Quote of the day

If under stress of circumstance individuals have made any promise to the enemy, they are bound to keep their word even then.

Syndicate content

Columns

Paul Rogers

Global security


Li Datong

China from the inside


Fred Halliday

Global politics


Mary Kaldor

Human Security


Daniele Archibugi

Cosmopolitan Democracy

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:


Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz


Follow oD on Twitter:


Join our Facebook group:
Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes

openDemocracy likes:

Navigation

Recent comments

Signpost Blog


View 4 comments

The Iran we have

Should the United States open talks with Iran to help ease its crisis over Iraq? As the prospect of Washington-Tehran dialogue moves up the political agenda, Anatol Lieven takes issue with the view of the former crown prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi.

I share with Reza Pahlavi the desire that Iran should be a prosperous and stable democracy. Indeed, I am rather confident that this will one day be the case. Iran possesses considerably more of the preconditions for successful democracy than most other states in the region. For one thing, unlike Pakistan, Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, Iran is a genuine and ancient nation, not a recent and artificial colonial or dynastic creation. Moreover, given the disillusionment of Iranian youth with the existing system, there seems good reason to think that in the decades to come, a new generation of Iranians will bring about Iran's transformation.

Anatol Lieven is replying to Reza Pahlavi's article, published simultaneously on openDemocracy:

"Talking to Iran" (5 December 2006)

 

In our book Ethical Realism: A Vision for America's Role in the World, my co-author John Hulsman and I part company with Reza Pahlavi over his belief that democracy in Iran can be promoted as an aspect of contemporary US strategy in the region, especially when associated with American policies that most Iranians find detestable.

As Reza Pahlavi is doubtless aware, from its very beginnings in the protests of the 1890s against the treaty establishing a British tobacco monopoly, democratic mass politics in Iran has been deeply intertwined with Iranian nationalism, and in particular with the country's hostility to real or perceived western imperialism.

The answers Iranians have given to opinion surveys concerning US policies indicate that, for the great majority of Iranians, the combination of US advocacy of Iranian "democracy" with the advancement of US and Israeli foreign and security policy objectives only discredits the forces of democracy in Iran; at least, if these are to be identified with Iranian liberalism rather than with the troubling but undoubtedly very popular mixture of populism, clericalism and nationalism being advanced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Also in openDemocracy on Iran, its foreign policy and relationship with the United States:

V.K., "'Rogue state' bites back" (30 August 2001)

Mamoudreza Golshanpazhooh, "Listening to Iran" (30 January 2006)

Fred Halliday, "Iran vs the United States – again" (14 February 2006)

Bahram Rajaee, "Iran's nuclear challenge" (14 February 2006)

Kaveh Ehsani, "On the brink: the Great Satan vs the Axis of Evil" (3 May 2006)

Trita Parsi, "The United States's double-vision in Iran" (9 May 2006)

Hazem Saghieh, "Iran's politics: constants and variables" (12 May 2006)

Behrad Nakhai, "Iran, the US, and nuclear plans: pen and sword (18 September 2006)

Hooshang Amirahmadi, "Iran and the international community: roots of perpetual crisis" (24 November 2006)

This is especially true because Iran today is by no means the bloodstained clerical tyranny it was in the early 1980s. It is certainly not a democracy, but it contains more elements of democracy than several key US allies in the region. The electoral process which elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was highly constrained; but all credible evidence suggests that his election did represent in part a widespread public backlash against the growing corruption of the state elites. By contrast, there is little evidence to suggest that a more genuinely open process would have produced a victory for pro-western liberals.

This being so, if we believe that Iran has a vital role to play in any future regional order, and that compromise with Iran is essential to the future of both Iraq and Afghanistan, then we have no choice but to negotiate with the Iran that we have. We cannot afford to wait a generation in the hope of getting the kind of Iran we would prefer; the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan are far too urgent for that. And if we are not to seek help from Iran and other neighbouring states, then where can we hope to find it?

This does not mean supporting the existing Iranian regime, any more than US compromises with communist China represented support for Chinese communism. On the contrary, Nixon and Kissinger's opening to China helped to bring about the long-term social and economic transformation of the Chinese system. By contrast, US attempts to isolate Cuba, North Korea and Iran have helped only to consolidate the ruling systems in those countries.

If, however, we are going to talk to the Iranians, then - as the International Crisis Group argued in its February 2006 report (Iran: Is there a way out of the nuclear impasse?) - we have to offer proposals that the Iranian establishment can actually accept; and this can only mean returning to the 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and accepting limited uranium enrichment under strict supervision. In addition, John Hulsman and I recommend a row of mandatory sanctions which Russia, China and other leading states will commit themselves by treaty to adopt automatically if Iran itself breaks the NPT and goes for weaponisation.

