Pragmatists in Tehran

Just today there is the news about the US Congress adopting a resolution to cut off Iran's gasoline supply. The Iranians must be wondering how they can trust a country that wants to cut off such a essential supply to provide the enriched uranium it promises.

Let me ask: Why should the West trust Iran?

This article has so many stupid statements that I couldn't count them all. So let me instead offer a more pragmatic view of the situation.

The Muslim fundamentalists (a majority already) are not interested in normalizing the relations with the West, but rather in unlimited expansion of Islam to eventually engulf the entire human civilization. That is their primary goal, and all their actions should be interpreted as a means to that goal. In particular, they have said time and again that Israel should cease to exist. Can it be more clear than that?

They see the inability of the West to act decisively, and exploit this weakness to finally acquire nuclear weapons. It's not about trust at all, so the whole idea of this article sounds nonsense to me.

They have learned the history well. Which means, if they are not stopped, the next World War is the logical conclusion.

I think that the only way to stop them is to let them know that Hiroshima can be repeated. They don't care about their own population, so why should we? It's plain simple: strike them or be destroyed.

Unfortunately, the current American administration is incapable or such decisive actions. With the so-called "negotiations", it will only postpone the inevitable.

Experience has taught Iran that she should not count on multilateral or bilateral agreements.

Consider a few examples

1. Iran is one of the founding members of the United Nations. UN charter forbids interference in the internal affair of other states. Yet, in 1953, Iran's democratically elected government was toppled through a CIA-instigated coup.

2. The US-Iran accord that led to the release of US hostages committed the United States to refrain from interference in Iran's internal affairs. Yet, in the past 15 years, US Congress has made annual budgetary allocations for such interventions.

3. Iran and Iraq are (were) signatories of the multilateral agreement banning use of chemical weapons. Yet, in the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam production and use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces were aided by the West (particularly W. Germany). And, the West blocked any UN resolution condemning Saddam's use of such weapons.

4. As a non-nuclear weapon signatory of NPT, Iran is entitled to technical assistance for peaceful uses of nuclear technology and committed to refrain from diverting nuclear materials to military purposes. There is no evidence of diversion of nuclear materials by Iran. Yet, the West has reneged on bilateral agreements to supply Iran with nuclear fuel and power plants that Iran had paid for. And, now Iran is being denied the ability to purchase medium enriched uranium for use in a research reactor that under supervision of IAEA produces isotopes for medical purposes. By contrast, Israel and India, two countries in Iran's neighborhood that are not NPT signatories, have frequently embarked on foreign aggressions since WWII, possess nuclear weapons and, yet, have been favored with technical -- and non-technical -- assistance by the West.

Iran does and should uphold its multilateral and bilateral agreements, but she does not -- and should not -- count on such agreements for its own security.

Can we please jettison the terrible comparison to Nixon and China? The Chinese re-alignment occurred after literally decades of bad blood and relations between the Soviet Union and China, which the US had a ridiculously difficult time seeing. This was in tandem with a very strong, realpolitik, "balance of power" situation; the Chinese wanted US support to balance the Soviets, and the US wanted good relations with China to balance the Soviets.

There's nothing like this in the Iranian situation. We aren't trying to balance the Iranians against anyone, and they us. The status quo is very strong in both countries, and both are rather loss-averse and wary of the other. A "Grand Bargain" isn't possible under such circumstances, no matter how often wide-eyed idealists invoke it.

I was waiting for you to mention the "secret" reactor at Qom, and the divisive, inflammatory rhetoric from not only Ahmadinejad, but also Iran's Clerics, and Iran's unwillingness to co-operate with nuclear facility inspections.

But you did not. So much for balanced observation.

Of course Iran is going to serve it's National interests - duh. Not being part of Iran's cabinet of Ministers, I can only surmise you don't really know what those interests are. What has been communicated to the world is that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" and build secret fissile material. Until Iran as a whole renounces it's position on Israel and comes clean as to the amount and type of fissile material it intends to build, bargaining is pointless.

Your "grand bargain" seems an incredulous, pie-in-the-sky, faux diplomatic dream. From a historical point of view, I have to agree with Brett and KMOODY. The Nixon/China situation doesn't apply here.

A well-thought-out essay, something rare in the Homeland. We mostly read bluster.

We expect Iran to trust us after our Secretary of State has spoken of "obliterating Iran" (during her failed campaign for the Democratic nomination), and more recently of imposing "crippling sanctions" against that country. Why should Iran trust us, or anyone else for that matter? Here's one example of international deceit:-

In the 1960s Canada built a nuclear power station in Pakistan. The contract required Canada to also supply fuel for the life of the reactor.

In 1974 India surprised the world by detonating a nuclear device. Canada reacted by stopping supply of uranium fuel, TO PAKISTAN! Their logic was: India has gone nuclear, so you (Pakistan) will try to do the same. Therefore we cannot give you any more uranium.

The plant stood idle for some years until Pakistani engineers and scientists were able to develop their own fuel rods.

And Canada is widely considered to be one of the relatively decent international players!

With world powers repeatedly reinforcing their "reneging crooks" credentials, why should Iran trust them?

At the end of the day Iran is the lynchpin for potential stability, the reasonable assumption of our ultimate goal, in the region. We have to look at everything/everyone from Israel to at least India, and from Russia to at least Aden, at the same time in order to pull together a "Grand Bargain" appropriate to the situation.

Iran is totally central, geopolitically and economically, to all this. They are a strange culture with a psychology that is not beholding to the White Man. They are an "Other" that subsequently offends and scares the parochialism of the Western perspective toward negotiation and power. This essay was on the mark, but its worth reiterating that the difficulty in working things through with Iran are further aggravated by the power of the cards they hold, and the diffculty of accepting that Israel's interests and those of the US are NOT one and the same. In fact, while it can be argued that Israel/Palestine is a distraction to a Grand Bargain with Iran, it is still the single great point of pain in our ability to work with the regional psychology and mindset, where Iran's presence and power is central.

At the end of a successful engagement/bargain, which is hardly the likely culimination, we will also have to be prepared to accept the reality of Iran holding something approaching regional hegemony. Not necessarily with nukes, but by virtue of its inherent centrality to the region.

The hang-up here is with our own Western minds and Egos, and how those things get in the way of dealing respectfully with a genuinely different culture, aggravated by the ring Israel keeps in the nose of the US.

There isn't much offered in this article to support the argument that Iran has diplomatic intentions. The author's whole theory is base on the fact that some of Iran's upper echelon half offered to buy some machinery for its reactor from America. That's not much to go on.

One additional point on the usefulness of this analogy. Daniel Levy recently spoke about the increasing instability of Israeli governments - 32 governments in the country's 62-year history. This has produced a political stalemate that has empowered the settlers and their ideological allies far beyond their actual numbers, making bold steps by Israeli governments towards a 2-state solution practicially impossible.

The opening of China and its subsequent economic rise may well be responsible for another important change in Japan. We are finally starting to see something in Japan that resembles true democracy. This could shake-up Japanese society and go a long way to help Japan get out of the economic and political rut it has been in for the past two decades.

Similarly, a US opening to Iran resulting in it becoming a more involved participant in regional affairs could well have a similar effect on the Israeli political system, forcing it to break through the deadlock that has hamstrung Israeli governments, especially since Rabin's assassination.