Intro to ‘New Realism’

Posted by johnhouk on Sep 29, 2009
 John R. Houk
© September 28, 2009

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. has sent an exclusive to SlantRight.com that I am certain will make it in some form to his AfPak Reader.

The theme of the essay is a “New Realism.” The foreign policy concept is supposed to be middle ground between allowing everything including the kitchen sink without preconditions and Right Wing Realism. The former uses Jimmy – Hamas – Carter as an example. The latter uses Neoconservatives as an example.

The New Realism’s (A Conservative’s View) primary advocates seem to be Dennis Ross (Profile from Left oriented Right Web) and Robert Baer. Johnson’s essay is kind of a critique of an article written in the Washington Post by Fareed Zakaria.

I’ll probably have to read Johnson’s essay a few times in an attempt to digest all the implications of the New Realism. Upon first glance (well maybe second glance) Zakaria appears to be a proponent of the New Realism.

Now here is the foundation of the New Realism in foreign policy: The acceptance of Iran as a Middle Eastern hegemon while using a combination of Saudi clout, European economic strength and American power in a carrot and stick scenario to counteract Middle Eastern Iranian hegemony. It sounds like a new Cold War scenario in which the West tries to fence in the Iranian National Agenda with both overt and covert agents. Russia and China will play the switch and bait game to placate their National Interests meaning sometimes supporting the West and sometimes supporting Iran. For Russia and China the bait and switch of support will be founded upon that which benefits the respective the global sub-hegemonic powers (i.e. assuming that America is still THE global hegemon).

Below is Johnson’s very loaded with geopolitical information essay.

JRH 9/28/09
*******************
Does Zakaria's New Realism Trumpet Obama's Acceptance of Iranian Hegemony?

By: Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
September 28, 2009

In today's Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria puts forward Russia and China's slight shift in posture on the Iranian sanction issue as a positive result of Obama's "mature" diplomatic gamble at engagement with the world's thugs and tyrants. Interestingly, in the same breath, Zakaria lambasts elements on the "right" in the United States for their "phony realism" which calls attempts to engage with tyrants naive. But, is it naive to remain skeptical about engaging with Iran? Is it naive to remain skeptical about baby steps towards sanctioning Iran, when Dennis Ross, Obama's key diplomatic envoy on Iran and his Central Region puppetmaster, assumes that Iran will have achieved nuclear bomb capability by the close of 2009, an assumption laid out in his recent collaborative effort with Markovsky, Myths, Illusions & Peace?

Is it naive to consider the push toward sanctioning Iran a wasted effort since the Mahdist Iranian President Ahmadinejad has made wiping Israel into the sea a standard talking point on his foreign policy platform? Is it naive to consider Obama's long silence over the obvious abuses and fraud in the Iranian elections and the ensuing human rights abuses on the streets of Iran and in the bowels of Iran's prisons a point of concern when discussing the human rights of Israelis or the rights of U.S. citizens to live free of terror from organizations like Hezbollah? Is it naive to be concerned about the pro-Palestinian posture of President Obama as he holds expanding Israeli settlements in Jerusalem as illegitimate but does not deem it worthwhile to call the katyusha, grad, and qassam rocket barrages from Gaza, the West Bank, or Lebanon illegitimate resistance efforts, crimes against humanity or (in the least) gross violations of any possible civil engagement?

Determining what is happening on the diplomatic sphere is supposed to be about finding common interests as Zakaria suggests. But what common interest does the United States have with a nuclear Iran? What common interest does the United States have with a gelded and caged Israel? What common interest does the United States have with an emboldened Islamist Street throughout the OIC? What common interest can be found for the American people with the rise of Iranian hegemony throughout the Middle East? For the answers to these questions, one must turn to Dennis Ross and Robert Baer - the "New Realists" of the twenty first century.

Markovsky and Ross are not quite so bold as Zakaria in their 2009 release, subtitled "Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East". Markovsky and Ross posit that the ideas of both the "realist" camp made up of pragmatic appeasers like Jimmy Carter and the "neoconservative" camp made up of right wingers who seek regime change as the only option when dealing with a burgeoning Nuclear threat from Iran have logical shortcomings in the realm of an effective statecraft. Realists, they argue, seek no preconditions for negotiations and engagements with Iran, while Neocons seek far too many preconditions. Markovsky and Ross argue for a new path for an effective American Strategy, a middle way, leveraging Iran's vulnerabilities to change the behavior of the regime. They call this attitude toward statecraft "new realism".

It is telling that these "new realists" discuss the possibility of utilizing the scrapping of the Czech/Polish missile shield as a natural concession to the Russians as a way forward in the sanctions issue. Necessarily, they put forward that European countries would feel less secure and have an interest in seeing an Iranian nuclear program stopped. Ross and Markovsky theorize that "the ballistic missile defense deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic are designed to provide protection from Iranian missiles. If the Russians would act to reduce the Iranian threat, these sites might not be necessary."

To add leverage to this seeming betrayal of Europe, Ross and Markovsky put forward that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States could then put European banks on notice that they would withdraw their financial support if Europe did not back the play toward sanctions against Iran. On the China front, Markovsky and Ross bolster their theory, "...make no mistake, if the Chinese had to choose between Iran and Saudi Arabia, they would choose the Saudis." In this way, the "new realists" suggest that Iran could be vulnerable economically, and negotiations with Iran would at least hold leveraged preconditions. Of course, considering the delicate nature of the defense shield and strong arm tactics of financial hardball, Markovsky and Ross note that multiple back-room secret meetings would necessarily have to take place to put all of these moves forward. But, even though Ross was the man on point in the Obama White House, no Western journalists deemed it worth while to start exposing the back room deals and meetings between American diplomats, Saudi financiers and European bankers.

So, in the run-up to negotiations with Iran, and the move to open channels to guarantee sanctions, the "new realists", who have found an influential chair in the Obama Administration, note the value of throwing around Saudi largesse as a tool of statecraft. This pressurized engagement without pre-conditions, the new realists call a "Hybrid Approach", which seeks to keep the Iranian leadership pre-occupied with possible losses without publicly humiliating them.

Having noted these ruminations of Ross and Markovsky, it is probable that Iranians have already picked apart all of Ross' literary efforts. The recent McChrystal assessment and resource request on Afghanistan which has met with stalling tactics and dithering certainty from the White House, demonstrates that the geopolitical wrangling America is witnessing in alarmist sound bites and pandering bromides is not floating in a diplomatic vacuum. Open sources from Politico and Foreign Policy Magazine and the Washington Post confirm that hours upon hours of strategy sessions will take place in the Obama Administration this week on the Afghanistan theatre. However, these meetings will take place in the wake of the UN assembly and G-20 summit and under the cloud of the upcoming October 1st sit-down with the Iranian leadership.

Is it naive to consider the Iranian Nuclear question and the Afghanistan troop request by McChrystal as linked? Not if you follow the "new realist" line of logic which holds that a comprehensive agenda for talks between Iran and the United States will center on securing the U.S. interests of stopping the nuclear weapons program of Iran while recognizing the legitimate security and regional interests of Iran and demurring on the notion of regime change to achieve peace.

Special Envoy to the AfPak, Richard Holbrooke's claim to fame of forging a Bosnian peace was achieved by establishing a contact group of all the stakeholders in regional peace. Is it possible to have a complete contact group on the AfPak without Iran? Is it a coincidence that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps was just accused of supplying training and weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan by McChrystal? Is General McChrystal a phony realist?

President Obama's address to the U.N. on September 23rd provide indirect answers, which shine light on the "new realist" positions. When discussing the controversial issue of a two state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama states "The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security - a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people." Coupling this clear goal with Ambassador Mitchell's diplomatic mission to the Middle East which emphasizes "that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" opens the door for Robert Baer's 2008 assessment on dealing with Iran, The Devil We Know. And disturbingly, rather than pushing toward sanctions, new realism calls for an easing of sanctions. Why? Because Iran is, according to the new realist thought process, the only viable, stable, enduring state in the Gulf. According to Robert Baer, "if we ignore their words and focus on their actions, Iran and its proxy Hezbollah are rational actors. They're willing to talk with the West. They're willing to set bounds. They have fixed, reasonable demands. It is time the United States stops standing on pride and principles it can no longer afford."

Baer's assessment places the Takfiri Jihadists of al Qaeda as the common enemy of America, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. To fight the takfiris a quid pro quo detente between America and Iran can arise as follows. First, America would immediately stop calling for regime change in Iran and Iran would stop funding and arming Israel's neighbors. Then, America would recognize Iran's natural security role in the Persian Gulf and pursue joint patrols of the waters in exchange for Iran not challenging our ships. Easing the current embargo on Iran would give the Iranians an excuse to halt weapons shipments to Hezbollah. Recognizing Iran's predominant security interests in Iraq and Afghanistan would allow Iran to take a direct hand in stabilizing both warzones in a coordinated fashion with a U.S. drawdown in both theatres. "In return for negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian settlement based on U.N.. Resolution 242, which calls for Israel to withdraw to its pre-June5, 1967 boundaries, Iran should be expected to help impose an immediate cease-fire on Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad." Incorporating Hezbollah into the Lebanese Army would grant legitimacy to the resistance militia, making it more likely to accept a peaceful solution. If Iran is capable, America should not stand in the way of Shia ascendance and their possible push for control over Mecca. At the same time, we should hold Israel to the NPT and IAEA standards we seek to have Iran governed by and establish an international body to broker a set price for oil as a stabilizing mechanism. According to Baer, America has no choice but to accept the hegemony of Iran in the Middle East.

When taken together, the new realist positions both hold to a new reality - Iran is the new superpower on the block.

Chapter nine of Myths, Illusions & Peace and the epilogue of The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower provide a powerful glimpse into the academic rationale, the new realism, influencing our current leaders in Washington as they gather to discuss the McChrystal assessment of the Afghanistan resourcing and the October negotiations with Iran. Zakaria's assessment that the right wing thinkers of today are "phony realists" merely demonstrates his complete belief that Iran is the new hegemon in the Middle East. Does Obama accept the new Iranian hegemony of the region? Has he pushed for an Israeli-Palestinian peace on the 1967 borders? Has he sought to respect the Iranian state's rights? Is he wobbling on a troop increase in Afghanistan on the heels of a jilted election outcome? Has he shelved the European ballistic missile shield in betrayal of Poland and the Czech Republic?

The pieces of the Obama team's Middle Eastern strategy are beginning to come into view. As to whether Zakaria's new realism trumpets Obama's acceptance of Iran as a superpower we can deal with as they assume hegemony over the Middle East...well, that, I leave to you.
________________________
 Intro to ‘New Realism’
John R. Houk
© September 28, 2009
____________________

Does Zakaria's New Realism Trumpet Obama's Acceptance of Iranian Hegemony?

© Gary H. Johnson, Jr.

Visit Johnson’s blogs: United Against Islamic Supremacism and The AfPak Reader.

Leave a COMMENT.

powered by [ stevencopley.com ]