Iran: An Opening Thought on the Disconnection in Washington

Still travelling this morning, with academic duties in Liverpool. I'm learning from the discussion on gender issues in a separate entry, and I'm thinking through my impressions of the view from Washington of the Iran crisis, not only from the NIAC conference but from other conversations and observations.

I'll try to write the analysis for Saturday, but my primary impression is of the disconnection between events inside Iran and how the best American analysts are approaching the situation. There can be a lengthy, engaging conversation about all the complexities of the post-election conflict --- about the quest for legitimacy and about the demands for rights, about the role of students, youth, and labour, about "leadership" and "grassroots" --- but all of that evaporates when the topic turns to "What Should the US Do?"

At that point, the two-clock metaphor takes it central place: the "nuclear clock" and the "democracy clock". Except no one pays attention to the democracy clock; it's all about the supposed ticking of the nuclear clock (even if, as one of the best US analysts noted, that clock is not real but illusory, given the limits on Iran's nuclear progress). And so once more, "Iran" is reduced to the nuclear matter, with geopolitical buttresses such as Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and "Iranians" become the Supreme Leader, Ahmadinejad, and those who may or may not negotiate a deal with Washington.