Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Distant Diplomacy

L. Bruce Laingen was working as a senior U.S. Foreign Service officer in Tehran in 1979 when student protestors, caught up in the...

Print Friendly

L. Bruce Laingen was working as a senior U.S. Foreign Service officer in Tehran in 1979 when student protestors, caught up in the fervor of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, seized the U.S. Embassy and irrevocably changed the course of relations between the two nations.

Laingen and 51 other U.S. diplomats endured 444 days in captivity until their release on January 20, 1981. On that day, as he prepared to board the Algerian airliner that would finally take him to freedom, the U.S. charge d’affaires turned to one of his Iranian captors and said, "I look forward to the day your country and mine can have a normal diplomatic relationship."

Last Sunday marked 28 years exactly since the United States cut off diplomatic, business, and military ties with Iran in response to the hostage crisis. At a discussion sponsored by the Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation at Washington’s National Cathedral last Monday, panelists engaged in a sobering debate rarely seen on the U.S. broadcast news outlets or, it seems, in the halls of Congress or the White House.

And the current stakes, the debate participants agreed, could not be any higher.

The rhetoric has reached a noxious fever pitch: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s bewildering Holocaust denial mixed with President George W. Bush’s warnings of an impending "World War III" should Iran acquire the means to develop nuclear weapons.

Citing the "poison rhetoric and policy paralysis that have characterized conduct of both countries," Laingen said: "We can all agree that the wall of mistrust is damn high. It will be difficult to remove."

Against the backdrop of U.S. failures in Iraq, Washington’s bellicosity toward Iran has intensified. The Bush administration last month imposed the most sweeping set of unilateral sanctions on Iran since 1979 and proceeded with its controversial decision to brand the Quds Force unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a "terrorist organization" for its alleged proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the Quds Force’s alleged support of terrorism in Iraq.

"The label of the word terrorist is so devoid of meaning now, it’s hypocritical," said Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times bureau chief and author of the book All the Shah’s Men, about the 1953 CIA-backed coup d’etat to oust Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.

"First we find groups around the world we don’t like, then we find ways to label them as terrorists," he said, and referred to the U.S. double standard with regard to two Kurdish separatist groups that, on either side of Iraq’s borders, attack Turkish and Iranian troops.

"One [the Kurdish Workers Party] is a terrorist, the other [Party for Free Life in Kurdistan] receives support from us," he said.

Bush’s hard line has also drawn criticism from presumed international allies, such as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who likened Washington’s recent sanctions to "mad people wielding razor blades." Russia occupies a seat on the UN Security Council and maintains military and economic relations with Iran. Tehran remains defiant in the face of Washington’s pressure to monitor its nuclear program, a process that Washington alleges would give the Iranians the technology to develop nuclear arms.

Analysts last Monday night said the current tensions underscore Washington’s continued inability to understand Iran, its history, culture, the aspirations of its citizens, and the effects of the ill-fated U.S. policies on the overall psyche of Iranians.

"There is a fundamental sympathy for democracy [in Iran]. … Iranians have a democratic consciousness that is unique in the Middle East," said Kinzer.

"Had it not been for the fact that the democratic government came to power in the 1950s, and became obsessed with the great project of nationalizing the Iranian oil reserves, there wouldn’t be a 1953," said Kinzer. "Had we not overthrown the Mosaddeq government in 1953, we might have had a thriving democracy in the heart of the Middle East for these past 50 years."

The CIA-backed coup, code-named Operation Ajaz, was carried out during President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s tenure and was supported by Britain. Using widespread bribery, the CIA overthrew Mossadeq and his cabinet and reinstalled Iran’s unpopular pro-U.S. dictator, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

And had it not been for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s 1981 invasion of Iran (and U.S. support for that invasion), the mullahs may not have been able to consolidate their political power, according to Iran specialist (and sometime Inter Press Service reporter) Trita Parsi.

"Khomeini survived, not in spite of, but because of the Iraqi invasion," said Parsi. "War with Iran would result in Iranians rallying around the flag rather than turning away. The government would be strengthened instead of toppled. The Iranian nuclear program would most likely accelerate than be destroyed."

Kinzer also criticized the U.S. mainstream press, which he argued, "has played a very shameful role in helping to fan the flames of war, just as we did in Iraq."

"We truly have failed because we have always presented the problems with the United States and Iran through the official U.S. paradigm," said Kinzer. "This is a classic failure of the press, which is why people so easily leap to support policies that are fundamentally against our own country."

And then, there are the missed opportunities: the 2003 memorandum signed by Ayatollah Khamenei, a grand bargain in which the Iranians agreed to open the nuclear issue for full transparency, offered to stop support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, agreed to make Hezbollah a political party (i.e. disarm the militia group), and promised to help support an Iraqi government that was not sectarian. The offer was presented to the White House by former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) several weeks after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but was ignored.

"The Iranians profess this offer doesn’t exist. It’s a prime example of missed opportunities and policy paralysis that can so easily set in," said Laingen.

The debate moderator, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), also offered his perspective: "For the Senate or House to ramp up the rhetoric on the Revolutionary Guard as being terrorists, or insurgents, or rebels, only reduces the ability of that mistrust to subside," he said.

"It’s beyond time for us to negotiate with Iranians. It’s time for old men to talk, before they send young men to die."

Khody Akhavi writes for the Inter Press Service.

Citations

Khody Akhavi, "Distant Diplomacy," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, November 6, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share