The recent Iranian elections have been largely seen as a repudiation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his mentor, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, and their particular brand of radical, millennialist Shia Islam. The big winner apparently is former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani, often referred to as the leader of the "moderate fundamentalists."
There does seem to be an opportunity for the rhetoric to become somewhat more subdued, yet the key question is whether the changes in Iran portend a true change in the current collision course between America and Israel and the Iranian led HISH (Hezbollah-Iran-Syria-Hamas) Alliance.
Yesterday, NBC reported on the current status of American "gunboat doplomacy" int he Persian Gulf:
U.S. plans naval buildup in Gulf to counter Iran
CENTCOM plans to use 'gunboat diplomacy,' officials tell NBC News NBC VIDEOWASHINGTON - The U.S. Central Command is aggressively planning a naval buildup in the Persian Gulf, including the addition of a second aircraft carrier, in response to a series of aggressive actions by Iran, U.S. military officials told NBC News on Tuesday.
The domestic reaction to the news suggests that the incompatible world views that have been assumed on both left and right are fully engaged in regard to the Middle East, and it is worth reviewing the opposing assumptions implied by such world views.
Sean-Paul Kelley at the Huffington Post makes his position clear in the title of his post, Elections in Iran Bring Hope To Some, Naval Build-Up In Gulf Dashes Others. He describes the key issues that were addressed by the Iranian elections:
It is in the Assembly of Experts, however, that Ahmedinejad's faction took a drubbing. Even though Ahmedinejad's mentor, the Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, did manage to gain a seat on the Assembly of Experts Iranians of all stripes clearly showed they don't trust Ahmedinejad and his faction to determine the next Supreme Leader. 65 of the 86 seats up for vote in the Assembly of Experts went to the Reformist-Conservative faction, which opposes Ahmedinejad's new hardliners. The real winner here is former Iranian president Rafsanjani who has called for an opening with the US and is largely seen as a pragmatist, although former president Khatami and the reformist movement he symbolizes has shown it still has the power to capture the youth's imagination.
What does all this mean? It may not mean much in the short-term, as Ahmedinejad is widely seen in Iran as a Bush-like figure: hot tempered, arrogant, arbitrary and inexperienced in the realm of international affairs. But long term, especially when the next Supreme Leader is chosen in Iran, this election will reverberate.
In the long-term the news is good, but we might not make it that far: as it seems the United States is in danger of making another rash decision. While the White House is busy silencing critics again, an alarming buildup of naval forces in and around the Persian Gulf continues "in response to what the US considers increasingly provocative acts.'" Some experts believe that an attack on Iran by an enfeebled, increasingly isolated and irrelevant president Bush is more than just a 50/50 proposition. If so our situation in Iraq will go from bad to horrific overnight and the recent elections in Iran won't matter at all. [Emphasis mine-SW]
Kelly makes it clear that he imagines Rafsanjani is a rational figure who we can, if we have the will, deal with effectively. Further, while he recognizes that Ahmadinejad is a danger because of his temper, arrogance, inexperience, and arbitrariness, he discounts any near term danger from the Iranians. While it is not explicitly stated in Kelly's post, he apparently understands that Mesbah-Yazdi and Ahmadinejad represent a particularly dangerous strain of Shia millennialism and that Ahmadinejad's virulent anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel are genuine concerns. However, Kelly's primary focus of concern is with Bush, who he imagines is essentially a mirror image of Ahmadinejad, "hot tempered, arrogant, arbitrary and inexperienced in the realm of international affairs" as well as likely to attack out of weakness.
For contrast, consider what Old Spook has to say about the same American Gunboat Diplomacy:
In justifyng the build-up, military officials cited Iran's continued interference in Iraq, recent naval exercises in the gulf, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. If I had to guess, I'd say the two latter events are the primary reasons for the projected deployments. Naval power can't do a lot to halt the overland transit of terrorists and IEDs from Iran to Iraq, although the additional airpower would be helpful in supporting an expansion of our ground forces--and their operations.
The addition of a second carrier will certainly get Iran's attention, though it's impossible to predict exactly how Tehran will react. In the past, such deployments have been greeted mostly with propaganda blasts, although other, calculated events (such as missile and rocket tests) cannot be ruled out. And despite recent boasts about "new" weapons and improved naval capabilities, it's doutbful that Iran would directly challenge our forces. The Iranians would lose that engagement swiftly and decisively, and on the heels of this week's election results, the Ahmadinejad regime can't afford another major embarassment.
But there's a danger in assigning too much rationality to the Tehran government. Amid U.S. troubles in Iraq and Hizballah's recent "victory" over Israel in Lebanon, Mr. Ahmadinejad is certainly feeling his oats, and under the right circumstances, might decide to press his luck with the 5th Fleet. By sending another carrier to the gulf, the Bush Administration is obviously trying to send a signal to Iran, but the question is: will Ahmadinejad get the "right" message?
Old Spook is clearly more focused on the near term questions of Ahmadinejad's intent. He agrees with Kelly that Ahmadinejad cannot be dealt with as a completely rational actor, and omits (in this post) any consideration of what the recent elections mean for the longer term outlook in the Middle East. Quite clearly he sees the 5th Fleet as a potentially valuable source of stability and rationality in a particularly troublesome area of the world.
There are two opposing assumptions at work in these posts. One assumes that the presence of the police in an unsettled area is dangerously provocative; the equivalent of saying that it is best not to incite the Bloods and the Crips on their home turf. The alternative assumption is that when the police arrive in force, the Bloods and the Crips, noting the superior fire power of the authorities, will tend to behave themselves.
In the Psychiatric setting, especially on in-patient units and in the Emergency Room, experienced Psychiatrists have long recognized that the best way to calm an agitated and irrational person is to have several, preferably large and male, hospital police arrive on the scene. All but the most psychotic recognize that they will not be allowed to harm themselves or anyone else. The fact that their aggression, which they feel inadequate to contain, is now contained by an external force, is often quite calming. If the police are inexperienced and scared themselves, they can certainly precipitate the violence they are trying to avert, but it is much easier to defuse a tense situation if the patient knows it will not be allowed to escalate out of control.
Perhaps Kelly believes that the 5th Fleet is likely to attack Iran in response to mere verbal jabs from the Iranians (their current support of those who are killing Iraqis, Americans, and Israelis, and are threatening the nascent democracy in Lebanon are apparently not considered provocative actions by the HISH). I would submit to him that he is missing the greater risks, risks which can be best ameliorated by the presence of the 5th Fleet.
The first great risk is that the Mesbah-Yazdi/Ahmadinejad axis in Iran, with their well known and oft stated Apocalyptic religious vision, will themselves attempt to precipitate the Holocaust they so fervently welcome. If the alternative is loss of power and eclipse versus the possibility of attaining their dream, can anyone feel confident that they will go quietly? Apparently, Kelly believes that Bush is likely to become violent out of weakness, but somehow fails to connect his own dots in terms of Ahmadinejad.
The second great risk is that, even if Rafsanjani ultimately becomes the Supreme Leader in Iran, unless he is willing and able to take specific steps to assure his neighbors of his peaceful intent, the level of tension will hardly be affected. After all, Rafsanjani is on record as agreeing with Ahmadinejad's goals:
Nuclear Weapons Can Solve the Israel Problem
Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.
I would humbly suggest that the presence of the 5th Fleet, far from provoking Iran, is more likely to be an effective warning and a comfort to our allies, who are dearly in need of some good news:
The chief of the Mossad, Israel's spy agency, Meir Dagan, says Iran will be in a position to build a nuclear bomb by 2009, at the earliest, according to a report this week in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz of Mr. Dagan's testimony to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of Israel's parliament. But the Iranian bomb could come sooner. Another Israeli paper, Ma'ariv, reports that the Palestinian Arab prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh of the Hamas terrorist group, was told by Iran,"In four months we're going to issue a statement that will dramatically change the strategic balance in the Middle East." Ma'ariv quotes Israeli intelligence as saying the Iranians have promised to make an important announcement at the next Persian new year, which begins the third week in March 2007. [Emphasis mine-SW]
The Iranians and Palestinian Arabs are famous for their bombast, and perhaps that is all this is, however, if you are the Prime Minister and Defense Minister of a small nation which has been repeatedly threatened with annihilation by a neighbor who is assiduously working on obtaining the means to make their promises come true, you cannot be sanguine about such reports.
My suggestion is that Kelly should worry much more about how the Iranians can reassure the Israelis of their peaceful intentions than about how George Bush can reassure the Iranians of our peaceful intentions.
Recent Comments