Iran is not Al Qaeda. We need to isolate the ruling elite and radical clerics by reaching out to the Iranian people directly.
By Marc Gopin and Gregory Meeks
Washington - There have been persistent rumors in Washington that President Bush does not want to leave office without "doing something" about Iran. Even more alarming, there have been rumors that Mr. Bush has solicited a green light from Russian President Vladimir Putin for Israel to "do something" about Iran.
| Russia once again plays all sides at once. |
One of the central problems with the Bush administration is that it thinks military first and sometimes military only – with disastrous results for America. Though military action is an option, the consequences of the United States or Israel attacking Iran would be catastrophic.
| If it's catastrophic then it's not an option, is it? And if it's an option, one could perhaps consider situations where the use of military force would not be catastrophic. |
Fortunately, the American people do not want this to happen. Only 10 percent approve of a military confrontation with Iran, according to a CBS/New York Times poll in March, and most worry about America's troubled relationship with the Muslim world. A large majority are concerned that the Iraq war is destroying America's international reputation. They do not want to make matters worse.
| Fewer than 10 percent of Americans have a clear understanding of what Iran is doing to destabilize Iraq, promote terrrorism, undermine Lebanon, sponsor Hamas and Hezbollah, prop up Syria, and in general make an all-round nuisance of itself. Educate the American people and then re-ask the question. |
| Even fewer know or care about the Iranian chicanery in Central and South America. |
Iran is not Al Qaeda. It is a complex society that combines clerical rule, populism, and a series of power groups. The most dangerous are the Revolutionary Guard, composed of a powerful and wealthy military elite, whose influence can only continue if the world isolates Iran.
| This is the usual argument from the Cold War: if only we 'opened up' to the Communists we could end the isolation of their countries. This usually meant our making concession after concession without extracting anything of use from the Russkies. I think this style of foreign policy was called, 'realism'. |
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also depends on the populist appeal of confrontation with the West – bolstered recently by the Bush administration's labeling of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The Achilles' heel is that Mr. Ahmadinejad's popular appeal only works when the West is unpopular, and nothing could be more unpopular to Iranians than a US-inspired attack. An external attack often shifts public opinion to the hard right.
| Often but not always. Context is everything. Much of the Iranian people profess admiration for us despite -- or because of -- what's happened so far. A military intervention that (for example) knocked the Mad Mullahs™ out of the way and let the Iranian people choose a government might not harm popular opinion of us at all. |
The Revolutionary Guard's new terrorist label, which fetters more than frees US diplomacy efforts, should not offer a convenient excuse for further disengagement.
| How exactly does it fetter us? Instead it provides us with a valuable diplomatic and suasive tool: it's called, 'clarity'. When Ronald Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an 'evil empire', it didn't bind him in the least, rather it allowed him to make clear and succient what the nature of the problem was. The Soviets were indeed an evil empire. The Revolutionary Guards are indeed a terrorist organization. Make that clear and you've gone a fair ways to understanding both the nature of the problem and the solution that is required. |
Rather, the perfect way to isolate the Revolutionary Guard, the Iranian president, and the radical clerics, is to invite the Iranian people into an ever more hopeful relationship with the West.
| Which we've been doing, though the authors have failed to notice because we haven't been blowing our trumpets about it. We've been quietly undermining the Mad Mullahs™ by helping the Iranian people get to western culture. They love it and they want more of it. We don't need to proselytize; we can let our culture speak for us. |
The time for doing this is perfect. President Ahmadinejad has failed to deliver on his campaign promises of better consumer prices. Iranians are also distressed by unprecedented oil rationing.
| The authors missed how the Bush administration has been working quietly behind the scenes to help this along, tightening financial screws and making business more difficult for the Mullahs. It's not perfect but there has indeed been a strategy in place. |
Some in Washington might say that this is attributable to US-led sanctions, though it is worth noting that America's allies are resisting and perhaps with good reason.
| Because they want the money. |
Unilateral sanctions have not proved to be an effective way to change a country's behavior.
| That didn't stop the Left from advocating sanctions against South Africa back in the day, and doesn't stop the Looney Left from advocating sanctions against Israel today. I'd like to see the authors take a stand against those, just for intellectual consistency. |
First, according to a recent study by David Lektzian of Texas Tech University and Christopher Sprecher of Texas A&M University, sanctions actually make it far more likely that two states will meet on the battlefield. Out of 200 cases studied, military conflicts were six times more likely to occur when sanctions were in place.
Second, as in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the weight of sanctions would burden the Iranian regime less than it would the Iranian people.
| George Bush had a solution for that. He agreed that the sanctions weren't containing Saddam and were only hurting the decent Iraqi people. You may wish to note how he responded. |
In a recent poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, a nonprofit research group that develops strategies to counter terrorism,
| ... and a group comprised of the usual sorts of 'realists' who were too happy to accomodate the Soviets because we didn't want to anger them ... |
70 percent of Iranians thought that normal relations with the West should be a high priority, but only 29 percent thought nuclear energy should be, and an astonishing 61 percent disapproved of Ahmadinejad's government.
| Those numbers should tell us something: we need to apply more pressure on the Mad Mullahs™, not less. They're in a weak position and could easily collapse. Instead, the authors advocate snatching defeat from victory. |
The internal vulnerabilities of Iran's ruling circles make this a perfect time to extend an olive branch to the people of Iran with a diplomatic initiative that involves economic incentives and development opportunities for the poor, the middle class, and the reformers.
Absolutely wrong, and wrong for a simple reason: there's no way to reach 'the people' with any of those incentives and opportunities.
The authors may not realize this (pro'ly not given what they've written), but you see, Iran is a 'dictatorship': a government controlled and run by a group of clerical thugs for their own, personal benefit. The usual way 'incentives' and 'opportunities' work in a dictatorship is that they're all channeled to the thugs, their families and toadies. The poor working stiffs see nothing. And just try to audit them, let alone call them on their thievery and thuggery. The authors would brandish a carrot -- the Mullahs will eat the carrot and demand another one. Then another one. This will keep going, and if you dare suggest that we perhaps shouldn't offer any more carrots, you'll be accused of 'taking a step backwards'. |
Multilateralism is a must if we want this to happen, because Europe, Russia, Japan, and others maintain good relations with Iran's business sector,
| ... so as to grab a few table scraps ... |
the kind necessary in order to provide socioeconomic development assistance. If the Revolutionary Guard and the president block these gestures then "it is on their heads," and we will likely see them increasingly marginalized.
| They'll be increasingly marginalized by ensuring that we don't do stupid things that keep them in power, like giving them an unlimited supply of carrots. |
Admittedly, much of what we're prescribing dovetails with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. We thought it appropriate to offer a reminder. The American people must tell their leaders to lead with a big stick, but peacefully, and with respect for a great civilization.
| It's precisely because we respect the great civilization of Medes and Persians that we need to remove the Mad Mullahs™. |
• Marc Gopin is the James Laue Professor at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution and the director of the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution. Gregory Meeks is a Democrat who represents the Sixth District of New York in the House of Representatives and serves on the foreign affairs committee. |