Ho Chi Khomeini?

Here are two (here and here) recent Iran items worth discussing.

First, Maziar Bahari writes for the Washington Post's 'Post Global' blog. Aside from a few grammatical errors his post implies a question I've never heard, nor do I understand the answer once I ask it. Bahari writes:

As I watched President Bush standing under a gigantic statue of Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam the other day I was thinking to myself, "Why should it be so far-fetched to imagine an American president standing under a portrait of Ayatollah Khomeini in the Iranian parliament?" After all the Vietnamese killed more than fifty-thousand Americans.

How many years came between the fall of Vietnam in 1975 and the renewal of relations with the country? 20? Maybe 21? Are we so childish as a people that we'd let the 1979 Hostage Crisis get in the way of a country that has changed tremendously in 27 years?

What I like most about Bahari's post is that he has suggestions that US policymakers can use now to better our mutual relations:

There are four issues Americans can start having a dialog about with Iran to get the ball rolling: (1) Disbanding the Iraqi-based Iranian terrorist group PMOI (People's Mujaheddin of Iran aka MKO aka NCRI), (2) Lifting sanctions and unfreezing more than 8 billion dollars of Iran's assets in the U.S., (3) Supporting Iran's application to join the World Trade Organization, and (4) Facilitating visa procedure for Iranians visiting the U.S. and free access to the U.S. for Iranian media. Solving these outstanding issues will not endanger American interests in the region. It will embolden progressive forces inside Iran and the region. It's not that these issues can be easily solved, but two countries can start talking about a situation that has become more complicated in the past 27 years because of their inaction.

Emboldening progressive voices in Iran is exactly what we are after. However, in order for the relationship to heal there will have to be reciprocity from Iran as well. Iran has to give some things up as well. For starters, I'd say trading MEK for Hezbollah would be a good first start. Sure, let Iran continue to rhetorically support Hezbollah, but they have to stop arming Hezbollah. Hezbollah is certainly a bishop or rook on the Middle East chessboard, but it's time Iran got some real value from their creation, as opposed to another tool of instability. It's a decent trade if you ask me.

Moreover, the Israelis, I think, wouldn't be so worried about more Iranian influence in Iraq, however, if the Iranians stopped arming Hezbollah. So there's a start, no? The visas, economics and media relaxation would all be in Iran's interests as well. They want to be a part of the global community, desperately. But globalism cuts both ways, witness China, the Olympics and an improving human rights record. Furthermore, more integration with the global community would lead to real penalties when Iran's leaders shoot their mouths off, engage in the ocassional bout of sabre-rattling and it would certainly put an end to things like Khobar Towers. Developments like these give the global community (and the US) more leverage over Iran, not less.

The bottom line, however, is that Iraq is the elephant in the room. And to that we turn to Stratfor's November 27, Geopolitical Diary:

Stratfor writes:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday that the United States is "trapped" in Iraq -- and Iran is prepared to help to extricate it from the Iraqi "quagmire" provided that Washington changes its "bullying" behavior toward Tehran. Ahmadinejad's statements came the same day that a spokesman for Iraqi President Jalal Talabani confirmed he will travel to Tehran on Monday to discuss Iran's role in containing the violence in Iraq. Meanwhile, a top Kurdish member of the Iraqi National Assembly, Mahmoud Othman, said that while the Talabani's visit would be beneficial to Iraq, "a lot depends on the relations between the United States and Iran."

I'd say a bit more than a lot depends on our relations with Iran. But it is important to note that Tehran isn't the key to Iraqi stability either. Let's be clear about that. As Atrios says, Iran isn't going to provide us with a magic pony in Iraq.

But back to the 'price.'

Can the Iranians help the situation? Yes, but it will cost us:

1) Security for the Iranian regime
2) Recognition of Iranian influence in Iraq
3) Acknowledgment of Iran's dominance in the Persian Gulf and the wider Middle East.

Numbers one and two are obvious and should be easy (as two is the de facto reality and one, well, we deal with lots of unsavory regimes, many even more odiuos than the mullocracy in Iran), but has anyone seen Iran imply, much less ask for us (or anyone for that matter) to acknowledge their dominance of the Persian Gulf and the wider Middle East? I haven't seen that. I haven't heard that--not even in Iran. Perhaps the neocons or the hapless and incompetent American media invented this as a condition, but it seems to me to be quite unlikely. Look, Iran is a strong nation in a rough neighborhood, but the paltry $6 billion a year it spends on its military won't create a regional hegemon. Nor will building nuclear weapons, especially now that Israel has a second strike capability. The Iranians are clever, not stupid. As to the argument about an unstable authoritarian government full of crazy Muslims that hate us having nukes? Does the name Pakistan ring a bell? Finally, this fear of raging Shi'a hordes is just that: a fear. It's irrational.

We need to open relations with Iran now before the region spins out of control. Iran can help us calm the region but they aren't a deus ex machina. It'll take a lot of hard work to repair the damage already done. Unfortunately Bush (and Cheney) aren't up to the task, so we'll have to wait.