Kevin Sullivan

Diplomats in Iran?

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

If true, this is very, very encouraging:

The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.

The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.

The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way.

The White House announced yesterday that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran’s response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff.

Burns is to sit at the table with Iranian officials despite Bush repeatedly ruling out direct talks on the nuclear issue until Iran suspends its uranium enrichment programme, which is a possible first step on the way to a nuclear weapon capability.

A frequent complaint of the Iranians is that they want to deal directly with the Americans instead of its surrogates, Britain, France and Germany.

Bush has taken a hard line with Iran throughout the last seven years but, in the dying days of his administration, it is believed he is keen to have a positive legacy that he can point to.

The tone of this article is rather interesting, as the author’s obvious primary concern is to highlight how this is a result of a dramatic change of heart in Washington rather than Tehran.  But the Iranians are the ones who must first agree to the European offer, which likely has some kind of a uranium moratorium as a precondition to direct discussions with the United States.  Now, we’ve been this close in the past, only to see negotiations and prospects fall to pieces.  But one must understand just how powerful and excessively mystical the Iranian leadership believes the CIA to be in order to truly appreciate how monumental this could be: The first “official” diplomatic presence since the hostage crisis.

We’ll need to wait and see what happens, but if President Bush can accomplish this, than he will have quelled his critics on the matter.  Presidents Clinton, Bush, even Reagan, weren’t capable of such a feat.  All took a much more standoffish and “cold” tact with the Iranians, often with few results, if any at all.  Bush 41 and Clinton had hoped to improve relations, but both relied on limited and poorly proportioned responses to the harmful, anti-American activities of the Iranians during the 1990’s.  President Clinton wanted to bomb the Iranians once he had enough evidence linking them to the Khobar Towers incident.  He ultimately did not, hoping that the reformist Khatami government would change Iran internally, making them more favorable to Western interests.

That obviously didn’t happen, and waiting for such reforms to happen has never been a good policy on our part.  If successful, President Bush will have achieved something none of the post-revolution presidents could do.  There could be other factors at work here–a presidential election in 2009, economic hardships, etc.  One has to believe the ability to come closer to the Europeans on a sanctions plan played a role in it, not to mention a little sabre rattling by us and the Israelis. 

And Iran aside, if Bush’s efforts to curb the Iranian nuclear program work, he will have thus neutralized, potentially, all three of the “axis” nations highlighted in his 2002 SOTU address.  For the Guardian to paint this as an American sea change really belittles just how big a step this could be in American-Iranian relations.

UPDATE

Glenn Kessler breaks down the details of the thawing in today’s WaPo:

U.S. officials said they felt comfortable making this shift because there are increasing signs that sanctions are beginning to harm Tehran, such as the decision last week by France energy giant Total SA to abandon plans to develop a liquefied natural gas project in Iran.

At the same time, however, the administration has sufficiently moderated its own position on how to proceed with talks.

In 2006, the initial package of incentives offered by the six countries included only a vague reference to Iran’s security concerns because the Bush administration insisted that section of the offer be largely gutted. The new package, by contrast, offers to negotiate extensive security commitments, including supporting Iran in “playing an important and constructive role in international affairs.”

The administration has also supported Solana’s concept of a “freeze for a freeze,” a six-week interim period for preliminary talks that blurs the lines between suspension and discussion. Under Solana’s plan, talks could begin as long as the allies halt efforts to increase sanctions and Iran does not expand its nuclear program. Then formal negotiations would begin as soon as Iran suspended enrichment.

Thus, Iran could say it only suspended its program in the midst of talks, while the United States could say talks did not begin until nuclear activities were suspended — allowing both sides to save face.

And our expected concession–halting the pursuit of further sanctions–is really a cupcake.  Sanctions aren’t easy to reach agreement on, as we’ve witnessed over the past few months.  But if this grants the Iranians a face-saving mechanism, well, so be it. 

More as it comes.  Check out memeorandum for other thoughts on the matter. 

Cubbyhole Foreign Policy

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

Ezra Klein on Barack Obama’s foreign policy vision:

The Egyptian Brotherhood isn’t a terrorist group. al Qaeda, a Sunni terrorist group, hates Iran and is rivals with Hezbollah, a Shi’ite extremist sect. This statement, in other words, made no sense. It was a war against Arabs, and maybe some Persians. not a limited conflict against al Qaeda. As Obama says, one of the clear distinctions between the Left’s approach to terrorism and the Right’s approach to terrorism is that the Left wants to limit the scope of the conflict, while the Right wants to expand it. So though it was only al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11, Romney and Giuliani and McCain and plenty of their colleagues want to zoom out from al Qaeda to terrorism, and from terrorism to Islamic extremism. Rather than this being an effort to hunt down al Qaeda, it becomes a war to hunt down al Qaeda, destroy Hezbollah, eradicate Hamas, overthrow Saddam Hussein, change the regime in Tehran, crush the Muslim Brotherhood, and confront Syria, and whatever else Bill Kristol thought of while eating his Cheerios that week. It is an incredibly dangerous and incoherent approach. And it marks a genuine difference between Obama and McCain.

There’s a lot to appreciate in Senator Obama’s approach to the War on Terrorism.  He clearly understands that there are multiple threats–often operating in a very gray area of complicit networks–that need to be handled respectively.  Understanding the ideological, ethnic and religious distinctions between these organizations and states is indeed important, and it will help us to better leverage one against the other.  Understanding their petty differences and gripes could aid our efforts to target them in certain regions and isolate their access to weapons and resources.  It’s good policy. 

What Klein fails to appreciate is just how nuanced and interwoven these networks really are.  The idea that Sunni and Shia terrorists–in addition to their state sponsors–fit into these distinct cubbyholes reveals a serious misunderstanding of how these groups work.  The examples are countless, but Iran has a long record of bi-faithful terror support.  Hamas and PIJ are Sunni organizations, both of which were direct spin-offs from the Muslim Brotherhood.  Iran has not only dumped millions of dollars into these groups, but they have provided tactical support and training to them through their own asymmetric surrogate–Shia Hezbollah.  According to the Egyptians, the Islamic republic provided weapons to the Al Qaeda-linked Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya; a group dedicated to undermining and terrorizing the pro-Western government in Cairo.  These activities were allegedly coordinated by Iran and Sudan, a Sunni Arab regime with presumably few incentives to work with Shia Iran.  When the 9/11 Commission delved into the pre-attack activities of Al Qaeda, they found that Tehran was likely closer to the terrorist organization than initially believed.   

Etc.

Here’s my point: Terrorist organizations are complex and dynamic.  They share associations, overlapping memberships and often rely on the same sugar daddies.   But more importantly, they all stand on the shoulders of the groups that came before them.  They’re all bound by a sense that America’s global reach has a very visible apex, and if you press the West and expose its democratic vulnerabilities to casualties (Khomeini himself drew upon the lessons of Vietnam and how it could apply to America in the Middle East) you can repel them from Holy Land.  This is the war, and it transcends the simplistic dichotomies often highlighted between Shias and Sunnis; Persians and Arabs.  The Israelis understood this long before we got the message here in the U.S., because they have seen the ugly face of terror in all its pluralistic fervor.  Shrapnel, rockets and bombs don’t have a sect.  Sunnis and Shias alike have terrorized the Jewish state for decades.  Members of the American Left have the luxury of narrowing the “scope” of this conflict, because to them, the conflict is not existential.  One criminal and rouge group attacked America on September 11, 2001, and once we go get those bad guys in Afghanistan we can move on to more pressing concerns.

This is a terribly shortsighted way to look at terrorism.  If Neoconservatives broaden the conflict to the point of absurdity, Leftists in turn do their very best to whittle it into irrelevance.  Neither approach makes much sense.

Some exit thoughts: As I mentioned above, there are without question important distinctions to be made between terrorist organizations and their enablers.  However, would asymmetric warfare against the West be as popular a tactic around the globe today had Hezbollah and Iran not enjoyed their own triumphs in Lebanon?  Would Al Qaeda have pursued the “shell-state” model in Iraq had Yasser Arafat’s PLO not mastered the practice in Jordan and Lebanon? 

The Ramifications of Mahmoud

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

Generally, I don’t consider there to be a great deal of difference between the Iranian hardliners and “pragmatic” technocrats.  I find the latter to be more adept at compromise and diplomatic relations, while still dangerously aligned with the revolutionary ideology of the regime.  There are, however, substantive differences in style, and Uskowi nails it on what Ahmadinejad has cost the Iranians:

Since the victory of Islamic revolution in Iran, Syria has consistently been Tehran’s closest ally. All that began to change when Ahmadinejad came to power three years ago. His policies and rhetoric have isolated Iran to an extent not seen in the thirty years of the Islamic Republic. Syria, the closest ally, is probably no more.

This is the most damaging consequence of Ahmadinejad’s presidency for Iranian foreign policy so far, and it could well be the beginning of worst days to come; notably the possibility of a military attack on the country.

Bobby Murcer (1946-2008)

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

Sad news.

Lilypads

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

We’ll all be living on them someday.

Traffic in Tehran

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

Hilarious:

(h/t Justin)

Israeli Settlements and the Law

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

You should read Gershom Gorenberg’s latest column in the American Prospect.

Read it.

The Distance

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

New Digs

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

Welcome to KevinSullivan.info!

While I won’t be blogging with the same intensity here as I did at Independent Liberal, I hope that you check in with this blog regularly to read out my latest rants, musings and tirades.

Enjoy!

If John McCain Wins, This Baby Will Die

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Blog posts

Chuck Todd rightfully pans the latest ransom video from MoveOn.org:

Of course, Matt Stoller is outraged.  Baseless, emotional appeals such as this one make perfect sense to folks like him (appeals to America’s national security populism are pretty common from both sides).  Let’s ignore the fact that the kid appears to be no older than 12 months; placing his service eligibility somewhere around 2026.  Barring some kind of constitutional amendment (and a few advances in medicine), I don’t think John McCain would be in any position at that time to “have” this woman’s baby, even if he wanted adorable and vulnerable little Alex.  There are a few other reasonable interjections–such as the absence of a draft, America’s volunteer military, etc.–but I think the unlikelihood of a McCain dictatorship in 2026 should suffice.  The ad is simply stupid, and it treats Americans like idiots.

But remember, the activists and careerists like it that way.  Policy is incidental to them.  For them, it’s about mobilizing voters and scaring the crap out of them enough so that they not dare vote Republican ever, ever again.  Reminds me of a certain presidential “brain”/FNC contributor I know of. 

John McCain is the wrong man for president in 2008.  Democrats shouldn’t have to run like jackasses to prove it, and they certainly don’t need fringe groups like MoveOn screwing it up.

More at memeorandum