Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Khatami vs. Ahmadinejad
Unlike virtually every other conservative blogger, I tentatively supported the granting of a visa to former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. One of my arguments was that Khatami might form a separate center of power in Iran, and that showing him some measured respect might strengthen the less nutty wing of the regime.
With that background, I note with at least some interest that Mohammad Khatami has now twice contradicted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government, first on the question of the American presence in Iraq, and second on the acceptability of a "two-state" solution in Palestine.
On America in Iraq
Khatami, September 4:
Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami said Monday that U.S. forces should remain in Iraq until that country's fragile government can assume greater control.
In an interview here during his first trip to the United States since leaving office a year ago, Khatami said, "We can't leave this newly formed government at the mercy of terrorists and insurgents."
The government of Iran, also September 4:
“The occupiers must leave Iraq”, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham told reporters during his weekly press conference.
“At present, there is no excuse for the occupation of Iraq to continue”, Elham said, adding, “Saddam no longer exists in this country. A government has been formed in this country and the constitution has been completed. There is no excuse for occupying Iraq”.
The two-state solution
Khatami, today:
Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s former president, said Iran would accept the idea “a Palestinian state ready to live alongside Israel” if the elected Hamas government adopts such an approach.
Ahmadinejad, July 8:
"Today there is a strong will... to remove the Zionist regime and implement a legal Palestinian regime all over Palestine. The continued survival of this regime (Israel) means nothing but suffering for the region," Ahmadinejad said.
"The biggest threat today for the region is the existence of the fake Zionist regime," he added, before going on to attack Israel's supporters.
"I am reminding them to stop the crimes of this corrupt government before it is too late, and open the way for a government arising from the votes of the indigenous people of Palestine, all over Palestine," the president said...
Iran does not recognise Israel and is opposed to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Now, I don't know if it will ultimately turn out to have been wise to admit Khatami -- I admit to very mixed emotions myself. However, it seems to me that this was, ex ante at least, a diplomatic risk worth taking. If nothing else, we learned something -- that Mohammad Khatami, far and away the most popular president Iran has had in the years since 1979, is more than willing to contradict Ahmadinejad on matters of great symbolic importance. If I were an Iran expert, I might know what to make of that.
Switch off the safeties and fire away.
MORE: For a the majority view on the right, check out the NRO's "symposium" on the Khatami visa. Michael Ledeen identifies the pivotal issue: will the fact and substance of Khatami's visit discourage the opposition within Iran? That is the strongest objection to the visa, and a matter of judgment. I, who have read perhaps six books on Iran in my entire life (including, by the way, Michael's enlightening War Against The Terror Masters), defer to Michael Ledeen on that question, but there are Iran scholars who are not complete lefty doves who rather sincerely believe the visa might be encouraging for the opposition, or at least not discouraging.
I may have more to say on the topic if I can get permission to post a couple of emails.
BONUS!: Khatami is being denounced in Tehran. Always a good sign.
17 Comments:
By 
Final Historian, at
Tue Sep 05, 05:44:00 PM:
It could be the "good cop, bad cop" routine. I have to admit, I don't really understand the Iranian power system either, so I can't add any more to it. All I can say is, watch what Iran does, not what its ex-President's say. I don't think we have time to hope that Khatami tries to increased leverage to sway Iranian politics.
By Neil Sinhababu, at
Tue Sep 05, 06:09:00 PM:
As someone who thinks that increased engagement with Iran (and the Middle East in general) will be the only long-term successful solution to our problems, I strongly agree with your position on this.
By Neil Sinhababu, at
Tue Sep 05, 06:27:00 PM:
I'd also recommend, to Final Historian, this Fareed Zakaria column on Iran. We have a lot more time than you think.
By 
, at
Tue Sep 05, 06:29:00 PM:
Echo Neil. Kudos for stepping out of line, Tigerhawk.
By , at
Tue Sep 05, 06:32:00 PM:
And to address Final Historian's theory, I'd agree in part and further suggest that Khatami is a back channel providing plausible deniability to the Bush adminstration that they are speaking to Iran, by using someone they can vilify in public-namely, Jimmy Carter.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Sep 05, 06:44:00 PM:
I agree that Khatami is a back channel, but there is no way -- no way -- that Jimmy Carter is the conduit. Jimmy Carter has even less credibility with the mullahs than with the American right wing. They were so bent about Carter's support of the Shah that they blamed the Democrats for their bad relations with the United States until the "Axis of Evil" speech. Whatever the current crowd thinks of George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter is even less credible. Not a chance.
