Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Nation: Seven Bad Assumptions We Make About Iran

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 06:59 AM
Original message
The Nation: Seven Bad Assumptions We Make About Iran
http://www.alternet.org/audits/66847

Seven Bad Assumptions We Make About Iran

By Trita Parsi, The Nation. Posted November 5, 2007.

Seven assumptions we need to rethink in order to create a better foreign policy regarding Iran.

Iran will be the top foreign policy challenge for the United States in the coming years. The Bush Administration's policy (insistence on zero enrichment of uranium, regime change and isolation of Iran) and the policy of the radicals around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (unlimited civilian nuclear capability, selective inspections and replacing the United States as the region's dominant power) have set the two countries on a collision course. Yet the mere retirement of George W. Bush's neocons or Ahmadinejad's radicals may not be sufficient to avoid the disaster of war.

The ill-informed foreign policy debate on Iran contributes to a paradigm of enmity between the United States and Iran, which limits the foreign policy options of future U.S. administrations to various forms of confrontation while excluding more constructive approaches. These policies of collision are in no small part born of the erroneous assumptions we adopted about Iran back in the days when we could afford to ignore that country. But as America sinks deeper into the Iraqi quicksand, remaining in the dark about the realities of Iran and the actual policies of its decision-makers is no longer an option.

A successful policy on Iran must begin by reassessing some basic assumptions:

1. Iran is ripe for regime change.

Not true. Although the ruling clergy in Iran are very unpopular, they are not going anywhere anytime soon. (A distinction obviously needs to be made here between the electoral survival of the Ahmadinejad government and the survival of the system as a whole.) The Iranian people certainly deserve a better government -- one that provides Iran's youthful population with a better economic future and respects human rights -- but the current choice Iranians face is not between Islamic tyranny and democratic freedom. It is between chaos and stability. The increased tensions with the United States over the past year have only strengthened the government's hold on power by limiting the space for prodemocracy activists (much as the 9/11 attacks paved the way for the passing of the Patriot Act and the weakening of Americans' civil rights). Whatever we think of the clergy in Tehran, we cannot afford wishful thinking about their imminent departure.

2. Iran is irrational and cannot be deterred.

Not true. Iran's foreign policy behavior is highly problematic for the United States, but a careful study of Iran's actions -- not just its rhetoric -- reveals systematic, pragmatic and cautious maneuvering toward a set goal: decontainment and the re-emergence of Iran as a pre-eminent power in the Middle East. Iran often conceals its real objectives behind layers of ideological rhetoric, with the aim of confusing potential enemies and making its policies more attractive to the Muslim nations it seeks to lead. At times it even simulates irrationality as an instrument of deterrence, the calculation being that enemies will be more reluctant to attack Iran if Tehran's response can't be predicted and won't follow a straight cost-benefit analysis. (Richard Nixon used the same strategy during the cold war, in what he called the "madman theory"; he sought to deter the Soviets by making them think he was slightly mad and unpredictable.) In reality, the United States -- and Israel -- have a long history of deterring Iran. During the Lebanon war of 2006, Israel signaled Tehran's leaders that it would retaliate against Iran if Hezbollah struck Tel Aviv with long-distance missiles. Tehran got the message. Despite many promises by Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah to hit Israel if the Jewish state continued the bombardment of Lebanon, Iran prevented Hezbollah from using its long-range missiles. Deterrence worked, and an uncontrollable escalation of the war was avoided.

3. Iran is inherently anti-American.

MORE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. one of the most important I didn't see up there... the assumption that Iran will be a cakewalk
which is in the underlying current of the dialog.

So far, we've illegally invaded to sovereign nations that were basically incapable of defending themselves. Iran is no such beast. It is very capable of defending itself, and has strategic agreements with Russia and China. Iraq had nothing. Afghanistan had nothing. And yet even with nothing, we're still in both of those places, acting as hostile occupiers amid a hostile populace. And yet we push forward to invade Iran and Syria.

Truly, we are being led by the maniacal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. I would say that is the biggest
The assumption that the U.S. can just fly over Iran, bomb what we want and be done with it.

Iran would fight back in a number of ways if that were to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. K&R!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. This analysis is spot on...
What's frustrating is that if the United States were to negotiate with Iran, basically allowing them a seat at the table, we could weaken the cleric's grip on power. They won't leave immediately, but meaningful change could occur in Iran that could, in the future, lead to a democratic government. Why the fuck the * administration is so stupid just simply baffles me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
4. Reese Erlich: The US and Iran - The Real Story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. 8. Ahmadinejad is The Leader of Iran
The nutbar behind the wheel of his country, steering it into confrontation with the US and conflagration with Israel.

Yet, the reformist Khatami was regarded by Washington as just a toothless figurehead.

Funny how they can do that and get away with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. he isnt the leader of iran,his office holds no power what so ever, he's only a voice af the mullahs
Edited on Mon Nov-05-07 08:19 AM by sam sarrha
propaganda machine

he is an F'n tony snow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yep
That was my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
8. K&R "4. Enrichment equals a nuclear bomb."
Thanks and from the article

"4. Enrichment equals a nuclear bomb.

Not necessarily. The current nuclear impasse is partly rooted in the questionable assumption that zero enrichment is the only route to avoid an Iranian bomb. While the optimal situation is one in which Iran does not enrich, this goal is no longer possible. But that does not mean that a small-scale Iranian enrichment program is tantamount to a nuclear bomb. According to nuclear experts like Bruno Pellaud, former deputy director general and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Department of Safeguards, intrusive inspections is the best tool to ensure that Iran doesn't divert its civilian program into a military one. Yet these inspections can only take place as part of a package deal with Iran that includes some level of enrichment. This makes reassessment of the zero-enrichment objective all the more important."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. Thanks for posting. I look forward to reading it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
11. 1. Iran is ripe for regime change.
Exactly. It was *'s policies in the ME that moved Iran from a moderate to a radical government. By refusing to negotiate and continually ramping up the rhetoric, the mood became more protectionist and the moderates were voted out of office.

They asked for dialog, the Boy King responded with the "Axis of Evil" speech. Very helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC