Diavlogging the grand bargain with Iran

Thu, 10/08/2009 - 7:59am

My latest bloggingheads diavlog is with the New America Foundation's Flynt Leverett, who co-authored an op-ed last week that didn't sit too well with me.  We discuss the Leveretts' proposal for a grand bargain with Iran and all of its implications. 

 

 

I come away from the diavlog even more skeptical of the Leverett proposal -- the more I listened, the more I thought that:

  1. Today's Iran would not go for it;
  2. The collateral damage inflicted on our allies would be nontrivial;
  3. There is no domestic political support for such an initiative; and,
  4. From a realpolitik perspective, it's not demonstrably better than the alternatives.  

Opinions will vary, however -- give it a listen and let me know what you think in the comments. 

Daniel W. Drezner | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

some quick thoughts

by BurningChrome on Thu, 10/08/2009 - 12:10pm

I agree with Mr. Drezner and would add,

1) Hamas and a peace deal with Israel is an absolute incongruity.Hamas has constantly rejected any peace agreement and said no one can negotiate away any part of Palestine of which they include not just the territory Israel acquired in 1967 but all of Israel. It is complete fantasy to believe that Hamas is interested in a peace agreement, Iran can get Hamas to be a peace partner, or Iran is even interested in such a joint venture with the US.

2) Unlike Hizbolah which is very much controlled by Iran, Iranian interests in Hamas are mostly limited to their mutual antagonism with Israel.

3) Probably most importantly though from a US perspective would be to marginalize Hamas. Whatever short term benefits there are in getting Hamas into a Peace process, are going to more than offset by giving the Islamic Brotherhood a foothold in Middle Eastern governments.

The Islamic Brotherhood is extremely anti-Western, and subscribe to the same ideology as Al-Qaeda. Most regimes in the region are having problems with the Brotherhood, notably Jordan and Egypt so it is counter to both US long term interests or for regional stability to be validate Hamas.

4) Mr. Leverett keeps talking about Iran's red lines but those red lines are things like continued US influence in the region. Iran doesn't accept that the US has any interest in the internal affairs of Lebanon or any other countries in the region, so I am more than little baffled about how he then thinks Iran will come to any accommodation with the US in Lebanon or anywhere else for that matter that will diminish their influence. The normalisation he holds out to Iranian thinking will come their way in any event as they perceive US power is in decline.

5) I do agree with Mr. Leverett though that the Iran regime is very stable, and the elections are a western obsession that carries no currency in the region or Asia. Much like Saddam Hussein was equally adored and respected in the 'Arab street'. The whole architecture of the Iranian regime is built on survival of the regime. They lost power once in the early part of the last century and they are not going to allow that to happen again. They will employ whatever brutality is necessary to maintain the regime.

It just left me feeling

by blue13326 on Thu, 10/08/2009 - 8:22pm

It just left me feeling depressed that your interlocutor gets paid to shove his nonsense down the throats of college kids.

Drezner wins easily. I will

by kjb on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 1:50am

Drezner wins easily. I will say, however, that you make some funny faces. I'm not sure if that's good or bad...

You were obviously pleased to

by Sky on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 7:05am

You were obviously pleased to talk with him. Reasonable regarding his opinion / NOT!
However, I was wondering about some of his concern regarding the Iranian interests. He might be right about more than just the stability of the regime...