914 to 1953. US and Israel had extensive investment in and involvement with Iran in financial, commercial, and especially military armaments procurement. Clawson argues that US (Western) penetration of a nation is the touchstone, the reality that makes possible a nations emergence as a global capitalist power.
As Clawson explains, the style of capitalism he considered, the Marxist definitions NOT Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations version, by its nature demands constant expansion and creates a SOCIAL relationship of domination of the capitalist over the capitalized state.
Just as Pirouz 2 said with respect to technological development, so Iran seeks to do with its financial and economic development future: Iran seeks to develop itself according to Islamic Shari’ia principles. A core distinction between Shari’ia finance and the Marxist model, or the model of present-day global capitalism, in any event, is in the area of interest rates and collecting interest, and of central banking. These comments are merely pointing in the direction of where the differences lie. I am not sufficiently versed in economic theory to spell out the exact areas of conflict.
What I do know is that Obama’s nuclear statement, with its attendant threat to Iran, should be understood as the United States government waving a red flag declaring, “WE ARE BANKRUPT!” The nukes policy statement has less to do with Iran’s nuclear posture than with the US’s extremely serious financial illness and the implications of US economic depression on the dollar as the medium of exchange for a worldwide petro-dollar economy.
Several days ago Tim Geithner returned from a visit to China and said he would NOT pressure China to realign the valuation of its currency at this time. My guess is that Geithner’s main mission was to get China on board the Iran sanctions boat, China remained ambivalent, so Geithner is holding his thunder pending further developments.
The US desperately needs trade with Iran to survive, and make no mistake, the US economy is on a deathbed; I suspect the US is in worse shape than the depression. Zionism will not permit the US to permit Iran to function under a system that Rothschild would not be proud of. Be aware that Israel is a zionist project; as discussed with Jon Harrison, zionism is NOT the equivalent of Jewishness. Know also that the wealthiest 2000 zionists in the world have the ability to compel the US economy to do its bidding. (nb. I’ve never read Protocols of Elders of Zion; I’m just gathering facts and making connections and observations.) Among other things, zionism is posited on the predatory capitalist model: Herzl’s zionist vision did not get off the ground for ten years, until the Rothschilds invested in the vision and the land.
I hope this little community that is developing can explore together, and educate one another, in the nexus between Iran-nukes and Iran’s form of capitalist development. The fact that the Clarion Fund is producing another media assault on Iran,
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/03/27/clarion-fund-mystery-donor-to-inject-millions-in-november-elections-throgh-iran-mushroom-cloud-propaganda-film/
the advertising of which resembles the alarming mushroom cloud image the Leveretts used on the Iran as Nuclear Target thread, makes me think there is an all out effort to “Shock and Awe” Iran into economic submission (read Naomi Klein, “Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”). Clarion Fund is the group that finances the zionist website AISH.com and that financed the production and distribution of the hateful DVD ‘Obsession’ about a year ago.
James – I’m going to have to do more reading before discussing Clawson’s notions; I may have allowed my determination to dislike him color my understanding of his writing. Apologies for misleading you; right now, fall back and punt…
Iranian,
Three foolish US Senators spoke at the Aipac conference, and called for a crushing American military attack on Iran. These idiots were: Chuch Schumer (D- New York), Evan Bayh (D – Indiana), and Lindsey Graham (R – South Carolina). Aipac stooges in the US Congress are so numerous, it would be an effort to list them all.
Fiorangela,
There are many idiots in the foreign policy arena, who are intelligent. Does Clawson think Iran is unwilling to do business with western business interests? Why all the malarkey about “capitalism” as if this were still the 1960s?
Winep promotes the insane “Greater Israel” notion, and pushes propaganda along the lines of: Why do the Palestinians need to have Palestine, when they can just hijack Jordan? King Hussein was always worried the Israelis would try to drive the remaining Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan. The truly loony Christian Zionists promote this idea.
An alliance of lobbyists and activists linked to unpopular Arab regimes, Israel, and the western backed greens, are doing whatever possible to keep tensions between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States as high as possible. Not only are these people in reality hurting the US while it’s rivals are on the rise, but also their efforts may actually lead the two countries towards military conflict.
James, No, Clawson is not an idiot; it’s doubtless because he IS intelligent, speaks Farsi (taught by Haleh Esfandiari), and was familiar with Marxist and predatory capitalist thinking, that he was ’seduced to the dark side.’ WINEP pays him well, I assume, and he publishes and speaks frequently. But friends of mine in DC tell me he is an outsider in every policy/academic/scholarly community: he’s made a Faustian bargain and it appears to have cost him if not his soul, then at least a place to belong (see Hafez).
I first encountered Clawson shortly after I had viewed “Gandhi,” the grand film with Ben Kingsley. Clawson is a tall, lanky red-head (carrots and sticks!) and I was struck with his physical as well as ideological resemblance to Gen. Reginald Dyer, commander of Her Majesty’s troops when they fired upon civilians trapped in Jallianwalla garden in Amritsar.
Hussein Guissi,
American military and foreign policy leaders in the late 1940s recognized that Israel was or could easily be a millstone around the neck of the US, weakening America. The potential problem is grown exponentially, and “protecting” Israel is costing the US tens of billions of dollars per year. This fact, of course, is carefully concealed from the ignorant mass of the American public.
Israel needs to blend into its neighborhood now. Not starting in twenty years, or thity. Now. This means accepting the Arab League peace plan. (With some changes.)
Fiorangela,
Is Patrick Clawson an idiot? Normal relations between the US and Iran would be extremely beneficial to American business interests. The perversion of US policy toward Iran is the continuing achievement of Aipac and other organizations openly working against the best interests of the American people.
Hussain Guiassi, thank you for writing:
“Persian poet Hafez says:
The key to success is devotion and dedication to your friends and behvaing with restrain/respect with your enemies.”
The work of economist Adam Smith was discussed recently.
http://www.booktv.org/Program/11322/Discussion+of+Adam+Smiths+The+Wealth+of+Nations.aspx
Smith was first a moral philosopher, then the preeminent thinker on economics. He maintained that the goal of economic security was to facilitate human happiness, and that the greatest measure of the “wealth of nations” and human happiness was the richness of one’s friendships. Smith and Hafez had a lot in common.
Smith’s capitalism is distinct from what I call predatory capitalism; the Chicago school/Friedmanomics which emphasized consumerism, is one, recent manifestation of predatory capitalism.
Patrick Clawson is the ‘go to’ guy when one seeks to demonize Iran. His dissertation is titled, “Internationalization of Capital in the Middle East;” Iran is the first of the Middle East nations Clawson studies.
The dissertation opens by describing elements of the Marxist theory of capital:
“…Marx showed the ‘capital is more than a money sum or a machine good. ‘Capital’ is also a social relationship: a relationship of domination between…the capitalist who controls the means of production… and…the worker who must work for the capitalist in order to stay alive. Capitalist social relations reproduce themselves: at the end of the period of production, the capitalist remains the owner…and the worker has no means of supporting himself except to return to work for the capitalist.”
Clawson explains that his analysis will attempt to relate the Marxist theory of inexorable expansion of capitalism [and, consonant social domination]to “pre-capitalist” and “backward” countries with the concepts of “economic development” of those same “backward countries,” all in order to bring about the “successive overcoming of the barriers to capital’s self-expansion on a world scale….the growth of world trade, of foreign investment, of multinational corporations.”
Clawson’s words provide a glimpse into the intent of the “bomb Iran” faction. That intent is the economic and social domination of Iranian natural and human resources and capital, to serve the insatiable demands of the expansion of predatory capitalism. Iran’s nuclear program is a pretext for setting in motion the agenda of social and economic domination of Iran for the benefit of worldwide predatory capitalists, just as WMD was the pretext for initiating the Shock and Awe (Shock Doctrine) campaign against Iraq.
Even if most Americans –and doubtless many American political leaders– are blissfully ignorant of this hidden agenda, Iran’s leaders understand it keenly, and contend among themselves how best to respond to it. The nature of Iran’s response to the siren song-cum-war drum of predatory capitalism is yet another dynamic that must be considered in evaluating the Green Movement.
By historical time factor I mean that all the empires up to now have fallen. USA as the current superpower will not last for ever neither. This is why Israel needs to change policies because in the end they will have to live alone in peace with their geographical neighbours. They have no other option. But Israel does not give the slightest attention to this because they think only short term and in terms of force and domination. They need to get out of this mental trap and think about making peace and give some respect to palestinians and their other neighbours. Persian poet Hafez says:
The key to success is devotion and dedication to your friends and behvaing with restrain/respect with your enemies. Israel is doing neither.
As for Iran, unless USA drops several A bombs on it and invade it, it will continue to progress.
Hussain Guiassi,
By historical time factor, are you referring to the fact Israel is doomed as a “Jewish” state if it fails to end the occupation? Or is it a reference to the fact Iran will continue to develop economically, even if Israel and the US continue their effort to interfere?
Fiorangela,
Yes, my comment was an understatement! Great post. Regarding Israeli supplies of arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, it is amusing to recall that the US sent a general to meet with King Hussein of Jordan, to press on him the need to enforce an arms embargo against Iran. The next day (if I recall correctly), the scandal erupted, exposing the US supplying of arms to Iran! Arranged by the Israelis, of course.
Eric A. Brill,
Iran has proposed restoration of normal relations between the US and Iran, meaning reopening of the respective embassies. Iran also wants a direct air connection, New York/Tehran. To me, the failure of the Obama administration to reopen the embassies and allow the air connection, is disappointing but not surprising.
USA and Israel are on the loosing side of the equation, if you take historical time factor into account. Iran has always herlped jews, well before the creation of State of Israel and after! I suppose all these problems are because israelis are not familiar with etiquettes because they do not thank for the services received!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE
That is exactly all Iran ever aimed for, even during the Dr, Etemad period, Iran has reached that point, this is now an open secret , nothing illegal with having the option.
Fiorangela,
A Japan equivalent is exactly what I’d like to see.
Eric
thanks, Eric Brill.
I suppose I would temper my response a bit: Iran with Japanese-style nuclear option seems inevitable and acceptable. Iran submitted proposals to the US as far back as 2007, I believe, indicating that it was willing to submit to intrusive inspections and other measures whereby it would conduct its nuclear program with oversight from IAEA that would be head-and-shoulders above what other nuclear powers submit to.
Fiorangela,
I haven’t yet read the pieces at the links you listed, though I will. But if you’re saying the US should want Iran to develop nuclear bombs to contain Israel, then we do disagree on this one (rare, since I usually agree with what you write). My basic position on Iran’s nuclear program is: nuclear power, by all means; bombs, no.
Eric Brill wrote: “but I believe most or all of us share a strong desire to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. ”
Count me out, Eric.
Israel is out of control.
In my view, Israel needs to be contained, the US is an enabler of Israeli psychopathology — ie. US politicians are equally as irrational as Israeli leaders thus are incapable of controlling/containing Israel. Only Iran acts rationally and strategically. An Iran with nuclear power is the only defense US forces in the region have against an intransigent Israel.
Leverage the crisis
At this time, Israel has opportunity to seize the moment, secure its future
and
www dot jpost dot com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=172317 Israel should get off its knees and adopt policies that will enhance its interests
James Canning — this quite understates the relationship between Israel and Iran under the shah:
“The US – – especially the inside-the-Beltway crowd – – loved the Shah, and a powerful Iran posed little or no problem whatever. Why? Because the Shah did not make verbal attacks on Israel.”
