The Official Tissue Dispenser

This photo accompanied a story about Iran President Rouhani attending the World Economic Forum in Davos.  It's a very nice image.  Rouhani looks both dignified, as becoming a president, and personable.  The lighting is good and image is balanced in an interesting way.   I'd crop it a bit to cut out some of the wall and curtain space but not to change the balance.  Don't know if this is an official portrait but it's definitely quite formal. 

So why the tissue dispenser on the table?  Admittedly a very nice tissue dispenser but not an accessory that suggests authority.   A law book or learned text, perhaps.  An Iranian president who is also a cleric might want a Koran.  There is an official-looking item on the table but it doesn't compare to that tissue dispenser. 

My photographer's eye just keeps coming back to that dispenser.

_________________
* No doubt a digital image rather than actual print but composition is the same.  

Old News

Following links in today's news I came across this 15 month old story on Iran pursuing and mastering nuclear weapon technology.  Here's the money quote,

the new disclosures fill out the contours of an apparent secret research program that was more ambitious, more organized and more successful than commonly suspected. Beginning early in the last decade and apparently resuming — though at a more measured pace — after a pause in 2003, Iranian scientists worked concurrently across multiple disciplines to obtain key skills needed to make and test a nuclear weapon that could fit inside the country’s long-range missiles, said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who has reviewed the intelligence files.  (emphasis added)

Read that quote and recall that American scientists did that very same thing in the 1950's and 60's.  We figured out how to put multiple warheads on a single missile.  Even now, American science and technology combine to create new weapons of war and market them to the world. 

Knowing that history, I find the freak-out about Iran to be less than convincing.  Weapons proliferation and the willingness to use those weapons against others are always a matter of concern but when I look at the record, I see that the enemy is us.

Doin' What Comes Naturally

From a Washington Post article on tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia: gates on Iran:

U.S. officials have been generally skeptical about claims that Iran was behind the Bahrain uprising, although Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, during a visit to the gulf this month, said he had seen “evidence that the Iranians are trying to exploit the situation in Bahrain.” He did not elaborate.

Well, duh! Of course Iran will seek to exploit the situation to its advantage. Exploiting to one’s advantage is the name of the game among nation states (corporations, too). The game is easily taken to extremes that injure others but in the normal course of events, it’s only natural to look out for Number 1, to seek the best outcome for one’s nation. That is the leaders’ job.

Yes, Iran will seek to exploit the situation in Bahrain. Bahrain is Iran’s immediate neighbor in a region where Iran claims historical ambitions and religious ties. Perhaps the reason Gates did not elaborate on Iran’s actions is that they are about what could be expected.

Related question: Does basing large military force in a region constitute exploitation?

Discuss.

The Dogs of War Still Bark

Also at Informed Comment is a report by David Swanson abount a recent event sponsored by Freedom Watch and the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, in which former CIA director James Woolsey, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and former UN ambassador Alan Keyes demanded war on Iran. It's a good takedown of all the lies behind the Neo-Conservative wars of the past decade. And the war they want next.

Swanson, author of War is a Lie, not only refutes every possible rationale for war with Iran, he also exposes the language and rhetorical tricks that sell their disastrous schemes to the public.

Just when you might have thought we’d scraped the bottom in Iran war advocacy, Alan Keyes took a turn at the karaoke stage. Keyes was quite upset about the “imperialistic essence of Islam since its inception.” Never mentioning the one nation with military bases on every continent, Keyes stood strong against “imperialistic ambition that rears its head throughout the world.” Who do we find resisting our aggressive wars all over the world, Keyes asked, using other language — why, Iran, of course. We’re being “beaten and pummeled” around the world every day by forces driven by Islam and Marxism. Who knew?

“I’m not going to say that those in power in our own country are as hostile to our nation’s security as our enemies are. I’m not going to say that,” said Keyes before saying it, hitting on a very common propaganda technique that equates war opposition with joining the other side of a war — even if there is no other side because there is no war yet.

Swanson reports that the event was largely unattended. I can only hope that the sponsors' plans go unheeded. Neither America nor the world needs another war.

When Two Wars are Not Enough

The drums of war are pounding for an attack on Iran. Iranian nuclear capabilities are an existential threat to Israel and must be stopped, say the warriors. Sanctions have failed! We must act now before it's too late! War plans are openly discussed. The atmosphere reminds me a lot of 2002-03 when Americans were stampeded to war in Iraq. Remember that one? Cakewalk, they said.

When it comes to Iran, though, war will be no cakewalk. The consequences will be as devastating as were the past nine years of American military interventions in that unstable region. An attack on Iran will not only solidify a strongly nationalist people behind their government, it will also give cause for militants around the world to attack Americans. I am dumbfounded that national leaders consider an armed attack to be a legitimate act. Or that think the results will be any different this time.

That's why Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett's "The Weak Case for War with Iran" is a good antidote to the Guns of August 2010. Their analysis presents the existential threat not in terms of nuclear annihilation but instead the loss of Israeli military autonomy which the Leveretts note is itself a source of instability. I especially like their alternative to war.

Regarding Iran, what constitutes "greatness" for Obama? Clearly, Obama will not achieve greatness by acquiescing to another fraudulently advocated and strategically damaging war in the Middle East. He could, however, achieve greatness by doing with Iran what Richard Nixon did with Egypt and China -- realigning previously antagonistic relations with important countries in ways that continue serving the interests of America and its allies more than three decades later.

America could use some of that kind of greatness.


postscript

When they describe the attack on Iran as a precision, surgigal strike, just remember that precision operations don't always work.

Sneaky Feats

The Iranian government certainly seems to be shoving it in the world's face with the admission of a second nuclear research facility in that nation. Maybe they thought they could get away without it being discovered. And to a nation that fears attack from two of the world's strongest military forces, nuclear weapons make sense. That's why the US, Israel, Russia, China, etc all maintain their nuclear arsenals.

Of course, Iran cannot claim self-defense for its nuclear program. That whole affair is ostensibly for peaceful, energy purposes. So the discovery of the second facility is an awkward turn in this international saga. It comes just as the United States government was demonstrating a willingness to engage Iran face to face. Maybe there are factions within Iran that are as equally fanatic about the US as there are Americans wigged out about Iran.

Personally, I don't think Iran should have ANY nuclear facilities at all. I don't want to see nuclear power as a future source of energy and I certainly don't want to see any more nuclear weapons introduced into the world. I'm not discriminating against Iran--I mean, NO ONE should be developing either form of nuclear technology. The strongest argument for eliminating Iran's nuclear aspirations is for all other nations to forgo their own.

Since my perfect world is still some years off, what's a frightened nation to do when surrounded by stronger, hostile powers? The best bet is to make the cost of an attack sufficiently prohibitive that no one, sane or otherwise will even contemplate that action. Makes sense to me. What also makes sense would be for the besieged country to ask why the weapons are pointed its way. Last week a speaker asked an audience to walk in another's shoes for a day. I think that would be a fine lesson for all nations.

It's a lesson that neither Iran nor the US is likely to learn. Both are nations frightened of the world they live in. Both lay claim to a mythic past that creates an expectation of regional hegemony in the present. Not much room for understanding and reconciliation in that space.

Still, the talks have not yet been canceled. I don't expect much from them but engagement at a table is far better than engagement sighted down the barrel of a rifle.

You'll Have to Pry Power from My Cold, Dead Hand

"Democracy won't come by the charity of the governing class. Fighting is the only way to gain democracy. . . . People are doomed to be slaves unless they are willing to sacrifice their blood."

message board comment from Suzhou, China about Iranian protests.

Governing classes rarely cede power willingly. If they cede power at all, they do so under duress, compelled by events. When it cedes power, some combination of forces has eroded the governing class’s authority or compelled it to accept a less advantageous position. Sometimes that less advantageous position is death. It is certainly a diminishment of wealth and self-importance. No wonder the governing class resists change.

In Iran a governing class that is itself a legacy of revolution that toppled another governing class, is now challenged both from within and from the street. The coalition of forces challenging Iran’s governing class is a potent one. That’s why the mullahs are fighting so hard against it; they recognize it for the danger it is. The real danger is that the demonstrators are challenging individuals rather than the system. They echo the same commitment to Islamic government and law as do the theocrats.

The brutality and force used against the demonstrators may well keep Ahmadinejad and Khamenei in power for the time being. Repression and violence worked for the Shah—at least until it didn’t work and his governing class was swept away by the Iranian people led by a determined band of Islamic nationalist revolutionaries. That history offers no certain answers for the future but human nature and individual behavior tell me that as long as Iran’s rulers allow a system in which most Iranians can meet their basic physical and emotional needs (which they have managed to do now for 30 years despite a few glitches) the ruling class will hang on.

