Letters to the Editor
frankfurter
Published Letters: 4
-
Depolarize
[Read the article: Bringing Iran in from the cold]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is a strong tendency to pick sides and cast the other side as evil. In this debate, US vs Iran, there are unfortunately no good guys. To wit, the US did in fact commit many atrocities, including the following: engineered the '53 coup to replace the democratically elected Mossadeq w/ the Shah (Mossadeq nationalized Oil and was a member of the Tudeh/Communist party); trained Savak (Iranian secret service) in ways of torture; armed Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran and turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons against Iran; invaded Iraq w/o any good reason (only an idiot would believe that Saddam Hussein was in bed w/ Al Qaeda) and destabilized the region. But the government of post-revolution Iran is itself guilty of many crimes, including taking the Embassy hostages in '79, supporting Hezbollah, committing many many crimes against its people, etc..
There are really no good guys here. And even if we really were the "good guys" and were considering moral arguments, we'd have to walk a razor's edge. Where are the calls that the US stop dealing with Saudi Arabia, which not only oppresses its people and executes Sharia, but is also the number one funder and promoter of Wahhabi (extreme fundamentalism) Madrassas?
Our concern should not be deciding who is good, who is evil, and who is more justified in their actions/crimes. It really should be more pragmatic: what is the best strategy for ensuring regional stability, reducing anti-americanism, and minimizing the threat of a nuclear Iran?
The two main options on the table have been:
Option 1: Bomb the nuclear facilities. Likely to delay the program by a few years, but will strengthen the existing regime, increase anti-American sentiment and terrorism, and further destabilize the region. Iran may mine the straights of Hormuz, resulting in $150 oil and destabilizing the global economy.
Option 2: Increase the sanctions and further expand the coalition against Iran. This will put further pressure on the Iranian government, but may unfortunately result in strengthening of the government as they have an external source to blame, and in any case is unlikely to stop the nuclear program. Iran may then demand, and will receive, significant concessions a la N. Korea when it has nukes.
Many people, Kamiya included, have advocated a third option:
Extend carrots in the form of influence and regional prestige for meeting specific milestones, and try not to be too patronizing about it, while keeping up the economic pressures.
Kamiya fortifies his position by stipulating that Iran is not really after the destruction of Israel, but is mainly interesting in "being a player". Even if you don't buy this, you need a reasonable (non-moral) argument for arguing against the "carrots".
The one thing I know: it is impossible to ameliorate the situation under the mantle of moral absolutism.
-
Consideration of alternatives?
[Read the article: Bringing Iran in from the cold]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]joshstrike makes a good point: by offering Iran carrots, are you trading off short term relief for long term pain? Are you giving the child the candy he demands because you're tired of listening to his whining? Are there lessons to be learned from dealings with Iraq vs N. Korea, or is it still too early to tell? It's impossible to tell.
But there are two things to consider:
1) The course of any action should not be determined based upon its own merits, but rather in comparison to alternative options. What is it that we want, and what are the alternative options for getting there? I don't believe that sanctions will slow down the nuclear program, especially because China and Russia, wary of continued US hegemony and unilateralism, are loathe to fully support it.
2) In any confrontation/negotiation, you do best by understanding your counterpart. Any good salesperson or negotiator knows this. I suggest that the US, by not ever even meeting with the Iranians, is ignoring access to data that could help it understand what the Iranians really want. Is it really the destruction of Israel, as most people believe, or is it increased relevance, as Kamiya posits? The information is irrelevant only if you believe that a force-only-option will bring about what we want.
One thing that often seems lost on America's leaders, perhaps because of America's national youth and multi-culteralism, is the importance of subtlety and saving face in many other cultures. I don't see it in Iranian culture to lose face, but in a negotiation, its leaders could weave a story of "apparent victory", even if it gives up concessions.