Last Sunday Iranian President Rouhani suggested that the Iran would be open to a prisoner exchange with the US (warning: autoplay of CNN’s interview at the link). President Rouhani’s suggestion was not quite straightforward. He stated that should the US release Iranians in US custody (Iranian prisoners), then Iran would consider releasing the three Americans currently being held in Iran. President Rouhani’s statement is interesting because shortly after the conclusion of the P5+1 negotiations, Supreme Religious Authority Ayatullah Khameini stated there would be no further diplomacy/no opening to the US and the West.
There appear to be two dynamics at work here. The first is that Ayatullah Khameini is playing bad cop and President Rouhani is playing good cop. Not only does this make sense as an external diplomatic posture, but it has the advantage of Ayatullah Khameini publicly saying what needs to be said to keep the hardliners in line. Given the way that Iran is structured, with all the real power going on behind the opaque facade of representative government in the presidency and majlis (parliament), all the real power and authority is with Ayatullah Khameini and not with President Rouhani. The bottom line is that President Rouhani would not make the overture, no matter how nuanced, without some measure of support from the Supreme Religious Authority.
The second dynamic, which is the real follow on, second order effect is that Iranian leadership is signaling that it is interested, even if its in a limited way, for follow on diplomatic efforts. One of the more under remarked on realities in regards to Iran is that it really wants out of its pariah status and the ability to exist within the global system just like every other nation-state. This desire stems from several sources. Not least of which is national pride. The desire to get out from under the debilitating sanctions regime helped to get Iran to the table for the P5+1 negotiations. The related desire to be accepted back into the community of nations will continue to drive the Iranian government to seek opportunities for engagement.
The real question is will US leadership, both current and future, recognize the opportunities that they are being presented with and seize them. Or, as was the case during the Bush 43 Administration, rebuff them out of hand due to ideological intransigence and mind numbingly, moronically stupid historical analogies.* The fastest way to get Iran to change is to actually bring it in from the cold. The ability for social, cultural, professional, scientific, and economic exchanges to transform not just the US-Iranian relationship, but also Iranian expectations of their own government and society has a lot of potential. And this is true at both the state to state and individual to individual level. Failure to recognize the challenge that the US has been presented with and the potential to turn it into a series of opportunities would be strategic malpractice. Of course we have seen that movie before in Anbar in 2004 and 2005 with the Anbar tribes, as well as in 2003 and 2005-2006 with Iranian diplomatic overtures through both the Swiss diplomatic cut out and Major General Suleimani in Afghanistan.
* As was the case with the initial offers from the Anbari sheikhs, the deep thinkers of the Bush 43 Administration believed that the Iraqi sheikhs were NAZIs as are the Iranians. And, of course, everything is always Munich in even though Munich in 1939 1938 was a decent deal because it bought the British time to rearm and rebuild their military, as well as prepare itself for interstate war.
redshirt
I’m fairly certain based on anecdotal evidence that the Iranian and American people could be great allies; it’s the leadership of both peoples that prevents it.
Viva BrisVegas
The British may think so, the Czechs may disagree.
An argument could be made that Czechoslovakia had one of the best equipped and trained armies in Europe which acted as as deterrent to German aggression. All of which was destroyed by Munich.
Could Hitler have invaded Poland with the Czech army on his southern flank?
Which is not to say that Munich was Munich and nothing since has even been close to it.
jibeaux
Khomeini? What year is it?
I am beginning to give up hope of ever following foreign policy with any real understanding. I am just gonna be the Herman Cain of this blog.
Omnes Omnibus
First, the Munich agreement was not in 1939. Second, why do you wonder whether the current admin will recognize its opportunities wrt Iran? It’s seems to me that they have been doing a damned good job of it so far.
Amir Khalid
Second linky bad. You fix?
Peale
@redshirt: and pretty much every other leadership of our nominal friends has an interest in keeping the status quo.
redshirt
@Peale:
Nominal allies like the Sauds and Israelis? Sure.
But what about the English, for example, the real cause for this mess? Do they still try and exacerbate tensions between Iran and the West? I don’t know.
Peale
Since this is an Foreign Policy thread…why are Russian bombing runs supposed to be more effective than air strikes from other countries? Are the more decisive?
Adam L Silverman
@Viva BrisVegas: Good point. I was, as you noticed, referring to this from the point of view of Britain and Chamberlain.
redshirt
@Peale: Just a guess, but maybe they’re launched from Syrian airspace with Syrian military support, whereas I think the US and the rest are operating from the wildlands of Western Iraq/Eastern Syria.
Just a guess though.
benw
Yes, the US should engage Iran diplomatically. If a Democrat is prez in ’16 that will probably continue, if Republican probably not.
? Martin
@Peale: Russians are bombing our allies. al-Assad has been helping ISIS defeat the US-supported opposition, figuring that the closer the country gets to al-Assad and ISIS alone, the more likely the west will be forced to support al-Assad if only to defeat ISIS. Russia supporting al-Assad is now helping this effort. It’s a shitshow.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: sorry, chronological error on my part. I do know better.
Adam L Silverman
@Amir Khalid: try it now. Somehow I got an x in front of the http. My guess is I caught the x key when I did the command c to paste the link.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: I thought that was it, but pedants gotta pedant.
catclub
@? Martin: Kevin drum makes sense when he says staying out is wiser than getting in deeper – as Putin is doing. Naturally US right wing has to say Putin is running rings around Obama.
Adam L Silverman
@Peale: they won’t be any more or less effective. There’s only so much that can be done with Air power. Given the fact that they’re doing this explicitly on behalf of the Assad government, and it will therefore be coordinated with the Syrian Army’s Landpower (and yes, this one, doctrinally is one word – no, don’t ask), it may be more effective than just striking as over the horizon whack a mole.
? Martin
I think the dynamic that isn’t getting much coverage is that this Iran deal may allow the US to reduce support for Saudi Arabia in favor of support for Iran. ISIS and al Qaeda are both enemies of Iran and somewhat allies of Saudi Arabia. Also, Hamas appears to be shifting their support from Iran to Saudi Arabia.
Contrary to what the GOP would have everyone believe, there’s a lot more money supporting terrorists flowing out of Saudi Arabia than out of Iran. Everyone remember where the 9/11 bombers were largely from? Keeping both Iran and Saudi Arabia engaged but on their toes would not be a bad outcome for the US. Would be a good outcome for Israel as well.
srv
@Omnes Omnibus: Truthy enough, calendar nazi.
@jibeaux: Khomeini / Khameini, no matter, you’ll be dealing with one of these guys soon enough:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.646072
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: all fixed with a strikethrough.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: no worries, it was a good catch.
srv
@? Martin: Our ‘allies’ are jihadis. Good riddance.
Barrel Bomber Bashar is the only real game in town. Would that we could dig up Saddam.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I sorta-kinda-almost admire the way even the dimmest of RW mouthpieces, like the Fox Morning Zoo Crew, has been trained to remember to say “state sponsor of terrorism” wrt Iran
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: Not all fixed. There is my second issue about implied doubts as to this admin’s ability to pick up the ball and run with it. Just me over-interpreting?
? Martin
@catclub: There’s no good outcome there. None. Syria will be completely destroyed and ungovernable until al-Assad is out of the picture and ISIS defeated. It will require a lot more involvement than we or Russia (or possibly the rest of the world) are willing to provide.
Adam L Silverman
@catclub: It depends what one is trying to do. The problem here is that no one can actually articulate an alternative to the Assad government. The only thing the various non ISIS rebel groups and opposition movements agree on is that Assad should go. The only thing that we and are allies seem to agree on is Assad should go. What no one can actually tell anyone, because nobody actually knows, is what happens once Assad goes. What does the new government look like? Who will be the winners and who the losers in the new Syrian state and society?
