Key Person: U.S. Policy on Iran

Patrick Clawson
Deputy Director for Research, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, United States

Education: BA, Oberlin College; Ph D, New School for Social Research







I would like to talk about a leading expert on Iran, in order to foresee American policy against Iran. Iranian theocracy has been one of the most serious threats to the West and the global community since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Currently, Iran conflicts with the West on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and security in Iraq.

Patrick Clawson has written numerous books about the Middle East with special focus on Iran, including “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005, with Michael Rubin) and “Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran” (Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, 2005, edited with Henry Sokolski). Prior to joining the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Clawson was a senior research professor at the National Defense University, and then, worked for the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

In the post, entitled “Can We Talk with Iran?” on this blog, I mentioned his policy paper, “Forcing Hard Choices on Iran.” While Clawson insists that the United States demonstrate its military strength to deter Ahmadinejad’s adventurism, he refutes any kind of simple-minded approaches to attack Iran immediately. Fluent in Farsi, he is well aware of Iranian aspiration for a great power status by acquiring nuclear weapons.

Since then, Iran continues to be a problematic nation. On nuclear issue, Iran remains adamant to reject UN resolution to stop enriching uranium. On Iraq, Iran sponsors Shiite uprising, and it even detains 15 British sailors and marines. How can we talk with these issues with Iran? Should we expect Iran to be a responsible stakeholder on political stability in Iraq? Let me review his recent articles and comments to the media.

In a Policy Watch, “Hanging Tough on Iran”, released by the Washington Institute on February 9, Clawson points out fundamental weakness of Iran on nuclear negotiations. Despite this, Iran misunderstands its position. Certainly, Iran increased government revenue in 2006, thanks to high oil price. He argues Iran’s weakness from the following points. As to the economy, Iran is heavily dependent on oil. IAEA forecasts oil price will not rise steeply this year, because non-OPEC countries will increase the supply. Strategically, Iran is completely isolated from the world. As Iran does not suspend uranium enrichment, EU 3 (Britain, Germany, and France), Middle East neighbors, and even China and Russia, are increasingly concerned with growing Iranian threats. Politically, revolutionary ideology is losing ground. The government loosened bans on entertainment, such as mixed-sex dancing and alcohol.

Regarding Iraq issues, Clawson insists that it is not of much use to appease Iran. In another policy watch, “Engaging Iran on Iraq: At What Price and to What End?”, he points out that Iran has little interest to talk with the United States on Iraq. Even supposedly moderate Ali Rafsanjani argues that there is no reason for Iran to help the United States getting out of the Iraqi quagmire. Supreme Leader Ali Hossein Khamenei remarked “To justify their presence, the occupiers need insecurity in Iraq. Accordingly, they fan insecurity and instability” in Keyhan newspaper on November 27. Furthermore, Clawson points out that Iranian influence on Iraq is overestimated. He says that Iran can cause trouble, but cannot bring peace.

Patrick Clawson recommends further pressure on Iran in his article, “Iran Options”, in San Diego Union-Tribune on February 18. Due to isolation from the world, Iran has a limited access to foreign technology to develop nuclear weapons. However, adamant leaders in Iran are not likely to surrender in a short period, and the United States needs to reassure its allies in the Middle East protected from Iranian threat. Otherwise, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, may explore nuclear possession. Even a pre-emptive attack against Iran should not be ruled out.

Established in 1985, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has been committed to advance US interests in the Middle East, notably, security, peace, prosperity, democracy, and stability. The Board of Advisors includes influential policymakers from both parties. Patrick Clawson is a leading expert on Iran at the Washington Institute. Therefore, he is a man of focus for Iran watchers.

Prospects of Presidential Election in Russia

Major powers are preparing for elections this year. The United States will have presidential election in 2008, and candidates are competing now. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair will step down this summer, and policy debate between Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown and Conservative Leader David Cameron will be intensified. Also, Russia will have presidential election next year, as President Vladimir Putin promised to quit his job. In “The List: Next President of Russia” on Foreign Policy web exclusive this January, Julian Evans, Analyst at the Eurasian Heritage Foundation in Moscow, comments briefly about presidential candidates to succeed Putin. Each candidate has his or her own strength and weakness.

