Home » diaries » Sean Paul Kelley's diary

Frustrating When Friedman Makes Sense


How is it possible for someone who got it so wrong on Iraq get it so right on Iran:

Here's a little foreign policy test. I am going to describe two countries — "Country A" and "Country B" — and you tell me which one is America's ally and which one is not.

Let's start: Country A actively helped the U.S. defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and replace it with a pro-U.S. elected alliance of moderate Muslims. Country A regularly holds sort-of-free elections. Country A's women vote, hold office, are the majority of its university students and are fully integrated into the work force.

On 9/11, residents of Country A were among the very few in the Muslim world to hold spontaneous pro-U.S. demonstrations. Country A's radical president recently held a conference about why the Holocaust never happened — to try to gain popularity. A month later, Country A held nationwide elections for local councils, and that same president saw his candidates get wiped out by voters who preferred more moderate conservatives. Country A has a strategic interest in the success of the pro-U.S., Shiite-led, elected Iraqi government. Although it's a Muslim country right next to Iraq, Country A has never sent any suicide bombers to Iraq, and has long protected its Christians and Jews. Country A has more bloggers per capita than any country in the Muslim Middle East.

More after the jump.

The brand of Islam practiced by Country A respects women, is open to reinterpretation in light of modernity and rejects Al Qaeda's nihilism.

Now Country B: Country B gave us 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. Country B does not allow its women to drive, vote or run for office. It is illegal in Country B to build a church, synagogue or Hindu temple. Country B helped finance the Taliban.

Country B's private charities help sustain Al Qaeda. Young men from Country B's mosques have been regularly recruited to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. Mosques and charities in Country B raise funds to support the insurgency in Iraq. Country B does not want the elected, Shiite-led government in Iraq to succeed. While Country B's leaders are pro-U.S., polls show many of its people are hostile to America — some of them celebrated on 9/11. The brand of Islam supported by Country B and exported by it to mosques around the world is the most hostile to modernity and other faiths.

Question: Which country is America's natural ally: A or B?

Country A is, of course. Country A is Iran. Country B is Saudi Arabia.

Of course, none of this is any surprise to Agonist readers. Lord knows I've said all this before.

But here's my favorite part:

How do we get leverage? Make it clear that Iran can't push us out of the gulf militarily; bring down the price of oil, which is key to the cockiness of Iran's hard-line leadership; squeeze the hard-liners financially. But all this has to be accompanied with a clear declaration that the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran, but a change of behavior, that the U.S. wants to immediately restore its embassy in Tehran and that the first thing it will do is grant 50,000 student visas for young Iranians to study at U.S. universities.

Just do that — and then sit back and watch the most amazing debate explode inside Iran. You can bet the farm on it.

He's right. The best way to delegitimize the clerical regime is to engage it, as I have already said a thousand times before. My worry is that this Administration doesn't have the skill to calibrate a strategy as delicate as this. There just not that good.

I wonder what Ali thinks about Friedman's column?

Update: Ali replies:

(Is invasion acceptable in any circumstance? Methinks unless Iran launches an invasion or uses nukes, no). This whole arms supplying soft-power argument doesn't do it for me. Why? Because Saudi has been doing that for ceaseless years in the ME, and we never contemplated going after them.

Read it all.


Sean Paul Kelley January 31, 2007 - 3:06pm
Sean Paul Kelley's diary | printer friendly version | digg

Only needs requires one added factor

Friedmanunit's analysis may be spot-on, save for one thing: You can't make friends unless you want to.

That means you have to get rid of the people who prefer to make enemies rather than friends: BushCo. After you do this, then it's easy to think up ways to be nice to Iran.

Okay, Friedman, what's the easy way to get BushCo out of the way?

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

Jimbo92107 January 31, 2007 - 3:21pm
login to post comments
I tend to think that engagement...

...will be a good deal more fraught than people realize, but in general outline I tend to agree. Make an unequivocal statement setting aside regime change as an objective associated with a statement that Iran should strive to allow increased numbers of liberal candidates, and I rather think you'd have a winner.

