View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Rachel Alexander |
July 26th, 2006
Critics of the Bush administration who complain that the U.S. is too hawkish toward Iran have no better plan of their own to offer. U.N. member countries who are not on Ahmadinejad's top two enemies list care more about oil than whether Ahmadeinejad wants to bomb us.
Ironically, although Iran may have temporarily diverted attention from its refusal to comply with nuclear inspections by aiding Hezbollah's attack on Israel, the overall increasing level of violence in the Middle East is building more support for a U.S. or NATO strike against it. War against Israel is inevitably accompanied by attacks on American citizens. In addition to saying that the Holocaust never happened and that Israel should be "wiped off the map," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened the U.S., saying that the U.S. should be "tried as war criminals in courts." Ahmadinejad reportedly played a role in the kidnapping of hostages from the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979.
Critics of the Bush administration who complain that the U.S. is too hawkish toward Iran have no better plan of their own to offer. Many would continue to do nothing, even as violence escalates, deferring to the U.N. and its agencies to negotiate with Iran. The U.N. has a poor record of stopping tyrants. Member countries of the U.N. have different priorities than the U.S. Other countries aren't on Ahmadinejad's top two enemies list, and as we learned in the past from France, Germany, and Russia's vote against the 2003 Iraq War, are more concerned about access to cheap oil than whether someone is plotting to drop nuclear bombs on Israel or the U.S.
Ahmadinejad very likely detests the U.S. more than any other country except for Israel. Fortunately, because of the U.S.'s strong position, distant proximity, and lack of offensive aggression towards its enemies, it has been able to avoid the prevalent violence Iran engages in with neighboring ethnic minorities in Turkey, Iraq, and Azerbijan.
It is short-sighted to do nothing except issue toothless warnings from the U.N., permitting an unstable and extremist dictator to continue enriching uranium that everyone knows is only meant for one thing, to build nuclear weapons intended for its enemies - which could include possible use against the U.S. and Israel. Speculation that Iran is enriching uranium for nuclear energy purposes is naïve at best, underhanded at worst. If that were true, Iran would have properly reported its progress to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Accusations that the U.S. is planning an aggressive "neocon" strike against Iran are misplaced. There is a difference between planning a preemptive nuclear strike, and preparing a contingency plan ahead of time in case a nuclear strike becomes necessary. Pacifists and critics of the Bush administration conveniently like to confuse the two in order to mislead the public. The Bush administration has already capitulated considerably to world opinion and criticism from the pacifist left by agreeing to negotiate directly with Iran for the first time in over 26 years. It makes no sense that the Bush administration would agree to these talks if it was planning a strike. The administration is going to utmost lengths in order to forestall military action.
Bush has learned from Iraq that there is no such thing as a guaranteed quick and cheap intervention. The risk of resulting political and economic damage may not be worth the gamble of a military strike. Republicans cannot afford another mire requiring additional troops while still engaged in Iraq; it would lower morale even further. Gas prices would skyrocket, since Iran has vowed to reduce or cut its oil supply if the U.S. strikes. Although the U.S. does not purchase oil from Iran, the countries that do purchase Iranian oil would be forced to buy oil elsewhere, decreasing the amount of oil available to the U.S., which drives the price up. Intelligence sources recently revealed that Iran has been moving its enrichment programs into urban areas, further reducing the possibility of a U.S. strike.
Instead, the Bush administration is prudently taking the middle ground, preparing for the possibility of a military strike while exhausting all realistic negotiating efforts. The U.S. should continue its tough stance, avoiding full recognition of Iran while continuing to freeze its assets and level economic sanctions against it. The U.S. should avoid any region-wide weapons freeze that would affect Israel. Although some claim the U.S. is being hypocritical since it has thousands of nuclear warheads, terrorists and terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda have never abided by international agreements and treaties, so there is no reason to trust them to abide by a regional weapons freeze. The freeze would essentially hand Israel over to terrorists. The U.S. and Israel need nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves and deter despots, which is considerably different than obtaining them to commit terrorist attacks. Ceding ground to an aggressor as unpredictable as Ahmadinejad would likely result in him asking for more.
In a recent column, George Will accused Condoleeza Rice of harboring the naïve belief that any violent activity in Iran signifies progress. This mischaracterization of Rice's position takes the easy way out of a legitimate debate regarding the extent the U.S. should care about what happens in Iran. Rice would not approve of violent activity by hardliners in the former USSR seeking to communize Iran. Nor would Rice look favorably upon a fascist dictator who sought control over Iran's oil (let's not forget Kuwait).
There is only one viable solution. Iran must agree to a Middle East peace process, and cease its support of violent opposition to such a plan. Unless something radically changes the situation in Iraq, U.S. troops are on schedule to withdraw within the next couple of years. Although cynics claim the U.S. cannot "force" a democracy on an undemocratic country, protesting that the U.S. will be engaged in Iraq for many years to come, history has proven otherwise, most notably in this century with Japan. Absent no other significant active U.S. engagement around the world, the possibility of targeted strikes against Iran may become a reality.
rachel@intellectualconservative.com
Visit their website at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/rachel-alexander-archives/
Responses to "The Iran Dilemma"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Ms. Alexander show's a keen awareness and insight into Public Enemy #1 and how this country, and the world, I hope, man-up soon to face the menace and it's madman.
Comment by Joseph | July 26, 2006
What's wrong with wanting oil? Really. We need, we aren't allowed to drill for our own…. makes sense we'd try to get some. But as for it being a reason for war, that's one of the weakest arguments from the left to date.
Comment by Jenn | July 26, 2006
"Critics of the Bush administration who complain that the U.S. is too hawkish toward Iran have no better plan of their own to offer."
Ms Alexander, I beg to differ. We non-interventionist paleocons have been offering our plan for many years.
My plan, which might well be more "extreme" than some paleos, would go something like this: America should immediately end ALL foreign aid, which is not authorized by the Constitution anyway. We should immediately withdraw from all entangling foreign alliances such as the UN and NATO. We should bring all our troops stationed abroad (Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, etc.) home. Some should be stationed along the border, and many should be cut loose to pursue more productive employment in the private sector. If Canada invades Maine, we should go to war. If Castro invades Florida we should go to war. If Iran blockaded the Persian Gulf and demand we pay a tribute on every barrel of oil, then we should go to war to open the sea lanes (not to "democratize" Iran). (Based partially on the precedent of Jefferson sending the Navy to defeat the Barbary Pirates.) Otherwise we should mind our own international business. This is the plan of the Founders, and it is the only foreign policy consistent with small government conservatism. Interventionism is Wilsonian liberalism and is in no way conservative.
There. You may not like my plan, but you can not say I don't have one.
Comment by Red Phillips | July 26, 2006
I didn't say others didn't have a plan. I said they didn't have a *better* plan.
Comment by Rachel Alexander | July 26, 2006
Touché. In all seriousness, do you believe foreign intervention is consistent with historic American conservatism? If so, how?
Comment by Red Phillips | July 26, 2006
The United States has had a long history of international intervention. For more than the last century (half of our time as a nation) we have sent our troops over seas many times to protect our interests, carve out territories for ourselves (Hawaii) and even a colony or two (Philippines where we fought a successful war that was similar to what we face in Iraq today). We forced open Japan’s doors in 1888, we have been sending troops to support our interests in Central America since 1990 (most recent being Bush Sr. invading Panama in 1989), we protected, and continue to do so, both Taiwan and South Korea, we tried to save Vietnam but messed up in a number of ways. This is only a brief look at our adventurism over seas. Any good history text would give you many more examples and put some flesh on the bones I have outlined.
Comment by DF Lickiss | July 26, 2006
I must admit that it's tempting to have the U.S. become a turtle instead of a hawk. The temptation to just let them all kill each other is great. We'd still be hated in the world even if we did stop all foreign intervention. We're prosperous and free and that is enough for alot of countries to hate us for.
