For the last few days, the news and commentary has featured a good deal of back and forth about the utility and viability of the recently-announced short-term agreement with Iran on its nuclear development program. Several key factors do not get discussed by either critics or defenders.
First of all, there is very little historical or geopolitical context mentioned. One reason Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries are critical of the agreement is that most of these Islamic nations are ruled by a Sunni majority or plurality; the population of Iran is Farsi and overwhelmingly Shi'a. It is not necessary to know the historic and theological roots of the split in Islam but it is germane to Arab reactions to the prospect of a nuclear-capable Iran to know that in many of the most powerful Arab nations, Sunni majorities have treated their Shi'ite as second-class Muslims. Fear of an ascendant , non-Arab Shi'a nation influences attitudes toward Iran.
In the West, the history is not as long but Iran was a place where Britain and Russia (and later Germany) sought access and influence at first because of its geographic location and later its petroleum reserves. Iran fell well within the Czarist Russian sphere of influence throughout most of the nineteenth century, a fact which does much to explain Russia's contemporary role there and in Syria. The history of Iran relayed via our media is superficial but not trivial, focused more on the last 30 or so years but not on the U.S.-engineered 1953 coup that installed the Pahlavi family as monarchs or the dark side of the Shah's rule, which led directly to the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
Another set of information missing from the coverage and discussion is the recent history of U.S. threats aimed at Iran. Apart from the invasion and occupation of Iraq only ten years ago—most forces were withdrawn by 2011 although recently Iraq's leadership has requested a more substantial US military presence than the few advisers still there--U.S. drones seem to have carried out aerial surveillance of Iran, which is very aware of U.S. forces operating in its other neighbor, Afghanistan.
Elsewhere, we hear, mostly from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, about the threat Iran poses to Israel's security. There has, apart from the rhetoric of former Iranian President Ahmadinejad, been a real threat, particularly through groups supported by Iran; but that history may lead Israelis to be overly skeptical about the agreement, especially in light of the short-term and conditional nature of this agreement. I do not mean to downplay either the threat to Israel or the genuine concern Israelis and Jews in the West feel about a nuclear Iran, but change has to begin somewhere, and perhaps that place is Iran.
Finally, no one has mentioned a 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iran had given up its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Thomas Fingar, now an academic but then chair of the National Intelligence Council, presided over a review of date collected by as many as sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies. Although the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate has been criticized, it has not been disproved or refuted; a classified 2011 National Intelligence Estimate criticized Fingar's conclusions but itself could only offer that Iran's existing nuclear technology would permit it to restart its weapons program and begin weapons production very rapidly. As reported elsewhere, as recently as 2012 U.S. officials believed Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons development.
We are left with opinions pro and con that float in the air, untethered by the complexities of the situation and with news “coverage” that omits important aspects of the story. It would be useful for the general public, not to mention our elected and appointed officials, to understand context out of which the current short-term agreement was reached.
Thank you, Nick, for giving us the back story. I need more of these analyses. Can you do more of them...about any news story! Thanks so muc
Posted by: Kathleen Langdon | November 27, 2013 at 08:33 AM