How hubris undermined the Iran nuclear deal
Posted
US senators' open letter to the Iranian leadership over nuclear negotiations reveals breathtaking hubris and reminds us that not all dangerous ideologues reside in the Middle East, writes Rodger Shanahan.
The problem with ideologues is that while they are ready to criticise others for their rigidly held viewpoints, they are rarely ready to recognise that they are equally rigid and intolerant.
Nowhere is that on better display than in the recent controversy surrounding the nuclear negotiations with Iran.
It must have been a long time since a deliberately provocative, and downright rude, open letter to the Iranian Supreme Leader was penned, and even longer since such a letter was supported with the signatures of 47 US senators.
Now I understand that junior senators like senator Tom Cotton want to make a political name for themselves, have always had president Barack Obama in their sights, and see issues such as this as a way to do it. But if 50 members of the Iranian Majlis had sent a similarly worded letter to the US president, what do you think the reaction of the US public, let alone the conservative faction in American politics, would have been?
What the letter did reveal though, is the sort of hubris that only committed ideologues can demonstrate. The sort of hubris that precipitated the White House's 2003 decision to invade Iraq as a precursor to a "flowering of democracy" among countries and cultures and within a region that few (if any) of the key decision-makers had any idea about. The sort of hubris that also depicts the nuclear negotiations as a bilateral negotiation between Washington and Tehran.
Greg Sheridan, writing in The Australian, said the letter told "the Iranian leadership ... not to set too much store by any deal it gets from president Barack Obama on nuclear weapons."
Unfortunately, as the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, pointed out, the negotiations involve the P5+1 with an agreement that may eventually be backed by a UN Security Council resolution. So the US Senators' open letter should have also been addressed to the British prime minister, the Russian, Chinese and French presidents, the German chancellor and the secretary-general of the UN. Because, by Senator Cotton's logic, he also put all of these leaders on notice that none of them should expect Washington to keep its word on any future agreement. In senator Cotton's world, the P5+1 should move over and make room for the one.
Now if it was only these people exhibiting such breathtaking and public audacity then we could simply see them as petty local politicians trying to hit a pinpoint target using a shotgun. The problem is their actions are not as random as we think and, like all good ideologues (particularly ex-army officers like the good senator), they encourage supporting attacks.
Thus a few days later The Washington Post ran a somewhat poorly written, but provocatively titled op-ed, "War with Iran is probably our best option". I like provocative, but I like accurate even better. So when the neo-con author breathlessly claimed that "Iran aims to carry its Islamic revolution across the Middle East and beyond", he ignores the fact that Iran's revolution was Shiah-specific, and has limited appeal even among the broader Shiah community (which itself only represents at most 20 per cent of the global Muslim population).
That's the problem with people who over-hype Iran's regional and even at times global ambitions. Tehran faces three significant hurdles in expanding its influence even at the regional level: it has the wrong religion, is the wrong ethnicity, and speaks the wrong language. To expand its influence, Iran creates proxies and courts allies in the time-honoured tradition of countries who seek to expand their influence but have limited means by which to do it.
There is a deep thread of exceptionalism that runs through both American and Iranian notions of self. The problem with conservative ideologues from both countries that harbour this notion of exceptionalism is that they rarely understand that it isn't a view shared by anyone outside their respective countries.
Without a modicum of self-awareness, such mindsets can lead to foreign policy adventurism as they both believe in their divinely-ordained right to lead. And, while the embarrassing letter has been seen for what it is, it reveals a way of thinking that reminds us that not all dangerous ideologues reside in the Middle East.
This article was originally published by Lowy Institute's The Interpreter. Read the original article here.
Associate Professor Rodger Shanahan is a research fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy.
Topics: government-and-politics, foreign-affairs
Comments (108)
Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.
Alan:
19 Mar 2015 2:42:18pm
The only thing more dangerous than an Islamic fundamentalist is a Christian fundamentalist.
And we live in dangerous times. The US Republicans want to show how weak Obama is, by showing how strong they are. War is the way.
Israel has just voted against the prospect of peace in the foreseeable future. And elected a leader who wants war as the only solution to the Iranian nuclear threat.
Netanyahu cannot act unilaterally though. He needs big brother to back him up. That where the Republicans come in. Haven't had a proper boots on the ground war since last year.
I can only imagine how attractive this situation might be to Mr Abbott.
Alert moderator
APM:
19 Mar 2015 3:59:45pm
The only thing more dangerous than an Islamic fundamentalist is a Christian fundamentalist.
-The article did not mention christianity.
-The letter sent to the Iranian leader by 47 US senators did not mention christianity. Republicanism does not equate to Christian fundamentalism.
- Joshua Muravchik who wrote 'War in Iran is probably our best option' did not mention christianity, nor does his proflie ever mention christianity. His name looks Jewish.
Obama is offering to lift sanctions if Iran limits its stockpile of enriched uranium with an inspection regime. There is no reason to trust Iran. Obama is managing Iran's pathway to a nuclear weapons capability rather than try and prevent it.
Alert moderator
Warrennimbin:
19 Mar 2015 4:42:20pm
You can't trust the USA or Israel either but you got to try otherwise nothing progresses.
Alert moderator
Mark James:
19 Mar 2015 4:45:02pm
No, APM, there is no reason to trust Iran.
However, there is a problem in Iraq now because a bunch of idiot neo-conservatives decided it would be a good idea create a power vacuum in the region.
The Sunnis were toppled; the Shiites took over and exacted revenge on the Sunnis; and now the Sunnis have turned to Daesh (ISIS) as a means of protection against the Shiite militias.
Consequently, we're left with three choices:
1. Obama sends in US troops to defeat Daesh.
2. Obama works with Iran to defeat Daesh.
3. Obama leaves well alone and allows Daesh to take over.
Alert moderator
MA :
19 Mar 2015 5:16:54pm
The whole region is stuffed, always has been, trouble is now it has spread to us. Once the oil is gone it will just turn into another Africa. Great big atrocities from time to time and no one will care.
Alert moderator
APM:
19 Mar 2015 6:23:08pm
Recent technology has enabled the US to extract their own sources of oil. This makes it much more self sufficient and less beholden to the ME. Hopefully one day the civilised world can boycott the whole Arab world and any other recalcitrant societies. Wealth has not moderated their religion or led to egalitarianism, and has enabled them to sponsor worldwide terror and oppression. Yes, they will revert to their 7th century ideal as is their religion's aspiration.
Alert moderator
sleepykarly:
19 Mar 2015 7:19:01pm
It sticks in my throat to agree with you, APM.
but this time you are right!
We need to get seriously into renewables, and let the bum fall out of oil prices. Let the Arabs go back to herding goats and camels.
The best reason yet for voting Green!
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 12:47:51pm
Sleepykarly,
+1
Alert moderator
Sea Monster:
19 Mar 2015 10:49:24pm
Religions don't and can't have aspirations. Individual people have aspirations.
Alert moderator
markt:
20 Mar 2015 10:34:58am
Religions are nothing more than political parties, and political parties most definitely do have aspirations.
Alert moderator
Sea Monster:
20 Mar 2015 11:08:29am
Um... no. Political parties can't have aspirations. Members of political parties can. They can even share aspirations. But their parties can't.
You and APM need to start seeing people instead of amorphous masses.
Also you need to put more effort into proving religions are political parties. You can't just say something that controversial and move on.
Alert moderator
Mark James:
20 Mar 2015 9:05:28am
The irony is, APM, that were it not for the oil in the first place, the region would not be quite the firestorm it is now.
WWI would not have become a war to topple the Ottoman Empire for the goal of energy security; the US and Soviet Union would not have fought a proxy Cold War in the region and armed their chosen allies to the teeth while cementing and provoking sectarian rivalries.
Iran might even have discovered democracy, as there would have been no oil nationalisation program to have caused the US to overthrow the elected government and install a dictator (which in turn, of course, led to the probably Soviet backed revolution in 1979).
Follow the money, APM. Follow cause and effect.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 12:49:16pm
If not for oil.... then for some other resource, tradable commodity, trade route..... etc.
Such is the history of this region.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 12:47:26pm
Just look at the power vacuum that existed in Germany post WW2. Millions died in the ensuing ethnic cleansing of germans post WW2 as populations were shunted around (particularly, but not exclusively, in the Soviet controlled nations). We all got over it though.... and look at germany now.
Are you suggesting that the Iraqis had no option but to decend into a civil war based on ethno religious divisions? Really?
Excuses are oh so easy to dream up, it is even easier just to blame the "great satan" (aka the USA) for everything.
Alert moderator
kenj:
20 Mar 2015 1:53:39pm
Let's leave aside the US invasion of Iraq which was entirely illegal in itself and a monstrous war crime. It is no small thing to invade a country, bomb all of its infrastructure and remove the structures of government necessary to maintain civil order. Under the Geneva Conventions the occupying powers have a legal obligation to ensure the security of domestic populations by (a) providing sufficient forces, and (b) maintaining the local police services.
The US failed on both counts. Their own generals told them they would need 400,000 troops to maintain order and they went in with 180,000. Upon arrival they sacked the police and military leaving the people with no choice but to rely on ethnic alliances for security. The US backed a Shia government containing many elements intent on payback for abuses conducted under the Saddam regime. The ensuing civil war was directly attributable to actions by the US government. Al Qaeda and other jihadist forces who came into the country to assist the beleaguered Sunnis did so as a direct consequence of US administrative policy in Iraq.
US ABC News reported just last week that Iraqi military units and Shiite militias -- trained and armed by the US -- are being investigated by the Iraqi government for possible war crimes, including the torture and summary execution of Sunni prisoners, in many cases by decapitation, and the desecration of corpses. That was just last week. US trained and armed militia.
By various estimates somewhere between 300,000 and a million innocent Iraqi civilians died in these conflicts. There is no doubt, under international law and plain morality, that the US bears the responsibility for these deaths.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 2:41:46pm
"The ensuing civil war was directly attributable to actions by the US government."
err..... nope.
It comes down to the choices made by individuals.
"between 300,000 and a million innocent Iraqi civilians died in these conflicts....the US bears the responsibility for these deaths"
Nope again.
Again... it comes down to the choices made by the individuals who decided to kill their fellow countrymen, women and children (for what ever reason they justified such actions in their own minds).
Just as the Federal Government of Australia is not responsible for the actions of Man Haron Monis.
ps. the Iraqi Ministry of Interior was never dissolved as you claim (were as the defense and intelligence ministries were). It was merely restructured so that policing and internal security duties continued to be operated by Iraqis. The de-Ba'athification of the police / ministry of the interior isn't the same as "sacking the police". But hey don't let facts ruin your blame dispersal game.
Alert moderator
Mark James:
20 Mar 2015 2:02:13pm
Usually, JB, the powerful are far more instrumental in shaping the world than the powerless.
Even the most basic understanding of human nature would tell you that it's probabaly not a good idea to create a power vacuum in an area that has been the centre of a worldwide geo-strategic struggle for the best part of a century.
The Iraqis didn't create the power vacuum that gave rise to the Iranian-backed militias and, consequently, Daesh, the US government did.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 2:45:30pm
Mark,
You under rate the abilities of the people of Iraq.
They were capable, their ministry of the interior was only restructured (not dissolved or sacked as claimed by others), ..... they had personal choices to make.
They chose badly.
There never was a need, nor an inevitability of, a civil war along ethno religious lines.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't stop him from attacking other horses drinking......
Alert moderator
TS:
19 Mar 2015 5:26:41pm
You have not been following US politics if you haven't seen the move to follow Christian Law by many on the GOP side of US politics. Many of them think creationism should be taught in school. Many of them accuse the President of not being a Christian. Their views on women come from the bible. The article didn't have to mention Christianity - it is 100% part of the republican right.
Alert moderator
Connie41:
19 Mar 2015 10:32:20pm
The republican right USE 'Christianity'. That does not make them Christians. The idea is this: if you claim a religious basis for something you can demand that people do not question what you say; they must, if they are true believers, follow your dictates; to do otherwise is to cast doubt on their shared religion. Which is clap trap. I am a Christian, and I believe that a person who won't question is a phony. And anything more phony than the professed 'Christianity' of right-wing war mongers would be hard to imagine. In fact, what it is all about power, as, no doubt is the case with the dictators in the Arab countries. Religion, fear, greed, nationalism, any tool you like, but give these power junkies their drug. But then, it was self righteous religious leaders who murdered Jesus to keep their power, so what is new?
Alert moderator
markt:
20 Mar 2015 10:39:01am
They're not "phony christians". They genuinely believe that they're fine upstanding righteous christians. All that's required for faith is belief; the fact that they're being hypocrites is irrelevant to their faith.
You're right about the power thing though. That's all religions have ever been about anyway - gathering political power into the hands of the leaders of the religion.
Alert moderator
splod1:
19 Mar 2015 6:02:33pm
"Republicanism does not equate to Christian fundamentalism." It's OK, APM: I just checked. Like most Republicans, Cotton espouses a strong Christian faith as his motivating force, and attacks politicians who don't wave the star-spangled cross enthusiastically enough. In the Republican party, a Christian belief is mandatory and assumed: God and country stuff.
Alert moderator
Rumba:
19 Mar 2015 6:48:31pm
And Democrats don't? Check the profile of most of leading Democrats and please don't forget who Obama's personal fundamentalist preacher was or is. There in no point in pretending that one side of US politics is any less God whipped than the other. As to Iran - It's a startling country to visit because a liberal urban based Persian culture collides with a highly conservative rural based Islamic culture in a really visible way - Persian festivals are still supported despite some efforts to suppress them. It's just unfortunate that whenever the best aspects of the Persian culture start to mix with the best aspects of the Islamic culture to produce something worthwhile the hardliners of the Holy City rise to slap it back down.
Alert moderator
jocks trap:
20 Mar 2015 10:16:34am
Well splod1 and Rumba, after reading both you comments I noticed a common factor, "a God" take that out and then maybe we can talk about what they/we have in common.
Alert moderator
a_boy:
19 Mar 2015 6:40:41pm
APM, our American friends would disagree strongly. The right wing of the Republican Party is implicitly Christian in outlook ie fundamentalist; various of their members have accused Obama of not being a Christian at all, or not Christian enough.
Of course the letter does not have to "mention" Christianity. It is a truism that they have a Christian agenda.
Alert moderator
Malcolm:
19 Mar 2015 7:45:05pm
"Republicanism does not equate to Christian fundamentalism."
Since when APM - the Republican Party is now the political home of the "barbles" and "gurns" rhetoric in America. Appealing to the absolute lowest common denominator is the only political trick they have - a bit like our own equivalent the Liberals.
Alert moderator
Ann:
20 Mar 2015 1:54:48pm
They weren't always like that though, and they may move past it again... but not while they're finding it to be good currency for gaining votes.
Unfortunately it is quite hard for many people to grasp the concept that their close ideological companions may also be their economic or political rivals.
Alert moderator
kenj:
19 Mar 2015 8:32:04pm
Just to be clear. You are talking about the Iranian nuclear weapons program that the 16 leading US intelligence agencies all declared to be non-existent in 2008 -- is that the one?
Alert moderator
kenj:
20 Mar 2015 9:06:46am
In Feb this year a secret 2012 report by Mossad was leaked to Western media. It said that Tehran was "not performing the activity necessary to produce [nuclear] weapons."
The report was leaked by Israeli officials who were disturbed by Benjamin Netanyahu's wild claims about alleged nuclear threats from Tehran and concerned about the possibility of war against that country.
But you know better than them, right?
Alert moderator
Dove:
19 Mar 2015 2:43:26pm
The United States intends to install a more compliant regime in Iran. It is "breathtaking hubris" for a President to pretend otherwise. These is absolutely nothing that Iran can do to alter this
Alert moderator
David Ferstat:
19 Mar 2015 3:06:44pm
I think you confuse "intend" with "desire". Certainly the US would LIKE to see a more globally cooperative regime. That is not the same as having active plans or intent to bring this about.
I also think that you misunderstand the meaning of "hubris".
Alert moderator
Dove:
19 Mar 2015 3:21:13pm
Just say, "I disagree". It's easier than trying to give a language lesson
Alert moderator
ateday:
19 Mar 2015 3:57:52pm
There is always one about......
Alert moderator
John:
19 Mar 2015 7:39:53pm
Lots of people on these sites need one, Dove.
Alert moderator
Dove:
20 Mar 2015 10:32:55am
John- maybe I'm just worried that I am really one of them!
Alert moderator
the yank:
19 Mar 2015 4:08:37pm
The United States intends to install a more compliant regime in Iran ... once again an overreaching statement.
Republicans wants such an approach but they are not all of the USA.
You continue to use broad sweeping statements that just are not true.