The only things that bother me about it are that if we did stop all foreign intervention and basically became hermits to the world…well, we could kiss Israel goodbye. Say hello to 1967 all over again, but this time the arabs probably won't be as inept as they were then. Removing ourselves from the picture would remove all restraints from arab countries regarding Israel. They would know that once the U.S. is out of the way, there would be no reason not to remove those pesky Jews from the planet. Who else would stick up for Israel? Europe? Not likely, since anti-semitism is on the rise there anyway. The U.N.? ha-ha. They might give the arab countries involved a mild reprimand when it was all over, but that's about it.
The other thing is, what happens with the rest of the world? Will Islamo-fascism stop just because we are out of the picture, or will they just grow stronger? If they get stronger, will they just leave us alone because we are no longer active in the world's affairs? Will we stop being the "Great Satan" to them? Or will we just roll over for them? Would we just be waiting for them to get strong enough to actually invade us while we sat around and let them? Can we afford to do that? When they do finally attack us, who will help us defeat them? Why would anyone help us when we have withdrawn our support from everyone?
Personally, I would like to pull in all our oars and let the rest of them kill themselves, but I don't think that that is likely to happen.
Just a few thoughts.
Comment by Ron S. | July 26, 2006
DF Lickiss,
You are absolutely correct that the US has a long history of interventions. My question is were those interventions supported by the CONSERVATIVES of the day. Emphatically no. Conservatives opposed the Spanish American War, our entry into WWI, our entry into WWII (until we were attacked), and the hard core that weren't swayed by the anti-Communist intervenionism that morphed conservatism during the Cold War, opposed our entry into Korea and Vietnam. I might add that conservatives also opposed Lincoln's invasion of the Confederacy. The "conservatism" of today is a 50 + year old Cold War "conservatism" that can't give up its Cold War interventionist mindset and return to the clear non-interventionist, small government roots of conservatism.
If people want to be interventionist then fine. Although they ought to do the fighting themselves. But don't connect interventionism with conservatism. That is butchering the language.
Ron S., the protection of Israel is the responsibility only of Israel. Just as the protection of Canada is the responsibility of Canada, France of France, Kuwait of Kuwait, etc. etc. etc. I personally would repeal the law against Americans serving as mercinaries. If some Americans want to go fight for Israel then be my guest. But why should our military fight for another country? Where is that in the Constitution?
Red
Comment by Red Phillips | July 27, 2006
If the Jihadists were cursing us with spears and muttered gibberish on some isolated island somewhere in the Pacific, I could care as my "paleo" brothers. The fact is they aren't chanting voodoo spells from coconut trees. They're driving planes into your mom's office building, blowing up children in supermarkets, and beheading innocence as entertainment.
Comment by Joseph | July 27, 2006
Red, I agree about the responsibility part. Each country, in the end, is responsible for it's own defense.
My question is, what are the long-range consequences of your policy? Do you feel that if we got out of world affairs that the world would just leave us alone? Do we become liked in the world? Do we become isolated sitting ducks?
Your plan, I take it, would also bring our intelligence services (as poor as they've been recently) out of the field. In such a case, we would only know what happens in the world after it happens. If our enemies decided to make a concerted effort against us (most likely a nuclear attack first), we would have no inkling until they actually attacked. Would this be in our best interests?
I like the theory of "minding our own business", but sadly I don't think it's practical in the real world.
There may be something in the constitution that would allow us to form alliances and defend them, but I'm really not sure. Is there something specific in there about sending our military to aid other countries? I doubt it.
Comment by Ron S. | July 27, 2006
There seems to be here a desire to go back into isolation. I mind remind everyone that we tried that while the English and the French went about appeasing Hitler. While many American hearts sided with the people who would soon become our allies during WWII, it was still felt that we should stay out of the whole affair. It was Japanese bombs that brought us into the Second World War. (Yes I know of all the theories about how FDR somehow orchestrated that bombing). The fact remains that once we were in we were in for the long halu and have emerged as the World's Superpower.
A part of me would like to go back into isolation, though I doubt we could stay there for long. But I do long for a US that could care less about world affairs and just look after our own. One might say that that is rather cold, but let's face it, a good part of the world doesn't like us anyway. Yet whenever and whereever there is a disaster the first nation to respond is the United States. I just think it is in our nature to do so, it is who and what we are, our psyche, our makeup.
Can you imagine a world without the US involved? I wrote an essay on this very topic once for my website and I will submit the link for those that might care to read it.
http://tbbc01.tripod.com/id22.html
I am not sure if this will work but if you wish you could certainly cut and paste.
Comment by Richard | July 30, 2006
Whether we like it or not the rules of war on terrorism has to change and be utilized by the USA or we will have lost the war. First: Terrorists have no rules! They have one objective being the destruction of their enemies…namely the Jews and the Americans as prime targets. We are failing to get inside their minds with a vicious campaign designed to strike fear into them. They must be told over and over again by our side that we do not fear them and we are dedicated to hunting every one of them down until they have disappeared from the face of the earth! Ram it down their throats very day until they finally understand we mean business!
Comment by Dan Spoonhour | July 31, 2006
Rachel, Ahmadinejad did not threaten to wipe Israel off the map. I know this is how it is reported in our media but, like the WMD fiasco, much of what we're told is pro-Israeli war propaganda. Juan Cole,a middle east scholar who reads Persian and has little respect for Ahmadinejade, has a website entitled Informed Comment. He translates (5/03/06) and explains that those words were not a threat to wipe out Israel. He was quoting the Imams prediction that the Zionist regime would be erased from the pages of history. To wish to see the end of a political regime is not the same as wishing to see the people under that regime dead. After all ,the people in power in Iran also wished to see the end of the Shah's regime without wishing the death of their people. He also hasn't denied the holocaust, he neither confirms nor denies it. He noticed that in the so-called free world you can get thrown in prison if you challenge it. Strange that! If it's such an established fact that it happened as we're told why can't there be an open discussion about it? Please quit spreading the war mongering propaganda!
Comment by David | August 5, 2006
David, that last post holds out a slim glimmer of hope for the future of genuinely "intellectual" conservatism.
Comment by Ted | August 9, 2006
Red Phillips
Your plan is flawed in a few key areas.
First if we did bring home all of our armed forces from overseas to pursue other careers what would the people who work on bases and in conjunction with bases do?
Many of the people who work for the military and retire switch over to government jobs.
This switching is because we have military located all over the world. We wouldn’t need a military under your suggestion and thus Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and all the other defense contractors would either bankrupt or just close their doors. There is no need for missile systems on commercial airliners.
Where would those who work for such companies seek employment? The job market would be flooded with highly skilled employees who work primarily on defense equipment.
This job market would have little to offer those who work on missile systems, military aircraft, or in conjunction with DOD contractors.
It has become a necessary evil in that one supports the other and without one you end up with a great many people out of work. In today’s market with the automakers laying off people, other companies out sourcing workers to foreign nations for cheap labor and the decline of American advancement would leave many on welfare.
So you double the burden of society by bring home all of military members by doing away with jobs that dependants have on base as well as the members not being able to be hired by companies that once supported DOD contracts.
It would be like saying; we need to stop smokers in the US never mind the billions of tax dollars the people spend or the employees the company hires. The government wont simply accept that billions of tax dollars are no longer available they will turn to the public and increase taxes somewhere else to compensate for the loss.
We minded our own business for eight years we turned a blind eye to the ever increasing terrorist threat which culminated on Sept 11.
When we turn a blind eye those who wish to do us harm will continue so at an alarming rate. We need to be physically and internationally involved in all aspects of intelligence gathering and be involved in world affairs to the full aspect we can.
When you neglect to be involved you have no idea what’s coming or what could transpire by such neglect.
Since the advent of international travel the "keep to your own" style of government simply went the way of the dinosaurs.
We must be internationally involved in everything if we are to keep our country safe. Any other choice and we become complacent and suffer such attacks as those who desire to attack us will do so.
Dave in Georgia
(Government employee)
Comment by Dave in Georgia | September 10, 2006