World Views: Petreaus, Syria, Israel/Hamas, and a Nuclear Iran (Nov 16, 2012)

Former CIA Director David Petreaus testified on Capitol Hill Friday morning about the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, exactly a week after he resigned due to an extramarital affair.

Suzette Grillot, the Interim Dean of the University of Oklahoma's College of International Studies and a global security expert, said even if there's no national security threat, it would be a distraction of Petreaus stayed at the Central intelligence Agency.

"The bottom line is, this is the Director of the CIA, and it just makes him vulnerable to have these kinds of secrets," Grillot said. "This would constantly come up every time he surfaced to go to a hearing, to do a press conference, whatever he was up to."

Joshua Landis, the Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at OU, argues that this sets a precedent that a personal indiscretion by any top official is Washington would now be grounds for termination.

"It's not because he could be blackmailed, because once this gets out, he can't be blackmailed anymore," Landis said. "I don't understand what the national security problem is. It's really about sex."

After Israel launched an offensive against Gaza militants Wednesday, the Israeli Defense Force is now moving troops toward the Palestinian territory for a possible ground assault. Grillot said one of the most interesting things she's noticed about the escalation of the conflict is how it's played out in social media.

"The assassination of [Ahmed] al-Jabari, and the attack on his car, [the IDF] released that video on YouTube," Grillot said. "They've been blogging about this. The IDF is a very active Tweeter. They were actually live-Tweeting about this while it was going on."

On Monday, Syrian opposition leaders announced they have agreed to unite into a more representative coalition against President Bashar al-Assad. Landis called this "good news" for the opposition.

"Washington and Qatar put intense pressure on disparate Syrian opposition groups in exile to form a coalition that the West could get behind," Landis said. "This has allowed France to say they would now recognize it as the official Syrian government, and possibly send arms."

The U.N. nuclear agency says Iran is poised to double output of higher-enriched uranium that can be turned easily into the core of a nuclear warhead.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s finding is contained in a report it circulated Friday among the agency’s 35-nation board.

The report says Iran is technically ready within days to ramp up its production of 20 percent enriched uranium at its Fordo facility, doubling its present output and cutting in half the time it would take to acquire enough of the substance to make a nuclear weapon.

Political scientist Mehrzad Boroujerdi founded and leads the Middle East Studies Program at Syracuse University, where he also co-founded their Religion, Media, and International Relations Program. He says U.S. concerns about a nuclear Iran are overblown.

“Imagine tomorrow, Iran obtains a nuclear weapon,” Boroujerdi said. “A nuclear bomb thrown over Israel is not going to distinguish between the Palestinian citizens and the Israeli citizens. It's going to kill all of them. It means contamination of some of Islam's holiest sites. Is the Iranian leadership going to alienate the rest of the Muslim world because of this controversy with Israel? I just do not see that.”

Boroujerdi said Iran won’t engage in a nuclear, military confrontation with its neighbor as long as Israel is backed by more powerful nuclear protector, such as the United States.

“I have yet to see evidence that convinces me that over the last 30 years, the Iranian leadership has demonstrated that they are suicidal,” Boroujerdi said. “They might be ambitious. They might be pushing the envelope. They want to assert themselves. They want to gain this reputation as a region hegemon. But the one thing they are not is suicidal.”

Boroujerdi described a so-called “poverty of options,” and the huge price tag that comes with military confrontation. He says even though both sides have legitimate security grievances, both the U.S. and Iran should meet halfway and accept some terms that might be less than ideal.

“Both sides need to swallow hard,” Boroujerdi said. “But again, we have to be reminding ourselves of the ‘What if?’ scenario. If you do not go down this route, are you willing to pay the price that comes with something that is going to be much more troublesome?”

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS

On whether or not sanctions are effective

“The plan is to make life difficult for the average Iranian citizens, and also create a rift among the ruling elite, so that they can come to their senses and stop the nuclear policy. This logic has its own set of difficulties, in the sense that if the government in Iran has concluded that its longer existence - security - is going to come at the expense, or its going to be ensured, by having nuclear weapons, then I'm not sure that they're going to necessarily respond to the citizens' demand. After all, we are talking about an authoritarian state that has no hesitation whatsoever about putting down any type of opposition movement, as we saw happen in 2009. So, at one level, if the indication is that we're looking at is whether this causing problems for the state, yes, the problem is being felt. Is it within the tolerable threshold of pain that the regime is willing to deal with, and accept as cost of doing business? Yes, I think that's still within the range of acceptable pain for the state. If the sanctions escalate to a higher level, then that might bring some behavioral modification.”

On the potential ramifications of a nuclear Iran

“A nuclear bomb thrown over Israel is not going to distinguish between the Palestinian citizens and the Israeli citizens. It's going to kill all of them. It means contamination of some of Islam's holiest sites. Is the Iranian leadership going to alienate the rest of the Muslim world because of this controversy with Israel? I just do not see that. I think over the last 30 years we have been in a cold war between Iran and Israel, and both have kept it that way, and for good reason. I don't think either side really wants to see an escalation of that conflict beyond what it is. The hard question that I think we need to answer in this country is why do we think we cannot live with a nuclear Iran?”

On what it would take for U.S.-Iranian relations to improve

“We are not going to wish this problem away. It has already been 30 years in the making. There is a lot of psychological scar tissue that has been accumulating over the last 30 years. As I said, Iran is both too powerful and too big by the standards of the region to be a major player, and of course, the U.S. is a global power. This means that both sides need to swallow hard. They need to take and accept some terms that might be less than ideal. But again, we have to be reminding ourselves of the "What if?" scenario. If you do not go down this route, are you willing to pay the price that comes with something that is going to be much more troublesome.”

FULL INTERVIEW

SUZETTE GRILLOT, HOST: Dr. Mehrzad Boroujerdi, welcome to World Views.

MEHRZAD BOROUJERDI: Thank you.

GRILLOT: Well, you're here to talk about Iran. Iran has been in the news much lately, in the United States and elsewhere. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes numerous comments that make the news here. We have concerns about a nuclear weapons program. There was the so-called "Green Revolution" a couple of years ago, and a currency crisis. So, what are we to make of the news about Iran in this country these days? Is this fairly accurate? Is it exaggerated? Are things good? Bad? Indifferent? What do you think?

BOROUJERDI: Well, the latest news from Iran really all revolves around the currency devaluation that has really hit the people the wrong way, in the sense that this is sort-of an across-the-board type of sanction that is inflicting a lot of economic damage and difficulty on the middle class in particular. Savings evaporate. So that's the talk of town. Everyone in Iran is talking about the currency crisis and what it means. And of course, at the higher level we have this whole issue of where this is going to all end up. Whether this means the Iranian government is going to show some willingness to negotiate on the nuclear issue, or whether this is going to be business as usual, and regardless of the sanctions, that they're going to continue with their present policy course. In a way, one can say they have become accustomed to 30 years of sanctions, so what are a few more sanctions here and there? Although, one has to keep in mind that, to my knowledge, this is the strictest set of sanctions ever imposed on a UN member state. So the ramifications could be quite interesting. However, life goes on in Iran. There is no shortage of stuff in the stores yet, and I don't think the people have yet felt the pinch from the sanctions.

JOSHUA LANDIS: What is the likely political fallout of this? Because, as I understand it, sanctions policy is designed to squeeze and impoverish the people to the point where they rise up against their government. They blame their government for their own poverty, and they would rise up and overthrow the government, and because the government wants to prolong its own life, and doesn't want to commit suicide, it would stop refining nuclear material, and satisfy the demands of the United States, and therefore, sanctions would be lifted, and everything would go back to the way it's supposed to be. That's the plan. Is the plan working?

BOROUJERDI: Well, that is exactly the plan. The plan is to make life difficult for the average Iranian citizens, and also create a rift among the ruling elite, so that they can come to their senses and stop the nuclear policy. This logic has its own set of difficulties, in the sense that if the government in Iran has concluded that its longer existence - security - is going to come at the expense, or its going to be ensured, by having nuclear weapons, then I'm not sure that they're going to necessarily respond to the citizens' demand. After all, we are talking about an authoritarian state that has no hesitation whatsoever about putting down any type of opposition movement, as we saw happen in 2009. So, at one level, if the indication is that we're looking at is whether this causing problems for the state, yes, the problem is being felt. Is it within the tolerable threshold of pain that the regime is willing to deal with, and accept as cost of doing business? Yes, I think that's still within the range of acceptable pain for the state. If the sanctions escalate to a higher level, then that might bring some behavioral modification.

GRILLOT: Recent estimates from the United States government suggest that Iran will have enough nuclear material to create nuclear weapons within a very short period of time. Eight weeks, 12 weeks. It'll take a little longer to develop the ability to deliver the nuclear weapons, but that they'll have enough material to make nuclear weapons. Are the concerns about nuclear weapons in Iran overblown in the United States and elsewhere? Or is this accurate? Do you yourself feel much concern? Do the Iranian people feel much concern about this?

BOROUJERDI: Yes, I really do think that the concern about a nuclear Iran is overblown here, because we have this mindset in this country that the Iranian leadership are a bunch of crazy, sword-swinging Ayatollahs, that the moment they obtain a nuclear weapons they're going to destroy Israel. As a hard-nosed student of Iranian politics, looking at their actions and not necessarily their words over the last 30 years, I simply do not see that. Just think of the ramifications. Imagine tomorrow, Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. Okay, what are you going to do with it? A nuclear bomb thrown over Israel is not going to distinguish between the Palestinian citizens and the Israeli citizens. It's going to kill all of them. It means contamination of some of Islam's holiest sites. Is the Iranian leadership going to alienate the rest of the Muslim world because of this controversy with Israel? I just do not see that. I think over the last 30 years we have been in a cold war between Iran and Israel, and both have kept it that way, and for good reason. I don't think either side really wants to see an escalation of that conflict beyond what it is. The hard question that I think we need to answer in this country is why do we think we cannot live with a nuclear Iran? I think all of us need to be reminded that before Pakistan went nuclear, there were all those worries about an "Islamic Bomb" in Pakistan. Well, Pakistan went nuclear and indeed, the balance of terror between Pakistan and India became acceptable since neither side is now willing to engage in any type of confrontation with the other.

GRILLOT: Well, don't you think though, that the concerns about a nuclear Iran might be related to the current leadership in Iran? And if the leadership was different, then there might be a different set of reactions?

BOROUJERDI: Sure, but again, look at it this way. The Iranian clerics have been trying for the last 500 years to come to power. In 1979, they finally managed to come to power. This is a utopia come true for them. Therefore, their first and foremost calculus in terms of anything they do is regime maintenance, regime survival. They're not going to engage in a military confrontation, a nuclear confrontation, with the likes of Israel knowing all too well that Israel is already a nuclear state, backed by a more powerful nuclear protector, the United States. I have yet to see evidence that convinces me that over the last 30 years, the Iranian leadership has demonstrated that they are suicidal. These leaders are not suicidal. They might be ambitious. They might be pushing the envelope. They want to assert themselves. They want to gain this reputation as a region hegemon. But the one thing they are not is suicidal. So we need to keep that in mind, everything said and done, let's look at their words. Yes, absolutely, President Ahmadinejad has said some truly irresponsible things about Israel, the Holocaust, and so forth. Yes, this is all part and parcel of that "war of words" between the two sides. But let's keep our eyes on the deeds that have happened over the last 30 years.

LANDIS: Let me shift it a little bit and ask you - Kenneth Waltz in "Foreign Affairs" made a big kerfuffle not long ago when he wrote an article that said it's good for Iran to get the bomb, because this will create a balance of power between Israel and Iran, which will, in the long run, be stabilizing. An Israel that has the atom bomb that's too powerful in the region has been destabilizing. It's caused one war after the next, and that it's better. It's better for the United States, better for the region, and ultimately better for Israel itself is the argument. Is there any truth to that, or is that just an academic trying to get attention?

BORUOUJERDI: Well, you know, Kenneth Waltz coming from that New Realist perspective is making that argument, which is very consistent with his theories. I think there is a lot of room for thought there for us to think about. Remember, we cannot deny the fact that as long as Israel remains the one nuclear-armed state in the region, that balance of terror that gets created is going to make a lot of states feel insecure. Look at it from the Iranian perspective. From where Tehran sits, all the other major regional players are already nuclear powers. You have Israel, you have India, you have Pakistan, you have China, you have North Korea, you have Russia, you have American nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf. So from the Iranian perspective, the mindset is, "We are sandwiched between all these nuclear powers." And you cannot be playing with the big boys if you do not have the big toys that the big boys have. That's how they see things.

LANDIS: Let me bring it back to American interests. The United States, at the end of the Second World War, had really learned a lesson, that they had brought Hitler to his knees because they denied him energy. Oil. He was trying to make a grab for oil, whether it was in Russia, in Stalingrad, or in the Middle East. His tank units, his Air Force came to a screeching halt. They didn't have it anymore. The United States understood that if they're going to win World War III, they have to be able to control the energy supply to the world. They have set up shop to protect the Persian Gulf. Iran is trying to shove us out of the Persian Gulf. They don't like American fleets and aircraft carriers there. They want to be the big gorilla in the Gulf. That's good for Russia. That's good for China. China and Russia are both supporting Iran in this. They don't want to see America with their hand right on the jugular vein of their energy suppliers. Certainly China doesn't. Isn't it good for America to be the big gorilla - the hegemon - to be dominant in the Gulf, and to keep Iran down under its foot in order to keep its hand on the energy spigot? And that way, there will not be World War III, and if there is, America will win it.

BOROUJERDI: Yes, but the tension arises from the fact that the U.S. is a global power, and Iran aspires to be a regional power. It's the tension between these two sets of interests that is creating the present problem. My argument is that Iran is too big. It's too powerful, by the standards of the region, to be left out. We already tried to exclude Iran from the settlement of the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq, and see what happened? They have the ability to be the spoiler. States that can play the role of the spoiler will come to exercise a power much beyond their actual size. And that's really what's happening in Iran. Keep in mind the following: The Iranian thinking is that the U.S. government is in no mood to engage in any type of military confrontation with Iran, because of the leftover problems from Iran and Afghanistan. You do not want a third war with a Muslim state that can enflame anti-American sentiment throughout the Islamic world. So looking at it from an objective, academic perspective, one sees that both sides - the Iranians and the Americans - have their own set of liabilities and assets when it comes to this conflict. Can the two live side-by-side? In other words, can the U.S. continue to be a global power while giving Iran some more muscle room in the region? I don't really see why not. The Iranians again, as I was making the argument, they are not suicidal. For the last 30 years, they have tolerated American military presence, naval presence, in the region. They know that they cannot wish America to go away, and they are willing to live with that fact.

GRILLOT: As a final word here, what is it going to take for the United States and Iran's relations to improve?

BOROUJERDI: I'm not sure that my argument is necessarily going to sit well with the powers that be, because frankly, I think at the end of the day, we are facing a scenario where there is a poverty of options. The military confrontation comes with a huge price tag attached to it. My sense is that both sides really need to sit down and talk. They need to acknowledge that both sides have legitimate security grievances, and until we address those grievances, that tension is going to be with us. We are not going to wish this problem away. It has already been 30 years in the making. There is a lot of psychological scar tissue that has been accumulating over the last 30 years. As I said, Iran is both too powerful and too big by the standards of the region to be a major player, and of course, the U.S. is a global power. This means that both sides need to swallow hard. They need to take and accept some terms that might be less than ideal. But again, we have to be reminding ourselves of the "What if?" scenario. If you do not go down this route, are you willing to pay the price that comes with something that is going to be much more troublesome?

GRILLOT: Well, Dr. Mehrzad Boroujerdi, thank you so much for joining us on World Views, and discussing such challenging difficulties we have today. Thank you.

BOROUJERDI: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2012 KGOU Radio. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to KGOU Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only. Any other use requires KGOU's prior permission.

KGOU transcripts are created on a rush deadline by our staff, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of KGOU's programming is the audio.

Listen
« back