I spent this evening watching Mike Wallace interview the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The whole spectacle has opened up a whole range of emotions for me. Iran has intrigued me ever since I was a little boy. I used to have a paper route and I would deliver an afternoon version of the Trenton Times to my neighborhood. Tooling around on my 3-speed bike, I would deliver papers that had a little box on them that said “Iran Hostage Crisis: Day 34”, “Iran Hostage Crisis: Day 145”. Eventually, it would reach Day 444. That was the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated and the hostages were set free.
I agonized over those hostages every day for 444 days. I knew nothing about Kermit Roosevelt or Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. I had no idea why Iran was calling my country The Great Satan and burning my flag. I just thought it was inhumane to hold people hostage and I had no doubt that the Iranians were my enemy. I was only 10 years old.
There were points in the interview where Ahmadinejad came off as batshit nuts. There were other points where I agreed with what he was saying.
Ahmadinejad is a perplexing man. I know he has very little power and that it doesn’t matter a whole lot what he thinks. At the same time I know that he makes intemperate remarks that make a lot of people very nervous. His biggest mistake is to engage in rhetoric that both questions the historical accuracy of the Holocaust and argues that Israel has no right to exist. When pressed by Wallace, his basic argument is not necessarily that the Holocaust did not occur, but that the Palestinians were not responsible for it and should not be forced to shoulder the burden for it. We can all agree with that logic as far as it goes. The problem is a failure to accept reality. The Palestinians cannot dislodge Israel and it is a fool’s errand to attempt to try.
Eliminationist rhetoric from Ahmadinejad just feeds eliminationist rhetoric flowing back in the other direction. The Middle East needs less hotheads, not more.
The question arises, what is legitimate resistance to Western dominance of the Middle East? It seems to me that there is a pragmatic middle ground. Ahmadinejad doesn’t seem to understand pragmatism. His rhetoric plays into the fears that are driving the region towards a clash of civilizations.
At the same time, I understand why Iran resists American hegemony of the region. I particularly understand why they resist the policies of the neo-conservatives.
I believe that the answer lies in Israel making a peace agreement with Syria that sticks, and that agreement must involve a settlement of the West Bank issues. Once that is accomplished, no Arab army, directly or through proxy, should be able to truly threaten Israel’s existence. At that point, Iran’s influence will diminish, as will the whole jihadist mindset.
Iran and America should not be enemies. The current situation places Iran as the only country capable of resisting America and Israel. This gives their brand of theocracy extra legitimacy. We cannot defeat them through airstrikes, but only through eliminating their main grievance.
Israel has just suffered a massive defeat at the hands of Iran’s proxies, and our troops in Iraq are already co-opted into defending a pro-Iranian government. If we are going to turn this around, we are going to have to split off Syria and Lebanon from Iranian influence, and the only way to do that is to make a separate peace with Damascus.
Iran has all the components to be a successful free-trading pro-Western democracy. But it must first lose its raison d’etre. We must restart negotiations over the West Bank.
Carter got an agreement between Egypt and Israel, and Clinton got an agreement between Jordan and Isreal. Reagan and Bush have brought us only intifadas and an escalation of violence.
The West offers prosperity and economic diversification. We must stop offering aeriel bombardment, as well. They have the energy and we have the technical know-how and investment capital. Let’s work together, for a change, and move forward.
