The Belgravia Dispatch: Iran Policy

March 14, 2006

Iran Policy

Prominent activists inside Iran say President Bush's plan to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote democracy here is the kind of help they don't need, warning that mere announcement of the U.S. program endangers human rights advocates by tainting them as American agents...
...The fallout illustrates the steep challenge facing the Bush administration as it seeks to play a role in a country where American influence is called unwelcome even by many who share the goal of increasing democratic freedoms.

"Unfortunately, I've got to say it has a negative effect, not a positive one," said Abdolfattah Soltani, a human rights lawyer recently released from seven months in prison. After writing in a newspaper that his clients were beaten while in jail, Soltani was charged with offenses that included spying for the United States.

"This is something we all know, that a way of dealing with human rights activists is to claim they have secret relations with foreign powers," said Soltani, who co-founded a human rights defense group with Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi. "This very much limits our actions. It is very dangerous to our society."

Activists here said the Bush initiative demonstrates the chasm that often separates those working inside Iran for greater freedoms -- carefully calibrating their actions to nudge incremental changes in a hostile system -- and the more strident approach of many Iranian exiles who often have the ear of Washington policymakers.

"Our society is very complicated," said Vahid Pourostad, editor of National Trust, a new newspaper aligned with Iran's struggling reform movement. "Generally speaking, it is impossible to impose something from outside. Whatever happens will happen from inside.

"It seems to me the United States is not studying the history of Iran very carefully," Pourostad said. "Whenever they came and supported an idea publicly, the public has done the opposite."

...The Bush administration is asking Congress for $75 million in emergency funding to promote democracy in Iran, in addition to $10 million already budgeted. Most of the money, $50 million, would be spent to build a satellite television station. The plan also calls for $5 million each for scholarships and public diplomacy that includes fostering independent media inside Iran.

The final $15 million would go toward nongovernmental organizations and civic education on the lines of what the federally chartered National Endowment for Democracy carries out in a wide variety of countries.

"It's going to be hard for them to spend it here," said a diplomat at a European embassy in Tehran, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The diplomat refused to be identified because the embassy has had some success with a program aimed at fostering reform in one Iranian ministry and publicity could make it a target of hard-liners.

"There is a downside," the diplomat said. "There always is. And they'll have to be clever about how they spend it."

Iran on Monday lodged a formal complaint against the Bush plan through the U.S. Interests Section at the Swiss Embassy here. At the same time, Iran's parliament allocated the equivalent of $15 million to "probe and defuse" U.S. conspiracies and interventions in the country, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

Anyone who thinks 50MM for a radio station and 15MM each for independent media and NGOs an Iran policy makes (in conjunction w/ the long road ahead at the UNSC) needs to get a reality check. Aside from Chalabi clones in LA, many in the real Iranian opposition to the mullahcracy (to use a term in vogue in comme il faut precincts of the Beltway) will not necessarily welcome US cash--unless very subtlely and intelligently disbursed indeed (covertly, really). Can the current team walk through this complex minefield? Who knows, but I'm dubious much good will really come of this 'Riga in the UAE' democracy exportation initiative, frankly.

Meantime, note the Iranians are deviously teeing up their own 15MM, aimed to "probe and defuse" nefarious foreign intervention. Not a bad counter-move, all told, in terms of facilitating propagandistically portraying democracy activists now as US agents. All this should be going on covertly, in the main, and not getting publicized merely so POTUS can point to concrete policies to back up his SOTU rhetoric, or State can claim we have a sophisticated two-track Iran policy or such (radio-led democratization, and sanctions at Turtle Bay!). And if students and workers gets beat up or imprisoned because they can now be more easily framed as collaboraters of the Great Satan? What are we gonna do about it? Airdrop Michael Ledeen into downtown Teheran for a spot of liberationist fun (or perhaps some diaspora Angelenos a la Chalabi/Nasariya Keystone Kops routine)? Or, more likely were this to come to pass, stay on the sidelines as mere witnesses, rather helplessly fuming on about the savagery of the Mullah's and so on from points Washington?

Folks, there is no real Iran policy here. My gut tells me we need to speak to these people, at least at some point, and on some issues (like Zalmay Khalilzad's Iraq track, or cooperation we had with them on Afghanistan earlier). Iran is the rising power in the Middle East, like it or not, not least because of some of the forces we've set off in Iraq. A radio station isn't going to change that, methinks. Or aggressively peddling funds to local NGOs. In fact, it might even hurt. Long-term trends are with us in Iran, I think, given the youthful demographic. But let's at least cobble together a policy that works to make the dynamics better sooner, rather than delay and make even more difficult the road ahead. Worth noting too, of course, we're spending about 1B a week in Iraq these days, yes? How far is this 70MM going to take us in Iran? It's a drop in the bucket really, and not even an intelligently thought through one, I fear.

PS. More detailed analysis of the state of our Iran policy to come in these pages, when time allows.

Posted by Gregory at March 14, 2006 01:28 PM | TrackBack (1)

Comments

Folks, there is no real Iran policy here.

I beg to differ. There is definitely an "Iran" policy here.... one that is simply a repeat of our policy toward Iraq for the last 15 years. The goal is to demonize Iran, isolate it diplomatically and and economically, and at some point in the future overthrow its government and install a US plutocratic puppet regime.

Most americans don't have a clue about Iran, or who Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is and why he was elected. Greg's habit of excepting key information from the Post article certainly doesn't help his audience understand the dynamics at work in Iran either.....

The reality is that Ahmadinejah was elected because he promised economic reforms that that "Khatamei" reformist movement failed to provide, while also appealling to "nationalist" fervor. In many ways, he is the Iranian equivalent of Chavez from Venezuela ---- someone who wants to redistribute the wealth of Iran to its people more equitably who also exploits the antipathy of the Iranian people to outside interference.

The nuclear "crisis" with Iran is more an issue of national pride and autonomy than it is about weapons --- Iranians will support a leader that stands up for the right of Iran to do what every other nation on earth is permitted to do, and Iranians will not allow themselves to be bullied into second class citizenship by the USA.
Iran has the right to the "peaceful" use of nuclear technology, and Bushco's efforts to restrict/deny that right feeds right into the Iranian "hard=liners" position.

In other words, Bush has a policy, and its a stupid one.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 14, 2006 02:46 PM | Permalink to this comment

Airdrop Michael Ledeen into downtown Teheran for a spot of liberationist fun

That might be the most sensible policy suggestion I've ever heard in my life. But can we add some more names for this blitz?

Posted by: sglover at March 14, 2006 03:43 PM | Permalink to this comment

Yes it's easy to dismiss the Solidarity II aspects of this proposal. The Mullahs were not imposed on the country by the Soviets and the reaction to outright funding from the US will be looked on differently. Still, I wish you would take some time before you dismiss the whole concept of providing the opposition forces with, say, internet wireless connections that are hard for the security forces to jam. I too have lost faith in this adminstration to get anything right. That doesn't mean there aren't right things we could be doing.

Posted by: wks at March 14, 2006 04:32 PM | Permalink to this comment

I too have lost faith in this adminstration to get anything right. That doesn't mean there aren't right things we could be doing.

the problem is that this administration has become so discredited in the eyes of most of the rest of the world (including among most Iranians) that anything Bushco does will be seen as a "wrong thing". The Post piece cited by Greg tells the story of one Iranian activist whose wife and daughter and other associates are now being held by the Iranian security services because they attended what was obviously a "CIA sponsored" human rights conference.

.....except it wasn't about human rights --- it was designed to be a "how to" course on overthrowing your government that was put together by an "astroturf" human rights group....

(BTW, how does one get Iranians access to wireless internet without the co-operation of the Iranian government?)

Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 14, 2006 05:57 PM | Permalink to this comment

Well, there is an Iranian posture.

In politics one adopts a posture to show that one is doing something about a problem one's audience is either concerned about or might be. It might be said that President Bush has one posture on Iran to show the American public that he is doing something, and Sec. Rice has another to show President Bush that she is doing something.

A policy, in a situation like this one, would be a different thing. Not all of its maneuvers would be discussed publicly as they were happening; its resolution would not be expected until several years had passed. I don't think much of public alarums over an Iran that will not have a workable atomic bomb for several years under the best of circumstances, nor of talk about regime change when this cannot possibly happen for several years either. But whether because President Bush is determined to show the domestic audience that he is not asleep at the switch in the face of a visible security threat or because Sec. Rice is determined to show her easily rattled boss that she is on top of the Iran situation -- it is probably a combination of the two -- a program of loud talk while carrying around a popsicle stick seems to have been the option chosen.

I hope I'm being unfair. As I say, my ideal Iran policy would include many elements that would not be widely discussed in public, and perhaps the administration is pursuing some of these. My confidence level is not high, but I may just be a naturally pessimistic person.

Posted by: Zathras at March 14, 2006 07:58 PM | Permalink to this comment

Airdrop Michael Ledeen into downtown Teheran for a spot of liberationist fun

My understanding is that the crowd that told us that things would go peachy-keen in Iraq after we overthrew Saddam is the same group that is pushing the idea that we can stir up the Iranian public to overthrow their government and install a US-friendly democracy.

Posted by: Les Brunswick at March 14, 2006 07:58 PM | Permalink to this comment

Les sez: "My understanding is that the crowd that told us that things would go peachy-keen in Iraq after we overthrew Saddam is the same group that is pushing the idea that we can stir up the Iranian public to overthrow their government and install a US-friendly democracy."

heh. you think? the word chutzpah comes to mind, no?

Posted by: greg at March 14, 2006 08:10 PM | Permalink to this comment

So what is your suggested Iran policy? I look forward to hearing a constructive proposal and why it would likely be more successful than the current approach.

"My gut tells me we need to speak to these people, at least at some point" doesn't seem to be a policy.

Posted by: Kevin P. at March 14, 2006 08:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

Lets face reality here. Any attempt at dialogue with Iran is going to have to take place after Jan. 2009.

In a best case scenario it's extremely difficult to get the Iranians to participate in an honest dialogue.

And after 5 years of being labeled "evil" and with the Iranians secure in the knowledge that a US invasion is highly unlikely, it's pretty much impossible.

You'll have that with the whole "transforming the middle east" thing I guess.

Posted by: Davebo at March 14, 2006 08:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

Lets face reality here. Any attempt at dialogue with Iran is going to have to take place after Jan. 2009.

In a best case scenario it's extremely difficult to get the Iranians to participate in an honest dialogue.

And after 5 years of being labeled "evil" and with the Iranians secure in the knowledge that a US invasion is highly unlikely, it's pretty much impossible.

You'll have that with the whole "transforming the middle east" thing I guess.

Posted by: Davebo at March 14, 2006 08:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg:

Your arguments are a little simplistic. Iran has been a force in the Middle-East for at least twenty years. The difference now is that they have come out in the open.

Now the Iranian policies are out in the open it will be harder for the foreign rat bags who support their economy to hide under the "they aren't really doing anything" rubric.

The Iranians will be brought down by their hubris. They do not think they can be touched. They will be surprised.

Posted by: davod at March 15, 2006 12:11 AM | Permalink to this comment

PS:

Greg:

Your comments regarding this being a Bush PR excercise becaause it has been published are also a little silly. I would love for this type of stuff to be kept secret. However, I would suggest to you that very little of what should be secret is ever kept secret. The spooks and diplos who have it in for the administration would let it out in a minute.

Posted by: davod at March 15, 2006 12:14 AM | Permalink to this comment

The spooks and diplos would let it out in a minute, huh?

Who have it in for the administration?

Let's see, the State Department, The CIA, quite a number of now retired generals, the entirety of the press without "Fox" in its name, the Europeans, the UN, the press, Democrats, 'activist' judges, the theory of evolution and all who support it, climate change scientists... chunks of the Justice department...

it's quite the enemies list, isn't it?

have you ever looked at the whole array and wondered if, maybe, something is wrong with this picture?

Or whether the adminstration might not have tried to villify all of them at once?

Posted by: glasnost at March 15, 2006 01:47 AM | Permalink to this comment

What are we going to do about it, greg?

Kind of a naive question, isn't it? We're going to bomb Iran, whether it will actually stop the nuke program or not. You know, because the fate of the Free World hinges on whether a country with a twentieth of our GDP and one one hundredth of our defense budget manages to get a nuclear weapon. We're going to do it because it makes us feel tough. We're going to do it because Powerline wants us to.

The administration knows that Iran can't impose any real consequences without hurting itself just as much, and they're perfectly happy to play chicken on the railroad tracks. Cut off my hand to take your leg, and so on.

It's not just America, either, Greg. This is just what declining empires do. In their stupidest iteration.

Posted by: glasnost at March 15, 2006 01:52 AM | Permalink to this comment

I wish someone could tell me which is right.

Back in the day, Reagan's "Evil Empire" comment was supposed to be horrid and divisive. Later, dissidents like Havel (IIRC) said that it was one of the most heartening things they had ever heard.

We are told by the Left to "engage" people like Hugo Chavez. But if Chavez were a right-leaning ally instead of a left-leaning opponent and still enaged in much the same behavior, would we still be asked to enage him, or instead to repudiate whatever deals we had going?

I read regularly (from sources as varied as Leeden and Nick Kristoff) that Iranians (the younger ones, anyway) love America. On the other hand, were we to actually DO anything to weaken or toss out the mullahs for them, they'd hate our guts. Or so I'm told, not just by near-cranks like Lukasiak, but also by Greg here.

I know there are actual right ways and wrong ways, but too often it seems that all ways are the wrong way, or the right way is right for reasons that simply don't make much sense.

It all sounds very Catch-22, and I confess I'd rather be damned for something I actually did than for sitting on my hands.

Posted by: Jammer at March 15, 2006 02:50 AM | Permalink to this comment

Oh we have an Iranian policy alright and it’s just like our ME policy... it sucks. As I see it, our problem is we do not now, nor have we ever, really understood the mind set of the entire region. We want to make them into something like us and we can not. Not gonna happen...ever.

Iran is going to have the "bomb"...get over it. If you or I were running Iran, we'd want to have a bomb too. We’d want to be a BIG player in the world not just in our region. What's so surprising about that? The problem of course is that we in West don't trust Iran any further than you can throw a fat mullah. We had better figure out how to deal with this other than threatening to or actually blowing them to Kingdom come. That kind of thinking can not be part of the GWOT anymore. Iraq has shown us that there are more problems in the ME than we have answers and money to handle.

Our war is with terrorism and terrorism only. We can only take pre-emptive action so far. My fear is that the blank check we wrote "W" after 9/11 has been altered. It has mutated into something it was not.

Posted by: john at March 15, 2006 03:34 AM | Permalink to this comment

Devising a workable Iran policy is not easy.

1. Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon.
2. Allowing what is probably the world's leading sponsor of terrorism to acquire nukes is a non-starter.
3. Iran is not going to be talked or negotiated out of it.
4. An American invasion of Iran has serious negative consequences.
5. Air strikes would set back the nuclear weapons program, but probably not eliminate it.
6. The preferred solution, that the Iranians themselves overthrow the mullahs, may well prove unworkable.

It's not surprising that after slowly realizing that negotiations are doomed to failure (#2), the Bush administration now seems to be turning to (#6). It would be interesting to hear if anyone on this forum has constructive ideas about how to make it work. For the chances are high that if #6 fails, the administration will be turning to invasion or air strikes, and possibly sooner than we think.

Posted by: GrenfellHunt at March 15, 2006 04:08 AM | Permalink to this comment

GreenfellHunt:

The veneer of democracy leaves normally sane people advocating
a hands off approach to Iran. They are a democracy, we shouldn't get involved in the internal affairs of anothet nation.

It is easy to forget that those in Iran who agitate for change often find themselves in prison or worse. It is easy to forget that Iran has been leading the way in terrorism for many years.

You have to start somewhere. Covert support for opposition groups within Iran is important. Mass communications aimed at Iran from outside the country is also important.

(I recall the recent condemnation from the West in general, and American sources in particular, of Karen Hughes visit to the Middle-east. What did it achieve. At the very least it showed the West that there are those in the Middle-East who believe they do not have a problem. A good thing if you are trying to combat ignorance in the West. And do not for one moment think that those in the Middle-East advocating change did not pick up on the fact that a women bearded the Arabs in their lion's den.)

