History, War and Diplomacy In The Middle East

I've blogged before (see here) on the first and longest of America's foreign wars in a post that also includes Winston Churchill's first hand, non-p.c. observations of Islam and the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. Michael Weiss at PJM has a great post on that first foreign war against the Islamic pirates of the Barbary Coast and its relationship to politics today.
______________________________________________________

This today from Michael Weiss:

John McCain and Barack Obama are now engaged in a long-distance dispute over whether talking to America’s enemies is integral to America’s security . . .

McCain has not so subtly assailed Obama as an “appeaser” for his stated willingness to sit down with the Iranian leadership about its nuclear weapons program and sponsorship of jihadism in Iraq — and never mind for now if that leadership consists of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Ali Khamenei. Meanwhile, Obama has repeatedly labeled McCain a kind of hyper-Bush militarist of the shoot first, sign treaties later school of foreign policy. McCain has hinted at Chamberlain and Munich, always a histrionic conversation-ender in matters of these sort, and Obama has sheepishly downplayed the Iranian threat by contrasting it against the Soviet one, and, without any hint of irony, indicating Kennedy’s talks with Khrushchev in Vienna, and Reagan’s momentous mini-summit with Gorbachev in Reykjavik as proof that toughness and diplomacy are not mutually exclusive concepts. (One witty editorial in The New York Times reminded Obama that Camelot’s finest hour was not its Austrian kibitz with the Russian premier, an event that laid all the psychological bricks, so to speak, for the erection of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban missile crisis.)

Oddly though, in their rush to analogize by way of chivvying each other, neither candidate has actually pulled an example relevant to the region of the globe now under discussion. The Middle East, a term coined by Alfred Thayer Mahan, one of McCain’s boyhood idols, is where both American warfare and American diplomacy began in the late 18th century, as our infant republic faced its first post-Revolutionary struggle against the evocatively named Barbary States of the Ottoman Empire.

Jaw-jaw competed with war-war, all right, with the latter eventually winning out.

The regencies of Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers (future homes of Muammar Qaddafi, Yasser Arafat, and the Islamic Salvation Front, respectively) had been hosting and sponsoring Islamic piracy since the Middle Ages. Scimitar-wielding corsairs would regularly interrupt the flow of trade and traffic along the coasts of North Africa, seizing European vessels and taking their crews into bondage. Cervantes wrote his first play, in the 16th century, about the dread corsairs, and by the 18th, the American colonies had a minor seagoing presence in the Mediterranean protected by the redoubtable British Navy. But the Crown was reluctant to war against so petty an antagonist, preferring to pay “tribute” to the Barbary States instead, as a shopkeeper would protection money to the mafia. After the U.S. broke away from England and became its own nation, however, the geopolitical dynamics changed, as did the American equanimity with doing business with pirates.

In 1784, corsairs attacked the Betsy, a 300-ton brig that had sailed from Boston to Tenerife Island, about 100 miles off the North African coast, selling her new-made citizens as chattel on the markets of Morocco. The U.S. was not free of its own moral taint of slavery, of course, but it would be impossible to hasten the industrial development that would eventually render the agrarian-plantation economy obsolete if merchant ships could not be assured of safe conduct near the Turkish Porte. Other vessels, such as the Dauphin and Maria, were also seized, this time by Algiers, and the horrifying experiences of their captive passengers relayed back home were the cause for outrage. James Leander Cathcart described the dungeon in which he was being kept as “perfectly dark…where the slaves sleep four tiers deep…many nearly naked, and few with anything more than an old tattered blanket to cover them in the depth of winter.”

In response, Thomas Jefferson, then the Minister to France, suggested a multilateral approach of what we would now term “deterrence.” He asked that Spain, Portugal, Naples, Denmark, Sweden and France enter into a coalition with America to dissuade the regencies from their criminal assaults on life, liberty and the pursuit of international commerce. As Michael Oren, in his magisterial history Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to Present relates, “By deterring, rather than appeasing, Barbary, the United States would preserve its economy and send an unambiguous message to potentially hostile powers.” Jefferson thought it would impress Europe if America could do what Europe had failed to do for centuries and beat back the persistent thuggery of Islamists. “It will procure us respect,” said the author of the Declaration of Independence. “And respect is a safeguard to interest.”

This sober judgment fused the cold calculations of latter-day “realism” with the morality behind revolutionary interventionism: not only would America protect its citizens from plunder and foreign slaveholding; it would ensure that other countries under “Christendom” were similarly protected.

