Aside from the US war in Iraq, the next most pressing foreign policy question is the developing conflict with Iran. Many on both the right and left have put forth proposals outlining everything from sanctions to a preemptive nuclear strike. What makes Iran so dangerous?
- They are clearly a radical fragment of the global Islamic movement
- they are developing nuclear technology, which, according to most analysts, could be ported to weapons in as soon as ten years
- they actively fund and support insurgents fighting against the US in Iraq (more so than any other state, they are “the other side” in the War on Terror)
- They have declared that Israel should be removed from statehood, by force if necessary
Primarily due to these reasons, many Americans are naturally a little worried about Iran. At the very least, they are hostile towards the idea of Iran continuing on their present course. American officials (including the candidates for president in both parties) are presenting the country with the idea that the worst case scenario is a very realistic possibility. In fact, just yesterday, it was announced that plans to bomb Iran are now in the works.
Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever… The Bush administration “has just about had it with Iran,” said one foreign diplomat.
From the Other Side
However, in the eyes of Iranians, the US is not exactly seen as their buddy. Not including direct US meddling in Iran since the 50’s, the typical Iranian is going to fear the US for the following reasons:
- They are engaging in a global “War on Terror”, which up to this point has only been against member of their religion and in their geography
- They have nuclear weapons and some of their leaders and potential leaders have threatened to use them
- They have actively supported Iran’s enemies in the region and even rebuilt entire nations in their area. They actively fund hostile regimes, even supplying them with weapons and training
- They took Islamic land by force and created a belligerent Jewish state right in their midst
It not surprising that many Iranians, who were on the verge of toppling their own extremist regime (with a pro-diplomacy, pro-capitalist one), have now decided that, while they hate their own government, the US and it’s policy are much more dangerous to their way of life. Likewise in the US, where congress and the president have approval ratings at historic lows - people are clearly more afraid of terrorists than of the US government.
The Shared Goal
Both governments, ironically, have a common interest - fighting each other. If the US government is able to preserve the spectre of a global Islamic terrorist threat, then, despite the infringement of liberties associated with the “sacrifice” for war, the current status quo will survive and even prosper. If the Iranian regime can convince it’s people that the US is out to both directly and indirectly fight against their religion and nation-build in their region, then the people will not turn on them.
Naturally, the only requirement of these governments is not to change policy, but to balance an escalation of conflict with the quenching of dissent. This is not by way of a conspiracy or a unified agenda, but just like any issue which transfers into votes (gas prices, abortion, homosexual marriage), it is naturally in each politician’s best interest to drum up problems that government needs to fix. The perception of an aggressive Iran is as good as gold in an election year.
For example, after announcing his candidacy for President, former Sentor Fred Thompson has declared:
…if we look weak and divided in this country, we’re going to pay a heavy price for it in the future. We’re living in the era of the suitcase bomb, and they’re not going to go away. They’re here now, they’re armed and dangerous, and they’re trying to get weapons of mass destruction… Iran is becoming more and more obvious, a major, major problem for the United States of America. They are killing our people… they’ve got 3,000 centrifuges now and basically reprocessing that uranium enough to get fissile material within the next few years and most experts think well on their way to making a nuclear weapon and, of course, they’ve threatened Israel… I don’t know how much more stark the situation can be. They perceive us as being weak. They perceive us as being divided, and they think they can get away with anything.
The same is true for the Iranian leaders, only their situation is much more dire, as they were near radical change towards moderation. Everyone has heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats and strong language, yet even a cursory look into the economic and military condition of Iran shows that they have no muscle to back this up. However, this desperation has bred the same kind of dissent quenching language. Take Ayatollah Khamenei’s remarks in March:
The only way to oppose and react to such aggression and coarseness is to preserve our national unity… [The Americans] are determined to divide us. That’s why all the political parties must stand together under the banner of the imam... Under the pretext of sectarian feelings, religious inclinations and gild orientations, the enemies are bent on destroying unity of the Iranian nation or fan religious differences in the world of Islam and draw a wedge between the Iranian nation and the rest of the Islamic community by inciting war between Shiites and Sunnis …In God’s assistance, all people of every sect or religion will expedite their hopeful move towards their bright future, at the same time all Muslim nations will demonstrate their unity by promoting Islamic solidarity and fraternity.
The Hype Factor
Like most complicated issues (it’s not really complicated, but too complicated for talking points) this common interest has been generally missed in the smaller (and more emotional) issues like nuclear technology and anti-Israel statements. However, the essence of the debate was most recently captured on the Factor when Ron Paul and Bill O’Reilly squared off on the issue:
O’Reilly has a vested interest in a conflict (or at least the hype thereof) because it gives him something to rant about. Dr. Paul’s “history lesson” which “may or may not be true” (so let’s exchange talking points all day on it) is boring and calms people down when they should be fired up. Otherwise they are not terrified of the major catastrophe brewing in the Middle East (unless America is over there kicking butt).
The reality is that just as the current unpopular leadership of Iran and the US share a common goal, the citizens of these countries will be the ones who pay for any conflict in taxes and with their lives. As in every war, the leaders of both countries will demonize the other side while simultaneously speaking of the necessary sacrifice involved to “win” the conflict. While it may be in the leadership’s best interest to promote conflict, it is obviously in everyone else’s interest to seek peace.
I’m very skeptical about any intelligence suggesting the Iranian government is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents. Pat Buchanan wrote an article asking some serious questions about the U.S. provocation of Iran, even going so far as to compare it to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
He also mused that if Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents in some way, it may be a response to “U.S.-inspired attacks inside Iran, in the Kurdish north, the Arab southwest and the Baluchi southeast of its country.”
Its now public knowledge that President Bush authorized Jundullah, an al-Qaeda affiliated group, to conduct covert actions against Iran.
Anyway, if you would like to read Buchanan’s take on it, here’s the link: http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070716_tonkin.htm
CORRECTION: I misspoke. Bush authorized the CIA to carry out covert actions against Iran. CIA is using Jundullah.
Interesting article. The rhetoric from U.S. politicians does seem similar to the run up to the current Iraq war. Fortunately, we don’t have an army with which to invade Iran even if we wanted to. I am concerned that we’ll likely to do some pointless bombing of Iran, and give them another good reason to hate us.
I don’t know why America would need to bomb Iran. Isn’t that something we let the Israelis handle? It’s their lives on the line, after all. They have a greater interest in stopping Iran’s nuclear program than America ever will.
Zionist conspiracy theories aside, I’m looking forward to a nuclear-armed Iran. Nuclear weapons are a moderating influence because when the stakes are a nuclear holocaust, one tends to do everything possible to avoid war. (Consider India and Pakistan, for example. They don’t dare escalate their border conflicts because it could mean nuclear war.)
The only thing to worry about is atom bombs in the hands of a madman. Well, Ahmadinejad is many things, but a suicidal madman is not one of them. His inflammatory rhetoric is calculated to win him domestic support by rallying the public against perceived external threats. He’s not actually chomping at the bit to commit national suicide by nuking Israel.
The plans are obviously for an air strike. There’s no way the U.S. is going to commit to ground troops right now.
Jew, I agree we don’t need to bomb Iran, but I think we may be heading that way (in a few years) depending on who’s the next president.
And I agree with what Ron Paul said in the debate, that Israel can defend itself.
Jew, you neglect the option that Iran would then put those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists for the right price or motivation. Just as they are (no matter how much Chris wants to deny it, anyone who has any first-hand knowledge and a clue of the situation over there knows that Iran is arming the insurgents) currently arming Iraqi terrorists and Hezbollah with weapons, what would keep them from giving WMD’s to terrorists?
Darius,
I haven’t denied anything. I just said I’m skeptical. I don’t know whether they are arming insurgents or not. However, it remains a possibility, as Buchanan suggested, that their arming insurgents may be a means of counter-attack.
Darius, I don’t neglect to mention that. As I said, Ahmadinejad isn’t a suicidal maniac. Funneling conventional weapons is one thing, giving terrorists a nuke would bring the same reprisals as if Iran had detonated the weapon herself.
Jew - Really? Applying that logic would mean that Iran would be facing reprisals against them for creating and arming Hezbollah. But they don’t, precisely because Iran has some deniability. Same with Iraq and same with nuclear weapons in the future, if they funnel them over to Hezbollah to wipe out Israel, who’s to say (without at least some doubt) where those nukes came from?
The nice thing about nukes is that they are very traceable AFTER detonation based on isotope. If an Iranian sourced nuke were to be used against the US, the nuke WOULD be traced to Iran. I really don’t think any president would have problems responding to such an attack, or getting the support of the people to do so. I was a little concerned regarding the Pakistan/India situation when it was first developing, but as Jew indicated nukes have seemed to have a moderating effect. I have traditionally been quite adverse to the idea of Iran getting nukes in fear that Ahmadinejad was the suicidal maniac most feared in a nuclear confrontation, but as Jew indicates this really doesn’t seem to be the case.
That said, he will continue to fund terrorism, which could be quite undesirable for US interests. In the modern era, an isolationist stance is no longer feasible due to long range weapons delivery and ease of transportation and shipping. Ignoring Iran COULD prove dangerous, or it could be the right thing to do. I’m not really sure what the best course of action would be here.
As Atanamis explained, there’s no plausible deniability with nuclear weapons. I thought that was common knowledge.
I am concerned about one thing. Revolution. Has the world ever seen a revolution in a nuclear state? Iran appears ripe for revolution, and I don’t like the potential implications that has for the physical security of the nation’s nuclear weapons, if they have any. Who knows what could happen in the chaos between governments.
This is likely another reason why the Iranian regime is seeking nuclear power. If they can get a hold of the weapon, the US must either invade with full force or protect the regime to keep the nukes in their hands.
Got a point there, Colin.
Jew, I was more referring to other forms of WMD’s besides nuclear. I don’t know how traceable some other weapons are, such as biological.
Direct quote from Darius:
“Same with Iraq and same with nuclear weapons in the future, if they funnel them over to Hezbollah to wipe out Israel, who’s to say (without at least some doubt) where those nukes came from?”
Note the particular reference to Nuclear weapons, and not WMDs in general.
That’s a good point, Darius. Biological weapons tend to be traceable, but chemical weapons not so much. I read the UN report on the chemical weapons used by Iraq during Saddam’s regime. They were able to determine that the chemicals used were not of US manufacture, but they couldn’t get any more specific than that. (If I recall correctly.) [Edit by Jew - I checked my facts. The UN report actually determined that the chemicals were not of Soviet origin, but was unable to be more specific than that.]
One thing to consider is this… If we are so worried about suitcase bombs, why are we not taking action to keep them from our shores. We have yet to develop any real means of inspecting import vessels. We haven’t even started to deal with anything realted to our borders. Its funny how this administration and their sheep keep preaching that we must stay and fight in the Middle East to keep such a thing from happening. Wouldn’t the 500 billion dollars we have WASTED on this war have been better spent securing and defending this nation.
Right now we are allowing trucks to come in from Mexico and drive freely in the US virtually unchecked. Sounds like a good way to smuggle in a bomb. Or… Just take your chances and set the damn thing in cargo container and pray to Allah that it is one of the thousands that go uninspected everyday.
If we took the time to look inward and develop truly defensive strategies maybe both the immigration and security issues could have been solved by now.
Important Note: When Petreaus was asked if the war in Iraq, as it going, is keeping America safer he answered, I don’t know. Apparently, from the view-point of this President and all of his lackey staff, that’s a big hell yeah. And remember, “We’re kickin’ ass.”
It’s not Petraeus’s job to determine if the war in Iraq is keeping us safe, it is his run the war.
Chris, you are correct, I did say specifically “nukes.” I guess I meant WMDs, plus I wasn’t aware that nukes are 100% traceable.
I think it is just retarded to think that the Iranian government would spend a fortune on development of atomic weapons and then hand them over to someone else. That is counter to logic and reason as well as common sense. I do not think that Iranians are retarded. It is highly unlikely that they would take one of their most valuable and expensive weapons and hand them off to some rouge elements that they do not directly control. In addition you have no idea just how crude or how large a weapon they build might be. It is just an unreasonable jump to a demented conclusion to say they will hand them off to another party.
they hand off missiles and other weapons all the time to Hezbollah, those aren’t free.
libertyman, the expense isn’t so much the cost of one bomb, it’s the cost of developing the technology and the infrastructure to produce the bomb. Once you’ve got that, you can produce as many bombs as you want, provided you have the uranium. That’s not to say they’re cheap, but it’s not like giving away a couple of nuclear bombs is going to bankrupt a nation.
I think it’s interesting that everybody is talking about air strikes on Iran to prevent them from building nukes. Back during the Cold War, both America and the Soviets were afraid of China’s nuclear program–so much so that the US President suggested a joint air strike, and the Soviets considered it, although they ultimately declined. (I read that in Jeffrey A. Engel’s book Cold War at 30,000 Feet.)
They might not be free Darius but they are cheap compared to nuclear weapons. Israel would wipe the floor with Iran if they wanted to. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons on state of the art missiles.
Iran has not even one nuclear weapon and very little in the way of an air force. Why would they commit national suicide and attack Israel? It does not make a lick of sense. Their leaders rhetoric is simply pandering to his demographic. If anyone has paid attention to the middle east they will know that bluster is part of their nature. Saddam was talking this kind of bull at one time and Israel came over and blew the crap out of their reactor. The same will happen to Iran if they keep it up I would expect.
No one in the nuclear club wants new entrants because that crowds the field. Israel has been the lone nuclear force in the middle east for decades. They are certainly invested in keeping it that way and if they choose to strike Iran to keep it that way that is withing their national interest to do so.
libertyman said: Their leaders rhetoric is simply pandering to his demographic.
I agree completely.
The Today Show did a couple of pieces from Iran this morning and apparently yesterday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20746548/
I am unsure what the point of their stories were other than to help the average American distinguish between Iraq and Iran, because I have found a disturbing number of people get them confused (this makes me die a little inside). I did notice that Matt Lauer made a specific point to say that no one they encountered had expressed any anti-American sentiment.
Yeah, the Iranian PEOPLE are quite pro-American, just as many people are in Iraq. It’s Iran’s leadership that is so anti-USA.
Yeah, the Iranian PEOPLE are quite pro-American, just as many people are in Iraq. It’s Iran’s leadership that is so anti-USA.
This is true. Which is why those anti-american governments would be toppled rather quickly if we would stop giving them a cause for not liking us. For some reason however, we think we can speed up the process by marching our army in as “liberators” when in reality it undermines the pro-American sentiment in these places.
“This is true. Which is why those anti-american governments would be toppled rather quickly if we would stop giving them a cause for not liking us. For some reason however, we think we can speed up the process by marching our army in as “liberators” when in reality it undermines the pro-American sentiment in these places.”
I think they’re taking a two pronged approach - the black ops Jundullah propaganda war and the air strikes. It seems like they are both designed to work in concert somehow. Its like they are manipulating public opinion about the current regime by way of propaganda and through fear of bombing.
Somehow I wonder whether the U.S. will actually follow through with the air strikes. The Jerusalem Post said today that the time frame for the attack is 8-10 months. With a new president in office by that time, I’m not sure how it will all play out.
Actually, 8-10 months would bring us to early-mid summer in 2008, before the elections.
Colin, toppling a tyrannical dictator is a little harder to do than you seem to give it credit. You said “goverments,” implying that you include Iraq in that. Saddam was nowhere close to ever losing control of the Iraqi government, and for that matter, Ahmadinejad and his party aren’t that easy to dethrone. 80% of Iranians may hate the government, but so did most Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, etc. hate the Soviet government, but without our pressure, they would have remained under that rule for many more years.
“Actually, 8-10 months would bring us to early-mid summer in 2008, before the elections.”
Good point. I guess all the election hype has really got to me.
I was listening to the Diane Rehm show on NPR today and (Ret) General Wesley Clark and Peter Rodman of the Brookings Institution were guests. I liked General Clark’s overall stance on the situation. He kept stressing that diplomacy was the best avenue and that our current administration should be pursuing that now. Peter Rodman felt we should capitalize on the Iranian people’s fondness for us and plant seeds for uprising to make them pressure their government instead. Isn’t that kinda like, “The Iraqis will welcome us as liberators”?
I would agree with Clark. However, the administration is in agreement with Rodman or rather he is an agreement with them. The covert actions being carried out by CIA in Iran are information wars, propaganda via newspapers, etc. I think the idea is to take full advantage of pro-American sentiment at the expense of the current regime.
And I disagree that this is like the “greeted as liberators” nonsense. Although there are those who will obviously disagree, Cheney’s comment was a complete lie, or if you prefer “misjudgment.” At any rate, there was no shred of truth to it. If you heard bombs going off in your hometown, would you respond by saying, “Our liberators have come!”? That defies common sense.
My point in comparing these two is that I feel the administration put entirely too much weight on the Iraqi people’s dislike for Saddam. I do believe there were some in power who felt that we would be welcomed (post bombing) as a replacement to Saddam. Peter Rodman stated that the Iranian people certainly don’t want to continue with their current regime due to policies that will leave Iran isolated. His tone suggested he was implying that the Iranian people will pressure or overthrow their government if threatened with isolation or bombing. That never happened in Iraq and it’s not going to happen in Iran.
I see what you’re saying. I’m not so sure that the people will overthrow Ahmadinejad. That sounds more like the approach CIA has taken in South America. Of course I can only speculate, but my impression is that the manipulation of public opinion in Iran will be much more effective. The approach is much more different than the Iraq approach, where leaflets were being dropped from military aircraft. I don’t know whether Rodman implied a coup d’etat from within or not, but I don’t think such a thing is likely. I think the aim is to get the population to turn on their leader so that they are more sympathetic to U.S. military action. But I could be completely wrong.
It just seems naive to me to think that we would be able to sucessfully force the hand of a coup d’etat in a country who’s neighbors we have occupied for over three years. It just seems that Iranians have too close of an example at what we could offer to contribute to a cause championed by the American government. I think there is a huge difference between Iranians having a fondness for the American people and culture and expecting them to have a fondness for American ideas on their government.