If We Don't De-Nuke Iran, the Israelis Will
Two articles over the weekend struck a clanging contrast with each other on the red-alert foreign policy issue of what to do about Iran's home-stretch drive to acquired nuclear weapons.
Writing in the Manchester Union-Leader, Nicholas Schmidle, a graduate student at American University in Washington who spent the summer of 2004 in Tehran, argues that our greatest asset is our popularity with the Iranian people, in stark comparison to their hatred of the mullahcracy.
"Of all the governments in the Middle East, the Iranian regime remains the most resolute in confronting the United States. The Iranian leaders' persistence in vilifying the U.S. illustrates the deep antagonisms between the two countries. Indeed, regime-generated anti-Americanism is the product of the Islamic ideology promoted by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, but also a reflection of the tense and complex history of their relationship.
"Yet Iran itself suffers from internal contradictions that the mullahs wish did not exist. The Iranian people love America, and there is very little the government in Tehran can do to cool pro-Americanism on the streets. In an ironic twist of political fate, 25 years after the Islamic revolution, Washington probably influences public opinion in Iran more than the Islamic regime. The Iranian government unwittingly created pro-Americanism in their country; Washington should be diligent not to unwittingly destroy it.
How would we do that? By invading the country to prevent the mullahs from going nuclear, of course.
"Just beneath the veneer of avid pro-Americanism, the Iranian mind is crowded with a vivid sense of nationalism and memory of past American deeds. Kaveh, a doctoral student at Tehran University's faculty of law, illustrates the complexity of Iranian relations with the United States. One evening, Kaveh railed against the Islamic regime. 'This government is not a "national" government,' he said. 'They only care about their family, friends and their pockets.' The next night, Kaveh knocked at my door and handed over a note. It explained that he thought my room was under surveillance and our conversations were being recorded. He wanted to resume our discussion 'on tape,' but this time, direct his diatribe toward the America government. It quickly became apparent to me that he was as passionate in his criticism of the U.S. as he was of his own government. 'The United States is only looking to establish an economic and militaristic foothold in the region,' he contended. 'They want Iraq to be another Okinawa.'
Schmidle's conclusion? "While many Iranians remain predominantly pro-American in a region where anti-Americanism spreads quickly, U.S. policymakers should respect the prevailing complexities of the Iranian polity. Just because there is a reserve of good will for America doesn't mean Washington can take it for granted. For while keeping a lid on Tehran's nuclear program might not be within Washington's means, preventing an explosion of Iranian nationalism is.
"As I was cautioned by Hamid, a 25 year-old student activist, 'If one U.S. soldier comes to Iran, all this [positive sentiment toward America] will change. It is like we are in the 90th minute of a soccer match. Anything can happen.'"
I could buy this if there was any indication anywhere that this simmering unrest I keep reading about actually stood a chance of boiling over into a popular revolt that could overthrow the Islamist regime. Even as hardboiled a realpolitiker as NRO's Michael Ledeen has spoken far more often of helping the Iranian people reclaim their own country than of our invading to effect regime-change ourselves. And nowhere in Schmidle's piece is there the slightest hint of such a revolt. His is an argument for maintaining an untenable, increasingly combustible status quo in order to preserve an essentially empty and meaningless strategic asset.
As is my recurring theme on this topic, the eight-hundred-pound gorilla nobody wants to acknowledge is Tehran's headlong hurtling toward nuclear weapons, a horrifying possibility that could become reality next year, if indeed it hasn't already. Given the mullahs' well-earned reputation as terrorism central, their harboring of al Qaeda, and their oft-declared intention to eradicate Israel, we are faced with at least regional Armageddon, and soon, whether we like it or not, Iranian popular opinion be damned.
So observes Caroline B. Glick in the Jerusalem Post. Leave it to a principle Israeli publication to not waste time with pussy-footing and get right down to brass tacks.
Her first sentence throws the brutal reality of the situation into the full light of day, like a skillsaw fart during communal prayer, visceral, unmistakable, and unavoidable:
"The agreement that France, Germany and Britain reached with Iran this week signals that the diplomatic option of dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program no longer exists."
Ms. Glick goes on at great length and to devastating effect to lay out how the Iranians have effortlessly manipulated the Euros, particularly France's maniacal anti-American perfidy, to both isolate ourselves and Israel even from the Brits, and prevent any direct pre-emptive action to abort Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
"In the unlikely event that the issue is ever turned over to the [U.N.] Security Council [the principle announced objective of the Bush Administration], France will veto sanctions even if Russia and China could be bought off to abstain. As the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal has shown, even if sanctions were to be levied, there is no credible way to enforce them."
So, as British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said recently, "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop." Right?
Wrong. Unfortunately for the striped-pants-and-stability crowd, there is, as usual, one crucial factor they have failed to consider: Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran.
"So where does this leave the Jews who, in the event that Iran goes nuclear, will face the threat of annihilation? Crunch time has arrived. It is time for Israel's leaders to go to Washington and ask the Americans point blank if they plan to defend Europe as Europe defends Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state. It must be made very clear to the White House that the hour of diplomacy faded away with the European Trio's latest ridiculous agreement with the mullahs. There is no UN option. Europe has cast its lot with the enemy of civilization itself."
In short, there is going to be war with Iran, and we cannot escape involvement in it. The only question is, just as with Desert Storm/Shield and Iraqi Freedom next store, whether we'll fight it directly and overwhelmingly with as few complications as possible, or hang back, force the Israelis against the wall to where they feel like they have to strike, and get dragged into a far more unpredictable conflict over which we have far less control, where the chances of disaster are vastly greater.
If the Iranian people are truly favorable towards us, they'll understand. If not, their fickle pride can hardly be allowed to be an obstacle to the elimination of a garish threat to regional stability and American national security.
If Iran is allowed to go nuclear, the GWOT cannot be won.
The stakes are literally that high.
It's as simple as that.
Writing in the Manchester Union-Leader, Nicholas Schmidle, a graduate student at American University in Washington who spent the summer of 2004 in Tehran, argues that our greatest asset is our popularity with the Iranian people, in stark comparison to their hatred of the mullahcracy.
"Of all the governments in the Middle East, the Iranian regime remains the most resolute in confronting the United States. The Iranian leaders' persistence in vilifying the U.S. illustrates the deep antagonisms between the two countries. Indeed, regime-generated anti-Americanism is the product of the Islamic ideology promoted by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, but also a reflection of the tense and complex history of their relationship.
"Yet Iran itself suffers from internal contradictions that the mullahs wish did not exist. The Iranian people love America, and there is very little the government in Tehran can do to cool pro-Americanism on the streets. In an ironic twist of political fate, 25 years after the Islamic revolution, Washington probably influences public opinion in Iran more than the Islamic regime. The Iranian government unwittingly created pro-Americanism in their country; Washington should be diligent not to unwittingly destroy it.
How would we do that? By invading the country to prevent the mullahs from going nuclear, of course.
"Just beneath the veneer of avid pro-Americanism, the Iranian mind is crowded with a vivid sense of nationalism and memory of past American deeds. Kaveh, a doctoral student at Tehran University's faculty of law, illustrates the complexity of Iranian relations with the United States. One evening, Kaveh railed against the Islamic regime. 'This government is not a "national" government,' he said. 'They only care about their family, friends and their pockets.' The next night, Kaveh knocked at my door and handed over a note. It explained that he thought my room was under surveillance and our conversations were being recorded. He wanted to resume our discussion 'on tape,' but this time, direct his diatribe toward the America government. It quickly became apparent to me that he was as passionate in his criticism of the U.S. as he was of his own government. 'The United States is only looking to establish an economic and militaristic foothold in the region,' he contended. 'They want Iraq to be another Okinawa.'
Schmidle's conclusion? "While many Iranians remain predominantly pro-American in a region where anti-Americanism spreads quickly, U.S. policymakers should respect the prevailing complexities of the Iranian polity. Just because there is a reserve of good will for America doesn't mean Washington can take it for granted. For while keeping a lid on Tehran's nuclear program might not be within Washington's means, preventing an explosion of Iranian nationalism is.
"As I was cautioned by Hamid, a 25 year-old student activist, 'If one U.S. soldier comes to Iran, all this [positive sentiment toward America] will change. It is like we are in the 90th minute of a soccer match. Anything can happen.'"
I could buy this if there was any indication anywhere that this simmering unrest I keep reading about actually stood a chance of boiling over into a popular revolt that could overthrow the Islamist regime. Even as hardboiled a realpolitiker as NRO's Michael Ledeen has spoken far more often of helping the Iranian people reclaim their own country than of our invading to effect regime-change ourselves. And nowhere in Schmidle's piece is there the slightest hint of such a revolt. His is an argument for maintaining an untenable, increasingly combustible status quo in order to preserve an essentially empty and meaningless strategic asset.
As is my recurring theme on this topic, the eight-hundred-pound gorilla nobody wants to acknowledge is Tehran's headlong hurtling toward nuclear weapons, a horrifying possibility that could become reality next year, if indeed it hasn't already. Given the mullahs' well-earned reputation as terrorism central, their harboring of al Qaeda, and their oft-declared intention to eradicate Israel, we are faced with at least regional Armageddon, and soon, whether we like it or not, Iranian popular opinion be damned.
So observes Caroline B. Glick in the Jerusalem Post. Leave it to a principle Israeli publication to not waste time with pussy-footing and get right down to brass tacks.
Her first sentence throws the brutal reality of the situation into the full light of day, like a skillsaw fart during communal prayer, visceral, unmistakable, and unavoidable:
"The agreement that France, Germany and Britain reached with Iran this week signals that the diplomatic option of dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program no longer exists."
Ms. Glick goes on at great length and to devastating effect to lay out how the Iranians have effortlessly manipulated the Euros, particularly France's maniacal anti-American perfidy, to both isolate ourselves and Israel even from the Brits, and prevent any direct pre-emptive action to abort Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
"In the unlikely event that the issue is ever turned over to the [U.N.] Security Council [the principle announced objective of the Bush Administration], France will veto sanctions even if Russia and China could be bought off to abstain. As the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal has shown, even if sanctions were to be levied, there is no credible way to enforce them."
So, as British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said recently, "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop." Right?
Wrong. Unfortunately for the striped-pants-and-stability crowd, there is, as usual, one crucial factor they have failed to consider: Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran.
"So where does this leave the Jews who, in the event that Iran goes nuclear, will face the threat of annihilation? Crunch time has arrived. It is time for Israel's leaders to go to Washington and ask the Americans point blank if they plan to defend Europe as Europe defends Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state. It must be made very clear to the White House that the hour of diplomacy faded away with the European Trio's latest ridiculous agreement with the mullahs. There is no UN option. Europe has cast its lot with the enemy of civilization itself."
In short, there is going to be war with Iran, and we cannot escape involvement in it. The only question is, just as with Desert Storm/Shield and Iraqi Freedom next store, whether we'll fight it directly and overwhelmingly with as few complications as possible, or hang back, force the Israelis against the wall to where they feel like they have to strike, and get dragged into a far more unpredictable conflict over which we have far less control, where the chances of disaster are vastly greater.
If the Iranian people are truly favorable towards us, they'll understand. If not, their fickle pride can hardly be allowed to be an obstacle to the elimination of a garish threat to regional stability and American national security.
If Iran is allowed to go nuclear, the GWOT cannot be won.
The stakes are literally that high.
It's as simple as that.
posted by JASmius at 9:15 PM
<<< Home