I am not yet at the point where I reliably dream of blogging – it has happened, terrifyingly enough, but not on a regular basis – but the shower is turning into a useful place to think of possible posts. Of course, I’m more of a linker than a thinker, so I mostly let them pass because I’m off to work later, but weekends are a different story. So, two questions on Iran.
1). Someone taps you on the shoulder and informs you that the United States of America is prepared to change its policy on Iran in any one way, based on your input. What would you change right now*, and why?
Yes, yes, you would first immediately either expel or guarantee the re-election of the current administration, thank you, that has to wait for November either way and the question was about what to change right now.
2). Let us postulate that you will wake up tomorrow to find that you are the President of the United States (no, you don’t have to be George W Bush), and that reports are coming in that a popular uprising has begun against the current theocracy in Iran. The rebels are secular, pro-democracy, have broad support from the populace but not much in the way of heavy weapons and are at least neutral towards the United States; indeed, there is already a widespread belief that the CIA was behind it all (in this case, you know that it was not). The consensus at the UN is rapidly hardening in favor of the existing regime, particularly as said regime is suddenly ready to sign all sorts of nonproliferation agreements in exchange for public support.
Do you support the rebellion, or not?
Moe
*Because we’re going to hit the really hot months in the Northern Hemisphere soon, which is the traditional time for demonstrations/riots.
Yes you support the rebellion, but you must do so covertly to minimize (not avoid) further complaints about US imperialism. I say minimize because even if you do not help the rebels you will be accused of doing so.
“The consensus at the UN is rapidly hardening in favor of the existing regime, particularly as said regime is suddenly ready to sign all sorts of nonproliferation agreements in exchange for public support.”
This is of course the most realistic part of your hypothetical. It will be interesting to see how people respond to it. My guess is ignore it.
“Much worse before it gets better”
I am feeling plenty hawkish today. We have a “casus belli” in Iranian support for Muqtada Sadr. The carefully targeted bombing of key targets in Iran might allow the dissidents just enough freedom to reform their government. They would not likely be our friends, but friends in the middle east are going to be slow coming for a while.
I think our Iraqi allies (Kurds and Shia) would not react too unfavorably.
Risks, possible benefits, consequences can be discussed. Maybe I have just lost my mind.
But I am thinking if we don’t get a bigger war pretty soon we are going to lose the one we are trying to keep “manageable”.
I’ll be British Prime Minister if any of you Presidents needs anything.
support them
Butt out!!! It’s none of our business and we can only make the situation worse.
Our support of the Democracy movement can only make it weaker and make the Mullahs more powerful.
Now assuming that a Nationalist Democracy Movement managed to overthrow the Mullahs, how exactly would that change Iranian Foreign Policy? The facts on the ground will not have changed, Israel & Pakistan will still have Nukes, the Us will still be occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, and Russia and Iran will still be arguing over Oil fields in the Caspian.
support them
#2. I would state publically that I hope the Iranian uprising will be resolved in a bloodless fashion and in a way that brings greater freedom to the Iranian people.
Behind the scenes I’d examine the feasibility of pumping as much money as I can into the uprising without being caught, but with strings attached that help ensure the pro-democracy forces understand there are human rights protocols I expect strict adherence to, and that at the first sign of unnecessary brutality, the money stops cold. If there’s no way to do this, I’d lend moral support as quietly as possible to the rebels.
Overall, though, I think the US needs to appear uninvolved.
This is of course the most realistic part of your hypothetical. It will be interesting to see how people respond to it. My guess is ignore it.
Ye, of little faith.
As an international body of which Iran is a member, it’s understandable that the UN would favor as peaceful solution as possible. And an uprising will supposedly leave innocents dead, so this UN response is defendable to some degree.
Expecting the UN to favor rapid movement into a US approved democracy via war over the individual lives that are at risk is to completely misunderstand its mission.
Case in point about the UN: Sudan.
Here we see elements within the UN pushing strongly for action, horrified by genocide.
We see major powers indicating a major lack of interest.
Hence, we see a reluctance on the part of top UN leadership to take a strong, declarative stand.
In large part, this is inherent to the structure of the body – it can only exist of the collective will of its major entities.
Not sure how to break this paradigm other than to give the UN more executive powers, which would make some people I know totally flip out.
I think Israeli jets will end up bombing nuclear facilities in Iran before such a rebellion will take place.
“I think Israeli jets will end up bombing nuclear facilities in Iran before such a rebellion will take place.”
Wouldn’t it be much better if we did it?
“Expecting the UN to favor rapid movement into a US approved democracy via war over the individual lives that are at risk is to completely misunderstand its mission.”
I think you misunderstand. I not only do not expect the UN to favor rapid movement into a US approved democracy via ANYTHING, I fully expect it to actively support the mullahs in Iran when the time comes. I expect this to happen because the UN has spent 20 years dithering about the nuclear threat in Iran and will be worried about it.
In your hypothetical–financial support, yes, assuming they want it. As covertly as possible, unless you can somehow get most of the democratic world on board.
I’d also consider some ominous troop movements and threats about…something….if the Iranian government starts massacring people. That would depend on whether the rebels thought overt U.S. support would undermine them, and whether we actually had the troop strength to do anything.
I would also try to have someone find out from Khatami whether this was for real and which side he was on, if that could be done without giving away my intentions.
But I’m holding you to the statements that the rebels are “democracy minded” and have “broad popular support”, which in a way makes this unrealistically easy.
“I fully expect it to actively support the mullahs in Iran when the time comes.”
Hello, security council veto!
(Unless empty general assembly resolutions count as “active”, but I don’t think they do.)
Bob,
Wouldn’t it be much better if we did it?
Not sure. Israel has been UN’s punching bag for quite a few decades. We might decide that we don’t want the heat for doing it ourselves.
Israel bombs the facilities. A revolt takes place some time within a few years, Iranians make peace with Israelis and the rest of the world cools down since they still “want” Israel to give Palies a state.
Israel bombs the facilities.
Entirely plausible: they did it to Iraq.
A revolt takes place some time within a few years
Well, depending how you define “revolt”: Iran is moving more and more in the direction of democracy.
Iranians make peace with Israelis
Now you’re moving into fantasyland.
What Edward and Katherine said–support them, but very covertly.
And, like Katherine, I’m skeptical of “democracy-minded” and “broad popular support”; I think we’re more than happy to scotch democracy if it doesn’t tack a pro-American line. And despite my fondest wishes, I’ve yet to see the broad popular support such a movement would need in order to succeed.
Well, depending how you define “revolt”: Iran is moving more and more in the direction of democracy.
They just might revolt and violently over throws their gov’t. Plausible.
Now you’re moving into fantasyland.
I suggest you meet with iranians or at least read their blogs. Many are indifferent when it comes to Palestinians and some are hostile to Islam, because they feel it has erased much of their Persian heritage.
“Mr. President we have reports of a rebellion underway in Iran.”
“What’s the source of this intelligence?”
“It’s from on of our teams in Teheran.”
“How many people are we talking about here?”
“Thousands, possibly tens of thousands.”
“What’s the response of Mohammad Khatami?”
“The President’s response has been police using Russian made RPK 74 machine guns to fight the rebels who appear to be armed with rifles and incendiary devices.
“They don’t stand much of a chance do they?”
“Not by themselves Mr. President.”
“Is this the result of today’s elections in which the reform candidates were barred?”
“Yes, the violence is clearly linked to the frustration of the people.”
“Mr. President the Special Directorate Activities chief is here.”
“Good to see you again sir.”
“Glad you could make it on such short notice. I take it you’ve been briefed on the way up?”
“Yes, sir.”
The President extends his arm and after a vigorous bit of hand twisting returns to his seat.
“What assets do we have available that can act within the next hour?”
“We only have two SDAI teams sir. But they are deep undercover and we really don’t want to use them unless it’s an emergency.”
“Activate one of the teams. Pose them as rebels and fight more aggressively against the police forces. Buy the rebels some time.”
“It’s your call sir, but may I remind you there are a whole bunch of Russian teams and a number of folks with ties to Dzerzhinsky square* in the capitol. It could get messy.”
“Let’s create a huge distraction. Take out the border posts along the Iraq/Iran border. Stealth bombers, no warning, no misses. I want them obliterated.”
The President turns to Rumsfeld.
“Sure.”
Rumsfeld opens up his attache and takes out a laptop. He types in a message and the MILSTAR satellites are already relaying it halfway around the world.
“Done. They’ll be airborne in 25 minutes with targets preprogrammed in their flight computers. I’ve taken the liberty of engaging the 335th fighter squadron to take out any resistance our bombers may face – not that I expect any. The quickest Iran has mobilized any airborne in response to a threat is about 40 minutes.”
“Good. I better be making a few phonecalls.”
The President lifts up the phone and presses a button which connects him immediately with Tony Blairs cell phone.
“Hi Tones, we’ve got a situation in Iran. A border outpost of ours was brutally attacked by Irania Shia fanatics and we will be retaliating with fighters and bombers. Yes…yes. I will keep you up-to-date. I’ll call you again in about an hour or two. Thanks, and give my regards to Cherie.”
“Ok. Let’s see…”
With another press of another button on the same phone the office of Vladimir Putin is reached.
