(5:05 pm. update: Gary Sick’s G2k comments are now appended in the continuation)
Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has announced that “he” will be releasing the British sailors. The US airwaves are now filled with quotes characterizing this very welcome release announcement as a “stunning surprise.”
No doubt it was a shock to Ted Koppel, the former ABC News anchor. Just two days ago, Koppel’s NPR commentary had knowingly proclaimed that this current hostage drama was deja vu from 1979. Koppel speculated that the crisis wouldn’t be over until Tony Blair was out of office. Koppel must be missing his Night-Line gig.
Surely I’m not the only one not surprised that this crisis is being unwound. After all, the world’s stock markets rallied yesterday (Tuesday) and oil prices plunged in anticipation that something positive was in the works.
A good thing too – I was getting nauseous from all the plausible to bizarre theories purporting to explain which Iranian faction was behind the capture, what their agendas were, and how the crisis presumably was playing into the hands of Iran’s confrontational hardliners. (never mind the “regime change” ideologues in the US and Israel) Even Juan Cole in Salon published a version of such interpretations.
A few lonely voices had contemplated that the crisis might have been consciously provoked by the British, or that the situation was recklessly stoked when Blair proclaimed he was “utterly confident” over the facts of the original British operation. It became a mutual TV propaganda war. (and the US mainstream media largely bought the official British version, “hook, line, and sinker.”)
I don’t know yet which account to believe on the immediate catalysts. I was more concerned that the “neocons” on both sides were painting themselves into corners from which a resolution would be supremely difficult to reach.
Over the past few days, however, close observers could see a series of encouraging signs from both London and Tehran suggesting that creative language was forming that could indeed be acceptable to both sides. From the British side, there was less blather about “absolute certainty” that their sailors had been on the Iraqi side of a maritime border line – a line that in fact does NOT exist in treaty form.
Richard Schoffield and Craig Murray were quite “spot on,” even as their early voices of sanity were pointedly ignored by most of the mainstream media. The problem at hand is rather “simple,” as Schoffield told the BBC over a week ago,
“Iran and Iraq have never agreed to a boundary of their territorial waters. There is no legal definition of the boundary beyond the Shatt al-Arab.”
That didn’t stop the New York Times (for starters) from reprinting the British “fake” map in their pages — with no indication that the boundary line indicated was not at all settled.
Even the British naval commander of the operation, Commodore Nick Lambert, had carefully observed in the early hours after the detention of his sailors that,
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated.”
Ambassador Murray was widely vilified for pointing out that it was ill-advised for Blair to have been “utterly confident” that Britain’s ships were on the Iraqi side of a “fake” line. Yet a week later, Murray noted that the border’s unsettled nature had become widely admitted within British foreign policy decision-making circles and even in the British media.
I suspect that this key shift “back” in British rhetoric contributed to today’s news.
From the Iranian side, there was recognition that the crisis was only increasing Iran’s woes in the international community. The public parading of the sailors, however relatively “different” from the images of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc, was also reviving ghastly images from the US hostage crisis of 1979. And few Iranian leaders wanted to re-live that isolation.
President Ahmadinejad is but one spoke in Iran’s complex decision-making wheel. The hub of that consensus forming wheel is Iran’s “Leader” – Ali Khamenehi. No doubt Khamenehi, in consultation with veteran key players in the top inner circles (e.g. Rafsanjani, Khatami, Velayati), decided that the boil had to be lanced.
Ali Larijani, the Iranian who gave the encouraging interview with Britain’s Channel 4 on Monday, chairs Iran’s Supreme National Security Council – a body that reports directly to Khamenehi – not Ahmadinejad. When asked if Iran would put the sailors on trial, Larijani replied,
“Definitely our priority would not be trial… Our priority is to solve the problem through diplomatic channels. We are not interested in having this issue get further complicated.”
Such conciliatory comments were welcomed by Britain.
While AN may have been granted the privilege to announce the pending release of the British sailors, the decision was hardly his alone to make.
Hats off then to the “grown ups” in both the British and Iranian foreign policy teams. Both sides surely realized that neither country had an interest in the sailors’ plight turning into a “hot” war in the Gulf.
The challenge now is to craft mechanisms to insure that such incidents don’t recur.
If a boundary is at long last to be agreed upon between Iran and Iraq, both in the Shatt al-Arab river, as well as in the territorial sea, it cannot be imposed from the outside. Instead, it will have to be achieved bilaterally between Iran and Iraq, and supported multilaterally by the interested international community.
All interested parties should also “fix minds” on dropping “gun boat diplomacy” in favor of “collective security” arrangements, beginning with all eight littoral states of the Persian Gulf. As is so often forgotten from the outside, local security is relatively more “vital” to the states that “live” there. It’s their front yards! As my mentor (Ramazani) long ago wrote, they all need to get their oil and gas securely to world markets, “they can’t drink it.”
Yet the Gulf’s littoral states also have the curse and luxury of the entire world also seeing their fragile waterway as critically important. Why not then dare to imagine more sustainable security arrangements as guaranteed through the UN Security Council rather than via the gunboats or aircraft carriers of any one outside imperial power?
————————
Update (as of 5:05 pm EST)
Gary Sick (now a respected Professor at Columbia U., a key Carter NSC member during the hostage crisis, and a former Navy Captain) made the following 8 points on the “Iran-UK contretemps” via his closed Gulf 2000 forum (and which he just indicated can be quoted publicly) I disagree with him on some points, agree in most others. (Guess which?) See continuation:
1 – The argument about whether British ships were in Iranian waters is actually irrelevant. If naval personnel on a routine UN mission stray a mile or so across a disputed line, the appropriate response is not to arrest them, parade them on TV, tape confessions, and then release them nearly two weeks later. A warning at sea followed by a diplomatic note would be the correct way to assert your national sovereignty. Apparently that had never been tried.
To be sure, Iran’s methods and the TV cameras hardly helped whatever Iranian points they were trying to make. However, Gary Sick has not considered how provocative Tony Blair comments were about his “utter” confidence that the British sailors were on the right side of the border. Likewise, he apparently dismisses the key role the shifting British statements played in helping to lay the table for resolving this crisis. If I’m correct, then it’s hardly “irrelevant!”
2 – Similarly, whether or not this action was initiated by the IRGC acting on its own is irrelevant. The Iranian government quickly adopted it and pursued it as a government matter. There was no question who to negotiate with.
3 – Iran appears to have gained something from its pressure tactics: a kidnapped Iranian diplomat was released yesterday and Iran has reportedly now gained approval from the US to have access to its five people who were taken away to unknown locations months ago. I personally believe that the US action was the fundamental origin of this dispute and accounts for why Iran chose to stage its capture of the British sailors.
Many of us suspected that as a possible explanation early on, particularly as the US has been quite arrogant in dismissing even requests by the Iraqi government to see these diplomats/agents (whatever) released. Iraq apparently has again pressed for their release. Yet I also took note that Iranian spokespersons have repeatedly been claiming that the two issues are not linked….
Even if they’re not “linked” formally, it’s surely embarrassing to America’s image abroad for the world (if not Americans) to be reminded that the US has been detaining those five Iranian “officials” who were apparently operating out of a recognized consultate and with Iraqi knowledge. And by what “norm” are we following in so acting unilaterally? Intended or not, the recent crisis casts a spotlight into this dark corner.
4 – Ahmadinejad was supposed to have a press conference yesterday, but it was postponed. My reading of that (purely personal interpretation) was that the two sides were close to a deal and the powers that be in Tehran didn’t want him messing it up with intemperate rhetoric.
5 – But Ahmadinejad was the big winner. He got to have his cake and then ate it too. Today he could fulminate against the West, but then also take credit for the release. A good day’s work and he should be very pleased.
(See the discussion for my very different take on AN’s role in this final act.)
6 – Iran’s credibility in the international community, in terms of mustering support at the UN or elsewhere for issues involving its national interests, has been badly served. Whether fair or not in terms of a close reading of principles of international law (e.g. the NPT or IAEA charter), Iran’s willingness to flout other instruments of international law for their own short-term benefit will not gain them many votes in the UN. I suspect that recognition of this fact accounts for Iran’s desire to end this dispute as promptly as possible.
On the one hand, I agree – and no doubt Iran’s international law specialists (like their UN Ambassador Zarif) quickly realized the problem of Iran again flouting international norms. On the other hand, GS is taking a rather narrow view of what constitutes international law. Border disputes and treaties have historically also been at the core of “positive” international law. But in point one, GS dismisses them (or in this case, the unsettled nature of them) as “irrelevant.” So which is it Gary, do international legal issues matter, or not?
7 – For the same reason, I suspect that this ploy will not be repeated any time soon. But it is a reminder that Iran has quite an array of asymmetrical options available to it to counter indirectly the actions of the US forces in Iran and elsewhere.
8 – There has been a great deal of speculation that the US, with greatly enhanced military capabilities in the region, was just looking for a pretext in order to launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Iranian capture of 15 UK military personnel could certainly have been used as such a pretext, since it could easily have been escalated to a full-fledged military crisis. It was not. Just as we have been searching the tea leaves for evidence of a coming military strike, I think we should also take account of negative evidence. I regard the absence of unbridled escalation in this case as a significant indicator that US desire for a strike may be more muted than it has been portrayed, especially in the blogosphere.
Thankfully, it indeed was not. (And no doubt those Israeli and Russian editors who had been proclaiming an Easter strike on Iran will be disappointed.)
On the other hand, just why are we about to have the unprecedented confluence of 3 aircraft carrier groups in the narrow confines of the Persian Gulf?
Thank G*wd for the blogosphere.
“All interested parties should also “fix minds” on dropping “gun boat diplomacy” in favor of “collective security” arrangements”
I certainly agree, but now look beyond the incident involving the British soldiers. We have a news report (link given below) of US-sponsored proxy forces conducting attacks on Iran along the border from Pakistan. The US appears to be engaged now in a low intensity war against Iran that reminds one of the contra proxy war that it conducted against Nicaragua in the 1980s.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html
Good for the sailors.
Going on a slight tangent, when I watched President Ahmadinejad’s speech I wondered, “Shouldn’t Ali Khamenei be giving this speech?”. For the matter, shouldn’t Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad, have been the one to address the U.N.? The Supreme Leader is the real ruler of Iran.
Fair question Inkan. I hazard to suggest this was a bit of internal Iranian “face saving” for AN — giving him the chance to announce the “gift” and putting his own “spin” on the release.
AN also likes these sorts of dramatic speeches. Observers often underestimate his “talent” at rhetorical arts. (recall how he “handled” Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes… a “triumph” few politicians anywhere can claim)
Never mind that, if the statement had come from Khamenehi – or from Larijani abroad – questions might have arisen to the effect, well, are the hardliners or AN on board?
With AN though giving the statement, it is known he couldn’t have made this move w/o the Leader’s direction — and it eliminated any doubt of the “system” having signed off on the decision.
The US appears to be engaged now in a low intensity war against Iran…
really? And, pray tell, how many Americans have been encouraged by their government to publicly shout Death to Iran! over the past 28 years? And how many Iranian hostages have been taken by America before the war in Iraq (which, incidentally, I vehemently oppose)…or seized by the UK for that matter?
what’s that expression about “reaping” and “sowing”?
I’ve updated the original post here with Gary Sick’s comments on the crisis.
Re: the Iraq war in general
(also see this post)
Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn’t it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein’s regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.
So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.
Uh Swan? How is this post even remotely related to the UK-Iran substance of this thread?
Not very impressed by G. Sick’s arguments. No question but that Iran (not Ahmadinejad) is the big winner here. Mainly, a psychological setback for any plans to attack Iran. That is, a warning that attacking Iran is not a light option. The final straw, I would think, for Washington, whatever the powers in Washington may say.
I thought the Iranians might continue until Blair leaves office, psychological torture à la Carter. Not a bad idea, but better to cash in your chips early, and be satisfied with what you have in hand.
I am not so sanguine about Sick’s point 8. If the US had used the detention as an excuse for escalation, and had attacked Iran while the British soldiers were still there, placing them in great jeopardy and almost certainly prolonging their captivity far into the future, Bush would have caught holy hell from almost the entire British public, and Tony Blair to boot.
I think there is some reason to think that the Iranians, at least, have been taking these attack rumors quite seriously, and may have been moved to grab the sailors as something like human shields.
See “lessons learned” report in tomorrow’s CSMonitor….
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0405/p01s01-wome.html
Hodding Carter’s comment about “everybody shutting up” is bang on target. It was precisely Blair’s “utterly confident” nonsense about a fake map that so dangerously inflated matters…. Thankfully, civil servants around him apparently saw the better part of wisdom in “cooling it” — and reaped the constructive reward. Same “logic” was at work on both sides since Sunday. (And thankfully nobody was listening to George)
(And no doubt those Israeli and Russian editors who had been proclaiming an Easter strike on Iran will be disappointed.)
too funny! Thank god the blogosphere was there to stop them from getting their way.
A job well done Scott. Congratulations.
A big thank you for this excellent post, Scott. I know that, since I am in Britain, I should have posted more about this… But I’ve been too busy with some other projects to follow it very closely– apart from, in general, being dismayed at the knee-jerk, unreflective jingoism practiced by just about all the British media on this issue. That included the Independent, which on the first day strutted and sputtered about how Foreign Sec Becket had called in the Iranian Ambassador and “read the Riot Act” to him (as though he were a grubby and naughty six-year-old). It was very disappointing to read the way the “news” editors of most papers here presented the news.
The British media have never had such a firm line between the news side and opinion side as the US media… and very frequently, the “news” is presented in such a way as to stimulate and orchestrate the required emotions. E.g., a “news” piece will say things like “The Iranian move stirred outrage at a time when… ” but without giving any specifics regarding WHO expressed herself/himself thus “outraged”– generally, one infers it was the writer herself who felt the outrage and/or wanted to stir it up among other people.
By and large I think US news reporting is not so cravenly emotionalist. (Which isn’t to say it’s perfect.)
But the good news is that the emotionalism did get ramped down and sanity prevailed. (On this one.)
Anyway, again– big thanks to you, Scott.
I’ve posted a note on the boundary question at wampum. The url is link.
Midshipman me (ret) differs from Captain Sick (ret) on the maritime law question.
All this parsing of the border is irrelevant. As are notions of right and wrong.
Iran is threatened with sanctions, attacks and nuclear strikes are mooted. America leads the “We don’t talk to nobody” brigade, totally insensible to subtleties of cross-cultural political discourse. Asymmetrical diplomacy and asymmetrical warfare can be Iran’s only response.
I have seen it characterized as “You will get nowhere with threats and warfare, which we shall respond to in our own manner in our own time; speak to us with respect and we will give you “gifts”.
And perhaps seen by Iran as further opportunities for respectful post-crisis discourse between internationally recognized, legal governments, bridge building they used to call it in the Cold War. There are now British promises not to enter Iranian territory, and movement on some agreed delineation of little bit of border itself. Probably plans to attack if it happens again as well.
Or perhaps just bargaining chips to get Iranian hostages back from the U.S. – which appeared to work, as a kidnapped Iranian diplomat/intelligence operative was released out front of the Iranian embassy in Baghdad prior to the sailors release. After all, Israel keeps a vast reserve of thousands of illegally detained hostages – men, women and children, which they use from time to time when the Palestinians or others score an asymmetrical coup. “Pearls”, the Vietnamese used to call them. There are thousands of them available for the picking just over the Iran-Iraq border.
Of course, the great tutor, Israel has a large, WMD capability that they have explicitly threatened Iran with as well.
Wise strategic diplomacy on the part of an isolated Iran – no. Effective tactically – yes. Magnanimity appealing to Persian pride and self-image – yes. Domestically politically rewarding – yes.
Take your eyes off the legally non-existent border. Keep your eyes on the Great Game.
Asymmetrical warfare?
you mean Hostage Crises, Holocaust Denial Conferences, banning of Western music, blocking of major websites, prophesying missing Imam global apocalypse?
Ahmadinejad has it down pat, huh?
and, of course, the British tabloids are the devil incarnate.
“you mean Hostage Crises, Holocaust Denial Conferences, banning of Western music, blocking of major websites, prophesying missing Imam global apocalypse?
Ahmadinejad has it down pat, huh?”
The U.S. has its own propaganda, and what’s worse, it covertly funds Pakistani guerrillas against Iran (Jundullah), kidnaps Iranian diplomats and generals, and has Jundullah members give interviews to Voice of America after attacking Iran.
“The group, called Jundullah, has carried out raids, resulting in the deaths or kidnapping of Iranian ordinary people as well as soldiers and officials.
The large Iranian community residing in the US protested strongly to Voice of America (VOA)’s live interview with Regi recently in which the terrorist claimed responsibility for the operations.”
So both sides have their propaganda, my friend. Take off your rose-colored lenses for a second, and look at how despicable is our own country’s commitment to avoiding diplomacy and pursuing immoral unilateral objectives through force. It’s not like the U.S. is incapable of using diplomacy; look back to the Madrid conference, for instance.
Wow – now “holocaust denial conferences” are classified as warfare. How terrifyingly fascinating! And banning western music? Well, compared to dropping thousands of tons of bombs on a country each day for weeks, that is horrible! And prophesies of twelfth-imam global doom – that is indeed a threat to world security! Certainly something must be done about these extremely dangerous people!
As for hostage crises, let us talk about the number of women, children, and elderly who have never left their own country (let alone are they members of a hostile military who just might have violated the territory of another) whom the Americans have taken and continue to hold purely as hostages in Iraq (and who knows where else). And then we can address the very common, and very open Israeli practice of taking hostages to be held as “bargaining chips”. Indeed, the Iranians are very small-time rank amateurs in the hostage crisis game, now, aren’t they?
Mike, as you probably know, Jundullah is hardly the only terrorist group the Bush administration has taken under its wing as allies against the Iranian regime. Remember the Mujaheddin e Khalq? The Bushies embraced them in 2003, and decided to deal with the fact that this group is on the official list of terrorist groups by changing its name.
There is a good example of how the UK popular press treats news in the Daily Mirror to-day : it is contrasting the liberation of the seized sailors with the death of four UK troops by a roadside bomb. They pretend that the bomb was iranian made and the alledged underline is that Iran plays a double game. This is just clear propaganda IMO. You get away with the impression that Murdoch’ press is angry that the capture of the sailors ended without escalation. They do everything they can in order to push the Iranians back in the “axes of evil”
“Mike, as you probably know, Jundullah is hardly the only terrorist group the Bush administration has taken under its wing as allies against the Iranian regime. Remember the Mujaheddin e Khalq? The Bushies embraced them in 2003, and decided to deal with the fact that this group is on the official list of terrorist groups by changing its name.”
Of course. The MEK enjoys representation in DC as an “opposition” group, and they are sometimes invoked in Congress.
It’s classic imperial strategy, of creating some “creative disorder” by secretly funding tribes to fight one’s enemies. Iraq is basically by now one giant example of this: tons of mercenaries, private contractors, tribes in the Jordan desert trained to fight. Now the Pakistani government is using the Taliban to fight its own internal enemies.
I would say that one of the major problems making stability so hard to come by in parts of the Middle East is that people there think it is acceptable to sponsor mercenaries by the thousand. I have often heard it said that the real unknown story in Iraq is the many thousands of private mercenaries and contractors there, who are payed extravagantly and under almost no one’s watch at all, freely doing whatever they please.
As others have said many times, any security that is “guaranteed” by the UN (or the EU, for that matter) will definitely have to be “imagined.” Those who have spend much time overseas in security hotspots know that UN presence is viewed as an economic benefit, but no one, including local gang members as in Gaza, takes these peace-keepers very seriously. They are, in the non-perjorative sense, mercenaries — they are paid to occupy a post, they have little personal skin in the game, and they exploit the local area when times are good and they duck for cover when they are bad. In-between they ride around in fancy equipment like models. As individuals they are often nice and committed but in a crisis they are irrelevant.
The larger posting here is interesting, but there has to be some better bottom line than imagining the UN as the guarantor of security — any group anywhere who has had experience with UN forces will not accept this as a guarantee. Their stock has, if anything, gone down in the past ten years.
Interesting observations Carson. Are you by chance one with some first hand experience w/ those in the peacekeeper roles for “3rd Parties” in the ME?
I haven’t been so fortunate, and to be sure, we can cite many cases when their role was literally “run over.” Yet I’ve also talked to former students and colleagues who indeed were part of certain 3rd Party (usually UN) operations that at times were quite useful in preventing “little” local incidents from becoming bigger problems…. (Alas, to say that such an operation played a constructive role is akin to having to prove a negative…, but I think the case can also be affirmatively demonstrated)
On Sunday, Ruhi Ramazani has another essay coming out in which he will make a more expanded case for “collective security for the Gulf.” Having worked on that essay, it may address some of your concerns….
For the moment, can you tell me what security approach over the past two centuries for the Persian Gulf hasn’t contained within itself “seeds of its own breakdown.” ? (e.g., think Pax-Britannic, Baghdad Pact, CENTO, Pax-Shah, Pax-Saddam (gag), dual-containment, and now Sunni-Shia balancing (e.g., “divide ‘n conquer) schemes…
Given the horrendous record of past approaches, why not consider a “radical” (e.g., untried) model long advocated not just by a few lonely academic specialists, but by the players themselves?
Of course, the outside world, as long as it consumes oil and LNG, will continue to have “vital” interests in the Gulf. But their too frontal attempts to “dominate” the Gulf will inherently stir suspicion and potential instability.
Yet the profoundly rich, but population poor states of the G.C.C. side of the Gulf will always feel some vulnerability vis-a-vis their much larger Iraqi and Iranian neighbors…. (that was true long before the Iranian Revolution — and will remain so regardless of what system Iran evolves into….) We could also talk about similar dynamics between smaller GCC states vs. Saudi Arabia — and how those tensions have been somewhat eased….
Conceiving collective security first as a regional effort, of, by, and for the regional states will go a long way towards reducing historically ingrained suspicions of the intentions of the outsider — and reducing numerous friction points from within the region.
On the other hand, finding a mechanism from the interested outside world will also have numerous benefits, locally and globally. It needs to be established without any one power running the show and yet devised to insure the outside world remains engaged, yet not “imperialistic.”
If not the UN Security Council to set up and be responsible for such a “security regime,” who else? (and skip the neocon fantasies about “pax-democracia”)
I can imagine the neocons will howl at such ideas, but have they got anything better to offer than more of the same — fragile, unilateral, gun-boat attempts to ram security down the other’s throats? (or occupy their oil fields, Kissinger style – as he once recklessly proposed)
UN Security Council Resolution 598 – the one that helped end the Iran-Iraq War – still contains within it “the seeds of a solution.” (particularly the provisions placed therein by then temporary members Germany & Japan)
Part of the reason Rafsanjani & co could convince Khomeini to “drink the poisonous chalice” (and give up efforts to “punish the aggressor Saddam”) was the hope that the UNSC would work to devise a security regime that would be better able to prevent such aggression and conflict in the future….
Collective Securtiy – of and for the local states, and insured by great powers – remains a tangible goal, important to all eight littoral states of the Gulf…. even as the obstacles to gettting there are formidable to be sure.
Jim Lobe, one of my favorite “independent” writers, provides the following interesting survey of quotes from Iran watches mentioned in my original post (Sick, Parsi, Beeman, & Cole) Most of the points above are echoed again:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID06Ak01.html
Note especially the following passage: (I agree especially that the shift came, not with Larijani’s comments, but when the British rhetoric itself was dramatically changed… and that gave Larijani/Khamenehi much to work with to “climb back down” themselves….)
“London officials have said the turning point came on Monday, when Ali Larijani, the Iranian national security adviser, gave a conciliatory interview to Britain’s Channel Four television – an interview that was followed up the next day with a critical conversation between Larijani and British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s top foreign-policy adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, according to The Independent. However, Cole pointed to a shift in the British stance from one of threats and demands to a more diplomatic approach over the weekend, including confirmation by British Defense Secretary Des Browne that London was “in direct bilateral communication with the Iranians”.
“These sorts of incidents are always to some extent about face, and apparently the Iranians felt that when Britain agreed to enter into direct bilateral negotiations, Iran had gained enough face to be magnanimous,” Cole said. “On Sunday, they were admitted as equals, not scolded as little children. That created the opening for [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khameini and Ahmadinejad to climb down and save face.”
William Beeman, an Iran expert at the University of Minnesota, said: “Iranians have been signaling repeatedly, and not just during this crisis, that they will engage diplomatically, but without preconditions and on the basis of equality.
Treating the leaders of the sovereign states of the Middle East respectfully as equals instead of talking down to them and scolding them as if they were rather dim witted little children and then bombing them into the stone age if they talk back? What a revolutionary concept? Someone should tell Condi Rice about this new, modern approach?
Shirin, You are right on the money!
Scott,
First regarding the UN post, yes, I know of very few involve and informed people on any side that take the UN seriously. I was 65 km.s out of Srebrenica in the UN post at Pale (may be a bit mistaken about the exact distance; it was approx. 15 years ago after all) when that massacre was happening. I remember very well the sense of helpless indifference that prevailed in the camp during that terrible day. And I was in the NE outskirts of Kigali in the UN medical camp for 45 days when all “that” was going on; more of the same, of course. The UN is not am impartial entity, period. The “Security Council” [what a farcical name !!?] is only worried about the security of the powerful. White blood is far more valuable than colored blood, period. Academics in the West can go on discussing this for the next 18 centuries, but they are wasting time and ATP.
