Too many factors affecting the development and implementation of the U.S./Iran deal complicate our anticipating its long term impact. Yet these complications failed to stop Mike Huckabee to from erupting into an apocryphal tirade in front of the electronic amen corner on where else but Fox News:
When you lack the patience, temperance, and analytical acumen to evaluate the finer points of such a diplomatic agreement, simply resort to Godwin's Law or something related to it.
If another warning that said agreement if enacted would set another holocaust on the fast track is filled with too much histrionics, Scott Walker speaks without wrapping holocaust imagery around his thoughts:
If I ultimately choose to run, and if I’m honored to be elected by the people of this country, I will pull back on that on January 20, 2017, because the last thing — not just for the region but for this world — we need is a nuclear-armed Iran. It leaves not only problems for Israel, because they want to annihilate Israel, it leaves the problems in the sense that the Saudis, the Jordanians and others are gonna want to have access to their own nuclear weapons…[1]Iran wants to annihilate Israel? And, he mentions the Saudis "are gonna want to have access to their own nuclear weapons." If that is true then why not threaten to freeze Saudi's hundreds of billions of dollars they hold in dollar reserves upon seeing the first hint of their developing nukes? The U.S. has already done this to over $150 billion of Iranian funds. Also, after all, unlike Iran's never invading of Israel, Saudi has invaded Yemen. Shouldn't the humanitarian crisis triggered by Saudi's invasion of the poorest nation in the region prompt Walker to advocate a more forceful policy to prevent Saudi from getting ideas about nukes regardless of the progress of Iran's program? Walker like his fellow Republican presidential contenders collectively articulate a foreign policy platform with no space for those grasping the smallest fragments of reality.
While the Republican presidential field pursues attention-getting strategies to steal some spotlight from Trump, other voices advocate the U.S. use a different diplomatic approach to Iran, This approach is based on reality rather than simply reciting rhetorical talking points devoid of any empirical facts gleaned from observing current trends in action in the region today.
Voices of reason are heard from elite insiders who despite their well established penchants for advocating provocations, acknowledge at least the limited benefits of isolating Russia. Enter Kissinger.
Kissinger's record includes support of massive bombing and regime change, which are both staples in the current Republican party's approach to foreign policy.
This record includes Kissinger's support of the U.S. bombing of Cambodia during 1969-70. This bombing campaign occurred between March 18, 1969 and sometime in May 1970, during which "3,630 such raids were flown across the Cambodia frontier." [2]. Much information demonstrates Kissinger's knowledge of this bombing campaign. For example, U.S. Air Force Colonel Sitton who as an expert on B-52 tactics at the Joint Chiefs of Staff "began to notice that by late 1969 his own office was being regularly overruled in the matter of selecting targets. 'Not only was Henry carefully screening the raids.....he was reading the raw intelligence." [3]. Yes this happened 45 years ago, but the expanded bombing campaign over both Laos and Cambodia killed an estimated 350,000 and 600,000 civilians, respectively. [4]. After Dr. Kissinger's negotiated an end to the Vietnam war resulting in his being awarded the Nobel Peace Price, he shifted his focus to other peacemaking efforts that included bombing Cuba.
Castro's sending troops to Angola in 1974 apparently defied the arrangement of Kissinger's geopolitical chessboard. Castro's transgression made his becoming a perfect target for regime change. Government documents at the Gerald Ford Presidential Library that were declassified resulting from a request from the National Security Archive in 2014 state that Kissinger wanted the U.S. military:
to strike ports and military installations in Cuba and to send Marine battalions to the United States Navy base at Guantánamo Bay to “clobber” the Cubans and to "clobber the pipsqueak." [5]That pipsqueak in Havana was saved unwittingly by the American people whose electing Jimmy Carter in 1976 effectively terminated Kissinger's plans.
Kissinger in 1974-77 seemed willing to risk war with the U.S.S.R., but in later years his Realpolitick conscience (pardon the oxymoron) advocated the U.S. heed Russia's historical concerns more:
The issue is not to extricate the United States from the Ukrainian impasse but to solve it in a way conducive to international order. A number of things need to be recognized. One, the relationship between Ukraine and Russia will always have a special character in the Russian mind. It can never be limited to a relationship of two traditional sovereign states, not from the Russian point of view, maybe not even from Ukraine’s. So, what happens in Ukraine cannot be put into a simple formula of applying principles that worked in Western Europe, not that close to Stalingrad and Moscow. [6]
Many elite types ridicule Russia's claim that the U.S. stretching NATO eastward post-1989 closer to Moscow lacks merit because, after all, both nations' diplomatic agreements to halt advancing NATO were not "in writing." Kissinger at least in this specific instance avoids that legalistic logic, recognizing that effective diplomacy with Russia entails more than whether diplomatic agreements are codified by some explicit document. In essence, Russia's concerns remain real regardless whether Gorbachev signed something during the end of Cold War 1989-91.
Kissinger's capacity for realism is shown by his cautioning the U.S. to countenance Russia's historical ties to Ukraine. In a strange cognitive twist and turn though, Kissinger's views on the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal reveal his articulating a geopolitical landscape in the middle east that merely echoes the paranoid mindset of the House of Saud. Kissinger and the Saudi royal family express similar paranoia that Sunni Islam is poised to conquer and/or destabilize the region:
As Sunni states gear up to resist a new Shiite empire, the opposite is likely to be the case. The Middle East will not stabilize itself, nor will a balance of power naturally assert itself out of Iranian-Sunni competition. [7]Without being a Nobel Prize laureate with decades serving in the inner circle of the establishment, we should still ask the following questions when warned of an imminent Shia destabilization that would be hastened by U.S. concessions made to Iran pursuant to their recent agreement:
-Did Iranian-controlled Shias invade Syria in 2011 attempting to overthrow Assad, which has resulted in over 200,000 deaths? The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) completed a report in 2012 which was recently released resulting from requests filed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and is heavily redacted. The non-redacted information though that was released shows the DIA's full awareness that the Muslim Brotherhood/Al Quaeda supported the Syrian opposition (I am sure of course the U.S. tolerated this cynical and dangerous move because this was just a temporary expedient to overthrow Assad. This expedient was justified because somewhere in that radical jihadist haystack lies the "moderates" who upon deposing Assad will help construct a vibrant democratic society....just like in Iraq in 2003 the Syrians will welcome them as liberators!!!!!):
And, the DIA further warns in their report what consequences to expect if Al Quaeda and Syrian opposition create enough chaos:AQI (Al Quaeda In Iraq) SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA….. AQI CONDUCTED A NUMBER OF OPERATIONS IN SEVERAL SYRIAN CITIES UNDER THE NAME JAISH AL NUSRAH (VICTORIOUS ARMY) [8].
This DIA analysis weakens claims made by other establishment voices that ISIS was a logical result of Iran supporting Shia regimes of Assad and al-Maliki in Syria and Iraq, respectively. The DIA's analysis acknowledging the conditions under which a Salafist Principality could develop in eastern Syria to offset the "strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iran and Iraq)" offers little assurance of building a lasting stable order in the region. And, what evidence exists showing a Shia resurgence will endanger the sovereignty and stability of Sunni powers? As this DIA report acknowledges that Al-Quaeda supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning. So does Al-Quaeda's abrupt reemergence here suggest Shia influence is an absolute evil that explains the ongoing instability in the region? Such a level of Sunni backed violence sometimes backed by Western powers infers that claims of Iranian regional ambitions being the primary cause of instability are exaggerations. Will Erdogan's actions generate the same level of criticism from either the foreign policy establishment or the Republican Presidential hopefuls?IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN). THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION…… THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI (Al Quaeda in Iraq) TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA AND THE REST OF THE SUNNIS IN THE ARAB WORLD AGAINST WHAT IT CONSIDERS ONE ENEMY, THE DISSENTERS. ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY. [9].
-Did Iranian-controlled Shias invade Libya, toppling Qadaffi and creating a failed state? No but that is a reality that apparently deserves no considerations from the "realists." The failed state in Libya features the triumph of ISIS. The DIA stated in its report noted above that "ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY. The common catalyst reducing Libya, Iraq, and Syria to failed states is ISIS not a Shia-led power grab. Thus, the underlying claim that Iran is the primary mover of instability should be examined more closely. Otherwise, the U.S. will continue to cite false criticisms of Iran which could trigger Iran's concerns that this current deal is merely a trojan horse designed to make their regime more vulnerable.
-Would Qadaffi's disbanding its nuclear weapon progam in 2004 and subsequently being overthrown in 2011 encourage Iran to develop a nuke to protect its regime? This question is critical because U.S. opponents of this U.S.-Iran deal constantly claim that sanctions against Iran should be lifted once they demonstrate trustworthiness to avoid further nuclear development. Those critics fail to consider that the U.S. should demonstrate they have ceased trying to effect regime change in Tehran. This factor is important especially given the pattern of U.S./Libyan relations from 2004-present. Leaked Wikileaks cables show that Libya pursuant to its agreement made in 2004 was taking actions subsequently during 2009 to transfer its enriched uranium to Russia so they could dispose of the chemicals. Libya's compliance generated what result here? Iran possibly heeds this result as a possible prelude to their future.
Kissinger the dean of the U.S. foreign policy establishment realists displays realism when analyzing U.S./Russian relations, but prefers to promote the mostly baseless narrative that Iran is the primary source of instability in the region. Regardless how much he bases his assessments on real conditions as they are rather than promoting a priori narratives, Kissinger's contributions to these critical discussions reveal questions that if ignored bode poorly for a peaceful U.S.-Iran rapprochement.
In my next posting I will discuss another putative dean of realism Zbigniew Brzezinski whose views on Iran and Russia are inversions of Kissinger's.
[1]. Sargent, Greg. "Scott Walker: I'll blow up any Iran deal, no matter what our European allies think." Washington Post: Plum Line. April 02, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/02/scott-walker-ill-blow-up-any-iran-deal-no-matter-what-our-european-allies-think/
2. Hitchens, Christopher. The Trial of Henry Kissinger. page 48 of 249 Kindle version.
3. Ibid. p. 53.
4. Ibid. p. 49.
5. Robles, Frances. "Kissinger Drew Up Plans to Attack Cuba, Records Show."The New York Times." Sep 30, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/01/world/americas/kissinger-drew-up-plans-to-attack-cuba-records-show.html?mwrsm=Email&_r=0
6. Heilbrunn, Jacob. "The Interview: Henry Kissinger." The National Interest. August 19, 2015. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-interview-henry-kissinger-13615
***thanks to Michael Dorgan whose Twitter post embedding a link of an RT article http://www.rt.com/usa/312964-kissinger-breaking-russia-ukraine/ encouraged my posting this blog entry. His Twitter handle is Michael Dorgan @M_Dorgan.
7. Henry Kissinger and George Schultz. "The Iran Deal and Its Consequences." The Wall Street Journal. April 07, 2015. http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-iran-deal-and-its-consequences-1428447582-lMyQjAxMTE1NjI5MjMyMzI2Wj
8. Declassified document. pgs. 297-93 (291) JW v DOD and State 14-812 May 18, 2015. Judicial Watch. http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/
9. Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment