June 2009 Archives

Last week we asked how Iran's drive toward nuclear weapons could be deterred and its external support for terror groups contained. This week we want to focus on Iran's internal politics.

For two weeks, we watched Iranians take to the street, facing guns and clubs with placards and chants to protest the June 12 presidential vote that the ruling Guardian Council declared the "healthiest" vote since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Neither the nominal presidential victor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nor his leading opponent, Mir Hussein Mousavi, seem to have an individual political base to draw upon, but Iran-watchers say that a bona fide political struggle does indeed appear to be under way within Iran's immensely confusing establishment. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei endorsed Ahmadinejad's victory, and militia loyal to the supreme leader ruthlessly crushed street protests. There are signs of fissures among the clerics, however, and rumors that Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the chairman of the Assembly of Experts that can, in theory, depose or limit Khamenei's powers, is working quietly behind the scenes to limit the hard-liners.

What are the important political forces at work within Iran? What drove people to risk their lives in the street, and what might become of those forces now? Are they strong enough to bring about short-term change, or is this going to be a long slog toward a more moderate regime?

8 responses: Michael Brenner, Joseph J. Collins, Dov S. Zakheim, Steven Metz, Ron Marks, Wayne White, Daniel Byman, Hillary Mann Leverett

Recent events in North Korea and Iran have highlighted once again the challenge these two regimes pose to regional stability and to U.S. interests more broadly. Allowing the world's worst nuclear and missile-technology proliferator, North Korea, and the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, to become de facto nuclear weapons states presents the United States with unattractive alternatives. And, for now, the military option seems unsatisfactory and unlikely in both scenarios. What is to be done?

If you were advising the Obama administration, how would you suggest it build a containment and deterrent regime to counter the drive to nuclear-weapons status by both North Korea and Iran? Be as specific as possible in talking about the elements of that strategy in both cases, whether it's extending the U.S. nuclear umbrella to other Persian Gulf states in the case of Iran, for example; developing much tougher economic sanctions on both; pressuring or coaxing nations such as China and Russia to embrace tougher measures (what should the U.S. be willing to give in return?); constructing a much more robust regime for air, land, and sea intercepts of WMD components; accelerating development of missile defenses; investing more in intelligence operations and capabilities aimed at both nations; and other options. How successful do you think such a containment and deterrent policy would be in each case? Weigh that against your views of the likely success and blowback of a military operation.

12 responses: Michael Brenner, Michael Brenner, Daniel Gouré, Loren Thompson, Michael F. Scheuer, Joseph J. Collins, Ron Marks, James Jay Carafano, Robert Baer, Steven Metz, Paul R. Pillar, Richard Hart Sinnreich

Burt Solomon, a National Journal contributing editor and author of three books about American history, wrote a feature story for our June 13 issue about which American wars have been worth fighting -- from the War for Independence and the War of 1812 to Iraq and Afghanistan. He interviewed historians about their verdicts and what they thought the intended and unintended consequences of each of America's 12 major conflicts have been. You can read the story here.

Solomon's conclusion was that "historians, probably wisely, are wary of balancing the costs and benefits of America's past wars and delivering a bottom-line judgment. But if pressed, they'll divide them into a few 'good' wars, especially the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II; several muddled wars; and a real stinker, Vietnam, the only one that America has lost outright."

So now it's your turn. Which American wars do you think were worth fighting, and why? What were some of the important intended and unintended consequences of those conflicts? And what do you think the judgments are going to be on Iraq and Afghanistan?

15 responses: Richard Hart Sinnreich, Michael Brenner, Michael Vlahos, Michael Brenner, Loren Thompson, Patrick B. Pexton, Larry Korb, Loren Thompson, Dov S. Zakheim, Ron Marks, James Jay Carafano, Joseph J. Collins, Steven Metz, Dick Kohn, Wayne White

Last month, President Obama unveiled his long-awaited "Cyberspace Policy Review." The 60-plus-page document is the first step toward a strategic, national plan to protect and defend the Internet, which is now the backbone of global commerce, communications and our basic way of life. Obama made clear he knows how vulnerable our networked world has become. He said that his own campaign computers had been hacked, that the rate of online crime is increasing, and that cyber intruders had penetrated the computer systems that control electrical power plants in the United States. Obama said it was time to start treating cyberspace for what it is, "a strategic national asset."

The question is, how does the government protect a borderless, largely anonymous space that is almost entirely owned and operated by private citizens and corporations? Many had hoped that the president's new policy review would offer some answers, but it was thin on new ideas. Obama plans to appoint a new "cyber czar" to coordinate from the White House. But that official will have to contend with two enormous bureaucracies that play dominant roles in protecting cyberspace -- the departments of Homeland Security and Defense. How can one White House official, who will not report directly to the president, herd those giant cats? Has Obama got it right when he says that cyberspace is a "strategic national asset"? If so, why not commit more forcefully to its protection? Or is cyberspace too big, and perhaps too abstract, to "defend" the way the government does our land, sea and air borders?

9 responses: Daniel Gouré, Shane Harris, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., Loren Thompson, James Jay Carafano, Michael P. Jackson, Ron Marks, Shane Harris, James Lewis

On Thursday in Cairo, President Obama will give his long-awaited address to the Muslim world. How important is this speech to mending frayed relations with Muslim populations, and what specific steps should the U.S. take or announce to restore its credibility in the Middle East? Will the fact that the speech will be made from Egypt, a close U.S. ally and de facto dictatorship, dilute its impact and America's pro-democracy message? How important are administration efforts to restart a peace process between Israelis and Palestinians to relations with the Muslim world? Does the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq now under way represent a chance to "reset" Western-Muslim relations?

19 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Daniel Serwer, Michael Brenner, Patrick B. Pexton, Dov S. Zakheim, Patrick B. Pexton, Michael Vlahos, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael F. Scheuer, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., Chris Seiple, Ron Marks, Wayne White, Michael Brenner, Daniel Gouré, Joseph J. Collins, Paul R. Pillar, Robert Baer