Please read this article by Trita Parsi before our foreign policy lecture.
Are his points compatible with what we've discussed in class?
Keyan
Are his points compatible with what we've discussed in class?
Keyan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Official DeCal Blog
4 comments:
I deeply agree with the findings of this article. The current US administration - much like the ones that were in place before - behaves as if Iran could be neglected in order to bring stability in the Middle East, whereas it is one of the most powerful and stable countries in the region.
Iran is far from being ready for regime change, and the US tactics of confronting it on almost every issue will certainly not help the iranian democratic movement, as the regime uses the US stance to reinforce its legitimity among the population.
I also don't think Iran's behavior is irrational. The regime has a goal: gaining influence in its region, and its tough rhetoric is just a way to to appeal to the populations that suffer/are affected by the US or its allies (Israel) actions throughout the world.
Pressuring the regime would thus only help it. The US should change its assumptions and try to restore trust with Iran to get back to the conditions that lead Khatami's administration to offer a bargain in 2003. It doesn't mean giving up sanctioning Iran (through the UN) if it doesn't comply with the IAEA, but stopping to automatically stigmatize and confront the regime.
I thought Parsi's statements were dead on. A lot of the issues he raises sheds light on the truth behind a lot of the rhetoric we chronically hear. (Interestingly, if you look at the comments on this page, they tend to disagree) There were two particular things I would like to point out.
The first was his belief that Iran is a necessary part of Middle East security. Iran has a lot of influence today in the politics of the region. It has its hands in the situations in both Iraq and Israel and it has heavy influence on how these things will work out. Parsi makes an interesting point that Iran isn't inherently Anti-American, but rather Iran is against the current stance America has towards its country. This tends to coincide with some of the other things I've heard: That Iranian youths love American culture; and Ahmadinejad's statement that they love the people of America, just not the current administrations policies towards it.
The second thing I liked about his argument was with regards to the nuclear issue. He is calling for intrusive inspections in Iran, but he is rational about it. He knows that intrusive inspections will mean that Iran will have to give up its defense infrastructure and secrets, and as long as the world is hostile to them this does not seem to be a wise choice. This is why Parsi calls for a grand negotiation to resolve all the issues. I agree, and I find it so baffling that this isn't being attempted. Rather, the US has been adamantly against giving any type of security guarantee to Iran. If America was to do this, Iran should be willing to open up to more inspections. The issue will be resolved peacefully, and the nuclear weapon threat will disappear.
Overall, I liked the article and I'm surprised it got so few comments.
I feel that Parsi's article pinpoints very well the most important weaknesses of the US's discourse about Iran. I would like to mention, however, some of the points that to me require a bit more develpment.
"The increased tensions with the United States over the past year have only strengthened the government's hold on power."
I can understand this but I think it needs more development. What are the dynamics in Iran that have made the Iranian government stronger? I do not think this is easy to follow or understand for someone not familiar with Iranian politics.
Another point that I may even say that I am at the border of disagreeing is the one where he mentions that Tehran at times simulates irrationality. When was this? How does it simulate irrationality? At the same time he argues, if I am not mistaken, that Iran acts rationally if we look a bit deeper. I do not think this part of the argument was well structured.
What struck me as interesting.
First I liked the example of Hezbollah. The power of iran in stopping Hezbollah was very strong. When I read about the support of Iran to Hezbollah, I though how dangerous is this? will Iran always have such power on Hezbollah members? where does this control come from? In this example however it seems that the control is very strong, but I would like to know more about it.
The criticism of the effectiveness of sanctions I think it is well argued. I also feel that the sanctions have not been effective at all. The US itself kept very strong economic ties with Iran after the sanctions imposed in the 90s. Moreover, the difficulty to stop countries such as Germany that have strong economic links with Iran show that economic sanctions are not effective
This article deals with issues of US Iran relations in a salubrious manner generally, but its conclusions would never work, at this point. What helps is that the prospect of relations is approached without the specter of current governments dominating the issue, especially that of the decider in the
US, who favors not negotiations without capitulations.
But the idea of a carrot and stick approach and some regional condiminium of interests would not stick the neccessary emphasis on cooperation amognst nations, based upon the rule of nations. We should not offer anything less than a commitment to Iran's future, as we did under JFK, and FDR. I don't really concern myself with ideology at this level, because the precarious situation of both our countries. Both countries need peace, but they also need trade, they need jobs and science above all. The US should support Iranian Nuclear Power and offer our assistnce with no demands, while shifting US policy globally to regional developments with emphasis on rail corridors and high tech production and agriculture.
The idea of getting rid of the concept of anti-Americanism as a foundation for ideology, the idea that the countries cannot collaborate regionally, that nuclear weapons are inevitable, that Iran is against Israel are quite sharp and cut off 99% of attempts to ignite attack against Iran.
What remains weak in such portrayals is the conditions which shape decisions in this department. Factors such as US vulnerability to an administration bent on pure power, and attaining it anyway possible, while their credibility is nought, and the US is faced with disintegration economically, for example. I'm not trying to criticize, because I can see that this article's main contribution is that its bullet point type presentation will leave a moderate republican or democrat with a good sense that any reason that sounds convincing for War with Iran is bogus. I think his conclusion for regional peace agreements is crucial, but he does not emphasize it enough because the lack of economic approach, or more crucially, the need for nations to attach their efforts to the strategic interests of other countries.
Post a Comment