Friday, November 19, 2004

Think on These Things

I must say I’m alarmed by the sudden Iran focus in the media. Iran aids Iraqi insurgents! Iran funds terror! Iran has nuclear ambitions! Last week a major newsweekly had the story on its cover, then the broadcast and cable shows started to focus on Iraq’s eastern neighbor—and immediately after the Europeans and Iranians have announced a breakthrough on the nuclear question this barrage of coverage intensifies, capped off by Colin Powell’s assertion yesterday that the Iranians were secretly and aggressively pursuing a secret nuke program.

The timing of this seems rather convenient. The hawks don’t want a diplomatic solution, and this media attention based on intelligence and administration leaks points to a controlled ramping up of a case for war. Doesn’t this all seem familiar? Is the US trying to undermine the European approach? Or is Bush calculating that the threat of force will aid the diplomacy (I don’t see how it could. The Iranians see quite clearly the mess we’re in right next door. Is our blustering about desperation? “Look, we know it looks like we’re bogged down, but we’ll still kick your ass if we have to.� The Iranians may be tempted to look at us as unable to extend militarily any further—maybe Bush wants to make it clear that this would be a mistake? I’m not sure I know what the goal is).

Do we really want to fight them now? Is Bush actually considering a pre-emptive option against Iran? Imagine the consequences of turning Iran into another Iraq. A much more disciplined, better-equipped military less likely to be quickly demolished, an even further mobilized international cadre of angry militants pouring in through a barely secure Afghanistan and via Pakistan; the consequences could be disastrous. Likely further weakening of already fragile pro-US governments in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan—and if Pakistan falls “the enemy� has nuclear missiles, by the way—can they really be thinking about doing it? Oh, God. Where would it end? Ironically, it might have been true a couple years back that many Iranians would’ve liked America’s help in getting rid of their government. A huge reform movement and student protests and women’s rights movements were under way—there was even pro-US chanting at a football match post 9/11—but when Bush made the Axis of Evil speech the hardliners clamped down immediately, virtually purging their parliament of reformers by declaring their candidacies illegal. The Iraq war I’m sure didn’t bolster any pro-US sentiment in Iran either.

I have no doubt that Iran is secretly supporting the insurgency in Iraq. Why wouldn’t they try and stick their thumb in our eye? They saw how successful the US was with the CIA mujahadeen bleeding the mighty Soviet army. They saw how the Pakistani ISI was able to create the Taliban and change Afghanistan from a lawless frontier into an Islamic fundamentalist fascist state with deep ties to similar groups in Pakistan. So I don’t doubt the Iranians are doing provocative things with deadly consequences for US troops. That said, is a military response the best way to deal with them? Is it wise to undermine current diplomatic efforts that might very well bring Tehran into the WTO, giving them a place in the family of nations, which in turn could revitalize Iran’s own nascent reform movement? By attacking them, would we exacerbate the problems of terror and fundamentalism?

No comments: