The Reverse Iran-Contra

What would happen if the United States took some Iranian hostages? Britain, being influential with the United States, is in a position to help secure the release of the hostages; though it may seem counterintuitive with the Brits being involved in the war with Iraq which Iran fears is a threat to their own security. However, if a “good-faith” resolution of the conflict is to be found, it will very likely depend on the support of neighboring countries— such as Iran —to help with security and stabilize the current volatile situation. So it can be posited that Iran will perceive a benefit in improving strained relations with the British. In which case, arrangements can easily be made, using an intermediary, for Iran to make certain assurances to the Brits, (vis-a-vis the release of British hostages and helping secure the Iraqi border,) even if seemingly contrary to official Iranian policy.

Later, Iran could ‘cut out the middleman’ and start talking directly to Britain about making concessions around their nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of UN sanctions. After which, the United States could enter discussions with Iran without the perception of ‘negotiating with the enemy.’

With a weak Iraq on their border, it is likely Iran will take advantage of economic gains to fund an insurgent army perceived as useful to Iranian regional interests.

We call the strategy of allowing this turn of events to proceed The Reverse Iran-Contra.

The vital question is this: What insurgent army? Through intelligent, bold, uncompromising leadership it will be possible to capitalize on the answer to that question, whatever it may be. We venture that carefully executed policy on the United States’ part will yield the following benefits:

1. A graceful exit from this Iraq unpleasantness — perhaps maintaining a presence there, leaving a contingent in a large, heavily fortified embassy in country; followed by
2. A new Iran-Iraq war. Only this time with the United States backing Iran— again, with minimal actual involvement in the war itself —and in doing so, the US will act as a wedge splitting up the troubling growing relationship between Iran and Russia.

Oh how our cup will run over with the benefits of The Reverse Iran-Contra! A strong alliance will allow the United States to capitalize on the strong arm of Iran as it guides the politics of the entire region. We will gain access to the region’s infinite energy resources, and through advantageous partnerships, our corporate institutions will help to ensure the flow of dollars, energy and uncompromisable security.

Yes, there will be the objections of the overly cautious; but, now is not the time for the measuring and second guessing of every action necessary to protect the Homeland. The terror-loving opposition, too, will resist; but, now is not the time to forfeit the very spirit of our freedom to the defeatists.

The naysayers will fret and engage in much hand wringing over what they will call a ‘tacit blessing of the brutal tactics employed by our proxy army,’ but since the Iranians will carefully never acknowledge the support of such an army, the claim won’t hold water. There are three degrees of separation there! We can’t possibly be held responsible for some dirt-country insurgency. It will be easy to deny the veracity of these claims as “conspiracy theories.” Hesitating and/or calculating lawmakers will be brought along with promises of meaningful, but not specifically defined, energy policy reform.

We do believe, however, that the open window for initiating this strategy will be a short lived one. We recommend immediate negotiations with our British friends, to set The Reverse Iran-Contra in motion. We predict that if initial actions— at the very least in the form of, ‘back door negotiations’ with all parties involved —are not undertaken within the next fourteen days, the option will effectively have been removed from the table, and policy will almost certainly have to revert back to The Billy Bathgate Doctrine; which, while it enjoys the same guarantee of success, is considerably messier in many respects.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

APPENDIX A: Residual Benefit

One benefit that could quite conceivably arise from this course of diplomatic activity is a provocation of hard feelings on Russia’s part for the upsetting of their vulgarly apparent scheme for strategic control of the flow of energy resources from the region. It is not in conceivable that this will lead to a renewed rivalry between Superpowers.

Cold War (Reprise) would mean a return to the wistful, nostalgic fear of mutually assured destruction, and lend renewed legitimacy to Strategic Missile Defense, and other emerging defensive technology projects.

APPENDIX B: The Frontwards Iran Contra (A history.)

Once upon a time, Hezbollah took some American hostages. Iran was influential with Hezbollah, and might have been able to help secure the release of the hostages; but at the time, they were involved in a war with US ally Iraq, and were in need of weapons and support. Nonetheless, the US did want to improve strained relations with Iran. So arrangements were made, using Israel as an intermediary, to sell weapons to Iran, contrary to “official” US policy.

Later, the US would ‘cut out the middleman’ and started selling arms directly to Iran at a mark-up, using the proceeds to fund the Contras, an insurgent army friendly to US regional interests in South America.