First, let's check the authors...
Kenneth Katzman and James Nichol
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
Sadly, I can find almost nothing about James Nichol, but to make up for it, we have a great deal about Dr. Katzman.
Dr. Katzman is an expert on the area. To be more accurate, he's an expert on US policy in the area, which is not quite the same thing, let's face it. From the looks of things he's never been in any danger of "going native".
(For those worried about political correctness - you have my deepest sympathy for your condition - I'd point out that this is a term coined by administrators in the UK government, possibly dating back to Lawrence of Arabia, who "went native" so spectacularly that he made all sorts of promises to his Arab chums that the British Empire had no intention of honouring. It generally denotes someone who's supposed to be controlling a department or region but takes on the value system of those in his charge to such a degree that he becomes useless or possibly dangerous in his given role. It was also applied during the seventies to Ministers of the Crown who took on too much of the value systems of the departments they were in charge of, with similar consequences.)
At the time of this report he'd just written a book called Searching for Stable Peace in the Persian Gulf, which peace, it must be remembered, had to be on the US' terms.
Good God, just the foreward to this monograph displays the most extraordinary Orwellian doublethink:
Key allies of the United States withhold support for military action against Iraq, despite evidence that the Iraqis are clandestinely producing weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, U.S. allies have concluded potentially lucrative deals with Iran to exploit central Asian oil resources, despite Washington's opposition to them.
The forward's author is RICHARD H. WITHERSPOON - Colonel, U.S. Army and Director of the Strategic Studies Institute. I rather thought that the military weren't supposed to be interested in setting policy: that kind of thing was done by civilians, whereas the military supposedly busied themselves with providing the resources necessary to attain the desired objectives of a strategy set elsewhere. Clearly this fiction is not being adhered to in this document. Goody! A bit of candour, that's what we want to see. And for those who say "it's not about the oil"... well, clearly it is.
The monograph is fascinating, as it looks at the policy of "dual containment" - playing the two major powers in the region (Iraq and Iran) off against each other. This sentence I find quite revealing:
Regimes now in power in both countries have staked their legitimacies on ensuring their independence from great power influence, even though this goal has brought extraordinary costs to both.
Like the two countries being set to war with each other? Like Iraq being tricked into invading Kuwait? Like sanctions brought to bear on Iraq, even if it cost the lives of half a million Iraqi children - a price worth paying, according to Madeleine Allbright. (Of course, they weren't her children, so that's ok.) Actually, the next sentence is an astonishing exercise in self-deception. Again, Orwell would have regarded this as a benchmark in doublethink...
The current U.S. policy of “dual containment” of both Iran and Iraq is temporarily useful, to the extent that it rejects the past policy of alternately promoting Iran or Iraq as U.S. surrogates in the Gulf. That strategy contributed to the Shah's unpopularity within Iran and ultimate downfall. Later, the policy may have emboldened Saddam Hussein to believe that seizing Kuwait would not incur significant U.S. opposition, or that he might even receive U.S. approval. These outcomes, and others like them, are an almost inevitable outgrowth of the inherently competitive system the United States has relied on in the Gulf.
Either Katzman has no idea of who April Glaspieis, or how she was told to whatreallyhappened.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">trick Saddam into invading Kuwait.
But read on and we find that Katzman has absolutely no objection to rewriting history. Put baldly, he's a liar:
The Shah of Iran seemed the perfect choice to play the role of U.S. surrogate in the Gulf. The United States had already preserved his regime in 1953 against a significant threat by nationalist elements led by then Prime Minister Mohammad Mosadeq.
To describe the overthrow of a democracy for outside oil interests as "preserving [the Shah's] regime from a significant threat" is more than mealy-mouthed equivocation. It's an outright lie. There's plenty more drivel in this vein - I was tempted to read on by the promise of a more co-operative and less competitive Gulf being the foundation for peace in the area, but my head started to explode from the sheer pressure of utter nonsense I was forcing myself to read.
On to the CRS report... first, a quick look at the summary:
Iran sees the Central Asian region as an arena for reducing its own isolation. Hoping to make itself an attractive economic and political partner to these states, Iran has been cautious in supporting radical Islamic opposition movements in the region. Several Central Asian states are proceeding with or contemplating energy projects that transit Iran. These projects present the Administration and Congress with the dilemma of how to keep Iran's financial resources constrained while at the same time fostering economic and political development in Central Asia.
Love that phrase, "fostering political and economic development". Sounds so generous, so philanthropic. What self-respecting statesman wouldn't want to foster that good stuff? However, I think we'll find that behind this bland phrase lurks a more straightforwardly self-interested agenda.
So, yes, Iran, although we characterise it as a threat to the region, has actually been a rather good neighbour, hence something of a PR problem. Is is exporting an Islamic revolution? Not really.
The United States accepted a statement in the communique of the P-8 summit in Denver in June 1997 praising Iran's mediation role in Tajikistan. Iran also has tried to mediate in the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh territory. Over the last few years, Iran has worked to improve often contentious relations with Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev, and has offered only minor support to a pro-Iranian Islamic Party in Azerbaijan.
How gracious of the US to accept that statement that the evil Islamic dictatorship actaully did something nice.
Iran is doing better than expected, it occupies a central strategic position in the region, and is actually pretty stable. Damn. But of course, the thing that really matters is the oil. An analysis of the region's geography and politics follows entirely from that perspective - "Energy Relationships" and we learn that
The landlocked Central Asian states were anxious to develop alternatives to Russia as a transit route for exporting their energy resources...
Despite widespread concerns about Iranian foreign policy, Iran's political stability gives Iran an advantage in competing for projects over some regional countries, such as Afghanistan. Two energy teams3 are vying for the right to build a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, through Afghanistan. Although the Clinton Administration endorses such efforts, it admits that a trans-Afghan pipeline is unlikely as long as interfactional strife continues in that country.
And who are these energy teams? Love that word, "team" - sounds so much friendlier than "corporation", which is what it actually is. Well, one was an Argentinian company, and we can ignore them, losers, because the other one is UNOCAL, the United Oil Company of California. Hang on, that name rings a bell... oh, that's right - Mohammed Karzai, the US-installed president of Afghanistan, was a UNOCAL executive. So while the Clinton Administration supported UNOCAL, they didn't do quite as much for them as the neocons, who killed several thousand people and invaded a country or two for the oil interests.
On a side note, I realised that Condoleeza Rice, apart from having a really stupid name, is a real history maker - almost as much as Barack Obama. It's an unusual triple whammy for a cabinet member - a black woman... but a black woman with a massive oil tanker named after her! Pretty special.
So anyway, we have the pre-911 problem set out rather clearly: we want to get in with the Caspian basin oil producers, and we want to be able to get the oil to a port without going through Iran, which isn't shooting itself in the foot with its neighbours as we'd like.
a little more...
