Does Iran = USSR?

Recently, a number of GOP leaders, most significantly Senator John McCain, have argued that Obama has been too quiet in his support of the Iranian protesters. A common meme is that Obama should speak out against the Iranian regime and for the protesters in the way that Ronald Reagan spoke out against the Soviets and for revolutionaries in Poland. [Note - McCain also credited Reagan with speaking out against the USSR and for the revolutionaries in Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring in 1968. Of course, Reagan was still early in his first term as California governor in 1968. Clearly the solution to the Iranian crisis is for Arnold Schwarzenegger to say something]. Do these people not understand the difference between foreign occupation and internal revolution? Oh wait. Well, anyway, in case it needs to be spelled for them: The Soviet Union dominated Eastern Europe from without (regardless of what Gerald Ford said). The Iranians were originally not fighting for the ouster of a regime. They were originally fighting for a "fair" vote (to the extent a vote can be fair when hundreds of potential candidates cannot run because of an oligarchical decision). They only started yelling "Down with Khameni" after it became clear the regime was engaging in a coup. Obama then came out for the safety of the people, and a fair resolution, and against the regime's actions.

Pessimism on Iran

Well, I have no idea what's going on in Iran. But I don't think we should be optimistic, even if Mousavi eventually becomes President. Two reasons spring to mind. First, a recent poll put support for Iran's nuclear program at about 84% among Iranians. Second, while Mousavi might be (and who really knows) more of a "reformer" than Ahmadinjead, he was still allowed by the Mullahs to run for President - one of four. The Mullahs vetoed the right of many others to run. So, while I hope the Iranians get honest results from their limited republic, I don't expect too much of a quick change even if they do.

AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!

There is nothing more annoying to a novice and unknown blogger than having your great idea independently spewed forth by a well-known blogger, and having him get recognition for it.

Another Reason Iran Might Have Dropped Its Nuclear Weapons Program

Well, this is familiar. The President claims a middle-eastern country has a WMD program, and then it turns out it doesn't. but the President keeps talking tough. Iraq? Yes, but it is not alone anymore. Now there is Iran. There are two questions that the new National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE")raises. First, when did the President know that his own intelligence community did not think Iran was engaged in constructing a nuclear weapon. Could it be when he said

I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon…So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

Look at the weasel words in that: "capacity", and "knowledge". The President denies he knew about the NIE conclusions when he said it. I'll let you reach your own conclusions.

The other question be bandied about is why did Iran cease its nuclear program in the fall of 2003. So far I have heard three theories. One is that the Iranians got scared by the invasion of Iraq and therefore, ceased its program. Another theory is that Iran was responding to international pressure (that seems to be the one adopted by the NIE). The third, what I call the NeoCon Wishful Thought, is that the NIE is wrong and Iran is still trying to make nuclear weapons.

But there is a fourth possibility. Before the invasion of Iraq, there were two huge military presences in the Middle East that were both seeking dominance in the region - Iran and Iraq. The only way for Iran to equal Iraq's threatened or actual nuclear program was a program of its own. After the Iraqi army was decimated by the U.S. invasion, and it became more clear there were no WMDs, Iran no longer had to engage in a financially costly and internationally reviled program to be the biggest guy on the block. Sure, the US was still there, but by the fall of 2003 it was becoming clear that the US might be the military threat to Iran it might have thought earlier because of the Iraqi insurgency. (This would especially be true if Iran was aiding the insurgency). And anyway, even Iran realizes that even with nuclear weapons, it cannot equal US power. So, Iran recognizes that the geopolitical advantages of a nuclear program have disappeared, and stops its program. In other words, prior to the invasion there was a military balance of power in the region. After the invasion, Iran was the only local power remaining, and a nuclear program was useless.

In short, President Bush created the conventional monster of an unopposed Iran by invading Iraq, but might have destroyed a potentially nuclear Iran that was subject to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. Which is better? Don't know.

The Road Map to Peace is Replaced by Bush's Road Paved With Good Intentions

Oh boy! According to President Bush, the Israelis and the Palestinians have agreed to agree by the end of 2008. Well, now I feel better. I guess we've torn up the Road Map to Peace that was going to put an end to the conflict by 2005. Now we have a "joint understanding." Even better, they haven't really agreed to agree. They've agreed to try to agree. In the statement read by Bush, the parties: "shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008." Oh, I am bursting with optimism.

And note the three reasons Bush feels now is the time for success.

"First, the time is right because Palestinians and Israelis have leaders who are determined to achieve peace," Bush said. "Second, the time is right because a battle is under way for the future of the Middle East and we must not cede victory to the extremists. Third, the time is right because the world understands the urgency of supporting these negotiations."

Let us examine these, shall we?

1. "Palestinians and Israelis have leaders who are determined to achieve peace." Well, not exactly. Abbas doesn't control his people and Olmert is very unpopular. So calling them "leaders" is pie-in-the-sky thinking.

2. "a battle is under way for the future of the Middle East and we must not cede victory to the extremists." That is not a reason why "the time is right" for an agreement. It is only a reason why Bush hopes the parties can reach a sustainable agreement.

3. "the world understands the urgency of supporting these negotiations." Great, other countries understand it is important for the parties to negotiate. Whereas before now I guess the world didn't think it was that important. And what part of the world does he mean? given that the most important player in the Middle East is Iran, if it doesn;t think negotiations are urgent, what hope is there?

Is the Bush Administration Lying to Us About Mid East Peace?

I don't think anyone actually believes the mid-east peace conference in Annapolis will be a success. Not even the administration that planned it. Iran isn't coming. But Condi Rice herself recently said that the biggest obstacle to Mid East peace is Iran. If the latter is true, the chances for success in Annapolis are small at best. There is no power in the region capable of confronting Iran effectively, so without Iran (and through it Hamas and Hezbollah) a peace deal just ain't going to happen. Add to that the unpopularity of Prime Minister Olmert in Israel, and the lack of control of Prime Minister Abbas is Palestinian territory and you have a recipe for nothing. It seems to me that we are looking at a huge PR push by a lame duck President. Expect an announcement of success coming out of the conference, but with no real progress.

Everyone Should Read Fareed Zakaria's Work

I love Fareed Zakaria. He writes very clearly, and with a great deal of knowledge. His latest column regarding the United States' absurd rhetoric about and policy towards Iran is a case in point. I really can't say anything to improve Zakaria's piece, but I do want to point out that he implies Ahmadinejad is not the "dictator" of Iran:

When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)

All I can say is that great minds think alike.

Sunnis vs. Iran and Iraq

Andrew Sullivan has a very good post suggesting that Bush and Cheney are preparing for a potential invasion of Iran. He says:

It's back to the 1980s. Instead of backing Saddam against Iran, we're now in danger of backing the Iraqi Sunnis, in league with Egypt and Saudi Arabia ... against Iran.

I have one addition to Andrew's post. It should read:

It's back to the 1980s. Instead of backing Saddam against Iran, we're now in danger of backing the Iraqi Sunnis, in league with Egypt and Saudi Arabia ... against Iran

and Iraq. We are arming the very people who will, as Andrew points out earlier in the post, fight the Shia Iraqi majority as soon as we leave. So, while Andrew is correct that Cheney is always looking for new ways to screw up the Middle East - it is even worse than Andrew concludes.