Though Jefferson found a stalwart Continental ally in a former one, the Marquis de Lafayette, France squelched the idea of a NATO made of buckshot and cannon. While waiting for funds that would never come from Congress for the construction of a 150-gun navy, the sage of Monticello resigned himself to further diplomacy with the enemy. In 1785, he dispatched John Lamb, a Connecticut businessman, to secure the release of hostages in Algiers, held by its dynastic sovereign Hassan Dey. Lamb failed ignominiously.

At the same time, John Adams, then minister to England, agreed to receive the pasha of Tripoli, ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Ajar, in his London quarters to discuss a possible peace deal. Adams described his interlocutor as a man who looked all “pestilence and war,” a suspicion that was soon confirmed by the pasha’s demand of 30,000 guineas for his statelet, plus a 3,000 guinea gratuity for himself. He also did Adams the favor of estimating what it would cost the U.S. to broker a similar deal with Tunis, Morocco and Algiers — the total price for blackmail would be about $1 million, or a tenth the annual budget of the United States.

Adams was incensed. “It would be more proper to write [of his meeting with ‘Abd al-Rahman] for the… New York Theatre,” he thundered. He agreed with Jefferson that a military response was increasingly likely, but Adams doubted his country’s economic ability to sustain it. For the short term, he thought it better to offer “one Gift of two hundred Thousand Pounds” rather than forfeit “a Million annually” in trade revenue, which the pirates were sure to disrupt. Not long thereafter, Jefferson joined him in London to prevent the “universal and horrible War” and reach an accord with the refractory envoy from Tripoli. Both gentlemen of the Enlightenment, and comrades in revolution, affirmed America’s desire for peace, its respect for all nations, and suggested a treaty of lasting friendship with the regency. ‘Abd al-Rahman listened well, but his reply was one that would shock modern ears less than it did those of the two Founding Fathers:

“It was… written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged [the Muslims’] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon wheoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Though a period of paying tribute and douceurs (or “softeners” — expensive trickets and toys) to Islamic pirates would continue, the words of ‘Abd al-Rahman Adams were chilling enough to leave Adams and Jefferson in no doubt as to the sanguinary and messianic nature of their adversary. “An angel sent on this business,” lamented Jefferson, “could have done nothing” to placate such men. He called them “sea dogs” and a “pettifogging nest of robbers.” The episode preceded further acts of piracy against American vessels and the imprisonment and sale of its crews and passengers, and was enough to get Jefferson to overlook his wariness of federalism and agree to a Constitution with a strong central government capable of building and keeping a powerful navy. . . .

Read the entire article. It is exceptional.

Read More...

Summary only...

Cowbama Diplomacy and Iran

Listening to McCain and Obama spar on the issue of Iran, one is reminded of the old expression, "the blind leading the blind." Both of them are missing the real arguments, Obama by 180 degrees, McCain by 90 degrees. As I wrote several weeks ago, the penultimate questions for Obama are, one, what he could possibly offer Iran to change their ways and, two, what we lose by taking the threat of military force off the table and allowing Iran ever more time to move towards development of a nuclear arsenal. McCain ignores these questions and fails to bring up the fact that we have been engaging Iran diplomatically for thirty years.

Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he would meet at the Presidential level with his Iranian counterpart. And in so doing, he embraces the unilateral diplomacy for which the left has been so critical of President Bush. Cowboy diploymacy is abhorent, but Cowbama diplomacy seems acceptable. This from Obama's website describing his intentions:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.

Obama has backed off that some, claiming now that there will be "preperation" before the talks "without precondition" and that certain matters, such as human rights, will have to be on the table. Iran clearly has no problem with that. In fact, they have recently made their own offer of essentially unconditional talks to the UN within the past week. There is no doubt that Iran's theocracy would fully welcome extended, useless talks on anything Obama would like to bring up. And just as an aside, as you read this post, keep in mind Obama's big incentive to change Iran's behavior is membership in the WTO.

It also needs to be noted that Obama has repeatedly taken the position that use of force should not be on the table. Obama has condemned even the threat of force against Iran and voted against legislation that he claimed would have allowed the President to threaten Iran with force. And you will note that use of force is not even on his list of alternatives at his website should Iran not respond to Obama's soaring rhetoric. This despite the fact that Iran is killing American soldiers in its deadly proxy war in Iraq as we speak and that Iran is hell bent on attaining a nuclear arsenal.