Combat the negativity portrayed by the Western media and the Iranian government. Mass communications aimed at Iran from outside showing what the West is like and America in particular. Show the good things about America. You don't need balance. Everyone else is providing the bad side.

I do not care whether you call it propoganda. I happen to think that a constant barrage of negativity by the media with no balance is propoganda.

You have to start somewhere and this is as good a place as any to start.

Posted by: davod at March 15, 2006 10:21 AM | Permalink to this comment

GreenfellHunt:

As an aside. The State Dept. and intelligence services have all the appearance of being compromised by people who cannot accept that their role is to provide advice and impliment government policy.

They obfuscate and leak at will because it is their way or the highway. It is difficult to impliment any form of covert action with this sort of dissension.

It is not only the leaks that concern me. It is clear that quite a lot of what is said by those who come out into the light of day turns out to be incorrect information. They are actually running false flag operations against the media. These people succeed in their efforts for a number of reasons: 1) it takes time to verify and rebut what is said; 2) the media attaches no critical enquiry to what is said because the people they would enquire of are the people who are giving them the information.

There are those on this blog who will belittle me for saying this. But deep down you know its true.

Posted by: Davod at March 15, 2006 10:50 AM | Permalink to this comment

Definition of Bush administration irony: Using an authoritarian, undemocratic, hereditary monarchy as the launch pad for a democracy export drive in Iran.

The administration does have a policy of sorts: Khalilzad excepted, under no circumstances whatsoever will we talk directly to Iran, about anything, as it's a slippery slope and we wouldn't want to end up holding hands in a ditch. All in all, it's best to leave the room if there's an Iranian official present.

The policy may change in the second half of 2009, but it's going to be an awfully tough 3 years.

Posted by: dan at March 15, 2006 03:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

Amusing. First, the typical jihad of hand waving smears against the professionals in the US diplo and spy services, by those in favour of partisan free-lancing. Or rather free-lancing for a certain national POV served by the same. Then the self-delusion and ability to penetrate object country. It reminds me of a turn of phrase by Marx.

To this question:
I read regularly (from sources as varied as Leeden and Nick Kristoff) that Iranians (the younger ones, anyway) love America. On the other hand, were we to actually DO anything to weaken or toss out the mullahs for them, they'd hate our guts. Or so I'm told, not just by near-cranks like Lukasiak, but also by Greg here.

I'd suggest one accept a complicated answer.

First, of course, it would appear that some good percentage of urban youth in Iran have positive feelings toward their perception of "free, modern, urban society" - but youth opinion is a moving target - what was true c. 95 is not ipso facto true c. 05. Changing fads, frustrations, etc.

But those liking to pimp interventionist fantasies like to freeze frame the most advantageous reading for themselves - recall the "secular Iraqis"? Quite true imagery c. 80 or even perhaps .91. But society moves, changes under stress.

Second, of course, positive feelings towards the perceived freedoms of a foreign youth culture, and actual political support for that youth culture's home nation invading one's own.... well that is a rather different equation. The rational and reasonable among use need not be told that one can expect a substantial rally-round the flag effect, even for the most hated regimes. How good the regime will be in mobilising militarily is another issue, but dreaming of a substantially positive reception of direct foreign interference is mistaking two very different kinds of social phenonomena - theoretical admiration of a distant and positive youth culture, and approving of foreigin interference in one's own country. Nationalism. (And of course don't forget the urban-rural divide).

In short, Ledeen and his friends are still smoking some cheap crack.

So is the commentator supra pimping the cheap agitprop crack.

Posted by: Collier Lounsbury at March 15, 2006 07:02 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Airdrop Michael Ledeen into downtown Teheran for a spot of liberationist fun"

And all of AEI. Then Heritage, Hoover, Hudson, CEI, CATO (except for a few true, honest libertarians), AFA, Focus on the Family...

It's be fun for us, and productive. Meanwhile the Iranians could get in some good skeet shooting.

