False hopes

The Leveretts get Iran all wrong

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

False hopes
by Michael Singh
29-May-2009
 

Just as he is being criticized by those to his right for his emphasis on engagement with Iran, President Obama came under attack from the left, in the op-ed pages of the May 23 New York Times, for just the opposite. Unlike critics from the right who largely concur with the president's stated objectives but disagree with his tactics, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett argue for a full about-face on Iran policy. Obama's current policy, they assert, is doomed to fail unless he repudiates pressure and instead accommodates the Iranian regime and its nuclear aspirations, ostensibly in order to improve U.S.-Iran relations. The Leveretts both misread the Iranian regime and misapprehend U.S. interests; as a result, their proposed policy would neither lead to the rapprochement they seek nor prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The premise of the authors' analysis is that the lack of progress toward a U.S.-Iran rapprochement is the result of U.S. belligerence, which they believe makes Tehran unreceptive to U.S. overtures. In so arguing, they suffer from solipsism; in an inversion of Newton's Third Law, for the authors, every Iranian action must be a reaction to something the United States has done. So Roxana Saberi's arrest is a "fundamentally defensive" action taken in response to U.S. policy, Supreme Leader Khamenei's speeches railing against the West are a reflection of "legitimate concern," and so forth. This line of thinking neglects the possibility that the Iranian regime is acting according to its own calculation of its interests, foremost among which is regime survival. The Saberi arrest may have less to do with the United States than with the regime's longstanding repression of journalists, activists (such as advocates for women's and labor rights), minorities (such as the Bahai), and anyone else it deems a threat. Iran's two-decade pursuit of nuclear weapons may have objects other than the United States as well. Likewise, the authors fault Obama for failing to pursue a "grand bargain," but few observers of Iran believe that the regime is interested in such an arrangement.

Furthermore, the authors' suggestion that forgoing pressure will yield progress toward U.S.-Iran reconciliation stands at odds with the historical evidence. While the Clinton administration's series of unilateral concessions to the Khatami government met with no response, Iran's suspension of both nuclear weapons efforts and uranium enrichment in 2003 is widely believed to have been a response to U.S. military action in Iraq. Similar arguments could be made for other policy shifts made by Tehran. The authors cite post-9/11 negotiations with Iran as evidence of the regime's interest in productive negotiations, but fail to note that these talks also took place in the shadow of U.S. military activity in states bordering Iran, or that Iran cooperated against its longstanding enemies -- the Taliban and Al-Qaeda -- while continuing unabated its pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorism.

As for policy recommendations, the authors modestly suggest that the United States eschew cooperation with Israel, provide the Iranian regime a security guarantee, accept an "increasingly sophisticated" Iranian nuclear program, and learn to accept Iranian support for Hamas and Hizballah. This amounts to achieving one's objectives by redefining defeat as success. It is worth examining each of these suggestions in turn (I leave it to Michael Mandelbaum to address the frequent but inappropriate use of the Nixon-to-China analogy invoked by the authors).

First, in dismissing the notion of a coalition between Israel and the Arab states to counter Iran, the authors fail to understand that this is not a policy prescription but a description of fact. Because they harbor mutual concerns over Iran's behavior, Israel and its neighbors have been pursuing complementary policies aimed at countering Tehran. Indeed, one could argue that this ad hoc coalition -- galvanized by Iran's own belligerence -- extends well beyond the region. There would be many obstacles, as the authors assert, to transforming this state of affairs into an explicit, formal alliance, but fortunately there is also no practical need to do so.

Second, the notion that Iran would be placated by security guarantees is questionable. There is little to suggest that Iran is interested in such guarantees. They would more likely underscore the regime's vulnerability than its strength, given that stable governments rarely seek foreign assurances of their stability. The regime is also likely canny enough to understand that the only trustworthy guarantors of security -- external and internal -- are alliances based on shared, enduring interests, or effective forceful deterrents. Absent a change in Iran's behavior, it is unlikely that any U.S. assurance would lead the regime to forgo its quest for the ultimate deterrent, given Iran's testy relations with its neighbors and others.

Finally, a sophisticated nuclear program that stops one turn of the screwdriver away from a nuclear weapon is strategically no different for U.S. interests than actual Iranian possession of an atomic bomb. To accept the former is to say that you accept the latter. Given the potential consequences of a nuclear Iran -- whether the emboldening of its militant proxies, the sparking of a regional nuclear arms race, or the realization of an existential threat to Israel -- acquiescence should not be an option considered by the United States.

Ultimately the authors argue not for changing Iranian behavior, but rather for accepting it and adapting U.S. policies accordingly in hopes of better bilateral relations. They take as given that Iran shares our desire for reconciliation, but as I have argued previously on this blog, it is unlikely that the regime does so. Thus, in sacrificing strategic objectives for cordial relations, the United States would ultimately achieve neither -- we would earn scorn, not respect, for abandoning our allies and abdicating our interests.

Michael Singh is the Ira Weiner fellow at The Washington Institute and former senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Kaveh Nouraee

Dariush

by Kaveh Nouraee on Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:27 AM PDT

I'm Jewish? Since when?

You know something about me that I don't know?


  •  
default

kaveh Nouraee

by Dariush (not verified) on Thu Jun 04, 2009 09:34 PM PDT

Genius, One doesn't need to have a Jewish, Muslim or christian last name to be one.
Your last name is nouraee and you are Jewish. Or Fred's and sasaan's and so many Jews with many none Jewish last names in many other countries? I know an African with African last name who is Jewish.

This writer can call himself whatever he wants, his writing tells me he is a bloody Zionist.


  •  
Kaveh Nouraee

Roshanbeen

by Kaveh Nouraee on Tue Jun 02, 2009 02:48 PM PDT

Actually, I sound like me.

My positions are my own. If anyone else wishes to adopt those positions, they're certainly entitled to do so.

Moreover, my work precludes me from listening to talk radio or any other radio format for that matter.

Beyond that, I stand behind what I have said previously. If you don't want to believe it, that's entirely your right. However, bear these facts in mind:

Obama's approval rating has gone from 70% on January 20th to 62% as of 5/31. However, in the same time period, the percentage of those who DISapprove of Obama has gone from 12% to 30%.

$800 billion dollars for a stimulus package designed to create jobs. However, unemployment has increased. With the bankruptcy filings of both GM and Chrysler, there will be a minimum of 50,000 jobs lost in the next 12 months, plus with the closing of at least 3,000 dealerships, there will be close to 200,000 additional job losses. The residual effects from those job losses will be more home foreclosures, loan defaults, auto reposessions.

Add to that the job losses that will be suffered by parts suppliers and vendors who were relying on these dealers and manufacturers for their businesses. Their families, their homes, and so on.

This stimulus was also designed to stimulate the economy and restore consumer confidence. Consumer confidence has not increased and consumer spending has in fact decreased.

Obama claims "I didn't ask for this. I inherited it" and the public buys that nonsense. Fine. That works for what happened prior to 1/20/2009, with the things George Bush did.

However, these items I have mentioned? This is all what Obama has done. He did this. He owns it.

Yet to you, I'm the one who sounds like a thug.

Have a great day.


  •  
default

Kaveh

by Roshanbeen (not verified) on Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:06 PM PDT

Sounds like you've been listning to Raush Limbaugh, Micheal Savage, and other radio talkshow thugs wayyyy too much, you sound just like them. Take it easy read few good books and papers instead.


  •  
default

Kaveh

by Sassan (not verified) on Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:55 PM PDT

Well said! Except, why should these parasites risk their lives swimming through shark-infested waters when they're hard at work turning America into Castro's Cuba!


  •  
Kaveh Nouraee

For anyone to refer to

by Kaveh Nouraee on Mon Jun 01, 2009 02:41 PM PDT

Michael Singh as an Israeli simply proves the depths of their ignorance and their absence of an eduation, as the surname "Singh" is Indian, originally used by Hindu Rajputs before becoming the surname for Sikh males.

The surname is also found in Surinam, Fiji, Trinidad, and Guyana.

Moral: Know your facts before running your mouth.

Mazdak....why are you afraid of Dick Cheney? Is he running for office? Is he even threatening to run for office? No, like you, he is a private citizen, who also like you has the right to express his opinion.

As for giving Obama a few months, get over it. No one ever promised that the man was going to get a chance to get acclimated to the position. He asked for this job, now he has to deal with it.

Obama is getting paid $400,000 a year. Does that sound like a trainee's salary to you?

You want people to rest for a minute? It's not even six months and this militant from Chicago has sold this country to the f**king Chinese for $ 2+ trillion, gave Chrysler and GM to the UAW and has robbed private shareholders blind. This thug and his gang, with enforcers like Rahm Emanuel are turning this country into a socialist society. Now, that may be the way you like it, and if you do, fly down to Key West, get in the water and swim 90 miles. Or move to Pyongyang. Or Caracas.


  •  
khaleh mosheh

My dearest anonymous bugger

by khaleh mosheh on Mon Jun 01, 2009 01:50 PM PDT


You sound so very sexy when you talk all high falutin and use big words.

Athough with your username I get some very funny vibes, your depth of superior intellect fascinates me.

If you want to get together  for a cup of coffee (wink wink) just give me a tinkle- I can be a surprisingly engaging and liberated girl.

Mowah XXX 


  •  
Anonymous Bugger

عدو شود سبب خیر گر که حق خواهد

Anonymous Bugger
Sun May 31, 2009 05:52 PM PDT

دخت  فاضل و اعلم نسوان
قضا و قدر اين امد که از بابت مکتوبه منفوره اين حقير مفلس و معيوب, مشترکان  محترم از باب نظرات متين و منطقی  ان بانويه جسور القلم و منتقد الظالمين  و کوکب عصمت و طهارت  مستفيض گردند . با امتنان از اظهارات عالمانه جناب عالی اين را هم جسارت کرده بپرسم که مگر حضرت خانم پيروی ولايت ميکند و يا تظاهر به تدٌين  از باب رندان که خطاب  مکتوبه را به خود گيرد و انچنان چون لشگر خوارج با الم قران به علی ع  جهاد کند . مستدام باشيد


مخلص البيت  ازادگان جهان


  •  
IRANdokht

Anonymous bugger

by IRANdokht on Sun May 31, 2009 03:49 PM PDT

I wasn't going to leave a comment on this post, it was not worth the time but reading your idiotic comment leaves me no choice. You pick at the one female username on these comments and try to make a point? the only point you have made is that you are a biggot, anti-women, closed minded individual who needs serious therapy.

IRANdokht


  •  
Anonymous Bugger

ماشاءالله

Anonymous Bugger
Sun May 31, 2009 03:27 PM PDT

چقدر خاله سوسکه و خاله موشه و خاله مورچه و خاله حشره و زنان متدين وسيده اهل ولايت و ضد ال يهود ريخته تو اين سايت  . الکذا همگی با اجازه اخوی و جد مذکر در اين بنگاه ظاهر شده و از زير محجبه لبان کج کرده تا معصييت نشود و مدح و ثنايه سروران پدرشان کنند . که اگر بيت المال اخوند نبود اين عقب اقتادگان هنوز در بازار فيضالدوله فرش ميشستند و نه  مثل حال کار چاق کنی صاحب سيد علی .


  •  
default

IRI apologists in a fury!

by Sassan (not verified) on Sun May 31, 2009 02:04 AM PDT

First of all, Kamyar says that Fred's posts are "tolerated, not agreed with." That's utter garbage because I and many others on this site AGREE with Fred wholeheartedly!!!

Secondly, this Mazdak character comes out and denies Cheney the right to express his opinion. Last I checked, that sorry loser for an ex-president, Jimmy Carter, has not stopped expressing his pathetic opinion since the day he left office in shame back on Jan 20, 1981. So, Cheney has just as much right to speak his mind!

Lastly, this Singh fellow MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT if so many IRI apologists come out from under their dimly-lit tents to rail against him! According to the IRI apologists, anyone who tells the TRUTH about the disgustingly corrupt and psycopathic mullah regime in Iran is AIPAC! Sure! That would make roughly 60 million Iranians members of AIPAC!

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, MR. SINGH!!!


  •  
default

Michael Singh

by Dariush (not verified) on Sat May 30, 2009 08:00 PM PDT

Israeli bloodsuckers such as Michael Singh are getting desperate. They are realizing that they may not be able to use Obama the way they wanted. They use the media and claim to want peace, then they shamelessly continue killing and expanding.

Ahmadinejad is right. If these Zionists were any good, western countries wouldn't have tried to get rid of them. They also are as coward as they can get. These Israeli fascists who kill helpless people today and claim to be a strong nation are the same animals who lined up like a herd of sheep when they faced the Nazis. Did they ever defended themselves? No.
So they are neither smart nor anything to be afraid of. Some who disagree, can just not differentiate smart and smart-ass.

A rat will always be a rat. calling yourself a Singh/lion/warrior will not make you one, you will still be a rat.


  •  
gol-dust

How is SINGH talking about Iran? Stick w/ India! Are u AIPAC 2?

by gol-dust on Fri May 29, 2009 09:44 PM PDT

How the hell this guy got in the middle of this IRI now? You are affiliated w/ Ira Weiner, meaning you are working with AIPAC! Now AIPAC has indian members who are to get Iran as well? Who are you really?

Who asked for your opinion in the first place? Who is paying you? Have a good life. and don't worry about Iran! Naader is alive!


  •  
khaleh mosheh

Weiner by affliation, weiner by stature.

by khaleh mosheh on Fri May 29, 2009 04:19 PM PDT

One (poorly drawn) picture speaks a thousand words.

Good to see these guys continue to discredit themselves with such malicious nonesense. 


  •  
default

Blah, blah, blah

by Mazdak (not verified) on Fri May 29, 2009 02:25 PM PDT

You'd think these neo-con mouthpieces would find the biggest rock and crawl under it for at least a year before they open their trap again. Same old arguments from the usual suspects. I mean, why is even Dick Cheney allowed to talk? Why doesn't this dilapitated figure just shut the f&*% up for a specific period, say 'till hell freezes over? The fact that they will not even extend Obama a few months before they start to mass harrass him is indicative of how determined and shameless a bunch they are. They take their "politics as war" very seriousely. They must be watched and exposed. You can't rest for a minute with people like this.


  •  
default

You are asking for it!??

by Kamyar Zahedi (not verified) on Fri May 29, 2009 01:50 PM PDT

Fred,

Who is asking for it Fred? Are you making a threat? Understand that your point of view and dim witted posts on this site are tolerated not agreed with.

BTW, next time you get diarrhea of the brain and get the urge to express your opinion please make sure that your Mullah like musings are concise and coherent.


  •  
Ostaad

Michael Singh's views represent...

by Ostaad on Fri May 29, 2009 04:34 PM PDT

the other side of the American political spectrum, mainly the losing side. The right-wing-nutjobs including the denizens of National Review, AIPAC and our homeboy Fred hate Obama's guts for putting them out to pasture, politically speaking, for the foreseeable future. So every once in while one of them raises his ugly head and howls to send a signal to other right-wing-nutjobs that they are alive.


  •  
Fred

Warmongering

by Fred on Fri May 29, 2009 12:07 PM PDT

You are asking for it, don’t you know the public wants to hear how their virtual reality fashioned together by at best the clueless could be formulated into a plausible policy; any truth telling is the work of “warmongers”.


  •  
default

M Singh: The Leveretts get Iran all wrong

by Kamyar Zahedi (not verified) on Fri May 29, 2009 11:54 AM PDT

What other conclusion can one expect from a WINEP/AIPAC stooge? These morons never stop spewing their venom


  •