Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Unclenching the American Fist Toward Iran

By John Tirman, AlterNet. Posted April 28, 2009.


Obama has taken a step toward freeing the U.S. from 30 years of coercion, sanctions, covert action and relentless insults against Iran.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," President Barack Obama said upon assuming the presidency, and this phrase has become a new mantra in Washington: If only the mad mullahs would play with us, we would be ready and willing.

But the "clenched fist" metaphor is misleading, and, more important, the attitude it signals may prevent actual progress in U.S.-Iran relations.

Obama has certainly changed the tone of White House rhetoric about the Islamic republic. This is welcome and necessary. His vow to engage with respect and without threats is particularly bracing. It's a first step among many to free U.S. policy from 30 years of failure toward Iran, a policy based on coercion, sanctions, military threats, covert action and relentless insults instead of actual diplomacy.

The prevailing political atmosphere, however, remains stuck on hoary tropes that will continue to impede progressive policy.

A New York Times editorial on April 24 signals the conventional view: "The logic of [Obama's] Iran strategy is to give Tehran a chance to come in from the cold with offers of engagement and economic and security incentives. If Tehran does not take him up on the offer -- early signs are not hopeful -- he must build support for tougher international sanctions to constrain Iran's nuclear program."

Most apparent is the fervent attention to Iran's nuclear program. Anthropologist Hugh Gusterson describes this as "nuclear orientalism," our reflexive belief that nuclear development in the Third World is inherently alarming. It draws from a longstanding habit, he writes, "where 'we' are rational and disciplined, 'they' are impulsive and emotional; where 'we' are modern and flexible, 'they' are slaves to ancient passions and routines; where 'we' are honest and compassionate, 'they' are treacherous and uncultivated."

And so we are incessantly told that Iran, with its program to enrich uranium, is obstreperous, even treacherous, toward global nuclear norms. The Israelis are vowing to strike Iran's nuclear facilities because it is the most dangerous threat facing the world, they say.

The Israel lobby, led by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), tirelessly inveighs against Iran's "nuclear ambitions" and the "cascade of instability" it purportedly brings.

"When we talk about engagement with Iran, do not be in any way confused," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Jerusalem in March. "Our goal remains the same: to dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and continuing to fund terrorism."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the Senate that "The regional and nuclear ambitions of Iran continue to pose enormous challenges to the U.S.," and, later, that he preferred tighter sanctions to diplomacy.

The Israelis have gone so far as not only to threaten an attack on Iran, but to use Iran's nuclear program as an excuse to refuse negotiations with Palestinians. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, adding to the "red line" restraints delivered to Clinton on what Israel would allow in U.S. policy toward Iran, is insisting that all regional issues are trumped by the fissionable atom (Iran's prospective ones, that is, not Israel's own arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons).

So Iran's "nukes" are Topic A in this new administration, emotionally and politically charged. Negotiations with Iran must first take up the "nuclear file," everyone seems to agree, as the sine qua non of engagement. Iran must stand down from its recalcitrant, clenched-fist attitude about its nuclear program, or nothing can improve. It's carrots and sticks -- juicier carrots and sharper sticks, as Dennis Ross, the former WINEP honcho and now a special adviser in the State Department, has put it. The carrot is engagement, the sticks more sanctions or other, nastier forms of coercion.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iran, obama, u.s.

John Tirman is executive director and principal research scientist at the MIT Center for International Studies, and author of the A New Approach to Iran.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A blast from the past: Iran-Contra
Posted by: Perry Logan on Apr 28, 2009 2:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember how the Reagan gang illegally sold arms to Iran to fund the Nicaraguan death squads? Those were the days.

Iran-Contra affair (1985-92), a rare non-venal political scandal in which high officials of the Reagan administration were discovered to have used funds raised by covert arms sales through Israel to Iran in order to finance the activities of the ‘Contra’ revolutionaries against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, every step of which violated declared government policy, domestic law, or international law—or all three. Ramifications included fund-raising from friendly Arab states and the employment of British mercenaries for commando raids.
http://www.answers.com/topic/iran-contra-affair

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'The Hawks in Israel and Washington' are the greatest threat to World Peace
Posted by: outlook on Apr 28, 2009 3:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brilliant article; the voice of sanity. It is Israel who should be strangulated - not Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you for giving the heads up on Iran.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 28, 2009 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the way Obama waffles on this issue like most others, I still don't know whether or not he'll actually back off Iran now that I read the article. I already had a bad feeling that he'd somehow cave in like everything else. One would have expected that at a time when the economy undergone a horrendous meltdown, the likes of which we haven't seen in 25 years that all this WMD nonsense would finally be put to rest. If we go to war with Iran or even keep pushing their buttons, the price of crude oil will keep going up. Maybe we do really need $10/gallon gas to force us to keep our hands off Iran and butt out of their affairs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

56 Years, Not 30
Posted by: DrBrian on Apr 28, 2009 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go back to the CIA-directed coup of 1953 which deposed the elected prime minister and re-enthroned the brutal, corrupt Shah. His SAVAK secret police were trained in torture and murder by the CIA, who remained as active mentors until the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Radicals took a number of American hostages and held them for over a year, but we had held their country hostage for 26 years at that point.

Saddam Hussein started an aggressive war in 1980, and the US armed, supported and encouraged the bloodletting and even made no protests when Saddam gassed Kurds suspected of disloyalty. George W. Bush cited that as a casus belli in 2003, but his father had continued arming Saddam after he did it.

The bloody war lasted 8 years and killed 2 million people, and the US Navy had shot down a civilian Iranian airliner and killed all on board.

I'm no fan of Ahmedinejad and the Ayatollah Khameni, but it's easy to see why they hate us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 56 Years, Not 30 Posted by: willymack
» RE: 56 Years, Not 30 Posted by: Crazy H
Nothing's changed but the liberal perception
Posted by: james108 on Apr 28, 2009 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're still saying Iran better not get any sort of nuclear technology or we will harass and possibly attack them, and force sanctions, and it's OK, or even good that Israel has weapons actually trained on them.

Last I heard, Congress had increased the covert funding designed to stir up trouble and instability with Iran. Obama's avoidance of that part of things indicates he's fine with the game plan there.

Obama's just setting it up so when we do what we do, or when our covert trouble stirring actually pays off by making Iran a threat, we are justified. Nothing he's said or done contradicts this reality, if you know he lies a lot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Little bits and pieces Posted by: james108
Clueless author gets it ass backwards and wrong
Posted by: leafsong1 on Apr 28, 2009 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is not even a rhetorical shift. The only example the author offers is a quote where Obama refers to Iran as one of "those countries," ostensibly, those countries unqualified to have nukes. All the quote sayss is that if they please us we won't kick their ass. Obviously, Gates and Clinton are still on the same page with Bush. As far as actions that might reassure the Iranians, the Iranians would be foolish to settle for anything less than the prosecution of those responsible for the criminal invasion of Iraq. Without it, American assurances that they will abide by international law are worthless, and the Iranians know it. Duh!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The road to a more democratic Iran
Posted by: hilaryuk on Apr 28, 2009 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pre 9/11 Iran was edging its way to a more democratic polity (although it is already more democratic than many of its neighbours) and gradually loosening the grip of the clerics. Luckily for said clerics, the West decided to place Iran back at the centre of the "axis of evil" and the US reiterated and strengthened its policy of isolating this major country. Then, of course, came the illegal invasion of Iraq. The clerics' position within Iran was strengthned by all these factors and I am sure they were very grateful.

But I believe their ascendancy can only be temporary: Iran has an extremely young population and, again unlike many of its neighbours, it has continued to educate the young - obviously they are an ever more vocal force for change. So the march towards a more secular society will resume, but outside forces can greatly influence the pace of change. It seems self evident that putting an entire country on the defensive tends to produce solidarity and diminish the confidence necessary to evolve. It seems equally obvious that interfering with Iran's internal politics, whether it be by sponsoring terrorism or financing the voices of dissent, enables the diehards to label all opposition groups as America fronts or traitors.

Obama is playing in the real world now and it is about time that he stepped outside the insular and arrogant mindset that characterised the previous administration. Saying the same thing in a nicer tone of voice really isn't particularly convincing. Insisting the only acceptable form of democracy is the liberal model is equally irrelevant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America and Iran are Natural Allies
Posted by: jimswanson on Apr 28, 2009 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James A. Swanson
Los Altos, CA
“The Bush League of Nations” [For FREE download of entire $25.95 book]

As an MIT graduate, I read with special interest this fresh perspective on Iran by John Tirman, executive director of the MIT Center for International Studies.