That hold is tenuous, though. Right now, it looks like many Iranians have little or no faith in the current system and are no longer willing to acquiesce to it, willing to risk life, limb and liberty in their defiance . That lack of faith is the smoldering ember that may yet force a change.

All this makes me wonder why Americans weren’t out in the streets, protesting a stolen election in 2000. Maybe we still had faith in our national institutions. With today’s hindsight, we should have been shutting down the nation rather than allow CheneyBush to claim “victory”. With only foresight at our disposal, we somehow assumed that the stolen election was simply a matter of procedure and that CheneyBush was little different from Al Gore. Instead of taking to the streets, we sat back, chortled at the concept of hanging and pregnant chads and grew weary of the whole affair. The only ones on the streets protesting were paid Republicans protesting anything that would challenge their claim to Florida’s electoral votes. Most of us acted as if everything was normal.

The Iranians have already shown more initiative than Americans did in similar circumstances. I hope they get a better result.

Matters of Interest

Looking at today's news, I see that the US is yet again accusing Iran of shipping weapons to Iraq. Well, fucking DUH! There's a civil war in Iraq involving parties of interest to Iran which shares a long border with that nation. Iran is one major player in the region and has been for centuries, most recently suffering heavy losses in a bloody war with Iraq. Now that the US invasion opened opportunities for Iran to create a friendly neighbor, is anyone surprised that a rational nation would seek to promote its own interests.

After all, that is exactly what the United States says it is doing in Iraq. We have a variety of rationales, from "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" to creating a "stable ally in the war against terror". Call it what you will, but we are saying we have important interests in Iraq.

Oh, but we are supporting the government. Iran is fueling the insurgency. Rubbish. Both the US and Iran are supporting factions. Iran is pretty constant in backing ISCI (used to be Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq; the new name doesn't mention revolution) which it sheltered during the Ba'athist dictatorship under the Sunnis. The government that we supported is simply the faction (also supported by Iran) controls the arms of the state that the US created after disbanding much of the previous state. Oh sure, Iraqis elected this government, well, sorta--they voted for lists--but ask most Iraqis about this government three years later and you won't hear much enthusiasm. The militias and factions are far more coherent in Iraq than the Green Zone facade of an Iraqi state.

Oh yeah, the US is shipping a arms to Iraq also. Compared to us, Iran is a piker but at least I can see where, given the circumstances in its Near Abroad, Iran's actions are completely rational.

An lest anyone think the US should stay in Iraq to "fix what we broke", Iraq has plenty of talent for organizing a government. Much like they have plenty of fighting ability. It's just that these capabilities don't always run in the direction Americans seem to believe is our natural right.

Persian Arabesque

The reporting on Monday's Petraeus-Crocker testimony focused heavily Iran. The WP ran an op-ed piece about "the Iran problem". Apparently, the US mission in Iraq these days is to counter Iran. WP columnist David Ignatius argues that "...Somehow, the next president will have to fuse U.S. military and diplomatic power to both engage Iran and set limits on its activities. A U.S.-Iranian dialogue is a necessary condition for future stability in the Middle East."

Will someone please tell me what America's interests are in the Middle East and with Iran in particular? Is Iran or any Middle Eastern nation attempting to invade the US? Is Iran trying to replace our Constitution with fundamentalist religious law? I understand that some factions and organized groups in the Middle East and South Asia want to kill Americans and westerners in general but aside from the particular and relatively limited threats they pose (which is still a big deal if you’re happen to be killed or maimed), they cannot fundamentally alter or change American or western society. Their most potent weapon is our own overreaction and panicked response.

Iran, on the other hand, is a significant economic and military power in the region. That works for Iran because the region is home. I expect Iran, like any nation, to keep a close watch on its "near abroad" because that is where its most vital interests are likely to be affected most seriously. Iran also has a long history of power and influence in the larger region, including the nation currently know as Iraq, dating to well before western civilization figured out that the earth was not flat. I fully recognize and understand Iran’s interests and aspirations in the region.

So I keep hearing about vital American interest in the Middle East but I have difficulty understanding them and why they are vital as to take us to the brink of war. Maybe I'm just being obtuse. I realize that the United States is a World Power of Great Consequence and Significance but it seems that we are trapped in the myth of our own greatness so that everything is in our interest. Like any nation, we have a near abroad, where our most vital interests lie. (I include preserving individual and Constitutional liberties within that near abroad; I do not limit it to geography and strategy. Mexico would be an important geographic near abroad.) But when everything affects us, we quickly find ourselves at risk to others who may have strategic and economic advantages that offset our supposed super power. We end up stretching ourselves too thin in resources, insight, skill and nuance to address even our most vital interests effectively. It's a strategy any insurgent facing a powerful adversary quickly learns.

Of course, I know we want the East oil (and everyone else’s) for our own economic growth. We want to ensure continued access to that oil. Desperately, because that's all we know. It's always been so cheap and plentiful. Of course, in a true global market we would just buy what we need. Oops! I keep forgetting we don't have any money any more. We do still have some military left, we have chosen to establish a strong presence in the Mid-East and are pursuing that mission at whatever it costs.

America unconditionally supports the State of Israel, which pisses off most Arab and Muslims who still resent being forcibly driven from their homes when Israel was established, the continuing expropriation of Palestinian for Israeli settlements and Israel’s increasingly militarized response to the legitimate national aspirations of an indigenous people, aspirations not unlike those that inspired the State of Israel. Smarter people than me have failed to resolve this conflict so I don’t even pretend to have an answer. I will venture to say that almost a century of violence and oppression in that region will not end because one side or the other gains a temporary advantage by force or guile. And remember, temporary in that part of the world is measured in decades and centuries.

Aside from the specifics of our own national interest, Americans also claim a broad interest in freedom and democracy throughout the world, so maybe that's why it's so necessary to send our troops to die in Iraq or Iran. Of course, it would have been easier to have left the democratically elected Iranian government in place back in 1953 but that government was hostile to our specific economic interests (read: oil), which trumped the more vague freedom and democracy interest.

Confused? Don’t feel bad. If you were a US soldier you could be confused and then dead. No one will ever be sure why.

Talk, Talk

Wow. Something I recommended about Iraq actually took place. The International Conference on Iraq is the first step toward building regional stabity. Iraq's parlous state is not only Iraq's problem, the chaos in Iraq could spill over into larger conflicts. Think August 1914. That's why I recommended that everybody--Iraq, its neighbors, the US and UN--start talking about what kind of Iraq they want and why they have a legitimate right to expect that outcome. Iraqis should especially speak up about their interests, their hopes and their identity. Iraq is their home and they have the right to create that home in ways that best serve them and do not harm or threaten others. Talking at Sharm al-Shaykh is a good start.

That the Iraqi government called the conference is a good sign. The government may lack credibility with most Sunnis and many Shi'a as well but its attempt to call attention to the nation's problems and reach out to the world community is positive. Dar Al-Hayat reports from the conference that Iraqi's believe the event and opportunity offered are a sign of Iraqi confidence and diplomatic skill in representing the nation. Iraqi media covereage has the same tenor. The only way that the Iraqi government will gain legitimacy with most Iraqis is when they believe it is acting in their interests, not those of a group or foreign power. Actively pursuing a national agenda in the world is a way to earn that legitimacy. I hope that's what is actually happening.

Since the Iraqi government is not an entirely free actor, I am sure that the occupation authorities concurred in the decision. I wonder if Americans had anything to do with initiating the effort. A regional solution is certainly in America's interests but it's also in Iraq's interest. Either party would have reason to start the process. The conference is excellent cover and opportunity for America start talking with all the players in the region.

I have long maintained that Iraq is a problem to be solved, not a war to be won. War and violence build nothing. A clearly defined national interest, pursued in cooperation and exchange with other nations is the foundation of a global community that can live in peace on this small planet.

Good on you, all the nations who came to talk with Iraq and each other. Please keep talking until you find peace.

Mirror Image

Worth reading: Noam Chomsky's "What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?" at Tomdispatch.

It baffles me to no end that my fellow Americans cannot see this country from the world's perspective. Americans certainly would resist another nation interfering in our internal affairs. Somehow, though, it's okay when we do it. We're America. We're the good guys.

That is SO special.

Playing Smart

How a confluence of interests can be used to influence world events:

The New York Times leads with word that Russia has warned Iran that it will not provide nuclear fuel for its almost-completed power plant in Bushehr unless Iran agrees to U.N. Security Council demands to stop uranium enrichment. President Bush has frequently tried to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin to stop cooperating on Iran's nuclear plant but has mostly failed because the project is quite profitable for Russia....

The true motive behind Russia's warning might be more financial than political as there have been some public disagreements over whether Iran has been paying its bills. Regardless, some see it as a sign that the United States and Russia can still cooperate on key issues and that officials in Moscow are growing tired of Iran's insistence that it has the right to enrich uranium. American officials have been busy trying to make sure that Russia can benefit economically if it chooses to support U.N. sanctions against Iran. (emphasis added.)

This seems far preferable to starting a war when the threat is less than immediate.

Harsh Words and Hair Triggers

Perhaps the best reason to read the Washington Post is coverage of politics, procedure and process. Sunday’s story on the clash of American bureaucracies and experts over government food distribution in Iraq is a classic example of the intersection between politics and operations. The article is filled with bulldog determination by the Department of Commerce, countermeasures by the State Department and some great quotes and observations. My favorite is about the response to yet another proposal to eliminate food rations,

...officers convened a working group composed of representatives from the economic section, the planning office, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. military command and the State Department's Iraq Reconstruction and Management Office. No Iraqis were invited, according to the two embassy officials. (emphasis added)

My first thought is that Americans are making fundamental decisions about Iraq without involving the Iraqis. Nothing new there, actually. My second thought is “What the hell is the Commerce Department doing in Iraq?. I could have sworn that was mostly domestic US stuff.” Then I remember that this IS the CheneyBush Administration, where every action is designed to support the Leader’s “reality” in Iraq. Commerce may have some role in reconstruction, much of which involves economics and commerce, but the input should flow through the people who are on the ground and responsible for Iraq. Always trust the grunts, the ones whose lives are at risk, to understand the situation best. And you don’t want to be distracting them too much. They are fighting a real war. Once things improve–just ignore the steadily increasing violence and failed promises, CheneyBush surely has the right policy THIS time–then maybe, you can pursue your utopia for Iraq. Assuming that country will ever be safe for Americans in our lifetime.

At least the Iraqis invited the US to their international conference on security. Not that Iraq could have ever initiated the conference without American acquiescence. Nor would they want to exclude the nation with the most destructive firepower in the region. It would be like ignoring Iran. Simply meeting together in one place is a visible reminder that Iraq is an international concern; many nations have a stake in this Great Game. No solution will be viable without the consensus and support of the nations represented in that room. I hope they keep talking. I hope they figure something out.

Because the United States is on hair trigger alert in the region. We have two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf, another in the region. American special forces are reported to be active in Iran. We accuse the Iranians of supporting Iraqi insurgents. I see all this and I think August 1914, when the Balkan match ignited World War I. I think August 1964 when American actions in North Vietnamese waters precipitated a minor incident that was the excuse for a war that should never have been fought.

Since Vietnam, I am wary of armed Americans. In combat we would explode firepower at anything that moved, maybe even call in gunships and airstrikes. It was a terrible violence we brought. It kept folks away from us, which I guess was good. I’ve seen Americans do the same thing in Iraq at check points, killing whole carloads of Iraqis with massed fire. I can only imagine what one of those carrier groups would do if it went off with the same hair trigger. With such a massive build-up and escalating rhetoric, the opportunities for an incident increase exponentially. Surprisingly, some Americans think war is still a good idea. The neo-cons who bungled Iraq so badly believe that attacking Iraq would strengthen America’s security. Why any of the rest of us who object to war and waste, listen to these armchair generals is beyond me. Two failed wars should be enough for any nation. Unfortunately, the man who controls the trigger to America’s terrible violence listens to these false prophets and his own private God.

That’s why the rest of the world must keep talking and stand down the bellicose rhetoric. That’s why Americans should stop listening to the warmongers and begin listening to the world.

Another Blunder

Grim assessment of prosects in Iran courtesy of Spengler writing in Asia Times Online:

Washington had the opportunity at the turn of 2007 to isolate and neutralize the Mahmud Ahmadinejad regime in Tehran, but through stupidity and arrogance has made war the most probable outcome.

[...]

It is pointless to read the signals out of Washington to divine US intentions. A generous interpretation of the confusion on the Potomac would be that matters have become so complex that the moment Washington sends one sort of signal, it is compelled by the next turn of events to send a different one, to the point that no one can make sense of what the US wants to communicate. A less charitable interpretation would be that no one is in charge, and that different agencies of government are pursuing their own agendas without accountability to a central authority.

In the end it does not matter much which interpretation we choose, for Washington has done everything possible to destroy the prospects for a diplomatic solution. Whether it was possible to begin with, the historians will have to debate. For the time being, Bush has snatched war out of the jaws of peace.