Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Notes on Iran: Stratfor on the back channel
It is -- AARRRGGGHHH!!! -- annual review season, so I am extremely busy. I am delighted, however, to send a little Iranish reading your way, perhaps with some commentary later in the day. First up, Stratfor's evening analysis (sub. req.), which has something for everybody:
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Mohammad Ali Hosseini said at a weekly press conference in Tehran on Jan. 28 that Iran is pondering a message received from certain U.S. officials and politicians. Hosseini was intentionally vague on the details of the letter, only saying that the contents "will be divulged in due time," and that the names of the U.S. officials who had sent the message could not yet be revealed. The United States has not officially commented on the issue, although a spokesman from the U.S. National Security Council told Stratfor that the White House has nothing that would confirm that U.S. officials have sent a message to Iran.
Stratfor has discussed at length the logic behind U.S. President George W. Bush's troop surge strategy for Iraq. The United States is moving forward with a plan to bolster its negotiating position in relation to Iran. This plan involves reversing the expectations that the United States is left with no option but to admit defeat and withdraw its forces, and keeping the Iranians second-guessing about any U.S. and Israeli plans to take military action against Iran.
In the public sphere, the Bush administration will maintain a hard-line stance against Iran and make clear that U.S. forces will counter the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force's operations in Iraq by conducting raids and arresting Iranian officials involved in aggravating the Iraq insurgency. The troop surge has already been effective to some extent in bringing rebel Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr to the negotiating table. In spite of considerable restraint from Russia and China, the United States will also make a push in the U.N. Security Council to enforce sanctions against Iran for its insistence on pressing forward with uranium enrichment.
Behind the scenes, however, the United States is likely revitalizing back-channel talks with Tehran to work toward a diplomatic resolution on Iraq. The Bush administration typically communicates with Iran via unofficial channels to maintain plausible deniability and to check Iranian moves to exploit Washington's call for talks. With Iran facing potential troubles of its own should Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei pass away, Washington is hoping this two-pronged approach will hasten negotiations and allow Bush to claim progress in Iraq by November.
By publicizing the alleged letter from U.S. officials, Iran is ensuring that Washington follows through with any commitments it makes in back-channel talks on Iraq. U.S. diplomatic agencies have been quiet on the issue thus far, raising the slight possibility that Hosseini's statement is part of an Iranian disinformation campaign. While the United States is in the midst of trying to strengthen its hand in Iraq by taking a tougher stance against Tehran, the Iranian government can inject distrust and uncertainty among the Sunni Arab states that fear Tehran and Washington could strike a deal on Iraq that would leave the Shia in a prime position to project influence into the heart of the Sunni Arab world.
The question -- and it is difficult -- is whether Iran wants a stable Iraq in the abstract, in the long run. If it does, the United States has more leverage than is obvious, because it can influence the Sunni Arab states who will continue to subvert a Shiite government of Iraq. If, however, Iran is entirely comfortable with an unstable and tumultuous Iraq on its western frontier, then it is very difficult to see how we can get what we want any "negotiation," whether or not the surge creates some temporary peace. As future posts will discuss, belief in Iran's ultimate desire for a stable Iraq is the cornerstone of the serious "dove" case. Is that belief well-founded?
27 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Jan 30, 07:26:00 AM:
Could be worse, TH. We do semi-annual reviews.
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jan 30, 10:16:00 AM:
FYI: According to the AP today, Admiral William Fallon said in a written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee that Tehran was unlikely to produce a nuclear weapon until "mid-next decade."
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Jan 30, 11:07:00 AM:
I don't believe a word Iran says about American diplomatic messages until the US confirms it, word for word. Color me sceptical, but their track record on lying is worse than (fill in the blank).
On the other hand, I do believe them when they declare a goal of destruction of Western Civilization. As a member of said civilization, I view it our goal to flummox their goal at every opportunity.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jan 30, 11:23:00 AM:
SJ - your speculation is interesting. Yuo describe an end state of affairs whereby Persian Iran projects and consolidates power into the Arabian peninsula, into its heart, even capital city, Baghdad. You then say you don't like, but see know way around it.
Why don't you like it?
If you don't like it, and use your imagination for a moment, what might be some plausible "ways around it" do you think?
By , at
Tue Jan 30, 11:30:00 AM:
Could it be the anti-Bush politicians who will do anything to cut the government of the US at the knees? Am I being paranoid or too cynical?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jan 30, 12:09:00 PM:
SJ: "I do not believe the Saudis or Jordanians, even if they decide to interfere, can do so in a meaningful way."
