PLOT
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Bad excuse, worst outcome
22-Oct-2011
Since news of an alleged Iranian assassination plot in Washington rocked the international scene, public details remain scant. The Obama administration - including the president himself - has spoken with unequivocal certitude regarding the Iranian government’s intentions and involvement. But until he uses the same level of candour to publicly disclose detailed evidence, we will not know anything beyond allegations. Pundits will continue speculating with whodunnit analysis that constructs an incomplete puzzle, but engaging in hypotheticals does not paint a clearer picture. More telling are the increasingly dangerous geopolitical ramifications of this crisis.
Almost immediately after announcing the alleged plot, the Obama administration kicked off a full-court press in Congress and at the United Nations to coordinate amplified domestic and international pressure on Iran. There was nothing surprising about the administration’s decision to push for new sanctions. It’s what we always do, regardless of the results.
Sanctions have been explained by successive US administrations as punishment for Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism - and more recently, doubts in Washington surrounding the intent of Iran’s nuclear program. New broad-based sanctions on Iran for (publicly unsubstantiated) allegations have raised eyebrows even inside the Obama administration.
Here’s the bottom line: Indiscriminate sanctions are meant to change Iran’s strategic calculus to such a degree that the costs of maintaining its current policy trajectory outweigh the benefits - thus pressuring Iran into "changing its behaviour". Listening to Presidents Carter through Obama articulate the success of this strategy during their respective administrations is compelling, except for one minor detail - it’s never actually worked. And it will not work. For nearly 33 years and six US presidential administrations, broad-based sanctions have not compelled the Iranian government to change course. But they have significantly added to tensions between Iran and the United States. By the US' own metric, its track record of success with Iran sanctions is second only to that of Castro’s Cuba.
Regardless of whether the assassination allegations against Iran are true, the Obama administration has escalated tensions to a point where we are now on the verge of repeating our same mistakes vis-à-vis Iraq in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Thinking back to last month, one has to wonder whether the recently retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, knew something we don’t when he supported the notion of opening up channels of communication with Iran. Unprompted, Mullen said: "We haven’t had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran so we don’t understand each other. If something happens, it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right, that there will be miscalculations which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world."
The Obama administration said it learned of the alleged Iran plot in June, and thus had three full months to plan its roll out to the American public and international community. Admiral Mullen was surely briefed at the earliest stages of planning. Was his overt public support for increased communication with Iran a thinly-veiled warning to the Obama administration and American people that forthcoming missteps would lead to an escalation of tensions and possibly a conflict? A month later, his words appear eerily prophetic: “We have not had a direct link - communication - with Iran since 1979. And I think that has planted many seeds for miscalculation. When you miscalculate, you can escalate and misunderstand.”
The tools of statecraft are simple: military action or diplomacy. Anything else - whether it is called containment, dual track, or carrot and stick - is nothing more than a tactic that delays the inevitable choice between these two options. The inconvenient truth of statecraft is that every conflict - even war - ends via negotiations; and everything before negotiations - including war - is for leverage. The effort to presumably delay this inevitable choice has only added pressure to escalate towards the worst outcome.
It is through this prism that we must view the trajectory of Obama’s Iran policy - and the administration’s curious reaction to the alleged assassination plot. His full-court press at the UN has raised the foreign policy costs of walking back the very serious allegations leveled against the Islamic Republic. His serious consideration of sanctions on Iran’s oil, gas and central bank has raised the domestic political costs of not ramping up pressure.
For years, there has been a concerted effort in Washington to move past status quo sanctions, through the aforementioned next phase of pressure, and onto military conflict. The party he dislodged from the White House in 2008 continues to spearhead these efforts. This begs the question: Does President Obama understand the political forces that have been unleashed - and can he control them?
First published by Al Jazeera.
AUTHOR
Reza Marashi is Director of Research at the National Iranian American Council and a former Iran desk officer at the US Department of State.
| Recently by reza.marashi | Comments | Date |
|---|
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Arj
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Thu Oct 27, 2011 05:40 PM PDTThey be lucky if it is a horse head! More likely the bayonet in the rear ahem I mean the Ghaddafi treatment. I know it is a bit tongue in cheek but money rules.
Big multinationals have no morals and will make deals. The wiser person will make a good deal for their nation. The stupid leader will stomp his feet and get run over. Idealism is the destroyer of people; and nations.
I am sorry this is how it is but it has always been this way. It used to be "tribute". Now it is tax at the local level. Deals in the international. I pay tax to get police protection. It really is not that different on the international relations.
The Godfather IV?!
by Arj on Thu Oct 27, 2011 05:22 PM PDTAnd what if someone decides to mess with Iran after the paymant of protection mony? Is he gonna find the severed head of his favourite horse in his bed?!!
Dear Rastin
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Thu Oct 27, 2011 04:56 AM PDTI do not consider Northern Afghanistan or Eastern Iraq as foreign lands. Please remember the capital of Iran Ctesiphon was 9 miles from Baghdad. And northern Afghanistan was a part of Iran for most history.
Major parts of Iran got forcibly taken by Russia and Britain. North Afghans speak Persian and are very similar to people in Iran. I would never advocate annexation of Kuwait; Armenia; Georgia or any traditionally non Iranian regions.
VPK
by Rastin on Thu Oct 27, 2011 04:45 AM PDTSomething tells me annexing (what is regarded as) foreign land will backfire at some point.
Parsis Victor
Arj
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Thu Oct 27, 2011 03:58 AM PDTIs there a way of trading oil for freedom that I'm not aware of?!
A very good question. In its most nasty form it is also known as "protection money" or "baje sibil". I am asking more is that USA does not prevent Iranians from gaining freedom. And when we do gain freedom USA prevent others both Western and Eastern from messing with us. You know well that many times other nations have messed with Iran. At one point Soviets were about to gobble up much of Iran. Only American pressure forced them out. And the 1953 infamous coup.
Yes my idea is that we get a deal with them with terms like the ones below. In return they get paid. Sort of like a hired sheriff. No I don't want them to attack but I do want them to:
It is not a real novel idea. I am sure a willing government will be able to negotiate something. While at it we get to tweak the terms to get things like lost territory back. In return for bringing peace say Northern Afghanistan. Or Southern Iraq. Once you have a relationship going lots of possibilities are open.
Oil for freedom!
by Arj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 09:54 PM PDTDear VPK, Whether you advocate war or not is none of my business, for it would be your opinion which you're entitled to. However, what I find curious is suggesting a percaentage of Iran's oil to be sacrificed for "our freedom." What does it exactly connote, if not for military intervention, when you say "In fact I say up to 50 % of oil in return for our freedom is a very good deal for Iran. Just think as if oil was 60 $ a barrel instead of 120 $." in response to Hirre's "Note that if America goes to war it will not do so freely and thus Iran will have to "sell/give" a percentage of its resources to the US." comment? Is there a way of trading oil for freedom that I'm not aware of?!
Arj
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Oct 26, 2011 07:51 AM PDTDid you read my post? I said with no ambiguity I oppose American intervention.
The rest is analysis and if you bother reading it then it makes sense. If I had the ability I would gladly trade half the oil for being left alone. Where does that ask for invasion? Why don't you read a post before responding.
Get to the reality if America wants to attack it will. Nothing you; me or IC does will change it. All we may do is to influence the path. I say if they did attack we might as well make a deal. Trade oil for freedom. We tried it the Mossadegh way and it was a disaster. I rather have half something than nothing. You got any better ideas I am all ears. If you want to say "it is our right and so" then don't bother. The powerful take what they want.
Bounty hunting?!
by Arj on Tue Oct 25, 2011 09:48 PM PDTYou folks must be joking, right?! A percentage of Iran's oil in return for American invasion?! Who exactly is going to cut that deal? With whose authority and what legitimacy?! This is not the 19th century, you know!
Response 2
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Oct 24, 2011 04:27 AM PDTDisclaimer: this is an analysis not my demanding war!
It is true that since brutal suppression of demonstrations in 2009 Iran has been quiet. Or relatively so compared to other nations in the region. But as people see other dictators overthrown they get heart. They see that iti s possible to fight and win. Specially with air support. Watching Ghaddafi brought down has two effects:
These will together allow a resistance to form. If Syria goes the same way it will be far more powerful. The "International Community" need to give the IRI a way out. A safe haven to run if they are willing to go peacefully. This is much more possible with Obama since that is his style. Anyway wait and see what happens.
Dear Hirre
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Oct 24, 2011 04:20 AM PDTMuch of what you said makes sense. Obviously Americans will require some amount of natural resources as payment for any help. Some people say "no amount" is enough. Others like me think "some" is enough.
In fact I say up to 50 % of oil in return for our freedom is a very good deal for Iran. Just think as if oil was 60 $ a barrel instead of 120 $. Meanwhile develop the deserts for Solar and get off oil.
Anyway I don't know what form a war will be but we have an input. The best NIAC and others may do is to convince USA MEK is no good. To put their power behind more reasonable forces. If USA were to rely on MEK it both would betray each other :-) My bet is that Americans would dump MEK at the first chance. But still rather not even bring them in. Having said all of this I oppose war. Rather avoid any kind of civil war. Particularly involving MEK or separatist rebels.
A long way to go...
by hirre on Mon Oct 24, 2011 04:52 AM PDTThe problem with Iran is that the Americans have not found the type of support they need on the ground. Sure, as far as the majority of the people, everybody wants freedom, but nobody wants to die for it...
But when it comes to an actual fighting group support, like the rebels in Libya, America has no one it can trust in Iran. Also even though a force could be gathered, they would not be able to beat the regime...
So basically the US has a couple of strategies, one is to create a really weak Iran financially. This will create more hate among the iranian public against the IR. The next strategy is to cut of Iran's partners of terrorism, which currently is Syria. The final strategy is to wait for (or artificially create) a spark which will start a war, but this time Iran will be much weaker than it is now... The question is if the war will be fought in a similar way like in Libya, that is, nato support + rebels (e.g. MKO), or if it will be a regular war...
The one thing that complicates the situation is that Iran is a country which two other great countries have interests in (Russia & China). Note that if America goes to war it will not do so freely and thus Iran will have to "sell/give" a percentage of its resources to the US. The problem is that this is something the Chinese and Russians aren't willing to "agree on", therefore the situation is problematic. If America is to go to war with Iran it has to agree with the russians and chinese that they will keep their percentages even after the war.
Right now the americans have a lot of problem with the russians and chinese over Syria, therefore Iran will be much tougher...
One thing is sure, Iran is too important due to its natural resources and strategic place (for americans it is close to russia => missile bases) and will therefore not be left alone...
Amirparviz jan
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Oct 23, 2011 01:21 PM PDTYou realize I respect you a great deal but we disagree on this. I am just saying what I think Obama is planning. Now only time will tell and that is it. My predictions do not reflect either desire or any inside knowledge.
Just "gut feeling". How about we wait and see. Given there is not much else to do we might as well :-) I always thought IRI was on the plate for Obama's second term. There is one thing that was proven. That is whether you stand firm like Libya or give in like Egypt US will get its way. And Obama did it on the cheap.
As for EU they are in deep ***. Just watch the place is going to hell. Their money Euro is going to become non existent before long. Meaning dollar will be the only viable currency in the world. All I know is that we need to wait and see.
US has no desire to oust IRI and is powerless in Syria.
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:30 PM PDTThere are Mullahs that the USA prefers to be in control, yet that's not going to happen in the short term. In 2 years time IRI will still be sending Iran back to the stone age. Syria that the USA wanted to replace, will due to China's Veto and Russian backing be more stable in a year or so and all the US backing for opposition won't do a thing on the ground in Syria. Who ever is President of the USA in 2013 will be presiding over a country heading towards or in a recession, with a debt greater than GDP for the first time ever and a deficit sending the country towards greater debt.
This situation is bad for the USA because it coincides with the Rise of EU 27 as a power with a greater GDP than the USA as of today and a complex policy of basically not cooperating with the USA, which is a new development. IRI is facing no psunami.
Once more
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Oct 23, 2011 09:28 AM PDTI will jump in here with my guesses.
If America decides IRI is to go that is it. No force on this Earth except for divine intervention will save IRI. That is not going to happen so we might as well prepare for it. Please do not call me "pro war" because I am a realist. If you see a tsunami heading your way you might as well prepare for it.
This should not be too hard a sell. Because it fits the American mentality. The problem is the Neocon gangs. The do not want the above and prefer a broken Iran. America must be convinced it is in her own best interest to do the above.
We should engage Israel and yes AIPAC; assure them a secular Iran is in their interest. And that a unified Iran will be good for them. Their good is best served by an alliance with a stable Iran like it used to be.
With those two on our side a brighter future will happen. In fact just getting Israel on our side is good enough. Their lobby will do the rest. Why not make a deal with them. Alliance with Iran in return for getting their help.
NIAC should support targeted sanctions + civil disobedience
by MM on Sun Oct 23, 2011 08:30 AM PDTIn addition to supporting targeted sanctions it is time for NIAC to support civil strikes, cf. Prof Sharp's "198 tactics for civil disobedience" article in Farsi. Especially those strikes by the oil workers who supply the money to IRI thugs (pockets, rather!) while the rest of the country suffers in poverty.
N.I.A.C. Will NEVER stop supporting Islamic Rapists......
by ham1328 on Sun Oct 23, 2011 08:03 AM PDTRegardless of whatever Islamic Rapists do or accused of doing, N.I.A.C. is there to defend them.
Hamid,
VPK, your predictions are shared by many and it would be a wise
by Oon Yaroo on Sat Oct 22, 2011 06:28 PM PDTstrategy for NIAC to synchronize its interests with those of Iranians and not IRR.
If I were NIAC and sincere, I would do the following:
1) Declare unambiguously my support to Iran and Iranians and NOT IRR,
2) Demand an oil embargo on IRR supported by Air, Sea, and Ground blockades by the US,
3) Demand a free election in Iran monitored by the international communities and backed up by UN/US forces in case the subversives of various persuasions decide to sabotage!
This is the only way for NIAC to be trusted, effective, frankly relevant, and possibly be able to help to avert a catastrophic and costly conflict!
I have been
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sat Oct 22, 2011 05:50 PM PDTpredicting that Obama is systematically going through the region. Libya; Syria; Iran. I was not sure if it is Syria or Iran next. My bet is Syria.
The interesting part is that he is pulling troops out of Iraq. Meaning now he has more troops available for the next war. Afghanistan is not yet secured so it will be a while. Watch closely what happens in Libya. That is a major indicator of what is next.
We Iranian Americans have the ability to influence the outcome. Last time I said this I got accused of promoting war. I am not promoting it but being realistic. We should work hard to prevent another Islamic regime i.e IRI light.
Here is another attempt on the part of NIAC to save IRR not
by Oon Yaroo on Sat Oct 22, 2011 05:40 PM PDTthe Iranian people!
NIAC needs to pay close attention to the recent events in Libya!
NIAC's client (i.e., IRR) will suffer the same fate and destiny as Qaddafi and his ilk if they don't leave with zaboon'e khosh!
Obama done it
by Fred on Sat Oct 22, 2011 03:54 PM PDTWith Obama not being a “neocon” to blame for the policies of the Islamist Rapist Republic, the NIAC Lobby has got a problem.
Does NIAC Lobby understand the terrorist activities and horrible treatment of Iranians by the Islamist Rapist republic is the problem and cannot be done away with the usual NIAC Lobby blaming others?
It is either imposition of airtight sanctions to bring the Islamist Rapists to their knees allowing Iranians to overthrow them, or having the itchy fingers going at it.
Time for these types of nonsensical NIAC Lobby write-ups is long gone.