[Ansari is illuminating in that he maintains that the policy of not squacking when the Guardian Council so sweepingly restricted who could stand as candidates (to the point of barring a moderate number of sitting, previously elected assembly members from standing) it was interpreted as western acceptance on the part of the Iranian people.]

"Political Islam is a dream or a nightmare, but not a sociological reality." - Olivier Roy, Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah

JustPlainDave January 31, 2007 - 3:23pm
login to post comments
Holy Shit. Good for

Holy Shit. Good for Friedman and praise where praise is due.

Ian Welsh January 31, 2007 - 3:30pm
login to post comments
Trade

I feel that the US has a great opportunity to engage in trade with Iran, specifically in the area of alternative energy, such as solar, wind and geothermal. The US could really call out Iran on the nuclear issue by announcing that we would like to set up a program to collaborate on the development of alternative energies with them. If they really do want to pursue nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes then this would be a way to get new, renewable energy technologies and would obviate the need for nuclear research. The collaboration should most definitely be conditional to increased access to suspected Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran shutting down their nuclear program. Another benefit would be that the US would have to deal prominently with businessmen in Iran and focusing conversations towards them will increase the power they wield in Iran and lessen the power that more radical elements have. And the US would be able to sit back and let it all play out while we look like good guys and we still get what we wanted. Of course, another benefit would be that we also increase our ability to manufacture and use alternative energy sources domestically.

From what I have read about getting other nations to give up their nuclear ambitions trade has been a big part of it. I think we should look to those successes as examples.

Thomas January 31, 2007 - 9:43pm
login to post comments
Good point, but this would require that we actually, you know

TALK to Iran. That's a key first step with this administration.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."

Sean Paul Kelley January 31, 2007 - 10:23pm
login to post comments
U.S.-Iran tensions could trigger war

U.S.-Iran tensions could trigger war
By JIM KRANE

AP BAGHDAD, Iraq — Citing Iranian involvement with Iraqi militias and Tehran's nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration has shifted to offense in its confrontation with Iran — building up the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and promising more aggressive moves against Iranian operatives in Iraq and Lebanon.

The behind-the-scenes struggle between the two nations could explode into open warfare over a single misstep, analysts and U.S. military officials warn.

Iraq has become a proxy battleground between Washington and Tehran, which is challenging — at least rhetorically — America's dominance of the Gulf. That has worried even Iraq's U.S.-backed Shiite prime minister, who — in a reflection of Iraq's complexity — also has close ties to Iran.

Iran and the United States are already sparring on the ground.

On Jan. 20, militants kidnapped and killed four American soldiers in a raid in Karbala, and a fifth was killed in the firefight. A U.S. defense official said one possibility under study is that Iranian agents either executed or masterminded the attack, a suspicion based on the sophisticated and unusual methods used in the attack, including weapons and uniforms that may have been American.

Mark January 31, 2007 - 10:58pm
login to post comments
Wow! AP just figured that out? Who knew?

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."

Sean Paul Kelley January 31, 2007 - 11:23pm
login to post comments
The Big Question: Does the US intend to attack Iran, or is it o

The Big Question: Does the US intend to attack Iran, or is it only sabre-rattling?

Iran, with its particular strain of militant Islam, is a menace not just to the US, but to wider western interests, and should be curbed

huh?

Tina January 31, 2007 - 11:36pm
login to post comments
this is how cynical I have become

I think we will attack Iran, as the desperation and denial of these criminals is so deep seated, long standing and pervasive, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

and it might be a good thing.

imperial collapse and the end of adventurism/war until the peace forever movement gets increased resonable, smart and sensible world citizens on board, making war, uh, irrelevant.

am i willing to greatly sacrifice my standard of living for peace forever? you bet. it's only a matter of time. pay now or pay later. either way i'm OK.
********************************
If this were 1700, they'd be saying: "Since civilization began, slavery has existed. It's human nature." I would have believed it. If 1800: "Women will never vote. They are not born rational". I would have believed it.
2007: Make war irrelevant

bernadene February 1, 2007 - 12:27pm
login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.