Much speculation has already been made on President-elect Obama's Iran strategy, but could his administration face a similar situation to that of President Reagan's with respect to Iran in Latin America? Some think so.Former CIA man John Kiriakou (of water-boarding infamy) published an op-ed in Saturday's LA Times warning against Iran's growing presence in Latin America. Focusing in particular on the chummy relations between Iran and the current governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Paraguay, he argues against the specter of "visa-free Iranian travel and the potential creation of a terrorist base of operations in the United States' backyard." (Ironically, he fails to mention Nicaragua, which may have the closest relationship to Iran of anyone in the group). Kiriakou's piece follows other neoconservative speculation on the confluence of LAC governments' complicity in drug trafficking and Iran's complicity in terrorist activity, a mixing which has been ambiguously referred to "narco-terrorism."
Perhaps I'm naive on such matters, but I find these arguments a bit specious, and the compounded fears a bit paranoid (yes, I know that in the post 9/11 world, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you).
Yet, without citing any precedence for the relationship between terror cell growth and visa-free travel (which, it bears mentioning, only US citizens currently enjoy in nearly of all Latin America), Kiriakou assumes that the Iranian government has a strategic interest in a Latin American terror presence, and that LAC governments will be complicit. To be fair, however, he was sure to mention the infamous and horrible 1994 bombing of the AMIA in Argentina with ostensible links to Hezbollah, which, in turn, Iran is considered to support on ideological grounds. Kiriakou cited this evidence (yes, from 14 years ago) of what Iran "can do in Latin America with visa restrictions."
Lest I sound like an apologist, my point is simply this: terrorism conspiracists have been running US foreign policy for the past 8 years, and we now see that their prevention of another 9/11 has had negative diplomatic externalities. With respect to Latin America, where US policy has rarely been multi-dimensional, it will be easy for the new Obama administration to bite into this wedge issue for fear of looking soft. Doing so, though, will only hamper its ability to engage difficult, independent-minded leaders such as Chavez, Morales, or even Lugo. And to be clear, I think engagement -- yes, talking -- is good. Clearly, Iran is a country to be taken seriously, and clearly, it's a different story if evidence surfaces that these LAC governments are harboring terrorists (and not just visa-free Iranians). Thus, I hope that the new administration doesn't just take the bait, that they listen to the credible intel reports from current CIA staff, and if possible, can avoid having it's first LAC policy statement being just another Monrovian ultimatum about who should or shouldn't play with whom.
1 comment:
Good overall analysis. The current borderline hysteria over what Iran may or may not be doing in Latin America is generally empty, and circumstantial evidence is usually given to back up any assertions. Although Iran's promised investment in the region is grand to say the least, there is scant evidence thus far that any of its massive infrastructure plans in Nicaragua or Bolivia will ever materialize. People get scared by tractor and milk factories in Venezuela, but just because business is being transacted, there is no clear proof that Iran is funding Hezbollah terror cells using Nicaragua and Venezuela as a staging ground.
Post a Comment