Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Will the corrupt Iranians please step forward?
For all kinds of reasons too numerous for this modest post, I have supported the Bush administration's multilateral approach to dealing with Iran. However, it has become just plain embarrassing to watch the spectacle of the European Union trying to manage a security threat when it is plain that none of them -- with the possible exception of France -- has the stomach for an actual fight. The short version: Europe keeps putting more carrots on the table, and Iran just laughs inscrutably.
The Europeans are coming up empty partly because Iran's current president is a zealot, not a pig. The opportunity for more corruption would have worked well for Akbar Rafsanjani, but he's out because he's corrupt. There is no quantity of trade or incentives that will mollify President Ahmadinejad, who is an ascetic revolutionary who (probably) does not give a fig for a fatter bank account.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday rejected a possible European offer for incentives, including a light-water nuclear reactor, in return for allaying fears about his country's nuclear program by giving up uranium enrichment.
"Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from him?" Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in a speech in central Iran.
However much it may look like it, Ahmadinejad's mockery is not a negotiating tactic -- he is passionate in his belief that the international "system" cannot be trusted to safeguard Iran's security. But -- and this is the frailest of reeds -- the huge European carrot pile is probably attracting the attention of the more materialistic members of the Iranian elite. If their greed surpasses their nationalism, they may resent Ahmadinejad's "honesty" just enough to do something about it. That is not a reason to support the European approach, but there's no denying that greed can be a wedge to divide a government against itself. Perhaps the corrupt Iranians will put an end to Ahmadinejad's tedious sincerity. It is hard to see how Europe's strategy will work if that does not happen.
4 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Wed May 17, 10:10:00 AM:
It continually fascinates me how often certain political leaders from certain unnamed countries (most of which dwell on a continent that begins and ends with an 'E') can manage to ignore or dismiss plainly stated threats and combative rhetoric because it doesn't fit into their preconceived world view. They did it with Hitler, ("We will invade Eastern Europe and exterminate the lesser races") certain ones did it with the Soviets, ("We want to foster a worldwide revolution;" i.e. conquer the world by force or proxy) and others are doing it with Iran now.
'They can't possibly mean what they say, that would be crazy. They *really* mean this. This is just a cry for help. Here's some money. Here's Czechoslovakia. Here's a nuclear reactor.'
They think that 'diplomacy' can solve everything. In IR, this is called a Kantian perspective. I call it naive. They forget that diplomacy exists specifically as an alternative to war. If there is not a credible threat of impending violence, there is no incentive to negotiate.
By Admin, at
Wed May 17, 10:31:00 AM:
perhaps...if wiston churchhill and eisenhower hadn't funded the coup that overthrew the democratically elected leader who wanted to nationalize their oil industry, then iran might be more willing to trust what we and the europeans had to say.
the coup leader btw, was the shah, a known nazi-collaborator who was sprung from jail; he later became the leader of iran and was known for his outrageous human rights abuses.
americans may not know their own history, but those places where we have meddle with dire consequences for the people, they have not forgotten.
the coup and subsequent shah led the fundementalist revolution and the takeover of the US embassy which pundits like to point at repeatedly without knowing the reasons behind its occurance.
By Admin, at
Wed May 17, 10:33:00 AM:
the coup and subsequent shah led the fundementalist revolution and the takeover of the US embassy
should read:
the coup and subsequent shah led TO the fundementalist revolution and the takeover of the US embassy
By TigerHawk, at
Wed May 17, 10:57:00 AM:
Uptown, basically agreed, with some nuance. Mossadeqh was no saint -- he was screwing with the election results himself.
However, the main point obtains. The revolution in 1979 was to some degree blowback for American policy up until that time.
Now, regular readers know that I don't think there is anything wrong with blowback. We got 26 good years of Soviet containment out of the Shah, whose Iran was the only thing between the Soviet Union and the Persian Gulf. That benefit was at least arguably worth whatever grief Iran has given us since. I say it was. That does not change the need to deal with Iran now.
By the way, today's "solution" will undoubtedly create blowback that will be tomorrow's security challenge. Another by the way: Iran's revolution, the embassy and seizure, etc., has also resulted in blowback to Iran. It is now surrounded by American troops on all sides, it has impoverished its people, and it endured a ruinous eight year war with Iraq that probably would not have lasted as long or happened at all had the shah remained in power. So there's blowback all around.