America’s national security interests will be well served when Washington stops making a nuclear cloud its first and last thought regarding Iran.

A better starting point is the recognition that the United States and Iran have the opportunity to develop a strong partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interests.

Time will tell if Obama falls under the spell of neocon warmongering influences and repeats “Bush League” blunders.

One of Bush’s early Iranian policy blunders relates to Afghanistan.

Following the 9/11 attacks, Iran offered to fight side by side with American forces in Afghanistan. Iran despised the Taliban for many reasons, including the Taliban’s slaughter of 10 Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-Sharif in 1999.

Negotiations made progress until Bush included Iran in his bizarre “Axis of Evil” State of the Union address in January 2002.

The rest is history. Bush’s saber rattling weakened Iran’s growing pro-modernity democratic movement. Iran emerged as the biggest winner in Bush’s war on Iraq, and most Iranians concluded that Iran needed nuclear weapons to ensure respect and security.

In short, Bush fumbled a long-awaited historic opportunity for America to possibly restore diplomatic relations with Iran, arguably the strategically most important nation in the greater Middle East.

You can find this and much more in "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP’s War on Iraq and America," by James A. Swanson (2008, CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages).

You can now download the entire book for free at www.bushleagueofnations.com.

I ask for nothing in return, except that you consider using it as a resource to help restore and build America. If you are so inclined please pass along the good news.

Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
[Activist, author, entrepreneur, senior executive, Peace Corps volunteer, MIT graduate, Stanford JD/MBA.]
“The Bush League of Nations”
www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE download of entire $25.95 book]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is an answer I can't find
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Apr 28, 2009 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I have googled for hours on several occasions. When funding was passed for the covert destabilization operations in Iran, exposed by Seymour Hersch last summer, what was Obama's vote on funding those operations?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US through the eyes of Iranians
Posted by: chomsky on Apr 28, 2009 7:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While many in the US view Iran through a window that's shaped and managed by their own government, its speeches and the discourse in its media outlets, Iranians see America through its foreign policy.

That foreign policy has been marked by treachery, invasion, mass murder (through proxies) and sanctions. From overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran, to shooting down an Iranian passenger jet, arming Saddam with chemical weapons to use against the Iranians in the 1980s and the recent threats, sanctions and covert attempts to destabilize their country, Iranians have become extremely cynical and suspicious when dealing with the US.

In other words, mere rhetoric or talk of diplomacy amount to empty promises and hot air within the context of America's foreign policy as it relates to Iran.

What Obama and his administration need to focus on, is moving toward real, tangible results, including lifting the sanctions imposed on Iran.

Iran has recently offered the US to help with rebuilding Pakistan. I heard no mention of that in the main stream media here in the US. Such gestures of good will should not be overlooked. It seems Iran is more than willing to forgive and move on, than are many in Washington.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: US through the eyes of Iranians Posted by: Captainmagic
LOL
Posted by: XXX13 on Apr 28, 2009 8:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Talking about giving Iran a "helping hand"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ulyssesmsu
Posted by: ulyssesmsu on Apr 28, 2009 8:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What colossal ignorance.

I hope we make it through 4 years of Obama without being nuked by Iran-sponsored terrorists who we were "friendly" with.

He might have "freed us" from all of those "bad feelings" about Iran, but after that nuke hits one of our cities, of course, it will be too late then to reconsider how stupid these policies have been, won't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Cowardly Idiot Speaks... Posted by: leafsong1
» Speaking of colossal ignorance, Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Don't worry Posted by: bonapartist
Worried About the Wrong Country
Posted by: DrBrian on Apr 29, 2009 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ulysses, there's no credible evidence that Iran currently has a bomb, and they're decades away from having missile technology capable of delivering a warhead to the US.

Pakistan, however, does have nuclear weapons and the US is working hard to destabilize the country and unite the population behind Islamic extremists. Our incursions into their territory may take out a handful of terrorists, but the civilian casualties understandably enrage people and increase support for the extremists.

You're worried about the wrong country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement