Right Web

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

Iran: The Terrorist Tag

The White House's decision last week to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization could deal a double blow to...

The White House’s decision last week to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization could deal a double blow to efforts to utilize diplomacy with Iran in order to stabilize Iraq.

Not only would such a designation risk undermining the important yet limited talks between the United States and Iran in Baghdad, but it may also negatively impact the next U.S. president’s ability to seek diplomacy with Iran by further entrenching U.S.-Iran relations in a paradigm of enmity.

The Washington Post and New York Times reported last Tuesday that the George W. Bush administration is considering designating the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist" organization under Executive Order 13224, due to the organization’s alleged destabilizing activities in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

The designation would authorize the United States to target the IRGC’s business dealings, including blocking its assets.

Originally set up by the ruling clergy in Iran as a parallel army to prevent the regular Iranian army from orchestrating a military coup against the revolutionary government, the Guards are widely considered to be a powerful political force in Iran with close ties to the country’s conservative factions.

The IRGC has heavily penetrated Iran’s economy, including some of its key industries. It is often accused of behaving like a state-sponsored mafia, with a corrupting influence on Iran’s economy, police, media, industries, judiciary, and government.

As such, many Iranians find the power and political influence of this paramilitary force highly problematic. Some Iranian political activists have warned that any swift political change in Iran will likely benefit the Guards rather than the pro-democracy movement precisely because the IRGC is well equipped and highly organized.

The Bush administration’s decision to label the Guards as a global terrorist organization has been presented as a step to ratchet up pressure on Iran and intensify efforts to financially isolate the country. Yet, it is unclear whether the designation is necessary to target the Guards economically.

The U.S. Treasury is already engaged in an extensive campaign to dry up Iran’s sources of finance. Whether the Guards are labeled a terrorist organization or not will likely have little bearing on that campaign. Nor is the decision likely to have a decisive impact on the IRGC’s shady business dealings.

Iran has, after all, been under intense U.S. sanctions since the mid-1990s. While the sanctions have been effective in imposing a major cost on the Iranian economy, they have been utterly unsuccessful in compelling Iran to alter its foreign policy. More sanctions and financial pressure are likely only to achieve more of the same: they will increase the cost for the Iranian government to pursue its policies while failing to halt or change those policies.

The real impact of the designation is likely to be political. One the one hand, the move risks undermining the newly initiated talks in Baghdad between U.S. and Iranian officials regarding the security situation in Iraq. While this step has been hailed as unprecedented, the talks are yet to produce a real breakthrough; except that is, for the fact that the two countries actually talked to each other in the open for the first time in 28 years.

It is unclear how Washington expects success in those talks if it at the same time designates the very same people it seeks help from as global terrorists.

Ironically, some of the Iranian diplomats the United States is dealing with in Iraq are still part of the IRGC, including Mohammad Jafari, who sat across the table from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the Iraq summit in Sharm al-Sheikh earlier this year.

The designation jeopardizes the Baghdad channel by potentially causing its collapse or, at a minimum, by sending a signal of hostility that could convince Tehran—rightly or wrongly—that the United States is not serious about diplomacy.

Many analysts in Washington are already skeptical about the Bush administration’s intentions with the talks. On Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers supportive of the administration’s policies have pointed to the Baghdad channel as evidence that the White House is implementing the Iraq Study Group recommendations, and have urged their Democratic colleagues to support the surge in return.

Even if the Bush administration is not banking on the Baghdad channel to produce anything tangible, at the very least, it does provide the administration with much needed political cover on Capitol Hill.

The long-term effect of the decision to designate the IRGC a global terrorist organization, however, may be even more significant. It is easier to put an entity on the terrorist list than to remove it. Future U.S. presidents will likely find their efforts to change Iranian behavior and resolve U.S.-Iranian disputes more difficult; the designation may put legal limits on how the United States can deal with individuals associated with the IRGC.

It will strengthen and prolong the dominating narrative in the United States, which reads that stability in the Middle East can only be achieved through Iran’s containment and defeat. In this paradigm, the United States and Iran are entangled in a zero-sum game where compromise and dialogue is tantamount to defeat. Diplomacy, in this context, is not a tool for seeking win-win solutions, but rather means for confrontation with the aim of beating back U.S. adversaries.

Not surprisingly, this line of thought is equally common among radicals in Tehran, who in the past have found no shortage of ways to undercut any diplomatic outreach to Washington. Left unchallenged, the strengthening of this paradigm of enmity in Tehran and Washington may very well lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Trita Parsi is a writer for the Inter Press Service and the author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007).

Citations

Trita Parsi, "Iran: The Terrorist Tag," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, August 21, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share