When Americans weigh the plusses and minuses of President Obama’s Executive Agreement, they should recall President Nixon’s opening to the People’s Republic of China in 1972 as well as America’s nuclear and other agreements with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Another useful memory is the fact that Iran was a close friend and ally of the US for 159 years before it became the “Evil Empire”.
US public opinion of “Red” China and the atheistic Soviet Union were extremely negative in the 1960s and 70s. These attitudes had been stoked regularly by Washington after 1949 when the Chinese Communists drove the Nationalists to Taiwan and Moscow revealed its true ambitions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The leadership of both countries brutalized, starved and killed their own citizens and occupied and dominated formerly independent countries. China fought the US and its allies in the 1950s, while the Soviet Union, the other superpower, confronted and challenged NATO and the US around the world.
However, succeeding US Administrations understood that demonizing and isolating both countries did not serve America’s and its Allies’ longer-term strategic interests. Military confrontation in Europe had to be avoided during the two plus decades Western Europe needed to recover politically and economically. America’s Cold War détente policy with Russia was based on the realization the nation’s business had to go on despite the post-war divisions and tensions.
The US led the West in adopting a building block approach towards the USSR. Cultural and educational agreements were signed and carried out, multi-lateral arrangements such as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) were agreed, arms control treaties and agreements were signed, nuclear stock piles shrank, military to military cooperation and understandings were pursued and confidence building measures introduced. As a result, North Atlantic life continued to improve.
However, the most revolutionary post-war policy initiative was taken by the Nixon Administration in 1972 following President and Mrs. Nixon’s unprecedented trip to Beijing. Why did President Nixon and National Security Advisor Kissinger decide to discontinue an almost 30 year policy of ignoring the largest country in Asia in favor of a non-state called Taiwan? The White House at that time recognized the obvious significance of the 800 Lb Chinese gorilla to America’s long-term Asia policy.
Iran: A Sophisticated, Developed Country
Sometimes, the best response to erroneous assumptions is just to set out the facts. Unlike China in 1972, Iran is not isolated, not economically or politically backward. It has a large, young (median age is 28), well educated population that is very familiar with social networking and smart phones. The following data is taken from the CIA’S 2015 Fact Book.
Iranian Society
Ethnicity is largely Persian (61%), Azeri (16%) and Kurdish (10%), not Arabic.
Religion is overwhelmingly Shia Islam (90-95%) and Sunni (5-10%).
Religion did not prevent two Shia countries (Iran/Iraq) from fighting each other (1980-88) at terrible human, economic and infrastructure costs.
Population is 81,824,270 (18th largest in world)
Two-thirds of the population is 30 years old or younger; no memory of the Shah or the revolution.
Urban population is 73.4%.
Literacy is 91.2% for men and 82.5% for women.
Life expectancy is 71.15
Iranian Economy
Significant multi-sector economy: agriculture, industry and service.
GDP (2014) is $1.32 Trillion, GDP growth is 3%
GDP per capita is $17,100
GDP by sector: Service is 50.39%, Agriculture is 9.1% and Industry is 40.7%.
Energy Sector:
24th in world in electricity export.
15th in world in electricity generation.
6th in world in crude oil production.
4th in world in proven oil reserves.
3rd in world in natural gas production.
2nd in world in proven natural gas reserves.
If China and the Soviet Union, why not Iran?
Forty years after America’s rapprochement with China, the information revolution is firmly in control. However, despite instant access to all the information anyone could ever want and more, such as the CIA Fact Book, many Americans and their Congress do not perceive that Iran is the 800 lb. gorilla in its region and is the key to a successful US policy. We abandoned a failed policy in Asia after we accepted the power potential of its most important country. But, for some reason, the Middle East conjures up irrational visions of what countries are the potential pillars of a more normal, stability-enhancing US Middle East.
In 2015, they are not Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Libya or Lebanon. The anchors are the three states that have dominated the region for several thousand years and survived: Iran, Egypt and Turkey. Iran is the richest. Convincing these countries to support America’s goals in the Middle East will require maintaining effective relations with governments in Teheran, Cairo and Ankara. They are Muslim, dictatorial to varying degrees with miserable human rights records. However, these characteristics, as they were with China and the Soviet Union, should not blind US leaders to the three countries essentiality to US success. The Obama Administration is working with Egypt and Ankara with some positive outcomes, but the most influential of them all is Iran.
Rerunning the Evil Empire tape will ensure the USG will be struggling with Middle East civil wars, tribal wars, religious cults, barbarism and human suffering for many years to come. In July 2015, shortly after the Agreement was signed in Vienna, EU governments and their companies began lining up to satisfy Iranians’ pent-up demand for Western goods and services. Unless, US Congressional members use their heads, not their ill-informed emotions and election fears, the American private sector will lose substantial investment and trade opportunities to Europe. China and Russia have been dealing with Iran throughout the sanctions regime, but are now going to be able to do so, more easily and more profitably.
The Nuclear Agreement could be a major step towards long-term improvement of US relations in the Middle East, as was Nixon’s 1972 initiative in Asia. The major EU countries grasp this larger point. If the Senate and the House vote against the P5+1-Iran agreement and override the President’s veto, the loser will be the United States because the EU countries will proceed with normalization.
It’s interesting to reflect on what could have happened had the Shah died of cancer in his Teheran palace. What would the US have done?
Tom Timberman is an expert on military policy and now lives on the Eastern Shore. Among his many assignments with the US Department of State, he has headed a provincial reconstruction team, embedded within a combat brigade in Iraq. He has also helped implement a new counterterrorism strategy in South East Asia as Senior Advisor for South Asia in the Office of Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
Hugh Smith says
My father, Gerard C. Smith, was the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) Chief Negotiator of the 1972 SALT I Treaty and ABM Protocols and the Ambassador-At-Large for Nuclear Proliferation in the Carter Administration. I grew up around, and during, many of the events Mr. Timberman references in his excellent editorial. I had the chance to meet and listen to many of the great cold warriors like Robert McNamara, George Kennan, McGeorge Bundy, Richard Helms, Gen. Royal Allison , Paul Nitze, and other principle architects of our nation’s ultimately successful foreign policy of engagement with the U.S.S.R .. I remember at the time, the hawks and neo-cons , arguing that the U.S.S.R couldn’t be trusted to live-up to its agreements and that Arms Agreements could not be verified. Sound familiar? We, the USA, deployed very sophisticated satellite and ground-based technology to verify our Agreements with the USSR and other nuclear aspirants. The USSR adhered to the Agreements. Nuclear material is still radioactive and thus very detectable and the sophisticated technology of the 1970s has evolved exponentially. I believe every one of the diplomats cited above would fully endorse the Iran Agreement. The history of SALT Agreements itself endorses the Iran Agreements. One of the most cynical aspects of the current debate are the comments of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu designed to inflame and incite U.S. public and political opinion against the agreement. Lost in that debate is the Dimona Project in which our ally Israel secretly acquired Nuclear weapons in 1963 despite World opinion condemning the effort and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 – to which they are not a signatory. Why do the pundits ignore the generally accepted fact that Israel is a Nuclear nation? I can hear Dad asking “how can we countenance Israels behavior but condemn it of others?” For the future of the world its an important question to consider. Thank you Mr. Timberman for your excellent piece.
Hugh Smith
Easton
Tom TImberman says
Mr. Smith’s letter brought back many good memories of serving as a young FSO on the SALT delegation and being exposed to the distinguished individuals he mentions, most particularly his Father. Gen. Allison, Ray Garthoff, Tom Pickering and others taught me how very smart, conceptually-minded public servants, dedicated to making America and the world safer, can achieve great things. On a more personal level, I got the job because a good friend, Ambassador Smith’s nephew, was reassigned to avoid the appearance of nepotism.
Tom Timberman
Michael Johnson says
Thank you Tom. I find it sad that Americans can watch the assault and destruction of Iraq. Witness the destabilizing effect it had on the Middle East and still have such an aversion to diplomacy.
Ed Plaisance says
Why can’t Congress be this smart??? Maybe Congress truly does represent the American population…I certainly hope not. We elect them and then give our opinions to pollsters that we regard them slightly above cockroaches.
Having lived in both Iran and Saudi Arabia for a combined 35 years, I can tell you on a personal level who our friends are and in which country they live, and it ain’t Saudi.
Mr Timberman’s listing of the facts is quite illuminating in itself,
It may take a long time to recover the close relationship of the pre-revolutionary time in Iran, or it may not, but at least now there is the possibility of that first step.
At the height of WWII how many Americans would have accepted that Japan and Germany would be two of our fundamental allies today? Or even more recently who would have believed that China would be our biggest creditor?
Joe Diamond says
Hi Ed,
Perhaps you could be the one to clarify a point I have been aware of for quite awhile.
I have have never left the United States except a few zips into or through Canada. But I still remember an afternoon spent on the mall in Washington D.C. visiting with Iranian students. They put up a booth there and had literature to hand out. They had blown up pictures detailing that period you mentioned……..pre revolutionary Iran; 1953 to 1979. Some of these students wore masks because the FBI was taking pictures of everyone who stopped at their booth.
According to these students the 50s & 60s was not a happy time for Iranians. Americans should be ashamed. The students described how the CIA interfered with 1953 elections and put the Shah of Iran back in power. The CIA formed the SAVAK; a secret police who stopped all political discussion. Books were removed from libraries. People disappeared. Torture and murder were tools of the day. It was America who gave the lessons and paid for the gear. We built prisons and handed out the guns. We taught torture.
The hostage situation at the American embassy in 1979 was part of the revolution that removed the Shah, the SAVAK and America from their land.
Much was made of the hostage situation at the time. Then President Jimmy Carter and the American military, along with various other diplomatic gestures received much ink & TV time. The pre revolutionary period did not get much press. From other sources I have found what those students on the mall said in 1969…………… during that pre revolutionary period………was understated. We screwed Iran!
So I now wonder how we will approach them? Those students I met, if they survived returning home, are now the mature population of Iran. Why should they like or trust us?
So I ask you if you think we want to return to that pre revolutionary happy time? Seems it made the Crusades look like a walk in the park. Or did I miss something?
Joe
Ed Plaisance says
Joe,
All excellent comments and questions and not easily answered or explained in a forum like this.
If you read Ken Pollack’s “Unthinkable” you will probably find exhaustively detailed explanations of the history involved…and very balanced.
In a nutshell, I would agree that we screwed Iran in the 50’s…but that statement carries a lot of caveats…and yes, one wonders why an Iranian would trust the USA.
Perhaps we could meet for coffee some morning in town and I could try to answer your questions on a personal level. My email is [email protected].
MARY WOOD says
Thanks to the Spy for giving your readers a chance to read Mr. Timberman’s clearly stated summary of how previous adminstrations have diplomatically handled difficult relations with countries who posed threats to us and to the world. I hope that our congress will have the intelligence and the courage to join with the EU countries who support the treaty with Iran,
David Foster says
Thanks Tim,
This is an excellent start to what I hope will be a series of articles about the “Proposed Agreement with Iran.”
In particular, I hope that you will discuss the many challenges that would be involved in creating and maintaining comprehensive international sanctions against Iran if this agreement were to be rejected by the U.S.. Obviously, future presidents and/or congresses could enact new sanctions if they choose but sanctions imposed by only one country (even a country as powerful as the U.S.) would be no more effective than plugging the leaks on one side of a boat.