Those who protest Nixon's trip to China...

OP-ED: Mahmoud's 'Gift': The right way to exploit any fissures in the Tehran regime, Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2007

This is an ahistorical argument.

Countries we talk to and open up with trade have been changed--even radically transformed--by that process (USSR, China), while countries that we sanction and isolate and do not talk to remain strong in their authoritarianism (Cuba, North Korea).

Connectedness works. Just ask Vietnam.

But hardliners, despite such evidence, love to argue otherwise.

When Iran has a moderate president, the WSJ says, "don't negotiate anything." Ditto for when it has a hardliner president.

But Nixon did go to China, over the WSJ's harshest protests, and look what it did for our side.

If engagement worked with the most significant sponsor of international terrorism ever (the Sovs), then why is it so amazingly uncalled for with the Iranians?

Ah yes, I forget, now we remember the Sovs as all reasonable thugs, even cuddly, rather bumbling bears.

China's an even better case in point at the time when Nixon decides to go: complete nuthouse (Cultural Revolution just wrapping up) and a whacked-out leader (Mao) who said nuclear war would be cleansing, so bring it on you paper tiger!

Funny how history works like that.
We remember none of the positive changes when it comes to hyping the current threat.

I see people's lips moving here but hear Tel Aviv and Riyadh doing the talking.

I believe in wars of choice. I just like to make the decisions for myself.

Like Dave Petraeus heading into Iraq in 2003, I have to ask, "Tell me how this ends?"

Because if it does not end in jaw-jaw, then it ends in war-war.

Comments

[farhad]

Dr barrnet ,I have been following your view on iran& ithink you couldn't be moreright when you give the nixxon ex. with china & today's same need for iran.iranian public couldn't be more ready for complete cultural,social,and economic engagment with united states. bush can't keepthis double policy,he either hasto confront &escalate the regional mess to spread the entire midlleast, and isolate andforce iranian people against their desire to line up in support the hardliners in mull'sregime,or he can be a pragmatist & recognise iranianregional interests,connect & flood iran economically(where the roots of democracy lies)andresolve the iraq,lebnon,palasinian issues.you can't demand all is inyour interst in one basket as condition to sit down for talk,without respect to the otherside intresest.to me respect willbring respect.the british-irancrisis the way it was resolveddeplomaticly shows how important that is.if both sideskeep trying to get the upper hand before negociation, it willonly escalate toward confratation.

[hof]

"Because if it does not end in jaw-jaw, then it ends in war-war."

Now that is what I call being Churchillian!

[JFRiley]

This is why I keep coming back here. I know the arguments I want to make with my peers, but I need help formulating them. I can't wait to mass E-Mail this one out.

[Jarrod Myrick]

Iran needs enough instability in Iraq to drive us out, then enough stability to access that oil. No?

[konaman]

Equating the opening of China with Iran is itself ahistorical, unless you are suggesting we jettison our historical ties with the Sunni and line up with the Shia? That aligns with what Ralph Peters has been saying for quite some time: more the natural ally. Per Russia, it is slowly reverting to a totalitarian state - note proposed constitutional changes and defense spending - with a commodity economy. US China policy is anachronistic and the sooner we learn it the better. Still trying to figure out how "free trade" deals which ignore labor mobility (see Gilpin) - isn't that our competitive advantage - are beneficial to us in the long run. While we are at it lets give away our technology (read Intel). The only thing we got is capital - not a bad thing mind you - but the tide is slowing receding on that as well. At a youthful231 yrs old, the US is the three legged man.

[Tom Barnett]

Iran doesn't need Iraqi oil. Iran's sitting on possibly the world's second-largest oil and gas reserves. What it needs is outside access to technology and investment. The mullahs are in a bind: to take that money and connectivity is to risk losing control politically, and yet not to do so risks the same because of accelerating economic decline.

People vote with their feet. According to the IMF, Iran has the worst brain drain in the world going on right now.

[ShrinkWrapped]

The idea of increasing connectivity may require a caveat. The examples of the Soviet Union and China may be imperfect analogues to our current ideological conflict with radical Islam. In fact, much of our current worry stems from the concern that Nazi Germany may be the better fit. The Communists touted their ideology as a better system for bringing material paradise to people. They explicitly denied any religion (beyond Communism) and all energy was to be directed at our tenure here. The Nazi ideology depended on the innate superiority of the Aryan ideal and thus required the subjugation of other peoples. Germany was one of the most connected countries in the world prior to the second World War. Greater connectivity could not temper their ideology; it could only enhance it.The Islamic world goes one step beyond Nazi Germany and the Communist states. It not only requires subjugation by inferior peoples but explicitly denies any connection to current material desires and goes out of its way to interfere with the movement of those societies in which they function into modernity. The focus on the afterlife, rather than the material world, may well make connectivity a less powerful agent for change in the Muslim world.There are other reasons for concern that Islam will become more moderate in ways analogous to the Communists (such concerns include the specific millenial nature of Shia radicalism) and the "Nixon to China" example should be viewed with caution.

[stuart abrams]

ShrinkWrapped:There has really been only one government in the Islamic world that even approximated the kind of non-material ideology you are describing, which was the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban are obviously out of power and if the US and the rest of the world would devote the attention to Afghanistan that they ought to be doing, they will stay out of power. No other "Islamist" government, including Iran, reflects the kind of non-material ideology you are describing. Every government in the Islamic world cares very much about the here-and-now. Radical Islamic groups such as al Qaeda reject any form of statism, since they fundamentally believe that Islam is all-encompassing and there is no need for states. These groups are therefore more analogous to anarchist groups such as the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof Gang in the '70s. These terrorist organizations did derive some support from communist governments, but ultimately, communist governments viewed such organizations as a means for poking sticks in the eyes of the west, but not as the vanguard of the overthrow of capitalism. When all was said and done, the lure of capitalism carried the day in bringing about the end of communism. There are obviously still some anarchist groups kicking around (those nuts who always show up carrying papier mache puppets at the WTO), but they aren't much of a threat to anyone. Change in the Islamic world will follow the same pattern. Islamic terrorists will be around for a long time, and they will not disappear immediately as connectivity spreads in the Islamic world, but they will increasingly become isolated and less of a threat. I recommend Olivier Roy's book Globalized Islam for an excellent analysis of this. I think the analogy to Nazi Germany, which was only 1 of the Fascist states involved in World War II, is off for numerous reasons.