Iran's Response: Trying to Play the Game

In the wake of the UN's blistering offensive against nuclear proliferation lead by the new head of the UN Security Council, President Obama, Iran responded in a manner more suiting to North Korea. The fact of the matter is that Iran is beginning to squirm under the pressure and their actual power in the structure of world powers is beginning to emerge along with their grasp of the diplomatic process.

In my last post, I talked about the subtleties of diplomacy between Russia and the US. When it comes to the subject, Russia and the US have a long and rich history and provide us with a wealth of diplomatic back and forth from which we can perceive plenty of patterns and innuendo. But, the fact of the matter is that the relationship between Russia and the US is unique because it involves complex economic and military elements. Also, while the Cold War helped revolutionize the diplomatic process, it is more of an exception than a rule due to its one-of-a-kind nature. What we see in the back and forth between Russia and the US is like a ballet or a game of chess.

When it comes to countries like Iran or North Korea, diplomacy is more like a bull fight. North Korea is notorious for agreeing to terms and then reversing course, usually with a new round of missile tests and public condemnations of the West. They employ this strategy because, in the past, it gives them short term leverage to get resources including food, medical supplies, and oil. Iran, faced with becoming as isolated as North Korea, is beginning to adopt the same strategy in order to fight off a new round of international sanctions.

After the recent meetings on nuclear proliferation, Iran has issued biting criticism of the UN, saying that they are simply following orders from Western powers, while re-affirming their rights to nuclear energy in the same breath. They followed up their public rantings with a fresh round of missile tests, showing off a new short range missile that wouldn't take too much modification to be nuclear capable. Together, these two events show that Iran is becoming desperate. Instead of engaging the UN and following through on their promise to open up their sites to IAEA inspection, Iran issues blistering criticisms and puts on the military version of a dog and pony show, thinking that it will get them some kind of leverage.

The gut check here is one of chagrin. Things got a lot worse for North Korea before they got any kind of material concessions from the West. Considering the the fact that the recently revealed secret nuclear facility is near a military base, Iran's "diplomatic gestures" are more likely to induce a new round of sanctions than elicit concessions. While the Western world hasn't reached a consensus on the status of Iran's nuclear weapons program, things certainly aren't looking peaceful, especially since Iran still hasn't opened up any of their facilities to IAEA inspection, including the not-so-secret facility. Maybe now, Russia won't be so suspicious of our mobile missile interceptors.

Fruits of Our Labors: Squeezing Iran

Current analysis would indicate that the critics were right when they criticized Obama's scrapping of the Euro missile shield, saying it would embolden Russia. In diplomacy, just like in business or any other profession that involves trading or negotiating, all parties have a vested interest in eliciting concessions from the other side while minimizing concessions of their own, especially when it comes to major issues or national interests. The main reason to not make concessions when it comes to one's national interests (in the case of the Euro missile shield, national security) is literal: conceding on one's national interests weakens one's soft and hard power. The secondary reason, having perhaps an even more significant impact, is the fact that making concessions weakens one side's bargaining power and gives opposing sides the perception that the one side is willing to back down, thereby opening the door to aggression by opponents.

However, what often goes unnoticed is that there are two different types of diplomacy: public and private. There is what we as citizens and information consumers see and there is what actually goes on between nations. Simply put, what we read in the news paper and what policy think tanks put out is based on official accounts released by governments and close analysis of news sources. That account isn't always the whole story. When it comes to the relationship between the US and Russia, what we get in the news is rarely the whole story. If you read between the lines, you can begin to see that the current situation over the Euro missile shield isn't exactly how it appears.

When Obama chose to scrap the Euro missile shield, he did compromise on one aspect of our national security. However, the Euro missile shield was a good example of why pursuit of absolute security is in fact counter productive as it was pushing our relationship with Russia to the brink and possibly putting us on the path to a military confrontation. Nixing the Euro missile shield helped our diplomatic position with Russia, giving us a boost in relations and giving us credit with Medvedev. The effects of this concession can be clearly seen in the debate over Iran's nuclear program, a program which would not exist without Russia's assistance. Earlier this month, Russia wholly opposed new sanctions on Iran. Following Obama's scrapping of the Euro missile shield, Russia did a u-turn and now will support new sanctions on Iran while praising Obama's move in the same breath.

With Russia's help, the US is turning up the heat diplomatically on Iran and they are starting to squirm. The first piece of evidence is that Iran spontaneously admitted to the existence of a secret nuclear facility that, by all reports, is still under construction. Of course, Israel wasted no time in declaring this facility a nuclear weapons factory. Iran continued to backpedal, saying that they would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect the newly revealed nuclear facility in the hopes that they could beat back accusations that they are violating IAEA regulations. But, their efforts aren't working. The new revelation simply gives the US and international opposition more ammunition in their push for new sanctions. While China is still blocking new sanctions, Russia's change of heart is providing the US with key support that enables us to put the screws to Iran. Remember, Russia is currently the sole source of nuclear fuel to Iran.

The gut check here is fortuitous. Obama's first major diplomatic move is proving effective despite what the critics are saying. He is re-dedicating the US to the diplomatic process and it is paying off. However, the next twelve months are key to testing whether new boosts in relations and new opportunities are utilized or squandered. While Obama's redoubled diplomatic efforts are currently working for Iran, Venezuela is fast becoming a new crisis right in our own backyard. But, now that Obama is heading up the UN Security Council, his re-dedication to diplomacy is going to be infinitely more effective as he now has a direct channel to world leaders and an international body that has the authority to authorize and enforce international actions. While the UN faltered, became stagnant, and even irrelevant under Bush, the UN will be reborn from the ashes under Obama. Hopefully Obama is just as effective at being a world leader as he is at public speaking.

Kangaroo Court

Today, Iran held trials for numerous individuals involved in protests after the recent Presidential elections. Those arrested include civillians active in the post-elections protests and prominent pro-reform politicians, indicating that anyone who opposes the government is not safe. No verdicts or sentences have been given yet, but the details and allegations from the trials that have already come out show that this is clearly no court of law.

The fifteen page indicment alleges that the defendants attacked government forces and buildings, have links to armed rebel groups, and conspired against the ruling system. More accusations allege that the groups that the pro-reform politicians represent took money from foreign entities (read: the West) in a year long plot to bring about a velvet revolution. Nevermind that the pro-reform parties might have real interests in changing the course of Iranian politics, they were clearly trying to overthrow the government by engaging in a peaceful, democratic elections process.

The gut check here is disgusting. Ahmadinejad's regime calls this a trial, but it's clearly all for show. The defendants weren't allowed access to lawyers. There are allegations that some were tortured to obtain false confessions. These people are being put on trial for what amounts to treason because Ahmadinejad's regime couldn't handle people questioning their legitimacy. Instead of addressing the questions of legitimacy with openness, they decided to kill a bunch of people, throw some more in jail and torture them. Now they're trying to politically manipulate the situation by having a "trial"? Don't think that this is a trial, or even a court of law, not for one second.

Crumbling Tower

Over the past couple of days, stories about what has happened to the protesters arrested in Iran have begun to emerge. Here in the US, we enjoy great freedom when it comes to protesting being that it is a guaranteed right under our constitution. We can assemble a protest on any sidewalk in any city and expect that the most that would be hurled at us would be insults. Not so in Iran where in the weeks after the recent election many protesters have been killed and many more have been jailed and beaten.

In the wake of the Presidential elections nearly two months past, Ahmadinejad's regime unleashed the Basij militia, it's own political dissent stomping machine, to round up protesters and engage in enough fear mongering to deter any more protesting. The bodies started to pile up early on in the violent crackdown. Despite Iran's complete reporting blackout of the protests, some protesters were able to get coverage out over user input sites like youtube, where the footage of the death of the Iranian girl dubbed "Neda" became the rallying cry of the opposition.

Official numbers from the Iranian government put the death toll at twenty, but independent reports suggest that the true number is over one hundred. Even more shocking news is that bodies showing signs of great abuse have been coming out of the detention centers where protesters are being held. Those who experienced the ordeal and lived through are affraid to tell their tale out of fear of reprisal. But, there are the brave few who have stepped forward to share their stories of horror.

Dark, putrid cells filled past capacity with detainees. Constant beatings from the guards. Various forms of psychological and physical abuse. The abuse got so bad that, once a prominent conservative politician's son was beaten to death, Ayatollah Khamenei had to step in and close the Kahrizak detention center. Instead of this helping the situation, however, the very fact that Iran's supreme leader had to intervene has galvanized the opposition and even sent some conservatives to the other side. The fact of the matter is that it should never have gotten to the point where a detention center needed to be closed.

The gut check here is interesting. Ahmadinejad's regime seems to have blinked and taken a step back. They realize that their brutal tactics are now turning the people against them and it certainly hasn't been long enough for people to forget about the accusations of corruption and fraud during the Presidential election. Iran is sure to get criticism from all sides, internationally, now that the details of protester abuses are coming out. The internal pressure is building and the political opposition doesn't appear to be letting up. Frankly, Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are out of options. They can't continue the violent crackdown because it will just turn more of their allies against them. They can't keep blaming foreign influences (read: the West) for their political turmoil because it's becoming clear that it is self-inflicted. They can't keep dodging questions of legitimacy because it's empowering the opposition. They have only one move left: start making concessions.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for anyone drops to zero. This quote from the movie Fight Club is literally and conceptually applicable to any international crisis situation, especially the current situation between Iran and Israel. It's always a question of time, like, given enough time, anyone with means and motive will carry out an action. Plug in Iran and nuclear weapons and, given enough time, Iran will develop nuclear weapons because they have the means and the motive. The only thing that is deceptively unclear is the true motive.

If you ask any one person what they think about Iran, nukes, and Israel, the ensuing conversation is going to be the same thing every time. Iran is evil; they're trying to get nukes to wipe Israel off the planet. Of course you can't blame anyone for thinking that, the second half of that statement looks like a direct quote from an Ahmadinejad speach. But, consider this: if you look at a map of the Middle East, Iran is situated directly between Iraq and Afghanistan, currently home to thousands of US troops. Iran has also been the subject of much sabre rattling over the past five or so years. Factor in the long running conflict between Israel and surrounding hardline Islamic regimes and you've got a massive powder keg that can be set off by any of three sparks: US aggression from Iraq or Afghanistan, Israeli first strike, or Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

The question remains though, is Iran seeking nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves a la North Korea or is Iran really going to bomb Israel? The answer doesn't even matter because Israel isn't going to sit around and wait to find out. The second they have hard evidence that Iran is dangerously close to having a bomb ready to go, past the proverbial point of no return, Israel will go weapons hot on a first strike and never look back, especially now that Netanyahu is running things. The question then becomes how to do we dump water on the fuse before the powderkeg blows?

Obama is pushing the international effort as the peaceful solution that doesn't utilized inflammatory political rhetoric. Today, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates outlined the next step if Iran continues to buck international demands that it return to the negotiating table, that being hard sanctions (a shot at Iran's means of obtaining the materials neccessary to develop nuclear weapons). Gates' announcement came on a visit to Israel, after which Netanyahu reaffirmed Israel's "all options on the table" stance. The thing is, Israel doesn't like leaving these types of situations up to chance, like the chance that Russia (Iran's supplier of nuclear materials and technologies) would veto any resolution on new sanctions or the chance that sanctions would just further resolve Iran to obtaining nuclear weapons.

The gut check here is scary. Of the three most likely scenarios for nuclear war (India/Pakistan, North Korea, and the Middle East), only one can happen first on a timeline. That being said, the building pressure between Iran and Israel is definitely the most likely scenario for a breakout regional conflict. If nuclear weapons are thrown in the mix, then it will become the most likely scenario for nuclear conflict. The only way to stop an Israeli first strike is to somehow get Iran to cease and desist nuclear weapons development and prove that they are doing so. Obama's diplomatic overtures combined with the democratic internal turmoil Iran is currently experiencing are putting Ahmadinejad's regime between a rock and a hard place in terms of their policy toward international oversight of their nuclear program. Adding harsher sanctions or even just the threat of harsher sanctions will act like turning up the thermostat. The question is, will Iran choose the path that resolves conflict or the path that leads to confrontation?

Iran's New Revolution

More than a month ago, Ahmadinejad emerged the victor from a hotly contested election, successfully winning his bid for re-election despite great protest and amidts claims of ballot rigging. The world watched as the dictatorial regime unleashed the Basij militia in a savagely violent crack down on Iranian citizens protesting the election outcome. With at least twenty dead and scores more injured and imprisoned (the Iranian government is sure to have manipulated the official numbers), Ahmadinejad seems to have strengthened his grip on the Iranian nation and bolstered his monopoly of power with Ayatollah Khamenei.

However, the struggle for power and legitimacy has moved from the streets into the very halls of power, between the clerical leaders behind the scenes. Former pro reform President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a supporter of presidential candidate Hossein Mousavi, has been attempting to officially back up Mousavi after his defeat in the elections by playing his role as the powerful Chairman of the Assembly of Experts and pushing for an investigation of voting irregularities. Last friday, Rafsanjani used his prayer sermon that was being broadcast nation wide to call out Ahmadinejad's regime and Ayatollah Khamenei for their response to questions of legitimacy. Rafsanjani utilized revolutionary rhetoric, harkening back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and invoking the people of Iran, in order to convey a message: the people shouldn't fear the government, the government should fear the people.

The line in the sand was clear: Rafsanjani was compairing the conditions following the hotly contested election last month to the conditions immediately preceding the Islamic Revolution in 1979. However, Ahmadinejad's regime held tight in the face of this new round of criticism. Their stance has been, since the election, that enemies of the regime have been trying to foment a velvet revolution by stirring up unrest and undermining the authority of the regime. They have also continuously blamed the US and our allies for said unrest. Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are trying to blame the violent crackdown on the US, but it's not working. President Obama's approach to Iran works in the sense of publicly taking away Iran's ability to use anti-Americanism to politically manipulate their citizenry. Also, Rafsanjani's criticism, echoed by other clerical leaders, has established a base of support for Mousavi and the rest of the opposition, effectively putting Ahmadinejad's regime on its heels.

The gut check here is that Ahmadinejad's regime isn't as strong as we thought. While it's clear that dictator's will not give up power easily, there are clear signs of significant amounts of citizens turning against Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. Further, powerful members of the Iranian elite are starting to turn against the regime starting with Mousavi and Rafsanjani and trickling down into the clerical leadership. While most people only see Iran and think nuclear weapons and anti-Semitism, behind the facade, the base of power is erroding. This presents a situation in which the US taking a hardline stance, reminiscent of the Bush administration, would actually be a very bad idea. Israel's brinksmanship is already putting Iran between a rock and a hard place while President Obama's constant amicable overtures towards Iran are taking away Ahmadinejad's ability to credibly utilize anti-Americanism as a political manipulator. While actually obtaining nuclear weapons is a dangerous wild card, it would put more pressure on Ahmadinejad to act legitimately a la North Korea (especially when Ahmadinejad doesn't have the entire citizenry completely subjugated like Kim Jong Ill) because such an acquisition would put the US and especially Israel on a hair trigger. If Ahmadinejad goes even further off the reservation and utilizes more violence against protesters or against the political opposition, it will only make him weaker.