Robert Windrem, investigative producer, NBC News:
Headline: "Are Saudis waging an oil-price war on Iran?"
Key quote: "Moreover, the traders believe the Saudis are not doing this alone, that the other Sunni-dominated oil producing countries and the U.S. are working together, believing it will hurt majority-Shiite Iran economically and create a domestic crisis for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose popularity at home is on the wane. The traders also believe (with good reason) that the U.S. is trying to tighten the screws on Iran financially at the same time the Saudis are reducing the Islamic Republic’s oil revenues."
More at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16772560/
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jan 30, 12:35:00 PM:
SJ -
Your option one is problematic for a number of reasons -- not least of which is we don't like to be branded as tyrant supporters. Doesn't mean we won't do it, but it didn't happen in Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Germany or any other place where we put serious boots on the ground recently.
So forgetting the complexities, I don't think that is something we would do, at least not explicitly. Perhaps we could suggest forging a constitutional monarchy of sorts with a Hashemite king (they tried it before) or even a theological head of state (like Sistani). Imagine, for instance, if you could turn the Iranian polity a bit on its ear. Today, it is a theocracy with a toothless constituion because you can only "elect" appointees of the theocrats. It is somewhat akin to single party rule with a Politburo and an approved list. Not very democratic, certainly not free.
On the other hand, imagine if you had a titular head of state like the English crown operating symbolically above a freely elected Parliament, etc, like Britain, except that crown was warn by a symbol of their faith (since this does seem like their priority). This could work, since Sistani's political theology appears to separate Church and State. It's why the Iranian clerics want him dead, and why he was Khomeini's true and hated rival.
Your number 2 option doesn't precisely follow (or I don't understand), from your number one option. Your number one option was that we install a new dictator. Is your number 2 that we make ourselves the "governor" or Iraq? I also don't know what you mean by "go Roman." Sounds like fun actually. Was in college. But I don't get it.
As for number 3, it is plausible for us to back sunnis versus shiites without giving aid to AQ and Saddamists. We do it all over Arabia, be it the Jordanians, the Egyptians or the Saudis. In fact, we are clearly working with the Saudis to provide a counter to Iran's influence at this moment.
So 3 may be part of a solution. Maybe a prominent part.
I find it interesting that you cannot countenance, or won't even articulate what is certainly a legitimate option, whether or not you agree with it. Quite simply, it is to expand the regime change philosophy to Iran.
Now, that can happen with or without force. But to accomplish it without force, you simply must be patient with our presence in Iraq. And you certainly have to let the Iranians know that the use of force is a viable alternative.
The extension of Persian hegemony into Arabia is not new SJ. And the US has hardly been around for 10% of the time that that battle has been going on. So to suggest that the success Iran's powerplay is a foregone conclusion ignores history. I assure you that Sunni Arab community has no appetite for it, will go to war over it, will launch an arms race over it, etc.
And that war, not unlike an Indian Paki War, or the Iran Iraq war, will cost in the millions of lives.
So our presence, in sum, is stabilizing. The Iranians haven't the balls (just the mouth) to attack our physical presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf. Oh sure, they will send an agent here or there, and plant IEDS. But a real war? No chance.
What they must know, it seems to me, is that if they mess around much more, they will lose their place. Because if we chose, we could decapitate their regime in a few weeks, just like we did in Iraq.
Don't think for a moment it's not an option, even a good one. It is. And it is extremely viable. And they know it.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jan 30, 02:22:00 PM:
Cardinalpark: "Because if we chose, we could decapitate their regime in a few weeks, just like we did in Iraq."
Okay. Then what? I don't even want to think about the mess from the implementation of that idea.
Iran has about 68 million people. Iraq has about 26 million people.
Suppose immigrants who became citizens gave the extreme political left complete control of the U.S. government for an extended period of time. Would you support an all-out U.S. invasion by an outside country--Japan, for example--to return the U.S. to capitalism and traditional values?"
By Miss Ladybug, at
Tue Jan 30, 02:24:00 PM:
I find it strange that there are some who believe the people of Iraq are incapable of governing themselves. They talk of the Iraqi people as children who need a strong hand to guide them and tell them what to do. I cannot believe that these people don't want and/or can't handle self-determination. So much for the left's multi-culti everyone is capable mantra they preach - but I notice it doesn't seem to be put into practice by them - everyone needs the guidance and help from the government...
By , at
Tue Jan 30, 02:28:00 PM:
Everyone is ignoring the most significant event:
Technology, specifically nukes plus ballistic missiles. Which makes any nation that has them the equal of the US or it's superior. Based on power and will.
Iran which could not beat Saddam with Conventional Forces and was defeated in the Gulf by the US Navy is now on the brink of nuclear weapons that can hit anywhere, any time, over much of the globe. And eventually will be able to hit in the Continental US.
North Korea, Pakistan, and China have all sold them the nuclear weapons technology and ballistic missile technology. It is not easy but relatively straightforward and allows Iran to threaten the US into leaving (particularly after they wipe out Israel) as both demonstration and leadership of Muslims (it would make Iran and Ahmadinejad beloved of all Muslims world-wide for perpetrating the second Holocaust).
In response Saudi, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen and Turkey have all in the region made their calculations (the Americans will be defeated by Peaceniks and a lack of will) and have rushed to get their own nukes plus ballistic missiles. Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and doubtless other nations will soon follow: it's only a matter of spending enough time and money with the Pakistanis, Chinese, and North Koreans.
Dems/Libs/Media got their way: the US will run away in full reteat in Iraq and the US Security Umbrella in the ME from say the 1970's onward has collapsed. In favor of everyone getting their own ballistic ICBMS loaded with nukes.
[I would not put any confidence in the lack of Iran's ability to get nukes. The plutonium implosion device required for ballistic missiles is tricky, plutonium undergoes 17 state changes after smelting, and must be worked on in isolation otherwise your machinists all die quickly, along with precision explosive "lenses" and firing components. However J Robert Oppenheimer and co. did this in 1945 with slide rules, and no guides. Surely the Chinese and North Koreans and Pakistanis, who benefit from US loss of power, can help the Iranians who have smart people to create nukes. The basic principles and technology is over 60 years old.]
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jan 30, 03:15:00 PM:
DEC - your last question I will take first. If the US was transformed from a free country to a tyranny, would I rebel (or, if I could, leave?) Yes. Would I be grateful for the assistance of an outside power to help throw off the tyranny? Yes, I would be. If I remember my history books, that would put me in a class with a bunch of fellows from around 1776. They wre grateful for the help of Cmdr. Lafayette and the French. If the country freely elected extremists in whose midst I felt uncomfortable, yet the country remained free, I suppose I would have to consider leaving. But rebellion in that instance would strike me as folly.
As to your first comment, I guess on balance I prefer the idea of contemplating a world without mullahs running Iran and pursuing nukes, and dealing with the associated complexities of Iran transitioning to free and democratically elected government, than I enjoy the current alternative (mullahs with nukes, and a seeming thirst for the destruction of Western civilization).
As an aside, it is worth mentioning an interesting anecdote. When Ahmedinejad visited NY recently, a dinner was thrown by Henry Kissinger for which Iran's President was the "guest of honor." It was a roomful of Americans. Kissinger happens to be both American and Jewish. Apparently, Ahmedinejad rose to offer a "toast" of sorts, holding a glass of icewater.
In his speech, he literally shocked the audience by proclaiming that the future belonged to Iran; that Iran was intent on procuring any and all weapons which would aid the spread of Iranian and Islamic hegemony; and that the only good Americans were dead, or converted. He said the same for Jews.
Other Iranian govt reps were visibly embarrased by the presentation and were quietly apologetic.
The individual who related this anecdote to me was present, and credible. It suggests the depths of seriousness with which this fellow, and the mullahcracy, must be taken. They mean it, and they have the reigns of power.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jan 30, 05:00:00 PM:
Cardinalpark: "...that would put me in a class with a bunch of fellows from around 1776."
I would expect most Iranians to agree with the words in the famous banquet toast by American Commodore Stephen Decatur, Jr. (1779-1820):
"To our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jan 30, 05:05:00 PM:
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jan 30, 05:13:00 PM:
Why? America's support of the Shah.
By , at
Tue Jan 30, 07:35:00 PM:
Iran wants an unstable Iraq on their western border only so long as it keeps U.S. troops busy.
They wanted an unstable Iraq long before we ever got there.
By , at
Wed Jan 31, 03:48:00 AM:
Strange bedfellows exposed together with an evil intent over the decades shows its poxy face behind the destruction of western values, the merging of State legislature and judiciary into the Eurabian whorehouse.
The legacy of one man?
By , at
Wed Jan 31, 04:10:00 AM:
This is a summary of the FJORDMAN FILES which clearly explain why the support of DEC for Iran in the current debacle is quite simply insane, given the attached issues that come with an emboldened Iran. This is not to say that the Sunni alternative is in any way better. The problems go far deeper.
Read the FJORDMAN FILES CLOSELY and understand the nature of the conflict. It isn't just military.
It is a clash of civilizations, although I hesitate to use that word for the brain-washed Islamic world, and "just military" is not the solution. Certainly "the left" in Europe is heavily complicit and an active fifth column, either by design, or plain stupidity.
Enough said, except to shout from the ramparts WAKE UP.
By , at
Wed Jan 31, 05:09:00 AM:
Message to Cardinal
I bow to your military knowledge.
With respect, this conflict is not just military, it is ideological - and has been so for hundreds of years. Put simply, oil revenues have created the military aspect by emboldening the ideologists. Stupid European politicoes have emboldened the ideologists.
The short term answer may be military, the long term answer is obvious, - oil revenues and removal of ideologies.
A complex problem indeed. Lets not forget demographics of western living islamics. Refocused ideologics is not easy, but attainable. Heavily embedded, universities/academia, political left, other whooly thinkers. My oh My.
By , at
Wed Jan 31, 05:33:00 AM:
Fjordmans analysis has been singularly correct in the past. Perhaps we should all be worried about this
Will we need hacker classes to access our favourite blogs??
By , at
Wed Jan 31, 05:45:00 AM:
Isn't Fallon the guy who is taking over Centcom. No Iranian nukes until mid next decade.
What planet is this guy living on. The Iranians will not have to do any research to build a bomb. The NKs and other nuclear scientists have already done the research.
I think they will get whatever they need to build and field a bomb because the Russians, Chinese and French are more interested in opposing the US than stopping Iran.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jan 31, 10:09:00 AM:
SJ - you and I simply differ on our perceptions of the "messiness" of Iraq, as compared to the "messiness" of the Middle East overall. One cannot blame Iraq's sectarian dysfunction on the US, in my opinion. It was latent in Iraq anyway (just as it is in Lebanon), suppressed by Sunni, Saddamist tyranny. The revolution which upended Sunni, minority tyranny, facilitated by the US, has naturally given rise to sectarian tension. This is a "revolution" which I bet you undoubtedly would have supported, by the way, had it not involved US intervention. Of course, had it taken place without US intervention, the susequent sunni genocide would have been historic (or shiite, if it had failed).
That has not been the case. In fact, American intervention has achieved a noble result -- toppling a ghastly despot who committed genocide at home and abroad, and furthermore managed to keep the shiites from taking all- out genocidal revenge upon their previous oppressors. By historical standards? A stunning success, numerically and otherwise--note how rapidly the Iraqi economy has grown, how communications technology has been adopted, how free expression has emerged. They have a government, elected, a constitution, it all sort of works. What is insufficient, at the moment, is security in Baghdad and Anbar province. Other important cities like Basra and Kirkuk are totall fine. If people just relax and let the professionals grind away at it, it will of course improve. Is this messy? Yes. Perfect? Hardly. Understandable? Totally. Easy? No, positively not. It is why those doing the work there deserve our admiration, respect and gratitude. They are going not just a good thing, but a great thing.
We have accomplished this all the while our economy has flourished, joblessness is at relative lows, interest rates are low. We have managed to achieve it as well with remarkably minimal loss of American life and treasure (measured as % of GDP). Data, properly analyzed, would of course lead to a far more balanced and reasoned assessment, but people tend not to focus on it. The emotion of war rankles. The authority it imposes, its execution -- all troubles those who question authority relentlessly, etc. Ok, fine.
All of which is to return to my original assessment -- I would be really be delighted to assist the Iranian people transition away from theocratic tyranny. I think we would agree that it constitutes illegitimate, minority rule. I think it would set the stage for great, long term friendship between Iran and the US.
I guess you don't agree. Cool. No problem.
As for DEC point about the Shah -- frankly, most Iranians at this point don't really remember him much. They seem generally to be disappointed by the theocratic regime which oppresses them. I am sure some would feel as you say; and there will be plenty who believe the US is the Great Satan. Of course, today, if they feel otherwise, they aren't allowed to express it, now, are they? That's my point. If you help to facilitate their freedom, their revolution as it were, over the long span of time, if we behave (in general) nobly (not perfectly, please), the Iranians will be ok with us -- same as the Germans, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Mexicans and pretty much everybody else we've ever "defeated" in war. They have always ended up more free, and more prosperous, later. The loss of life at that moment has always been grim -- sometimes awfully so. Much, much worse than today. Yet today is no less important in many regards. Certainly not to this generation.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Jan 31, 11:07:00 AM:
Cardinalpark: "As for DEC point about the Shah -- frankly, most Iranians at this point don't really remember him much."
Not everyone thinks like a forward-looking American. Around the world people speak different languages. People also think differently. To understand people in other cultures, you must be able to think like them as well as translate their languages.
Most Muslims in the Middle East view time differently. My Syrian and Egyptian friends often mention Saladin. From their remarks, you would think Saladin died in 1965, not in 1193.
Most people in developing and undeveloped countries are fairly conservative. They often seem to prize stability more than freedom. In Iraq the U.S. government has done a poor job of demonstrating "the stability of democracy."
On countless occasions over the last 30 years I have heard educated Muslim businessmen says something like "Americans have too much freedom."
The same Muslim businessmen also say their religion needs updating.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Jan 31, 05:24:00 PM:
Anonymous: "...the support of DEC for Iran..."
I don't support Iran. My message is simple.
Executives (leaders) need to remember three things:
1. Actions have consequences.
2. Erroneous assumptions lead to bad decisions.
3. Successful executives (leaders) think like pragmatists, not idealists.
President Bush ignored those three points and ended up with a mess in Iraq.
Don't make the same mistake in Iran.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jan 31, 09:12:00 PM:
"Don't make the same mistake in Iran."
Do realize, however, that they are different animals and a similar decision regarding Iran is not straight away, automatically the wrong one. It depends on different component factors.
By , at
Sat Feb 03, 09:52:00 PM:
Please read the .mil reference material on the history of stabilization and reconstruction performed by the US Military. The best parallel I believe to the current situation is the situation presented after the defeat of the Spanish in 1899 re the Philippines. The US first pounded the residual loyalist forces in and around Manila and other historically Christian Spanish enclaves of the northern islands. Only after the shattering the northern forces did the US offer the hand of protection and did the defeated loyalists join up with the US to defeat the southern island Moro muslims uniting the country.
We are in the Sunni triangle because we will be their principal protectors just is if the case with the Sunni rulers of SA. Best case scenario is that Iran is the territory that gets divided up by joining northern Kurdish regions with Iraq's Kurds to form Kurdistan and seeing the south broken off as an Arab state with a couple of other tweaks involving Azerbajan and the northern uranium mine territory around Tabriz and perhaps usurpment of the offshore oil territories by Iraq. We shall see. Tehran and Iran in general could be in for a very unpleasant experience. Taiwan as well.
By , at
Sat Feb 03, 10:06:00 PM:
The professionals cannot be expected to be victorious in a grind it away stalemate. Why? Becaus the the current Islamic Iranian regime has within it's ability to send an inexhaustible supply of martyrs actings as organic cruise missiles capable of exacting maximum damage to civilians. We saw this during the Iran Iraq war. They have literally 1,000's of people signed up to die for Allah and the virgins. The easiest and most effective way to make Iraqis hate Americans is to equate their presence with the anarchy. Suicide bombings in markets accomplish this. The equation must change. The religious nazis in Tehran must be removed or put on the run.
By , at
Fri Dec 26, 04:12:00 AM:
深圳市房地产北京翻译公司了dfd深圳翻译公司搜索巨头谷歌、,接受本报广州翻译公司,韩语翻译的今天，同声传译偶尔会和翻译公司，东莞翻译公司。在线翻译工具。法语翻译思同声传译设备租赁，是会议设备租赁，一项调查显示法语翻译几乎将深圳更多的是通过线翻译同声传译俄语翻译，
韩语翻译广州同声传译上个月成交量放大广州翻译公司，上海翻译公司。，德语翻译，,还令深圳各界忧虑。商务口译，料就在昨日下午稍晚时间,同传设备已经说明一切。翻译是一门严谨不容践踏的语言文化。同声传译,凡购买中国移动手机充值卡深圳同声传译翻译部署促进房地产市场健康发展措施出台,深圳翻译.深圳英语翻译 ，无需制作炫丽的界面和复杂的操作功能深圳日语翻译，中国移动后台词库地产的阴霾情绪同声传译设备租赁，是会议设备租赁，深圳手机号码网，深圳手机靓号，有的用户同传设备出租会议同传系统租赁1—11月份报告昨日公布选择在线翻译会议设备租赁乘坐和所有客户一起分享奥运来临的喜悦。新疆租车，活动和网络搜索资源来获得。、地产中介、银行 广州翻译公司，用户的体验不能停留同声传译一扫而光”
