I have mixed emotions about Iran. Iran has been a de facto enemy of the United States ever since Ayatollah Khomeini sanctioned the kidnapping of American hostages that were held for 444 days. They fought a proxy war with us throughout the eighties. Many of the stars at Langley, indicating CIA officers killed in the line of duty, were killed by Iran. Their Council of Guardians, who control the government, armed forces, and intelligence agencies, are very bad guys. Imagine a Council of Guardians led by Tim LeHay, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson, that could veto any legislation as un-Christian, and even deny liberal Christians the right to run for office. Some of their leaders do subscribe to an eschatological, apocolyptic world view, similar to the Rapture crowd here at home. And they are no friends of Israel and continue to make bellicose insinuations against peace.
However, having said all that, things are not as bad as they can be painted to seem. I doubt Pat Robertson is really a believing Christian at all. I assume he thinks Christians are idiots with deep pockets. The same is probably true of George W. Bush, and pretty much any charlatan that has achieved riches and power through the promotion of 19th Century style religion. Therefore, I don’t think the Iranian leadership has any interest in catapulting armageddon. But you never know.
What I do know is that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon in not a happy prospect. In fact, it is not a happy prospect for any nation to obtain a nuclear weapon. I am not happy that Pakistan and North Korea have reached a nuclear capability. It’s a terrible threat to life on earth.
The question is, though, what are we willing to do about it? With Iran, we have pursued a reasonable path with the Europeans, in consultation with the Russians and the IAEA. Iran has thumbed their nose at us. It’s another example of how badly Bush has weakened America. I do not enjoy seeing us disrespected in this way. And I do expect Bush to pursue some form of sanctions, if for nothing else, to save face.
However, while Bush has been playing checkers, the Iranians have been playing chess. As we can see from the following:
In addition, the sanctions effort may also be hampered by a report to be issued Thursday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, in which inspectors will describe only slow progress by Iran in enriching uranium.
The report, according to diplomats familiar with its contents, will describe how Iran has resumed producing small amounts of enriched uranium since temporarily stopping in the spring, but has not increased the rate of production.
Furthermore, the report is expected to say that the purity of the uranium enrichment would not be high enough for use in nuclear weapons, but only for power plants. Iran has long insisted that its program is for peaceful purposes only.
This doesn’t tell us anything about what Iran intends to do down the line, but it shows they are outwitting our President. Bush is going to start out calling for “an embargo on the sale of nuclear-related goods to Iran…the freezing of overseas assets and a ban on travel for Iranian officials directly involved in the nuclear program.” He might not get even that.
Things are set up just as they were for the last midterm elections. Bush will go before the United Nations and tell them why a nuclear Iran is an unacceptable threat to world peace. He will essentially say, “This guy wants a nuke and he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Anyone who thinks he should have a nuke is weak on defense.”
The argument will be quite compelling and loudly supported at home by the traditional neo-conservatives like Cheney and Rumsfled, and by the right-wing media like Fox News, the Washington Times, and the New York Post, by the National Review Online types, and even by Democrats like Ed Koch, Alan Dershowitz, and Chuck Schumer.
The counterargument is difficult to make. It’s impossible to make it in a 15 second blurb or commercial. The easiest thing to say is “So, what to plan to do about it?”
Counterprolferation is a worthy goal and it would be nice if China and Russia would back up the rest of the Security Council when they try to enforce counterproliferation through peaceful means. In the end, I think that would make war less likely as well as work as an effective deterrent. But that is not the situation we find ourselves in.
Instead, Iran has been careful to cultivate economic and diplomatic relations with Russia and China, while tying down our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’ve also been careful to claim they only have civilian intentions for their nuclear program. They have limited their enrichment to what would be useful for civilian purposes. Their only weak point?
The mystery has been deepened by Iran’s recent restrictions on where international inspectors can roam, and its refusal to allow them to see facilities that Iran has not declared to be related to its nuclear program.
The atomic agency’s report is also expected to detail questions that Iran has failed to answer about suspected nuclear activities that it has declined to show to international inspectors.
Many liberals question what right the United States or the Security Council has to dictate who has nuclear weapons, or why it is okay for Israel to have them and not for Iran. The answer to that lies in power politics and the inherent interest the international community has in non-proliferation. There is a reason that Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and also a reason why Israel is not. Until recently, those decisions reflected the self-interests of Iran and Israel. However, things have changed for Iran.
We are now occupying their left and right flank and building bases on their north flank in Azerbaijan. We are openly talking about regime change and hinting at air strikes, possibly involving tactical nuclear weapons. They feel threatened because they are threatened.
And the question for the United States is “what are we going to do about this?” We’ve talked a lot of smack but it doesn’t appear that we can back any of it up. We cannot get the UN Security Council to act in a unified way to deter Iran. We can’t get them to make any concessions. We can’t get them to accept a deal. We don’t have the military strength to invade or effect regime change. We don’t know where all the targets are should we want to destroy their nuclear program from the air. And we are reliant on the good will of Iran sympathizing Shi’a in Iraq for the security of our supply lines there.
At some point it should occur to people just how badly Bush has undermined American power. In the end, that might not be such a bad thing if it teaches us to have more humility and more faith in international organizations and collective security. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear either party, nor the intelligentsia, have come to terms with the extent of Bush’s failure or the likely consequences.
Bush intends to try a repeat of 2002. He will go to the UN and cry wolf. The UN, this time, will flatly reject his cries. And then he will run on his failure, calling it strength, and daring Democrats to admit America is powerless to overcome his failure and get Iran to back down.
It is going to be ugly.