Additionally, I have seen too few of the people arguing that the US should remove/push to remove Assad recognize the reality that 1) the Assad government is not just made up of and supported by Alawites, but also Syrian Sunnis, Druze, and Christians and 2) that the Syrian Sunni majority is, itself overall, one of the most conservative/traditional (in the adherent sense) Sunni demographics in the Middle East. They’re not doctrinally Muwahiddun (Wahhabi doctrine) or Hanbali madhab (Hanbal’s severe and rigid school of Islamic jurisprudence), but they’re very traditional and conservative in their understanding of their religion, its theology/doctrine, and its application and practice.
So replacing the Assad government with a Sunni majority/dominated government is going to be a major change in the Levant. Regardless of what is done there will eventually be a new normal. The real questions are what is the best way to get to that new normal and is their one of those potential new normals that is not only good for the Syrians themselves, but also doesn’t make the region more of a mess?
These are the questions/concerns that should be driving strategic analysis and development.
? Martin
@srv:
The entire country is not comprised of jihadis.
srv
@Omnes Omnibus: Doubts about supporting Iranian supported Hezbollah + IRG + Syrian Army + Russia against Saudi and Turkish supported jihadis in a war over the Levant? How many jihadis and Alawites can you fit on the head of pin?
Me, I got no doubts – I can see the freedom unicorns.
Omnes Omnibus
@srv: Stick to being the blog archivist, you are good at it.
srv
@? Martin: Tell us, Mr. Expert, tell us all the names of the non-jihadi Generals, Captains and Majors fighting for our allied freedom army?
That shouldn’t be hard to do – don’t you have Gramps McCain on speed dial?
srv
@Omnes Omnibus: And as always, you’re only good at punting.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: I fixed the date. I can’t fix how you engage with what I’ve written. I think the Obama Administration is trying to play for time as sometimes doing not much is actually better than doing a lot right away.
So the current Administration is simply trying to keep all of their plates spinning. Whether its dealing with Syria or Iran or Iraq or anywhere else. They can’t get authorizations to use military force, even when the Congressional GOP majorities state they want one so we can do more. They can’t engage in diplomacy without being immediately undermined by the opposition. And we can’t actually budget anything properly. Finally, we’re now into the silly season of the 2016 presidential election. This is no way to run a super power.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman:
I agree. And I was just looking for a little explication. You provided it. Thank you.
Peale
@catclub: I’m not really upset if we pull the plug on whomever we’re supporting. My guess is that Syrians Landpower + Russian Airpower will be about as effective as whatever US Airpower + Iraqi Landpower has been on the other side of the border.
Omnes Omnibus
@srv: In my rugby career, I’ve been known to block punts. Also, I was good at up and unders, grubbers, and pop kicks. I was not good at drop kicks to my chagrin.
srv
@Adam L Silverman: Decent Interval. It’s Hillary’s or Trump’s problem.
Cheney was effectively an Ayatollah. Obama is just apparently Straussian.
The Pale Scot
My understanding of the situation in Munich is that;
The German’s had a small nucleus of the mechanized troops that were capable of Blitzkrieg arrayed on the Czech border, which was a mountainous region that was not suitable to fast mechanized movement.
The Czech army was well equipped and trained to fight on their borders, and at the the time the Czechoslovakia armaments industry was large and modern.
The German-French border was guarded by second echelon troops, the French Army had superior artillery, tanks and outnumbered the German forces on the border, and their rear would have been protected by the Maginot Line ( lots of artillery)
The Germans had a superior air force, but it wasn’t as well organized or trained as it would be 1939-40. While the small cadre of pilots that were sent to the Spanish Civil War had invaluable experience the Luftwaffe was still gelling, many of it’s aircraft were first production models that didn’t have the performance the newer models would have.
If the French had invaded Germany in 1938, the Nazis wouldn’t have been able to stop them. I think Hitler even admitted as much.
But the French, like the rest of Europe, still remembered WW1, and avoided the decision to mobilize for as long as possible, it took a creepily charismatic bullshit artist to whip Germany into war fever.
With the Saud family is spending billions on the promotion of Wahhabism to placate their religious nuts and stay in power, I think Iran is our natural ally in the region. From what I’ve read the Shiites aren’t determined to convert the world by sword, they just want the Sunnis to leave them the fuck alone.
That’s my two cents anyway.
Adam L Silverman
@srv: If you’re talking Leo Strauss, then you have no idea what you’re talking about. President Obama may be many things, but a Straussian or a neoCon (neo-Straussian) is definitely not one of them.
The Pale Scot
Syria is screwed no matter what happens, the rain patterns are changing and they have already drained their ground water. That’s how this started, destitute farmers leaving their patches of dust for the city. Those people pouring into Europe are the first wave of climate refugees, and it’s not going to stop. Especially when those in power keep insisting that the world can adapt to the new climate.
People don’t adapt, they modify their environment to survive, if they can’t do that they leave.
Adam L Silverman
@The Pale Scot: I think some of this makes sense and some not so much. I think you’re definitely correct that in 1938 the NAZI war machine and the German military weren’t what they would ultimately become. At the same time, however, we actually know the Maginot Line was not an effective fortification. The Germans eventually just maneuvered around the gap between the two ends and straight into France. And that’s not even accounting for the French sympathizers of the NAZIs who would ultimately become the Vichy Regime and its supporters.
Similar support for Hitler and the NAZIs was leveraged here in the US to effectively delay American entry into WW II. During the interwar period the US was heavily isolationist, there had already been an attempt at a quiet, fascist coup against FDR that was only stopped because the retired Marine general (Smedley Darlington Butler) that was approached to lead it took his oath seriously and as soon as he had all the details, he went straight to Congress, the Administration, and the press. It was only once Pearl Harbor was attacked that American attitudes shifted enough that FDR had the political room and support to bring the US into the war.
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: srv is a troll and is probably trolling.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: I’m aware. Some things still need to be explicitly pointed out.
redshirt
Cool.
I wonder if an Iranian-Indian axis could be developed. They have many ancient connections, and no real animosity. India should definitely be brought deeper into the American sphere for a multitude of reasons but coaxing Iran into an alliance might be one of the most subtle of them.
trollhattan
@The Pale Scot:
Am glad you wrote this, as I’ve been thinking the last couple of months that if we’d like to see a preview of climate-triggered diaspora, Europe 2015 will do just fine, thanks. Now imagine Bangladesh and Pakistan decamping.
Did not know about Syria’s water situation, but we have the San Joaquin Valley….
Ian
Sounds great for the people who lived in the region.
Arrieve
I spent two weeks in Iran in April, and at least from the limited sample of the people, mostly in the large cities, that I was able to talk to, Adam is dead-on about Iran wanting to lose the pariah status. The sanctions really hurt ordinary people; unemployment and inflation were both high, but it was interesting how many people mentioned the “axis of evil” speech. It’s obvious that it still stings, all these years later. They want to engage with the West — they are incredibly friendly and welcoming to Americans — but they also have a very strong national identity and national pride. They’ve been a country for 2500 years, after all.
Sherparick
@Viva BrisVegas: The problem with this argument is that 1) Germany had a whole year also accelerate its rearmament and did so 2) Germany would have had to fight a two front war against Czechoslovakia posing a much more tougher military problem for a Wehrmacht not really ready for war fighting in woods and mountains that surround Bohemia while holding France and Britain at arms length (now admittedly, given France’s General Staff wanted to avoid offensive action,that might not have helped); but the biggest factor was 3) Czechoslovakia had good relations with Stalin and Russia and he would have intervened on the Czechs side. Instead, Munich told Stalin that it might be best to see if he could work out his own deal with Hitler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
In fact, there is strong evidence that the German General Staff might have conducted a coup against Hitler if the British and French had held firm in their support of the Czechs to avoid a war they thought would be disastrous. http://valkyrie-plot.com/1938.html
tones
@Omnes Omnibus:
It is always the drop kick to the chagrin that does it.ouch.