Among presidential candidates, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov are prominent, says Evans. Medvedev is the most likely to succeed Putin, because he is popular, rich, young, and good-looking. He worked with Putin in St. Petersburg a decade ago. Western analysts see Medvedev market-friendly and pro-Western. However, he is only 41 years old, and too inexperienced for executive positions. On the other hand, another Deputy Prime Minister as well as Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov is confrontational to NATO. As an ex-official of the Federal Service Bureau (formerly KGB), his administrative skill and fluency in English are outstanding. Western Diplomats, including Condoleezza Rice, respect his competence. Although not as popular as Medvedev, Ivanov may seize the opportunity when Putin feel it necessary to protect Russia from the West.

In addition, dark horses like Vladimir Yakuinin, CEO of the Russian Railways, and Valentina Matvienko, Governor of St. Petersburg, need to be paid attention. Yakuinin has KGB connections, but he is not well-known by general public. Since female leaders attract media attention these days, Matvienko could enjoy this advantage. However, her performance as the Governor of St. Petersburg and Ambassador to Malta is obscure.

Whoever wins the election next year, it is important to keep it in mind that Russia has a cycle of Peter the Great (pro-Western, enlightenmentalist) and Ivan the Terrible (nationalist, authoritarian). Whether czarist, communist, or capitalist, this cycle has been consistent throughout the history. Let me pick up some examples.

Peter the Greats:
Peter the Great, Alexander II, Nikita Khrushchev, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Boris Yeltin?

Ivan the Terribles:
Ivan the Terrible, Joseph Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev, and Vladimir Putin

This dichotomy is not always the case. Catherine the Great had both characteristics. In her early reign, she was a typical enlightened despot. However, she became an authoritarian despot later, in order to maintain the feudal order and expand the territory.

National leader election in Russia is no less important than those in the United States and Britain. Regardless of media coverage, those who have keen interest in international affairs need to keep an eye on this election. Will the next president Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible? This is a significant question to global security and world energy problem.

US Policy against China’s Military Build-up

China announced 17.8% increase in defense spending this Sunday. This is the largest military budget surge in five years, which raises serious concern among American policymakers. According to “Beijing Increases Defense Spending” in the International Herald Tribune on March 4, a Chinese official says "We must increase our military budget, as it is important to national security," and the Chinese "military must modernize. Our overall defenses are weak." Most defense analysts do not take this message as it is. They see China explores dominance over the Taiwan Strait, and try to deter US intervention in Sino-Taiwan conflicts. Some foreign military experts estimate that China spend three times more on arms expansion than the official figure.

US officials are alarmed to see Chinese ambitious pursuit for power. Vice President Dick Cheney denounces Chinese anti-satellite missile test, as it is inconsistent with China’s stated goal of peaceful rise. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte demanded that China be more open about its military build-up.

Prior to this announcement, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace held an event, entitled “Reframing China Policy Debate 3: The Implications of China's Military Modernization” to discuss Chinese military expansion and its implication to global security on February 6. The following opinion leaders participated in this panel discussion.

Larry M. Woltzel: Commissioner on the US-China Economic Security Review Commission

David M. Finkelstein: Director of "Project Asia" & the China Studies Center at the CNA Corporation

J. Stapleton Roy: Former Ambassador to China

And moderated by
Michael D. Swaine: Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

At the beginning of this discussion, Former Ambassador Stapleton Roy mentioned China’s military growth is in parallel with its economic growth. Also, he said that if US-Chinese relations were cooperative, a stronger China would be helpful for US effort to promote world peace, stability, and economic development. On the other hand, if US-Chinese relations are confrontational, a stronger China will undercut US national interests. A former ambassador in Beijing and born in China, Roy points out that China has in armed conflicts with Japan, the United States, Korea, India, the Soviet Union, and Vietnam, and insists that Americans need to understand these historical contexts to evaluate Chinese behavior.

Considering these aspects, Stapleton Roy asks the following critical questions regarding Chinese defense spending and military build-up.

(1) Americans say China spends too much on defense, but how much is enough?
(2) Americans criticize China spends too much on defense, but its military expenditure is about 50% of those in Britain, Germany, France, and Italy.
(3) Americans tend to assume Chinese are eager to confront with the United States, but do they sacrifice their economic development?

Having asked the above questions, Roy set agenda for this event: “China is actively preparing for potential military conflict scenarios with the United States, and we have to understand what’s going on, and that’s the purpose of today’s debate.”

In order to assess whether Chinese military modernization is a threat to the United States and Asia, Larry Woltzel and David Finkelstein discussed military capabilities and intentions of the PLA (People’s Liberation Army). Both experts presented their viewpoints at first.

Larry Woltzel insists that China is not an enemy to the United States, although its regime is authoritarian and it counters US diplomacy. He argues that both China and the United States share interests in economy and peace. However, China is at odds with the United States, regarding human rights and global security.