But somebody is talking to Khatami, that much seems highly likely.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Sep 05, 06:54:00 PM:
OK, total fantasy time.
What if the guy gets kidnapped? He's not getting state protection in Mass. and kidnapping is growth industry in his part of the world.
I know it's a far fetched comment on an otherwise sober blog, but hey, somebody's gotta think of the plot for the next pulp thrillah, right?
What if somebody snatches the guy? Or makes an attempt on his life? What if he's bait?
OK, I'm leaving work now, clearly I need the soothing effects of Miller time.
By , at
Tue Sep 05, 07:04:00 PM:
I didn't pull Carter's name from out of nowhere, Tigerhawk!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901412.html
Jimmy Carter has been more than free in the last 25 years to take his own position on Iran, without the worry of politics positioning him. There is no doubt that the Iranians will see him as an honest broker since given his objectivity on the Palestine question.
By luc, at
Tue Sep 05, 08:48:00 PM:
I will start by saying that I have no personal knowledge of the Iranian internal politics and intrigue but I have a good personal experience (20 years) under another dictature in Eastern Europe.
I can therefore say with a high degree of certainty that any pronouncement made by Khatami has been cleared the current regime. This does not mean that Ahmadinejad agrees with the content of Khatami’s statement, it means that Khatami made that particular statement for a purpose which suits Ahmadinejad!! Just consider for a moment the possibility that Khatami made a statement detrimental to what the current Iranian regime considers its interests; how long would he live after his return to Iran?
I could speculate as well as the next person on the purpose of Khatami’s trip and statements and all it would be is speculation. However, it is a fact that whatever the real reasons are, they are not to the benefit of the USA or the West.
By RonB, at
Tue Sep 05, 09:32:00 PM:
Can't argue with that, Luc!
However, I believe the threat from Iran is grossly overstated and this is warmed over policy left over from before Iraq became the disaster it is.
By Grumpy Old Man, at
Wed Sep 06, 08:01:00 AM:
Since air power alone won't work, we lack the troops and the staying power for war with Iran, iran geopolitically and as a minority heretic power within Islam is a potential friendly power, the educated young like us if only because we aren't their government, we ought to be engaging Iran.
Khatami, ping pong, wrestling, whatever. We don't have to like them, or him. Jaw jaw, instead of war, war.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Sep 06, 09:26:00 AM:
Grumpy: I don't agree with you on a number of items you just articulated. The US most assuredly possesses the requisite firepower to achieve whatever objective it chooses in Iran. It has Iran physicially surrounded with troop presences. It has the tacit support of Turkey and the Arab nations (sans Syria) in any confrontation with Iran. Of course, it has Israeli support. It has the airpower to dominate the sky, and the naval power to dominate the Persian Gulf. In 4 weeks time, the US could seize the Iranian oil province of Khuzestan and bring Iran's economy to a complete halt.
So you are factually completely wrong.
As to political support, Bush is not running for reelection. He can choose to start a war with Iran tomorrow. Political support doesn't matter to him at this point. Only the right decision and the right outcome.
Having said that, I think the US will be politically far better off in engaging Iran (though perhaps not other matters) with divided government (term of art) than Republican only. The pressure on sensible democrats like Lieberman or even, dare I say it, Clinton, to cater to fringe, minority activists and pacifists when the Dems are entirely out of power is too irresistable and projects far morepolitical division than is actually the case. It therefore sends the wrong message to our adversaries -- which they misinterpret as weakness -- and leads to miscalculation, as they project their misguided vision of democracy on us.
The clock will keep ticking, but Democratic Party activists should not be deluded into believing that their entire party is a bunch of pacifist dhimmis who oppose war at all costs. We'll see how it goes, but it would not surprise me in the least to see the Ddmocrats improve their standing in Congress this November and then Bush comes to them to launc a war against Iran.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Sep 06, 10:28:00 AM:
Cardinal park makes good points re out ability to wage war against Iran.
One thing that gets forgotten is the fact that our military has fought for three years in a physical environment idential to Iran.
further, we've improved our ability to interact with this culture during that time.
our military is battle tested in landscapes quite similar to Iran's while the Iranian military has no similar history.
Fallujah was a proving ground for all out urban assault while Ramadi is a proving ground for "oil spot".
if I were an Iranian General, I'd be having some sleepless nights.
By , at
Wed Sep 06, 02:23:00 PM:
Haven't we learned yet that the question isn't whether our military can defeat their military -- I have great faith that it can. The question is what happens AFTER our military defeats their military?
JK
By , at
Wed Sep 06, 02:54:00 PM:
I favor a political/military campaign against Iran that would go like this:
1. Exhaust the UN avenues. Set a deadline, if the UN refuses to act, we make our own deadline. Immediately enact strictest travel restrictions to/from Iran.
2. First deadline passes we enact a military naval blockade on non-humanitarian shipments going into Iran via Gulf. Set another deadline.
3. Second deadline passes; we ramp up our blockade and ban all water cargo shipments to include fuel. In addition we blockade air shipments of suspected contraband to our discretion.
By then, certainly Iran will see these steps for what they are: Acts of war. Fine. We respond to any aggression appropriately.
4. We set a third and final deadline (3 strikes your out). When they fail on this, we launch a massive bombing campaign against all known weapons sites. The target list is open for expansion based on Iran’s responses.
5. We launch an insurgency to topple the Iranian regime. Groom outside Iranian leadership and get them stirred up inside Iran. Back it up with Special Forces sent into Iran but back it up mainly with airpower.
6. We topple the regime and hope for the best. Do not do another Iraq. Do not occupy Iran. Iran is on their own to sort things out. Hopefully they will choose their revolutions better next time...
Look, we know this:
1. UN will not do anything to stop Iran from getting nukes.
2. Iran will not stop Iran.
3. If we are not willing to do some mix of the above steps as outlined, we must figure out the best way of how to cope with a nuclear armed Iran.
The choices are never easy. There is no magic bullet in confronting evil. Those who think I am crazy and a warmonger must know that a nuclear armed Iranian Islamic regime is far, far too dangerous to live with than with the pain of dealing with them while we have a chance.
So the real question is: Are you willing to gamble your children’s and grandchildren’s futures based on doing nothing and allowing them to arm nukes to the teeth?
I am not. As Churchill said in 1938, “We have a choice between shame and war. We chose shame, and war is what we got.”
Dan-O
By Papa Ray, at
Thu Sep 07, 12:32:00 AM:
DanO, I agree with most of your op plans, except that I know that Islam teaches deception, lying and distraction.
So, we give them no chance to say "uncle" or "lets talk" because it would benifit no one but them.
I say we give them a few chances up until we knock out the first radar station and anti-air site.
After that, its constant attack until there are no more targets. I figure it will take at least a month.
Iran is about the size of Texas and there will be thousands of targets.
While all this is going on, the border with Iraq will be under massive attack by the Iranians, so we will have to assist the troops and air crews there somewhat, during the first few days.
The troops in iraq will also be under attack by Iranian personel already in country and those Iraqis who side with them.
That will be bloody for both sides.
It's not clear to me, but I have been told that rather than send long range attacks into Iran by ground forces, we would be sitting up mobile forces in various strategic areas in Iran, easy to supply and to extract wounded. They expect the Iranian forces to come to them, where they can be disposed of with minimal losses on our side. This is not to say that these forces would be static, that would be a mistake in most cases. Lets just say they would have certain "areas" of responsibility.
SO will be used, but mainly to make sure that they don't try and destroy their oil fields and such.
I would not count on any Iranian that is outside of Iran for anything but verbage. Those people are not the type to pick up a gun and risk their lives.
But the mistreated tribes of Iran will be glad to accept weapons and SO assistance. Kurds included.
Any Attack by us will not be able to be a surprise, but it will be surprising to the world, what we will be able to accomplish, with or without Israel's assistance. I would hope Israel would be finishing off Syria's military when we start off our ops.
I know of many, many Air Force and Navy guys that have been itching to get into this fight for years.
Who knows..?
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
By nedludd, at
Fri Sep 08, 10:12:00 PM:
