Only Bush could go to Iran

Great Debates
1

President Bush has made it a point to denigrate Iran at every occasion. He really seems to enjoy bashing the people. He’s identified the country as one of the three nations in the Axis of Evil. He’s heavily criticized their government. He’s championed all kinds of sanctions against their economy. He’s happily maintained a long-standing rule that the U.S. have no diplomatic ties with Iran. And so on.

So what do we have? A money-sucking war in the country next door, with very little support from the neighbors. Iran could certainly make winning there an impossibility. Britain is already making serious gestures towards Iran, because they seem to recognize that we won’t win in Iraq without their help. The U.S. administration, on the other hand, seems to be content to maintain a cold war with someone who appears intent on achieving a military and technological parity with the U.S.

If we continue down that path, I’m afraid we’ll end up in a shooting war in Iran, as well. And this could very well be the Bushites’ plan. But I’d rather not - wars are expensive and so forth.

Bush would do well to learn from the other president who was notorious for stealing elections. President Nixon’s visit to China generated an enormous amount of good will and released tensions between China and the U.S. Until it happened, the consensus was that it could never happen. After it happened, it almost seemed inevitable.

Nixon had to make a lot of political compromises. China was then, as it is today, a totalarian state, a military juggernaut, and a very real threat looming over the horizon. I’m sure Nixon lost a lot of backing from this move. But in the end, it will be remembered largely for what it was - an overture of peace and cultural exchange which turned down the pressure in a cold war. It didn’t lower the Americans down to the Communists; it raised both nations.

Bush could do this with Iran. He could swallow his pride, forget some speeches he’s made, and just go and visit. He should visit with President Ahmadinejad, take tours of the cultural centers, acknoweldge and distance himself from President Eisenhower’s involvement in the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically-elected government, and start some seriously enormous trade talks. Let him count his friends when he gets back. I think the reaction would surprise everyone.

With the U.S. and Iran shaking hands, and with Israel still in one piece, the U.S. could once again be recognized as a global peacemaker.

I think it could work, and it would seriously restore what little faith I had in the man before he became president. Sure, it’s a 180-degree about-face for our foreign policy. As a lame duck president, he doesn’t stand to lose much by going.

2

ISOLATE IRAN: Bush & Israel Want Sanctions

At this point, no one can imagine Condoleezza making the secret trip to Iran that’d be necessary to start a thaw.

3

What’s in it for Iran?

OK, we go to Iran begging them to help us keep the lid on in Iraq. And they’re going to tell us to stuff it. The Iranian government gets nothing from a reproachemnt with the US.

4

No, you guys going begging to Iran at this stage would obviously not work. That doesn’t mean you can’t back off on the sanctions and rhetoric so that you don’t encourage Iran to oppose any US-backed peace in the region (assuming “US-backed peace” is even possible).

5

Saddam tried diplomacy and compromise with Bush, and lost his country. I don’t think the Iranians are stupid enough to expect America to behave like an honorable country, which means they won’t make any deals.

6

Very different. Iraq had no nuclear weapons program and represented no real threat and had no ties to terrorism. Iran has, does, and does. So, of course, we attacked Iraq.

OK, you make sense out of it! Damned if I can.

7

Easy. Iran is more dangerous; Bush is a bully and a sadist, so he went after the easy victim. Bush doesn’t care about the welfare of America or the world, so he doesn’t actually care if Iran gets nukes, or even if they use them.

8

I don’t see that Nixon and Bush have much in common apart from being conservative Republican presidents of the US. Nixon (for all his faults) was a very competent politician, and had a good understanding of how the world works. So he could see that both China and the US would benefit from improved relationships, and was prepared to go against the China-haters in his party.

I think the Iran-US relationship is no longer at a point where Bush can improve things. It will have to be another president who improves the relationship. But, if Bush really wanted to do a Nixon, he could fix the Cuba-US relationship – or at least improve it significantly, so that when Castro dies, the relationship could be normalised.

9

Wait, so a brave and ethical president would attack the harder victim?

You have one thing right. We attacked Iraq because Iraq was a much easier target. Iraq was isolated interationally with no allies. It had no friends. All of its neighbor countries hated it. It was an odious dictatorship, with no internal support other than fear. It had no ideological support. We had been in a low grade war with Iraq since the first Gulf War and never stopped completely. We had the de facto independent region of Kurdistan to work out of. We could start our invasion from Saudi and Kuwait. Saddam really did use chemical weapons both against Iran and internally, so the notion that he had kept chemical weapons facilities in reserve certainly wasn’t implausible. And the American public was prepared for a war against Saddam’s Iraq, we had walked over his military 10 years ago and it was pretty certain we could do so again without much trouble.

But none of those apply to Iran. Despite being a theocratic dictatorship, Iran’s regime has internal ideological support. It isn’t isolated. Its military is much stronger than Iraq’s. Its terrain is much more difficult…mountains and hills rather than plains. It is much larger and has more people. And so on.

So anyone with a lick of sense, sociopath or no, would chose to attack Iraq over Iran, assuming you had to attack one or the other. That attacking Iraq was a mistake is easy to see, but attacking Iran instead would have been an even worse mistake.

10

If the goal is to prevent them from getting nukes, you obviously attack the one closer to getting them, and not the one that’s nowhere near.

Yes it was. As was pointed out at the time, in the event that he had a few here and there, they would have decayed to uselessness.

Except if the goal is to prevent the evil Moslems from getting nukes ( a little late, considering Pakistan ), it makes sense to attack the target that is actually close to doing so, hard or not.

11

There were good reasons for us to go to China. First, it was obviously going to be a major player in the world. Second, it helped drive a further wedge between them and the Soviets. There were good reasons for them to accept the overture. UN membership was very important to them, as was access to the West’s technology. Nixon and Kissinger were both masters of Realpolitik, and Nixon didn’t owe that much to the extreme right of his party.

Bush by himself would never do it. I’m sure he fancies himself a great diplomat, but he’d get whupped playing Diplomacy against ten year olds. He’s also a prisoner of his ideology. I can conceive of overtures, but that would mean Bush I has effectively done a coup (not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

But what would Iran get out of it? Help us in Iraq? The most likely outcome now is a state that is close to a Shiite theocracy - why would they want to stop that? Slow down their nuclear program? They have enough oil so that trade sanctions are unlikely to be very effective for long. We’d have to give them a lot more than I suspect we’d be willing to, and I doubt we’d get much in return.

12

What’s so infuriating about the current situation is that the Bush admin arrogantly brushed aside an offer of direct talks and concessions from the Khatami gov’t in Iran shortly after the Iraq invasion. Check out this fascinating interview with former Intelligence officer, Flynt L. Leverett.

In early 2003, just after the successful invasion and before the insurgency had started in earnest, the US had a small window where it could have negotiated from a position of power and possibly effected some real, positive changes in the region, but they turned the opportunity down flat. Now that time is long past and the descent of Iraq into chaos along with Hezbollah’s fierce resistance to Israel’s onslaught have greatly tarnished Bush’s and Olmert’s credibility and enhanced Iran’s own power and influence in the region.

Iran is benefiting greatly from the current situation and I don’t think that there’s a damn thing anybody can do about it.

13

You know, in the past there have been several periods – long periods, including some after the Islamic conversion – when Persia included Mesopotamia. We might have mostly forgotten that, but I’m sure the Iranians haven’t.

14

We blew our chance for reconciliation with Iran while Khatami was president. You ask me, our posturing is half the reason what-his-name* won the last election. Iran was in ferment, ready to make a change, ready to move in a new direction, and our government couldn’t let go of a 25 year old grudge.

*No disrespect intended, but I’m damned if I can spell his name.

15

That isn’t even remotely true. The reason Ahmadinejad won the last election is because Iran’s Guardian Council, the real power base within Iran banned thousands of candidates across the country who were reformers. The Ayatollah or Supreme Leader is virtually unnoticed in the world today but he is the true power and kingmaker within Iran. He opposed the reformist Khatami Presidency and he is the reason the reformers lost across the country in Iran, you can’t win an election when you are legally banned by the Council of Guardians from standing for election.

The ayatollah personally appoints six of the Council’s members, the other six are appointed by Iran’s judicial branch (a branch whose leaders are also appointed by the ayatollah.) Basically the GC is extremely devoted to the ayatollah who is a religious extremist and is opposed to the sort of reforms that Khatami favored. Ahmadinejad, likewise, is a much more powerful President than Khatami was because he has the support of the ayatollah (he kissed the hand of the ayatollah when he became President, something no other Iranian president has done.)

Once the ayatollah decided he was done letting the reformers try and reform the country they were done. The idea that we should have had some sort of support for a government which legally banned thousands of politicians from running for office is ludicrous, I find it almost insulting to even refer to the political process as an “election” in Iran.

As for the OP, Iran and China have absolutely nothing in common. Closer relations with China made sense geopolitically because it would serve as a significant check on Soviet power, closer relations with Iran would serve almost no purpose I can imagine. I think people vastly overestimate the power of Iran (which, can try as hard as it wants it will never be our military or technological equal) and I can see virtually no benefit to be gained from closer relations with Iran. I can see some benefit with some sort of dialog with Iran, but only if Iran demonstrates it is actually willing to have a meaningful dialog with the western world, something I have not seen any evidence of whatsoever.

The decision of Bush to be unfriendly towards Iran should be one that is applauded by anyone that values ideas like freedom and democracy, as well as anyone who values rational behavior in the central Asia region. We are talking about a country whose current political leader denies the holocaust happened and questions the right of Israel to exist. That is not the type of person we can have meaningful dialog with.

16

I like this analysis by Simon Jenkins.

Why stop the Great Satan when he is driving himself to Hell

Why indeed.

17

I think some people need to be careful of the old doctrine “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Just because someone opposes Bush doesn’t mean they are the type of person you necessarily want to get in bed with.

18

One point: Iran is NOT eager to get involved in iraq-the reason is, Iran is a trans-ethnic state (just like Iraq). They have arbas in the south, Kurds in the west, Afghans in the east-all of them eager to escape the suffocating grip of the Persian /mullah domination.
If Iraq breaks up, look for outbreaks among the ethnic minorities in Iran. the mullahs are NOT stupid-they do not want any challenge to their rule. :smiley:

19

The explanation I’ve heard from (pro-reform) Iranian colleagues was somewhat different. Apparently the key to the Ahmedinejad victory was not so much that all candidates except for the six selected by the Guardian Council were banned, but that the moderate-conservative and reformist candidates among those six split the pro-reform vote. And the pro-reform turnout overall was smaller than hoped, due to widespread disillusionment with the effectiveness of the Khatami government in achieving reform. There was even a pro-reform movement to boycott the election.

If the hundreds of other candidates had been allowed to compete in the election, ISTM that they would probably have simply split the pro-reform vote still further. Ahmedinejad’s advantage was that he managed to attract a huge chunk of the anti-reform, hard-line conservative vote to himself. (Even so, he certainly didn’t get any landslide; the 2005 presidential election was the first in IRI to go to a runoff.) I didn’t get the impression from my colleagues that any of the reformists among the banned candidates would have been equally successful in consolidating the pro-reform vote.

A handy summary of the outcome is provided in this informative article on the Iranian conservative backlash that has produced the current hard-line government:

20

This goes beyond just the election of Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad’s presidential election came one year after the Guardian Council had more or less stolen the parliamentary election from reformers. They banned the major reformist party which was lead by Khatami’s brother and they banned virtually all of its important leaders from seeking office. In many districts the reformists could not even provide candidates which were viable because of so many of their politicians being banned from elections.

Two reformist newspapers were also banned the day before the election.

This was a blatant, undemocratic power grab by the Guardian Council and in the environment it created it made it all but certain a conservative was going to win the 2005 presidential election. It’s hard to win election to the Presidency when your faction’s major political party has just recently been banned by the government and your prominent newspapers have been shut down.

There’s also strong evidence that the Ayatollah had a personal involvement in election fraud in the Presidential election. The first round of voting favored Akbar Rafsanjani who is a moderate politician (former President) that has varying degrees of loyalty to both conservative and reformist politics. Ahmadinejad came in second followed in third by a true reformer, Mehdi Karroubi. It can be argued that Karroubi split the vote with other reformist candidates, but if that was the case you would not expect the large 60% majority that Ahmadinejad attained in the runoff election. Despite some boycotting of the elections you would still expect those who voted for reformist candidates would have voted for Rafsanjani in an effort to keep the hardliners out of power.

There’s also some evidence that despite the fractured voting Mehdi Karroubi was leading the election early on in the first round but the Ayatollah’s son mobilized military forces to get voters to vote for Ahmadinejad, and there’s further evidence this was continued in the runoff election.