I agree that this is by no means an ideal solution; but threats of force against Iran are empty unless one is prepared to carry them through; and the probable consequences of a US attack on Iran seem to me absolutely disastrous: for western interests, regional peace, Iranian democracy - and for the personal prospects of any Iranian émigré who was foolish enough to allow his name to be associated with such an attack.

Average rating
(2 votes)
read on

Nikki R Keddie, Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution (Yale University Press, 2006) US, UK

Ali Ansari, Confronting Iran (Perseus, 2006) US, UK

 
Copyright © Anatol Lieven, . Published by openDemocracy Ltd. You may download and print extracts from this article for your own personal and non-commercial use only. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Contact us if you wish to discuss republication. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

Comments


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

deteodoru said:



Sun, 2007-01-14 21:48
Liars, my father taught me, usually are cowards. And GW Bush fits that to a T. Oh he will fake courage, but he is above all else a mere political tactician unable to think strategically. That's why he had Rove on board so high up: policy was to be the handmaiden of politics. Now, Bush-- who didn't care about history, according to Woodward, because "we'll all be dead by then"-- has suddenly become obsessed with history marking him as exactly what he had been through the whole of his biography: an profligate failure and deep disappointment to his "Poppy." So Iran stands, not as a critical American strategic problem (that's just a part of propaganda a la Cheney) but as an excuse for a bold Bush move, should that prove to admirably divert his history as president from his biography as a dry drunk. Anything else matters little, for as Nixon told me: do not worry about polls falling to the floor because then you are on your own to do what you want and if you succeed, the polls will rise as quickly as they fell.

The problem is not Bush, and not the neocons. The problem is that the American people want to avoid citizenship responsibility so they are willing avoid their political liability, to sacrifice freedom of choice for freedom from uncertainty and complexity. This is a nation of at least 40% "Good Germans," (many indeed of German heritage, the largest immigrant group in America from Europe). They will swallow manure as if it were Snikers bars whenever the alternative seems to suggest complexity or uncertainty. There is a reason why America is the world's greatest consumer of acetaminophen!

Let's look at the World Trade Center. In 1993 an attempt was made to topple it with a rented truck. It failed and so we saw it as a criminal incident, the FBI finding and the Federal Prosecutors duly prosecuting the perpetrators in Federal Court. Our reaction was to increase truck rental reporting-- after all, the Oklahoma bombing also involved rented vehicles-- and create a national nuts list for all police departments. Thus the problem was loose controls-- hence OUR fault-- and the solution was tighter controls on rental vehicles and fertilizer compounds.

On 9/11, four jumbo airliners going coast to coast were sky-jacked within 20 minutes. They were all but one turned into missiles against the WTC and the Pentagon by teams of suicide bombers. Now this was war. No longer some loose screws in police security but a "Pearl Harbor" against America. We were in global war and military "transformation."

But what is the difference between 1993 and 2001, other than failure vs. success?

The same people that ran 1993 ran 2001. How is it that one is merely a police methods foul-up at tracking and the other is war on America by some marvelous enemy global super-enemy, the Islamo-fascists?

Hidden from view is the fact that the 19 shahids who were looking for a way to "get" America, repeatedly rode First Class across the nation and constantly found that the pilot's cabin door is always wide open. And this, they noted, despite the fact that as a result of a string of skyjackings in the 1970s, it was made law that on all passenger planes the pilot's cabin would be impenetrable and there would be two hidden sky-marshals on every plane.

This security regulation was not to be implemented. Why? According to one American Airlines official queried after 9/11: "The pilot's cabin door needs to be open because, "if you pay so much money for a First Class seat you have to right to see that someone is driving the damned thing." So much for the security mentality of the airlines industry.

But more to the point, instead of publicly recognizing our defect, as we did in 1993 about WTC security, we paint the perpetrators as some sort of magic devils that can take over passenger aircraft no matter what we do, so we must got to kill them all over the whole world, wherever their alQaeda masses reside.

In the end, we quit our search for binLaden (keeping secret his death) and linked Saddam Hussein with 9/11 and WMDs in order to invade his country, put in permanent bases to protect the massive oil exploration and exploitation we expected our companies to do. To this day-- though voters took control of Congress from the Republicans in 2006 out of disgust with their do-nothing corruption, perversity and also in protest for how the Iraq War is going-- they did so only by small margins in each district and clearly did not wrestle with the competing policy perspective of the two sides. That would risk a slide into the murky pool of complexity and uncertainty.

In sum, Hulsman's historic American, I would argue-- the moral realist-- only existed after World War II to 2001. The way Americans accepted Bush's sociopathic Maoist view of democracy through the barrel of a gun, is clinically very significant. You see, Mr. Hulsman, the idealists of the 60s who brought to American academia the concept of "meaningful dialogue" all aged educated in college on social babble, evading math, science and the complexities of reality. By 2000, they had reached middle age and desperately needed certainty through simplicity. And that was offered by the Evangelical Pied Piper, the semi-doc Billy Graham, who "saved" GW Bush from the bottom of a bottle by introducing him to Jesus. Rich Bigot Graham proved what the media always knew: that Americans will pay big bucks for a "nice story"-- in no way does it have to be truth-- that can serve as a rug under which they can hide all the complexities and uncertainties of reality.