In fact, Israel had very close, and lucrative, relations with the shah. Mossad trained SAVAK; Israelis were ubiquitous in Iran’s defense department, especially procurement (think Pentagon under Zakheim, Wolfowitz, Feith, but with no limits set by a congress). Israel’s arms sales to Iran outlasted the shah; Israel kept Iran armed throughout the Iran-Iraq war, as US armed Iraq; both arms suppliers wished that both sides would lose.
As well, Israel carried on a highly profitable oil trading enterprise with Iran, that provided significant streams of revenue to Israel from about 1950 until 1979, when Khomeini closed the tap. At that point, Israel owed Iran certain amounts of money, which Israel refused to pay. Iran filed suit, Israel played delay and deflect, the suit ultimately ended up in the court of a Belgian arbitrator. Twenty years on, Belgian court ruled in Iran’s favor, but Israel still refuses to pay the multi-million dollar award.
In a course I took a year or so ago, the Iranian instructor said that a Jewish pilot spirited Pahlavi out of the country at some crucial point. The instructor, who had taken great pains to emphasize with what regard most Iranians hold Jews, said that that pilot’s deed greatly angered many, many Iranians.
The Leveretts write, in their full article:
“From this long history, Iranian elites across the Islamic Republic’s ideological spectrum took the lesson that issue-specific cooperation with the United States will not work to put US–Iranian relations on a fundamentally more positive trajectory. In the end, Washington pockets whatever cooperation Tehran offers without offering anything substantial in return. But, notwithstanding an increasing interest in forging closer ties to major Eastern powers (China, India, Russia), Iranian foreign policy elites continued to be attracted by the prospective benefits of [comprehensive] rapprochement with the United States.”
I am missing the logic here. Limited-scale cooperation fails because, in Iran’s view, the US doesn’t live up to its side of the bargain — and the solution is to press for broader, more comprehensive deals with teh US, so that Iran will stand to lose even more if the US behaves the same way? Why would Iran not expect the very same disappointment, only on more grand a scale? One would think that the appropriate reaction would be precisely the opposite: smaller-scale deals, ideally starting with one in which you take something handed to you by the other party at the very same time you are handing something over to that party (a simultaneous fuel-swap deal, for example). Then, if that works out, try progressively bigger deals. And maybe, maybe, some day, talk about some “grand bargain.”
To focus on some pie-in-the-sky comprehensive deal is to create, unnecessarily, the risk that we will end up with another US/North Korea situation: no inspectors, nuclear bombs being built with impunity.
We all have different priorities, I suppose, but I believe most or all of us share a strong desire to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. For the moment, at least, it’s expressed willingness — not as much as I or most others would like, but a lot more than, say, North Korea — to let international inspectors keep an eye on what it’s up to with its nuclear program. To not take advantage of that willingness — and press for more and more at every opportunity — while we try to fashion some grand deal that takes account of, say, Iran’s trillion-dollar reparations claim against Iraq, or the MEK, strikes me as irresponsible.
mahtub,
The US – - especially the inside-the-Beltway crowd – - loved the Shah, and a powerful Iran posed little or no problem whatever. Why? Because the Shah did not make verbal attacks on Israel.
Oil and gas have little to do with US policy toward Iran, which is driven by the Israel lobby. If oil and gas were the major issue, the US would be friendly with Iran.
so much, spitted out here.
Policy of united states, says it all. They will not allow, any goverment in the middle east, to be come dominant/ sole power. friend or foe. thats why, they brought demise to the Secular goverment of Shah. Mullahs ,Know that. If they want dominance, they will be removed. BUT , nevertheless, mullahs know that, pretty much, No Gaurantees.(spelling?).
oil and Gas, is the main issue here, and America, will dominate. It makes me upset, that so many millions of innocent irannian people end up dead,and their lives destroyed for that policy.
mutex – - Good point (that most American Jews are not keen on the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians). If Israel is to succeed long into the future, it simply must cut a deal with the Palestinians that the Palestinians accept, meaning getting out of the West Bank. If too many years go by with no end to the occupation, the Palestinians may decide they want their entire country back.
