Making sense of Ahmadinejad-little incentive, domestic or international, to moderate his policies.

While diplomats at the United Nations ponder what to do next about the Iranian nuclear program, the state-owned media in Teheran are conducting a psychological campaign to prepare the public for a long crisis if not actual war.

Many Iranians, however, are not sure what the fuss is about and are asking whether the confrontational course adopted by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the only, not to say the best, strategy.

Doubts about the wisdom of Ahmadinejad's defiant posture, initially voiced by the anti-regime opposition at home and abroad, are now spreading to factions within the Khomeinist regime itself. One example is an article by Mostafa Tajzadeh, a former deputy interior minister and advisor to former president Muhammad Khatami. The article, published by an online newspaper owned by former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, warns that the Islamic Republic may be courting diplomatic isolation and possible UN sanctions solely because the new radical administration wishes to cultivate a macho image at home and abroad.

At first glance, Tajzadeh's concern, echoed by several members of the Islamic Majlis (parliament), appears well placed. Ahmadinejad decided to reject the package offered by the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany, because he was not prepared to offer a minor concession in return.

The concession demanded was that Iran should agree to suspend its uranium processing and enrichment activities. This should not have been difficult for two reasons.

The first is that Iran, in any case, is doing very little uranium processing and no enrichment, despite the threat to embark upon enrichment on an industrial scale at the Isfahan plant.

The second is that Iran has no immediate need of any enriched uranium. In fact, Iran does not have any nuclear power station at all and thus does need enriched uranium for fuel. The only nuclear power station that Iran is building, with Russian help, is scheduled to go on stream next March. Even then, Russia has already signed contracts to provide all the fuel that the plant would need for the first 10 years of its existence. Russia is even ready to provide the fuel for the entire 37-year lifespan of the plant.

AT THE very least, Iran could have agreed to a temporary suspension until next March, allowing negotiations on the 5+1 package to begin. The talks could then have helped foster an atmosphere of trust on both sides and shifted the focus from the very narrow and precise issue of uranium enrichment.

Accepting a temporary suspension would not have hurt Ahmadinejad's macho image. For one thing, his opponents, both within the regime and outside it, support the suspension and could not have blamed him for accepting it. The Rafsanjani-Khatami faction would have had nothing to say on the issue because it had itself accepted a three year-long suspension without receiving any rewards whatsoever.

Launching a process of negotiations would have had further benefits for the Islamic Republic, if only by alleviating the political tension that is already wreaking havoc with the Iranian economy.

Locking the United States into a process of negotiations with the Islamic Republic would have tied the hands of all those in Washington who support regime change in Iran. The process would have enabled the Islamic Republic to call for a lifting of American sanctions that have already crippled the nation's vital oil and gas industry.

In other words, the Islamic Republic would have had everything to gain and virtually nothing to lose from a process aimed at preventing it from doing things that it shouldn't be doing anyway in exchange for massive economic, scientific and technological aid, not to mention international acceptability.

SO, WHY did Ahmadinejad, no doubt with the consent of the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi, choose to reject the package and vindicate the "regime change" faction in Washington?

The first is that Ahmadinejad believes that the Bush administration will not be in a position to turn the heat on Iran at least until the November mid-term elections in the US. If Bush manages to maintain a majority in Congress, Teheran could always agree to a temporary suspension and re-start the process. If, on the other hand, Democrats win control of one or both of the chambers of Congress, Bush would become a lame duck president facing a political elite and public hostile to any new confrontation in the Middle East.

The failure of Americans to develop bipartisan positions even on issues of vital national interest, plays into the hands of adventurers like Ahmadinejad.

The second reason is that Ahmadinejad and his faction have their own electoral calculations. Soon, Iranians would be called upon to choose a new Assembly of Experts and local and municipal councils across the country. If Ahmadinejad's faction succeeds in winning control of the assembly, they would be in a position to either replace Khamenehi as "Supreme Guide" with one of their own, or divest the position of much of its real power.

Finally, it is clear that the Islamic Republic fears any prospect of normalization with the American "Great Satan" at least as much as it worries about ineffective sanctions. The Islamic Republic does not feel self-confident enough to enter a process through which the US will exercise some influence on the course of Teheran's policies. While the conventional wisdom is that it is the US that does not want to talk to the Islamic Republic, there is evidence that the opposite may be true. This is why Teheran has refused to make the symbolic gesture of goodwill the 5+1 group demanded as a prelude to talks.

The Persians are a proud people. They want to think their society is the best and that it can stand up to the Great Satan. He sees hat he's doing as a giant ego boost for the country. It probably isn't, for many, but it probably is, for enough to make his move look good politically.

Like Saddam, I don't think this guy cares about the impact of sanctions on his people. As long as he can get caviar and croissants for himself and his entourage, it doesn't matter how badly the rest of the country slides backwards.

As long as someone, somewhere, buys his oil, and sends some of it back refined so his backward country doesn't need to learn how to do it, he'll be fine.

And that's a big problem for us.

D

David:

RIGHT ON!

Among the knowledgeable “talking heads" on Wednesday opining about Iran: David Ignatius from the Washington Post.

Ignatius said on National Public Radio, “Iran thinks this is their time.”

Ignatius explained that since the Islamic revolution in 1979, Iran has made tremendous strides in efforts to modernize itself. A story today that Iran is producing its own indiginous jet fighter aircraft "more powerful than the f-18" is an example of this modernization. Now Iran believes it is ready to enter the club of important, meaningful leadership nations in the world.

“If we can, we should tell them, O.K., we are bringing you into the framework of international peace and security with assurances; but that brings a certain responsibility,” Ignatius said.

Nations do what is in their national interest. It is hard for me to not believe, if we rational men were the leaders of Iran, we would also have nuclear ambitions. Iranian leaders saw the respect and prestige granted India and Pakistan after they went nuclear.

We are observing a kind of natural progression.

John E. Carey
http://peace-and-freedom.blogspot.com/

Patience does not equate to appeasement. If Iran is 5 years from having a working nuclear weapon, what exactly is our hurry? Michael Ledeen, who I adore, adore!, always ends his pieces with "faster, please." What is so interesting to me is that his pieces are brilliant and compelling and yet his signature closing line never -- and I mean never -- follows logically from the arguments he sets out above.

The Iranian people hate the mullahs. The country is an economic shambles. It is a big and formidable country, and yet it is highly vulnerable at the same time (e.g., most of its oil wells are in the sea). Iran's neighbors are highly skeptical of the mullahs' ambitions, and the US has so many resources relatively speaking that it will surely win any war of attrition. We can be sure that the battle will be waged in the ME, because in 5 years the US has escaped any significant attack, and our allies have sustained only a few civilian fatalities.

For G*d's sake, the 2700 or so fatalities we have incurred in 5 years in a country with 300 million population is trivial. We could persist indefinitely. I know that sounds callous, but it is true. If we can not sustain this, then as a nation we are in real trouble when the real battles begin.

So I ask ... what is the rush? It seems to me that we are slowly but surely grinding down the mullahs, who with each passing day expend more resources, lose more of their suicide insurgents, and drop ever further in the eyes of their countrymen and neigbors. Sometimes it's two steps forward and one step back, but mostly it's twenty small steps forward with one small step back. The problem is that the media report only the one step back, and they make it out to be a giant step when it really is not.

And it seems to me that everyone is in a hurry. Krauthammer et al want Olmert to wipe out Hizb., and anything short of a dramatic elimination constitutes failure. Why? What's wrong with pummeling but not eliminating them?

For all of the grief that President Bush takes, I have yet to read anything to suggest that he isn't proceeding at the perfect pace. I believe his ME strategy is simple: win the war of attrition over the course of a decade. By January 2009 he'll have us 80-90% of the way there, so that by 9/11/2011 even an appeasement-minded Democratic successor can simply connect the remaining dots.

It's not clear to me that anyone has a handle on the timeline. A year ago, it was six months to a year. My impression is that the 5 to 10 year estimates refer to a perfected device and delivery system. Given intelligence failures of the recent past, I guess we just have to take the experts word for it, but IF we're going to act, sooner is probably better than later. My guess, even now we're likely going to cause a release of radiation.

As to the mullahs, I don't see any evidence we're wearing them down. Nor that we're doing all we could to forment unrest from within.

"As to the mullahs, I don't see any evidence we're wearing them down. Nor that we're doing all we could to forment unrest from within."

There is lots of evidence. Read Ledeen over at NRO, for example. Or read about bus drivers who haven't been paid forever, or the lack of gasoline (no refineries!) or ...

As for fomenting unrest, what would Bush gain by making public his efforts along these lines? Surely, much is going on behind the scenes. And that is another complaint I have against Ledeen ... He faults Bush for doing too little, just as you do, and yet I strongly suspect that we don't know what we don't know. I realize that Ledeen is as well-informed as anyone, but how do I know what even he really knows?

I do know this ... the mullahs are doing everything they possibly can to provoke the US and Israel. And they strike me as being in a big hurry. What is their rush???? Could it be that they are in dire straits, with the clock running out? What other hypothesis (beyond insanity) is plausible?

I know it's bad form to reply to yourself, but I'll also add that with each passing day the mullahs reveal themselves as ever more irresponsible and dangerous; the case for regime change becomes ever more compelling; and Iran's neighbors, unsure whether the US can be counted upon to bail them out, become at least a bit more outspoken in their criticisms of Iran.

So again I ask, why should Bush be in any rush? I understand the nuke thing, and of course we need to err on the side of moving too soon. But what if Bush has good intelligence that a working nuke is still a ways off? I see no hurry. Let's just keep pummeling them, softening them up, diminishing their resources, revealing them to be the fools that they are, ...

Am I the only person on the planet outside of VDH who really likes the present course of action?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.