Although China’s military intention is not clear, Woltzel says it pursues dominant position over the Taiwan Strait and in the Western Pacific region. He says China is capable of achieving this objective. China’s state of the art technologies, like strategic missile, anti-satellite missile, and so forth, target US military power. Woltzel insists that the United States be well prepared for curbing Chinese ambitions.

Then, David Finkelstein presents his analysis on transformation of the PLA: from ground-forces-centric and manpower dependent one to equal emphasis on naval and air power and high-tech dependent one. Finkelstein points out that the Chinese authority was shocked to see spectacular US victory in the Gulf War in 1991. This is the reason why the PLA has begun to modernize itself for the Information Age.

China no longer faces land threats from the Soviet Union, and it needs to invest more resources to protect the sea-lane to import oil. Like Woltzel, Finkelstein comments that China is not willing to confront the United States, but aiming at becoming a leading military power in East Asia and countering Japan and India.

As to the question whether Chinese military spending is excessive or not, both expert mentioned rapid progress in Chinese arms technology, which would be able to attack US aircraft carrier battle groups. The moderator asked a simple question whether China intends to eject US influence from the Western Pacific. Both commentators said China is not willing to fight with the United States, but it wants to establish its own sphere of influence in its neighborhood on land and in the sea. In addition, they talked about challenges posed by the Sino-Russian military partnership to US supremacy. Russian military assistance promotes PLA modernization furthermore.

In conclusion, it is unclearness of intention that raises serious concern on rapid Chinese military expansion among Washington policy makers.

For detail, you can see the video on Windows and Real Player, and listen to the discussion with i-Pod.

Philosophical Understanding of Pax Britannica and Pax Americana

“A History of Western Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell

Frankly speaking, I am a complete layman in philosophy. However, I found it necessary to understand philosophical background of British and American hegemony, which has been the anchor of liberal world order since the 19th century. For philosophical understanding of Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, I recommend “A History of Western Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell. Why? Let me explain it to readers, and comment briefly about this book.

As a master’s student at the London School of Economics, my primary focus was on the theory of hegemonic stability. In this theory, American political economists Charles Kinleberger and Robert Gilpin explore why liberal world order collapsed during the interwar period, and they conclude that the decline of Britain and reluctance of America to assume hegemonic role lead to the Great Depression and the World War Ⅱ.

Currently, I am reading very insightful books: “Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power” and “Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire” by Niall Ferguson, and “Dangerous Nation” by Robert Kagan. Reading these books, I am beginning to realize that moral leadership is more important in British and American hegemony than I thought of before. “A History of Western Philosophy” is a source of basic and in depth understanding of philosophical foundation of both hegemonies.

Professor Niall Ferguson at Harvard University describes British leadership in abolition of slavery. Based on Lockean enlightenmentalism, Prime Minister Lord Palmerston advocated Britain’s special role to lead moral, social, and political civilization. Palmerston sent gunboats to intercept slave trade, and supported liberal movements in Belgium, Greece, Italy, Poland, and the Iberian Peninsula. Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, illustrates how liberal ideals bolstered expansionist foreign policy of the United States. In “A History of Western Philosophy”, you can refer to modern British philosophers to understand ideological foundation of “benevolent imperialism” of the British Empire and the United States of America.

Throughout the history, numerous superpowers have emerged. However, few of them had universal ideals for progress and well being of human beings. The British Empire and the United States of America are completely exceptional from other empires in history. Let me mention a couple of super powers in history, in order to illustrate stark difference between their world order and liberal world order under the British and the American Empires.

First, I would like to talk about the Spanish Empire, which is the first truly global empire in world history. But it was far from precursor of the British Empire and American predominance today. The national foundation of Spain was “reconquista”, which driven by religious passion of Christians in the Iberian Peninsula to restore their homeland from Muslims. It was a kind of Crusade. Kings of Spain were so religiously passionate that they pursued intolerant Catholicism policies. At home, they repressed Muslims, Jewish, and Protestants with notorious Inquisition. As a Hapsburg king Carlos Ⅰ came to the throne, Spain had begun to assume itself the guardian of the Catholic, and became harsher against the Protestant. There is no wonder that Francisco Pizarro and Hernan Cortes terminated native civilizations in the Americas.

Another super power is China. Throughout the history, the Chinese Empire had been enjoying overwhelming economic and military strength over Asian neighbors and nations from the India to Europe. Using Confucianism theory of respect to the master, Chinese Emperors imposed an authoritarian hierarchy at home and abroad. Assuming themselves agents of the heaven to rule the earth, Emperors had been looking down on foreign “barbarian” kings until defeated by the British in the Opium War. Britain succeeded in incorporating the Oriental Dragon into new world order of Lockean, Smithian, and Ricardian ideals. The Chinese world order was far from liberal nor universal.

Unlike Britain and America, both Spain and China had no intellectual basis for global moral leadership. Nor did other great powers in history. “A History of Western Philosophy” narrates the evolution of Western philosophy from early days of Greek civilization. Bertrand Russell describes how philosophy began in Greece. Russell presents historical analysis to understand the background of the evolution in Western philosophy. Regarding modern day liberalism, Russell talks about the role of middle class citizens engaged in commerce and industry. Also, Russell points out that early liberalism was optimistic, energetic, and philosophic, because it represented growing bourgeoisies. This is an important point to understand British and American expansionism, because this confident liberalism has strong influences on their foreign policies as global super powers. Considering sheer volume of this book, it is hard to read the whole text of it. Moreover, it is tremendously energy consuming for a layman to get used to thinking processes and technical terms of philosophy. If you use this book for an encyclopedia of greatest ideas, it will be helpful for you to understand current global affairs further in depth.

I would like to mention furthermore about books in this post on another occasion. As I mention here, I am a complete layman in philosophy, and I shall appreciate comments from those who have good backgrounds. Moral leadership is a key to critical agendas in US foreign policy, particularly, the war on terror and promotion of democracy. When necessary, you can refer to “A History of Western Philosophy” to understand fundamental thoughts of shaping the world for the future.

Apology to Those Who Have Left Comments

I am sorry that Google comments do not show up on this blog, because I have re-installed Halo Scan trackback system since I have switched to Google Beta. Although they don’t show up, Google maintains your comments to this blog.

Again, I am sorry for this sort of inconvenience.

Five Questions on Islamic Radicalism

Understanding Islam is the key to win in the War on Terror. Western endeavor to curb radicalists include not only efficient military operations, but also political process and development assistance. Contrary to popular viewpoint, John Epostino, professor of religion and international affairs at the Wash School of Foreign Service, and Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director of Muslim Studies for the Gallup Organization, point out that Radical Muslims are rich, well educated, hopeful for the future, and admiring Western liberalism.

Let me review their analysis in “What Makes a Muslim Radical?” in web exclusive version of Foreign Policy in November 2006.

Question 1: Importance of Religion in Daily Life

(1) Religion an important of your daily life
Radicals: 92%
Moderates: 91%

(2) Attended religious service in last 7 days
Radicals: 56%
Moderates: 59%

There is no difference in religiosity between radicals and moderates. Authors conclude that religious fervor does not necessarily trigger terrorism.


Question 2: Education and Income

(1) Education level
Primary school or less
Radicals: 23% Moderates: 34%

Secondary school through university
Radicals: 44% Moderates: 38%

(2) Income
Low or very low
Radicals: 22% Moderates: 31%

Above average or very high
Radicals: 25% Moderates: 21%

Radicals are more well educated and affluent than moderates. It is not poor education and poverty that leads them to violent activism.


Question 3: Hope for the Future
Worse off
Radicals: 7% Moderates: 7%

Better off
Radicals: 53% Moderates: 44%

While people attribute suicide bombing to hopelessness, radicals feel more satisfactory with their life than moderates.


Question 4: Admired Aspects of the West
Western technology (top for both groups)
Radicals: 30% Moderates: 31%

Liberty/democracy/freedom of speech (second from the top for both groups)
Radicals: 22% Moderates: 22%

Muslim radicals do not hate Occidental way of life. Both radicals and moderates admire Western liberty and democracy.


Question 5: What the West Must do to Improve Relations with Islam
(1) What can the West do to improve relations?
Respect Islam (top for both groups)
Radicals: 39% Moderates: 36%

(2) What else can the West do to improve relations?
Refrain from interfering and imposing its beliefs and policies
Radicals: 17%

Economic development/jobs
Moderates: 22%

Both radicals and moderates want the West to respect Islam. While radicals feel Western involvement threats to control their life style, moderates explore more ties with the West through economic development.


Conclusion:

Radicals are better off in terms of income, education, and future prospect. It is utterly wrong to assume that terrorists act out of desperation. The most important issue is Question 5. Although radicals admire Western liberalism, they feel Western commitment a critical danger for their civilization. On the other hand, moderates want more Western assistance in economic development and job creation.

It is impossible to satisfy completely opposite requirements by radicals and moderates. However, the West can show their respect to Islam through cultural exchange. Assistance in empowerment and community building will lead more moderates to pro-Western. These policies must be accompanied with hard power resolutions.

America’s Policy Direction in 2007

President George W. Bush gave State of the Union address on January 23. The President showed the guidelines to manage key domestic and foreign policy agendas, including budget deficit, social security, education, health care, immigration, energy and climate change, War on Terror, and the Iraq War.

Basically, the fundamental policy direction has not shifted so much from that of the last year. The media talk about closer understandings on climate changes between the current administration and Democrats. In fact, the President mentioned lowering dependence on oil and reducing emission of global warming gas last year. This year, President Bush talked furthermore that the United States explore the use of ethanol, in order to tackle this issue.

The most critical issue is the Iraq War and the War on Terror. While the President addressed to expand US commitment in Iraq. Democrats insist early withdrawal, but show no clear designs after this.

According to one post on Foreign Policy Blog, entitled “Passport live-blogs the State of the Union tonight” by Foreign Policy's editor Mike Byron on January 23, “despite reports to the contrary, we're expecting a speech that will seriously engage foreign policy issues, not least of all Iraq and Iran. Bush and his speech writers know that Iraq—and only Iraq—will define his legacy.”

Also he says that it is important to pay attention to Democrats’ response on two key issues: immigration and climate change.

On energy issue, both parties have reached a consensus that the United States must lower its dependence on oil. David B. Sandalow, Energy and Environment Scholar at the Brookings Institution, explains it as the following: National security hawks raise alarms about the vast sums of money sent each year to the Persian Gulf. Environmentalists warn about global warming. Farmers see new fortunes in the transition to ethanol. Consumers cry out when oil prices rise. (“Ending Oil Dependence, Brookings Institution Report, January 22)

Regarding climate change, the Bush administration explores resolutions other than the Kyoto Protocol. However, Warwick J. McKibbin, Professor of international economics at the Australian National University and Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Peter J. Wilcoxen Associate Professor of economics and public administration at Syracuse University and Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues as below in “A Credible Foundation for Long Term International Cooperation on Climate Change” in Brookings Discussion Papers in International Economics No. 171, June 2006.

If an international agreement is to succeed in reducing global carbon dioxide emissions, it should build on existing institutions to establish credible long-term incentives for major investments in physical capital and in research and development.

Despite consensus between current administration and Democrats on this issue, some gaps over the Kyoto Protocol still exist. The Bush administration needs to show persuasive alternatives, if it does not accept the protocol.

The most important issue is Iraq and the war on Terror. In his article to Armed Forces Journal on February 2, entitled “Buying Boots: The Challenge of Expanding US Land Forces”, Thomas Donnelly, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that serious Democrats recognize it necessary to send more troops to Iraq by quoting a comment Senator Hilary Clinton. Furthermore, he mentions weak points of Democrats. “The Democrats, for all their boasting about the results of last fall's elections, understand that both their credentials and capacity to direct wartime policy are weak. They fear, rightly, being portrayed as weak on defense--here, too, they avoid any suggestion that we're engaged in a war--and well know that the powers of Congress pale before those of the commander in chief. With a view toward the 2008 presidential election, the Democratic leadership will want to be cautious and keep a tight rein on those most anxious and energetic to force a withdrawal from Iraq. Having been in the political wilderness since 1994, they care less about policy than power.” On the other hand, Republicans are not in a good position as they are obsessed with the loss in the midterm election, and there is no policy consensus among GOP presidential candidates.

Donnelly argues four questions need to be addressed for further commitment to Iraq: What's the cost and where will the money come from? How large should the increase be? What is the mission for this larger force? What kind of force do we need?

Once the size and kind of forces were decided, then, move on to strategies to defeat insurgents and promote political processes. This is mentioned in the article, “A Turning Point for the Iraq War” in AEI Newsletter in February. Frederick Kagan, Resident Scholar at AEI, insists that the priority must be given to establishing security around Baghdad. In addition, General Jack Keane (US Army, retired) commented that the United States could broker political solution in Iraq only by solidifying security. You can see the video of this event from this link.

The Iraq issue will be the foremost agenda for this year and 2008 election. It is time the real resolution was fixed up. In conclusion, please listen to the link for Kamen Rider Black RX, a Japanese SF super hero.

Take the risk, or the Evil will dominate the earth.
Wake up the hero! Burning light! The eternal battle with the darkness!
Wake up the hero! Shining sun! Endow me with love and courage!

Policymakers must be unyielding to terrorists as this song says.