Second, about the Iranians and the different people you quote on them, Parsi (who happens to be Iranian, surprise!), Cole, Lobe, Sick, I am sorry to be so blunt, but they are all off the mark. The Iranians are not talking to deluded Western audiences with their inflated sense of self-importance. Their audience consists of two groups (1) internationally, those who understand very, very well that the world system is not what the NYT has you believe. In a system where there are beautiful things such as Guantanamo, Iraq, the SC “veto”, 3.5 million dead Vietnamese, 1953 coups, gunboat diplomacy with three aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf, a phenomenon called Israel with its many idiosyncrasies (including the “at least 10-to-1” logic), Khiams, Sabra and Shatilas, where Sharon, Mubarak, Pinochet and Suharto are friends of democracy while Khatami is a tyrant and Ho Chi Minh is the “red devil”, … any effort at talking with the West, especially the US, as if they believed their own drivel is an exercise in futility. The West will only back off, and the strong emphasis is on the word ‘only’, when it has absolutely no other choice. No one will try or “consider a “radical” (e.g., untried) model”. The West has still not learned its lesson, and it will continue trying the good old-fashioned bang-bang model. The only time a bully retreats is when it has to, in order to wipe its bloody nose. The people who support the Iranians worldwide, whether those like the Russians or Chinese who do so based on pure Machiavellian math, or those like third world and non-aligned nations who do so since they feel they are saying what they wish they had the guts to say, do not buy the NYT’s bag of candy. And (2) their domestic audience who knows the game very well, since they have witnessed it for the duration of their lives. They know the mullahs, and the Shah and his Savak, and despite the WSJ’s editorial page, they know the difference pretty darn well. They have lived through sanctions, for 27 years now. They have seen several scuds a day land in their cities, wiping out entire hospitals and schools (courtesy of the “democratic West”, gift-wrapped by their ally Saddam) and the NYT “liberal” crowd not utter a peep. They have seen tens of thousands of their kids frying in EU packaged mustard gas. They have seen 290 of their family and friends shot down in an airliner by the beacon of democracy, and the responsible captain awarded a Legion of Merit Commendation Medal for “heroic achievement,” noting his “ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire”. The Western ethnocentric self-important worldview always thinks “Are you talking to me?” The answer is no. The only thing the Iranians have been telling the West for the past 28 years is this: “Why not talk politely, and we will do the same; f*** with us and we will f*** with you.” But of course if you own the world, like we do, that is so damn hard to hear.
f*** with us and we will f*** with you.”
Wait and see who will…. whom….?
Salah,
I am sorry to have offended your knee-jerk instincts whenever you read the word “Iran”.
Regrettably some will never grownup and keep their childish behaviours without learning to be a polite and respectful with others each time they writs.
David when you grownup and behave yourself as the rest of the friends here?
Scott,
Did these examples make you confident in UN forces?
Rwandan Genocide
In the wake of the Rwandan Genocide, the United Nations and the international community in general drew severe criticism for its inaction. Despite international news media coverage of the violence as it unfolded, most countries, including France, Belgium, and the United States, declined to intervene or speak out against the massacres. Canada continued to lead the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda, United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR). However, the UN did not authorize UNAMIR to intervene or use force to prevent or halt the killing.
UN “peacekeepers” in Haiti accused of massacre
On July 6 in Cite Soleil, a weeping Fredi Romelus, recounted how UN
troops lobbed a red smoke grenade into his house and then opened fire killing his wife and two children. “They surrounded our house this morning and I ran thinking my wife and the children were behind me. They couldn’t get out and the blan [UN] fired into the house.”
Read more here for UN in Haiti accused of second massacre
by Haiti Information Project
Thursday Jan 25th, 2007 3:17 AM
They know the mullahs?
“At a joint news conference with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Bush said that if Iran does not suspend enrichment, “there must be a consequence.” 09 June 2006”
“We’ve given the Iranians a limited period of time — you know, weeks not months — to digest a proposal to move forward. And if they choose not to verifiably suspend their program, then there will be action taken in the U.N. Security Council,” Bush said.”
65 weeks till 9 April 2007