Gary Sick is Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, and served on the National Security Council under President Ford and Carter. He runs the website Gulf2000.
As you know, Ahmadinejad recently dismissed Manouchehr Mottaki even though he had been an influential member of his entourage. Why this drastic move now? Some say it was because of Mottaki’s comments to Secretary Clinton; others insist it is because A. N. is slowly but surely putting more of his own people in power. What is your take?
It is not always easy to read Ahmadinejad’s mind. He does strange things at times. But this didn’t really come as a surprise to me. He has been serious in bringing Iran’s foreign policy under the control of the office of the Presidency. He has replaced foreign ministry cadres with his own people. Even though the Supreme Leader has told him that he can’t do that or appoint official representatives, A.N. turned around and made those people his advisors on the regions of the world. He has been in competition for power with the Supreme Leader. As I understand it, this is a message to Khamenei. A.N. is involved in a competition with Khamenei himself over how much influence he should have. In fact both Mottaki and Salehi were on the short list when A. N. became President in 2005. A.N. favored Salehi at that time but the Supreme Leader gave the job to Mottaki. I see this as competition for internal power. I would say that A. N. is trying to establish the presidency as a far more influential institution than it has ever been.
The U.S. navy, in its formal statements and correspondence, has been addressing the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. We know this is a point of contention and it infuriates Iranians from all walks of life. Why has the U.S. military/navy chosen to do this at his time? Isn’t it wrong and against geographical history to change the name of a place or a major waterway that has been called the Persian Gulf since the ancient Greeks?
I can’t explain why the U.S. Navy at this particular moment has done so but the U.S. military has official relations and bases throughout the Gulf region. It has support facilities and military agreements with every single state on the Arab side of the gulf. And all of those countries without exception refer to the gulf as the Arabian Gulf and have done so as far back as the days of Nasser, who did it to poke at the eyes of Iran. This proved to be effective. Nothing infuriates Iranians more than to refer to the Persian Gulf differently; this is a universal sentiment, from the monarchists to revolutionaries to Revolutionary Guards. They all agree that the body of water should be called the Persian Gulf. I call it the Persian Gulf as well. But the US navy is operating in a military environment, with the support of the Arab states who refer to the gulf as Khalij Arabi, so I assume the Navy is just acknowledging on which side their bread is buttered. The countries they work with use the terminology. The U.S. Geographic Board of Names, the organization that officially prescribes names of the geographical places all over the world, has not taken this action; for many years they have called it the Persian Gulf and they still do.
What do you think of the cable in WikiLeaks about King Abdullah’s statement on Iran?
Of course this is nothing new. We have long known that most Arab governments are scared of a nuclear Iran. At the same time, the Iranian government doesn’t really care about such opinions. Do you think such leaks create more friction between Iran and its neighbors? In his commentary, the Lebanese journalist Rami Khouri called the Arab leaders pitiful when it comes to Iran and I quote: “The most shocking revelation—not a revelation, really, as many of us had warned about this for decades—is that Arab governments that have spent hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on buying American and other foreign arms still find themselves totally helpless, vulnerable, and fearful in the face of what they see as growing Iranian power and influence in the region. The assorted Arab leaders who are quoted as asking the United States to hurry up and do something about Iran’s growing nuclear technology capabilities reveal an apparent inability to care for their own countries and citizens.”
I meet Arab leaders and journalists at various conferences and I assume it is not just the leaders of Arab states who are concerned about Iran; but it is the general consensus about this. To me there is a real irony in all of this. Why is it that Iran has so much influence and power? My answer to that is: the United States. After 9/11 we went into Afghanistan and scattered the Taliban, who were Iran’s enemies, and then turned around and invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein, who was Iran’s worst enemy to the west, and suddenly Iran was left with no natural enemies except for the U.S. Needless to say, having gotten rid of all their enemies, Iran’s influence and power grew dramatically. They didn’t have to do a thing; we did it for them. I think that we should be honest and start with the acknowledgment that we did this. And then even if we didn’t intend to do it we did it, and then we should ask ourselves how do you do something about a situation we created. A lot of the concern in the Arab world about Iran is not just about the nuclear issue. I think the main thing they are really concerned about is Iran’s Shi’a background and its influence in their respective counties. And this is doubled because Iraq now has a Shi’a government in place, so that for the first time in centuries Iran’s influence has a Shi’a voice. It is also ironic that the Shi'a government in Baghdad was put in place by the United States.
A number of Arab states privately say that they really wonder if this is not a plot by the U.S. to make Iran the number one country in the region. To most Americans that sounds like insanity. The U.S. after all spends a lot of time fighting Iran by putting pressure on the country, but the Arabs look at the growing influence by Iran and the spread of Shi’ism, by way of Hezbollah and through the relationship with Syria. National Security Advisor Brzezinski called it the arc of crisis, from the Mediterranean all the way to Iran. I think most Arab leaders are very much concerned about Shi’a influence and dominance. Basically these are Sunni dominated countries and they consider the Shi’a population second class citizens and have treated them as such; they have always been very nervous about their large Shi’a populations. Shi’is are a majority in Iraq and in Lebanon; they have considerable influence in Syria; they also have outposts; they are probably a majority in Bahrain, and in Saudi Arabia Shi’is sit on top of the oil fields, so these regimes have reason to be concerned. If these Shi’a groups were to assert themselves more forcefully, it would be a net loss for the Sunni Arab dominance in the Middle East. I think the concern is about that aspect in addition to the nuclear issue.
You said in your blog, “I do not believe that WikiLeaks is practicing journalism. I regularly read the latest revelations from the National Security Archive, which releases U.S. government memos and cables, some of them quite contemporary, acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Although that information is informative and enormously useful to me in my work, I do not regard it as journalism.” Why do you think this is not journalism? And do you think WikiLeaks has endangered U.S. national security?
Most of what has been revealed is pretty bland. If you had actually written that in a newspaper or if an American diplomat had gotten up and made a public statement with this information, people would scarcely have noticed. But most of what has come out is pretty much what we already know. I am a great admirer of the National Security Archives which declassifies American documents; a huge number of diplomatic cables have been declassified by them. They sometimes publish them in book format. On the whole I don’t think this is journalism, to take information written by other people. I don’t think they regard themselves as journalists. WikiLeaks is doing a similar thing in a different way. They assemble this mass of material and publish it. That does not mean that they can or will be prosecuted. What annoys me most about WikiLeaks and Assange is that they have claimed this noble purpose that they are going to actually interfere with government trying to create conspiracies that might take us into another war. I am all in favor of breaking up government conspiracies. I have been reading the material on a regular basis and I have not seen a single revelation thus far that gives any indication that there was a government conspiracy. There might be things that are embarrassing to the government but a conspiracy to take us to war, I just don’t see it. I will use their material (WikiLeaks); I have no compunction about that; I will look at it to see if there is anything there to find useful just as I do with NSA material. But I think they have been put on a kind of pedestal that they don’t deserve. There is a lot of gossip there and it might be exciting for some people but it does not tell us anything the political structure of a country or its ability to do whatever it is trying to do. I am underwhelmed by WikiLeaks. I am really not impressed. Their claim to save the world is not credible.
What about the current state of human rights in Iran? There is more depressing news, arrests of anyone and everyone. What should the U.S. administration or the European Union and others do or say in this regard that has not been done so far? How can the government of Iran be held accountable for the ongoing abuse?
I have been associated for a great deal of my life with Human Rights Watch and other HR organizations. These are organizations that are dedicated to trying to improve the situation of human rights throughout the world. I strongly support their objectives. You tell the world that this government or this group of people is doing such and such a thing. Of course they prefer this not to be known. But you can investigate and get your facts straight and then you release it to the rest of the world to shame those governments. What is called name and shame. The U.S. government is certainly capable of doing that and I am a strong supporter of identifying how Iran is mistreating its citizens. At the same time, I personally think that it is a recipe for disaster for the U.S. government to interfere too much. Intervening in the internal affairs of Iran in the past has always been disastrous. I am in favor of keeping a spotlight on Iran and Iran cares about this. It is embarrassed when the world looks at cases of human rights abuses. A good example is the stoning of the woman who was first charged with adultery. There was world-wide protest, the world made her into a celebrity, and it was stopped. But at the same time, we cannot solve all of Iran’s problems. We can’t even solve our own problems.
As we are getting close to the end of 2010 and with the beginning of the New Year, do you believe Iran and the US will reach an agreement on the nuclear issue? And what is the role of Israel in all of this?
I am modestly pleased that the US is sitting down with Iran to talk. I think it is difficult to be optimistic especially with Iran’s changing policy. At the same time I hear Dennis Ross and his colleagues vaguely mention negotiations but actually focus more on pressure and sanctions. So I find it troubling to see that the U.S. government is putting more emphasis on sanctions rather than finding a resolution. I have been in favor of negotiations for many years but in my view we have never done this very seriously. I would like to see more creative effort by the U.S. but I also look at it from a realistic point of view. Iran is in the midst of an internal struggle and a far-reaching shift within its own government—from what used to be a clerically dominated society with a constitution to dominance by the Revolutionary Guard and a militarized society. That is where Iran is headed. It is a very sad state of affairs. I can’t say whether the new rulers of Iran or the potential leaders or the people around them, a very narrow-minded clique of people who believe in the divinity of this government, will be in a position to make decisions on negotiating with the U.S. I would like to see the U.S. more open to negotiations. Some progress has been made but I would like to see Iran taking steps in that direction as well. It is a two sided game. Israel is playing a role by getting attention focused on Iran. That is the role they play. Sometimes it is constructive and other times it isn’t. But it appears Israel is not involved in those negotiations. I think we have to find a way. I have some degree of optimism while there are certainly days when one becomes cynical.
In this country, there has been tremendous pressure on President Obama. The House finally passed the Tax Bill. Do you think in 2011, Republicans and Democrats will be even further distant on issues?
It's hard to imagine anything else. What we have seen for years has been a kind of warfare. Signing off on the tax bill and the extension of benefits was a huge breakthrough. One may not like the conditions but it was an enormous accomplishment. My guess is that if the tax bill stimulates the economy, something that all economists predict over the next two years, it will enhance Obama’s hands. He has also shown that he can work with the Republicans. So we have to wait and see. When the Republicans were out of power in the Congress and in the Senate, they adopted a policy of doing nothing but oppose everything. Now they have the House and the Senate is very close. They are going to be held responsible and saying No to everything is no longer a strategy.
First published on Roozonline.com.
Recently by Fariba Amini | Comments | Date |
---|---|---|
Forgotten Captive | 61 | Nov 27, 2012 |
The Bride and the Dowry | 3 | Nov 27, 2012 |
Enemy Number One? | 64 | Sep 07, 2012 |
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 |
JD's The Most Remarkable Point
by Demo on Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:41 PM PSTPeace be upon your dad, JD. You should be proud of him. Needless to say that he should have had finished his reply to that Brit. by saying that divisions had never been allowed in Islam or by questioning that whether the Prophet Mohammed himself had been a Sunni or a Shia? Just imagine this now. Would not have the entire region had revolted against both Iraq's & Afghanistan's occupations if Moslems/Jews/Christans there had not been busy with the differnces made up by the same occupiers through a long history of such exploitations? Shame on all of us.
Thanks US for destroying Iran's neighbor enemies! Don't stop
by Jonny Dollar on Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:08 PM PSTthere! Continue with Israel, Saudi arabia, UAE..... but don't become one yourself by trying to make up for your mistakes. Iran could be the best partner for the US in the region. I am not talking about IRI, but about Iran and iranians.
Sick, Sunnis vs Shia.. of course he is fanning that. That's his job. I remember, before the revolution my dad was saying that one day he ran into this british guy (kadivar's friends?). The guy asked him whether he was shia or sunni, my dad who even denied God's existence, said: "I am moslem! We are all moslems!" So, let's not to fall in their trap. In fact, Iran would have been better off to stay sunni. Isn't that what Naader shah was trying to do? We have enough enemies being persian add to that shia. Well, may be not! Who wants to become like these malakh khoors.
My co-workers who are sunni from Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine they all love AN. He is their hero and they are surprised why we iranians don't support him!
"God is love!"
Examiner's Catch of the Day
by Demo on Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:00 PM PSTShah's widow Farah Pahlavi, aka Farah Rusta (FR) has always been in disagreement with Fariba Amini the daughter of Ali Amini, one of the Shah's prime ministers. Aginst such hate relations between FR & FA one now needs to explain the peculiar love relations between Niloufar Parsi (NP) as a known pro IRI and FR as a known monarchist.
Norooz: Recommended Reading
by G. Rahmanian on Wed Dec 29, 2010 09:48 PM PSTPlease read this fun play by Shazde Asdola Mirza called, "Rofaghaa, Poroletariaa Va Bourjhwaazi." You'll like it.
G.Rahmanian / only Iran
by norooz on Wed Dec 29, 2010 07:36 PM PSTCan you blame Niloufar parsi for her view on west? How do you know that she left Iran and doesn't know what people went through? where did Niloufar wrote that she wants war? I have read most of her comments. She is against war with any country, specially Iran. So where did you get your information from?
In fact, those who left are the ones who didn't get to see the death and destruction, thus, have a pro west opinion like you and some others on and off this site. But those who stayed and saw it first hand like me will never forget and forgive. As you know the issue with west didn't start in 1979. It goes way back and that makes it even more bitter. But all of those seem to sit well with you and as usual west is to be forgiven and Iranians are to blame.
It would be best to ask Arabs about their concerns with Iran instead of guessing. Then sign a treaty that guarantees all parties securities and interests. This is the best way to build a united region. Otherwise, west will use us against each others as always. Now if they have some baseless claims and concerns and have issues with Iran's territories and are not interested to have peace, then Iran should deal with them accordingly.
However, I must say that the worst enemy of IRI is their own actions toward people. Specially, political prisoners. False imprisonments, tortures, executions and etc.
FR,
by Examiner on Wed Dec 29, 2010 04:58 PM PSTGranted, you have never disagreed with NP. My question however, was whether you have ever agreed with her.
Ms Amini’s blog is all about politics, and hardly anything else. So, without falling for empty slogans, could you indulge me with an answer?
Thank you.
Onlyiran:
by G. Rahmanian on Wed Dec 29, 2010 04:48 PM PSTCall her kind, "Mother Courage!" Trust me, that is exactly what I think of this good-for-nothing bunch of IR defenders. In their shameless defense of the regime, these entities distort even the historical events of the past thirty-two years that many of us have witnessed. They love to start a war of some kind. They call the whole of 8-year war with Iraq which cost both countries one million casualties and $1.2 trillion US in material damages as patriotic, when we all know it could have ended in its first six months. They defend regime's warmongering rhetoric and activities as legimate. They constantly insult Iranians. They can't even hide their euphoria each time an Iranian is murdered by the regime. They never say a word with regards to using poor little Iranian kids by IR in the "human waves" during the war with Iraq. Most of them left Iran as soon as war broke out. They haven't experienced the war and pretend they know what war is about. I tell you, they don't have the slightest idea what Iranians went through in those hellish years.
Well said G. Rahmanian - But note where she's coming from
by Onlyiran on Wed Dec 29, 2010 03:04 PM PSTNP just wants to see the U.S. destroyed / humiliated at all costs, be that through a war with Iran (Iran to her is "collateral damage" for the greater cause of humiliating the U.S.) or through writing nonsensical, absurd, one could even say childlike, blogs on IC and other places. I tell you, she'll be sitting in her apartment in London laughing and jumping for joy if a war breaks out between Iran and U.S., whereby a million Iranians die, but the U.S. somehow doesn't achieve its goals. Absolutely Despicable!!!!!!
How Embarrassing!
by G. Rahmanian on Wed Dec 29, 2010 03:01 PM PSTNP is at it again! How can this woman live with her embarrassing self? She misquotes Mr. Gary Sick and then claims Arabs see Iran as a "proud and admirable nation." Not even her hero, Nasser, saw Iran in those terms. As always she does not have any clue about the subject she writes about. Most Sunni Arabs see Shia Islam as a cult, if anything. Sunni Muslims worship God and see Mohammad as God's Messenger. When it comes to religion, they see Ahmadinejad as an illiterate buffoon and nothing else! To them what many IR's mullahs say amounts to blasphemy. As Mr. Sick says, Shi'ites are seen as "second-class citizens" by most Sunnis. The same way Baha'is are seen in Iran by the regime. She sits in her room and writes worthless blogs full of meaningless cliches and thinks she understands the whole world and its politics. I bet she knows much less about Iran's ethnic and religious diversity. She doesn't even seem to have bothered to read Ms. Amini's interview with Mr. Sick, thoroughly. In this interview, Mr. Sick has said mostly what many other experts/scholars have said, already.
Examiner! where have you been all this time?
by Farah Rusta on Wed Dec 29, 2010 02:26 PM PSTFor your info, I can't remember if I disagreed with Niloufar ever at all!
There is more to life than politics!
FR
correction
by Niloufar Parsi on Wed Dec 29, 2010 01:59 PM PSTyes fariba,
you are right. i misunderstood the origin of the quoted paragraph. but Sick is obviously pushing the veracity of the quote, so he is committed to it, regardless...
your additional para also shows that Sick is looking for a cheaper way for america to rule the world. a bit like Dr. Evil on a low budget.
Onlyiran,
never in my life have i worked for press tv nor do i intend to. you have just proven yet again that if you repeat a lie often enough you start believing in it yourself. why on earth did i have to 'deny' working for press tv just because some beekaar came out with the stupid idea?
farah jan,
thank you sweetheart. hope you are enjoying the hols :)
tabriz,
thanks for that. likewise, and as i mentioned before, i enjoy your posts. i think you are more 'iranian' than most us. i mean in how you describe concepts and issues.
your point about improving ourselves is well taken. but let's also not forget that public opinion matters, if not for today, then for building a tomorrow. on another occasion i would like to discuss the impact of iri on islam in the longer run. btw, i think this would be a great subject for a blog...
regarding arab public opinion about iran and iranians, i have worked in 4 different arab countries. if Sick thinks he can get away with a condescending blatant lie like in this interview, then they named him right.
peace
In the spirit of holidays?!
by Examiner on Wed Dec 29, 2010 01:53 PM PSTWhen was the last time that FR agreed with NP? What was the subject?
Is this the beginning of a beautiful friendship (a la Casablanca)? In sickness and in health, until dennis do us part?
Or, as our Kermanshahi compatriots would say, FR hashtemaan dastgaah?
Niloufar
by tabriz_balasi on Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:39 AM PSTI really like your posts even though i don't agree with some of what you say. but you have the right "idea". Politics or "siasat" is the science of gaing power; whether it's for good or evil don't matter; America is playing politics in the region; so is IR; what is good for IR is not necessarily good for iran and visa versa; i believe that we should care less about what's going on as far as politics in the world and concentrate on making ourselves "better" as individuals. and also i believe in the unity between Muslims.. Sunni versus Shia is getting too old; i believe that muslims need a new vision; and actualy that vision has been born in grass-roots levels in countries such as Egypt and Turkey; they are sunni and the love Iranians; so do the people in Lebonan and Syria; Saudi and persian-gulf arabic countries are a different story; in grass-roots level us believing iranians specialy those of us that live in western countries should bering understanding amongst each other; we really have no choice; we are all from the middle-east and we have common interests; and Allah and Muhammad's Moral Ideals are the most beautiful thing that can bring us together; How nice it would be to have a muslim-united-middle-east just like the european union.
~be an act of the knowing love~
When are you going to get over this Iran/Arab thing?
by Roozbeh_Gilani on Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:04 AM PSTNot an opinion on the contents of the blog as I have not read it yet. The fact is the picture of two grinning Islamist criminals shaking hands put me off. The Fact is, neither of these two Dictators represent even a significant minority of the Arab or Iranian population any longer.
"Personal business must yield to collective interest."
Great Job Fariba, and don't mind the PressTV operative below
by Onlyiran on Wed Dec 29, 2010 09:57 AM PSTNP is a PressTV employee. She has never denied it. Her job is to distort news and views and to propagandize on behalf of the IRI. Your interview was objective and to the point. Gary Sick has great insight on Iran, and contrary to NP's false accusations, he is often a debunker of warmongering tactics against Iran.
please read carefully !
by Fariba Amini on Wed Dec 29, 2010 09:49 AM PSTThe following is not what Gary Sick said. It is what John Mearsheimer says. Get your facts correct and do not misquote people. Amazing.
Political scientist John Mearsheimer of Chicago lays out his
case for an alternative American strategy. He is a classic realist and
believes that offshore balancing — relying on regional powers
to balance rival regional powers, with the US coming in only when
absolutely necessary — is the most efficient and least expensive
strategy for maintaining US influence in the world. He summarizes this
as follows:
In general terms, the United States should concentrate
on making sure that no state dominates Northeast Asia, Europe or the
Persian Gulf, and that it remains the world’s only regional hegemon.
This is the best way to ensure American primacy. We should build a
robust military to intervene in those areas, but it should be stationed
offshore or back in the United States. In the event a potential hegemon
comes on the scene in one of those regions, Washington should rely on
local forces to counter it and only come onshore to join the fight when
it appears that they cannot do the job themselves. Once the potential
hegemon is checked, American troops should go back over the horizon.
Well said Niloufar jaan
by Farah Rusta on Wed Dec 29, 2010 08:24 AM PSTI only beg to differ with you on one minor point: Sick is both ignorant as well as a lier!
FR
sick,
by Niloufar Parsi on Wed Dec 29, 2010 07:13 AM PSTon his website says:
"In general terms, the United States should concentrate on making sure that no state dominates Northeast Asia, Europe or the Persian Gulf, and that it remains the world’s only regional hegemon. This is the best way to ensure American primacy. We should build a robust military to intervene in those areas, but it should be stationed offshore or back in the United States. In the event a potential hegemon comes on the scene in one of those regions, Washington should rely on local forces to counter it and only come onshore to join the fight when it appears that they cannot do the job themselves. Once the potential hegemon is checked, American troops should go back over the horizon."
seems like a proud apologist for american imperialism simpyl looking for a cheaper way to implement Cheney's agenda. of course he would speak against Assange.
btw, 'in Arab eyes' Iran is a proud and admirable nation, no matter what Sick 'assumes' to be the 'general consensus'. he is either ignorant or a liar. given his general approach and his extremely wishy washy take on why iran's power is on the rise, i would say he is probably a liar.