Alert moderator
Dove:
19 Mar 2015 4:28:57pm
On the contrary, yank, The USA has concrete and specific plans and strategies on how to "topple" the regime in Tehran. These have been publically communicated by Generals, senior figures in Congress and in the administration. This is bipartisan and will be pursued as actively by people of both stripes. "The List" of countries to be treated so is public knowledge and has been for years. To pretend that the US wants otherwise is to wilfully ignore their words and deeds
Alert moderator
LeftyRoy:
19 Mar 2015 4:58:09pm
Quite right Dove
There is no stopping the bi-partisan NeoCon, MIC Chickenhawks from wollowing in the bizarre fantasy of "American Exceptionalism", where the US ( and its most lickspittle puppets) take it upon themselves to decide as to what type of leadership a country should have.
Alert moderator
mike:
19 Mar 2015 5:24:46pm
I can't think of a regime that more deserves toppling (though I would not want to see a war over it) than one that hangs teenagers from cranes for being gay, persecutes minorities relentlessly and viciously, murderously suppresses any dissent and which threatens to wipe other nations off the map. Iran is ruled by barbarians and primitives who do not have the support of the educated populace as shown by the attempted rebellion in 2009 (and also according to what Iranian expat friends tell me).
Alert moderator
Moi:
19 Mar 2015 6:05:51pm
Mike, you obviously aren't aware that Iranian Jews have their own elected representatives in the Iranian parliament. This is far from "persecuting minorities". Also, for the umpteenth time, the "wipe off the map" statement was a mistranslation and only true victims of propaganda still believe it.
Alert moderator
mike:
19 Mar 2015 6:53:42pm
Saying its so don't make it so, Moi. You can cry "mistranslation" all you want but that only makes you a (willing?) victim of Islamist, anti-semitic and crazed far Leftie propaganda.
As for the treatment of Iranian Jews, I have known a few Jewish refugees from Iran who have told me the truth.
Alert moderator
Ann:
20 Mar 2015 2:03:21pm
"Saying its so don't make it so, Moi."
No, proving it so does though. "een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods" clearly translates to "the regime occupying". And "regime" is a political term, not one applied to a population.
Alert moderator
sleepykarly:
19 Mar 2015 7:26:15pm
A nice spray, mike!
But beside the point. This is the same as the reasoning for removing Saddam; the big questions are:-
1. How do you do it, and at what cost?
2. What will happen when you do it?
Any idiot can recognise a problem, as you have shown. But can you propose a solution that will actually work?
Alert moderator
mike:
20 Mar 2015 10:15:47am
I would like to see a revolution like the attempted one in 2009 succeed. I was an outspoken opponent of the invasion of Iraq and would not want to see Western countries at war with Iran either.
Alert moderator
IMBY:
19 Mar 2015 10:24:18pm
Yank, it is not all republicans either. Most republicans dont want to fight anyone.
Alert moderator
Ann:
20 Mar 2015 2:05:22pm
IMBY maybe the Republican voters don't want to fight anyone, but the Republican party knows damn well that a war is the best way for them to keep power and respect, as well as keep the war economy going strong.
Alert moderator
sleepykarly:
19 Mar 2015 7:22:27pm
The United States has a history of installing compliant regimes. Yes, even in Iran, where they overthrew a democratic, secular and generally pro-Western regime to install the Shah.
Look how much good it did them!
Yes, 'Hubris' is a word that can be applied to USA in a thousand different ways, most of them validly.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 1:50:55pm
"The United States has a history of installing compliant regimes.."
Only the United States?
or do other super powers have a long history of this as well?
ps. though recent events show how some nations simply annex territory instead of bothering with the problems associated with 'compliant regimes'.
Alert moderator
Ann:
20 Mar 2015 3:14:49pm
Yes and for all the evils that came from colonisation, at least the mother/father country usually had to return something in the way of infrastructure or technology.
Puppet regimes only require you enrich the individual at the top.
Alert moderator
Filz:
19 Mar 2015 2:53:16pm
It would be almost a criminal act if, after all the efforts of the P5+1 and Iranians, that a deal could not be reached on Iran's nuclear ambitions, due to a bunch of exceptionalist warmongers in the US Senate. Who the hell do these people think they are?
Why can't they get it through their thick skulls that America is the number one cause of misery in the world today (apart from religion), with their constant interfering in the Middle East and Europe. They have initiated more wars and civil strife than any other nation since the end of WW2. And we want these people as allies? Thanks but no thanks!
Now we have the unsavoury prospect of Netanyahu holding office in Israel, being backed by the Jewish lobby in America. One can only wonder how many of the 47 signatories to the Senate letter were Jewish. Unfortunately, their names are not printed beneath their signatures, most of which are illegible.
It's a fair bet that the Republicans will attain power in 2017 in the USA and if that's the case, we better start digging our bunkers now.
Alert moderator
Hoju:
19 Mar 2015 4:20:17pm
Look at the deal. Iran wont build nukes for 10 years. And they have denied having a nuclear program in the first case. Why even have the deal?
All the leaders of the countries in favour will look good and get thei Peace prize but hand a grenade over to the leaders who follow them.
While crass, its a point which needs to be made.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 1:06:56pm
"Iran wont build nukes for 10 years."
The real details of the deal would suggest that 'break out' would be extended from 2-3 months to 1 year.
Not 10 years.
Alert moderator
kenj:
20 Mar 2015 3:10:29pm
Long story short... the Israelis have been shouting for twenty years that an Iranian nuclear breakout was just months away. It's propaganda nonsense.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 3:39:12pm
mmmkay....
Alert moderator
gray:
19 Mar 2015 2:56:38pm
great just what we need another war, dont the republicans read history even recent history, iraq, afganistan, egypt, syria, yemen,libya, all disasters, what is it with these republicans war, war and more war, who are these people, what drives them, if all the money thats is spent on was redirected to educate people and bring them out of poverty the world would be a better place, ps remove religion part from the education as well, religion always cause,s conflict as well,
Alert moderator
gd:
19 Mar 2015 3:39:15pm
Thinks you will find Syrian, Egypt and Yemen occurred on Obamas watch. and watch he does as 100's of thousand of innocent people die. Lefties love sitting on their hands and watching people die
Alert moderator
David Ferstat:
19 Mar 2015 4:59:41pm
"Thinks you will find Syrian, Egypt and Yemen occurred on Obamas watch. and watch he does as 100's of thousand of innocent people die. Lefties love sitting on their hands and watching people die"
None of these conflicts were started by Obama.
On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of civilians have died as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq ordered by Obama's right-wing predecessor.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 1:08:42pm
though in fairness those hundreds of thousands of deaths were (and still are) directly attributable to the decision by Iraq's to undertake a civil war along ethno religious lines.
they could have quite easily chosen to live peacefully, embraced freedom, prospered economically.....
alas.....
Alert moderator
David Ferstat:
20 Mar 2015 2:07:37pm
The Western removal of Saddam Hussein created a power vacuum.
Unfortunately, creating a power vacuum in a society where there is no established political culture (dictatorships routinely eliminate political parties, remember) almost inevitably leads to violence. Doing so in a country with such long-established existing sectarian divisions means that the violence will be not only profound, but near impossible to quell.
The post-Saddam violence in Iraq was not only foreseeable, it WAS foreseen.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 2:50:09pm
"The post-Saddam violence in Iraq was not only foreseeable, it WAS foreseen."
thought not to the degree actually seen, and directly formented by Iran (on the behest of their geo-political masters too no doubt).
the reality was the coaliation kept the Ministry of the Interior operational at all times (and restructured the leadership during the de-ba'athificaiton process). That the Iraqi police were incapable of preventing the ethno religious civil war was neither the fault of the iraqi police (who did try to their credit) or the coaliation troops (who also tried to their credit).
Blame remains at the feet of those individuals who made the choice to kill their fellow countrymen, women and children.
Alert moderator
Ann:
20 Mar 2015 2:08:10pm
To be fair David, Obama may not have started the war in Yemen but he does sign off drone strikes there. Which is odd considering they're not at war.
But of course the USA carrying out drone strikes on citizens of sovereign nations they're not at war with could never happen to *us*.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 2:52:13pm
Ann,
It is perhaps only a matter of time before a drone stike, or bomb strike (perhaps an Australian delivered bomb) lands on an Australian jihadi operating in Iraq.
You can't expect them all to blow themselves up (harmlessly) like Jake did. Some will also be killed in the line of fire.
Alert moderator
Ann:
20 Mar 2015 3:15:36pm
Joe I would suggest that if we were to challenge the US seriously, affect their security or their financial stability, drone strikes would be happening here, on Australian soil.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 4:53:06pm
Ann,
If Australia were to wage war against the USA one would expect nothing less.
If society/goverment effectively collapsed and sections of society waged war against the USA one would expect nothing less.
It is a logical conclusion of attacking a nation like the USA with the ability to project power globally.
ps. you can expect drone strikes to continue until it is cheaper to drop tungstun rods from a X-37B (or similar) remotely operated orbital vehicle.
Alert moderator
the yank:
19 Mar 2015 2:57:17pm
The problem with ideologues is that while they are ready to criticise others for their rigidly held viewpoints, they are rarely ready to recognise that they are equally rigid and intolerant. ... exactly.
It seems to be the way of the conservatives in the USA and to a lesser extent here. They both seem to be taking a similar approach, destroy the opposition no matter what.
In the case of the republicans they have an extended history of undermining anything done by Democrats to serve themselves. Reagan did a deal with Iran to keep Americans hostage until after he was elected.
It's this born to rule against what is good for the country that conservatives seem to have.
How Americans tolerate them is beyond me. I would have thought Americans would have punished such ant-American behaviour.
Alert moderator
anote:
19 Mar 2015 3:16:21pm
If only I could be reasonably incredulous.
Alert moderator
Jerry:
19 Mar 2015 3:38:44pm
the US is the most dangerous nation on earth. Iran is problematic and the further development of nuclear power in the world is undesirable, but it is the US driven by politicians that buy their way into power and are beholden to commercial arms interests and American Christian fundamentalism that sends shivers down my spine.
Alert moderator
mike:
19 Mar 2015 5:27:48pm
Really now. As if you seriously fear an attack by the U.S. or Christian fundamentalists. Hyperbolic nonsense is not a good look mate.
Alert moderator
Tomokatu:
20 Mar 2015 8:24:04am
Anybody who willingly self-imposes blindfolded ignorance, mike, cannot afford to lecture on the quality of "a good look".
An attack, mike, need not be military.
Economic and social attacks, like the TPP and the destruction of a country's freedoms with perpetual monitoring of all citizens' communications fit very neatly into the teachings of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".
Deniability of their government's responsibility by letting their corporations take the front line in undermining an enemy is a good move.
And remember, the USA self-identifies as a "Christian" country (which Australia, as a secular country does NOT).
One of the sayings of their Jesus is "He who is not with Me is against Me".
They see us all as their enemy
Alert moderator
mike:
20 Mar 2015 10:14:37am
Talk about self-imposed blindfolded ignorance, the U.S. is NOT a self-identified "Christian" country, it is fully secular with separation of church and state written into its Constitution! And several of its founders were outspoken atheists! Some of the leading "New Atheists" are American, and their books are bestsellers there.
