"Iran’s Ambition" by Richard Sale

By Richard Sale, author of Clinton’s  Secret Wars 

A few years ago,  I was a patient of a Dr. Klein. He was a kindly, thoughtful man, Jewish, and he one day took me aside and asked me, on what moral grounds the United States was trying to deny Iran’s  developing its nuclear weapons?

He said that he thought that Iran’s desire was not depraved, but a natural aspiration.   That exchange got me thinking.

Rivalry, jealousy acquisitiveness are powerful emotions that do most of the world’s work. They are little engines that know no rest.  The instinct to imitate is a key human instinct. Any display of individual ability provokes a profound disquiet on the part of others who won’t rest until they display an equal superiority.  There is an enormous propensity for people to speak, walk, and behave like others, often without any consciousness of doing so.   In large masses of people, this emotion can produce panics, slaughter, episodes of violence which only the rarest of human beings is able to withstand.

And the capacity for imitation possessed by human beings is common to other gregarious animals. It is hard not to imitate gaping, laughing, gesturing, running, if other people are seen as doing so. 

But we are all the slaves of the desire to be first, to attract favorable notice, to accomplish worthwhile acts that entitle us to deference. We are all prisoners of the urge to earn some special acclaim or to be the author of some accomplishment that points to an exceptional destiny. There is no more painful feeling then being looked down on as an inferior personality or to be thought of as a member of a second rate country.  Nothing excites the spirit of injury, other than outright infliction of pain, than to be everywhere sneered at or dismissed. And there is always the underlying anxiety that says that if we do not do some extraordinary task or accomplish some supreme achievement others will do it and we will not get the credit. 

Unfortunately, this jealousy for renown is a form of pugnacity – it has very little connection with sympathy.  Faust said that there were two souls that dwelt within us one of sociability and helpfulness and the other of remorseless rivalry. He was right. William James once made the observation that the killing off a tribe, from which no good can come except competition, may better the chances of your own  group’s survival.  One cannot think of that observation without thinking of Israel for example.  Or of Iran, for that matter.

Unbridled rivalry crushes sympathy. Rivalry is murderous but above all, it is selfish. It destroyed community. Chickens in the barnyard will turn and kill a comrade who has been wounded and cattle do not aid a wounded member. Menace is the father of the desire that wants to triumph  but wants to remain untouched itself. 

(Benjamin Netanyahu’s public feelings for Iran remind me of the old Turkish proverb about burning the blanket in order to kill the flea.)

The Iranian people are not evil.  Iran had a functioning empire of 70 million when Rome was a village. When I returned from Iran, any cab driver in Washington was always able to quote from the great poets Hafiz and Sadiq and yet refuse to collect a $40 fare from Dulles. After all, it was King Cyrus the Great, who in 539 BC, freed the Jews from the Babylonians and described the Jews as people “anointed by the Lord.”

The hard point is this:no country can for very long abide feeling secondary diminished, and subsidiary.

Comments

[bth]

It bears passing mention that in the 70s Wolfowitz lobbied for Iranian nuclear power under the shah

[FB Ali]

The Iranian people are not evil.

That a statement such as this needs to be made is a reflection, not on Iranians, but on public discourse in the United States. A truly sad reflection!

[William R. Cumming]

It would be a mistake to think that any aspect of nuclear weaponry from development, to deployment, to use, has anything to do with aspects of morality. IMO of course.

Development of nuclear power has had more to do with guilt than "power cheaper than water"! As we know water is NOT cheap.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Yes, Brigadier Ali, you are correct.

The Americans have fallen off the deep end and they do not even realize it.

[JustPlainDave]

I'm working from memory, but it also bears mentioning that the terms of the agreement finally struck (after long negotiation) between Iran and the United States stipulated no enrichment and no reprocessing within Iran.

[The beaver]

Au contraire:
In fact, in August 1974 the late Shah of Iran envisioned a time when the world’s oil supply would run out, and declared: “Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn...We envision producing as soon as possible, 23,000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants.” [65] (see U.S. nuclear energy advertisement from the mid-1970s).
Realizing that Iran’s oil supply was finite and that maintaining the standard of living of its people would require the construction of nuclear power plants, the Shah asked Washington if US companies could assist Iran in building 20 nuclear power plants by the year 2000. Ironically, a couple of young men in the Ford administration, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, formally approved Iran’s plans — including full domestic enrichment of Iran’s large uranium ore deposits.
Dafna Linzer, “Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy,” Washington Post, March 27, 2005; Page A15, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

[mbrenner]

A look at the history of the nuclear era points us to the conclusion that every single country that had a reasonable security need - by objective measures - has either developed nuclear weapons or seriously considered doing so. That list includes S. Korea and Taiwan (1970s) and even Sweden (1970s-80s). Those who had the capcity but chose not to do so had iron-clad security guarantees from another nuclear power (US allies) or were coerced into abstention (the Soviet satellites). Iran is following the logic of its security circumstances. Until that changes, their interest in potentially building nuclear weapons will remain. The only way that circumstances change is if the US makes a serious, honest effort to engage the Islamic Republic in negotiations on a security system for the Gulf region that promises an end to their political and economic isolation in exchange for things we want. This is what Tehran proposed in March-April 2003 and which we rejected out of hand.

All the rest is political posturing and eye wash.

[mac]

Yes...but, the main reason the Revolution stung so bad, as it were, was that we were very close....closer than most other bilateral relations, save the Atlantic Charter et al..

Iran must accept some measure of responsibility for the genesis of the estrangement & cold war between DC and Tehran. For the heirs of Cyrus to disregard ancient and fundamental tenets of diplomacy a la 1979/81, there is a cost...

[JustPlainDave]

I don't know what Linzer is thinking about here, but it seems difficult to square with the view put forward by Burr (whose article is the most detailed account of the negotiations I've seen):

"As in the 1976 draft, the final agreement retained a U.S. veto on reprocessing but did not include options for buy back or a multinational plant. Under Article 6, Iran would not reprocess spent fuel or enrich uranium supplied by the U.S. 'unless the parties agree.'"

The agreement ended up not getting finalized in the end, being overtaken by the events of the revolution.

Burr, W. (2009). A brief history of U.S.-Iranian nuclear negotiations. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 65(1):21-34.

[confusedponderer]

If one looks at the steep price Iran paid in the war with Iraq one might think that they have paid off that bill.

Instead, much like the policy of confronting Iraq, the policy of confronting Iran has also continued on auto pilot. There is a considerable inertia and that inane dynamic of ever 'tougher' (as if being "tough" was an end in itself, and sadly, in US politics, it is) sanctions, apparently because, if pressure didn't work once, more pressure most certainly will. Rinse, repeat.

US relations to Cuba are a perfect example of perfect failure of that approach and the resulting dysfunctional policy. The Cuba lobby has as much a grip on that particular issue as the Israeli lobby has a firm grip on Middle East policy.

And the resoundingly successful and market tested PR involved in demonisation makes it politically very costly to ever deal with one of those evildoers. In the US, once the process is started in earnest, it is pretty much predetermined to be a one way street. American enemies in the Middle East rarely make it from Saul to Paul.

IMO Iran is almost there at the point where there is no turning back. It probably won't be happening under Obama (I am willing to be pleasantly surprised) and it certainly won't happen under a Romney, let alone a Perry, Bachmann, Caine or Gingrich.

Under Bush, the neo-cons, because they wanted to be the real men who go to Tehran, succeeded in having the US dismiss Iran's proposal for a grand bargain and for reconciliation. Apparently, for people so full of themselves as the neo-cons, still high on that mission they 'accomplished' in Iraq, such an offer must have been regarded as a sign of Iranian weakness. By their logic - if Iran is weak so why make any unnecessary concessions now? Perhaps there is a chance of the system collapsing on its own, and once we're back from Damascus and Beirut ... they're next anyway.

At the very least from that point on, for about a decade now, the ball is firmly in the US yard. 1979/81? Get over it. After all, you kindly ask the Iranians to get over about a million casualties in the Iraq-Iran war. Deal?

[Babak Makkinejad]

This is not accurate.

Mr. Clinton's Iran polciy during his first presidency was an earnest effort to bankrupt the Iranian government.

When Iranians tightened their belts and failed to go bankrupt, he switched to Dual Containment.

You must understand that the issues here are strategic and not personality-based.

[Babak Makkinejad]

The casualty figures for the dead from Iranian sources has been 295,000 dead.

Of these, 55,000 were members of the regular Armed Forces of the Islamic Republuc of Iran (Army, Navy, Air Force) and the rest, 240,000, from the Guardians of the (Islamic) Revolution as well as Basiji volunteers.

US Iran policy is now stable - Neither Peace, Nor War. I expect it to continue in that mode for a few more decades.

[YT]

RE: "The instinct to imitate is a key human instinct. Any display of individual ability provokes a profound disquiet on the part of others who won’t rest until they display an equal superiority. There is an enormous propensity for people to speak, walk, and behave like others, often without any consciousness of doing so."

邯鄲學步 (hándān xué bù) [Slavish imitation of others & loss of one's own individuality.]

During the Warring States of China, there was a kid from the State of Yan (燕) who tried to mimic the way Han Dan folks walked in the Zhao (趙) State (apparently some catwalk much popularized). After months of tomfoolery attempts, he eventually lost his motor skills & had to (literally) drag his ass back home, crawling.

I wonder if in the race to be like the Americans ("U.S.A No.1!) - with unbridled capitalism as mantra (along with a host of other sins) - the BRIC(S?), etc. might eventually all lose themselves in the process?

You can see it from my (god****) side of the planet already (yesterday!) -- high rate of divorces (i.e. South Korea), substance abuse, no f**king respect for elderly people, propensity for violence among kids, wanton sex, etc.

(I ain't trying to act all saintly, MHO is all.)

[mac]

I agree, CP. I 100% agree.....that bill has been bought and paid for, many, many times over. Coming from someone who steadfastly believes in rapprochement, there is value in each side's unreserved acknowledgment of their own history, good or bad. That said, the narrow point I want to make clear is that while true, to paraphrase Babak above, DC has, sadly, appeared to have lost it’s strategic compass, it wasn’t too long ago when the clerical establishment of Iran was also waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy off the beaten path.
At that time, Khomeini's government’s acquiescence in not intervening for the immediate release of the Embassy's staff on 11-04-1979 was a breathtaking departure in the manner nations had operated within the modern international system. Of course, ransacking a foreign embassy and holding it's diplomats prisoner seems mild post- 2003, almost quaint in comparison to waging wars of aggression, but from the perspective of someone whose intimately connected with both sides, I have no doubt the breakdown of the rule of law between nations in the post WWII era that culminated in the ascendency of neocon commandeering of this country’s international relations has a citation or two to the events of 1979/81. To be sure, Qom has since made several good faith efforts at repairing the breech. Khatemi , the Grand Bargain of 2003, and others to name a few. You are right that for a while now, the ball has been squarely in the US’s court.