What Does Iran Really Want

 

I can of course continue repeating the endless tug of war currently playing out in international diplomatic circles:

Jack Straw, the [British] Foreign Secretary, has called on Iran to demonstrate by "words and actions" that it was not trying to acquire a nuclear weapon.

"The Iranian regime must demonstrate by its words and actions that it is not seeking nuclear weapons. The latest Iranian statement further undermines international confidence in the Iranian regime and is deeply unhelpful."

He added: "We will remain in close contact with our international partners, whose strong reactions show the depth of international concern there is about Iran's activities."

Mr Straw said he was "seriously concerned" by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement yesterday that Tehran had succeeded in enriching uranium - a crucial step in developing a bomb.

And he warned of "further diplomatic measures" against Iran if it failed to heed the demands of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) - the world nuclear watchdog - and the United Nations Security Council to suspend enrichment work.

And I could continue with:

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, upped the pressure further, urging the Security Council to take "strong steps" against Iran in light of yesterday's announcement.

Mohammed ElBaradei, The IAEA director general, who was due to visit Iran today, is scheduled to report back to the Security Council by the end of the month.

Attempts to impose international sanctions on the regime would have to overcome the reluctance of Russia and China, both of whom wield a veto as permanent Security Council members.

But that would really be a waste of time, wouldn't it. Nothing will come of it, as the lines in the sand have already been drawn.

Especially the lines of partisan politics; with one exception, though. Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad's infamous announcement seems to have killed any serious debate stone dead as to whether a military intervention to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb was on the cards.

Judging from the recent flurry of commentary, this seems no longer the real issue, but a foregone conclusion--I am discounting those who advocate diplomatic efforts without being backed by a credible threat of military actions, for they are simply pipe-dreams.

His announcement did however cause broadly speaking two kinds of reactions amongst both sides of the isle.

Republicans, aware of the bigger picture, are looking for international allies who might support the U.S. during the preemptive strikes; they are also working hard to determine who our foes are, both overtly and covertly. One fine example is Ed Morrissey's take on Saudis' visit to Moscow.

Democrats in turn are busy dishing out blame--nothing new there--on the basis that the U.S. military cannot accomplish the mission and that, if attempted nonetheless, the adverse effects would be detrimental.

Hugh Hewitt believes this to be the biggest debate of all. However, it seems to me, that in order for this debate to be genuinely acknowledged, it must be predicated upon a proper understanding of what threat we are facing. We must somehow achieve consensus on the answer to the question of all questions: "What Do The Iranian Leaders Really Want".

Following on from yesterday's urge to take heed of "When they say “Islamic Republic,” they mean it. And refusing to take their words at face value has bedeviled Western strategists for three decades", and the question, "Will they do it?", Amir Taheri's essay, is a further step towards building such consensus, without which, I am afraid, any action or inaction will most likely lead to such a disastrously acrimonious divide between us, with such detrimental long-term consequences for our collective psyche, that it might very well dwarf anything else. Future generations and historians may view the domestic conflicts experienced during the Vietnam era and the Seventies, as a mere blip in comparison.

"But what does Iran want?" This was the question frequently hurled at me during a series of lectures and meetings in the United States recently. It indicated the desire of those who posed it to find "a reasonable way" to avoid a conflict that many now regard as inevitable.

To critics of President George W. Bush the Tehran's policy of deliberate provocation is a result of Washington's failure "to understand what Iran really wants." One questioner even claimed that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad owed his election as president of the Islamic republic to "Bush's intransigence" which supposedly weakened the "moderates" in Iran.[...]

The Albright-Clinton apologies prompted Muhammad Khatami, who was the president of the Islamic republic at the time, to propose a form of detente and peaceful coexistence between Iran and the United States. In 1984 the same Khatami had written that the Islamic republic and the US were at war and could not think of peace because a truly Muslim state could never consider itself at peace with an "infidel" power.

Nevertheless, Khatami did work hard to foster his version of detente. That prompted the Clinton administration to come up wit the idea of a "Grand Bargain".

The "Grand Bargain" as Khatami saw it would create a mini-Yalta under which the Islamic republic and the US would divide the Middle East into their respective zones of influence. Tehran would be recognized as "the regional superpower" with a dominant position in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It would also preserve its special relationship with Oman, the only country to have signed a security pact with Iran. The US would further acknowledge Iran's presence in the United Arab Emirates, chiefly Dubai.

In exchange, the Islamic republic would not interfere with the flow of oil from the Gulf, would tone down its opposition to the Israel-Palestine peace efforts, and would not use terrorism against the US and its allies. Under the "Grand Bargain" the US would end up as the dominant power in Egypt, Jordan, Israel, the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Azerbaijan, and Turkey.

The problem is that the "Grand Bargain" is no longer on the table.

The Islamic Majlis (Parliament) in Tehran has passed a law making any substantial dialogue with the US illegal. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Khatami's successor as president, is not interested in making any deals with the US that he regards as a "sunset" power. Ahmadinejad is in inspirational contact with the "Hidden Imam" whose return he believes is drawing nigh.

Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of civilizations in which Islam, led by Iran, will triumph over the "infidel" led by the United States. Ahmadinejad publicly states his policy as "a Jihad to reshape the world and ensure Islam's universal dominance."

Smug foreign policy wonks in the US might dismiss all that as "delusional fantasies." They may be right. But don't forget that Ahmadinejad also sees Bush's claim that the US is mandated by God to bring democracy to the Middle East as "a delusional fantasy."

The Council on Foreign Relations cannot liberate itself from the typical deal maker's mentality. It cannot conceive of a regime and a movement that put their messianic mission above conjectural maneuvers and compromises. They do not understand movements and regimes that, given something, would demand more because they believe that they should have it all.

Let us return to the question: What do the Iranian leaders really want?

The answer is simple: They want nothing in particular; they want everything!

Let's debate how our friends on the Left convince themselves that this is not so, a position Neo-Neocon accurately characterizes as "wishful thinking", and why they believe that those amongst us, who do take Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad & Co. seriously, are merely promoting politics of phantom fear.

Oh yes and I forget, there is the unhinged theory that the President has orchestrated this whole Iranian drama simply as 'a decoy':

The answer is that Iran is a convenient way for the Bush administration to get America's attention off of the Iraq debacle, rising gas prices, Valerie Plame, New Orleans lost, Republican corruption, the massive budget deficit, and a growing number of revelations of how Bush lied to the American people in trying to sell them on the Iraq war.

When will it be enough to take action? All eyes are on ElBaradei today. Ahem.

Don't miss the ever brilliant liberal Mike Weiss' "Mutually Assured Mullahs". Indeed.

UPDATE: From the talented boys @ Vital Perspective, on Iran and the dangers facing us. It's an absolute must read:

Iran is creating facts on the ground that are rapidly bringing us to the brink. Time is running out on the diplomatic option, and several more months of inaction will lead the West to one of two terrible options: acquiesce to a nuclear-armed terrorist state, or resort to military action with all the consequences that come along with that. In the words of Sen. John McCain, "there's only one thing worse than using the option of military action, and that is the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons."

More @ Captain's Quarters, Capatain's Quarters (2), Stop The ACLU, Austin Bay Blog, Jihad Watch, ShrinkWrapped, California Conservative, BrothersJudd Blog, Let Freedom Ring, PoliBlog, The Counterterrorism Blog, Decision '08, The Officers' Club, Outside The Beltway, Talking Points Memo, A Blog For All, TigerHawk, The Strata-Sphere, and an injection of humor from ScrappleFace.

UPDATE II: Ed Morrissey does the maths.

APRIL 13TH UPDATE III: And the analysis:

In the meantime, the Democrats continue to cast their foreign-policy platform around strengthening international institutions as a means of securing the US. It sounds great in theory, but in practice for at least since the end of the Cold War, these international institutions have proven themselves more likely to protect nothing more than the tributes paid to them by the same people who threaten our security, and member states more interested in using these institutions to block any effort to address proliferants and genocidal maniacs. The UN has shown no interest in solving any problem, preferring to stick its collective head in the sand until either the problem drops off the radar screen or someone resolves it for them.

We can no longer put our trust and our security in the UN, if indeed we ever could. It remains nothing more than a debating society, perhaps a useful one, but it will never act in defense of freedom or security. We need to focus on managing our own multilateral alliances outside of Turtle Bay, and that need has never been more pressing than with the situation in Iran.

 

Comments

[Francis W. Porretto]

The Iranian situation is particularly insecure because Iran has made it plain that it cannot be deterred by any degree of threat, no matter how credible. There's no move in conflict theory capable of exercising constraint on someone who's willing to countenance his own death and the total destruction of everything he loves to harm his enemy. All we can do is kill him before he gets his first round off.

[epaminondas]

They want me dead

Also you, unless of course you convert, or pay the tax.

It's really simple. Today the twerp made the obligatory pre-jihad call to us to convert and or come back to god...

"If you do not return to monotheism and worshipping god and refuse to accept justice then you will burn in the fire of the nations’ fury”, Ahmadinejad said."

This is no game theory, peace studies, wargame resolvable situation.

These gavones are going to ensure in the end we have to do something unfortunate

[Crusader.NoRegrets]

I hope against hope that the Mullahs of Iran will chicken out and this will prove their undoing, but that is it isn't it? They have "cast themselves and their army into fatal terrain" - SunTzu-, and I fear we all will soon pay a terrible price.

The lights are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime...

[gringoman]

What does Iran want? Looks like it wants to be suicide bomber to the world of infidels and apostates.

Incontralodos: Better a "dangerous woman" than a liberal peanut like Jimmuh Carter who, instead of acting against this Islamic monster in its infancy, maundered on about America's "malaise."

[The Heretik]

That's great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane and Lenny Bruce is not afraid. Eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn - world serves its own needs, dummy serve your own needs. Feed it off an aux speak, grunt, no, strength. Ladder start to clatter with fear fight down height. Wire in a fire, represent the seven games a government for hire and a combat site. Left of west and coming in a hurry with the furies breathing down your neck. Team by team reporters baffled, trumped, tethered cropped. Look at that low playing! Fine, then. Uh oh, overflow, population, common food, but it'll do. Save yourself, serve yourself. World serves its own needs, listen to your heart bleed dummy with the rapture and the revered in the right - right. You vitriolic, patriotic, slam, fight, bright light, feeling pretty psyched.

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

[Freedom4Amerika]

Well, we all sit on our desk somewhere in Western countries and discus "What Do The Iranian Leaders Really Want".
I ask everyone to change his point of view and let´s ask, "What Do The U.S. Leaders Really Want". If Mr.Bush see Iran as a threat, as what we should see the U.S. and I really do hard to believe that the Hero Americans are afraid of someone.That´s not even the point. We have enough reason to be afraid of Mr. Bush. He is the little child in the group who always wants to play War. I can understand him, cause War is a very good business for the U.S.
It is a shame for all Americans that their President see his Nation as idiots. The Americans work and pay their tax for what?. That this little cawboy can mess up with who ever he wants. The President of the United States of America is the President of the Americans and not of the World.
How can the world allow Mr.Bush once again up to his sick war games.
I do not believe that Iran will abuse in anyway his Nuclear program, but as long as our little cowboy push them for his sick mind games, then I think Iran will just stand with a Nuclear weapon program to convince everyone of his abilities, just like China, to get inviolable.

[Darrell]

Don't worry! The Europeans are handling this situation. I expect results any day now.

No, I wouldn't guess that the Iranians would misuse their nuclear program...Leftist idiot! "Amerika"? How quaint! Maybe your health plan covers psychiatric care?

[gringoman]

Freedom4Amerika:

It appears that you have more faith in the little mullah than the little cowboy. And that is certainly your right, as a presumably rational homo sapien. By the way, which do you prefer to live under---the little cowboy or the little mullah?

[megapotamus]

gringoman, I suspect the latter. The derision of Bush as intellectually lacking is comical especially coming from those who cannot spell consistently, much less correctly. Language is our first invention and much indeed can be gleaned from a voice, whether on audio or in type. Those who denounce Bush's diction cannot match his clarity. Our friend declares that Iran will not misuse their technology. Of course to plenty of folks, incinerating Israel or a couple US camps in Iraq would be no misuse but the proper exercise of sovereign power or even a manifestation of the Will of God. We debate and debate but the presumption of that activity is false. A debate is a competition. We do not have sufficient common ground with our Islamist foes to compete under some regime of rules anymore than we did with the Communists. They define all good as an advance of Jihad, all bad as it's obstruction. We are but speed bumps in the road to their divine perfection. You can't argue with that and you may not be able to destroy it. Still, we must try.

[Freedom4Amerika]

I do not have any faith in the little mullah or to the little cowboy and I prefer to be on top of someone instead of being under.

[gringoman]

I do not have any faith in the little mullah or to the little cowboy and I prefer to be on top of someone instead of being under.

Posted by: Freedom4Amerika | Saturday, April 15, 2006 at 10:24 AM

=================================================================
F4A,

Interesting. I'd find it more interesting if you could tell me who you would prefer to be on top of.

ps. Could you tell me what your native tongue is? You're doing well in English. It excites my curiosity as to what is your first language. Thank you.

[gringoman]

What does Iran want? Obviously one of the things it wants, and is getting increasingly, is submission. If it sees the US as a "sunset" power, what must its view of (and contempt for?) non-cowboy Europe be after this latest example of today's Euro backbone, before the Allah dudes even have their Mullah Bomb?....(hat tip LGF)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here’s a piece at Turkey’s Zaman Online, whose author is quite pleased with the EU’s willingness to blind itself to reality: EU Removes ‘Islamic Terrorism’ from its Dictionary. (Hat tip: W-lover.)

The European Union (EU) also admitted that the concept of “Islamic terrorism” is misused by racist groups in Europe and terror networks such as al-Qaeda.

The Union, taking action to rid such expressions, which are offensive to Muslims, from its dictionary, searches for new concepts behind closed doors. The European bloc is expected to release its new dictionary in June. ...

Many experts believe that the words “Islam” and “terrorism” must not be used together, and concluded that the use of such expressions “alienates” Muslims in Europe.

As a result of long consultations with academic experts, the EU will review expressions such as “Islamic terrorism,” “Islamist terrorism,” “fundamentalist,” and “jihadi.”

EU counter-terrorism chief Gijs de Vries, told Reuters, terrorism does not exist in the essence of any religion and praised Muslims struggling against those conducting terrorism in the name of religion.

Professor Rik Coolsaet, one of several authorities serving as an adviser to the EU, in the statement he made to Zaman, emphasized that Brussels realized such words can be used as “political weapons.”

Instead of expressions like “Islamic terrorism” and “Islamofascist,” a phrase the United States insistently uses, Brussels is trying to develop new concepts that will not cause offense to Muslims.