“Hi Vlad. Yes, it has been awhile. We have a situation erupting on the Iran/Iraq border. One of our outposts was brutally attacked by Iranian Shia fanatics on a suicide mission. We will be responding to the attacks locally with fighters and bombers and we will be violating their airspace. Since your boys built their early warning system, I thought I’d give you a heads up. Yes, I know. Yes, we have. Yes, we will. No, we will not. I don’t suspect that, but we will be conducting an investigation…I appreciate your position but this sort of thing can’t go unpunished.”
“Well that’s a fine how do you do! He hung up. Expect some resistance down by the borders. Back up the 335th with the 389th. Condi, Call Ridge and have him elevate the threat level to orange”
“As good as done sir.”
“What do we have for coordinates on the main palace of the Ayatollah?”
“We have them available sir, including all his vacation homes and safe houses.”
“Good. Take them out too.”
“Very well sir.”
Condi looks at Rumsfeld and looks back at Bush.
“Sir, may I suggest we send our special hypersonic B2 on those missions. We want that particular sort of attack to be untraceable. It might help if we equip that bird with Russian or Chinese munitions – the same sort the rebels will be using.”
“That’s why I love you Condi…sounds good make it so.”
Rumsfeld has his attache and laptop already open and is typing away.
VP Cheney suddenly appears in the form of a holograph that emerges out of a lens from underneath the Presidential seal on the floor.
“Mr. President, I’ve just been briefed. It sounds like it’s Mullah Time!” Cheney raises his beer and swigs it.
The group laughs as satellite guided bombs fall on their targets.
“Right on.” Rumsfeld announces. Three border posts destroyed. No hostiles yet and no anti-air fire to speak of.
Cheney laughs.
“It’s about time too. If all goes well we should lower the gas prices a bit – to encourage support for our activities.”
“Good idea. Create a link in the mind of the people Iran attack = lower gas prices. Cheney, what would I do without you?”
“Just doing my job sir. I’m the evil mastermind!”
The group laughs again.
The bombs fall, the Ayatollahs homes are destroyed and Russia sits on its hands, fuming and plotting with Schroeder and Chirac for effective means to retaliate against the US – just another normal day.
SDAI-Tech1 😉
“”I fully expect it to actively support the mullahs in Iran when the time comes.”
Hello, security council veto!””
Katherine you are way smarter than that.
The UN as an institution could actively work to the mullahs benefit without ever risking a veto. Off the top of my head:
France and one or two other countries propose negotiations with the Iranian mullahs based on their ‘willingness’ to discuss the nuclear inspections issue. Worth at least 2-3 weeks in paralyzation and many Iranian lives.
Just as things start to spin out of control, Kofi Annan brokers a cease-fire for one week. He is supported by a number of European governments who threaten the rebels with a lack of recognition if they won’t allow the UN to get involved. This damages the momentum of the movement and allows the mullahs time to regroup. By the time the cease-fire ends they are firmly back in control of the military and kill thousands.
Furthermore there are all sorts of UN departments that could easily muck things up below the security council level. The UN might send food aid to help those ‘impacted by civil war’. It would absolutely get diverted by the mullahs to feed their own troops. etc., etc., etc.
FURTHERMORE, outside the UN I am even more certain that a number of European countries would help support the mullahs. See for instance France and Germany 2004, 2003 and 2002.
#1 engage in a policy of detente.
#2 Considering the popularity of the US in the world today, the best way to torpedo such a movement would be American support.
But I suppose there still are limited ways to support that rebellion (threatning sanctions in case of a bloddy crack-down, etc).
the UN supporting the mullahs?! why? would that democracy movement have pledged to try even harder to get an atom bomb?!
The prospect of such a rebellion in today’s circumstaces is very unlikely to say the least. In the future too: the Iranians’ lesson of revolution is that it exchanged one dictatorship for another.
Many Iranians want a new regime, but because of that historical experience very few want it through bloodshed and chaos.
Stan, if you feel that blogs written in English by Iran exiles or reformists are representative of Iranian opinion toward Israel, please says so explicitly.
This isn’t directed at Iran, per se, but one policy tool I’ve been kicking around for a while is the following:
Any country formerly possessing a non-representative government, that makes the conversion to a fully representative government (meeting some minimum requirements on the rule of law and protection of minorities for some minimum length of time), shall have all its public debts rescinded.
It would be both a powerful destabilizing element for any dictatorship, since they invariably need to be propped up via some kind of financial shenanigans, while simultaneously a powerful incentive for democratization. It’d require a fair amount of machinery to make it work, though — a neutral party to observe elections and human rights abuses and the coordination with something like the IMF to adjudicate which debts, precisely, are considered rescinded, not to mention numerous powerful signatories — so maybe it’s fundamentally unworkable.
In this specific situation? Assuming “impeachment” doesn’t earn me the Kewpie doll, I’m with those who say an official position of neutrality coupled with covert support linked to democratization and respect for human rights.