Negotiating with the Iranians

The media are discussing the desirability of negotiating with the Iranians. This is thought to be a real possibility now that the Administration has more or less admitted that it has to try something new in Iraq. All of this comes at a time when the United States and Iran are locked in a serious war of words over (1) Iranian support of terrorism, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and (2) the willingness of the Iranians to defy the American demand that they cease their nuclear energy program on the basis that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Some groups in Washington talk of the need to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities sooner rather than later. Many commentators have concluded we would be attacking Iran now if it were not for the Iraq fiasco. Seymour Hersh tells us that the United States is secretly supporting anti-Tehran forces in Iranian Kurdistan in the west and Balochistan in the southeast. This is in addition to supporting the planning and propaganda of mainline anti-regime elements based in the West. All of this against the background of a relationship that includes a continuing absence of diplomatic relations because of an incident dating back to 1980. One is reminded of the cake for Tehran scandal in the mid-sixties when another Administration decided that they needed to develop communications with Tehran, and were willing to risk exposure of Administration duplicity to attain what were quite short-run objectives at best.

I suggest that we need to take a deep breath, reconsider out relations, and then set out to fundamentally restructure the American relationship with Iran.

We should recall that official American policy, reinforced recently by a Senate vote, is to support the development of nuclear energy in India, a country that openly broke the ban on nuclear proliferation. Because of the known relationship of Pakistan and India, the fact that Pakistan has also developed a nuclear weapon has also been accepted without letting this damage our relationship with that country. Turkey on the west is part of NATO, an alliance that depends on nuclear weapons for deterrence. It is an open secret that Israel, a country that has often announced the need to “do something” about Iran has nuclear weapons. I do not know if the Iranians will or will not develop a nuclear weapon if they continue their nuclear program. But I do know that it is unlikely that Iran, whether ruled by mullahs or democrats, will feel that the United States has justice on its side in the nuclear dispute. This being the case, it is unlikely that threats or sanctions will in the long run arrest the development Iran wishes; indeed, it may even give added ammunition to those Iranians who want nuclear weapons so that the country might more easily stand up to the Americans.

We should recall that after 9/11 the Iranians has shown itself to be much less involved in terrorism directed against the United States and Europe than its neighbors. In fact, Iran assisted the American effort to defeat the Taliban in Iraq. Since Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies are also extremist in their anti-Shi’a diatribes, Iran is in many ways a natural ally of the United States in this part of the anti-terrorist “war”. We should also recall that Iranians have been largely absent from the list of terrorists that have been arrested for terrorist activities in Europe and the United States. I note there have been North Africans, Saudis, Egyptians, Gulf states, and, also and especially, Pakistanis among the accused. The terrorists frequently seem to train in Pakistan. We should note that the United States and Pakistan have been close allies during the Cold War and the War Against Terrorism, as odd as this may seem. It is true that Iran has been involved in helping Palestinians and their allies in their struggle with Israel, but regardless of our ties to Israel, this is not a struggle with which we should identify American interests.

Iran has a greater interest than any other country outside the American Coalition in the outcome of the chaos in Iraq. Its interests are three-fold. First is its historic record as a dominant power in the area now occupied by Iraq. Second is its domination by Shi’as, the national religion of Iran and the dominant religion in more than half of Iraq. The relation of the societies through the Shi’a bond goes back to the conversion of half of Iraq to Shi’ism by the Iranians in the 15th and 16th centuries. The overwhelming majority of foreigners who visit the holy cities of Iraq are Iranians. We remember that Ayatollah Khomeini plotted his victorious return to Iran from his exile in Iraq. Third, is the natural desire of Iranians to make sure that a powerful Iraqi state dominated by Sunnis never again threatens Iran as it did in the 1980s. In retrospect, the United States was simply wrong to support Saddam Hussein in his war with the Iranians. We backed the wrong horse and we have had to pay for it.

Given these facts, the United States should develop diplomatic relations with Iran as soon as possible. We should then discuss our common interests, including the concessions that each side can reliable make. Let us mention a few possibilities: there are many more. We should accept Iran having a major interest in Iraq. In return for curbing the violence of some of the Iraqi actors often said to be aligned with Iran, such as the Mahdi Army, we should accept their role in training and equipping security forces in Iraq, especially in Shi’a areas. We should encourage Iran to accept the existence of a semi-independent Kurdistan, on the understanding that the United States will not support new revolutionary activity among the Iranian Kurds.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: American Foreign Policy, Blogroll, Iran, Iraq War

5 Comments on “Negotiating with the Iranians”

  1. homeyra Says:

    Dear Dr. G. as an ordinary citizen I can but only welcome any “civilazational” approach, and thank you to bring a new perspective to the present situation. But to my surprise all these interesting posts end up in a last paragraph which seems to obey some “separatist” agenda. “Semi-independent”??? Why should the USA encourage or discourage anything.

  2. R. D. Gastil Says:

    I see your point. Why should we be interfering on one side or the other of anything? However, in suggesting that the United States consider foreign policy issues from a civilizational viewpoint, I do not mean to imply that we should ignore either our interests or our responsibilities in the area. Specifically, I believe we owe it to the Kurds to make a sincere effort to guarantee the autonomy that they have struggled for so long to achieve. Other considerations may derail this effort, as they have such efforts in the past, but we should not once again casually sell them out.

  3. homeyra Says:

    “I believe we owe it to the Kurds to make a sincere effort to guarantee the autonomy that they have struggled for so long to achieve”

    The timing for this statement just sounds wrong, I think Iraq, Palestine, though these “buffer” areas, such as Kurdistan, have always been used by all parties to put pressure on the enemy of the day.
    Ordinary citizen are aware of the “interest” of Iranian ethnic groups (for instance http://www.cfr.org/publication/12118/). As an Azari myself, I am only offended by many malicious insinuations during the last decade. We know enough of recent history to feel alarmed.

  4. chaz Says:

    The government of Bulgaria has declared that, in order to fulfill their responsibilities to the African American Nation, they have decided to settle said nation in one or two states, declare them autonomous, and install Louis Farakhan as the head of the autonomous state. Similar measures will subsequently be taken to ensure the rights of Indian Nations, Mexiacans and others.

    Would this be so ludicrous had Bulgaria been in possession of a vast and overwhelming war machine and were willing and able to wage war against the US should their demands were not met?

    It should now be clear, even for the densest, that the US venture in the Middle East has been a highly successful real estate acquisition. At the modest expense of less that 4000 American lives (who cares about the locals?) and a few billion dollars nearly a million square kilometers of real estate with vast strategic value and countles resources has been conquered.

    It is clear now that the initially stated reasons for these conquests, such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, were false pretexts and moreover, the Americans were fully aware that Iraq WMD threat was a joke and it did not harbor Taliban.

    The fact that the US leaders do not show the foreign policy, humanity and culture of Cyrus and Dariush in maintaining the acquired real estate should not detract from the soundness of their initial decision to conquer Iraq.

  5. Agent 99 Says:

    The extent of my ignorance about Islam and the politics of the Middle East is manifesting now in how many times my jaw drops over various bits of news. For instance, I never realized that Sunni and Shia were mortal enemies. The hostage crisis, the Iran/Contra mess, added with the massive ignorance about U.S. interference in Iran decades before that, all serve to make the threat even worse now. The United States never has had any business interfering, covertly or overtly, in Iran or any other nation. How can we use diplomacy and withdraw or be ejected from our entanglements in the Middle East when our population is so ignorant of the facts? A stupid madman and a pack of criminal plutocrats have made a mess that threatens to both keep us confused, and the death toll off the charts, even if we completely withdraw from the Middle East today. The best possible way out of this mess is for complete U.S. withdrawal, really strong regional governmental action to restore order and peace, and a vastly strengthened United Nations to help insure Iraqis aren’t squashed next by more despots, settle the Iran nukes question and decide what reparations are due from us for the criminal actions of this illegitimate administration. The only reason to want the United States to treat with anyone in the region is the hope of some kind of gain from us. We cannot be both the Great Satan and maker of accords — to the people there and as the people here. Objective arbitration is mandatory.

    We should get out, completely, put all our energy toward reversing global warming, and submit to the judgment of the United Nations on how to make reparations for this filthy mess, and on how to deal with concerns there in the future. Everything hinges on the clarity of mind and the commitment to peace and justice of the people empowered to make decisions there. Surely we can all agree that the United States is not up to that just now.

    I find the suggestion that there is anything sound about a decision to conquer Iraq utterly hateful. I find the threat to Iran utterly hateful. I am sick to death of the utter hatefulness at play on the face of the earth. It will not end until people on all sides stop the aggression and senses of entitlement.

    We have MUCH more important work to do, and if we don’t get on it, all else will be mooted. We might even live to envy those dying right now.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: