May 26, 2009--Gang of Three
Largely overlooked since we are having an important debate about waterboarding and Guantánamo and now North Korea’s A Bomb is a meeting that took place last week in Tehran. Between the leaders of Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
This is the first time they have met as a threesome, and though that in itself is noteworthy, the fact that Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari came to Iran at the invitation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad marks the get-together as perhaps geopolitically shape-shifting.
Two of our closest allies—I say that with a mote of irony—made the trek there to meet in a country that is a key member of the “axis of evil,” had what they described as “productive talks,” and then were seen walking, smiling broadly, literally holding hands with President Ahmadinejad. This was quite a jolt to my system Sunday morning when I saw that photo of the ecstatic trio in the New York Times before I had a chance to gulp down my second cup of coffee.
But then to read about the meeting (article linked below) and to see what was said and, more important what didn’t get said, was upsetting to even someone like me who wants to see us use full-force diplomacy before any of the remaining chicken-hawks push us or encourage Israel to get into another war which we certainly cannot win.
They met to discuss how they could work together, cooperate to solve “regional issues.” They placed special emphasis on how they intend to do this on their own, without the help, in Ahmadinejad’s words, “of others who are alien to the nations and culture of our nations.” Though something obviously was lost in translation, it was a not so subtle rebuke to that alien nation, the U.S., which has been known to be active in the region.
Though a critic of our involvement in places where we are neither seemingly welcome nor know how to operate effectively—their three countries for example—the patriot in me, even without coffee, was roused when I read that when Ahmadinejad made his comments Afghanastin’s Karzai and Pakistan’s Zardari stood there silently, still smiling. Further, they signed a document which they see as so significant that they gave it an historical-sounding name like the Yalta Agreement or the Oslo Accords. The Tehran Statement, which calls upon them to pledge to work together “to fight Islamic extremism.” About this I could barely contain myself. I do not like to think of myself as jingoistic, but who if not Iran is a leading supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah?
After calming down a bit I began to think further about what at first glance seemed at best like a piece of diplomatic hypocrisy. Aren’t these countries in many ways regional rivals who, in spite of their disdaining alien cultures, in fact, to each other, are alien cultures? The last time I looked closely at the situation hadn’t I noted that Iran is a Shiite Muslim state and Pakistan a Sunni Muslim state that often supported other Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia in their conflicts with Iran? And that there was a very long history of many cross-border hostilities?
But then I also remembered that 9/11 not only changed things for us but also for them. When we invaded Afghanistan in order to overthrow the Taliban regime, which had been hosting our attackers, al Qaeda, both Pakistan and, seemingly-more-surprisingly, Iran joined the coalition. They too saw the Taliban regime to be a threat to them and we, in spite of our differences with Iran, then and now, found ways to work cooperatively. Having a common enemy—to Iran the Taliban were regional rivals and drug smugglers who shipped opium with impunity across their common boarder—brought us together.
So maybe, having us as a common cultural enemy is what is bringing them together. That was my first reflective thought. My second was that perhaps ironically (and I love diplomatic irony) this will turn out to be a good thing for us. With the Taliban resurgent in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, which has motivated the Obama administration to double down on the number of our troops there and thus threatens to lure us further into that quagmire, their turning to Iran for more involvement might help with the Taliban-al Qaeda problem and relieve us of some of the responsibility we feel to confront and defeat them.
President Zardari said, “There are many problems along our joint borders. We cannot underestimate the problems and we should look for solutions to all of them.” And thus they turned to each other.
Of course as with all things in this region there are dangers. Pakistan already has an extensive nuclear arsenal and the capacity to deploy it. Iran, in spite of its denials, is hot on the trail to developing their own. Afghanistan is unstable, has a corrupt government, and could easily fall back into Taliban hands. They already control much of the country. A successful working military and diplomatic alliance between these three countries, all of which could easily in the near future come to see the U.S. at the center of their version of a western axis of evil, might lead to more problems in the long run than they could contribute to solving in the short term.
But then again, on third thought, what’s the better plan? More and deeper U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Attempts to further isolate and thereby motivate Iran, largely out of national pride, to become a nuclear power? We see how well that’s working. Unleash Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities? The U.S. military has already been clear to say that neither they nor we have the capacity to do that successfully. And what would that then unleash? Do we think that the version of jihad we now face would continue to be the only response to that kind of attack? Some of the bomb, bomb, bomb Iran crowd might get all pumped up for a few days until the full blowback swept over us and Europe.
Especially in dealing with insurgencies, or what some call “small wars,” being flexible and innovative and resilient is a better strategy than deploying ultimately impotent billion-dollar weapons systems. So maybe we should take a closer look at the Tehran Statement and see if maybe there are things we might do to help it succeed.
