I

RANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD said Tuesday he would be sending U.S. President Barack Obama a letter, the contents of which would be made public in the coming days. In a live interview on state television, Ahmadinejad said that Iran was the “only chance” for Obama to salvage his administration’s position in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian president remarked, “The best way for him [Obama] is to accept and respect Iran and enter into cooperation. Many new opportunities will be created for him.”

This is not the first time Ahmadinejad has offered his American counterpart cooperation in an attempt to extract concessions. But he has never been so direct about telegraphing his view that the United States is in a difficult position in the Middle East and South Asia, nor has he offered Iran’s help so that the United States can extricate itself from the region. What is important is that the Iranian leader is pretty accurate in both his description and prescription.

Washington is indeed working toward a military drawdown in Iraq, and needs to make progress in Afghanistan within a very short time frame. Iran borders both these countries, where the Islamic republic has significant influence. Cognizant of Obama’s domestic political imperatives, Ahmadinejad said, “He [Obama] has but one chance to stay as head of the state and succeed. Obama cannot do anything in Palestine. He has no chance. What can he do in Iraq? Nothing. And Afghanistan is too complicated. The best way for him is to accept and respect Iran and enter into cooperation. Many new opportunities will be created for him.”

The Iranian president is correct in that a solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is extremely unlikely. In terms of Iraq, the Iranians recently signaled that they are prepared to accept a sizeable Sunni presence in the next Iraqi coalition government. This will facilitate the U.S. need for a balance of power in Iraq, thereby allowing Washington to exit the country. Similarly, the Americans cannot achieve the conditions for withdrawal in Afghanistan without reaching an understanding with the Iranians.

“In exchange for helping the United States, the Islamic republic first wants international recognition as a legitimate entity.”

Therefore, the maverick Iranian leader was not engaging in his usual rhetoric when he said, “Mr. Obama has only one chance and that is Iran. This is not emotional talk but scientific. He has but one place to say that ‘I made a change and I turned over the world equation’ and that is Iran.” So, what exactly does Ahmadinejad want in return for helping the leader of his country’s biggest foe?

The answer lies in the following comment by Ahmadinejad: “Acknowledging Iran would benefit both sides and as far as Iran is concerned, we are not after any confrontation.” The Iranians are trying to bring closure to their efforts of the last eight years in which they have been trying to exploit the U.S. wars being fought in their neighborhood to achieve their geopolitical objectives. Ahmadinejad is laying out his terms.

In exchange for helping the United States, the Islamic republic first wants international recognition as a legitimate entity. Second, the global community needs to recognize the Iranian sphere of influence in the Islamic world. Third, and most importantly, while it is prepared to normalize ties with the United States, Iran wants to retain its independent foreign policy.

Put another way, Iran wants to be treated by the Obama administration along the lines of how U.S. President Richard Nixon’s administration dealt with China during the early 1970s. The demand for respect is a critical one. Iran is not interested in rapprochement with the United States along the lines of what Libya did in 2003 when it gave up its nuclear weapons arsenal in exchange for normalized relations with the United States and its Western allies.

Iran is not close to crossing the nuclear threshold yet, but it wants to retain that as a future option as per any deal. Iran has been emboldened by the fact that the United States is neither in a position to exercise the military option to prevent the Persian state from going nuclear, nor is it able to put together an effective sanctions regime that could affect a change in Tehran’s behavior. It is therefore using the regional dynamic as leverage to try and extract the maximum possible concessions on the nuclear issue.

On a further note, an arrangement based on the concept of “accept us for who we are” is critical to the interests of the Iranian regime for two reasons. First, it gets rid of the external threat of regime change. Second, it allows the Iranian regime to demonstrate on the domestic front that its aggressive foreign policy has paid off, which completely undermines its Green movement opponents.

It is too early to predict whether Iran can achieve its goals or not. It has moved to the final round of its efforts to use American weakness to its advantage, and at this stage it does hold a strong deck of cards.

6,967 views 19 replies
Reply #1 Top

What I really feel bad about, it's that Obama's options are restricted by the "Nixon goes to China" paradox. He will take a lot of flak by striking a deal with Iran even if a good one's on the table.

A Hawk president has an easier time making peace. A Dove president has an easier time making war. But sometimes, they have to do what they gotta do for the best of the US.

So, what do you think is in the best interest of the US, seeing Russia's resurgence?

Reply #2 Top

Russia resurgence?  More like Russian Pique.  And at that they seem content to play the gadfly.  But I do not think they are crazy enough to actually cut off their nose to spite their face (actually supporting Iran in a confrontation).  They are not stupid and know that half their Muslim problems stem from Iran.  but as long as they can tweak the US nose with Iran, they will continue to walk that tight rope.

I am amused by this statement:

It has moved to the final round of its efforts to use American weakness to its advantage, and at this stage it does hold a strong deck of cards.

