Iran, al-Qaeda and U.S. Pressure

Vali Nasr
Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Monday, February 12, 2007 10:00 AM

Vali Nasr, author of "The Shia Revival," "Democracy in Iran" and "The Islamic Leviathan" and senior adjunct fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, was online Monday, February 12, at 10 a.m. ET to discuss U.S. policy toward Iran, including Iranian involvement in Iraq and detention of al-Qaeda operatives.

Nasr also recently coauthored an editorial on U.S.-Iranian relations: The Iran Option That Isn't on the Table (Post, Feb. 8)

The transcript follows.

____________________

Vali Nasr: Good Morning! It is my pleasure to participate in this on line session, and I look forward to our discussion.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: The Washington Post wrote an article entitled "U.S. Military Ties Iran to Weapons Used in Iraq." Yet this smells strangely like the Iraq WMD stories. First Sunni insurgents are getting weapons from somewhere and it is not Iraq. Common sense might suggest Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. These weapons are probably responsible for more U.S. deaths than Iranian weapons. Why isn't this information about these connections stated clearly in the above article? Why isn't the point made that this search for an Iranian tie included forming a special office in Pentagon similar to the office run by Feith? Why isn't The Post more skeptical after blowing it on the WMD story, and the Libby trial story? Where is the investigative reporting The Post was once known for?

washingtonpost.com: Military Ties Iran To Arms In Iraq (Post, Feb. 12)

Vali Nasr: There is no doubt that Iran has been supporting Iraqi militias--and perhaps not just to confront the U.S. but in preparation for a show-down with the insurgency. Since the war began the overwhelming number of U.S. casualties come from the insurgency which receives material and diplomatic support from Iraq's Arab neighbors. The decision to focus on Iran and ignore Arab support for the insurgency has little to do wit the logic of bringing stability to Iraq and more with the new Iran policy. It is evidence that we are now primarily concerned with Iran not Iraq.

_______________________

Mehr News Agency, Tehran: Dear Nasr, do you think that U.S. pressure on Iran will lead to war, and what do you think is the best solution to this crisis? Do you agree with diplomacy or negotiations? I am awaiting your response.

Vali Nasr: The escalation of tensions between U.S. and Iran could lead to a military confrontation. In particular, the current environment in the Middle East (and Iraq in particular) creates a situation when two countries with deep distrust of one another and with no direct communications between them can unintentionally trigger war. Avoiding conflict can only happen through de-escalating tensions, and that requires some form of engagement.

_______________________

Sarasota, Fla.: Good morning! Is there an ice cube's chance in hockey sticks that a preventive attack by the US on Iran will promote a resolution of even one of the myriad problems in the Middle East? If not can you speculate on why the Administration seems intent on maintaining the threat? If you do see an upside to an attack what is that and is an act of war our best option to get there?

Vali Nasr: Good morning. I think a military confrontation with Iran will only destabilize the region. Short of occupying Iran a U.S. attack will only radicalize Iran and make it more determined to pursue a nuclear capability and create greater mischief in the region. That would in turn destabilize the region and force the U.S. to commit more resources for longer periods of time to contain the consequences.

_______________________

Sioux Falls, S.D.: Fareed Zakaria has recently stated that a major failure and reenactment of the past has been the Bush administration's fatuous grouping of each Islamic sect to be the same if holding the same title (e.g. all Shiites are the same as one another, all Sunnis are exactly alike in beliefs, ideas and goals, etc). Do you agree this incites and unites each Islamic sect to strengthen efforts against the American regime? In particular does this encourage a Shiite Iranian government to support Shiite rebels in Iraqi

Vali Nasr: Although it is important for us to understand divisions within each religious community, it is not the Bush administration that defines the identities but the people in the region. When King Abdullah of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt or Abu Musab Zarqawi talk of "Shias" or "Sunnis" they more than us define the boundaries of identity. In fact, trying to deny that there is a conception of Shia and Sunni at a broader level will only confuse our policy.

_______________________

Sioux Falls, S.D.: To your knowledge what is the security surrounding Iranian sites which construct pieces of the "explosively formed penetraters?" Who has official access to these sites? And who probably has access to these sites? How can the U.S. Pentagon be convinced the transportation and usage of these materials into Iraq is sanctioned by the heads of the Iranian State?

Vali Nasr: It is open to question whether these explosives are manufactured in Iran (much of the technology is now out in the open). Much of what we have seen is assertions that concrete evidence -- part of strategy of pressuring Iran.

_______________________

Annapolis, Md.: Many possible scenarios are being discussed regarding the fate of Iraq and U.S. involvement. The recent NIE stated that rapid U.S. withdrawal would accelerate the disorder and anarchy in Iraq. Many pundits have said that Iran would benefit from the vacuum resulting from a U.S. withdrawal. Is this a certainty? In other words, is there a possibility that if Iraq descends into total chaos and a state of anarchy, that this situation might pose a threat to the stability of Iran? I realize this may sound foolish, but it strikes me that most countries would prefer stability on the other side of their border, not chaos. Thanks.

Vali Nasr: Chaos in Iraq is of direct threat to Iran, and Iranian leaders and newspapers have said as much often. In addition, Iran much like Turkey would not like to see an independent Kurdish state emerge out of Iraq. Fear of chaos and civil war would have served as the basis for an engagement with Iran over Iraq. However, the extent to which Iraq can threaten Iran depends on how Iran reacts to a U.S. departure. The cascade of events that can follow from civil war in Iraq could be quite disturbing to the region, and an unstable Iran will threaten the Middle East more than an unstable Iraq.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: From this uneducated observer -- whose insight into Iran is gleaned mostly from "Reading Lolita in Tehran" -- it appears that Iran's people and their ruling elite are divided by a huge chasm. Iran's people seem to be fairly moderate and, dare I say, perhaps more ready for democracy than their neighbors to the west. If this is true, why wouldn't the U.S. be more intent on fomenting an internal democratic revolution (a velvet revolution for Persia, perhaps) rather than taking a bellicose posture?

Vali Nasr: It is true that the Iranian population is the most West-friendly in the region, and would like to see Iran change. Confrontation will make nationalism rather than democracy more important. Iranians will rally to the flag at a time war in the same manner as Americans will.

_______________________

Newburyport, Mass.: Given the relative youth of the Iranian population, the large numbers of university students and graduates, their exposure to the West; what happened to the student movements and youth protests we saw five or so years ago? Has the pursuit of our Iraq policy turned what seemed to be a cohesive movement against us, or has their disappearance more to do with internal machinations?

Vali Nasr: There was never a cohesive democracy movement in Iran. There were protests, and some had to do with jobs and unemployment. In 2005 there were elections and Ahmadinejad won with a populist message. To some extent the ruling regime has managed the opposition, but the current regional instability and talk of war does not favor political debates. All that said, Iranians voting last months handed Ahmadinejad a defeat. The political debates likely will unfold at the polls in the next two years if they are not disrupted by war.

_______________________

Stockholm, Sweden: Dear Sir: After years of tyranny, Iraq is becoming a federal state. Don't you think the only way to promote democracy in an ethnically heterogeneous country like Iraq, a state that finances itself through huge oil revenues and is independent from society, is making Iraq a federal state with a weak central government and highly autonomous regions? In my view, such a state would be at peace with its people, the region and the world.

Vali Nasr: The issue of federalism in Iraq has less to do with democracy than stability. The current problem in Iraq is not one of democracy, nor will it be solved by greater democracy -- the problem is absence of a constitutionally mandated power-sharing agreement between the three dominant communities of Kurds, Sunnis and Shias. The violence has made a workable power-sharing agreement more difficult, which leads to the argument that perhaps Iraq should be a federal rather than a unitary state. If that brings stability to Iraq then the focus can shift to democracy. Before talking about how Iraq will be governed there has to be a consensus over what Iraq will be.

_______________________

Sarasota Fla.: Quick follow-up please: Secretary Rice says that she does not "recall" the Iranian offer, made just after our Iraq invasion, for talks on topics to include Israel and Iran's nuclear program. How could this proposal, made through our Swiss intermediaries, not have been brought to her, and the president's, attention? Is the State Department so snowed under with diplomatic overtures from Iran's government that this one was simply lost in the ether?

Vali Nasr: The existence of such an offer has been discussed by Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff, who told the BBC that Powell knew about the offer, and that it was discussed at the highest levels.

_______________________

West Orange, N.J.: WaPo's Joshua Partlow writes that nameless U.S. officials have slam-dunk proof that Iranian weapons cause most U.S. deaths, implying --disclaimers aside -- we are supposed to bomb Iran, or that anyone with doubts about the U.S. role in Iraq is allied with Holocaust deniers. Do you see any convincing proof that significant weapons come from Iran and not perhaps from just about everywhere? Does Iran have any reason to want to kill U.S. soldiers or -- even if it does -- supply weapons that could be traced?

Vali Nasr: There has been flow of arms from Iran to Shia groups in Iraq but that has so far been to balance the flow of arms that is going to the insurgency from the Arab world. It is important to note that Shia militias are not at war with the U.S. -- more than 80 percent of U.S. casualties are inflicted by the insurgency, and we are having this discussion at a time when insurgent attacks have killed hundreds of Shias and downed five U.S. helicopters.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: If the U.S. were to bomb Iran, what would be the likely reaction of the Shia in southern Iraq? How much direct influence does Iran have in the Shia parts of Iraq?

Vali Nasr: A war with Iran will have an impact on Iraq, mainly because unhappiness with U.S. policy towards Shias in Iraq is growing. The impact on Iraq would have been less if Iraqi Shia's alliance with the U.S. were stronger.

_______________________

Miami: So short of invasion, what are the options for containing Iran's aid?

Vali Nasr: We should contain everyone in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Syria as well as Iran. Focusing on Iran's support to Shias when the insurgency account for most U.S. deaths is not a policy of addressing Iraq's needs. Ultimately, a settlement in Iraq must involve diplomacy just as settlement of any other conflict from the Arab-Israeli conflict to the one in Balkans has involved diplomacy.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iranians were encouraged by U.S. forces to come across the border and make pilgrimages to Najaf and other sites and to reclaim homes that had been seized from them by Saddam Hussein's regime. Some Iranians were offered cash to provide truck parts and reconstruction materials such as concrete for the U.S.-led military effort and reconstruction, and were encouraged to open food stands and other small businesses for the flood of pilgrims coming across the border. At the time this seemed crazy to me, creating incentives for religious Iranian Shiites (many of whom have family in that part of Iraq) to make financial investments as well as strengthen family and religious ties in what was obviously going to become a contested area. What was the U.S. thinking? And how could they possibly be surprised now that Iranians may have joined in the fight to oust the occupation forces?

Vali Nasr: It is not the U.S. that provided any incentives to Iranians to go to Iraq, it was a decision made by Iranians and Iraqis themselves. Preventing Iranians from going to pilgrimage in Iraq is akin to denying Catholics from visiting the Vatican. To this day the economy of southern Iraq is supported by the pilgrimage trade. Between 2003 and 2005 the entire problem in Iraq came from the insurgency, and since then most attacks in Iraq come from Sunni insurgency. Even using the administration numbers still the overwhelming majority of US casualties come from insurgent attacks (accounting for over 90 percent of attacks on he U.S.). In the past two weeks insurgent bombs have killed hundreds of Shias in Iraq. That is the problem we have to focus on.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I am astonished just how many naive people we have in the U.S. I guess some of it is justified by our inept president and his ill-conceived Iraq adventure. Iran always has been our enemy. They have been killing Americans since they declared war on the U.S. in 1979. Listen to what they say -- they will use any means (nuclear, etc.) to destroy America and Israel. Unlike the other nuclear powers, they do not fear destruction; they believe it will lead to heaven. They must not be allowed to continue on the current path. I totally disagree with your point, Israel did a very good job of ending Iraq's nuclear program, without occupation.

Vali Nasr: There was never a declaration of war on the U.S. and no call for attack on the U.S. or even Israel. In fact in 2001 Iran and the U.S. collaborated very closely in toppling the Taliban. For a whole year after U.S. was in Afghanistan the U.S. ambassador routinely met with his Iranian counterpart. Still, accepting all the dangers that Iran poses, it is not the first challenge that the U.S. has faced. When the U.S. began talking to China they were responsible for tens of thousands of American deaths in Korean war and in Vietnam. The point is how to best manage the challenge of Iran. The 1980s Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear site is not doable today -- Iraq had only one site above the ground, whereas we do not even know how many sites Iran has, and all are fortified and underground. An air war will not take care of the problem. If the objective is to stop nuclearization of Iran then we should assess what policy will yield results with least cost.

_______________________

Toronto: It seems to me that U.S. policies re: the Middle East are being guided to a large extent by the Israel lobby. Why do they have so much influence not just in the White House but in both political parties?

Vali Nasr: Concern for Israel security is an important consideration, but there are other influences from Arab countries, but also debates within the U.S. about how to manage the set of challenges that Iran presents.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Other than guerrilla warfare and indirect support for militias, is Iran a military threat of any sort without nuclear weapons? In other words, can Iran project military power effectively in any way? I just can't imagine Iran moving beyond its borders in any meaningful way, and as we saw in Lebanon the missiles Hezbollah used were not really very accurate, although of course they did a lot of damage and caused a lot of deaths. But in terms of making a meaningful difference in military terms, those missiles did very little.

Vali Nasr: Iranian military capability is relatively limited. Technologically it lags behind the Arab armies. Also Iran's strategy in the past ten years has not been military expansion but establishing a zone of Iranian influence in the region. It relies on trade and investment as much as political ties. Iranian investments in western Afghanistan and Dubai are examples of this. This does not mean that Iran does not want to throw its weight around, but that it is interested in influence rather than direct control.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you feel that the greatest pressure that could possibly be placed on Iran short of a full scale invasion would be to re-instate the military draft? What would Iran do if we raised an army of 1 million American men and women?

Vali Nasr: Iran cannot raise a million-man army. It is economically and politically too costly. Moreover, U.S. military technology makes those kinds of numbers less impressive. In recent weeks U.S. financial pressure on Iran -- restrictions on banking and money transfers -- has been quite effective and has raised the political stakes domestically within Iran.

_______________________

New York: Several blogs have reported this exchange and I'd like to get your thoughts: At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

President Bush chuckled and walked away.

Vali Nasr: I do not know whether this exchange happened or not, but many pro-democracy voices in Iran fear that military confrontation will divert attention from democracy and political dissent to nationalism. Iranians like all people will support their government (regardless of all other differences) at a time of war. They did so in the 1980s when Saddam attacked Iran, which only strengthened Khomeini's rule at the time.

_______________________

Newburyport, Mass.: How plausible is it that certain facets of the Iranian security enterprise could be operating independently of higher authorities within the Iranian government, something akin to the ISI in Pakistan under Bhutto? Or is the more likely scenario that any operations outside of Iran's borders is done with at least the partial knowledge of the superiors within the security apparatus?

Vali Nasr: The stakes in Iraq are too high for a rogue security operation to be running amok in Iraq. It is important to note that Iran cares a great deal about Iraq (and not because of the U.S.). For fifty years, going back to 1958 and the time of the Shah Iraq was a threat to Iran. It started a war that killed 1 million Iranians; Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran, and at one time sent 120 SCUD missiles into Iran. The future of Iraq, making sure Sunnis and Baathists do not come back to power, matters greatly to Iran.

_______________________

Vali Nasr: It was wonderful discussing these issue with you. Have a good day.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.