A Dangerous Iran? Here's A Plan

Jeffrey Herf: Obama Has Only One Credible Threat To Leverage Against Tehran

(The New Republic)  Jeffrey Herf is professor of modern European history at the University of Maryland in College Park. He is the author of War by Other Means: Soviet Power, West German Resistance and the Battle of the Euromissiles and the forthcoming Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World.

---

Our negotiations with Iran are not off to a good start. After the initial meeting in Geneva on October 1- with Iran on one side and Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the United States on the other-Iranian representatives said they had agreed to send processed uranium to Russia. Then, a day later, one of the Iranian negotiators denied they had agreed to any such thing. Iran, it seems, is in no mood to make genuine concessions. But, then again, why should it be? The sad fact is that Tehran holds most of the negotiating cards right now.

The essential problem is an old one in the history of negotiations between dictatorships and democracies. As was the case in the famous negotiations over intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe in the 1980s, there is a fundamental asymmetry whenever a dictatorship sits down at the table with a democracy. Criticizing their government's march to the bomb brands Iranian citizens as tools of foreign powers and possibly as traitors. This dynamic has only worsened in the wake of Iran's recent crackdown on protesters. There seems to be a widespread assumption that Iran's internal turmoil has somehow weakened the regime's nuclear negotiating position. In fact, the opposite is true: The crackdown means that speaking out against the regime from inside the country is now riskier than ever. Tehran is therefore unlikely to feel any domestic pressure to make concessions during the coming negotiations. All the domestic political pressures of the debate will be asymmetric: They will have an impact only on the governments of Britain, France, Germany, and the United States.

Iranian negotiators have proven themselves to be skillful tacticians, and they are likely to exploit this asymmetry by doing two things: playing for time and raising the issue of Israel's nuclear weapons. Their rationale for doing the former is obvious: The absence of freedom in Iran will only become more and more of a tactical advantage the longer negotiations continue, as pressures for compromise build up on only one side. As for the latter: By pointing to Israel's nuclear weapons, Iran knows that it can exploit the existing hostility toward Israel in many European countries.

The Soviet Union tried an analogous gambit during the battle over the Euromissiles in the 1980s. In the late 1970s, Moscow had deployed intermediate-range SS-20 missiles capable of striking targets in Western Europe. In December 1979, President Carter and our NATO allies agreed both to counter the new Soviet weapons by stationing American intermediate-range missiles in Europe and to propose a new round of arms-control negotiations with the Soviets, offering a scaled-backed NATO deployment in return for a reduction in their SS-20s. The USSR, however, demanded something more: that the nuclear weapons of Britain and France be counted in any negotiations. Under the Soviet scheme, Britain and France would have to pay the price for reductions in Soviet missiles by reducing or eliminating their nuclear arsenals, thus creating a "nuclear-free" Europe. Ultimately, the Soviet ploy failed, in part because Moscow overplayed its hand and caused a backlash among electoral majorities on both sides of the Atlantic. But the proposal caused considerable tension in the Western alliance; some Social Democratic politicians in West Germany, for example, suggested that the British and French seriously consider the Soviet proposals. The anti-nuclear demonstrations in Western Europe around that time were some of the largest protests in its postwar history. François Mitterand, France's socialist president, who supported the NATO deployments, famously remarked that "the East has developed missiles, and the West has developed pacifists." In other words, the asymmetry of democracy and dictatorship meant that there was internal pressure only on the NATO negotiating position. The Soviet strategy may not have worked, but it was a shrewd tactic, one that suggested a keen understanding of how to take advantage of the West's open political systems.

Today, the Iranians know that Israel is deeply unpopular among parts of the political and intellectual establishment in the West. They surely know that the same European establishment that eventually stood firm against Soviet pressures to create a "nuclear-free" Europe might be less unified and stubborn when faced with similar proposals for the Middle East. So it is no wonder Iran keeps talking about Israel's nuclear weapons. Over the summer, a spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry said that the United States should tell Israel to "dismantle its own 200 nuclear warheads." More recently, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA called the passage of a resolution criticizing Israel's nuclear weapons a "glorious moment" and "a triumph for the oppressed nation of Palestine." Iran knows that such complaints about Israeli nukes will earn a favorable reception from many in the West. Indeed, Obama's recent statements about wanting to work toward a world without nuclear weapons unintentionally lent support to this Iranian strategy. When Israel continues to refuse this demand to abandon its nuclear weapons--as, of course, it must--Iran will claim that it is acquiring a weapon only to balance out Israel's nuclear capability. This will look eminently reasonable to many in Europe. In the face of such apparent sensibleness from Iran's leaders, the necessary political will to maintain a tough negotiating line will be harder and harder to maintain.

So what is the United States to do? The sole possible solution is to level a threat grave enough to upend the inherent negotiating advantage enjoyed by Iran. And the "severe" sanctions currently on the table don't come close to doing the trick. First, Iran has endured economic difficulties before, and its leaders seem to regard economic concerns as secondary to their larger nationalist and religious project. These leaders would clearly be willing to use their still-intact apparatus of repression to stifle protest due to economic difficulty. Second, Russia and especially China have shown no enthusiasm for imposing economic difficulties on Iran. Indeed, China is increasing its economic involvement in Iran's oil and gas sector. Any sanctions imposed by the United States, Britain, France, and Germany will be weak from the start because Iran can simply turn to Russia and China.

This brings us to the one policy option that Tehran truly fears--and thus the only one that gives these negotiations any realistic chance of success: a credible threat of military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the United States, perhaps joined by Britain and France, or Israel. If the Iranian leadership believed that such an attack was a real possibility, it, or some parts of it, might be persuaded to change course.

If President Obama were to make this threat, he would enrage the base of the Democratic Party that made possible his nomination for president, antagonize liberals in Congress, and infuriate the New York Times editorial page. In the eyes of many of his admirers, he would appear to be yet another unilateralist, imperialist American president. So Obama has a choice: He can look out for his popularity or he can do what is necessary to defend the national security of the United States, our European allies, the moderate Arab states, and, yes, Israel. He has reached the point in his presidency when it has become clear that he cannot do both.

[sjc_1]

We supported the Shah of Iran, who was one of the most evil dictators since Stalin. It is no wonder Iran calls us the Great Satan. When they took our embassy people hostage, we should have blown them back to the stone age, we missed our chance.

[imnho]

This guy is willing to have a war without any thought to the cos to the USA in terms of the blood our citzens would have to shed. I will bet the thought has nor occured to hi to signup for the fight that he wants so badly.

[BenDavoodi]

This article is a test of how far a Neo-con professor can have his head up his a-s. To ignore the aspirations of 70 million people whose young democracy was destroyed by British and the US in 1953 is the ultimate hypocrisy and injustice - all for Israel, the criminal creation of West. I have no love loss for the murderous regime of Iran, but I only see them as equal to the vicious criminals in the Israel's government who know nothing but inflicting death and destruction on the defenseless people. Only the people of Iran can change Iran. The reason they have not been able to do so is because of the crippling sanctions that have weakened the people and stregthened the government. By removing the sanctions and opening diplomatic avenues people will be empowered to change the current conditions.

[asalwaysiran]

Dear Mr. Herf,
There was a time, when we Iranians would have looked at the United States of America, as a land of independent and straight-talking-free-thinking people, free of alien influences and pressures: A true blue-blooded Americans, in Mc. Arthurs, Richard Niksons and James Bakers of a by-gone era [rightly or other-wise] they stood for America's interests with a purely American theme. Look at yourselves now! From a toe-toeing Black President, who is surrounded by pro-Zionist and Jewish foot-soldiers, to a bankrupt economy, a demoralized military, and the last and not the least, a Jewish controlled lobbyists' dirt-churning spy-den, in the form of AIPAC, , perusing and implementing Israel's interests and not America's. You can no longer and determinately speak of America's national interests, because, you are no longer in control of, for you've sold it down the Zionists' drain. A once mighty and confident America would never have had to concerns itself with Iran's nuclear industry. A confident America would have been pragmatic enough to assist Iran with its industrial/economic development, only to gain reciprocity from that country. For it is an American way: ?people are free to determine their own destiny". Does that remind you of a certain Jefferson? Sir, we Iranians are proudly an independent and truly a free, confident and cultured nation. Such values are gained through the bigger than life blood of our fallen sons and daughters. No obstacle, will it ever be destructive enough to force our beloved country to fore-go those alienable rights of our people. It is something that our children would undoubtedly guarantee you of that. Military adventurism against Islamic Republic of Iran would only bring more losses to your own people. Think about that!

[asalwaysiran]

Dear Mr. Herf,
There was a time, when we Iranians would have looked at the United States of America, as a land of independent and straight-talking-free-thinking people, free of alien influences and pressures: A true blue-blooded Americans, in Mc. Arthurs, Richard Niksons and James Bakers of a by-gone era [rightly or other-wise] they stood for America's interests with a purely American theme. Look at yourselves now! From a toe-toeing Black President, who is surrounded by pro-Zionist and Jewish foot-soldiers, to a bankrupt economy, a demoralized military, and the last and not the least, a Jewish controlled lobbyists' dirt-churning spy-den, in the form of AIPAC, , perusing and implementing Israel's interests and not America's. You can no longer and determinately speak of America's national interests, because, you are no longer in control of, for you've sold it down the Zionists' drain. A once mighty and confident America would never have had to concerns itself with Iran's nuclear industry. A confident America would have been pragmatic enough to assist Iran with its industrial/economic development, only to gain reciprocity from that country. For it is an American way that, ?people are free to determine their own destiny". Does that remind you of a certain Jefferson? Sir, we Iranians are proudly an independent and truly a free, confident and cultured nation. Such values are gained through the bigger than life blood of our fallen sons and daughters. No obstacle, will it ever be destructive enough to force our beloved country to fore-go an alienable rights of our people. It is something that our children would undoubtedly guarantee you of that. Military adventurism against Islamic Republic of Iran would only bring more losses to your own people. Think about that!

[EstherHaman]

Mr. Jeffrey Herf, with this article that you written I don't know how you can call yourself a "professor". This junk would not pass a 12th grade teacher in a high school with anything better than a "F". You need to hit the books.

First you need to read on NPT and know what that is all about, then you need to know the history of the country you write and talk about, Iran. You also need to be familiar with the issues that almost everyone these days knows about starting with 1953 BP oil Co. plots in Iran. The overthrow of the Shah and then the US intervention in Iran since then. Then you may right something sensible.

If you believe that today's Iranian would follow you and commit treason to take our side against their own government (to forget the 1953), you are more out of touch than I thought. Today 99% of the Iranians are for their nuclear program and it is a matter of national pride for them, but you say "Criticizing their government's march to the bomb brands Iranian citizens as tools of foreign powers and possibly as traitors.", so non of that is going on and its the Iranian population in this case that is driving their government. Talk to any Iranian and they know their NPT and IAEA.

The post Iranian election demonstration was about the presidential election and that is that. However, you miss-read it (maybe on purpose) and now you are trying to miss-represent it to use it as a propaganda tool. well, even Mr. Musavie the reformist, is far more for this nuclear program than the current president Ahamadinijad. He was in it way before Mr. Ahmadinejad took charge (read about it).

Iran is a Signatory to NPT, the Zionist are not and have 200+ a-bombs and we turned our head and let it go on. The only thing we did to stop it after years of spying and free hand in the US atomic secrets was to put one man in jail Mr. Poular". If NPT means nothing then maybe you should right an article against it and do away with it.

Iran is home to 75 million people and you say "Iran keeps talking about Israel's nuclear weapons." and "United States should tell Israel to "dismantle its own 200 nuclear warheads." and "This will look eminently reasonable to many in Europe." and "In the face of such apparent sensibleness from Iran's leaders", SO, what is your point sir? that Iranians are thinking rational or some how rational thinking is un_American or wrong?! Off course Iran is worried about those weapons, who in his right mind would not be?! You also say "--Iran will claim that it is acquiring a weapon only to balance out Israel's nuclear capability.", but that is your saying and assumption not the Iranians, they never have said anything in that regard. But they have openly said they don't want A-bombs.

Your judgment on how to practice diplomacy is as waked as any Neo-con. You say "So what is the United States to do?", and your answer is to put G. W. Bush back in the office. You say Iran has an "advantage", just because they use their head and are rational thinkers? But what do you suggest "..a credible threat of military attack", will put us back on top, how infantile is that?

You say "If President Obama were to make this threat, he would enrage the base of the Democratic Party..", I say that would make him G. W. BUSH and yes that will enrage all Americans that put him in the office to get us out of the wars we are in. Why can't we use our head for once in these matters?

The Iranians are not the Martians that they are made out to be. But some how according to you "..to defend the national security of the United States, our.. " they are going to kill us all!! These scare tactics been tried before by the Neo-Cons and the Zionist before and that is how we ended up in Iraq.

President B. Obama been in the office only 9 months and just started. He has more choices than just going around starting a 3rd war in that region, which is yours and the the Zionist solution to anything.

[krmopilci]

It is funny how you guys think.What you would like to be you claim as the truth and right.How many wars did you have in your short history?How many regime changes did you cause?How many people have died so that mediocrees can pursue glamorous lifestyles?And I understand that you do not care about your citizens being killed.A thousand in Afghanistan-you can get a thousand new citizens any day at your southern border.More honest ones and more hardworking.But when you get your butts kicked,why are you crying?For 35 years you are crying about Vietnam.You will forever cry about 9/11.Be men.You start wars,you lose them,do not cry after that.And do not start new ones.I know that you would love to put your dirty fingers on Iranian oil.It is going to cost you much more than Iraq.I remember some American diplomats warning about Iraq before the war(one was a weapons inspector in Iraq),but you did not listen.Now you have 4.5 thousand youngsters rotting in their graves and 30-40 thousand disfugered,burnt,amputated ones.And whose fault it is?Go see them.Tell them your stupid warmongering stories.And send another ones to Iran.How much place there is in Arlington?How many Walter Reeds are there?And yes I am a boy(who was a soldier for 5 years and has seen hundreds of dead people).And if I were someone you warmongers would be the in the first rows in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[saeedabed]

Excellent article,

Those who miss the crux of this very good piece is what to see and do some thing about a global threat we all facing.

What good this religious dictatorship has done for the Iranian people expect mass killing, murder, poverty, arrest torture and humiliations to allow it to have Atom bomb so that it would offer the same evils to its neighbours.

If only Mr Obama is smart would act fast to stop this, and would look to a head of his historical legacy.

Referring to the krmopilci comment just one to say I think he is just a boy so not worth commenting what rubbish he has written.

[krmopilci]

You just go on and Arlington will be too small soon.

[krmopilci]

The writer of this article is a political greenhorn.He thinks Russians were stupid,so the Americans can have nuclear missiles under British and French names,and soviets will have their removed because Americans removed those ones under their name.The soviets were right when they asked for zero nukes in Europe.No nukes no threats.The same thing in the middle east.Disarm Israel and Iran at the same time.Why would Israel have nukes and Iran wouldn't?Let us destroy all nukes.Let nobody have them.Please stop paying these biased "experts" like this ludacris author.