First, Tehran has launched its own public diplomacy campaign in time for American elections and to confront the next U.S. administration next January.
With the full blessing and knowledge of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the former President, Mohammad Khatami, launched an offensive campaign against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The Iranian presidential elections takes place around the same time as the U.S. elections. And, just as the Iraqis presented the Islamic regime with undeniable proofs that they had fomented violence in Iraq, Khatami, who is not known for having enough courage to work outside the system, "insulted" Ahmadinejad for waging insurgency in Iran's neighboring countries. But while Khatami explicitly spoke of this unlawful behavior, he neutralized the new evidence as belonging to a faction that is on its way out.
Ahmadinejad might indeed be out of office soon, but a return of Khatami would be nothing but the repeat of his first eight years in office. About 70 members of parliament belonging to Ahmadinejad's faction, rebuked Khatami in a letter and called for him to be prosecuted. In turn, those members themselves were rebuked by the supreme leader and dropped the subject.
Next, the Islamic regime rejected the repackaged, refreshed and more flexible deal that was presented to it by all five members of the Security Council plus Germany.
Reportedly, the offer included Western technological assistance for a civilian nuclear program, a five-year supply of enriched uranium, support for Iran's admission to the World Trade Organization, and the promise of starting a process of lifting U.S. sanctions against Iran.
And then, the regime unilaterally suspended the scheduled talks with the United States on Iraq and dismissed the possibility of new talks for the future. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, a foreign ministry spokesman, declared in a news conference that "talks with America will have no results and will be meaningless," setting the stage for Khatami to pick up where they have prudently left off.
The meaninglessness of the talks was echoed in Washington too.
However, Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman, insisted on willingness and readiness of Washington to continue discussions with the Islamic regime, as if they might bear fruit someday.
Casey said: "It is meaningless to have talks on anything with Iran as long as they don't change their behavior. That said, we have continued to be willing and ready, and are willing and ready, to have additional discussions with the Iranians through this tripartite channel."
Knowing the fabric and the constitution of the Islamic regime, the Iranian dissidents are not surprised. They know that settling their differences to arrive at an agreement will never happen with this regime.
The fact is that no matter how much Western powers try to show flexibility, negotiations with this regime will never bear fruit. The Islamic regime are not interested in negotiations for mutual benefit. They see it as a zero sum game and regard the so called negotiations only as a delaying tactic.
As far as admission into the World Trade Organization is concerned, they are not interested a bit. Their profit margin is much higher in the convoluted labyrinth of an Iranian bazaar. The World Trade Organization will subject them to an uncomfortable degree of transparency they could do without. And, they would rather export all manufacturing jobs to foreign countries so that they don't have to deal with the Iranian labor.
Even a security guarantee by the United States is not of much interest to them. They are quite confident that their strategy of asymmetrical warfare will finally succeed against the U.S. forces. Their battlefront is not limited to Iraq. It includes American public opinion as well.
Gates is the first policy maker to publicly acknowledge this fact. His recognition of this reality might well serve to untangle the difficulties of dealing with Tehran.
As part of its asymmetric diplomacy, the Islamic regime has masterfully sent contradictory signals to create a crisis of policy in the West. It is not surprising that Western policymakers have been powerless to formulate a coherent and consistent Iran policy. With every passing day they have been dealt a new set of cards for a new game by Tehran through Western liberal media.
Judging by the editorials and opinion pieces, one is left wondering whether we are either on the verge of a war with Iran or that a grand bargain is being finalized and will be announced any day now.
The fact is that neither of these two options will materialize anytime soon. The paralysis of dealing with Iran, which has extended into Iraq, will continue because of promises of negotiation from the Islamic regime which is the main culprit.
How are they pulling such a masterful game of deception? The culprit is posing as an ally and is getting away with it. The answer to this question is two-fold:
First, as it was reported by the National Intelligence Estimate, (NIE) we simply do not know much about what is going on inside Iran. Any liberal journalist, who spends a few days in Iran under the watchful eyes of the ministry of information will return to United States as an Iran expert and blames it all on the U.S. George W. Bush administration.
This is how the public opinion has been shaped during an important war that is threatening our values, way of life and our very existence.
Second, Iran has been waging an asymmetrical war against the United States on diplomatic, military and public opinion fronts.
Since the 18th century, modern diplomacy and warfare have been based upon similarity of objective and similar policy tools. Armies have been equipped similarly and diplomats have followed a well established protocol.
Modern diplomatic or military conflicts have involved firm objectives, a clearly defined battlefield and a specific definition of terms of interests and victory.
However, radical forces that are too weak to fight a conventional war resort to asymmetrical warfare to achieve their goals. The Islamic regime has been successfully attacking the weakest points of the Western countries since their inception.
They know that they cannot defeat the U.S. army in Iraq with conventional methods. They change the battlefields and terms of engagement on a daily basis. As such, their goal has been to create as much indiscriminate bloodshed as possible to humiliate the United States into abandoning Iraq and leaving the region.
The Islamic regime's main goal in Iraq has been to cast doubt on the possibility of victory and most importantly, to change the American public opinion. They have been quite successful in pitting the European Union against the U.S. on commercial deals and to pit Republicans against the Democrats on the illusion that a grand bargain with the Islamic regime is within reach only if we sweeten the deal some more.
The U.S. liberal media has fallen for this game and has not been successful in informing the American public accurately and fairly. The Iranian regime is well aware of the fact that U.S. General David Petraeus' success is mostly contingent upon the support he receives from the American public, i.e. through the media. The actual battles in Iraq are a smaller fraction of his concerns.
War has been defined as the extension of the politics by other means. A deeper look into Iran's asymmetrical warfare against the West will illuminate its inner structure. There are multiple centers of power in Iran.
The structure of political power is fragmented among factions resembling medieval Middle Eastern tribes. All these tribes have been institutionalized into Iran's political system since the beginning of the revolution and have progressively become more divergent. Each tribe is acting with near absolute authority within its domain with no regards for the national law or public welfare and public participation.
However, they are sophisticated enough to compete within a set parameters. Their competition creates an illusion of democracy for the novice observer of Iranian affairs who fail to notice the absence of the public participation.
The tribal factionalism has reached a point that no national policy can be decided without some detrimental objection coming from one or more of these centers of power.
Case in point: two weeks ago in the city of Qom, Ahmadinejad complained publicly that his power is limited and that forces similar to "mafia" are working hard against him. He unequivocally declared that he cannot overcome these obstacles.
Now remember, this is not the timid and inept Khatami. This is coming from someone in the Islamic regime who boasts of leading the entire world out of misery.
The multiplicity of these centers of power will even make the appeasement policy impossible to work. It is impossible to appease a critical mass of these commercial and political tribes at the same time.
Just as the asymmetrical military conflicts require an asymmetrical response, asymmetrical diplomacy will only be defeated by rock solid and straight-forward diplomacy that is based upon moral principles.
Asymmetrical diplomacy is nothing more than fraud and deception. The antithesis to asymmetrical diplomacy is consistent and methodical promotion of moral principles. It is best manifested by promoting American ideals of liberty and equality.
It would be a mistake to respond to the asymmetrical diplomacy with back-room dealings with those who have no regard for human dignity. It is best to stick to the principles and let the good prevail.
Gates has declared that he is cognizant of this fact and has found just the right man to lead these noble efforts in Iraq. Let's hope that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice too, will have the right man or woman who will remain true to American ideals of liberty and equality for all and promotes it in Iran.
The moment this new policy becomes firm and public, the people of Iran will show the way to the liberal media to inform the American public correctly.
--
Farid Iman is a founding member of Iranian Dissidents for Human Rights. Kamran Beigi is a consultant at the Institute on Religion and Public Policy.