This is the first time they have met as a threesome, and though that in itself is noteworthy, the fact that Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari came to Iran at the invitation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad marks the get-together as perhaps geopolitically shape-shifting.
Two of our closest allies—I say that with a mote of irony—made the trek there to meet in a country that is a key member of the “axis of evil,” had what they described as “productive talks,” and then were seen walking, smiling broadly, literally holding hands with President Ahmadinejad. This was quite a jolt to my system Sunday morning when I saw that photo of the ecstatic trio in the New York Times before I had a chance to gulp down my second cup of coffee.
But then to read about the meeting (article linked below) and to see what was said and, more important what didn’t get said, was upsetting to even someone like me who wants to see us use full-force diplomacy before any of the remaining chicken-hawks push us or encourage Israel to get into another war which we certainly cannot win.
They met to discuss how they could work together, cooperate to solve “regional issues.” They placed special emphasis on how they intend to do this on their own, without the help, in Ahmadinejad’s words, “of others who are alien to the nations and culture of our nations.” Though something obviously was lost in translation, it was a not so subtle rebuke to that alien nation, the U.S., which has been known to be active in the region.
Though a critic of our involvement in places where we are neither seemingly welcome nor know how to operate effectively—their three countries for example—the patriot in me, even without coffee, was roused when I read that when Ahmadinejad made his comments Afghanastin’s Karzai and Pakistan’s Zardari stood there silently, still smiling. Further, they signed a document which they see as so significant that they gave it an historical-sounding name like the Yalta Agreement or the Oslo Accords. The Tehran Statement, which calls upon them to pledge to work together “to fight Islamic extremism.” About this I could barely contain myself. I do not like to think of myself as jingoistic, but who if not Iran is a leading supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah?
After calming down a bit I began to think further about what at first glance seemed at best like a piece of diplomatic hypocrisy. Aren’t these countries in many ways regional rivals who, in spite of their disdaining alien cultures, in fact, to each other, are alien cultures? The last time I looked closely at the situation hadn’t I noted that Iran is a Shiite Muslim state and Pakistan a Sunni Muslim state that often supported other Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia in their conflicts with Iran? And that there was a very long history of many cross-border hostilities?
But then I also remembered that 9/11 not only changed things for us but also for them. When we invaded Afghanistan in order to overthrow the Taliban regime, which had been hosting our attackers, al Qaeda, both Pakistan and, seemingly-more-surprisingly, Iran joined the coalition. They too saw the Taliban regime to be a threat to them and we, in spite of our differences with Iran, then and now, found ways to work cooperatively. Having a common enemy—to Iran the Taliban were regional rivals and drug smugglers who shipped opium with impunity across their common boarder—brought us together.
So maybe, having us as a common cultural enemy is what is bringing them together. That was my first reflective thought. My second was that perhaps ironically (and I love diplomatic irony) this will turn out to be a good thing for us. With the Taliban resurgent in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, which has motivated the Obama administration to double down on the number of our troops there and thus threatens to lure us further into that quagmire, their turning to Iran for more involvement might help with the Taliban-al Qaeda problem and relieve us of some of the responsibility we feel to confront and defeat them.
President Zardari said, “There are many problems along our joint borders. We cannot underestimate the problems and we should look for solutions to all of them.” And thus they turned to each other.
Of course as with all things in this region there are dangers. Pakistan already has an extensive nuclear arsenal and the capacity to deploy it. Iran, in spite of its denials, is hot on the trail to developing their own. Afghanistan is unstable, has a corrupt government, and could easily fall back into Taliban hands. They already control much of the country. A successful working military and diplomatic alliance between these three countries, all of which could easily in the near future come to see the U.S. at the center of their version of a western axis of evil, might lead to more problems in the long run than they could contribute to solving in the short term.
But then again, on third thought, what’s the better plan? More and deeper U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Attempts to further isolate and thereby motivate Iran, largely out of national pride, to become a nuclear power? We see how well that’s working. Unleash Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities? The U.S. military has already been clear to say that neither they nor we have the capacity to do that successfully. And what would that then unleash? Do we think that the version of jihad we now face would continue to be the only response to that kind of attack? Some of the bomb, bomb, bomb Iran crowd might get all pumped up for a few days until the full blowback swept over us and Europe.
Especially in dealing with insurgencies, or what some call “small wars,” being flexible and innovative and resilient is a better strategy than deploying ultimately impotent billion-dollar weapons systems. So maybe we should take a closer look at the Tehran Statement and see if maybe there are things we might do to help it succeed.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
6:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home