Engagement with Iran? An Additional View of Professor Gary Sick's Analysis

On Tuesday, we published Chris Emery's summary of last week's talk in London by Professor Gary Sick on Iran and the state of US-Iranian relations. A reader who was also at the talk has offered these additional observations:

Chris Emery has written up some excellent notes on Professor Sick's analysis, so I won't re-hash though them all. I think that the one article covering the talk, Bronwen Maddox in The Times of London, missed the point a little bit. She went for the sensational headline grabber, "Why an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is not an option", rather than writing about the larger picture which Sick examined. These include the re-definitions of Israeli/Arab/Iranian roles and their positions in the Middle East due to the redistributions of power in the last eight years. I also think it's a bit too early to render a judgement of whether Sick is as off the spectrum with the Obama Administration as Maddox makes out.

Sick seemed to be almost exactly replicating Trita Parsi's power-cycle competition thesis on the threat and rivalry reassessment, developed for 1990-92, to the current era- which in a nerdy way is pretty fascinating. I might be looking into this a bit too much but I have noticed an increase in the material overplaying the threat depiction of Iran to Israel, echoing the very aggressive posture of Israel's Shimon Peres in 1992. - http://jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf See, for example, Joshua Teitelbaum in the Hoover Digest on "What Iranian Leaders Really Say About Doing Away with Israel", Jeremy Issacharoff's recent piece in the Washington Times,  anda bunch more.

Sick kept repeating the need to reassure the Arab states (particularly Saudi Arabia/Egypt) and Israel that if there was a rapprochement towards Iran, they would not be left with a role deficit and/or isolated in the region. And I liked the point about U.S.-Iranian relations not being a foreign policy problem but a domestic problem.

Sick urged the US to hold back the full negotiation efforts with Iran until after the election, and let the "engagement" debate develop organically in Iran throughout the election campaign. I think the last thing [former President Mohammad] Khatami needs is to be considered America's candidate in the race. Although Sick didn't go into details about the Iranian election, it will be interesting if it ends up being a two-way race between Khatami and Ahmadinejad. The Iranian electorate will be faced with a choice based on two very divergent policy differences and governing styles, and it will then be the first really contested election in Iran's post-revolutionary period in which people will be choosing between two candidates with not only divergent ideas but also divergent records.

Sick urged the Obama Admininstration not to repeat the mistakes of Bush in having an incoherent policy towards Iran; however, I think "mixed signals" has been a perpetual theme of America's Iranian policy for the last thirty years. I would have liked to hear more about what should be on the agenda for U.S.-Iran talks.

Guantanamo Bay Watch: 17 Chinese Told Go Straight to Limbo

A US Federal Appeals Court has ruled that 17 Uighur Chinese men cannot be released into the United States from their detention at Guantanamo Bay, even though there is no cause to keep them at the facility:

We do know there is insufficient evidence to classify them as enemy combatants — enemies that is of the United States. But that hardly qualifies petitioners [the Uighurs] for admission. Nor does their detention at Guantanamo for many years entitle them to enter the United States.

Ironically, if the 17 had actually done something to threaten America, there might be the prospect of transferring them to the US for criminal proceedings. Because they are in effect innocent, however, there is nowhere to go. They face abuse and torture if they are returned to China, and at this point there is no arrangement with a third country to take them.

But that is now a political problem for President Obama, not a legal problem. The Federal Appeals Court washed its hands of the issue: ""The government has represented that it is continuing diplomatic attempts to find an appropriate country willing to admit petitioners, and we have no reason to doubt it is doing so. Nor do we have the power to require anything more."

Mr Obama's World: Latest Alerts in US Foreign Policy (18 January)

Latest Post: Is Israel Winning A Covert War Against Iran? - An Alternative View
Latest Post: Update - The US Airbases Inside Pakistan
Latest Post: War on Terror Watch: Guantanamo Guard Brandon Neely Interview
Latest Post: Fudging the Decision - The Obama Statement on The Troop Increase in Afghanistan

Current Obamameter Reading: Forecast Uncertain



Afternoon Update (5 p.m.): All's Well That Ends Well. Afghan President Hamid Karzai says, "The tension the Afghan government had with the U.S. government is now over." Last week Karzai was the leader that Washington was going to push aside, but all it took, apparently, was the addition of Afghans to the US strategic review and a phone call from President Obama to make everything right:

"The tension was over civilian casualties and uncoordinated operations by foreign troops. From now on, no foreign troop operations will be uncoordinated with Afghan forces.

12:20 p.m. Video footage has confirmed that a US airstrike in Afghanistan on Monday, which the US military claimed had killed "Taliban", left at least one child dead. Afghan officials claim that 12 civilians --- six women, twq children, and four men --- died in the attack.

8:20 a.m. An Initiative from Damascus. Syrian leader Bashir al-Assad, following the Gaza conflict and the advent of the Obama Administration, has set out his own vision of "engagement". He has eagerly welcomed the US as the "main arbiter" in the Middle East peace process, saying he expects the US to send an Ambassador to Syria soon.

We hope to analyse this in a separate entry later today.

8 a.m. Speaking of Iraq, "a senior Administration official" is putting out the story that Obama will decide within weeks, "not days or months", on the drawdown of combat troops.
7:35 a.m. Oh, to be a fly on the wall: Vice President Joe Biden has a closed-door meeting with the departing US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, today.

Crocker has been actively backing the US military as it tries to undercut the Obama plan to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, and he was also a vocal critic of Biden's post-2003 proposal for a "federal" Iraq divided amongst Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish areas.

7:20 a.m. A far-from-incidental footnote to the news of the troop increase. Yesterday President Obama spoke with Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the first time since his Inauguration. No details on the talk, but I assume that Obama, having joined in his Administration's public blasting of Karzai over the last month, was trying to smooth relations as the American plans unfold.

Morning Update (6:15 a.m. GMT; 1;15 a.m. Washington): The headlines this morning are of President Obama's decision to increase US troops in Afghanistan, which we evaluated last night. The total appears to be just under 21,000 troops, if the Army brigade sent out to Afghanistan last month is included; the military request was for 30,000. The breakdown includes:

An Army brigade of about 3700 troops in eastern Afghanistan (already deployed);
8000 Marines from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina;
An Army "Stryker" brigade of 4000 troops;
5000 support troops.

Our evaluation is unchanged: contrary to the media reports you will get today, Obama has not indicated a clear strategy with this decision, and I even doubt that the decision has been prompted by the fear of a Taliban "spring offensive". It is motivated more by the recognition that he cannot hold out any longer against the military's request, for the sake of harmony within his Administration and for domestic opinion. The strategic front is still the 60-day review which is now being led by Obama envoy Richard Holbrooke and Obama campaign advisor Bruce Riedel, with supposed Afghan participation.

Is Israel Winning a Covert War Against Iran?: An Alternative Analysis

Responding to Scott Lucas' analysis yesterday of the "revelations" of an Israeli covert programme to disrupt Iran's nuclear programme, including economic sabotage and assassinations, Josh Mull offers a far different point of view. The story in The Daily Telegraph is not Western/Israeli psychological warfare against Tehran; instead, it indicates that Israeli pressure has lost and an American engagement with Iran has triumphed.

Earlier this week in The Daily Telegraph, it was revealed by former US intelligence operatives that Israel and the United States have allegedly been waging a covert campaign of kidnappings, assassinations, and sabotage against Iran's nuclear program. In his post "Is Israel Winning a Covert War Against Iran?", Professor Lucas proposes that this revelation is "a bit of 'psychological warfare' to keep Tehran off-balance over what might and might not be attempted to undermine its nuclear programme" as well as a "stick" in non-proliferation discussions.

However, the leak could also be interpreted as exactly the opposite of Prof. Lucas's assessment. Not only is this revelation more concrete than mere "psychological" warfare. It is a Loss, not a Win, for Israel and a Carrot, not a Stick, for Iran.

There are already reports that the United States and Israel have targeted Iranian nuclear operatives in the past. In December 2006, the Iranian Deputy Defense Minister, Ali Reza Asgari, disappeared while travelling in Istanbul, Turkey. The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet speculated at the time that Asgari had hidden his family in Damascus, Syria before defecting to the West. However, according to the Iranian Labor News Agency, Asgari's family was actually back in Iran. They denied Asgari would seek asylum with the west, and Iran publicly accused the US and Israel of kidnapping Asgari, a process known as "extraordinary rendition." Four months later, US non-proliferation expert Robert Levinson disappeared under equally mysterious circumstances in Iran, a possible retaliation for Asgari.

There is also evidence possibly verifying the existence of the shell companies which, the Telegraph article suggests, are used to "dupe" and sabotage Iranian companies involved in the nuclear program. The US Treasury Department regularly designates, or "burns" to use apt intelligence lingo, corporations and financial entities it knows to be connected to illicit Iranian activities. For instance, in December 2008, in a possible closing act of the exiting Bush Administration, the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) burned one of its largest shell companies, Assa Corporation.

World Check reported at the time "the corporate name chosen, Assa Corp. and Co., is deceptively similar to that of a well-known European corporation and of several US companies. This is a tactic frequently employed by financial criminals to confuse and mislead." World Check also pointed out "the address of the New York corporation appears to be that of the law firm that organised the company, which could indicate that it is a shell company with no actual address. The company has no telephone listing in New York, has no Internet footprint, and does not have a principal place of business."

Note there are never any subsequent indictments or investigations into these "designated" entities, just a simple burning, or public destruction, of the intelligence asset. While parallel information from Iran regarding their financial investigations is unavailable, it could be presumed that companies are burned by OFAC after being discovered by Iranian counter-intelligence officials.

The leak can be seen as a major loss, not a win, for Israel. As the CIA officer told the Telegraph, "Disruption is designed to slow progress on the programme, done in such a way that they don't realise what's happening." Obviously, Iran is now fully aware of the operation. Israeli intelligence services will be, or more likely have already been, forced to abort all facets of the operation and Iranian nuclear officials will likely be even more closely scrutinized, controlled, and monitored by state security services.

One of the most grim aspects of Israel's loss is, of course, the gruesome destruction of its intelligence assets remaining in Iran. Fars, an Iranian news agency, reported in November 2008 that three people suspected of spying for Israel, specifically a connection to Defense Minister Asgari's kidnapping, were executed by the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps. CNN also reports on another man, Ali Ashtari, who "was convicted by [the IRGC) in June of spying for Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad." Furthermore "according to Ashtari's 'confession,' published by Fars, he was a salesman who obtained high-end but security-compromised pieces of electronic equipment...and sold them to military and defense centers in Iran." The covert war, clearly already suffering losses, will now possibly be completely dismantled.

With that in mind, it's possible to see this as not only a "stick" for Israel, but also as a "carrot" for Iran. The consequences for Israel have been noted, but the direct benefits to Iran require more subtlty to discern. As Prof. Lucas points out in his analysis, the sources Radio Farda and STRATFOR, used in the Telegraph leak as well as other similar leaks, have been linked to the US Government and its intelligence agencies in the past. However, rather than interpreting their connection to US intelligence as a disqualification, it should more accurately interpreted as adding legitimacy to the claims. Quite plainly, it could mean the US Government explicitly authorized the release of this information.

The benefit to Iran would be tangible evidence that the administration of President Barack Obama was ending the policy of regime change in Iran. Furthermore, he is willing to use US psychological operations assets previously devoted to targeting Iran to instead target Israel. It will be difficult for Iranian hardliners to argue that the US is a either a puppet or puppeteer of Zionist interests when Obama is burning Israeli intelligence assets on the front page of the Daily Telegraph.

If there is in fact an American and Israeli covert war of disruption being waged against Iran's nuclear program, it is now in my judgement, completely over, with the results being a humiliating loss for Israel, a lowering of hostilities with Iran, and a vastly strengthened American diplomatic position vis-a-vis the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

Obama v. The Military (Part 82): The Field Commanders in Iraq Strike (against Petraeus)

An interesting twist in the tale of the US military, notably General David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, and General Raymond Odierno, the US commander in Iraq, trying to undercut President Obama's plan for withdrawal of combat troops within 16 months.

Major General Michael Oates, in charge of US forces in eight provinces in southern Iraq, has effectively denied Odierno's claims that security gains in Iraq are "fragile", implying that American forces will be needed longer than currently planned. According to Asia Times Online, Oates said that gains are "permanent" and there is no need for the 23-month withdrawal plan proposed by Odierno. Oates also countered a claim, often made by Petraeus, of Iranian involvement with Iraqi insurgents, saying he had "no evidence or reports of people training in Iran", despite periodic "anecdotal intelligence reports" of such training camps.

A field commander in Iraq backed up Oates' criticism of the 23-month plan. The US military had "passed the tipping point of diminishing returns" with security, and "the longer we stay now, the less we achieve."