Response to The Iranian Threat-Part I at American Future
Blogger friend Marc Schulman from American Future asked his regular readers for input on a series he is posting on Iran. The first post deals primarily with the Carter Doctrine as justification for an American attack on Iran. Here is my response, which is also posted at AF as a comment. Marc has already posted Part II in his Iran series, which I will deal with as time allows or rather if time allows. I will resume regular postings within the next two weeks so stay tuned. In the meantime, I will likely continue to comment on AF when I get a chance.
My Response:
As Matt identified above, the Carter Doctrine was promulgated by President Jimmy Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afhganistan, as such it is American policy, not international law. Since it is a policy position, it is hard to use it as a legal basis for war. However, given that it was announced as American policy, and that it was not challenged by the Soviet Union or any other power since, the doctrine has the potential to carry some weight internationally. This is particularly true since the US used the Reagan Corollary to the Carter doctrine as a reason legitimizing the US's provision of protection to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. No one objected to said justification, and I believe that under International Law if at the time a policy or rule is promulgated noone opposes it, then it gains validity internationally. However, given the first Bush administration's reliance on the Security Council's resolution authorizing a UN coalition to dislodge Hussein from Kuwait, and the plea by Saudi authorities for protection, it is hard to say that the policy was even promulgated in the first place.
Moreover, given the perception regarding the manner in which we went into Iraq, mainly that the US lied about WMD to justify its invasion, is will be very difficult, if not impossible for the US to legitimize a campaign against Iran. As you know, I supported the Iraq war, and have differences with the administration mostly with regard to manner in which it has conducted the post-war occupation (but that is a different post). However, the perception is there, and it is ingrained in the international psyche. Convincing the world, or even arguing for the Carter doctrine, as the basis for any attack against Iran, would be seen as further proof of American imperialism and blood thirsty aggression.
Further, due to this perception we will likely have to go to war with a much more reduced "coalition of the willing." I do not know or believe that NATO countries are ready to committ troops to an Iranian campaign, even if they did, we would still have to deal with the likes of Russia, China, India and other players who rely on Iranian oil and natural gas supplies in order to power their economies. If Iranian energy shipments are interrupted, or cease completely, this would have a huge effect on East Asia's economic prospects and would threaten the stability of China directly. This may force China to engage militarily in the Persian Gulf in order to secure its interests, particularly where energy resources are concerned. The same goes for India, who just recently signed an agreement with Pakistan and Iran for the construction of the Iran-Pakistan-India natural gas pipeline, worth millions of dollars and giving Pakistani-Indian relations a much needed boost. The project brings these two rivals closer economic ties and gives them both a stake in maintaining good relations. Think of this as the equivalent of the Carter Doctrine, unstated though it is, but given how much a stake China has in energy shipments from Iran to power its economy (which allows it to reduce or restrain its population by providing for job creation and improvements in the standard of living)it will be pushed to use force to protect them.
In essence, competing national security considerations would put us exactly where we don't want to be, competing militarily over a vital region for the world economy with the Chinese, who would have India, Russia and East Asia on their side; Osama's dream fulfilled. But I digress.
Returning to the Carter Doctrine, it will be extremely difficult to legitimize an attack on Iran (absent a first strike by Iran on a neighboring country) because in the Persian Gulf, the US is the foreign power, far more than Iran.
Going back to my earlier argument about International Law, given that the Carter Doctrine was promulgated specifically to keep a foreign power (Soviet Union) out of the Persian Gulf, and was accepted on that basis alone, it might not carry as much weight (as far as law or legitimacy are concerned) if we are going to use it against one of the regions hegemons.
While I disagree that confronting Iran militarily is the answer in this instance, I think a better way to legitimize any such action would have to be by pointing to Iran's failure to comply with the mandates of the IAEA. If you want to legitimize the action, this seems like the only way. Absent this, we can still go to war, but it will be an illegal action in the eyes of international law, and by extension the international community. In that case, we can expect even less help not to mention troops than we received in Iraq, a worsening international situation as China and other powers begin to try to balance us to prevent such an action of occurring again and the loss of prestige and legitimacy we will suffer as a result. Further, such an action will also leave us with an unstable, and violence prone Iran as al Qaeda moves into the vaccuum left behind by the deposed mullahocracy (if it were to fall) giving them free passage from Pakistan and Afghanistan (not to metion Central Asia) to the Middle East through various transit points...in essence uniting the Iraqi jihadist (those led by Zarqawi) with their al Qaeda brethren. In addition, such action has the potential to unite Sunnis and Shiites against a perceived common enemy, including those in Southern Iraq making for a very bloody campaign, which would only be exacerbated by any Israeli aid or actions.
So in conclusion, I do not think the Carter Doctrine could legitimize our actions (except maybe with a part of the American public) and what is more I think such an action would be unwise.
The Barnett Approach
A better course would be to accept a nuclear Iran. What do I mean by that? No, I do not, repeat, do not mean that we should just say okay, you want the bombb you got it and go our merry way. Rather, I mean we use the talks we are currently holding with Iran in Iraq with respect to the future of that country as a venue for addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions and make a grand bargain with Iran. One, we recognize them as a major power in the region, promise to promote their candidacy for entry into the WTO, end the sanctions regime we currently have against them, and allow them to proceed with their nuclear enrichment and eventual entry into the nuclear club. What do we demand in return? First, an end to its support to terrorist groups, including Palestinian groups, recognition of Israel, help in settling the situation in Iraq and Lebanon, aid in pressuring Syria to comply with the UN and more open inspections and compliance of its nuclear research. Make it binding by bringing in the Chinese, Russia, India, Japan, Saudi, NATO to sign on with the knowledge that any actions from the US to comply by the US will be based on Iran's compliance with the bargain and that any continued support to terrorist groups is cause for action against Iran.
The effect of this would be, to strengthen the hand of moderates within Iran because Ahmedinejad will not have the US as the enemy which requires his rhetoric. If Ahmedinejad refuses (he won't because Khameini has the last word and he will accept such a bargain), but if Iran refuses, then the US can say it went the extra mile to resolve the situation and hence far more standing to press Iran to give in (including military action). Ahmedinejad would be blamed and his group would loose not only face but also legitimacy. Bringing in China and others into the fold would mean that we begin a process of engagement with China and cooperation (rather than confrontation) in a region vital to both our economies, thereby reducing the specter of another Cold War. This is also a big carrot for China to help us in getting Iran to comply, because it would mean that its future energy supplies would be assured if Iran agreed. If Iran refuses, China would be more likely to support a tougher line, because the regime in Tehran would seem far more unstable and unreliable (passing up an opportunity to get on our good graces) and securing China's energy supplies. Also, it would mean that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be on an equal footing (since Iran would have to recognize Israel per our agreement) and resolution would be far more possible, as Barnett argues, because Iran is the regional hegemon and all other Muslim states largely operate in its shadow. Such an agreement would also mean a reduction in Iranian detrimental involvement in Iraq or the reduction of support to the Shiite militias and people like Sadr.
In time, the hardliners no longer having the US as the Great Satan that is the cause of all their problems, would recede into the background making way for other Iranian groups to come to the fore and who would be more interested in making money and growing their economy (not to mention who had a stake in the system) than in undermining regional security. Additionally, given that Iran is one of the most open societies in the Middle East (a sad, but true comment) it would further the Big bang in the region because it would likely help us push the Sunni monarchies and dictatorships to reform as the violent and extreme jihadi (wahhabbi) branch of Islam is just as much a danger to Shiites as it is to the West, if not more, as Sunni extremists see Shiites as worse than the Great Satan himself.
