What To Do With Iran

 by Steven D. Laib  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to usurp leadership of the� region from the Arabs and� establish himself as the leader of the� “Arab Street.”

Pat Buchanan has once again made himself up as an isolationist and “peace at almost any price” activist. His recent comments opposing the possibility of an American military strike on the Iranian nuclear power program betray once again that Mr. Buchanan is out of touch with his subject; particularly, that he does not understand the mentality of the opposition.

The tone for any action on this issue has already been set by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has shown a violently militaristic attitude, and who vacillates daily between the use of nuclear power for electricity, and for wiping Israel (and later his other designated enemies) off the map. To understand part of the situation requires an examination of the power relationships in Western Asia.

Some time ago this author suggested that Saddam Hussein had made it his business to promote the belief that he had massive stockpiles of chemical and possibly biological weapons. There were two reasons for this. First, he wanted the West to believe that an attack on his regime would cause “the mother of all battles” with tens of thousands of casualties, as well as horrific collateral damage. Second, he wanted to promote his status in the Arab region, making him de facto leader by virtue of his supposed, or actual, weaponry and his willingness to stand up to Europe and America. This is why no Arab nation did anything when Kuwait was invaded. They were afraid of him.

Now we see similar talk from Iran about its military abilities. Ali Larijani, Iran’s nuclear negotiator stated, "Iran has prepared itself; they will get a crushing response if they make such a mistake. If there is any truth in such talks, Israel will suffer greatly. It's a very small country within our range." As if Iran already has sufficient missiles with nuclear, biological or chemical warheads to drop on Israel. It is another prediction of “the mother of all battles.”

Where Buchanan is correct is when he states that the “Iranian president is playing with fire. For he appears to be slamming the door on diplomacy. His rhetoric may be causing the British, French and German negotiators to conclude there is no dealing with an Iranian president who talks like this, yet will be in office for four years.” Where he misses the point is specifically this: Ahmadinejad wants war, or a near approximation of one, in which he could emerge as the major power figure in the region. If he can bluff America and Europe into backing down, then he wins prestige and a position of power. What one must remember is that the Arabs and the Persians have a long history of animosity; Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to usurp leadership of the area from the Arabs and place himself in a position of superiority over the “Arab Street.”

What Buchanan is also ignoring is this; Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and yet has clearly shown by its own statements that it is preparing for the production of nuclear weapons, and that it intends to use them. The fact that Pakistan, India and Israel did not sign the treaty, and purportedly have produced such weapons, is irrelevant. They have never used such weapons, and have never seriously stated any intent to do so. Perhaps as of today Iran is not a nuclear threat. However, we cannot be sure of tomorrow. Besides which, the true purpose of any attack on Iran would serve more than anything else to show that region of the world that the United States will not allow any serious threat to develop. That is our vital interest. It is not because the Iranian regime would fall apart under such an attack, although the possibility does exist. Instead, our interest is served by delivering a major blow to a troublemaker who has specifically stated his intent to start a nuclear conflict.

Buchanan does understand that removing Saddam Hussein and replacing him with Ahmad Chalabi will probably not serve U.S. interests, but unfortunately, very few people seem willing to act on that principle. The problem is that the population in western and central Asia does not think and act like Europeans or Americans. Their society has been significantly closed to outside influences for too long. Their understanding of how to deal with the rest of the world is violent and atavistic. Unfortunately, this problem will continue until their society has been opened up, with resulting serious social and political changes. This change will take decades. Writing a constitution and holding elections looks good for the short term, but is meaningless unless democratic principles in education, ideas, philosophy, art and music become fixed parts of the social culture.

True, it is better to talk than to fight. Truman talked to Stalin, who understood that his USSR was not prepared to fight with America. Ditto for Khrushchev, whose hawkish actions were in part why he was removed from office. With the later Sino-Soviet split, it was logical for Nixon to talk with Mao, as both were looking for an ally of sorts to use against the USSR. In all of these situations neither side was seriously interested in armed conflict, despite all the posturing. At bottom line, they did not want to take the risk of losing, and realized that there were potentially more valuable results to be achieved through diplomacy. What we face today is a totally different situation. The enemy wants war more than anything else, and sees diplomacy only as a means of furthering its goal of global subjugation. This war was declared over a thousand years ago, and continues today because the West has completely misunderstood the nature of the enemy.

Buchanan suggests that “neither of us would benefit from a war.” He may well be right, but Tehran is currently in the grip of people who believe it is their divinely mandated duty to make war, and nothing short of a crushing defeat will change their minds. They see diplomacy only as a tool for furthering their military goals. As Charles Krauthammer put it, “Negotiations to deny this certifiable lunatic genocidal weapons have been going nowhere. Everyone knows they will go nowhere.”

Mr. Buchanan’s loyalty to Constitutional principles is laudable. However, in 1789 no one considered that we would ever be facing what we do today. It is therefore necessary that we use a new and different approach to meet unforeseen circumstances. The most important function of the Constitution is to protect the people of the United States. If we do not adjust our approach to international affairs, there is a significant possibility that one day there will be no United States to protect, let alone its people.

Foreign Affairs, National Defense

Read more articles by Steven D. Laib