Strangely, I find that a reaffirmation of my line about Obama.  Whether the US is weaker today than it was 2 years ago may be open for debate.  But it seems that not only I think so, but our enemies (and think tanks) do as well.

The worst outcome is for Obama to negotiate from a position of weakness.  As long as Iran believes that, America will get screwed.  Not that you can trust Iran in any measure anyway.  But once you admit to your enemies they hold the key cards, you have lost all significant bargaining power.  Amedinijad knows that and is trying to use it against Obama.  Most see if for what it is.  I do not think Obama will. 

Reply #3 Top

I do not think Obama will

I we can read such intelligence report, I think Obama can too ;-)

Strangely, I find that a reaffirmation of my line about Obama. Whether the US is weaker today than it was 2 years ago may be open for debate. But it seems that not only I think so, but our enemies (and think tanks) do as well.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "weaker".

But regarding the region around Iran, yes they are weaker. You have to wonder, however, what is the cause of that weakness. Is it because of bad choices from your administrations' part, or because of the instigations of your rivals?

They are not stupid and know that half their Muslim problems stem from Iran. but as long as they can tweak the US nose with Iran, they will continue to walk that tight rope.

But the entire menace they might see regarding their national security comes from either the USA or NATO. The muslims aren't a real treath for them except for a few terrorists attacks. However, they might see American infringement on their turf as very dangerous.

So, my bet is that they will tolerate any dealing with Iran as long as it traps you to the region. As you have committed yourself there since 2001/03 (specially 03), you have also exposed your troops there, not to forget made the entire region somewhat dependant on your continued presence and policing to make everybody feels more stable.

Except for Iran, who is pushing in the very opposite direction just so you never get strenght out of that position. They haven't been totally unsuccessful, and there isn't that you can't do against them. Any dealing they might have with China & Co are much bigger than whatever Iraq had with some european nation, and might keep their economy afloat in case of sanctions (and would actually provide China with much cheaper oil = opportunity for them) if the US tried to apply sanctions only by themselves.

There just isn't any easy way out. The whole thing spinned into place in the past 10 years, with a critical phase in the past 5.

Reply #4 Top

I we can read such intelligence report, I think Obama can too

Haven;t you heard?  he is too busy playing golf! ;)

But the entire menace they might see regarding their national security comes from either the USA or NATO. The muslims aren't a real treath for them except for a few terrorists attacks. However, they might see American infringement on their turf as very dangerous.

No, they are not that stupid.  They know the US is not going to bomb them, but the Muslims just did.  I admire the russians.  When they put their minds to it, there are no others that can beat them.  So while they play the game of one upmanship, they do know where the real danger lies.  They thought they had it contained, until the Subway bombing. 

America has never attacked a strong country unless attacked first.  Russia does not have to be the alpha male, just big enough that they know we will not attack (that is assuming they do not trust us as far as they can throw us - which I would expect from them or anyone).  Their attacks will come from the Muslim world, and not from their docile former fellow states either.  Iran is behind a lot of the Muslim extremism, just not overtly.  The last thing Russia wants is for Iran to start doling out A-Bombs to terrorist groups.

So, my bet is that they will tolerate any dealing with Iran as long as it traps you to the region.

That I agree with. To the point I mentioned above.

Reply #5 Top

No, they are not that stupid. They know the US is not going to bomb them, but the Muslims just did. I admire the russians.

America has never attacked a strong country unless attacked first.

I think you are putting too much faith in Russia's faith into you.

America was economically strangling Japan before WW2. You don't need to openly attack to be a menace to another country.

Russia is currently afraid of your influence, both politically and economically, and I don't think any past history of being a "nice nation that doesn't attack someone strong" will prevent them from antagonising you and making you bleed dry if they ever get the opportunity, as long as you play in their turf.

 

Reply #6 Top

America was economically strangling Japan before WW2. You don't need to openly attack to be a menace to another country.

That is a common misconception.  America was playing neutral to Japan's wars.  it was not aiding either side and stated it would not.  Saying (or implying) that America was attacking Japan prior to WWII is akin to saying that The Holocaust was a direct result of America not Entering the war in 1939. 

No, Japan already had its resources.  It just wanted to make sure it was the only big dog in the yard.

Reply #7 Top

No, Japan already had its resources. It just wanted to make sure it was the only big dog in the yard.

The so-called "ABCD" embargo was a disaster for their imports of raw material. It was practically forced them to either attack you, or surrender.

Reply #8 Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 7

No, Japan already had its resources. It just wanted to make sure it was the only big dog in the yard.
The so-called "ABCD" embargo was a disaster for their imports of raw material. It was practically forced them to either attack you, or surrender.

Then why did they invade SE Asia?  China?  Korea?  Long before any meager embargoes the US imposed.  They had access to the raw materials, they did not need us.

Reply #9 Top

Then why did they invade SE Asia? China? Korea?

More ressource, less menace from the European imperial powers?

"Asia for the Asians". It ended up being quite distorded in the end, but they sure felt treathened by the European powers.