I'm no fan of Christianity either, but I have many American friends and none are even remotely Christian. I suspect your notion may come from caricatures of the poor states of the Deep South but most Americans are not from there.
Alert moderator
Braidwood:
19 Mar 2015 4:01:36pm
Well done Rodger. You have put the situation clearly and succinctly.
I would not take the comparison too far but the whole idea of the USA fostering democratic governments as "the" government for all and barking mad Republican Senators acting as they have reminds me of Athens and her empire (once was Delian League). They too imposed democratic governments where they were not wanted and imposed their hegemony with hubris and violence. They too had demagogues for whom personal and national power was paramount. They were eventually utterly defeated.
The neocons in the US have a vision of US policy in the Middle East that anyone with even half an idea regarding the region and its peoples/religions find extremely dangerous.
But then these people created Saddam to counter the "evil" Ayatollah and the Iranians dared, all those years ago to take American hostages. Israel must also be supported no matter how cruel and provocative their actions are.
The world has seldom faced more dangerous times.
Alert moderator
kenj:
19 Mar 2015 4:04:57pm
I won't bother addressing the thoroughly propagandized and misinformed who will insist here today (against all argument and evidence) that Iran is bent on a nuclear weapons program and has expansionist military aims. They are beyond redemption.
Rather, I'd like to thank Rodger Shanahan for writing a well balanced piece on the necessity for winding back the war-mongering against Iran. Many thanks Professor.
Alert moderator
Dave:
19 Mar 2015 4:21:02pm
Do you think anyone will assert that Iran supports IS, despite lending significant military support to the shiite militias fighting the extremist sunni IS?
Alert moderator
Dave:
20 Mar 2015 10:12:03am
Actually I withdraw my own comment there. This isn't news.com.au. Well done Drum commentators, whatever your position you have a much better understanding of actual issues than many.
Alert moderator
Dove:
19 Mar 2015 4:11:56pm
War is certainly not the first option for the US. They would rather not have to go to war because after a few years, once people become accustomed to the propaganda, war costs votes. But war is never far down their list of options. The structures that run the United States make billions from war. It's an extremely profitable activity. It's only bad for tax payers who have to foot the bill at some stage, and of course the poor suckers that have their country obliterated. They don't like it much. So when the Americans rattle their sabres, they mean to use them
Alert moderator
mike:
19 Mar 2015 5:31:03pm
Unlike the Islamists who use their sabres to cut off people's heads, there is no appetite for war in the U.S., those senators' posturing notwithstanding.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 1:12:26pm
"It's only bad for tax payers who have to foot the bill at some stage"
fortunately as 60% of the worlds currency reserves are in US$ the USA can simply print vast quantities of new dollars (increasing volumes exponentially thanks to monetary policy relating to banks lending / reserve requirements).... as they have been for the last few years.
and bingo.... bill paid off.
Alert moderator
Nova4avr:
19 Mar 2015 4:18:53pm
" And, while the embarrassing letter has been seen for what it is, it reveals a way of thinking that reminds us that not all dangerous ideologues reside in the Middle East". To quote from the last sentence in the article.
How very true. The Republican Hawks seem to want another war in the Middle East. Haven't they realised they are responsible for the current mess that is in Iraq right now by invading Iraq in 2003.
We also need to keep in mind that the Republicans are the equivalent of our LNP Govt. here & Abbott was reported recently of wanting to commit 3,500 troops to Iraq. Fortunately sense prevailed & it was dropped.
Alert moderator
Gr8Ape:
19 Mar 2015 5:00:49pm
The problem is not fundamentalists, it's fundamentalists with guns.
Alert moderator
LeftyRoy:
19 Mar 2015 5:02:26pm
Lets keep things simple, and honest
The US wants Irans oil.
And they ( the bipartisan NeoCons of all US govts) have shown time and time again, they will secure those oil reserves no matter how many Iranians end up as "collateral damage" - murdered by US ( and lackeys) weapons.
Alert moderator
mike:
19 Mar 2015 5:32:34pm
Oh come on. The U.S. is a net EXPORTER of oil now. It has more oil than it knows what to do with, which is why petrol prices there are crashing.
Alert moderator
Dove:
20 Mar 2015 9:36:56am
mike, Indeed the US is currently awash with oil and hoping that the ice caps melt, they'll get their hands on even more in the Arctic.
But this isn't enough. They also want to control everyone else's access to oil. So whilst their not in the middle east for their own supply what they are doing is making sure that they can control other people's supply. OPEC is dead.
If Monaco was the most powerful country on earth they'd be doing the same thing
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 2:15:33pm
Dove,
you point out that the "US is currently awash with oil and hoping that the ice caps melt, they'll get their hands on even more in the Arctic."
The Arctic has already receded so much that exploration can already occur, Canada, Russia and the USA being ideally located to benefit the most from the Arctic fields.
Though, much to the disappointment of the Russian petroleum industry beneficiaries the recent sanctions over Russias annexation of Crimea have effective precluded Russia from receiving the necessary capital support and technological expertise to participate in this new zone.
Alert moderator
Ann:
20 Mar 2015 5:12:44pm
They don't need the oil - but they need the oil to be traded in USD. Without the petrodollar the US house of cards may collapse.
Alert moderator
Jamal Namdari:
19 Mar 2015 5:09:22pm
One side of the U.S. politicians is making wise approach to Iran Nuclear problem , They have released that war on Iran is not an easy task , regardless of who is the president if they can attak Iran , they will do it not later than tomorrow, there are huge difference between Iran and Iraq and other countries where accupied by US , Iranian people are nationalist, Iran is on the path of change towards democracy and US attack on Iran can stop that process and give more power to the ruling Ayatollahs, and this what the US Warmangores want , they don't want to see a free Iran and democratic Iran , they are trying to turn Iran into same situation as Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'd like to say that they will dream it to attack Iran , in case of an attack by US on Iran every Iranian will put thir differences aside with the Rulling Mullahs and are prepared to fight US to death to defend thir country, by the way, we shouldn't count on the words of a Senator who still doesn't know that Tehran is the capital city of Iran.
Alert moderator
GJA:
19 Mar 2015 5:14:54pm
This gang of 47 have committed an act approaching treasonous and purely from their irrational hatred of Obama. I doubt there will be any voter backlash, but there should be. They should be censured and drummed out of office.
Alert moderator
Ann:
20 Mar 2015 2:20:55pm
Unfortunately many Democrats have lost so much faith in Obama that there is not a huge groundswell of indignation against those that smear him or oppose him any longer.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 4:02:55pm
It is a shame really.
Obama has been an excellent quiet diplomat.
I guess the Republicans are just jealous so much geopolitical upheaval (and USA/NATO gains) can be acheived with such a soft touch and quiet voice and with little direct loss to American life and interests.
Russian interests badly damaged, democracy spreading, Iraq seeking joint assistance from the USA and Iran, the USA and Iran talking (shock horror!), the Suez safely protected, etc....
Banging the war drum and invading with regular forces is so counter productive compared to quiet diplomacy (as Putin is finding out after losing the vast majority of Ukraine and the balance of his near abroad to western hegemony and protection after his military tantrum).
There is a clear lesson in there for the leadership of various parties in the USA (and elsewhere).
Alert moderator
Eric the Echidna:
20 Mar 2015 5:12:13pm
JoeBloggs: "as Putin is finding out after losing the vast majority of Ukraine and the balance of his near abroad to western hegemony and protection after his military tantrum)."
I assume that is Bloggs speak for a US sponsored coup followed by the illegally installed regime embarking on a campaign of murder against opposition groups.
Alert moderator
GJA:
20 Mar 2015 6:35:15pm
Don't dismiss the Republicans' motivations so easily as mere petty jealousy. It runs much deeper. The impeachment of Clinton had more to do with revenge for the resignation of Nixon, forced by the impending doom of what would have been the first fully successful impeachment since Andrew Johnson; and the opposition to all things Obama is similarly sourced in GOP failures, not least the Voting Rights Act of 1964, and every attempt following to disenfranchise African-Americans to "preserve" a white hegemony, as well as the failure of the Bush ideology they happily espoused and the rebuke the Obama candidacy and election represents. They are not just haters, they are wreckers.
Alert moderator
VoR:
19 Mar 2015 6:09:16pm
Game and set in the letter and twitter wars to Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif. He certainly put Tom Cotton in his place.
Having said that, the actual match isn't looking nearly as rosy. Turns out Cotton's a hyper-nationalist who called for American global military dominance in his maiden speech to the US Senate a couple of days ago.
I think that playing the Hitler card might be a first for me, but I can't help remembering another young hyper nationalist who was dismissed by intellectuals as a crass comic figure.
Alert moderator
Mitor the Bold:
19 Mar 2015 8:33:32pm
These are men who are waiting on The Rapture. The ME is where it all kicks off, and there's no way some appeasing liberal is gonna ruin the Second Coming for these guys. They would prefer the encounter to happen a little closer to Megiddo-by-the-Sea, or Armageddon as it's more popularly known in GOP circles, but near enough is good enough. End Times have been a long time coming. Yeeeha!
Alert moderator
Forrest Gardener:
19 Mar 2015 8:57:10pm
Quote: The problem with ideologues is that while they are ready to criticise others for their rigidly held viewpoints, they are rarely ready to recognise that they are equally rigid and intolerant.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!
Alert moderator
George:
19 Mar 2015 9:57:23pm
Great article.
I was astonished by the arrogance of those senators. They hate Obama to the extent that they will do untold damage to US prestige. Have to wonder if they would have done this if he was white.
Alert moderator
DaveM:
20 Mar 2015 2:21:52am
The US has real separation of powers and both the legislature and executive have defined roles to play in foreign policy. For example, treaties cannot be signed and many forms of sanction cannot be applied or lifted without the approval of the US legislature.
The US executive has been treating itself as the sole body concerned with foreign policy, and disregarding the US legislature's constitutional duties and responsibilities.
The US legislature (47 members thereof), therefore, sought to make it clear that they do not support the current direction of the US executive and will act in a different way regardless of any statements made by others on their behalf.
The fact that it has come to this, instead of the US executive and legislature coming to a unified, compromise position, is a failure on both their parts.
However, it is wrong to see this as a spanner or as 'foreign policy adventurism'. It is evidence of a flawed system in Washington (aren't all political systems flawed in some way?), but if the US executive had in any way addressed the concerns of the US legislature it would not have happened.
Alert moderator
tonyp:
20 Mar 2015 11:54:19am
This comment presumes that the US legislature is balanced. The metrics of congressional voting patterns developed by Poole & Rosenthal demonstrate that this assumption is quite simply untrue. Republicans have become increasingly partisan and ideologically inflexible over the last three decades and have diverged quite alarmingly from the median position. The idea that both sides are contributing equally to the impasse is quite simply not in agreement with the observational data.
Alert moderator
DaveM:
20 Mar 2015 5:14:06pm
On the other hand, the foreign policy decisions of President Obama have significantly contributed to the current, dire states of Libya, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. His policy on Iran seems, to me as an interested observer, to be bereft of sense to the point where France's Hollande is holding a harder line against nuclear proliferation than Obama.
I don't think the Republicans are right, I think Obama is wrong, and I think that if they could chart a middle course they'd both benefit.
My original point, though, was that by completely side-lining Congress, Obama has overtly discounted their very real role in foreign policy and invited the kind of assertive behaviour that the article decries. If he paid any kind of attention to their legitimate concerns (not necessarily turning his policy around 180 degrees, but just actively listening) then the letter wouldn't have been necessary.
Alert moderator
IanM:
20 Mar 2015 7:11:37am
If you were signing cheques that your bank won't honour, the bank is going to tell people. If President Obama is about to sign up to an agreement that the Senate won't ratify, why shouldn't the Senate be up-front and open about it? As a clue, the fact that you might not agree with the Senate's position isn't an argument against transparency.
Alert moderator
tonyp:
20 Mar 2015 10:21:21am
IanM,
The senate is within its rights to refuse to sanction such a treaty. However, 47 senators is not a majority, they are in fact a minority and in order to veto such a treaty a vote has to actually occur. And a majority of senators have to vote, a tiny sub-section do not get to make international policy in their own interests.
The senators involved are out of line directly communicating what is basically a threat to sabotage negotiations in which the US is only one out of several participants. There is no historical, ethical, or legal precedent by which this is justified.
I will also point out that the US senate does not represent the view of the majority of Americans. You only need to look at voter turn-out figures to see that this is true. And the right of the conservative senators to claim to represent US interests is especially suspect since active large-scale efforts are made by conservatives to deny the right to vote to as many moderates as they can manage. At the same time, the House is gerrymandered to within a millimetre of its life. Democrats received 52% of the vote for the House of Reps in 2012 - outcome: solid GOP majority.
Alert moderator
Peter Schmidt :
20 Mar 2015 11:14:06am
It is hard to trust the US. It also threatened Germany over Snowden. German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said this week in Homburg that the U.S. government threatened to cease sharing intelligence with Germany if Berlin offered asylum to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden or otherwise arranged for him to travel to that country.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 1:19:59pm
Peter,
The public tit for tat exposure of USA spying on Germany, and Germany spying on the USA plays directly into the hands of the Russian leadership as they seek to drive a split the NATO alliance to enable their own near abroad foreign policy aims.
Both Germany and the USA know this and as such settled for some limited public statements, a few censures, and a very public display of diplomatic unity over crisis such as Ukraine.
ps. snowden hasn't disclosed anything that wasn't already known to any intelligence agency worldwide. He is just a little pawn in a big game.
Alert moderator
ArthurJ:
20 Mar 2015 12:06:31pm
At last, a reasonable and well thought out article on the subject. I note the ABC sourced it from elsewhere.
Alert moderator
Mike Rand:
20 Mar 2015 1:00:55pm
I look forward to the day when Iran is either blown off the map or we (the West) install a new Supreme Leader.
The current mob are despicable, stoning of women, hanging gay's from cranes, what a disgusting regime and to think there are those like Obama who are comfortable with this lot having Nuclear weapons capability.
Alert moderator
Dove:
20 Mar 2015 2:12:41pm
Or rather than blowing millions off the map you could just get them to change some of their laws. That might be less of an overreaction
Alert moderator
Dr Who:
20 Mar 2015 2:17:26pm
MR says "I look forward to the day when Iran is either blown off the map or we (the West) install a new Supreme Leader."
Not only is this highly racist and condescending, it also indicates that Mike has no idea about the history of Iran.
They had a democratically elected president in the 1950s, and a progressive one at that - but this leader was toppled by the US and the UK to install the Shah as the "supreme leader." The Shah wasn't going to nationalise the oil reserves and hit the West in the hip pocket in order to lift the standard of living for his people. (The Anglo-Persian Oil Company - now British Petroleum - had "negotiated" a very good 80-year contract in the early 1900s for the extraction of Persian oil. Good for the company, that is, not for Iran.)
The Shah's corrupt and oppressive rule gave momentum to the Ayatollah's religious revolution; the people (rightly) wanted the Shah out, and unfortunately, the leader strong enough to do that wasn't exactly a great alternative.
And you think that another western-installed leader is going to solve the problem? Sure. It's not as if any oil company will possibly interfere again in order to secure a deal at the expense of the locals, and leave enough resentment to fan another radical - we know that multinationals haven't done such things in the last 50 years. We also know that pigs fly.
Oh, and the deal is about nuclear power (electricity), not nuclear weapons. Some are concerned that the enrichment processes might make it easier for Iran to build a bomb, but the kindest thing I can say about your comment "those like Obama who are comfortable with this lot having Nuclear weapons capability," is that it's speculation that Iran will break the relevant conditions of this agreement. If I wasn't being so kind, I might call it hyperbolic garbage.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 2:57:14pm
Dr Who,
I wonder if we could get some Chinese or German solar power industry company to intervene in Iran on our behalf.
They have plenty of sun which could produce lots of energy, which would be worth lots of money to someone.
It would make a change wouldn't it......
(a jest, and hopefully not too an accurate prediction of future events on Earth).
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
20 Mar 2015 2:17:31pm
re: "The current mob are despicable, stoning of women, hanging gay's from cranes, what a disgusting regime"
phew... for a second there I thought you were refering to the USA republicans.
Alert moderator
Rasmuncher:
20 Mar 2015 3:28:54pm
The power production per capita in Iran is one sixth that of the US. If Iran is to elevate itself beyond a feudal economy with any sort of industrial basis, it needs power and a lot more of it. It has uranium and wants to use it. The warmongering is akin to WMD in Iraq, aimed at two things, curbing Iran's intent to sell oil in currencies other than US dollars, an action that would have serious impact on US economy and the value of the dollar and the escalation of the sales of military hardware and munitions, an industry that constitutes some 30% of US manufacturing activity will go into serious decline if there are no wars. The industrial military complex rules unfortunately
Alert moderator
Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.