James– I was not trying to provide Israeli’s any “cover’ for what they are doing to the Palestinians but rather trying to explain a mindframe that allows this injustice to continue…even while it is costing Israel so much in money, security and morality.
I actually see a lot of parallels to how the American Indians have been treated in this country. Most educated Americans are aware there is no moral justification for that chapter in our history just as most Jews I have met believe the actions of their government against the Palestinians are deplorable.
Perhaps instead of a ‘Two State Solution’ we should just help the Palestinians build casinos and they can find the same ironic form of economic justice many of the Indian tribes have achieved here.
So many of the manifestations of the human condition are truly sad and twisted.
Fiorangela
I am not sure if Qanat or as some in Yazd call it Kariez, was originally invented in Yazd, but most historians agree that it was invented in Iran. Yazd is famous for Qanats since until not long ago a gnat supplied the entire city’s water. I remember, some of the gnats passed through a basement room with a small pool (Hoozkaneh) with air vents (Badgeer) directly above to cool the room in summers. You perhaps saw a few of Ab Anbars ( water reservoirs) like the one close to the Massjid Jameh called “AB Anbar e Vazzier” (Minster Water reservoir), which I was scared to go down the steep stairs when I was a child. Until about 70’s Yazd was the city of the bikes, city was small enough to transport by bikes and not cars. What you encounter, the tension of Modernization (Modernity) is now universal in Iran, and I can guess in most developing countries.
You put your finger on a point that will be a very difficult challenge for Iranians in coming decades; perhaps Japan had the same experience with the Modernity change.
kooshy, I’m the one who should be embarrassed, going on so much about the wonderful experiences I had in Iran and in Yazd. I had to pass up a trip to Iran this spring (it started today) because it was too expensive. I hope I get to return to Iran soon. Iranians surround themselves by so much beauty, as if by sheer willpower they imposed beauty on a severe landscape of desert sand and mountains.
Am I correct that the qant water system originated in Yazd?
What I sensed in Yazd was a kind of tension between the customs of an ancient village and the striving to be on the edge of tomorrow. The young people in Yazd were very friendly towards us Americans; they played Iranian music by day and at night roared around town on their motorcycles, hell’s angels in a covered bazaar!
Fiorangela
Sorry, if I sound like a silly travel agent, but one last thing about Yazd.
You may not know that Yazd, now days is also a very important center for medical services in Iran. Iran’s center for research and clinical infertility is in Yazd.
I have heard that you could get a decent heart bypass surgery for around $1K, for that they have many patients from around the region (Central Asia, Iraq, and Afghanistan) as well as Iran; they also receive many couples from the region to get help for infertility.
That is wonderful for an arid city that lacks enough water
Arnold Evans,
The US should not expect Iran to stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, and in fact this would not even be in Israel’s true best interests.
Israel needs to get back in the box (June 1, 1967 borders). US policy should be directed toward achieving this goal.
Hezbollah is a necessary military force in south Lebanon, for the near future and perhaps longer – - to deter another insane Israeli attack. A stronger Hezbollah is actually in Israel’s true best interests.
Once Israel removes its security services from the West Bank, Hamas can help maintain order and foster economic development. Notions of getting rid of Hamas are seriously misguided.
kooshy — thanks for the link.
that sounds like Viennese music. Iranian music is so beautiful. I was not able to attend his concert, but you can listen to Kayhan Kalhor’s music on his website http://www.kayhankalhor.net/
kooshy, my recipe for sheer birinj works overtime — I’ve taken it to the offices of politicians and even a TV journalist that my group was attempting to persuade to treat Iran more ‘flavorfully’ er, favorably. They liked the desert, but it didn’t change their views on Iran. More rosewater needed!