Reply #10 Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 9

Then why did they invade SE Asia? China? Korea?
More ressource, less menace from the European imperial powers?

"Asia for the Asians". It ended up being quite distorded in the end, but they sure felt treathened by the European powers.

I would have been threatened by Holland, England, France even Spain!  They all had colonies out there, America had a couple of Islands (Guam, Wake, American Samoa).  If you want to argue we backed Japan into it, it was only because they were too stupid to realize they could have had their way and ignored us, and perhaps now would control most of Asia.  We were no threat, and more interested in Europe.  had they stayed away, I do not think we would have attacked (blustered yes, but then that seems to be the best a democrat can muster).

With the European powers tied up with Hitler, and screaming for American Lend-Lease, Japan really did have a free reign all the way to Hawaii.  And they did not seem to be interested that far out in any event.

Reply #11 Top

I would have been threatened by Holland, England, France even Spain! They all had colonies out there, America had a couple of Islands (Guam, Wake, American Samoa). If you want to argue we backed Japan into it, it was only because they were too stupid to realize they could have had their way and ignored us, and perhaps now would control most of Asia. We were no threat, and more interested in Europe. had they stayed away, I do not think we would have attacked (blustered yes, but then that seems to be the best a democrat can muster).

It is now known that they thought you would immediately come to the aid of the U.K. in the case they attacked British holdings, and they knew you were the main power to cripple to have a "free ride" in the Pacific.

I agree their overall strategy was flawed, but then again, they saw all european powers as dangerous rivals that would probably band together to prevent an asian power. The USA were white, and thu, would automatically side with Europe.

Not very rational, in retrospective, I agree. However, they were concerned about their own security more than anything else. If the americans had not joined the ABCD embargo, they probably wouldn't have attacked you.

Reply #12 Top

The USA were white, and thu, would automatically side with Europe.

Yea, I know, we all look alike to the Japanese. ;)

Of course the Navajo and Comanche WindTalkers probably made the Japanese figure out eventually we were not all white. ;)

Reply #13 Top

It seems you 2 have differing opinions on whether Japan was getting screwed or not by us.

Reply #14 Top

It seems you 2 have differing opinions on whether Japan was getting screwed or not by us.

It doesn't care what I believe. what cared is what the Japanese believed.

They believed you were pressing them with your Chinese-Dutch-English allies, and thu attacked. You did join the embargo against them, and saw you as the main menace to their Pacific rule.

Again, it comes back to Russia's seeing you as the main menace. They don't care how much you declare to be nice boyscouts. They see you as dangerous, and will do all intheir power to make sure you aren't.

Reply #15 Top

It doesn't care what I believe.

Indeed....

They believed
Russia's seeing you as the main menace

Our discussion is academic, their belief is what will drive policy.

Reply #16 Top

What I really feel bad about, it's that Obama's options are restricted by the "Nixon goes to China" paradox. He will take a lot of flak by striking a deal with Iran even if a good one's on the table.

You do know that Mr. Nixon went to China to sign a secret agreement putting China on our side if we went to war with the Soviet Union? That was a great move on his part for America and the world to get a billion people on your side. What deal is Mr. Obama going to get that brings as much to the table? Iran funds terrorists including AQ. Are they going to suddenly stop supporting the terrorists they created and funded? If so then it is a good deal. If not then it is a bad deal no matter what it is because they are our enemy.

America was economically strangling Japan before WW2. You don't need to openly attack to be a menace to another country.

Wait a minute, in another thread you said that stuff like that was not a threat to America, but now when America does it, we are a threat to other countries? I am confused. Please explain.

 

Reply #17 Top

You do know that Mr. Nixon went to China to sign a secret agreement putting China on our side if we went to war with the Soviet Union?

I think you mistake my analogy.

the "Nixon goes to China" paradox is that a president commonly known as Hawk (like Nixon) will have an easier time in the domestic front to make accept compromises and deals with the ennemies. If a peace-talker tries the same, he will be decried as weak.

On the opposite end of the scale, you have a Dove who has an easier time making military strikes. If it's a hawk making the strike, he will be decried as gun-ho and overly aggressive.

Wait a minute, in another thread you said that stuff like that was not a threat to America, but now when America does it, we are a threat to other countries? I am confused. Please explain.

Where did I said it wasn't a threath to america? Please tell me which statement I claimed wasn't a threath to America.

Because if I recall, I did said that Iran's capacity to menace Oil transit in the Gulf was a threath to your national security

Reply #18 Top

the "Nixon goes to China" paradox is that a president commonly known as Hawk (like Nixon) will have an easier time in the domestic front to make accept compromises and deals with the ennemies. If a peace-talker tries the same, he will be decried as weak.

Mr. Nixon was thought of as weak for the China visit, the liberals thought it was a great move. It was not until someone leaked the secret agreement did the views change. The liberals said he was a war monger and the conservatives thought he was strong on national security.

Reply #19 Top

double post