Posted by: Barry at March 15, 2006 10:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

Davod: thanks for your posts. GOP presidents have frequently had difficulty with State given the large number of Democrats throughout the Department. Do you have more specific suggestions as to how to make a regime change policy work?

Dan/Collier/Barry: I'd be interested in hearing what parts of my analysis above you disagree with. a) Do you think that either the US or the world could or should accept a nuclear Iran? b) If not, do you have a policy that will keep them from going nuclear? I don't see such a policy in your posts.

Cordially,

Posted by: GrenfellHunt at March 15, 2006 11:10 PM | Permalink to this comment

A nuclear-armed Iran is not a desirable thing, but it's not something unacceptable. Much less is a nuclear-powered Iran. We're living with nuclear Pakistan, Israel, India, soon North Korea and possibly Brazil.

The proliferation genie is out of the bottle.

What makes sense is a global effort to fulfil the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and to sign on those countries with nuclear weapons who are not signatories (India, Israel, etc.). This process must start with the world's biggest nuclear power living up to its obligations under the treaty. Such a policy is only imaginable after January 2009. The first step would be to reverse this administration's first-strike nuclear posture.

The blowhard talk about Iran now is primarily designed to be used as a political club against Democrats: either they accept the Bush terms of debate, in which case intervention is easier, or they don't, and the shrieking about 'soft on security' ramps up. Half the national candidates for 2008 have bought in already.

Posted by: Nell at March 16, 2006 04:32 PM | Permalink to this comment

The proliferation genie is out of the bottle.

Posted by: Nell at March 16, 2006 04:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

apologies; connection cut out while comment was posting. Hillbilly dialup...

Posted by: Nell at March 16, 2006 04:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

"2. Allowing what is probably the world's leading sponsor of terrorism to acquire nukes is a non-starter."

Actually, the leading sponsor of terrorism is probably Pakistan, if you consider Kashmir, but that wouldn't help Bush launch another fantasy war.

In any case, I'm not sure why you think Iran would act any less rationally than any other nuclear nation.

If they were inclined to give nukes to terrorists, they would also be even more inclined to give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists, which doesn't appear to have happened.

They are unlikely to use nukes themselves, because they know they'd be incinerated if they did so. To whatever extent they've supported terrorism, regardless of their religious fundamentalism, Iran hasn't exactly put much of their own skin on the line in the past in terrorist acts.

If Iran got the bomb, I expect our lives would be affected very little.

Posted by: Jon H at March 17, 2006 02:27 AM | Permalink to this comment

thoughts

1. If I was a dissident inside Iran, and I WANTED this kind of support from the US, I wouldnt say so. Certainly not on the record. Id want to distance myself publicly from it even if I DID like it.

2. The dissidents are not saying it will make a revolution less likely. They are saying it will make small improvements harder. Why should this concern us exactly, from the POV of our national interests? What to do small improvements in the "petty apartheid" of Iranian life do for us?

3. Engaging the Iranians wont solve the nuke problem (which may not take years to come to fruition, depending on whom you listen to) unless Iran gets a security guarantee. Can we and should we give them such a guarantee while they are supporting terrorism against our allies in the region?

4. For all the rhetoric about how its evil neocon hawks who support this initiative, this is actually a moderate initiative. Its an alternative to war, and an attempt to solve the problem without war. The UNSC maneuverings are an attempt to enlist multilateral diplomacy, including, god save the mark, France and Germany. I think this is a very positive direction for American foreign policy, and is a departure from Rumsfeldism.

Posted by: liberalhawk at March 17, 2006 04:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

BTW Greg, since you seem to follow the WaPo closely, did you read their editorial of almost two weeks ago defending the democratization approach to foreign policy?

Posted by: liberalhawk at March 17, 2006 04:37 PM | Permalink to this comment

Well Nell,

What if the current Iranian nutjob like a certain Austrian corporal actually believes in the program he espouses and intendst to impliment it?

Sounds like a nuke war in the oilfields to me.

I don't think it is a good idea.

Better a small war in in 1936 rather than a conflagration in 1939-45.

It will neither be cheap nor pretty. The only grace in all this is that if we wait it will be worse.

Posted by: M. Simon at March 19, 2006 08:46 AM | Permalink to this comment