In the first of our three-day series on countries emerging as threats to the U.S., we explore the possibility of war with Iran and why diplomacy should trump military intervention. Is Iran as dangerous as everyone thinks?
Digital Journal — If the U.S. wrote a priority list on which countries deserve the most attention, Iran would place in the top three. The rogue nation has taken big strides to push forward its nuclear program, spinning 1,300 centrifuges to enrich uranium at a facility in Natanz. Iran hasn’t responded to queries from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about activities linked to a weapons program.
Add Iran’s crackdown on dissenters and one of the world’s oldest civilization is becoming the newest region the West is following with suspicion.
What’s surfacing are deep tensions between the U.S. and Iran that has the potential to spill over into military action. The American demands are well-known by now: they want Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment activities and to honestly admit its role in building nuclear plants. But Iran also has good reason to be wary of the U.S.
As Martin Indyk, an assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs during the Clinton administration, recently told the New York Times:Don’t forget 1996, when Newt Gingrich proposed an $18 million program, a covert program to overthrow the regime. From then the Iranians were convinced we were coming for them.
Also, the White House-led “democracy fund” — $75 million to help advance freedom and human-right campaigns in Iran — has morphed into another arrow in Iran’s quiver: the government claims this fund is another U.S. effort to overthrow the nation’s highly religious leadership.
It also doesn’t help the U.S.-Iran relationship when presidential hopefuls like Joe Lieberman call for an attack on Iran. The old “axis of evil” catchphrase is making a comeback as political tensions boil over on what to do about Iran’s aggressive tactics.
“This is a coming-of-age for Iran,” says Arne Kislenko, political analyst and Ryerson University history professor. What we’re seeing here is Iran’s own demonstration of regional power and its place in history. Iranians are a proud people with an ancient culture, and they’ve seen how little respect the president of the United States has for Iran.
Kislenko points out the nuclear-weapons issue is Iran government’s tactic to distract its people from domestic problems, such as harsh Islamic rule. As reported earlier this week, the hard-line administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is enforcing the strictest crackdowns the country has seen in several years, targeting human rights advocates, labour leaders and the press. Iran’s police chief boasted its annual spring sweep against clothing considered non-Islamic collared 150,000 people.
The U.S. is no stranger to slapping the wrists of rebel nations with poor human rights record. What is truly making American officials sweat is Iran’s insistence on continuing its nuclear program, assuring naysayers the efforts are only being used to supply the nation with power. The White House supports nothing less than a full freeze on Iran’s nuclear development.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told the Paksitan’s Daily Times: I don’t know what partial suspension means, I don’t know what partial suspension would look like, and it doesn’t seem to me to be a very wise course.
So it’s all or nothing for the U.S. This means if Iran doesn’t cooperate at this critical moment, the West may consider other options to show that they mean business.
“A military solution would be an absolute disaster,” Kislenko contends. “It would make what’s happening in Iraq look like Sunday church service.” Cooler heads should prevail, Kislenko says, and diplomatic talks should be the measure the U.S. never abandons unless it’s attacked.
Kislenko sees the cup half-empty with an Iran-U.S. war: Nothing good can come out of military action. American manpower would be spread even thinner in the Middle East, and casualties would mount at an alarming rate. Iran is better prepared and defended than Iraq.
When Iran and the U.S. do engage in talks (which usually fail to reach viable resolutions), along comes a terrorist organization to attack the diplomacy. In late May, an Al-Qaeda group called the U.S.-Iran meeting in Baghdad “satanic,” claiming the Muslim nation is acquiescing to American interests. How can any progress be made between these two nations when outside forces condemn any meeting of minds?
Even internally, negative reactions cloud any attempt to negotiate. Not surprisingly, State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey — a conservative hawk who continues to support the Iraq war — said he doesn’t expect a breakthrough with recent diplomacy between the European Union and Iran:I don’t think Iran’s track record is particularly noteworthy or particularly likely to give me or anyone else confidence that anything will come of these of the discussions.
Many observers point to Ahmadinejad as the root problem. Kislenko says the Iranian president frequently plays the “Bush card,” telling his citizens American foreign policy is so misguided it poses a threat to the Iranian way of life. In the past, Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust and called for an end to Israel’s existence.
His inflammatory statements come at a time when his popularity at home faces considerable setbacks. The Iranian economy is flailing, and the oil-soaked country launched a program of gas rationing to end cheap pump prices and force drivers to pay more for “excess” gasoline.
Mehrzad Boroujerdi, director of the Middle Eastern Studies Program at Syracuse University, recently told The Toronto Star:For a president who wants to curry favour with average citizens, he isn’t doing too well. Economic hardship is getting worse and a group of 57 leading economists wrote a letter lambasting his policies and demanding a fundamental change.
As patriotic as Iranians have been to Ahmadinejad’s policies, they won’t stick by a president who promises a lot but delivers little, Kislenko says:
“When economies erode, patience and support for nationalistic rhetoric start to decline.”
Still, there’s no sign Iranians are deserting their president. If anything, the war-mongering from American politicians are only emboldening the extreme fundamentalists in Iran. And because no one knows what Bush will do next (Iraq learned that the hard way), Iran is engaged in a mind game with the U.S. where no clear winner emerges. Ahmadinejad may claim he’ll invite inspectors to Tehran to inspect its nuclear program very soon, but would Bush take him seriously? And if the two nations sit down to work out their differences, what exactly will they talk about? It’s a conversation with few details, even if its implications have an enormous impact on the future of world peace.
To the casual news-watcher, Iran looks like the topic du jour, the U.S. threat every pundit is commenting on. But it’s too easy to dismiss Iran as simply a hot-button nation right now, because its role in arms proliferation and Mideast diplomacy will remain on the West’s radar for years to come. No quick and simple solution will emerge in the coming weeks, despite the pressure exerted on Iran. How this mind game plays out could determine where American foreign policy turns to in the next year and how Iran will be perceived by the rest of the world.
This article is part of Digital Journal’s in-depth coverage of countries emerging as threats to the U.S. To see the report on Russia, click here, to see the report on China, click here.