To put the "talks with Iran" issue in context, U.S. administrations have been regularly in contact with Iran and making diplomatic overtures to normalize relations for decades. It started in the days after the overthrow of the Shah, when Zbignew Brezezinski was close to announcing a deal with the new Iranian regime. Ayatollah Khomeini scuttled that, throwing his full support behind the taking of hostages from the American Embassy. Anyone who has studied the history of Iran’s theocracy and its relations with the U.S. knows that there have been many subsuquent attempts by U.S. administrations to normalize relations with Iran. It is something that has been repeatedly and flatly rejected by Iran’s Supreme Guides, first Khomeini, and, since his death, Khamenei. Ken Pollack, in his book "The Persian Puzzle," documents most of the attempts, including the failed attempt by Clinton regime.

Update 3: Amir Taheri, writing a the WSJ, quotes current Supreme Guide Khameini's response to a question about normalizing relations with the U.S.:

You have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a relationship with you! We are not prepared to establish relations with powerful world devourers like you! The Iranian nation has no need of the United States, nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the United States. We . . . do not accept your behavior, your oppression and intervention in various parts of the world."

Read the entire article.

The reasons all attempts at normalizing relations have failed goes to the heart of Iran’s radical philosophy. As a threshold matter, Iran refers to America is the Great Satan for a reason. As Pollack explains, the theocrats in Iran view Western culture and traditions as the single greatest threat to the deeply repressive medieval culture and its brutality that they have imposed upon their population. Moreover, America’s goals for the Middle East are in direct contradiction to the foundational goals of the theocracy.

Before exploring that thought further, it must be noted that the Bush administration has in fact engaged diplomatically for the past several years on two fronts. One is the issue of Iran's race towards a nuclear arsenal (don’t even mention the December NIE to the contrary - that was as ridiculous and suicidal bit of hyper-partisan fiction as ever there was). The U.S. has fully supported the seemingly endless meetings between Iran and the EU and blessed off on the various packages of carrots the EU has offered to Iran. Iran has steadfastly refused to countenance any deal that would derail its efforts to create a nuclear arsenal - though they have shown a distinct willingness to engage in endless and fruitless talks. Indeed, as the NYT reported on the EU talks with Iran in December, 2007:

The first hour and a half of the meeting on Friday was described as a monologue, with [Iran’s nuclear negotiator] Mr. Jalili speaking about the will of the Iranian people to support uranium enrichment, theology, God, even his doctoral thesis, according to several officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules.

. . . [Jalili told the EU] "None of your proposals has any standing."

The French official described the meeting as "a disaster," adding "Jalili essentially said, ‘Everything that Larijani has proposed is a dead letter and we have to start from zero.’"

The official also said that Mr. Jalili had declared, "There is no longer an Iranian nuclear problem," and had added that the only interlocutor recognized by Iran from now on would be the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The hard-line position from the Iranian side was clear confirmation that Iran would not compromise on this issue, the French official said, adding, "We have in front of us the real Iran."

An official involved in the talks put it even more bluntly, saying, "We can’t do business with these guys at this point."

Read the entire article. And indeed, the U.S. met in 2007 on three occasions directly with Iran on the issue of security in Iraq. Iran did not negotiate in good faith, instead making promises it did not keep even as it engaged in a proxy war aimed at driving the U.S. out of Iraq and turning that country into a mirror of Lebanon. In retrospect, but for two small incidents, there is nothing in our history with Iran's theocracy that suggests Iran will respond in good faith to diplomacy. Indeed, the only measures to which Iran has historically responded are force and the threat of force (1979 hostage crisis, 1988 mining of the Gulf, 2003 suspension of nuclear activity).

McCain is letting Obama off the hook by allowing him to pretend that he proposes something new. What does Obama pose that is any substantive way different from the Bush approach over the past three years? Nothing, other than Obama would take the threat of force off the table. Its the Cowbama version of walk softly and carry nary a toothpick.

The problem is Obama's ignorance of the goals and motivations of the Iranian theocracy - though given McCain's arguments to this point, I do not know if he also suffers from a similar ignorance. The theocrats of Iran are not the bitter folk of rural Pennsylvania, and Tehran is a world away in distance and time from the south side of Chicago. Iran’s theocracy will not moderate with a healthier economy. The Supreme Guide and Ahmedinejad will not sell out their Khomeinist revolution for WTO status. But Obama's cluelessness goes even beyond that. Obama has blamed Iran's murderous proclivities on anxiety caused by Bush administration threats of military strikes:

Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.

