NY Times’ Op-Ed Cohen on a roll

After a controversial but insightful series on Iran earlier this year, Roger Cohen of the NY Times has again produced another illuminating piece which deconstructs and rebutts Israeli regional thinking vis-a-vis Iran.

Cohen …
1. first accuses Israeli leaders of crying wolf by constantly warning of an Iranian nuke since the 1990s
2. describes the Iranian regime as repressive but debunks the messianic apocalyptic cult caricature
a. Israel was doing business with Iran in the 80-88 Iraq-Iran war
b. The regime has followed a realist approach centered around it survival ever since
3. rebutts the Israeli premier’s claims that the Iraq-Iran war did not sear a terrible wound … And explains this as driving factor for the younger generation wanting change through reform not upheaval.
4. argues that Arab states will not be led into viewing Iran as the primary enemy in the region but will continue to see Israel as the enemy
5. sums the Israeli interest is in maintaining the regional status-quo and opposing a re-ordering where Iran is bought in from the cold
6. thinks that Obama is not heeding Netanyahu’s call and gives as evidence the US participation in upcoming nuclear talks
7. believes that Obama is genuine about rapprochement with the Muslim world
8. concludes that Iranian regime reform is only possible through the negotiating table and that Iran’s nuclear progress is still a couple of years off producing highly enriched uranium
9. argues against Israeli hegemony in the region

The best line in the article …

Every scrap of evidence suggests that, on the contrary, self-interest and survival drive the mullahs.

V. refreshing article. How long will he last in his job!?  Cohen also cites TitraParsi’s Treacherous Alliance which reviews Israeli-Iranian relations.

A good comment …

It is indeed the realignment of the regional order which roils Israel’s leadership. If Iran does return into its “rightful place in the community of nations”, some think Israel’s ability to act in the region will be curtailed. On the other hand, a reconciled Iran will be less of a threat to Israel within a more stable regional security system. So perhaps it is in Israel’s own security interests to see the diplomatic overtures succeed? Though, in reality, is Iran truly a threat to Israel at the moment, or even with crude nuclear devices… hardly.

A point that Cohen alludes to, but which could be elaborated further, is that external threats play an important role in domestic politics in both Israel with “Mr. Iran” now the premier, and with Iran’s Ahmadinejad. The wind will be taken out of the sails of bellicose politicians in both countries if a détente succeeds and we will all be better off.

Pakistan is the key

An interesting FT article by Anatol Lieven on the issues facing the new US administration in dealing with Afghanistan and more importantly Pakistan.

Main points:
1) Afghanistan and Pakistan have very deep problems that will not be resolved any time soon
2) For Afghanistan, the new strategy is on the right track emphasising
  – Need to build up national army
  – Develop an exit strategy
  – Rhetoric on democracy building & staying the course toned down
  – Western & Northern neighbours have been engaged
3) Iran is key (1) pre-9/11 kept Taliban opposition alive (2) trade (3) share same basic agenda with US
  – Correct to engage Iran on Afghanistan issue
4) Pb is Taliban insurgency rooted on border w Pakistan (Pashtuns). Requires help from Pakistani military & state. However Pakistani population opposes this. Bending Pakistan’s will not trivial.
5) Underlying issueis that Pakistan is democratic! That gov’t cannot afford defy public opinion so blatantly.

As a Pakistani general put it to me last year: “We can survive without American money and arms if we have to, though of course we don’t want to. But we cannot survive without the loyalty of our jawans [men].”

6) Obama will need change anti-US public attitude by vastly improved public support programs. Current £1bn/year is not sufficient (for 170m people)
7) Obama administration has still not realised: (1) a stable Pakistan is a vital US interest (2) changing Pakistani opinions means changing society implies it will take time (a generation)
8) US needs to tread carefully when dangling aid for help as it will undermine government (what happened to Musharraf) and could lead destroy of Pakistani army, a much greater danger to US