Peace with Iran » stephen kinzer

New Stephen Kinzer Article: “Attacking Iran via South Ossetia”

admin — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:30:23 +0000

Hi Folks,

1. Check Stephen Kinzer’s (veteran New York Times reporter) article
on the potential relationship between events in Georgia and what may
be visited upon Iran. An important point in Kinzer’s argument is his
observation that: “American policy toward Iran has for decades been
shaped by emotion, not rationality.

” Clearly other considerations
govern U.S. foreign policy towards Iran (oil?!). Nonetheless, the
article is worth reading. It is entitled “Attacking Iran via South
Ossetia: Could the conflict between Russia and Georgia be the excuse
the Bush administration has been looking for to bomb Iran?” at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/20/usforeignpolicy.iran/print.
A pdf version is available.

2. Kinzer is the author of “All the Shah’s Men,” an excellent
account of the overthrow of Dr. Mossadeq’s government in August
1953. On the occasion, this week, of the 55th anniversary of that
momentous event, I recommend an article by Faramarz Farbod entitled,
“More than Just Another Overthrow: Let’s not Forget Mossadeq in
Iran.” The article’s abstract is as follows:

“Fifty-five years ago this week, in mid-August of 1953, Dr. Mohammad
Mossadeq, the prime minister of Iran, was toppled in a royalist coup
code-named Operation AJAX by its US and British backers. The coup
delivered a severe blow to the cause of constitutionalism, democracy,
and the rule of law in Iran, and ultimately altered the path of
politics there, in the region, and globally in ways that ought to be
familiar to discerning readers today.”

If you don’t have time to read the entire article, check out the
quote in the article from a New York Times editorial dated August 6th, 1954.

Read it at: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18494#_edn2. A pdf
version is available.

A plea to quiet drums on Iran, and try talk – By Stephen Kinzer

admin — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:05:06 +0000

Stephen Kinzer teaches journalism and political science at Northwestern University and is the author of “All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror.” He is scheduled to testify Tuesday before a Chicago City Council committee that is considering a resolution urging negotiations with Iran.

The complete article can be viewed at:
Â http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-iran-war_thinkmay11,0,7229998.story

The ominous sound of war drums is once again echoing from Washington. Hardly a day goes by without new and more vivid threats against America’s newest supposed enemy, Iran. It seems almost unbelievable that the United States, so bloodied and weakened by its adventure in Iraq, would contemplate an attack on another Middle Eastern country. Yet some American leaders seem bent on it.

Just a few months ago, the prospect of an American attack on Iran appeared to recede after U.S. intelligence agencies released an “estimate” asserting that Iran is not seeking to build nuclear weapons. In recent weeks, though, the Bush administration has come up with a new argument. The U.S. must consider attacking Iran, it now says, because Iran is stirring up trouble in Iraq.

It may well be true that groups in Iran are training guerrillas to cross into Iraq and fight U.S.-sponsored factions there, even killing American soldiers. Logic also suggests that Iranian leaders, under constant threat from two nuclear-armed powers, the U.S. and Israel, might wish to develop nuclear weapons of their own.

Americans have every reason to fear these developments. An angry, anti-American Iran with nuclear ambitions could gravely threaten Israel and U.S. interests in the Middle East. Attacking Iran, however, would intensify rather than ease those threats.

It is easy to foresee some of the results that might follow an American bombing campaign against Iran. They include a wave of revenge attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; a surge of terrorism against Western targets; a retaliatory Iranian attack on Israel; a closing of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil passes; and rage in neighboring Pakistan, a frighteningly unstable country that has both nuclear weapons and powerful political factions sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

An American attack on Iran also would greatly strengthen President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is now so unpopular among Iranian voters that he may not even seek re-election next year. People everywhere rally behind their leaders when their country is attacked. It is contrary to U.S. interests to take steps that would strengthen the Ahmadinejad faction, which makes no secret of its contempt for reason and the rule of law.

In the face of an imminent threat from Iran, and in the absence of alternatives, the U.S. might be justified in risking even these awful consequences. But there is an alternative, one the U.S. has never tried: direct, bilateral, comprehensive and unconditional negotiations.

It is by no means certain that negotiations with Iran would succeed. Before taking military action, however, the U.S. should at least offer to talk. Attacking Iran without exhausting all peaceful alternatives would not only be immoral, it would further isolate the U.S. and thereby weaken its national security.

If negotiations with Iran begin, the U.S. might soon discover that these two countries share many security interests.

Iran can help stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is Al Qaeda’s bitter enemy. Iran is terrified of instability in Pakistan. Iran wants to limit Russian influence in the Middle East. Iran’s oil infrastructure is in a state of collapse and needs billions of dollars in investment, something the U.S. is well-positioned to provide.

Unlike most other countries in the region, Iran, with a constitution that dates back to 1906 and a long tradition of competitive elections, is fertile ground for democracy. Negotiations that draw Iran back into the world community could not only help defuse a crisis that threatens to spiral into catastrophe but might also lead ultimately to the emergence of a peaceful and prosperous Iran. That is why all of Iran’s pro-democracy campaigners, from exiled dissident Akbar Ganji to heroic Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, are pleading with Washington to abandon its snarling threats and test the negotiating option.

Some in Washington, however, evidently believe that the U.S. should do nothing to promote the emergence of nationalist democracies in the Middle East that might be reluctant to do Washington’s bidding. This is a terribly short-sighted policy. Iran has always had and will always have influence in the Middle East. The United States should accept that fact and work to create an Iran that pulls the region toward democracy. Otherwise Iran will choose another big-power partner, most likely Russia or Chinaâ€”not a desirable outcome for the U.S.

There are three possible ways for the U.S. to deal with growing threats from Iran. One is to do nothing, which will allow Iran to intensify its nuclear program in ways that could profoundly threaten the region and global stability. The second is to launch a military attack, which would have devastating “blowback” consequences for the U.S., Israel and the Western world. The third is negotiation. This option is so low-cost that it seems folly not to try.

Thinking globally, acting locally

admin — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:56:47 +0000

With the Bush administration angling for war with Iran, the city of Chicago is considering going on record opposing it

Michael Lynn

May 9, 2008

More than 7,000 miles separate Chicago and Tehran. But on May 14, the city council of the American city will consider whether to take a stand on an event that would have far reaching consequences for residents of both: a US attack on Iran.

A resolution introduced into the council by one of its members, Alderman Joe Moore, would put the city on record as opposing a preemptive strike against Iran by the US. The resolution urges all congressional representatives whose districts include parts of the city to “clearly express the will of the people of Chicago in opposing any attack on Iran, and urging the Bush administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with that nation.”

The resolution is the result of an initiative launched by Chicago’s No War On Iran Coalition, a broad-based grouping of local anti-war, social justice and faith organisations. Ranging widely in viewpoints, the goal that unites us all is preventing the United States from launching another elective war that we believe would prove even more disastrous than the five-year-old one next door in Iraq.

Recent events have added urgency to the goal. In April, General David Petraeus, the commanding officer of American forces in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, US ambassador to that country, testified to several congressional committees. In their testimony, both struck a common theme: the role of Iran in promoting insurgent attacks in Iraq. Both men accused so-called “special groups” of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards of being responsible for the deaths of American troops and rocket strikes on the Green Zone.

That testimony flies in the face of the opinion of the American intelligence community, expressed in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (pdf) that Iran “is not likely to be a major driver of violence” in Iraq. It nevertheless allowed the Bush administration to assign blame for the Iraq debacle to Iran and provide the rationale for military action if they so chose. The president issued a thinly veiled threat in insisting that Iran cease supplying weapons in Iraq or “America will act to protect our interests, and our troops.”

Signs of war go beyond rhetoric. April also saw the forced resignation of Admiral William Fallon as chief of Central Command, responsible for Pentagon operations in the Middle East. Fallon had been quoted a month earlier in an Esquire article as being opposed to attacking Iran. His replacement will be Bush’s favourite general – Petraeus, whose congressional testimony so carefully mirrored Bush administration talking points.

No War on Iran Coalition members are prepared to answer those who suggest that local government bodies have no business involving themselves in matters of foreign policy. We point to the enormous burden the Iraq occupation has placed on the city, in terms of lives disrupted and what economists refer to as ‘opportunity costs.’

The occupation has cost the citizens of Chicago roughly $5.5bn (and counting). That translates to $105m for each of the city’s 50 Wards (districts), each represented by a member of the city council. Those funds could have bought 112,543 public safety officers for one year; 365 elementary schools; 39,567 units of affordable housing; 84,067 elementary school teachers for one year; and so on.

And if you think the costs of the occupation are horrendous, the costs associated with an attack on Iran, both in terms of lives and dollars, would be much worse.

Support for the resolution comes from diverse ideological quarters, as a glance at those testifying in support attests. Scott Ritter, a 12 year veteran of US Marine intelligence and former UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq; John Mearsheimer, a realist international relations expert from the University of Chicago who voted for Bush in 2000; veteran New York Times foreign correspondent (and CiF contributor) Stephen Kinzer. They represent the breadth of opposition to further military adventurism in an unstable part of the globe.

No one harbours any illusions that the resolution will stop a US attack on Iran. Rather, the measure is seen as a vehicle to raise the profile of the issue – right in the country’s heartland – and demonstrate broad opposition to a wider war. Several US cities have passed such resolutions, but Chicago would be by far the largest and most prominent to do so. A Chicago success could inspire activists in other cities to press their local governments to pass similar measures.

The goal is to influence policy by showing there would be serious political consequences to any attack. With an American leadership seemingly indifferent to (if not contemptuous of) its record-low approval ratings, activists are shifting their sights to representatives closer to home. Hopes are that pressure rising from below will curb the bellicose rhetoric and ominous manoeuvres of the Bush administration in the short run and thwart the impulse to seek security through wars of aggression in the longer run.

Will the local strategy work? An answer may begin to emerge on May 14. Stay tuned.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_lynn/2008/05/thinking_globally_acting_locally.html