But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

Read the entire article. Obama goes on to state his willingness to give the theocracy security guarantees and to foreswear regime change. It would be hard to imagine anything more counterproductive.

As a threshold matter, Iran’s theocracy is not a benign institution that acts in the best interests of its people – a people who largely revile their overlords. As two human right’s activists recently wrote in PJM:

. . . [S]ince 1979 the Mullahs of Iran have killed upwards of one million Iranians, not to mention the nearly one million sacrificed to the 8-year-long Iran/Iraq war. And what the Iranian people have withstood in terms of outrageous human rights violations is shocking; public hangings, stoning, flogging, cutting off limbs, tongues and plucking out eyeballs are an everyday occurrence across Iran. All are meant to strike fear of the ruling Mullahs into people’s hearts.

Read the entire article. To the contrary, Iran's theocracy exists to spread its Khomeinist revolution at all costs throughout the Middle East and the world. This is no secret. Iran’s leaders since Khomeini have regularly and explicitly stated as such. For example, this from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook:

I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers of the U.S. and the West] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours.

Read the entire article. And there has been no weakening of this expansionist motivation in the years since. Indeed, the sub-cult of Shia’ism dominant in Iran’s rulers today, Mahdism, is equally as expansionist while actually being more messianic and dangerous than the philosophy articulated by Khomeini. It is a philosophy that welcomes carnage and chaos to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. This from Ahmedinejad, himself a Mahdist, in a February address to Iran’s Assembly of Experts:

Building a model society and introducing the Islamic Revolution are our nation's missions… The Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic of Iran are both great divine gifts, not only awarded to the Iranian nation, but to the entire mankind. . . . "Our nation's second important mission [after insuring a Khomeinist utopia in Iran] is introducing the Islamic Revolution to the entire mankind. . . .

To this end, the theocracy’s interim goal is to rid the Middle East of American, influence. Again, this is no secret. Iran has no desire for peace in the Middle East that leaves American influence or that otherwise contests Iranian influence. Remember that while most of the Middle East states were represented at the Annapolis peace conference last year, Iran was sponsoring its own conference attended by all of those elements whose non-negotiable goal is the total destruction of Isarael. Iran's policy is to promote instability outside of its border, and it pursues that policy with no restraint and with no thought to the blood that is spilled. As I quoted Sec. of Defense Robert Gates in a previous post:

Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. . . . There can be little doubt that their destabilizing foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the United States, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing.

Read the entire post (itemizing the incredibly destructive current actions of the theocracy). And these thoughts were recently seconded by Kim Howells, British Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who in a lengthy criticism of the Iranian theocracy and the existential dangers it poses, concluded that it is the theocracy’s "aim . . . to ensure a Middle East that continues to suffer from simmering violence, while at the same time trying to ensure the hegemony of Iran’s Islamic revolution across the region."

This is a completely different picture than the one painted by Obama, of Iran as a rational nation that with reasonable concerns merely reacting poorly to ham-handed threats from the U.S. What Obam poses is nothing more than incredibly dangerous leftist fantasy. Indeed, to understand just how clueless Obama is, you will recall that his big carrot, listed on his web page qouted above, is to offer the theocracy accession to the WTO. Does he have any inkling that Ahmedinejad withdrew Iran's application for membership in the WTO as his one of his first acts as President because the organization is "tainted" by America and Zionism? Update 4: Hot Air provides additional information: "Moreover, the US has publicly backed EU offers that included everything the NYT and Obama claim to be necessary to convince the mullahcracy to give up nukes. That included security guarantees, WTO membership, and normalized diplomatic relations — and have since 2005."

The bottom line, after years of meetings with Iran, after years of their continuous and on-going attempts to foment instability and spread their revolution, there appears nothing that we can offer as a carrot to the theocracy that could possibly both stop their deadly expansionism and their rush towards nuclear arms. That indeed is also the conclusion of Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, who called for low level talks with Iran in 2004 but who now sees no carrot with any chance of changing the theocracy’s actions. Thus, the questions McCain must be asking are not whether to hold Presidential level talks with Iran, but far more fundamentally, what Obama intends to offer Iran and what he proposes to do differently than previous administrations that would change the inherent nature of the theocracy and move them from their current course?

Update 2: An IAEA report was released on May 27 citing Iran for stonewalling and refusal to cooperate with the IAEA and sugesting in the strongest terms yet - though still not definitively concluding - that Iran's nuclear program is directed towards the development of a nuclear arsenal.

Further, McCain needs to be asking about the price of Obama's plan for "aggressive diplomacy" sans the big stick. The nuclear clock is ticking and time is wholly on the side of the mad mullahs. Once they achieve a nuclear arsenal, the potential damage they can inflict may well dwarf the tens of millions who perished in WWII. This becomes all the more terrifying when one considers that Iran's theocracy operates outside the constraints of Western logic. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MADD) that worked against the Soviet Union and with other nuclear armed nations is not assured of working with a theocracy whose messianic rulers welcome the carnage that will presage the coming of the hidden Imam. If Obama is not even going to consider military strikes or the threat thereof, he is virtually assuring that Iran will achieve a nuclear arsenal. It will be a failure to act on par with the French failure to contest Nazi Germany's remilitirization of the Rhineland in 1936 - an act that, according to Gen. Jodl, would have likely ended Hitler's plans for conquest.

Further, it bears repeating, that every day that Iran is allowed to thumb its nose at the world on the nuclear issue is a step closer to what promises to be a nightmare of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Most other Middle East nations, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have already initiated nuclear programs for their own protection. With each new unstable Middle Eastern regime that adds to the list of nuclear armed nations, the danger of nuclear war and nuclear terrorism rise exponentially.

All of this hangs in the balance. Yet Obama eschews the threat of force to stop it, he operates from the belief that the problems of Iran arise out of the bellicosity of the Bush regime, and he has no clue as to the motivations that drive the theocracy. His plans for unilateral Cowbama diplomacy with Iran seem dangerous insanity indeed, particularly when his major carrot - the WTO - has already been rejected by Iran. McCain needs to take note of the real issues with Obama’s plans for engaging Iran and shout them from the rooftops.

Update: Michael Ledeen has written, discussing an essay by another individual who opines that the Iranian regime is a complete economic basket case despite high oil revenues. The essayist does not examine why. Ledeen provides the answer:

. . . I think Khomeini gave the answer on the airplane that flew him from Paris to Tehran in 1979: he didn’t give a damn about Iran, he was fighting for the triumph of Islam. His heirs are of the same fanatical ilk: Iranian resources are largely devoted to the cause of jihad, not to Iran per se. If Iran goes down the drain, but a new caliphate is created, first in the region and then globally, that’s success by their standards.

Spengler knows that. He notes that “Iran is engaged in such an adventure, funding and arming Shi’ite allies from Basra to Beirut, and creating clients selectively among such Sunnis as Hamas in Palestine.” Let’s add al Qaeda to that list, while we’re at it. . .

I think that’s why Iranian society is careening into history’s septic tank, it is why the word most often used by sensitive Iranians to describe their country’s plight is “degradation.” Persia is being gutted in order to fund the terror war against the West. From the grim figures on the economy, to the mounting trafficking of Persian women to the brothels of the world, to the drug epidemic sabotaging the future of Iranian youth, to the torture cells reserved for anyone who speaks the truth, Persia is being destroyed. All in the name of an evil ideology that drives a global war against civilization.

That war has been raging for nearly thirty years, and no Western government has yet found the will to engage in it. The message Spengler delivers is that there is no way out of this war. Left to their own devices, the mullahs will destroy Iran, and, if they can, us as well.

Read the entire post.

Read More...

Summary only...

Does Gate's Support The Obama-Chamberlain Foreign Policy Towards Iran?

After President Bush hit the nail on the head yesterday, commenting about how suicidal and naïve it is to talk with folks like Hitler, Obama popped up and said "Appeaser? Did somebody call me?" After refusing to engage on the issue and instead, a resort to disingenuous labeling of Bush’s argument, Obama’s team defended by claiming that Sec. of Defense Gates had repeatedly called for talks with Iran. I’ll bet Sec. Gates will be surprised to find what he has called for supports the insane policies articulated by Obama.
____________________________________________________

Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he would meet at the Presidential level with Iran. His tough sounding rhetoric and what he says he will offer is ridiculous. For example, on his website:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.

Obama is being either suicidally naïve on the level of Neville Chamberlain or cynical beyond measure. The U.S. has supported every attempt at negotiation made by the EU 3 and their offers of precisely these types of carrots – all of which Iran has been rejected out of hand over the past three years. The U.S. has stepped up economic pressure and political isolation. Indeed, some change agent. For all of his complaints about failed Bush policies, all Obama is promising is more of the same that we’ve had from Bush in terms of carrots – and he’s going to toss out the stick.

Obama has articulated nothing not already rejected by the theocracy even as they have become ever more aggressive in their financing and direction of terrorism. Given these facts, the theocracy’s incredibly bloody history, their expansionist goals, and their willingness to sow death, destruction and mayhem to accomplish those goals, what can Obama possibly expect to offer Iran’s theocracy as part of a grand bargain? Will he let them turn Iraq into Lebanon? Will he give them Israel? Iran wants to expand its revolution. Just like we bitter Americans cling to religion and guns and don’t put an economic price tag on it despite what Obama may think, Iran has clearly shown that it does the same with its revolution.

Anyone who has studied the history of Iran’s theocracy and its relations with the U.S. knows that there have been multiple attempts by U.S. administrations to normalize relations – often referred to in diplo-speak as the "grand bargain." It is something that has been repeatedly and flatly rejected by Iran’s Supreme Guides, first Khomeini, and now Khamenei. Ken Pollack, in his book "The Persian Puzzle," documents most of the attempts, including the failed attempt by Clinton regime. The culture of America presents certainly one of the greatest threats to the the medieval Islamic regime being imposed on Iran by its theocracy.

At one point, near a decade ago, it appeared that Iran might be liberalizing at long last as the country sat on the edge of a counter revolution – the so called Tehran Spring. But Iraq’s reformist president at the time, Imam Khatami, blinked and refused to support the movement. It was brutally repressed and, in 2004, Ahmedinejad was voted in as President. There is no moderate voice left in power in Iran, and that is reflected in Iran's ever more aggressive support of terrorism.

That said, in 2004, at the tail end of the Khatami presidency, Gates, then a civilian, co-chaired with Zbignew Brezezinski a project of the Council on Foreign Relations that produced a document, Iran: Time For A New Approach. Gates and company assessed that it would not be possible even then to strike a grand bargain with Iran, but that the U.S. should be willing to meet with Iran on regional issues. And in fact, since that document was published, the U.S. has held ambassador level talks with Iran over security in Iraq. You can find a history of those utterly fruitless discussions here. Iran has repeatedly offered full security guarantees even as it has ever increased its deadly proxy war inside Iraq. Irregardless, the only reason we are not meeting with them now is because Iran refuses to meet.

Fast forward to the other day, with Sec. Gates answering questions at the American Academy of Diplomacy. When you read the entirety of his remarks, he is not advocating Chamberlainesque talks at the Presidential level. Indeed, given the current situation, he is advocating what amounts to increased tourism in Iran:

. . . I think that the one area where the Iraq Study Group recommendations have not been followed up is in terms of reaching out the Iranians. And I would just tell you I've gone through kind of an evolution on this myself. I co-chaired with Zbig a Council on Foreign Relations study on U.S. policy toward Iran, in 2004. But we were looking at a different Iran in many respects. We were looking at an Iran where Khatami was the president. We were looking at an Iran where their behavior in Iraq actually was fairly ambivalent in 2004. They were doing some things that were not helpful, but they were also doing some things that were helpful.
And one of the questions that I think historians will have to take a look at is whether there was a missed opportunity at that time. But with the election of Ahmadinejad and the very unambiguous role that Iran is playing in a negative sense in Iraq today, you know, I sort of sign up with Tom Friedman's column today. [Friedman wrote: When you have leverage, talk. When you don’t have leverage, get some — by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore.]

We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with respect to the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them. If there's going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander with them not feeling that they need anything from us.

I think that my own view, just my personal view, would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth. There are actually a fair number of Iranians that come to the United States to visit. We ought to increase the flow going the other way, not of Iranians but of Americans. And I think that may be one opening that creates some space, perhaps, over some period of time.

Read the entire article. To sum up, nothing that Sec. Gates has said is a validation of the Obama-Chamberlain policy that Team Obama seems to be claiming. As to his statement that we need to find leverage, that is kind of stating the obvious. Bush and the EU have been trying to do that for years.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iran and Lessons In Diplomacy

Although Iran met with the U.S. in Iraq several times in 2007 and gave assurances that they would stop the arming and funding of militias, their promises have proven false. To the contrary, there has been a sharp increase in the operational tempo of their proxy war since the start of 2008. Not surprisingly, Iran has refused to meet again with Ambasador Crocker to discuss security in Iraq. In February, they could not meet because of "scheduling difficulties." Today, they refuse to meet because of "Americans' massive attacks on the Iraqi people in various cities" - i.e., we are attacking their proxies, particularly in Sadr City. There are some clear lessons about the limits and advisability of diplomacy to be gleaned from our attempts to engage Iran.
___________________________________________________

The Washington Post is reporting that Iran is refusing to meet with our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to discuss the security situation in Iraq ostensibly because U.S. forces are attacking defenseless Iraqis in cities throughout the country. Why would they meet with us in 2006 and 2007, but not in 2008?

In 2006, it looked to the world as if the U.S. was going to pack its bags and go home, leaving Iraq to be divided between al Qaeda and Iran - obviously the desired outcome for Iran. The theocrats in Tehran were doing their part, giving money to all sides and executing a low level proxy war against the U.S., just enough to add to the mayhem without crossing the line that would bring the 82nd Airborne in on a night jump into Tehran. They only needed patience. And so they met with the U.S. and Iraq on several occasions to give empty assurances, merely awaiting the inevitable.

But then something happened on way to the mosque. Bush refused to blink, Petraeus executed a brilliant counterinsurgency plan, al Qaeda grossly overplayed its hand in the Sunni tribal regions, and PM Maliki grew into his office. So that when 2007 came to an end, Tehran had a major problem. Al Qaeda was strategically defeated, peace was decending, and the Iraqi government grew stronger each day. It was decision time for the mad mullahs.

Clearly the trajectory was towards the development of a strong, secular Iraqi government and a stable Iraq. That would be the worst possible outcome for Iran's theocracy. Their theocracy is deeply unpopular, their hold on their citizens is maintained by the gun, and their legitimacy is based on a philosphy representing a complete break with a millenium of Shia apolitical traditions. Thus, the decision was easy - step into the breach and increase the operational tempo of their proxy war against U.S. forces and the Iraqi government.

And that is precisely what the theocracy has done in 2008. Rockets were smuggled into Iraq and the Green Zone has been under steady bombardment throughout much of this year from the Sadrists. Sadrist proxies increased their attacks, and attempted to carry out bombings disguised as al Qaeda. According to intelligence, there was a surge of Iranian Qods force members into Iraq in February. And of course, there was the takeover of Basra once the British withdrew. Iran upped the ante considerably in an effort to turn the tide.

Here is where things get interesting. Though the U.S. has been complaining about IED attacks since early 2007 and pointing the finger at Iran, apparently PM Maliki and the Shia's dominating the Iraqi government with a plurality did not consider Iran a major threat. But then came Basra. When the Iraqi forces went into Basra to reestablish government control, they found themselves fighting people armed, funded, trained and quite possibly led by Iran. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have both said that Basra was the wake-up call for the Iraqi government. They now fully understand the extent of Iran's proxy war and its danger to their government.

All of that said, this leads one to suspect that Iran's refusal to meet with Ambassador Crocker and the Iraqi government in February was likely to forestall any complications from having to explain the increase in their operational tempo. With the Iraqi government seemingly not hostile in February, there was nothing to be gained from the meeting - and thus the "scheduling conflict." The same is true today's call for a meeting, though the information is all out in the open now and the Iraqi government is highly annoyed. There are no more scheduling conflicts. Rather Iran's refusal to meet now seems, as best I can assess, a weak attempt at spin aimed at an international audience and our Democrats. In any event, their refusal to meet is a tacit acknowledgment that they do not intend to change course.

Update: As discussed here, Iran did meet with an Iraqi delegation that travelled to Tehran recently carrying with it the evidence of Iran's acts of war inside Iraq. According to a member of the delegation, Iran refused to acknowledge the evidence, claimed it was not training, funding or arming the militias, and gave its assurances that it would respect Iraqi sovereignty. In other words, business as usual.

What are the lessons to be learned here. The first is that any agreement with Tehran isin't worth the paper its printed on. Anyone deeply familiar with the near thirty year history of Iran's mullahocracy knows that, but this is simply one more example. While their diplomats were promising greater security in Iraq, their Qods force was smuggling in rocketry for the Sadrists.

Two, while "we should never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate," we must not be so stupid as to attempt a negotation with a country that has shown no indication that it would do so in good faith. That is merely an invitation to be played and manipulated - and in Chamberlainesque fashion, encourage rather than discourage more aggressive behavior on Iran's part.

Three, and most importantly for our peace at all costs left, diplomacy is not a panacea. It will not cure all ills. It will not solve the problem of Iran's proxy war in Iraq if Iran is bent on turning Iraq into a mirror of Lebanon.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bernard Lewis

Professor Bernard Lewis, the West's premier Orientalist, is interviewed in the Jerusalem Post on a number of topics dealing with the Islamic world, including his thoughts on the effect and desirability of adopting a tactic of negotiation with Islamists.

_____________________________________________________

Bernard Lewis is interviewed in the Jerusalem Post. Some excerpts include:

Lewis: . . . What we are seeing now in much of the Islamic world could only be described as a monstrous perversion of Islam. The things that are now being done in the name of Islam are totally anti-Islamic. Take suicide, for example. The whole Islamic theology and law is totally opposed to suicide. Even if one has led a totally virtuous life, if he dies by his own hand he forfeits paradise and is condemned to eternal damnation. The eternal punishment for suicide is the endless repetition of the act of suicide. That's what it says in the books. So these people who blow themselves up, according to their own religion - which they don't seem to be well-acquainted with - are condemning themselves to an eternity of exploding bombs.

Another example is jihad. Jihad has a number of meanings. Jihad, in the sense of war, is a religious obligation, which means that it is elaborately regulated. Indeed, the laws relating to jihad are quite specific. One should not attack women, children or the elderly, for instance, unless they attack you first. Weapons of mass destruction are also generally disapproved. This is discussed in medieval texts. For instance, poisoning the water supply of an enemy under siege was disapproved, as was the mistreatment of prisoners. In other words, these people are totally disregarding their own tradition.

. . . .

Q: What about the Muslims in the West? In free countries, there are networks spreading radicalism throughout Europe and America, after all.

Lewis: Yes, if you are a Muslim in America or Europe, of course, you would want to give your children some kind of education in their own religion and culture - the way Jews do. And you look around to see what there is, and you find after-school classes and camps, etc. The difference is that these now are overwhelmingly Wahhabi - Saudi-funded - and the version of Islam that they teach is the most fanatical and uncompromising. This has had more of an impact on the immigrant populations in the West than within Muslim countries, because Arab governments have some experience in controlling these things. The European governments have no experience in controlling them, and in any case are far too politically correct and multiculturalist to make the effort.

Q: Is this not cause for despair? On the one hand, there is an attempt to moderate the Arab world, while within free societies radical Islam is allowed to flourish and spread.

Lewis: This is an ongoing struggle. In the West, there are also many Muslims who take the other view, and who work for democracy, peace and understanding.

Q: Isn't the attempt to eradicate the radical elements while encouraging the moderates like finding a needle in a haystack in a country like the US?

Lewis: It is difficult, yes.

Q: Then how is it that you seem and speak like an optimist?

Lewis: I describe my optimism as very cautious and very limited. There is much to worry about, and I don't know where it's going. What I'm trying to say is that the picture is not entirely bad. There are some glimmers of hope within the Muslim and Arab world. A lot will depend on what the Western governments do about it. To quote the wonderful phrase of retired University of Wisconsin professor J.B. Kelly, a great authority on the Arabian Peninsula and a strong critic of the diplomatic approach to Middle Eastern issues, the "diplomacy of the preemptive cringe" is not the way to go.

People of my generation have not forgotten Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement with Hitler. That was a perfect example of "preemptive cringe" diplomacy. It was the sort of thing which gave the previously innocent word "appeasement" a bad name.

What we are facing now is the third major threat to the world. The first was Nazism, the second Bolshevism and now this. There are parallels. Germany is a great nation, and German patriotism is a perfectly legitimate expression of the pride and loyalty Germans have for their country. But Nazism was a monstrous perversion of that and a curse to the Germans, as well as a threat to the rest of the world.

The aspiration for social betterment and social justice is very noble. But Bolshevism was a monstrous perversion of that, as well as a curse to Russia and a threat to the rest of the world.

Now we have a third similar situation. Islam is one of the great religions that sponsored one of the greatest civilizations in human history. But it has fallen into the hands of a group of people who are the equivalent of the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. They are a curse to their own people, as well as a threat to the rest of the world.

In all three cases, defeat means liberation.

Read the entire article.

(H/T Joshua Pundit)

Read More...

Summary only...