In no time, literate Americans outnumbered the illiterates (the latter chose Crack and metanephrine cooking instead Jesus for a "high") raising their hands, head dorsiflexed and eyes closed, reciting Scripture instead of reading facts in mega-churches. Bible-babble became what the New Left 60s generation revolution resorted to when it passed into its 50s-- the opiate of the masses.

So now, Bush can mix two parts fear with ten parts faith and voila, a President that follows its gut to its end-product...the perfect premise to make politically popular to send someone else's son on a "Crusade" to kill those filthy Islamofascists.

I defy Mr. Hulsman to explain why it is wrong to say that America's "unipolar moment" is now in the hands of sub-human primates. The neocon success was in realizing that they are indeed on the Planet of the Apes. They knew that terrible things will frighten and stampede these "dumb goyim" apes and they, the neocons, can guide the fear propelled stampede into massacring Islamics from the air and even on the ground. The Zionazis, Mr. Hulsman (as you found out when you were summarily eradicated, as if a Soviet apparatchik under Stalin, from the Heritage Foundation) are filling America with fear and hate, supported by the Christian Right that claims that the Second Coming of Jesus will only be when Israel dominates the Middle East. As a Christian of deep faith, I find this vile sacrilege.

So please don't expect the rampaging apes to suddenly stop, read your book authored with that Brit Lieven and suddenly become moral realists. They first must vomit out the necon parasites in their bellies; the very neocons that drive them insane with fear and rage. But most fearful is that it is not the neocons who will suffer when the stampede stops-- they'll hide out in their villas on the Riviera of that supposed "anti-Semite" nation, France. It is the mass of Jewish Americans who did more than anyone to get people to stop stampeding and climb back up the evolutionary tree in order to become moral realists.

So, Bush will attack or not attack Iran for the most mundane of reasons because he can't mentally process above "mundane." And then, the most moral, intellectual and realist of Americans, our Jewish brethren, will be scapegoated when it goes even worse that Iraq.

Let us cry for our America, Mr. Hulsman. But to save it we must want to save it as much as the Bible-babblists wanted to "save" it; and we must be as willing to stand on street corners-- rain, sleet, hail or snow-- to pitch the importance of moral realism. Those of us who love America-- as I do, having wondered half way around the world to come to this Paradise of Freedom (and now am the father of 100% Americans); let us begin on the corner, not at the podium of Wash DC think-tanks.

Daniel E. Teodoru

Marjan ZKK said:



Sat, 2006-12-09 11:49
Errr, right poster parkhash: Mr Lieven shouldn�t express his point of view, because of an accident of birth i.e. his nationality?

What�s next? Short men shouldn�t play baseball?

Marjan ZKK said:



Wed, 2006-12-06 10:16
I mostly agree with the article. It is absolutely essential to be in dialogue with Iran. I do advise the US to take a less arrogant attitude, as it will find its match and also in brinkmanship and just to accept "offers of excellent tea".

Iran is an ancient proud, playful and arrogant nation itself, but older.

It is also essential to remember in such dialogues that Iran has not attacked a single millimetre of land in the past 250 years, but feels threatened.

Being in dialogue with Iran, doesn�t mean supporting nor approving the current regime. It means working towards a goal of equality and democracy and liberty across the world for stability and peace.

As for that pahlavi tyranny; I can�t wait for a stable democracy to cease all stolen assets (from the Iranian people) and a good old-fashioned trial of the entire repulsive clan.

parkhash said:



Thu, 2006-12-07 19:47
Somehow I wished the writer of "The Iran we have", Anatol Lieven, was not a Russian. If this encouragement to "engage with Iran" had been advocated by say, a Swiss national, it wouldn't have had such a hollow and preposterous ring to it that it has now when heard from Mr Lieven's utterings. Why not Russian, you rightfully ask! The answer lies in the history of the KGB - meaning Kremlin's Great Blunder. Seventy three years ago Mr Lieven's "wise" Grandees thought precisely along the same line and entered into a non-aggression pact with the then Nazi Germany. The 1939 Molotov-Reibbentrop pact (also known as Hitler-Stalin pact) made history when the two diametrically opposed forces decided to "engage" each other in a non-aggressive co-existance. It only bought the Nazis enough time to prepare themselves for the most immpressive Blitzkrieg in the history of Modern Warfare. Operation Barbarossa ended the Nazi-Soviet pact in an invasion that almost threathend to put an end to the Great Soviet dream. See the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

Now some seventy years on another Russian wants us to blieve that the policy of engaging the fascism, albeit its Islamic version, should yield fruitful results! Mr Lieven, I wished you weren't Russian!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options