By PHK
On April 14, my colleagues and I posted reasons why we thought that American military action against Iran would be foolhardy at best and counterproductive at least. At the time, we feared that the Bush administration was planning to implement such actions prior to the US 2006 midterm elections in early November. For whatever reasons, we were wrong – if only in the timing. Our reasons, however, for objecting to such inanities and their consequences remain valid.
Over the past few days, I have been reading recent surveys of American attitudes towards Iran and Iranian attitudes towards the US. These surveys were made public by the University of Maryland and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) this week. They tell us that neither Iranian nor American publics like each other very much, but they also show that substantial common ground exists between both.
These same polls emphasize the conviction among Americans and Iranians that the “divide between the two countries and cultures can be bridged.” Over half of the 1,000 respondents in each country said that they did not believe conflict between the two countries was inevitable.
Both Americans and Iranians in urban and rural areas and from different socio-economic groups “favor a stronger United Nations and approve of taking specific steps to improve bilateral relations.” Furthermore, Iranians want to proceed with their nuclear energy program, but do not think it needs to result in the production of nuclear weapons or that the program should proceed without international controls.
For both peoples, the first step towards reconciliation begins with increased trade. Neither public sees a conflict between Islamic and western cultures as inevitable and both view globalization as positive. In fact, Iranians see globalization (excluding cultural globalization) in a more positive light than Americans. And both publics are concerned “that conflict between Islamic and Western countries could threaten their country.”
So where's the problem?
You wouldn’t know this, however, from the steamy rhetoric emanating from Iran’s Ahmadinejad or from the Bush White House. Both torpedo full-speed ahead down yet another road to nowhere that unless brought to a screeching halt by wiser heads on both sides will lead directly towards yet another Middle Eastern conflagration.
The good news on the Iranian side is that Ahmadinejad does not, as I understand it, really control Iranian nuclear or foreign policy.
The good news on the American side is that the Democrats now control Congress. And even Republicans in Congress are becoming increasingly concerned about their ability to win reelection in less than two years if they continue to support W’s failing war policies. So neither Democrats nor Republicans in Congress will necessarily rubber-stamp this administration’s bellicose foreign policy that seems to be intent on unleashing the troops and the bombers on the Iranians.
There’s been much recent chatter here in the US media, on the Internet and elsewhere that the Bush administration is now targeting its “muscular approach to foreign policy” on Iran. The question from my perspective: is W’s gunboat diplomacy against Iran foremost bluff – or is it for real? The other question is whether his imperial presidency will decide to launch yet another military action with or without the consent of Congress – let alone support of the American people who have decidedly tired of war.
W’s most recent State of the Union speech in which he branded Iran as the enemy incarnate – and the “casus belli” (next to Al Qaeda) of all that ails the US in Iraq – is the most recent example.
Meanwhile, to reinforce W’s resolve, the Bush administration is moving a second carrier group into the Persian Gulf. W has also sent fighter aircraft to forward bases near Iran.
A squadron of US Air Force 24 F-16s, an AWAC and mid air-refueling tankers have arrived in Incirlik,Turkey January 27 as reported in the Turkish mass circulation Hurriyet. I’ve also seen reference to US Air Force deployments to NATO bases in Romania and Bulgaria but am less sure of those sources. Yet not to forget: a squadron of F-16s to Turkey as a bluff or to be used to attack Iranian installations are two very different stories.
Then there was W’s publicly announced decision to detain Iranian government officials in Iraq including those in pro-American Kurdistan – claiming this action was necessary to deter Iran’s scurrilous intentions there. Seems to me this also needs to be included in the list of provocations.
There are American analysts like former NSC staffer Gary Sick and Naval Post graduate school Kalev Sepp who I’ve recently heard on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer argue that such actions are foremost a reminder to Iran not overstep certain limits but do not represent a prelude to a military strike.
Others, however, including the New York Times editorial page –fear that this administration may be blundering into yet another foolhardy military confrontation that will quickly spin out of control. I wish the Times had had such foresight before March 2003.
In the meantime, the IAEA fears that Iran will “ramp up its nuclear programme” and announce its intention to “install 3,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium” on the country’s Revolution Day, February 11.
Finally, where do the Israelis stand on all of this? Didn’t Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres state that Israel has no intention of bombing Iran? Or did I miss something? Or does he not speak for the Israeli government or its armed services? Yet if Israel wisely plans to step down from the plate, isn’t that all the more reason the US should look for another way out?
The Al Qaeda factor
And wait once more minute. Let’s look at that poll data again. Iranians don’t like Al Qaeda any more than Americans. And why should they? Al Qaeda is a tiny militant Sunni sect and the majority of Iranians are Shiites. As even the Bush administration should know by now neither has any love for the other. And as Tom Friedman reminded us in his New York Times column on January 31, the Iranians helped the US in 2001 when American troops went after Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan because none were in Iranian or American interests.
Tit- for-tat?
So. . . would someone please take away W’s joy stick? Isn’t it time that he stops playing the computer game “Axis and Allies” in real time and with real people's lives?
Or maybe we could make a deal with Iran’s Ayatollahs. How about if they ground Ahmadinejad in his room, away from all microphones and agree to IAEA inspections, would the new US Congress be willing to put W on an equally short leash?