If you haven’t seen the city of Yazd, here is a link to Virtual Yazd. What I miss the most is the Faloodeh from Yazd, it is very different than the traditional Shiraz version, is made of a starch mix and is floated in a rose water sorbet, you drink it ice cold, if you happen to go to Yazd try it.
FYI, Iraj Afshar records the most comprehensive history of Yazd in a 3-volume set titled “Yazd Monuments” or “Yadegar hayeh Yazd”
http://virtual.yazdchto.ir/en/cities/yazd/scene/jame/jame01.html
I would trade my first-born to itinerant jugglers for another taste of pastries from Yazd. What an intriguing city, where the most ancient of Iran’s foundations — in ethics/religion (Zoroaster) and architecture combine with the latest technological development: we were told that the businessmen of Yazd had combined with an Italian company to form a corporation that produces steel to build many of the cars in Iran, and that were intended to penetrate an export market.
Except, of course, the American Treasury Dept’s vicious little Stuart Levey blackmailed Iran’s foreign partners and forced them to rescind their agreements. Levey cost the Iranian people thousands of jobs, at a time when Iranian unemployment is severe.
But hey, what’s new? Israel blackmailed the US government to pass the Iran Sanctions act in 1995 that cost US corporation Conoco a multi-million dollar contract that, as Robin Wright has reported (see Wilson Center, “Iran: Past and Future”), meant the loss of thousands of US jobs. Israel: an equal opportunity despoiler.
Pirouz ,
I am Yazdi and not a Kurd, but like many other Iranians, I also have many Kurd relatives, which they are even more proud for being Iranian.
Payandeh Iran
Persian Gulf,
Good post. The US could readily achieve much better relations with Iran, were it not for the Israel lobby, and in particular the neocons (and of course Aipac). In effect, American is unable to pursue its own best interests in the region, due to pervasive penetration of the national security establishment, and the media, by deluded “supporters” of Israel.
Failed to mention choice of this map was a poor taste since it could be related to old imperialistic intentions.
mutex – - Tens of millions (dead in WWI), and tens of millions more in WWII, due to nationalist fantasies.
mutex – - Jews in Germany, France and the UK saw themselves as well integrated into society, and most probably saw themselves as being British, or English, or French, or German, as primary identification.
I think the insane Israeli effort to repress the Palestinians for generations to come, should not be given any cover by making it appear as part of what “Jews” always have done.
Nationalist fantasies brought the world the Great War, and the deaths of tens of people, repeated on an epic scale just a generation later. The Israeli delusions need to be exposed because they, as you say, put vital US interests at risk.
Fiorangela
I have seen this type of dividing the oil/gas producing blocks of Middle East, namely the Persian Gulf Region, the Central Iranian Plateau region, and the Caspian region
This is almost same as the old division of 1907 between the British and Russians, south (British), central (Natural), and North (Russian)
I think the US failure to achieve normal relations with Iran is pathetic, dangerous, and utterly foolish. Did I mention stupid?
Israel has a far greater offensive military strike capability, so talk of a “Cold War” to me is rather wide of the mark. Iran poses no threat to the US, and in fact Iranian assistance is essential if minimal stability is to be achieved in Afghanistan. India sees this. But the Obama administration, heavily penetrated by Aipac and fellow travelers, is unwilling even to discuss this fact.
An Israel without enemies is an Israel without a self-identity.
For over 2000 years the Jews have seen themselves as a persecuted people. This self image is so deeply engrained that it represents their fundamental national psyche. It represents the underlying basis for the very existence of a Jewish State…which after all is an anachronism given a world that is becoming more globally interconnected and homogenized everyday.
For reasons I can’t fathom, the United States is seemingly forced to pursue a foreign policy in the Middle East that is Israeli-centric, even to the point that it goes against our national interests.
The Leveretts lay our a compelling, logical and pragmatic way forward in our relations with Iran which provides a strategic vision of our involvement in the region but it doesn’t take into account the psychological dynamics in play.
Nothing is scarier for people, or nations, than that which threatens their sense of self…even when it is in their own best interests.
Iran-Iraq’s war ended in 1988, not 1998!
when Iran could resist the worse hostile situation for more than three decades, why should she trade off the security guarantee for her other vital interests particularly now that have the means for the deterrence in a short notice?
and the American side’s grievances are not as clear as the Iranian ones in the article. nearly half of the U.S grievances are Israel’s ones. or probably, there isn’t anything substantial on the U.S side other than the perceived fear of loosing its dominance to be sidestepped in some areas.
The analogy for the continued China-U.S relation was great. that can probably be the substitute for the cold war logic of the China opening. rightly indicating the potential of Iran for future cooperation. China’s internal opportunities were great to get explored, as it is Iran’s in the region’s. however, in today’s world, a very dynamic society of 70 million people is surely tempting enough to give a shot.
Reza
“Here are some things that Israel can get through US-mediated dialog:”
1) A Non-aggression pact.
2) A limited legal trading agreement.
3) Cooperation on Hezbollah and Hamas so another war is avoided with either of them.
4) An Iranian committment to support Arab-Israeli peace as long as all outstanding issues are discussed (including Jersusalem and Palestinian refugees).
5) Iranian investment in and humanitarian aid to the West Bank to alleviate poverty and despair.
Since you explained the benefits to the Israeli side, can you also explain what a mute recognition of Israel (like the shah’s period) will table for Iran specialy vies a vies Sunni Arab street, without at least legal boundaries of 67, this would expose Iran , and for sure Iran will lose even the shieh Arab support that is currently enjoying overwhelmingly.
PS. I did have a question about the map: What is signified by the dashed orange lines? Are these regions that are under different US commands? ie. Petraeus is said to have suggested shifting Israel to a different command…
I’m looking forward to reading the Leveretts’ paper very carefully.
first impression after quick glance: if the only impact this paper has is to plant the complementary seeds of “United States,” “rapprochement,” and “Iran” in the minds of more and more Americans, then this paper will have done a great service. In this Springtime, time of planting, gardeners know that the best way to overtake the weeds (“nuclear-Iran,” “terror-Iran” crabgrass) is by properly preparing the soil and nurturing desirable and beneficial plantings. The word ‘rapprochement’ is used almost two dozen times by the Leveretts, a terrific start to rejuvenating the landscape of the US-Iran relationship.
Once again, thank you for a tremendous intellectual effort on behalf of a rational future for our children.
Ah, yes, “there are irreconcilable differences between the West and Iran.” But only if you think, like Arnold Evans, that Western interests are centered around Israel…”
Leveretts, what terms do you suggest for a rapprochement between Iran and the US? What does the US have to offer that you think Iran will take as an acceptable price for abandoning Hamas and Hezbollah and handing Israel dominance over its inner region, most specifically the Palestinians?
The person who killed Sadat is hailed as a hero in Iran. Sadat’s rapprochement with the United States was not popular with the people of Egypt or Iran. Egypt’s government has not been accountable to Egypt’s people since. Sadat’s turn West isn’t seen as a good thing in Egypt or in Iran. Why do you think an Iranian Sadat is possible?
If Iran was willing to adopt the Shah’s stances regarding Israel in exchange for lifting sanctions and attaining the Shah’s level of integration with the West, wouldn’t we already know this, wouldn’t someone in Iran at least be suggesting it?
There are irreconcilable differences between the West and Iran. And I argue that there are because, unlike you and most Americans, most Iranians do not consider Israel a legitimate state. Most people in Iran do not see the concessions the US is trying to impose on the Palestinians, including giving up the right to return, for the sake of Israel’s security and viability, as reasonable.
If there are irreconcilable differences, then until the US or Iran reevaluates its position on Israel, the best we can hope for is a cold war. Peace can only come when one side surrenders. Either Iran accepts that what it considers justice for the Palestinians will not happen or the US accepts that it cannot afford to continue to ensure Israel’s future as a political majority state for about 5 million Jews.
I actually think we are closer to the second than to the first, which suits my preferences though it does not suit yours. If when you say rapprochement you mean, explicitly or not, that Iran at least tacitly accept Israel the way the Shah did and the way Mubarak does, you’re calling for something Iran’s voters will not support and Iran’s government will not deliver.
@Jeffersonian
Isra-hell? LOL!
But, it is in Israel’s INTEREST for the US to reach out to Iran.
Here are some things that Israel can get through US-mediated dialog:
1) A Non-aggression pact.
2) A limited legal trading agreement.
3) Cooperation on Hezbollah and Hamas so another war is avoided with either of them.
4) An Iranian committment to support Arab-Israeli peace as long as all outstanding issues are discussed (including Jersusalem and Palestinian refugees).
5) Iranian investment in and humanitarian aid to the West Bank to alleviate poverty and despair.
Kooshy, that article contained a curious conclusion. But what can I say: my Iranian great-great uncle was a Colonel in the Imperial Iranian Army, and known as a “butcher of kurds.” (Something our family is not at all proud of.)
Interesting article /point of view
Post-Saddam ties among Iraq, Iran, Kurdistan
Kurdishaspect.com – By Baqi Barzani
http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc040110BB.html
The real reason of why US government is so evil against Iran is that USA is owned and controlled by Isra-Hell.
.
When it comes to Iran, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule.
The western government and their media are clearly biased in the manner they have been reporting the events in Iran; they only support the oppositions in Iran and hardly show any pictures or news of the supporters of the regime.
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 to demonise the regime.
The extraordinary attention given to the Iranian election and none-existent nuclear weapon suggests that many American and Israelis have a stake in the outcome.
Much of the uproar, Lies and propaganda over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons is done by the Israeli lobby.
It is merely a way to paint Iran as a threat in order to brainwash the international public opinion and justify sanctions or military attack.
Under pressure from Israel lobby, Obama is now employing the same tactic, creating fear over nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons to brainwash both “his domestic audience and the international public opinion” that sanctions or even military action is justified against Iran.
If we don’t heed the lessons of history about the evil propaganda that USA and Israel used against Sadaam’s WMD, and if we ignore how sophisticated and evil the present PR campaigns are against IRI and Iran’s none existent nu-clear weapons, then we will have another tragedy in Iran far greater than Iraq.
This will be the catalyst for a million more tragedies in the years to come – the only difference being that you won’t see the deaths of those Iranian victims being broadcast on the BBC, Fox News or CNN, as the tragic death of Neda was for propaganda purpose.
Great article
“Why has the United States—even under the Obama administration—not moved more purposefully to embrace comprehensive engagement with Tehran, aimed at a fundamental realignment of relations?”
The simple answer is; Because Israel and Israel lobby do not want rapprochement with Iran.
In USA, Obama is “in Office” but Israel Lobby is “in power”
Great work!
But to the question, “why has the United States—even under the Obama administration—not moved more purposefully to embrace comprehensive engagement with Tehran, aimed at a fundamental realignment of relations?” I beg to differ.
The US seems to wrap itself around the axle by paying undue attention to red herrings, unproven Iranian nukes being only the latest. Strategic priorities seem to get lost in all the smoke produced by Israel, neocons, and other hawks on the lunatic fringe. These smoke producers all represent their own particular interests–Israeli preeminence, defense contractors, etc. None are particularly concerned with the national interest, which is not war but a mutually beneficial deal with Iran.
After the Iraq fiasco, you would think Washington would learn to tune out the smoke producers. Unfortunately, clarity of thought does not seem to be a strength of government leaders these days…