Let’s see now, I’ve got my armies on your western border and your eastern border. I have alliances with the other country on your eastern border. A short hop across the body of water on your west I have a strategic military base. You are surrounded, should you be afraid?
The first embassy bombing [in April 1983] I think they were involved in; the Marine [barracks] bombing in October 1983; September 1984, the second embassy bombing. And you know what? The Americans [then] leave. This is a successful policy for them [the bombers]. And what comes in place [after that]? Hezbollah is found in 1985. It’s an alternative to the Lebanese government; it’s an Islamic party. It mirrors the government in Tehran. ... And then you add on to this that Hezbollah drives Israel out of Lebanon, the first victory against the Israelis ever.
So what we have today, if you want to expand this analysis, [is] Hamas, the Islamic Jihad in Palestine and Gaza carrying out war successfully against Sharon. And the Iranians back in Tehran say, “We’re winning. This is the way you fight a war. This is how you defeat F-16s, this is how you defeat aircraft carriers. We beat the United States, we beat the Israelis in Lebanon, and we're going to beat ’em in Palestine.”
This is a strong message. I don’t care how secular Iran becomes. They still look at the United States, Britain, and France as colonizing powers, and this is the final war ending colonization in the Middle East, using Islam. So for the Iranians, it’s very, very logical. We as Americans say, “Well, it’s not. We were peacekeepers in Lebanon.” They don't look at it that way. Or as Americans, we say, “You can't kidnap innocent people, journalists, priests, people like that. It’s wrong.” They look at it differently. It’s a war of civilizations for them. And it was very successful, frankly, and cheap.
But, are things really that simple?
First of all, Iran was the only country in the region whose people came out in droves (over 40,000) to light candles in support of the U.S. after Sept. 11, and since then they have had many demonstrations in Tehran, Isfahan, and other cities, staged by students, workers, and teachers. The main slogans have consistently been: “Death to Taliban,” “Death to Terrorism,” “Free all political prisoners,” “Khatami, Khatami, Honesty.” There have been demands for freedom of expression and freedom of press, and even a demand for a referendum on the constitution and the Islamic rule. This is why it is of utmost importance to differentiate between the people and the government.
In the coming months, Iran will take center stage in a way North Korea has yet to. American troops are on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is implicit military cooperation between the US and the government of Pakistan and then there is the question of oil. Iran hiccups and the world gets nervous. Still, other noises coming from Iran recently have given many cause for concern:
“For over half a century, those who seek to prove the Holocaust have used every podium to defend their position. Now they should listen to others,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, was quoted as saying Tuesday by the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
Ahmadinejad already had called the Nazis’ World War II slaughter of 6 million European Jews a “myth” and said the Jewish state should be “wiped off the map.”
Well, should we even pay attention to statements like this?
Jane’s Defence Weekly, the Bible of intelligence and defense industry matters, reported last month that Iran had acquired ballistic missiles from North Korea with a range of at least 2,500 kilometers, or about 1,550 miles, which means they could easily reach Israel.
Its sister publication Jane’s Intelligence Digest said as the New Year began, “We predict that the likelihood of pre-emptive military action by either the U.S. or Israel — or both — will be far higher in 2006.”
The thing is, we are on the outside looking in. There are regional concerns beyond the dynamic between Israel and Iran.
The nuclear crisis is focused on Iran. But the truth is that is not how the conflict should necessarily be seen. Strategically, the crisis should be regarded from a regional perspective. It is not enough to ask if extremist Shi'ite Iran will go nuclear but whether the Middle East will be transformed in its wake into a region with a number of nuclear countries. Not a bipolar nuclear region, but multi-polar, including perhaps terror groups which raises doubts whether it would be possible to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in the region.
These are serious questions facing American foreign policymakers in the coming months. Issues which will undoubtedly be placed in the forefront as midterm elections grow ever closer. What we are going to have to ask ourselves and what the world community will also have to ponder is basically by standing by and allowing Iran to continue to make progress in their nuclear program are we in essence making the same mistake committed in the Munich Agreement?
How can we avoid making the same mistakes Neville Chamberlain made?
Iranian leaders are in no small measure responsible for the changing tide of opinion against them. Their handling of the nuclear issue has changed radically since only a little over a year ago. At the end of 2004, in Paris, they agreed to a voluntary halt in their uranium enrichment activities until an agreement over the issue could be struck with the Troika. Contrary to the claim of current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that move was not a “compromise,” but rather a very astute manoeuvre at the appropriate time. As long as Iran was involved in negotiations with Europe, regardless of how wildly they fluctuated between near success and near failure, Tehran enjoyed a form of international cover, which protected it from the escalating onslaught from Washington and beneath which it could strengthen its hand against the US by consolidating its regional influence and, more importantly, securing allies in positions of power in Iraq.
We are at a crossroads. We need to differentiate between the government of Iran and its people.
...some 4,000 Iranian student activists were arrested after protests in Tehran and other cities in June 2003 and at least 500 remain in prison for their democratic beliefs. Amir Fakhravar, a student movement leader and hero, is among the men and women Kokan will attempt to make contact with while in Iran. Punished for writing a book promoting democracy and free speech, Fakhravar is serving an eight-year prison sentence at Qasr Prison in Tehran.
It will be interesting to see how our current administration handles this conundrum. We cannot simply invade Iran.
Iran, the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, is ringed by mountains, is roughly four times the size of Iraq and has almost three times its population. Its military numbers almost 900,000 soldiers and reservists and has long-range missiles that can reach Israel or Europe.
Many in our government though, are increasingly speaking about military intervention as an option:
The Bush administration—and, increasingly, leading Democrats—have been speaking out with growing urgency about preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear threat. What is not stressed enough is that Iran is not just a potential menace -- it is a clear and present danger right now. The radical Islamists in Tehran bankroll the world's deadliest terrorists. They foment violence in Iraq. They lied for 18 years about their nuclear activities.
Those concerns were heightened in 2002, when a dissident Iranian group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, helped expose clandestine nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak.
This exposure forced Iran to declare the facilities to the IAEA, as Tehran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was not just the secrecy that set off alarms in the US, but the nature of the newly revealed sites - and Natanz, in particular.
Confusing Iran with Iraq would be a big mistake.
Islamic fundamentalists believe that the only guarantee to fulfill their so-called Islamic mandate—such as regressive, cruel and inhuman social relations and in particular their well-known misogyny—is the acquisition of unchallenged political power. In their drive for such power they misuse the Muslim masses’ religious sentiments quite skillfully as the Nazis misused the pent-up German desire to make-up for Germany’s defeat in the First World War.
We are also confronting other interests that don’t want to see the US expand their role in the region. I think the challenge we are now facing is simply put whether or not we can show restraint. Will our foreign policy be marked by hamhanded decisions ultimately making matters worse or will we allow the world community to recognize the threat for what it is and find ways to effect change in Iran. How deftly can we handle the coming crisis? This is a watershed moment for George Bush, stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment