Thursday, December 06, 2007

U.S. Has Struck A Deal With Iran: A Very Interesting, And Plausible, Theory On The NIE


One measure of how strange things are these days is how many theories are being thrown at the wall in an attempt to explain events. However, this one sounds very plausible to me.


This is from Stratfor:


Stratfor Geopolitical Diary - The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate released on Monday -- the little bombshell that says Iran has had its nuclear weapons program on hold since 2003 -- raises two fundamental questions. First, if Iran really does not have a military weapons program, why has it resisted international inspections? Second, why is the United States allowing this news to break?

The Iranian motive for resisting inspections should first be considered.

For the past five years, Washington and Tehran have been engaged in on-again, off-again negotiations over Iraq's future. In these talks the Iranians have been at a sizable disadvantage. The United States has more than 100,000 troops in the country, while Iran's leverage is largely limited to its influence with many of the country's Shiite militias. This influence is a useful tool for denying the United States the ability to impose its desires, though it is not a powerful enough one to allow the Iranians to turn their own preferences into reality.

Moreover, given that the majority of Iran's population is either in or behind the Zagros Mountains, Iran might be difficult to invade, but it lacks military expeditionary capability. Its infantry-heavy army is designed for population control, not power projection. Therefore, for Iran to have a lever in manipulating events in its region, it must develop other playing cards.

Its nuclear program is one of those cards. Iran has had a vested interest in convincing the world -- unofficially, of course -- that it possesses a nuclear program. For Iran, the nuclear program is a trump card to be traded away, not a goal in and of itself.

As to the U.S. motive, it also wanted to play up the nuclear threat. Part of Washington's negotiation strategy has been to isolate Iran from the rest of the international community. Charges that Iran desired nukes were an excellent way to marshal international action. Both sides had a vested interest in making Iran look the part of the wolf.

That no longer is the case. There are only two reasons the U.S. government would choose to issue a report that publicly undermines the past four years of its foreign policy: a deal has been struck, or one is close enough that an international diplomatic coalition is no longer perceived as critical. This level of coordination across all branches of U.S. intelligence could not happen without the knowledge and approval of the CIA director, the secretaries of defense and state, the national security adviser and the president himself. This is not a power play; this is the real deal.

The full details of any deal are unlikely to be made public any time soon because the U.S. and Iranian publics probably are not yet ready to consider each other as anything short of foes. But the deal is by design integrated into both states' national security posture. It will allow for a permanent deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq to provide minimal national security for Iraq, but not in large enough numbers to be able to launch a sizable attack against Iran. It will allow for the training and equipping of the Iraqi military forces so that Iraq can defend itself, but not so much that it could boast a meaningful offensive force. It will integrate Iranian intelligence and military personnel into the U.S. effort so there are no surprises on either side.

But those are the details. Here is the main thrust: Ultimately, both sides have nursed deep-seated fears. The Iranians do not want the Americans to assist in the rise of another militaristic Sunni power in Baghdad -- the last one inflicted 1 million Iranian casualties during 1980-1988 war. The United States does not want to see Iran dominate Iraq and use it as a springboard to control Arabia; that would put some 20 million barrels per day of oil output under a single power. The real purpose of the deal is to install enough bilateral checks in Iraq to ensure that neither nightmare scenario happens.

Should such an arrangement stick, the two biggest winners obviously are the Americans and Iranians. That is not just because the two no longer would be in direct conflict, and not just because both would have freed up resources for other tasks.

U.S. geopolitical strategy is to prevent the rising of a power on a continental scale that has the potential to threaten North America. It does this by favoring isolated powers that are resisting larger forces. As powerful as Iran is, it is the runt of the neighborhood when one looks past the political lines on maps and takes a more holistic view. Sunnis outnumber Shia many times over, and Arabs outnumber Persians. Indeed, Persians make up only roughly half of Iran's population, making Tehran consistently vulnerable to outside influence. Simply put, the United States and Iran -- because of the former's strategy and the latter's circumstances -- are natural allies.

On the flip side, the biggest losers are those entities that worry about footloose and fancy-free Americans and Iranians. The three groups at the top of that list are the Iraqis, the Russians and the Arabs. Washington and Tehran will each sell out their proxies in Iraq in a heartbeat for the promise of an overarching deal. Now is the time for the Kurds, Sunni and Shia of Iraq to prove their worth to either side; those who resist will be smears on the inside of history's dustbin.

Separately, a core goal of U.S. foreign policy is to ensure that the Russians never again threaten North America, and to a lesser degree, Europe. A United States that is not obsessed with Tehran is one that has the freedom to be obsessed with Moscow. And do not forget that the last state to occupy portions of Iran was not the United States, but Russia. Persia has a long memory and there are scores to settle in the Caucasus.

Back in the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy has often supported the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, favoring the weak against the strong in line with the broad strategy discussed above. A United States that does not need to contain Iran is a United States that can leverage an Iran that very much wishes to be leveraged. That potentially puts the Arabs on the defensive on topics ranging from investment to defense. The Arabs tend to get worried whenever the Americans or the Iranians look directly at them; that is nothing compared to the emotions that will swirl the first time that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and U.S. President George W. Bush shake hands.

We expect the days and weeks ahead to be marked by a blizzard of activity as various players in Washington and Tehran attempt both to engage directly and to prepare the ground (still) for a final deal. Much will be dramatic, much will be contradictory, much will make no sense whatsoever. This is, after all, still the Middle East. But keep this in mind: With the nuclear issue out of the way, the heavy lifting has already been done and some level of understanding on Iraq's future already is in place. All that remains is working out the "details."


Hmm.

Wouldn't it be interesting if, in the near future, we see the sheepish face of George Bush look up and say, "Checkmate."

14 comments:

VinceP1974 said...

I think anyone who thinks that Iran is *NOT* racing to a bomb is criminally naive.

Epaminondas said...

"For Iran, the nuclear program is a trump card to be traded away, not a goal in and of itself."
Totally disagree.
It is my humble opinion that they are prepared to bear ANY sacrifice to gain nuclear weapons, to make safe the islamic revolution, to make Israel untenable or unlivable, and to cow the risk averse western man.

"Defeat the americans and the english, and the rest will run for cover" - Strategist Hassan Abassi

Epaminondas said...

"This level of coordination across all branches of U.S. intelligence could not happen without the knowledge and approval of the CIA director, the secretaries of defense and state, the national security adviser and the president himself. This is not a power play; this is the real deal."

Well, actually, as Bolton and Ken Timmerman detail, this is EXACTLY what a power play looks like.

Robert Gates is a Baker clone. Condi is a palestinian. Bush is isolated, at best or convinced at worst.

Pastorius said...

I'm not going to defend this article. I offer it as one of many theories.

I don't recall their ever being so much controversy and confusion over one news story.

rez said...

The NIE was a coup against the neocon realm.I saw deals being made with Iran and the real diplomats in the Pentagon/CIA when Iran began to reign in their shiite supporters.At last we are seening real diplomacy not threats of war or a war of sanctions.

Epaminondas said...

I understand it's not you saying this...it's stratfor.

George Friedman also has some funky ideas about Iraq all along.

This incredible fallout is this way because nothing about this comforms to any unified theory, and to find one, you have to have whimsy to say the least.

This admin imho is in real, historic trouble, regardless ofhow well Iraq is going. In 50 years unless there is something hidden right now, the handling of the Iranian issue from 1979, to 9/11, and from 9/11 to now will be regarded as a complete calamity for the USA, and presidents, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and whoever comes next will be forever significantly tarred, and diminished.

Redneck Texan said...

When this report came out I was furious.... it just had to be the liberal career analyst’s attempt at 11th hour subterfuge of Bush’s foreign policy goals.... either that or a coordinated ruse to give the USS Truman’s strike force a small degree of operational surprise.

Then I swung to the other extreme..... with reports of the Russian fuel rods being sealed and ready for transport to the Bushehr, the time had finally arrived for Bush to strike or punt..... the one thing this pacifist report accomplishes is it gives Bush political cover to NOT fulfill his promise of taking out Bushehr before it goes critical. Now Bush can point to this report as tying his hands from finally acting......

.....having slept on it now.... I have a different theory. It appears that the left's power brokers in Congress were just as surprised as everybody else when this assessment came out, now they and Iran are both gloating over their "victory". But I am starting to think Bush just screwed them both so cleverly that neither of them have figured out just how screwed they are yet.

I still think its no coincidence that this declassified report was released the day after the Fuel Rods were sealed and the Truman made it a threesome in the Arabian Sea.

This report has caused an “Oh Shit” moment in the Capitals of Israel, Europe, The Gulf Arabs, and Turkey.....they were all counting on the US to do the dirty work again..... this report lit a fire under their collective arses.

What was going to happen if the US committed a unilateral unprovoked pre-emptive strike against the Mullah’s Nuclear and Military infrastructure?

Not only was the American Left going to go apeshit (Biden was already talking impeachment)..... but the entire world was going to ostracize us for doing the right thing.

What was Iran planning to do in response? First they were going to lob long-range missiles and Hezbos at Israel to fulfill their religious fantasies(in which any damage caused would be seen as our fault).... and they were going to use their shorter-range "super-weapons" to swarm US naval assets in the Gulf..... and also target allied bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Iran, and Qatar. (and any collateral civilian damage they caused there would be blamed on us as well).

NOW..... that we have basically prohibited ourselves from casting the first stone, this pretty much assures an Israeli strike on at least Bushehr..... they have to..... their survival hinges on it. They have already started the “our intelligence is different, and we have to act on our intelligence” rhetoric..... and there "appears" to be a sudden rift between America and Israel.

There have been rumors of Israel being told “you’re own your own” since Cheney visited the region a few months back. Suppose Bush knew that the fuel rods leaving Russia was going to be the trigger for the Israeli strike on Bushehr they have been training for. So he has this report released as soon as the fuel shipments are sealed by the IAEA.... makes a public spectacle of our new kinder & gentler position, and the political rift with Israel. (He’s planning a trip to Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Ramallah?). Now he has the Mullahs and Liberals hailing this change of attitude, mocking him for having his hands tied.......... and then Israel attacks Bushehr.

When they do we immediately join the chorus of Arab and European cowards condemning Israel....... WHAT IS IRAN GOING TO DO NOW?

Assuming they dont already have an operational Ukrainian cruise missile with a black market Russian nuke (which I think they do), they are going to lob a large portion of their long-range conventional (Chemical?) warheads at Israel (Dimona?), but they were going to do that even if Israel did not participate in our bombing campaign, and Israel’s Patriot and Arrow batteries are going to intercept most if not all of them over Jordan..... and the world clamors for a ceasefire.

But the Iranians have been gearing up for years for a short-range response in the Gulf region. Are they still going to launch attacks against US interests in the region? You know they’re gonna wanna. They’ve waited all their lives for this moment to attack the great Satan.

But now the US has done nothing to justify an attack on them.

Let say we just happen to have a timely placed soft target of opportunity floating around just outside Iranian waters after the Israeli attack.....are they going to be able to resist attacking it?

We’re an innocent 3rd party now...... hell, we are condemning Israel and calling for calm like everyone else.....and the Iranians just attacked us first (real or fabricated) (Pan to CNN Images of the dead Americans on that burning ship)........is that the moral high ground I see off to starboard?

Well we're just gonna have to do something about that now, wont we?.....cause we’re the innocent victims of unprovoked Iranian aggression now. What do the liberals and the UN expect us to do .... not respond with total devastation?? What idiot in congress would oppose the President's immediate request for authorization to response to such an unprovoked attack in an election year?

Its a win-win situation. Either we get to sit back and watch Israel, with perhaps some European, Arab, or Turkish assistance, take care of the problem for us, at least the Bushehr reactor problem....or we get to open up a can of return fire across Persia and no one can reasonably complain.

That theory hinges on 2 things happening, Israel having the courage to cast the first stone, and the Iranians being stupid enough to attack us in response. Israel has proven in the past to have the courage..... and Muslim have proven.....

Redneck Texan said...

I looked around, but couldn't find the suggestion box here .... but I think This would make a nice addition to the IBA sidebar.

Its a recent comments code for old Blogger templates, using the Blogger commenting system. I assume you are still running the old template here..... if not they have one for the new Blogger templates as well.

My visitors like it (the haloscan version} because it lets them know where the active threads are.

Just sayin.

Pastorius said...

RT,

Muslims have proven ...

... to be stupid?

I think that's what you meant to say.

Pastorius said...

I'll talk to our admin guy about that, thanks.

Epaminondas said...

I don;t have any confidence that the IAF can take out the things they would need to with a 'raid'.
I believe this calls for an extended relentless air campaign. Maybe 14 days minimum.

That means the first targets have to be air defense. Then actual targets.

Think of the press. While the Israelis will be invulnerable to that, WE will have to resupply and replace the material they use up. See where I'm going?

Are we up for that?

What will Mr Biden, and Barack be saying be saying about the cluster bombs falling on those Pantsyr and TOR-300's which are parked conveniently near pediatric hospitals as we get ready to create an air bridge to Tel Aviv with more american munitions?

Remember..Israel to the Iranians is the little Satan, Nasrallah has said many times they are just a 'battalion' of america, and american colonialism ... to them whether Israel hits them or not, it's us.

Of course, if the IAF hits Iran, and then Iran rockets american forces.....
Are they that dumb?
You tell me.

Redneck Texan said...

Remember..Israel to the Iranians is the little Satan, Nasrallah has said many times they are just a 'battalion' of america, and american colonialism ... to them whether Israel hits them or not, it's us.

Well then, that logic cuts both ways. Israel could hold Iran responsible for an attack by their proxies in Hezbolah and Hamas.

I know Israel Cant defeat Iran, all they need to do is provoke Iran into attacking the US, or anything other than Israel really. Isreal doesn't need to suppress Iranian air defenses to take out Bushehr, they could do it with a land-based missile attack.

I know this theory has a lot of moving parts, and a lot of events that have to happen to trigger the much needed destruction of Iran. But I like the odds of Israel choosing to attack now in lieu of living under a Shiite nuclear umbrella, and I think in a fit of rage, with their missiles not hitting their marks in Israel due to Israel's anti-missile superiorty, the true zealots in Iran would be awful tempted to attack somebody.

And I would just love to see the look on Bush's face when Hillary and Biden are forced to vote for a military response to an Iranian act of aggression against the US..... thats when they and Iran will finally figure out they were playing poker with a Texan. :-)

Epaminondas said...

Nobody so far has confused Israel with Hamlet.

Let's hope they KEEP IT that way.

I agree, action is compulsory, and once committed to action...l'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace.

WATCHER71 said...

IMHO RT has identified the only logical explanation for this move on the part of the US. Clearly feeling/fearing further (sometimes)unjustified global criticism of further US led military action...the ground has to be primed...the mood lighting set...show the dove whilst cocking the six shooter behind your back, as you know the other guy is. If this is the case it represents an extraordinarily shrewd move on the part of the US administration that I whole heartedly support. The alternative doesn't even bear thinking about....dare I say it...Appeasement.....

I just say that this issue should have been resolved during the second invasion of Iraq....although perhaps the public mood would not have swallowed the inevitable resistance taking place....and to the extent it would have in both Iraq and Iran.