It is to be hoped that Tony Blair’s new role as Middle East Envoy will allow him to break away from being an apologist for the neo-conservative hardliners in the Bush administration, but based on a recent speech it seems that is unlikely. The Guardian this morning reported that Blair has said, speaking of “militant Islam” that:

This ideology now has a state, Iran, that is prepared to back and finance terror in the pursuit of destabilising countries whose people wish to live in peace.

That statement shows a continuation of the neo-conservatives’ tendency to radically over-simplify their statements about Iran and militant Islam, to de-emphasise strategic interests, to skip over the Sunni/Shia divide in the Islamic world and to leave out other vital details.

Unlike Britain and the US, Iran is situated in the Middle East and its strategic decisions regarding the area are fraught with complexity arising from the presence of hostile (US) forces on its major borders. If it allies itself with radical groups in order to confront that threat (and very little evidence has been offered for the recent allegations) it is likely that it is doing so on strategic, and not ideological grounds.

It is highly likely that any new alliances Iran is making are significantly less ideological than those which led the US to support the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden a few decades back. Reductionist statements like Blair’s may help underline the rhythm of the drums of war, but they are dangerously shallow and pose no less of a threat to global stability than those of the Iranian leadership.

I don’t know quite what to say about the ongoing belligerence on the part of the USA towards Iran. If they’re not stopped by disclosures that Dick Cheney rejected an offer Iran made four years ago that would have satisfied all their public demands, then I fear there’s not much that can be done to prevent the administration from using Iraq as a launching pad for an invasion of Iran. This story at Kos’ place didn’t help (via Ed in email)

I don’t put much hope in such things, but for those who are so inclined please do visit Stop Iran War and sign their petition. (via Eric, by email).

This is one of those stories that really ought to be huge, but probably won’t make many waves in the US. The BBC’s Newsnight has been told by a former senior US government official:

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

But Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office rejected the plan, the official said.

Obviously there is some doubt about any such source’s motivations, but the letter in which these offers were made has been seen by Newsnight.

With the United States making increasingly hostile moves towards Iran, arresting Iranian officials in Baghdad, and contemplating incursions onto Iranian soil to pursue insurgents, these are alarming times. The United States is vastly over-committed in the Middle East already and with two potential “surges” in the works, would struggle to commit to further actions, but there’s no knowing what these people will try.

It’s long been clear from the administration’s actions to undermine nuclear negotiations between the EU and Iran that they have no real interest in any development that doesn’t involve regime change (probably through military action). But this letter is a far clearer confirmation than any we’ve seen to date and its revelations need urgently to reach a wider audience.

Tags: iran, diplomacy, dick cheney, neoconservatism

A change of plans yesterday led to quite a bit of time in the car mid-afternoon, and a chance to listen to Ted Koppel promote his new documentary about Iran on NPR’s Talk of the Nation. I was very impressed with Koppel’s apparent grasp of the nuances of the Iranian political situation, of the shades of opinion within the country, and particularly with his commitment to educating people about it given its ongoing importance in world affairs and US foreign policy. The documentary airs on the Discovery Channel on Sunday and you can find the Talk Of The Nation interview here.

I was distinctly less impressed with the discussion of Iraq policy on On Point last night. All too often that programme seems to invite on “experts” who delight in presenting every situation as having only two possible solutions. Such binary distinctions are all too common in the US’ two-party political system, but I continue to hope that NPR programs will invite more voices to the table. I’m not equipped to fully judge McGovern and Polk’s “Blueprint for leaving Iraq now“, but that’s an example of an opinion that seems well reasoned and should at least crack open discussions like last night’s to talk about third, fourth, or even fifth ways.

Tags: ted koppel, talk of the nation, on point, mcgovern, polk, iraq, harpers, discovery channel, iran documentary

Lately I’ve been working on Calvin’s campus each Thursday because of our regular Festival of Faith and Music meetings. I work in one of the main areas where students congregate and each week there’s a little bit more frustration and culture shock as I overhear bizarre conversations about current affairs.

At the moment there is a guy sitting in the booth next to me holding forth on the state of the middle east. He is asserting quite forcefully that Iran is in the process of testing nuclear missiles and those around him are eating it up.

Iran is about to engage in several days of war games, and that includes testing long-range missiles that could be capable of eventually carrying nuclear warheads should Iran develop them, but there is a clear distinction between that and actual nuclear tests of the sort that North Korea have probably recently been conducting.

Overhearing misconceptions such as that—beliefs that fit so well into the administration’s disinformation policies that could so easily be used to prepare public opinion for a future military engagement—would be frustrating enough, but there’s also the fact that it’s far from an isolated experience, and that this particular student was comparatively well informed.

(For full disclosure: I confronted him about his statement, and he admitted that he had mis-spoken. But the climate is such that there are probably plenty of people repeating such statements and who will never be confronted, or don’t even realise that the information is wrong).

In the current climate it’s difficult to believe that anything that should give pause to the US administration (or public, for that matter) will. Nevertheless, it’s still good to see such things getting some attention and maybe something will gain the critical mass and longevity to really make a difference.

The latest is Harpers Magazine’s coverage of a document thought to be from the safe house of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (either the mastermind of the Iraqi insurgency for many months or a buffoon, depending on which day’s governmental press releases you chose to read) stating that:

The best way to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces in a war against Iran. A war between the Americans and Iran will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance

More can be found here.

(via slacktivist)

Tags: iran, middle-eastern crisis, iraq, iraqi insurgency, al-qaeda, us government

NPR’s foreign correspondent, Deborah Amos, was interviewed on Morning Edition this morning about the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. Particularly interesting in her report was a comment that for many on the street, Hezbollah’s action has united Sunni and Shi’a muslims. Hezbollah is a Shi’a organization, but the Sunni population of the region is largely supportive of them.

That’s particularly significant in the broader current context, since one of the distinguishing features of Iran (within the region) is it’s Shi’a government and population. Some hawkish commentators have suggested that other Middle Eastern countries would welcome western intervention in Iran, and that religious differences would hold them back from becoming involved. What those commentators miss is that while the fault lines between Sunni and Shi’a are very real, Middle Eastern and Islamic identity will always trump that division once outside forces become involved.

While some neighbouring governments–particularly those such as Qatar who have been welcoming to US bases–may be slow to come to Iran’s aid, their populations are likely to have other ideas.

Tags:
iran, hezbollah, lebanon, islamic identity, shi’a, sunni

Representative Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the US House of Representatives International Relations committee was interviewed on BBC World Service last night, as the confrontation between “the international community” and Iran continues to heat up. As the interviewer sat negligently by, the representative made a series of statements that belied the reality of that situation, and betrayed his ignorance of the realpolitik.

There are many, particularly in Britain, who would have a lot of sympathy with the understanding of power implicit in his claim that the US allowed Europe to negotiate with Iran (nb: I wasn’t able to find a recording or transcript of the interview, so quotes are paraphrased from memory), but I doubt that such a statement is how the British, French or German (EU3) governments would like to see the situation portrayed. Beyond that, it is a statement that clearly reinforces the portrayal of the US government across the world, but particularly in Iran, as an Imperial power that manages the world through its proxy states in western Europe. If the United States want its claims that its stance against Iran in the current situation is anything other than a power play, its senior politicians would be wise to avoid so blatantly contradicting that.

Rep. Lantos went on from there to claim that the United States has been working by all the usual means available to resolve the situation, but neglected to offer any evidence. It is apparent that Russia has been working hard to peacefully resolve the situation, that India and South Africa have both tried their hands, that the EU3 negotiators have given up many nights’ sleep to work out a deal, and that many diligent staff of the IAEA have been doing whatever they can. The same cannot be said of the United States. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has made a series of inflammatory statements, and other politicians like Rep. Lantos have sought to take credit for the actions of other governments. Such actions are not negotiation, and are not the behaviour of a party that truly desires peace.

That none of the truly invested parties have been able to negotiate a settlement and that Iran is to be reported to the UN Security Council is a serious turn of events, but the rest of the world would do well to distance themselves from the United States’ destructive attempts to claim itself a role in the proceedings.

The issue of Iran and nuclear power was in our headlines yet again this week, as the EU “offered incentives” for Iran to drop its uranium enrichment plans and the Iranian government (the reins of which were this week handed over to Ahmadinejad’s administration) rejected them. On the surface the EU deal looked like an attractive package and Iran’s rejection of it a nail in the coffin of any possible settlement, but it’s more complex than that.

According to this Guardian report, the EU3 (Britain, France, Germany) offered Iran the option of having “Western companies to build nuclear power stations in Iran and supply them with fuel” in return for Iran ceasing any nuclear activities of its own. In an age when “energy independence” is on many lips, that detail casts the package in a different light.

But running still deeper than the national security concern for “energy independence” is the recent history of Iran. For the majority of the 20th century Iran’s copious oil reserves were in the hands of western-dominated alliances. Iran suffered a coup because one of its former leaders didn’t cooperate fully with the western oil barons, and the desire to control their own natural resources was one of the fomenting factors behind the revolution.

For an Iranian leadership that won an election on the basis of a promised return to revolutionary ideals, handing control of their energy supply over to western companies simply isn’t an option. In this light, I’m surprised the EU even tried it.

Tags: Iran | EU3 | Energy Independence

There have once again been several stories about Iran in the press this week. Primarily they’re once again focussed on some heinous human rights abuses, though the long running nuclear dispute is once again raising its head.

In the midst of that comes this excellent report in the Guardian. The tag-line sells the piece a little short:

Iran, with its unabashed nuclear ambitions, is top of the US’s next-to-invade list. Is the mood in the country fearful or defiant? James Meek sounds out hardline clerics, Tehran liberals, mosque-goers, workers and the near-destitute - and finds surprising resonances with their superpower enemy.

While too brief to do the situation true justice, Meek’s piece does a great job of exploring some of the internal tensions, the sharply differing perspectives between rich and poor, and the class divisions that played the pivotal role in the recent presidential elections. It’s only a matter of time before the anti-Iran rhetoric ramps up again, and articles such as this that allow us to get a finer-grained understanding of the people in Iran are very welcome.

Also of interest is Juan Cole’s The Iraq war is over, and the winner is… Iran published at Salon.

Tags: Iran | Guardian