The West has a long and very complicated relationship with Iran. After overthrowing the only truly democratic government Iran ever had in 1953, the United States provided arms to its military and training to its vicious secret police, SAVAK. That aid came long before the U.S was giving military assistance of any kind to Israel. Iran under the Shah was America's "policeman" in the Middle East; one of the "twin pillars" of U.S policy, the other pillar being Saudi Arabia.Then, in 1979, it wasn't. The Shah's government was deposed in popular revolution and replaced with an Islamic theocracy. Although relations with the United States were severed during the resulting hostage crisis, the complicated relationship continued.
With American encouragement and financial support, Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded Iran (Interesting side note: although Iraq had no diplomatic relations with the United States at the time, Saddam was named an honorary citizen of Detroit in 1980). However, the Reagan administration was also selling heavy weaponry to the Tehran mullahs; partly in a naive attempt to secure the release of American hostages in Lebanon, partly in an insane ploy to give political support to imaginary "moderates" in the Iranian parliament, and partly as a cynical attempt to keep a war that ultimately killed a million people going as long as possible.
Throughout the entire period, most European countries were enjoying robust trade with Tehran, including some military sales. In one of life's great ironies, Dick Cheney - then the CEO of Halliburton - argued for the lifting of U.S sanctions against Iran. Amazingly enough, none of Halliburton's foreign subsidiaries were ever sanctioned by the United States under the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act or Executive Order 12957. After 9/11, American officials met with the Iranians to discuss military operations and the political rebuilding of Afghanistan.
However, the Western position that Iran is a major sponsor of international terrorism has rightly remained unchanged and sanctions have increased steadily over the years. In 2007, the United States designated Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, the first time that I'm aware of that such a label has been put upon a military unit.
The terrorism and nuclear-related sanctions against Iran have proven to be a windfall for the Revolutionary Guards, which controls not only several legitimate businesses, but also monopolizes Iran's black market and smuggling operations. The smuggling alone is estimated to be worth approximately $12 billion a year. With that, the political power of the IRGC has increased exponentially, to the point where some observers -including Secretary of State Clinton - now believe that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship.
It was reported yesterday that the Canadian government of Stephen Harper considered listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
Of course, that misses the point entirely. The IRGC, or Quds Force, is not a stand-alone organization. It formally (if only for the moment) is answerable to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. No one has suggested that the government of Iran be designated as a terrorist organization. Firstly, it is a member of the United Nations. Secondly, the Chinese, Russians and most other government ignore it, making the designation essentially worthless. Fourth, and most importantly, the terrorist designation would make it impossible for the United States to negotiate with Iran.
Ultimately, that's the problem. The rhetoric of the War on Terror has destroyed the meaning of such designations. If the Quds Force is a terrorist organization, so is the Iranian government, but no government is willing to so far as to say that. Moreover, it doesn't accomplish anything, except rhetorically. Even if you could get most nations to observe sanctions against the IRGC, it would ultimately shutter its legitimate businesses and concentrate on organized crime, such as smuggling to evade the larger sanctions regime. A more frightening possibility is that it could establish an A.Q Khan-style nuclear weapons business.
Increasingly, there is an American double-standard in regards to what constitutes a terrorist organization. U.S Special Forces are thought to be supporting the anti-Tehran MEK, which even Washington lists as a terrorist group and enjoyed a healthy relationship with Saddam Hussein. One of the items that received little attention in the massive WikiLeaks document dump last week was American support for the PKK, which is also a designated terrorist group. One has to question how serious a War on Terrorism is when the leading power prosecuting it is using terrorist groups to support its other foreign policy aims.
Even absent international pressure, the days of the Tehran theocracy are numbered. Demographics virtually ensures that. The mullahs are rapidly aging and a majority of the Iranian population isn't old enough to remember life before the Revolution. But they do know that they are deeply unhappy with what the Revolution has made their lives.
The only real question is what replaces the Revolution. Most westerners think it would be a democracy, which I disagree with. The Revolutionary Guards are uniquely positioned to take over if the theocracy crumbles. They are situated throughout the government, the military and the larger economy of Iran in such a way that they could very easily assume power and restore order.
I'm also not sure that there would be a significant difference between a democracy and a military junta in a foreign policy sense. In either event, the nuclear program would continue. Tehran's desire to have a nuclear deterrent has little to do with religious doctrine, but everything to do with Tehran's geopolitical situation. Israel is thought to have about 200 ballistic missiles, and Pakistan has roughly 100. The traditional Shia-Sunni and Arab-Persian rivalries also play a significant part in Iran's strategic considerations. There would also remain the small matter of the 200,000 American troops stationed on two of its borders. Iran is surrounded by historically hostile neighbors and will seek to deter them, irrespective of who governs the country.
No one actually knows if a democratic Iran's attitudes towards Israel would be any different than they are now. Yes, Tehran was a close ally of Jerusalem under the Shah, but that, too, was a dictatorship not known to consider popular opinion in executing foreign policy. Democratic Iraq has yet to establish relations with Israel, and Turkey's relationship with the Jewish state is rapidly falling apart. It is entirely possible that a democratic government in Tehran would continue the relationship with Hamas and Hezbollah.
One thing that can said about military dictatorships is that they tend to be very conservative outside of their borders. Concerned as they are with maintaining their own survival, they aren't as inclined to engage in foreign adventurism as ideological single-party states or theocracies are. It's possible, although far from certain, that a IRGC government could actually pull back on its support for Hezbollah, in particular. given the provocation that said supports engenders in Israel.
Of course, I'm not advocating a Quds government in Tehran, nor am I necessarily saying that the IRGC shouldn't be designated as a terrorist organization and appropriately sanctioned. But there's a profound lack of thinking in what Tehran is going to look like after the fall of the mullahs. It would be folly to assume that the Revolutionary Guards would just vanish with the theocracy. In fact, it's much more likely that they're going to be major players in the days after the end of the Revolution. We would all be well-advised to consider that when deciding on policy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment