An Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski

I chatted with former National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, about his new book, Strategic Vision, and the state of the international system, Iran, China, and America's leadership role. For a full text of the conversation, the full interview can be found at the SAIS Review blog.

SAIS Review: What do you envision will be the impact of the domestic political partisanship in the United States on U.S. foreign policy over the next decade? 

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Unless we overcome the currently paralyzing divisions within our own society, regarding both domestic as well as foreign policy, the United States will find it difficult to set its house in order and to play a constructive world role. It’s as basic as that. 

SR: There has been a lot of rhetoric about the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. What is your opinion on the actual implications of a nuclear-armed Iran? How should the United States, in your opinion, deal with this? 

ZB: I think that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran would be a destabilizing and serious challenge. At the same, one must not over-dramatize it. There is nothing in Iranian conduct, to suggest that Iran would immediately attempt to commit suicide by launching a nuclear attack on Israel or some other Middle Eastern state. Moreover, experience teaches us that we can deter effectively by making our own position crystal clear....

The rest of the interview can be found here.

Hamas's Political Weakening May Help Israel

The political dynamics in the Middle East are slowly changing - quite possibly in Israel's favor.  A Reuters article reports that Iran has cut funding to Hamas due to the Palestinian movement's refusal to support besieged Syrian President Bashar Assad.  Hamas, which has its political headquarters in the Syrian capitol, Damascus, has long been used by Iran as a political and terrorist weapon against Israel (Hamas currently controls the Gaza Strip).  However, the Iranian leadership is obviously quite upset at Hamas's failure to support the fellow Iranian proxies in Syria.  Assad, who is backed by Iran, has been increasingly under threat as popular revolts against the dictator have increased.  The Syrian regime has also faced increasing illegitimacy across the globe as many leaders, including recently President Obama, have called for Assad's resignation.

Reuters also reports that Hamas has lost funding from its Muslim Brotherhood supporters who are fueling the Arab Spring revolts in Egypt.

Hamas is also widely believed to receive money from the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's most popular and organised political force. Diplomats said those payments also may have been reduced because the Brotherhood has diverted funds to support the so-called Arab Spring revolts.

Hamas's financial and political woes may bode well for Israel.  Hamas has recently indicated a desire for a ceasefire with Israel.  According to reports this ceasefire will go into effect Sunday evening. This followed a series of bloody attacks in southern Israel this past week, perpetrated by the PRC, a group of Muslim terrorist seemingly unaffiliated with Hamas.  Israel has responded forcefully to both the PRC attacks and subsequent rocket strikes from Gaza.

All of this seems to suggest that the political turmoil within the Arab states may be weakening Israel's enemies.  Growing infighting among anti-Israel groups, the weakening of dictatorial Arab regimes, and the loss of Iranian influence appear to have strengthened Israel's position.  While the loss of Egypt's Mubarak and the possible increase in Islamist power in Egypt, may have some detrimental effects for Israel, ultimately it appears that the weakening of Hamas, Syria, and Iran may be quite beneficial for Israel. (Egypt, under Mubarak, was a nominal ally of Israel's and now may be taking a more Islamist-friendly approach, as the recent PRC attacks, launched from Egyptian-controlled Sinai, show.) 

The Weekend Interview with Wolfowitz

This week's Weekend Interview in the Wall Street Journal is an interesting and recommended read.  The WSJ sits down with Paul Wolfowitz, often deemed one of the architects of the Iraq War and the neocon movement.  Wolfowitz discusses his thoughts on bin Laden, the Arab Spring, Iran, and Iraq.  While at times critical of Obama - who had opposed Wolfowitz from his pre-presidential days - Wolfowitz is quite even-handed and provides insightful analysis on the Middle East.  Most interesting is that he demurs on crediting the Iraq War for sparking the Arab Spring, arguing that "I think Iraq took so long and was so bloody and is still so uncertain that it would be hard to say that it has inspired people."

WikiLeaks and a Middle East Peace?

Could the WikiLeaks disclosures, which are causing all sorts of negative fallout for the Obama administration’s foreign policy, actually lead to some foreign policy successes? Regarding most of the leaks the upshot will probably run the gamut from benign, to embarrassing, to trivially detrimental; however, there is one area where there may be a potential, albeit slight, for a constructive outcome.

Two facts, which were previously widely assumed, have now been confirmed. The first is the growing fear in the Arab world about Iran’s expanding power and nuclear ambitions. The second is Israel’s clandestine diplomacy with these same Arab powers.

Regarding the former, leaked documents show a number of Arab states’ unease with Iran’s nuclear program. These documents, as reported in the Financial Times, call for the US to stop Iran’s ambitions, including with direct attacks. This is relatively unsurprising as balancing between the big Arab states and Iran is a constant feature of the region. No Arab state, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the other two regional heavyweights, want to see a nuclear Iran.

Likewise, the disclosure of Israel’s communications with some of these states is unsurprising. Israel does not have official diplomatic channels with most Arab nations; however, despite public rhetoric they do often have common concerns.

While none of this is surprising to the casual follower of the region, most know that these Arab leaders say one thing in public while another thing behind closed doors. Much of this, of course, is due to the strong opinions of the Arab street and Muslim fundamentalists. However, now the metaphorical cat is out of the bag.

What is done with this “cat” though could have interesting consequences for the region. Most likely the Arab states will attempt to distance themselves from these revelations, brushing them off as distortions or simply ignoring the leaks. However, if the Arab leadership address these facts head-on and take ownership, it could profoundly alter the political map.

As both sets of disclosures prove, Israel and the Arab states are, at least in some issues, on the same side. In particular, Iran represents a growing threat to stability in the region and, at a minimum in Israel’s case, an existential threat. Currently, however, Arab nations and Israel are precluded from working together largely by the Arab street’s political pressure over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Islamic fundamentalism’s abhorrence of the Jewish state.

While admittedly these place enormous constraints on the Arab leadership, who might very well lose their power if they worked openly with Israel, the animosity towards Israel is increasingly a strategic anchor.  The Jewish state is no longer the (perceived) greatest threat to the Arab world, just as the Palestinian problem is no longer the most significant issue for Israel.

This opens the door for expanded coordination between the Arab world and Israel and, daresay, a potential path to peace. Rather than spurning these disclosures, Arab leaders should attempt to use these revelations of their true security concerns to begin a (yes, slight) redirection of the Arab street’s focus. While a rush to normalized diplomatic relations with Israel is probably premature, the Arab leaders can use the WikiLeaks disclosures as a first hole in the dike which has separated Israel and the Arabs for some 60 years.

Rapprochement between Israel and the Arab states is essential for both regional and individual state security. While domestic conditions certainly make this difficult, WikiLeaks may have helped get the ball rolling. It is certainly too early to tell where this will lead, but ironically someday Julian Assange might be called a hero (okay I doubt that) for lighting the spark that checked Iran’s nuclear rise and precipitating peace between Israel and the Arabs.

Ahmedinejad is 'At It' Again

Iran's bellicose leader - Mahmoud Ahmedinejad - is at it again.  While at the United Nations, he repeatedly used provacative language to take stabs at both Israel and the United States, threating a war that "would know no boundaries."  It is hard to believe that even he could take himself seriously, but it is far from likely that he is anything but sane.  So what drives his repeated rants?  Could he be fearing an upcoming Israeli attack?  Could he be attempting to stifle the domestic opposition by reiterating the supposed external threat?  Or is he simply trying to provoke others agains US rule?

For an interesting look at his political acumen (not to mention his 'odd' theories), watch the video below where he deftly ignores every question from George Stephanopoulos.

Assassination and Intrigue in Dubai

The recent assassination of Hamas leader, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, has all the hallmarks of a Jason Bourne movie – except it was real. Last month, the Hamas arms-dealer was found dead in his Dubai hotel. The alleged story depicts eleven assassins slipping into the country using fake passports, trailing the target in an assortment of costumes, and finally killing the man via electrocution and suffocation. All of this has supposedly been documented by video clips from an assortment of closed-circuit televisions. In a stunning display of police legwork, the authorities in Dubai have also released the names and pictures of all eleven alleged assassins.

Hamas has been quick to blame the elite Israeli spy agency, Mossad, for the assassination. The Israelis, who take no responsibility, certainly do have motive. Al-Mabhouh was a well known terrorist who helped channel Iranian arms to Hamas and Hezbollah fighters. He already spent time in Israeli jails for a variety of transgressions. However, as the story unfolds, questions about Mossad’s involvement are becoming significant.

Mossad, which has successfully executed assassination plots before, is world renowned for its skill. The fact that it could be behind such a bungled operation, although possible, is dubious. Some Israelis, such as Rafi Eitan, a former Mossad official and government minister, completely deny that Israel could have had a role in such a sloppy plot.

First, the numerous gaffes made do not appear to be the work of an elite assassin team. Current reports indicate that the passports used were forgeries. The six British nationals, as of now, seem to be victims of identity theft. However, it is ironic that all six Brits have immigrated to Israel in the past few years. Why would the Israeli government, in an attempt to disguise its operatives, use the identities of individuals living within Israel? Likewise, the alleged assassin allowed themselves to be readily filmed by security cameras, something that helps move a movie plot along, but seems unlikely to be allowed by an elite team. Additionally, it is astounding to think that Dubai’s authorities could put together the entire web of the plot in such a short amount of time. Such incredible police-work could only be the product of a extremely sloppy execution, uncharacteristic of Mossad.

Second, while Israel certainly had motive there were indubitably other parties who would desire to see al-Mabhouh dead. As an arms dealer he undoubtedly had unsavory friends, any of which who could have been responsible. Alternatively, insiders within Hamas or other anti-Israeli groups or governments have motive to frame Israel. While ANR has not seen any evidence to point to any group, it is prudent to be aware of other possibilities before Israel gets blamed.

Unfortunately, that seems to be what is already happening. Hamas has vowed revenge. While Hamas’s power to bring severe harm to Israel is limited, this nevertheless could end the current truce and slide the region backwards into fighting. This may, regrettably, be the intentions of some.

It may be a long time before the truth is revealed, if ever. The story seems too staged, too made-for-TV, for it not to be deeper than what meets the eye. Governments throughout the world should be careful to avoid hastily pointing fingers and sparking renewed conflict in the Middle East.

The (Upcoming?) Attack On Iran: Israel Alone

In September, a Washington Post reluctantly deduced that the end of 2009 was Iran’s last chance for negotiations. The authors, Daniel R. Coats (a former Republican Senator), Charles S. Robb (a former Democrat Senator) and Charles Wald (a retired general and air commander) called for the application of military tactics. They wrote:

If all else fails, in early 2010, the White House should elevate consideration of the military option. This need not involve a strike. A naval blockade would help ensure the effectiveness of proposed sanctions, such as an embargo on gasoline imports. Ultimately, though, a U.S.-led military strike is a feasible, albeit risky, option of last resort.

Next month's talks may be one of the last opportunities to diplomatically address the advancing Iranian nuclear threat. If Iran chooses to waste yet another such chance, President Obama will have no choice but to fulfill his February commitment to "use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."

It is now three weeks into the New Year and nothing has been done to address Iran’s missed deadline. As Iran gets closer to a nuclear weapon, the risks of catastrophe grow. Despite the fact that the administration’s naïve foreign policy eschews the discussion of military options, it is pertinent that such discourse begins. The administration must take the lead on quashing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, particularly before Israel feels compelled to take matters into their own hands.

An increase in the threats of (credible) military action would have two effects. First, it would provide disincentives to the otherwise obdurate Iran. As has been readily apparent, the carrots of negotiation and talk have done nothing to dissuade Iran’s quest for nuclear weaponry. The nation has developed an uncanny ability to work the system. By adding a healthy dose of ‘sticks’ to the bounty of carrots, the administration can hope to dissuade Iranian behavior.

However, such threats cannot be baseless. Iran may very well attempt to call a bluff. The administration must be ready to show that promises of military action are sincere. In order to limit the possibility of war, lower-scale military conflict, such as the naval blockade that Coats, Robb, and Wald suggest, can be the ‘bluff-testing’ actions. This would give the West ample opportunity to prove its commitment to ending the Iranian threat without immediately necessitating war.

Second, an increase in bellicose rhetoric would assuage some of Israel’s disquietude. The small Jewish state is rightly concerned with a nuclear Iran. Ahmadinejad has long called for the destruction of Israel. The Israeli government will not sit idly as Iran develops a nuclear arsenal.  However, It is in America's interest to lead any potential military action against Iran.  An Israeli-led conflict, that will most defintely pull in the United  States, will have negative effects on global opinion and support for the war making its prosecution all the more difficult.

However, Israel is understandably wary about preemptively attacking Iran. Contrary to its past attacks on nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, a military strike on Iran’s facilities would be extremely difficult. In all likelihood, as a recent article in The Economist discusses, a preemptive strike would most likely fail to completely eliminate the Iranian threat. Furthermore, any attack, either from Israel or the United States, would certainly lead to a counterattack on the Jewish state.

However, unlike what seems to be an increasing acceptance of a nuclear Iran in the White House, Israel is unlikely to tolerate a regional game-changer. The Obama administration is obviously restraining Netanyahu, but will only be able to do so for so long. At the end of the day the threat of annihilation will outweigh any pitfalls of a military excursion or the cajoling from America.  In order to prevent full military action it is necessary for the administration to finally take the mantle of leadership and rely on the use of military threats. The Obama Doctrine of extending hands to clenched fists has proven a dismal failure. However, it is not too late for the President to alter his foreign policy.

Iran's Ahmadinejad, a Jew? Exports Anti-Semitism

In a recent report, the Daily Telegraph revealed that Iran’s anti-Israel, hardline ruler, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does in fact have Jewish roots. The surprising discovery is based on an identity card, displayed by Ahmadinejad, during his election ‘campaign’ last year. According to the Daily Telegraph, the Iranian President’s family name, prior to conversion to Islam in the 1950s, is clearly indicative of Jewish origins.

The discovery that the number one enemy of the Jewish people comes from a Jewish family highlights a sad and unfortunate political reality in the Muslim world. It has always been true that the political establishment in Iran and other despotic Muslim countries use anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism to control and oppress their people. By creating an imaginary common enemy, the despotic rulers from Egypt to Iran to Pakistan divert focus from the abuses of their authoritarian regimes.

However, now Ahmadinejad’s extremely intense vitriol can be understood in a new light. Ahmadinejad has long been one of the most vocal opponents of Israel. While for the average Muslim despot an occasional fanning of the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic flames is sufficient to direct his peoples’ attention elsewhere; Ahmadinejad apparently has a real liability with his family roots. Like any bully he tries to maintain his power and keep his distance from what he hates about himself by attacking others. His intense anti-Israel tirades and Holocaust denial can be understood as a pre-emption against his own weakness.

What is most worrisome is that Ahmadinejad is now exporting his disturbing use of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism to some newfound political allies. The right-wing Ahmadinejad has long been cozying up with Venezuela’s leftist Hugo Chavez. The union has largely been one of anti-Americanism, shared nuclear knowledge, and assistance with terrorist activities. Now, as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses, the union is sharing a growing hatred of the Jews.

Chavez, along with his allies in Honduras, is using the same tactics as the Muslim authoritarian regimes, and as the Nazis did before, to maintain power and control. Like their Muslim counterparts, the Latin American rulers are hoping to solidify their power and direct domestic unrest towards a scapegoat population. Furthermore, by allying themselves against the same common enemy, Chavez and his cronies are drawing themselves closer to Iran.

No good can come from this disturbing trend. As has happened many times throughout history, expanded persecution of Jews is often a harbinger of worse things to come. The growing Latin-Muslim axis is a threat to world Jewry and global peace. A common test of the freedoms of a nation is how the country treats its Jews. As Gandhi said, “The measure of a country's greatness should be based on how well it cares for its most vulnerable populations.” Iran and Venezuela are failing this test.

Do Iranians Hate Israel or Their Own Regime?

There was a new chant this year at the annual anti-Israel Quds Day demonstrations in Iran. Alongside the familiar “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” was the new “Death to the Dictator.”

Quds Day is a government sponsored day of rallies and Israel bashing in Iran. While the anti-Israel nature of the event was certainly not diminished, it was challenged by a brief resurgence of the Iranian reformists, who used the opportunity to continue their protest of the unjust clerical regime.

The protests highlight the illegitimacy and oppressiveness of the Iranian regime. Even reformist former president Mohammad Khatami was not immune from the hard-liners abuses as he was attacked during the protests. Despite the fact that the Iranian regime has successfully cracked down and solidly maintains control, the reformist movement has not been obliterated.

This speaks to the tenacity of the movement. They were deserted by the West three months ago when they were at the peak of their fervor and the Iranian regime was at its weakest in 30 years. Despite acknowledging the electoral fraud, the Obama administration chose not to support the protestors because it wanted to keep a ‘good’ relationship with the current regime.

This realist policy seems to have yielded little. In a recent interview with NBC’s Ann Curry, Ahmadinejad refused to state that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons. The slippery President generally refused to answer any questions directly. The relationship with Iran continues to stagnate, as the regime persists in its dance with the West. This will surely continue with Ahmadinejad’s upcoming speech to the UN General Assembly in New York next week. It is easy to expect another round of provocations of the US, anti-Israel rhetoric, and Holocaust denials.

The fact that the US still feels the need to tiptoe around Iran and fails to provide any real consequences for the regime’s defiance and its repression of its people is unacceptable. The revolutionary spirit still lives in Iran. So much so that some of the notorious enemies of Israel, have given up an opportunity to bash the small Jewish state in favor of condemning their own government. Our fear of challenging Iran only strengthens its hand.

Will Israel Attack Iran?

In a recent meeting with the US, Israel reaffirmed that “no option should be ruled out” when dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. The meeting between US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his Israeli counterpart, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, reconfirms the tensions created by the Iranian quest for nuclear weaponry.

Given Iran’s historical belligerence towards Israel, the tiny nation is correct to view Ahmadinejad and his cronies as an existential threat. The Iranian despot has repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jewish state. The achievement of an Iranian nuke would be the harbinger of the death of Israel. However, it is unlikely that Israel would allow the Iranian nuclear program to reach this terminal stage. Well before such a point, Israel would most certainly launch an attack on the Persian state. Such an attack would have profound effects on Israel and the entire Middle East.

An Israeli attack would lead to a heavy handed Iranian reprisal that would quickly embroil the Middle East into a regional war— which quite possibly could spread into a broader conflagration. Israel of course knows this and logically wants to avoid such a destabilizing act. However, the choice is clear when given an option between annihilation and fighting to prevent destruction. Barak stated, “We are not blind. We know everything we do has implications on our neighbors, we take this into account, but ultimately we are committed to Israel's security interests."

The crucial question is: ‘When do the Israelis feel they have reached the point-of-no-return?’ The Iranian nuclear program is far more complex than the Iraqi program which Israel successfully ended with the bombing of Osirak in 1981. A single surgical strike would be unable to end the Iranian program. This implies that upon deciding to attack Iran, Israel would have to use a considerable amount of force. Such a need of force will certainly delay an Israeli strike; however, only to a certain point. If Israeli intelligence indicates that a nuclear Iran is imminent, the country will strike.

All of this heightens the need for America, and the world community, to increase pressure on Iran. The Iranian nuclear program needs to be halted immediately. However, the Obama administration’s insistence on making nice with our enemies and bullying our friends is counterproductive to this aim. The administration’s warped view of foreign policy, as successfully slammed in The Wall Street Journal, is not only unwise but downright foolish. Obama continues to push Israel and court Iran. Ultimately, this will increase Israel’s insecurity and accelerate the ‘point-of-no-return’. After nearly eight months in office, it is time that Obama realizes his foreign policy is leading the world down a dangerous path. Hopefully, he will change his tune before a disastrous war in the Middle East forces him to.

Does a Teetering Iran Vindicate the Iraq War? - A Middle Eastern Domino Theory

The recent protests in Iran have added some cracks to the otherwise stable foundation of the Iranian Islamist regime. While the government is still overwhelmingly strong, the democracy movement has the ability to drastically change the political dynamics in the Middle East. Although far from a sure bet, the new Iranian revolution may very well be the second step in a modern day, Middle Eastern ‘domino theory’- preceded by the War in Iraq.

One of the more vocal criticisms of regime change in Iraq was that it unbalanced the region. Iraq kept Iran in line. By removing the Iraqi threat Iran was unleashed. However, as Robert Kaplan points out in a recent Washington Post editorial, this may have been part of the plan. (See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303114.html?wpisrc=newsletter.) In the short-run, a rise in Iranian power is less than desirous; however, it may inevitably let loose a path to real change in the Middle East.

Because of the removal of the Iraqi threat, Iran made a grab for greater regional and international power. The regime was better able to flex its muscle and meddle in regional and foreign affairs without having to be preoccupied with its Western border. This led Iran to directly challenge America and Europe.

Iran’s power move, while seemingly bad for America, had two main effects. First, it caused rebalancing amongst the Arab states. The ‘moderate’ Sunni Arab states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia were now faced with a more imminent danger from Iran. Today, these two states now face numerous new threats to their rule, both domestically and regionally, from an unencumbered Iran. With one foe out of the picture, Iran can increase its focus on these remaining two contenders for regional hegemony. With an increase in Iranian-sponsored terrorism and a direct threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb, it is only natural that the various Sunni Arab states would need to join forces against the upstart Iran. This is beneficial because it pushes these countries closer to the United States, and enables greater strength and flexibility in the region.

Second, Iran’s excessive aggression promoted a pro-democracy movement. The Iranian revolution was born of disgust with the ruling clerics. Amongst the chief complaints, was Ahmadinejad’s bellicose language and antagonism of the West. While certainly not the only cause for revolution, the Iranian leadership’s aggression was a spark that helped incite the powder keg. The moderate reformers were unwilling to see an extremist such as Ahmadinejad lead their country into direct conflict with the U.S. It is unlikely that Ahmadinejad would have been as aggressive, and therefore as repulsive to his people, had Saddam Hussein still been in power.

One possible, fortunate outcome would be a spread of pro-democracy movements throughout the Middle East. As the Arab Street watches the tumult in Iran, it is natural to question the leadership of the remaining Arab despots. While no large movements have started yet, there is considerable talk in the Middle East about the need for reform. Kindred spirits in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are realizing that they can fight for greater rights and freedoms and throw off the yokes of their respective regimes. Lebanon, for instance, has already rejected the Islamist movement of Hezbollah and turned towards the West.

To what extent the Iranian revolution spreads throughout the Middle East is still very much up in the air. The extent of the Iranian reformists’ success is, of course, a huge factor. The repressive measures of the Arab regimes will also play a role. Likewise, reform could come in many shapes- from wholesale regime change to more gradual, internal policy changes. However, this is a profound opportunity for real change in the region- change that has the chance of drastically altering global politics.

The Little Obama That Could

Finally, Obama has realized the errors in his ways and has come out with criticism of Iran. (See the White House website for the transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Opening-Remarks-on-Iran-with-Persian-Translation/). The majority of what he said was strong and appropriate.

He began with a strong criticism of the harsh, repressive actions the Iranian government has been taking to quell the growing revolution. He stated, “The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.” This, of course, was the easy part. Any sane person should easily be appalled by the tyranny of the Iranian regime. However, given his track record thus far, Obama should be commended for speaking out.

Obama also correctly emphasized that Ahmadinejad’s attempted ploys at blaming the West for the reformist uprisings are subterfuge and an attempt to direct the Iranian energy to a supposed foreign foe. As mentioned in a prior post (See here: http://anewrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/06/iran-and-ahmadinejad-are-stumbling.html), this is a prime strategy that the Iranian despot could use to diminish reformist momentum. If successful, such a strategy would portray the revolution not as an internal movement, but as a foreign dictated coup attempt. Obama was right-on in stressing that this was not the case.

Obama also spoke to the Iranian people’s right to have their votes counted and voices heard. He criticized Iran’s oppression and correctly pointed out that repressive actions will stand on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, Obama did not go far enough in criticizing the sham of an election. While he voiced opposition to Iran’s method of dealing with revolution and voiced support for the general notions of freedom and democracy, he was silent on the real-world issues that started the revolution.

Furthermore, Obama offered no concrete discussion on what can and should be done. While apparently somewhat folding under Republican pressure (and common sense), Obama still seems to be covering his bases by leaving open a path to cordial relations with the Iranian leadership. As expressed earlier, Obama should have made concrete statements regarding the wrongness of the electoral fraud and pushed for actions that would right these wrongs.

While he did not go far enough, at least he is headed in the right direction. Most likely this is because he realizing the error in his ways. Unfortunately, it has thus far been too little, too late. But with Obama baby-steps seem to be the way to go. It is not too late to salvage his Carter-esque foreign policy. Hopefully, he will wise up quickly.

Iran and Ahmadinejad Are Stumbling. Obama, Time to Step Up!

As the protests continue in Iran, President Obama is unsurprisingly mum. With domestic turmoil unlike any seen since 1979, the Iranian reformists are showing their displeasure with the iron-fisted theocracy and its stooge Ahmadinejad. The momentous rebellion (soon to be revolution?) is perfectly poised to bring about real change in one of the biggest threats to American security.

As Robert Kagan eloquently points out in the Washington Post (See here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061601753.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter) , Obama is acting in a pure realist fashion. His stated goal is to dialogue with Iran. Any behavior that annoys or upsets the current leaders of Iran is supposedly detrimental to Obama’s aims. So he chooses to remain relatively quiet about the gross abuses. Obama sides with the enemy because he wants to leave avenues open to dialogue when the protests flare out. This of course assumes that whatever happens in the short-run, the Iranian leadership will remain in power in the long-run.

He buttresses this by claiming to take the high ground. America does not want to meddle in Iranian affairs is his message. He states, “the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the U.S. that is encouraging those reformers…. What I’ve said is, look, it’s up to the Iranian people to make a decision….We are not meddling.” This argument essentially assumes that reformist Iranians will be thwarted if they perceive the Americans as controlling and dictating the movement.

This, to some degree, may be true. However, the argument misses an important subtlety. The US is often criticized when it ‘helps’, but it is also criticized when it fails to help. The fact of the matter is, it is not about whether the US helps or not, but how it helps. There is a whole spectrum of actions the US government can take to show support and give assistance without leading the charge. A simple show of solidarity by outwardly condemning the Iranian election abuses would go far to strengthen the moral of the Iranian reformists. Any freedom loving individual would find much strength in hearing his fight recognized and legitimated. Beyond that, the US can offer political pressure on Iran and assistance in enabling the Iranian protestors to get their voices heard above the government censorship.

Any action in favor of the protestors can and will be used by Ahmadinejad to drum up anti-Americanism. The strategy is undeniably successful with parts of the Arab and Persian worlds. An America portrayed as colonial and imperialist, meddling in Iranian affairs can raise deep-seeded emotions. However, as he has shown, Ahmadinejad does not need America to do anything to use this tactic. The Iranian despot is already blaming the US for instigating the protest (See MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31380861/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa). If the bankruptcy of Obama’s Iranian policy wasn’t already clear, this puts the final nail in the coffin. Why bother trying to avoid meddling, if you are accused of it anyway?

The fact of the matter is, that the US has a huge potential to do a lot of good, and Obama is squandering it. John McCain and many others recognize this and are calling for more action. Obama seems so blindly obsessed with being the anti-Bush and pursuing his ‘talking’ policy that he is failing to see what is right before his nose. The Iranian regime is teetering; freedom needs a gentle push from America.

Can Ahmedinejad’s Win Help the US Make Real Changes in Iran?

The outcome (so far) of the Iranian election is unsurprising to say the least. Ahmedinejad’s supposed landslide victory was too easily predictable in the authoritarian and cleric-controlled nation. The fact of the matter is that the sham of an election is only another indication of the backwardness and intense hard-line nature of the ruling Islamist elite.

Mousavi, a reformist only by Islamist Iranian standards, was doomed from the beginning. The ruling clerics who control the media and military forces clearly had no desire for open, free elections that could potentially divert the nation from their laid out path. The deck was heavily stacked in favor of the incumbent; even if, by all Western media’s indications, there was a dramatic increase in reformist minded voters, particularly students.

The state used every means to quash the challengers. The ‘failure’ of the text messaging services so relied upon by young reformist voters and the prevention of Mousavi supporters from entering polling stations are objectionable, yet unexpected, abuses of the electoral process. Even with these steps, it still appears that the electoral officials had to release bogus results to maintain Ahmedinejad’s dictatorship. It is foolhardy to even refer to Iran as a proto- or semi- democracy.

The US has to use the current unrest in Iran to its advantage. There is much upset with the fraud of an election. Students are protesting and rioting. Now is the time for the world to take steps to make real positive change in Iran. Since the US has been bold enough to thus far reject the results (See MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31342541/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa) it must capitalize on the situation. By allying ourselves with the anti-clerical and reformist movements in Iran, the US can gain a foothold to squeeze the clerical elite. While a toppling of the Islamist movement may not be feasible at the moment, the popular dissent may be useful in wringing greater concessions from the true leaders of Iran. America can lend support to the oppressed Iranian population and take steps to reduce the threats posed by the rogue nation. It is pertinent that we use this opportunity before Ahmedinejad is able to retrench himself and increase his power.

Winning hearts and mind is all well and good, but it needs to be supported with action. For every grandiose speech given, the United States has to make moves on the ground. We can’t simply just speak eloquently and hope everyone becomes friends. While America’s image may now be better in the eyes of the average Muslim than it was two years ago, this election has proven that this matters little. The people in these countries have little say over their rulers and their lives. America now must prove that it isn’t just a nice voice and a beach body, but a determined country that will act.

Obama Speaks to Islam - Part III

The third major flaw in Obama’s Cairo remarks (See the White House website http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/) was in regards to his nuclear policy. He said,

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons….

There are a number of issues with this stated policy. First of all, there is absolutely no truth in the statement: “No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. As unfortunate as it may be for some of the less powerful countries, the global arena is not a democracy. Larger, more powerful countries, such as the U.S. not only have the right, but the duty to set rules and regulations of the world community. The United States, as leader of the world, has the responsibility to determine who can and cannot possess nuclear weapons. On its face, this is necessary for the United States to maintain the status quo of the international system. It behooves us to disallow enemies and others that may threaten the stability of the system from possessing weapons. This would be true for any hegemonic leader. However, in addition, the United States as a beneficent leader has a responsibility to protect the global community and maintain safety and security. This includes keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of dangerous leaders and nations.

The second issue regards Obama’s commitment to have a nuclear free world. This policy is both dangerous and foolish. Nuclear weaponry provides deterrence and disincentives for conventional war. One of the main reasons we have had relative peace since World War II is because of the nuclear threat. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevented the Cold War from getting hot. While there are certainly risks and fears with nuclear armed countries, the benefits drastically outweigh the costs. [This of course necessarily goes hand-in-hand with preventing rogue states like Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Rogue states are inherently more unpredictable and also liable to sell weaponry, thereby increasing the threat of non-state (or non-sane) actors who are unable to be deterred]. The presence of nuclear weapons has forced the world leaders to build institutions and channels that encourage dialogue between adversaries. In economic terms, it increases the costs of war to such a level that any benefits (spoils of war such as territory or political gains) are no longer significant enough to merit a battle.

Obama’s nuclear policy reeks of the simplicity that is present in so many of his policies. Since the detonation of a nuclear weapon is, of course, bad, it is very easy to simply state that nuclear weapons are bad and therefore unnecessary. This, however, is a partial analysis of the situation. It may seem appealing to those who do not like to fully explore the positives and negatives of a situation, but it leads to poor policy.

A Nuclear Tipping Point

“It appears that we are at a ‘tipping point’ in proliferation. If Iran and North Korea proceed unchecked to build nuclear arsenals, there is a serious possibility of a cascade of proliferation following. And as each new nuclear power is added the probability of a terror group getting a nuclear bomb increases.”

So states a recent bi-partisan Congressional Commission report on the “strategic posture” of the United States. The report, which was presented to Congress a week ago, outlines a two-pronged approach for the U.S.’s nuclear policy: (1) continued deterrence and (2) arms control and nonproliferation. (See here for the report http://www.usip.org/strategic_posture/).

Throughout its discussion on nonproliferation, the Commission emphasized that we are at, or near, a dangerous tipping point. It stressed that without continued American and Russian support for nonproliferation we may reach a point where the spread of nuclear weaponry becomes uncontrollable and extremely dangerous.

Implicit in the report, is that a nuclear Iran would spawn a Middle Eastern arms race. Accordingly, some Middle Eastern nations are already in the process of mimicking Iran’s nuclear program. This will have disastrous effects on the already unstable region. The first, more conventional worry revolves around the creation of a new breed of regional nuclear powers. This will weaken America’s position in the region and create a higher stakes political game. It is easy to see how the Middle Eastern dynamic would substantially change with a number of the large states – perhaps Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq (not to mention the already nuclear Israel) – operating under a nuclear umbrella.

More importantly perhaps, is the risk that such a third-world nuclear arms race would be vastly unsecure. These governments run the risk of ‘losing’ weaponry that could find its way into the hands of non-state actors and terrorists. An increase in the number of countries with active nuclear programs greatly increases the probability that a nuclear warhead ends up in Al-Qaeda’s hands. Simply stated, aspiring entrants to the nuclear club do not have the same institutions and controls, or the stable populations (read Islamists) that the current nuclear powers have.

As most people are well aware of, the current stable system of nuclear deterrence and international cooperation is ill equipped to handle such non-state, nuclear powers.
Nonproliferation is necessary to avoid the inevitable struggles that would occur should non-state actors obtain nuclear weaponry. While the Commission report praises Obama for his actions regarding deterrence, it calls on the President to take further steps to set the nonproliferation agenda. “Good leadership,” it states “requires setting the example.” The report goes as far as to state that if Obama’s open-arms approach to Iran and North Korea “fail[s], we might then have reached a point where the nonproliferation regime is substantially if not fatally injured.”

This is a point that Republicans must seize on. While the Right has been consistent in its criticism of Obama’s foreign policy, these criticisms have to take on more of serious policy discussion, rather than the alarmism that is so often used. Obama is taking too much of risk by recognizing Iran’s and North Korea’s demands. The U.S., alongside Russia, must unequivocally state that the ‘nuclear club’ is closed to new members. If we fail to promote nonproliferation, we will move dangerously close to a complete collapse of the stable global nuclear system.

Never Again

Today is Yom Hashoah- Holocaust Remembrance Day. More than possibly any time before, we must be hyper-vigilant to prevent the atrocities of the Holocaust from happening again. Fortunately, much of the world, at least the leaders, holds this belief. The Western world showed a strong show of support for Israel by walking out of the UN Conference on racism (imperfect at best- see my prior post http://anewrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/04/good-job-obama-yeah-right.html).

However, there are still countries and leaders that do not hold this belief. The prime example, of course, is the Iranian lunatic and president, Ahmadinejad, who frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and denies the Holocaust occured. Every possible action must be taken to marginalize and even remove such leaders from the world stage. If given the opportunity Ahmadinejad would surely aim to recreate (or create, since he does not believe in the Holocaust) Hitler’s atrocities.

Simply enough, we are giving far too much credence to the Iranian president. He has far too much clout on the world stage and far too much of a soap box. Obama is making a fatal flaw by dialoguing with Ahmadinejad. This will lead to greater support amongst the Iranian people and likely his reelection in June. Ahmadinejad faces a tough position- stuck between his clerical backers and a young population that favors increased relations with the United States (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30329861). An increased dialogue with the US only helps him to appease his youthful voters and to further his aims for reelection. Particularly, since Obama has done most of the work, Ahmadinejad has not had to rile the clerics too much.

Since the election is coming up shortly as much as possible needs to be done to diminish, not increase, his chances of returning to the presidency. Even if Obama’s long term goal is to dialogue with Iran, he is much better off having a more moderate, approachable man on the Iranian end of the table, rather than the current nut-job. Ensuring Ahmadinejad’s downfall over the next few months should be paramount- for the good of America, Israel, and the world.