POINT
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
The Grand Bargain
23-Oct-2008
In a recent policy paper by the New American Foundation (among whose board members sits Francis 'End of History' Fukuyama), it is argued that the next U.S. administration must engage Iran with a 'grand bargain', which addresses both Iran and the U.S.'s strategic concerns. The paper argues that the piecemeal approach the U.S. has taken towards Iran has clearly failed to change the behavior of the regime in Iran, and a détente is not a desirable option. The only stable and strategically appropriate path to take is a full rapprochement.
The policy paper is very frank in its approach, as imperialists usually are among themselves. It argues that Iran is strategically too important to be alienated, and argues that in the absence of a full rapprochement, Iran's leaders will have no choice but to flea to the Russian and the Chinese spheres of influence. Iran's hydrocarbon resources are vast (second in the world, in combined oil and gas), and it's strategic positioning in the Middle East is not something the U.S. can afford to do without for much longer. More importantly, Iran's animosity toward the U.S. can be detrimental to the advance of the American interests in the region. So, the best thing to do is for the U.S. to strike a 'grand bargain' with a regime that has historically proven that it can cooperate with the U.S., but has never been rewarded fully for its past cooperation both in fighting the Taliban regime and their overthrow, as well as in the American military and political designs for Iraq.
The wish list of things to be granted by the U.S. and Iran in such a grand bargain include the familiar demands: Iran is to modify its nuclear program to accommodate western powers' concerns, disavow the 'terrorist' organizations such as Hamas, Hezbullah and the Islamic Jihad, and help stabilize the region for Uncle Sam. In turn, the U.S. is to guarantee that it will not militarily (or otherwise) try to change Iran's borders or its form of government, lift all unilateral sanctions against Iran, and generally play nice.
Of particular interest is the following passage from the policy paper: "During their dialogue with U.S. counterparts over Afghanistan in 2001-03, Iranian diplomats indicated their interest in working with the United States to establish a regional security framework focused on Central Asia. Other senior Iranian officials raised such a possibility with us in 2003-04." Hardly an anti-imperialist stance on the part of the Iranian regime! On the contrary, this is clearly indicative of a regime with ambitions for becoming a cop on the beat (much like the Shah's regime was for the Americans), and wants that role officially sanctioned by the biggest cop on the global beat, the U.S.
These are recommendations of a group of professionals whose bread is buttered by thinking ahead and advising Uncle Sam on the best course of action to take, in order to secure its long-term geo-strategic interests. The analysis provided by the New American Foundation shows that powerful forces within the imperil halls of the U.S. also find the 'cop on the beat' scenario for Iran as something desirable.
This line of thinking is not isolated to think tanks, as attested to by a Time magazine article of 4 October 2008, titled, "Changing the conventional wisdom about Iran." In this Time article, France is portrayed as the key European power to lead the charge for a strategic adjustment of policy as regards Iran.
As reported there: "'The opportunity is there to move past the 30 year-old images of a defiant and frightening revolutionary Iran, and start encouraging cooperative behavior by engaging with Iran as the swiftly-developing nation and regional power it is,' says Bernard Hourcade, an Iran specialist at France's National Center for Scientific Research. 'The key is direct American involvement in relations, because renewed ties with the U.S. is what Iran wants most'."
Further, the Time article reports: "'Iran's biggest strategic concern is obtaining security assurances and accords, and the only nation that can provide those is the U.S.,' says Didier Billion, deputy director of the Institute on International and Strategic Relations in Paris. The logic behind that view is supported by Thomas Fringar, chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council and the senior analyst in Washington's intelligence community."
There have been other indications as well. For one, there have been reports on the volume of U.S.-Iran trade, which have increases ten fold during the Bush administration. Another highly telling development was the plans of Bush administration to open a diplomatic post in Iran (see here). Though the plan was shelved, "in part over fears it could affect the U.S. presidential race or be interpreted as political meddling," other reports indicate that it is still under consideration. If the Bush administration's stated animosity toward Ahmadinejad's administration (or the Iranian regime as a whole) were as deep-rooted as the alarmists have been stating, whence did these considerations of opening a diplomatic post materialize?
The truth is that American imperialism is not on very solid foundations. Besides its military power, which alone does not acquire one an empire, most other aspects of its power are on very shaky ground, as the current financial meltdown has made plain. For its maintenance therefore it requires two things: prevention of other powers from rising, and a host of client states in geo-strategically important regions. The grand bargain discussed here addresses both requirements.
To sum, these are important signs and the writing is on the wall that neither this nor the next president of the U.S. will be looking at bombing Iran; rather, he'll be likely offering the regime of the mullahs yet more cakes and the keys to the heavens the mullahs have been asking for.
* * *
In a previous article ("A New Cold War?" Counterpunch, January 29, 2007), I likened the current relationship between Iran and the U.S. as what in Iran we call a 'Zargari fight', which basically is a verbal back and forth between two parties who have no intention of actually engaging each other in a hand-to-hand. 'Zargar' is an ironsmith, and when two ironsmiths engage is such a verbal fight, the purpose is mostly to gather a crowd, from whose patronage both ironsmiths can potentially benefit.
In that article and more recently, I have argued that the U.S. ruling classes do not want a regime change in Iran at all. On the contrary, they like and appreciate greatly the theocratic setup in Iran, and all they wish is for the mullahs cool it down on the rhetorical front and act differently with regards to a few agenda items dear to Uncle Sam's heart as pertains to the regional setup in the Middle East.
For their part, the Iranian regime has no fundamental animosity with imperialists and in fact has open dealings with European imperialists, the IMF and the World Bank, and would very much like to join the World Trade Organization. As pertains to the Americans in particular, again we remind the reader of the full cooperation forwarded by the Iranian regime in the invasion of Afghanistan (and the installment of Hamid Karzai as a puppet president), as well as with the overthrow of Saddam's regime and the installation of a puppet regime in Iraq.
These are facts. If these were not factual truths, no faction of the U.S. ruling class would be singing the praises of the benefits of engaging the mullahs with a 'grand bargain'. No such grand bargains were ever conjured up with regards to Saddam's regime.
There are, of course, some organizations (e.g., CASMII) whose entire reason for being is to make mountains out of the molehill of the disagreements between the leaders of the two nations, in order to set themselves up with a political trading post, and in so doing they must talk up the imminent threats of war and destruction that is about to rain down on Iran at the hands of the U.S. imperialism, and to justify their lobbying efforts in behalf of the theocratic regime in Iran.
Such organizations, however, have no problems with imperialists setting up open and legal shop in Iran, nor have they any objections to U.S. corporations looting our resources openly and legally with the blessing of our own government. Indeed, they consider such 'economic cooperation' as the spirit of our times and a blessing to be sought. And should anybody warn that the economic interests of the imperialists are the real driving force behind political-military actions, that will land you the ready-at-hand label of 'hawkish' and hollow accusations of 'struggling to sow antagonism against Iran'.
Much to these leftists' delight, we are now observing the contours of an imperialist 'grand bargain' with the mullah's regime emerging (along the lines of the deal Nixon struck with China in early 1970s). This line of dealing with the Iranian regime is not surprising at all; Brzezinski, in the late 1970s, regarded the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini as a strategic ally of the imperialists in their efforts to strap a 'Green Belt' (of Islamist states) around the Soviet Union.
As a socialist, I do not reduce imperialism to its military moves. Socialists understand that war is another way of pursuing political objectives, so for those of us who don't put the cart before the horse, it is clear that wars happen for political-economic reasons. Why would imperialists go through the gigantic mess of a war, not to mention carry the even larger financial burdens that currently they clearly cannot afford, when the adversary is willing to accommodate the imperialist's wishes through mere negotiations? All that is required of both sides is to find a solution that leaves both their faces unmarred, one that both can take home to their people as a 'strategic victory'.
The 'grand bargain' is clearly such a solution.
So, the likes of CASMII and their American friends can now stop their rhetorical abuses of Iranian socialists, who have been warning about such bargains, and can consider their work done. They can now register as legal, foreign lobbying agents at the service of this theocracy and bring consistency between their speech acts and their political acts. They can stop sounding like Zionists and their supporters, whose most ready-at-hand rhetorical grenade of choice is 'anti-Semitism' -- except, of course, those over at CASMII will call you 'hawkish' or a 'neocon' if you so much as direct any criticism at this theocratic dictatorship. These hard working deflectors can now concentrate on generating actual positive publicity for the Iranian government, instead of forever repelling criticisms directed at the mullahs by those who are truly fighting for social justice.
First published on informationclearinghouse
| Recently by Reza Fiyouzat | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Kayvan Sabeghi: War Vet Seriously Injured | 5 | Nov 06, 2011 |
| Nuke Plants? Please! | 41 | Mar 16, 2011 |
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 |
Roshanbeen???
by endofoil (not verified) on Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:33 AM PDTRoshanbeen: Respect is earned, not given.
Do you respect the rightwing religious nuts in the US??
Why should anyone respect the Iranian rightwing religious nuts committing domestic terror on it's own citizen for nearly 30 years???
Oh My
by Roshanbeen (not verified) on Sun Oct 26, 2008 08:20 AM PDTEndofoil
I responded to your charges once before but apparently Iranian.com decided not to post it. Here it is the modified version. BTW I posted my response before your last response to me. Basically saying that Financial constraints and attack on Suez Canal was the end of British Empire as we know it. No BE did not turn to Islamic , Soviet or Chinese Empire either.
NO I do not admit that IRI main foreign policy objective is to bring down any Empire.
But I firmly believe every nation wants to be respected. If you want respect give respect and live by example. Military campaigns bring temporary fear but not respect.
Half True
by Rok Goo (not verified) on Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:50 PM PDTAs long as any opposition rhetoric targets at the murderous IRI, we all Iranians have sympathy for it. This emotional support however does not mean a full acceptance of another totalitarian ideology.
You rhetoric could be easily bought a few decades ago, but now Iranians bear in mind the nostalgy of a democratic future they look for. People who neglect the past dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao…have no democratic future.
Communism and Nazism have a common legacy and brought about all the totalitarian crimes of the past century. By truly opposing the totalitarian IRI, your problem seems your judgment over anti-American character of the IRI, not its ideological crimes against humanity.
Your conscience stemming from your communist background, not “alleged socialism”. It will be a heavy burden for your opposition to the regime if the fake "zargari" war turns to be true. Remember, when the pro Soviet Toudeh Party entitled the IRI “anti-imperialist” and therefore unconditionally supported!
Where is the place of human dignity and freedom in your analysis? Where is your conscience of the crimes against humanity committed by totalitarianism?
The substantial similarities between Islamism, Nazism, and Communism in terms of their horrific and appalling character and their crimes against humanity need to be assessed and judged from the legal, moral and political as well as the historical point of view. A “better” of them does not exist and cannot be believed.
The British empire fell due
by endofoil (not verified) on Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:02 AM PDTThe British empire fell due to the cost of maintaining it.
The Empire was built on trade and maintained by beaurocracy. The cost of the paperwork was offset by the non competetive market.
But by 1930's, many countries had decided to leave the empire and so the market shrunk faster than the cost of maintaining it.
The fact that the US had lent money to the UK to maintain their military forces during WW2 at a very high interest rate didn't help!
Some might say that in order for the US to help in the WW2, the UK had to give up the Empire.
Roshanbeen:
by endofoil (not verified) on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:38 AM PDTSo, you do admit that the Islamic Republic's main foreign policy objectives are to bring down the "American Empire" and replace it with Islamic Ummah, Chinese Empire or Soviet Empire???
Suez Canal
by Roshanbeen (not verified) on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:21 AM PDTEndofoil;
Remember, it took fight over suez Canal to bring down British Empire.
Problem with Grand Bargain is the Dishonest Broker
by eroonman on Fri Oct 24, 2008 06:18 PM PDTGreat piece, glad to see the socialist movement is alive. I don't agree with it, but I like listening to the ideas. The primary problem with any idea of a Grand Bargain with Iran is the very fact the the Us has become a joke in the world. A Dishonest Broker that no one can trust. And no one should. Just look at the track record. In less than 2 decades (chump change in country history terms) Iraq and Saddam went from being an ally to an enemy and utter destruction. Same goes for Iran by the way. Iran felt the sharp slap of US "friendship" twice, once for Mossadegh's insolent ideas to, (of all things!) democratize Iran. Boy did he have Gall or what!
No, As long as US foreign policy continues to be hijacked by backroom dealing and stabbing adminsitrators, and is not answerable to the people, there wll be uncertainty. Blessedly though there will be untold profits to made from this, hence the uncertainty. Iran however, is merely following the same guidelines that US foreign policy has so clearly left for it to follow in the desert sand. Iran today enjoy's it's role and relishes it's newfound purpose and greater mission, namely to put the oil in turmoil around the world.
smhb: Truth hurts, doesn't
by endofoil (not verified) on Fri Oct 24, 2008 05:54 PM PDTsmhb: Truth hurts, doesn't it. No amount of ranting and raving or ad hominem is going to change the facts.
You are in deep denial if you think Iran is powerful in any meaningful way but if thinking that Iran is an up an coming superpower makes you feel less inferior then by all means, enjoy your self-deception.
Sanction be sanction
by Shadooneh (not verified) on Fri Oct 24, 2008 04:40 PM PDTThis may sound counter-intuitive to some, but I think the sanctions and all other ways of "containment", so loved by the neo-old-cons, have helped the regime rather than hurt it. The sanctions are being used tools to limit the economic options for the Iranian people by concentrating the means to generate income and making a living in government's hands. No wonder the "Bazzariha", who enjoy economic clout and freedom from the government hand-outs, can go on strike and force the government to capitulate, but the ordinary workers such as transportation workers and others get the proverbial back massage by the police and sent to prisons bloodied, or to their homes with empty pockets and jobless.
If we want to see change in Iran, including regime change, we need to give the ordinary Iranian people economic clout by increasing non-government jobs. We can achieve this goal by encouraging domestic and foreign investment that create jobs. Let's remember the Javaher and other bazaaries who do not provide vital goods nor basic necessities, unless you consider gold jewelry basic necessity, could have gone on striking for weeks without anyone missing a meal or a ride to work. So why did the "strike" work so well to the bazaaries advantage? The answer is because they have economic means to sustain their status and VAT was just an excuse for the bazaaries to prove a point. I support anyone and any group who opposes the ill-conceived and counter-productive sanctions on Iran. Obama is making a grave mistake by supporting the illegal sanctions covering refined oil and other manufactured products. Those sanctions including the present ones are based on shaky legal ground mainly pushed by the enemies of Iran and will only give the regime more levers of oppression and continuity.
Have you heard of Peak oil??
by smhb on Fri Oct 24, 2008 04:30 PM PDTendofoil,
ur simplistic analysis is so dumb its mind boggling. What about the central american and south merican countries? how about India and for that matter china? What about vietnam, Laos, cambodia? Oooops how about African countries?
Your lack of understanding, depth, historical facts and your psuedo intellectual mumbo jumbo is good for fools like urself. I suspect you are an elightened ............
PEACE is GOOD
by Anonymous8 (not verified) on Fri Oct 24, 2008 04:28 PM PDTDear Reza,
Get off your socialist high horse. Your leftist ideology is not more important than peace. Iran is a sovereign nation and must be treated like any other. You can fight against imperialism after that.
Grand Bargain
by smhb on Fri Oct 24, 2008 03:13 PM PDTTo be honest there is really no grand bargain that I can think of.
The
American and Iranian trains are on a collision course. When and where
is a matter of conjecture and your guess is as good as mine.
Their interests are diametrically opposed on a strategic level. However
on tactical levels there maybe occasional areas of mutual interest and
cooperation.
Case in point is the overthrow of Taliban. For different
reasons right after 9/11 the American and Iranian outlook on Taliban
was the same. It certainly served Iran's interest very well to get rid
of the Taliban and have the US committ troops and other resources there
for an indefinite period of time.
Do recall that before 9/11 Iran was
supporting the Nothern Front while the US and its allies were
supporting the Taliban.
The overthrow of Saddam was probably another area that there was mutual
commonality and short term tactical overlap of interest.
As events have indicated this also
served Iran's interests very well and the US has been caught in a very
difficult geo-political quagmire that they cant seem to find a way out
without kissing Iran's ass and yet not coming off looking like that.
The Americans dont have too many good options left to them in the ME
and the only thing they can think of is how to bring Iran around to
help them get out of the mess they are in. Last time I checked this is
not defined as weakness on the part of Iran, but rather its growing
power and influence and the demise of US power and influence.
The US can try to delay the inevitable by kissing Iran's ass but that
doesnt solve their long term problem. The ME is no longer a place for
the empire to camp and plunder and do as it wished. Those days are over
and as the financial and economical costs of the empire become more
apparent and hits home really hard they will become more pliant to Iranian demands and strength.
Iran is not in Russia's or China's sphere of influence either. It maybe
hard for alot of Iranians, specially the ones residing outside of Iran
to fathom the fact that Iran has arrived as a major power and its rise
to global status is inevitable within the next 5 years.
Iran was the only country that took on the empire face on and now its time to sow the benefits of its victories, therefore I cant
possibly see why they would sacrifice all their hard earned power and
just hand it over to the Russians or the Chinese. Thats not in the
cards.
Be on the lookout for a very powerful Iran to emerge when the imperial
occupation troops finally leave Iraq in total disgrace.
All the huff and puff is to delay the inevitable.
Have you heard of Peak oil??
by endofoil (not verified) on Fri Oct 24, 2008 09:48 AM PDTHardly any Muslim nation has any real wealth except what they suck up through oil that foreigners discovered and helped them to extract and invented markets for.
In a state of nature, many Muslim countries would starve.
With the exception of the unusually secularized Turkey, any Muslim nation with more than African-style poverty mooches off those nations with the actual skills to master nature.
Currently the main way of doing so is selling oil that one neither discovers, finds an use for (independently), drills, refines, etc. When the Islamic Republic reaches peak oil and when it has to cut off subsidized basiji, gasoline, or tax iron, carpet, gold, and the bazaArees, etc. due to much lower prices of oil and advent of alternatives to oil, the Islamic Republic's reign of terror will come to an end.
So which nation should the new liberated Iran model itself after the mullahs? Should it specialize in cocaine sales like Colombia or opium sales like Afghanistan? A choice must be made--otherwise tens of millions of people in the great and glorious nation of Iran will starve to death!
Why do you think Iran could do better than any other Muslim nation?
Wanna know?
by Inquiring minds (not verified) on Fri Oct 24, 2008 05:41 AM PDTDear Mehdi;
Could you please enlighten us as to how repressive states such as Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, Egypt and lately Libya have managed to remain ever so repressive and tyrannical with no hope of a democratic openning despite their very cordial and friendly relationship with the U.S. and the West? Why can't the mullahs' regime do the same? After all the Shah's regime managed to do just that for 37 years?!!
Smoke and Mirror
by Baba on Fri Oct 24, 2008 05:40 AM PDTGiven the down shift in American influence around the globe (along with its economic might) , one should ponder if Iranians are still on the same line of thinking in terms of cooperating with the US on central Asia and causauses region. I doubt it very much. At least those on the right of sprectrum want to see the end of US hegemoney. Why should they prolong the being of "dead corpsuses"? !
The flaw in socialism
by Mehdi on Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:37 PM PDTThese guys have never really understood what "imperialism" is. They regularly mis-define it. When Shah was in power, some of these boys and girls would murder an American businessman or even a worker of an American business entity in Iran and call it execution of imperialists! No, my friends, just because someone or some company has a lot of money and power, it doesn't mean they are bad people or evil. In fact even Marx and others never properly identified the individuals or forces that are evil, that are bad for a society. They mostly thought that anybody with money and power is bad and must be fought or destroyed - indirectly implying that poor and weak people are always good. And that is the biggest flaw of socialism. It takes from the powerful and gives to the weak, without any consideration of who is the powerful and who is the weak. Is an industrious businessman always an evil man? Is an idle lazy bum always a good man? No! But socialists never distinguish between the two. Rich is bad, poor is good. That's the flaw.
The writer here, for example, is very concerned about a "grand bargain" and sees that as a bad thing. Although he never really explains why that would be a bad thing. He just seems to not like big businesses, big American corporations making deals with Iran. Apparently that is bad. Of course, the writer also does not provide even a hint of what is his solution.
And then there are those who see such a "grand bargain" (which is really a somewhat derogatory term for relationship) as support or empowerment of, and lengthening the life of a repressive regime. Look at Fred's comment, for example. Such people seem completely unable to consider the consequences of such expansion of relations between Iran and the West. They seem to think that such re-establishment of relations would mean an Iran with tall walls around it and with only very top level government officials having a private lavish party together while average people are being crushed under the boots of tyranny. In fact this is falsehood. By opening relations between Iran and the West, the repressiveness of the regime will have no choice but to be reduced and gradually removed. In fact lack of such a relationship is the main factor this regime has been able to repress people. When people have no contact with the outside world, they don't know any better - they just surrender to repression.
One by one
by Fred on Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:45 AM PDTThis “grand bargain” which in simple terms is to guarantee the rule of the Islamist republic over the enslaved Iranians is to try yet again the failed colonial policies that are the main architects of the current situation.
This would not be the first time that professor Fukuyama, the sage of chameleons, is wrong about something, and deadly one at that. His support for the Iraq war, albeit claiming of secretly opposing it, is just one example of how solid the chap is. One of his students is none other than the lifetime head of NIAC lobby the conjoined twin of the CASMII lobby which is also pushing for the “grand bargain” with the Islamist republic.
It is also entertaining, though hauntingly sad to see in advance of the current U.S. administration’s looming exit from the scene, one by one Bush adversaries are breaking their many years of silence about the Islamist republic’s crimes.
These are the same people whose lefty ideological dictates prevented them from raising their voice against the Islamist republic just because it was their tactical ally in their hatred of Bush.
Their silence on top of their tar and feathering any one who openly opposed the Islamists as a “warmonger” gave the Islamist republic the breathing time and space it needed to suppress the internal opposition even more openly and at the same time to expand its nuke and terrorist networks. One can safely assume when the history of these times are written, these lefties will get the same judgment that their commie forefathers have got.
Wow, finally an unbiased
by Anonymous... (not verified) on Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:56 AM PDTWow, finally an unbiased analysis on this site. How refreshing.