Simple Truths: Iran

Truth #1. Why are American troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because if they leave, Iran will fill the vacuum.

The greatest beneficiary of America's war against Iraq has been Iran. We made a mistake attacking Iraq after 9/11, and in doing so, we did Iran a favor by removing Saddam Hussein. Sadly, the invasion did nothing to increase our own safety, because there has never been a substantial connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Thus, the short-term results of Bush II's Iraq war are that thousands of American soldiers have died while Iran's influence has increased; and we have spent trillions of dollars invading a country that did nothing against us. However, we can never admit such profound folly, so the U.S. is determined to ensure that our initial mistake--invading and occupying Iraq--does not compound itself. Allowing Iran to install its own power base in Iraq (or Afghanistan) would compound our initial mistake, and the U.S. is doing whatever it can to stunt Iran's influence. 

Why would Iran care about Iraq, and why would Iraqis care about Iran? Muslims are typically either Sunni or Shiite/Shia. Within Iran, almost all Muslims are Shiite--just like the majority of Iraq's Muslims. Outside of Iran, however, almost all Muslims are Sunni. In fact, Iran is surrounded by Sunni Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. If Iran is able to extend its influence into Iraq and make Iraq an ally, it would finally have a Shiite neighbor. From an American perspective, the more Iran's neighbors are friendly with Iran, the more difficult it will be to stunt Iran's influence. (Now might be a good time to remind everyone that Iran contains the world's second largest natural gas reserves and third largest petroleum reserves.) 

To minimize Iran's influence, the United States has been helping paint Iran as a rogue nation. Basically, the United States government has been releasing information to create support for an attack against Iran if Iran continues to extend its influence over Iraq. For example, at one point, Yahoo's homepage showed a picture of a new Iranian bomber drone almost the entire weekend. Despite the fact that Iranians are model citizens in the United States (look up who founded eBay), you will almost never see the word "Iranian" in a story without some negative connotation. The media's quest to dehumanize Iranians is in full effect. (One can't have a war without first making the enemy into "the Other.")  

The real issue is the extent to which Iran has the capacity or willingness to attack American soldiers or Americans. A country that has been around for 3000+ years probably doesn't have a death wish. Even if it did, and even if Iran managed to get nuclear weapons, it still needs to transport them effectively. As North Korea's failed missile tests demonstrate, it is much easier to make a weapon than it is to deliver it accurately. Overall, it is hard to believe that the Iranian government would be capable or stupid enough to directly attack any American soldier or civilian. Even when the Iranian government has captured American civilians or possible CIA assets, it tends to return them unharmed. (This pattern holds true in the capture of the American embassy in 1979 as well as the more recent American hikers, who were arrested when they entered Iran without proper authorization.) However, if the current Iranian government extends its influence over Iraq and Afghanistan, it may use sections of these countries as proxies or buffer zones. In other words, doing nothing would allow an extension of a government hostile to American interests, and therein lies the problem. 

Ironically, without Saddam Hussein to keep the Iranian government in check, the Middle East has managed to become more complicated. Under Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Ba'ath Party dominated politics. The Ba'ath Party was secular, not Muslim. By killing a secular leader, we allowed more religiously-committed factions to spread their influence over Iraq. Any American who thought invading Iraq and toppling Saddam would show "those Muslim terrorists" is misguided. Maybe next time, we'll do more research and question our government when it tells us war is good. 

Bonus: most Americans don't remember the Iran-Iraq War, but back in the 1980's, Saddam Hussein waged a bloody war against Iran and used chemical weapons against Iranians. I bring this up to remind Americans that Saddam Hussein was once our friend--and Iran's worst enemy. By removing Saddam Hussein and not achieving broad consensus on a rebuilding plan (such as the Marshall Plan), we've managed to create more problems, and this time, war won't be quite as simple. Unlike Iran, Iraq was never a tightly-knit, sovereign state. In fact, modern-day Iraq is basically a post-WWI British creation. In contrast, Iran has been together for 3,000 years and has never been occupied by a foreign power. I doubt Bush II's White House properly considered the downsides of invading Iraq. The American people were stunned by 9/11 and needed a show of force. They got one, and we're still dealing with the consequences years later. 

Conclusion: the only way America can claim a victory against terrorists is if it eradicates the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and parts of Afghanistan. The Iranian spectacle is just a side-show of our own making.

Want to Learn More about Iran and Nuclear Weapons?

If you want to learn more about Iran and nuclear weapons, you have to listen to Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei. Charlie Rose interviewed him in 2007. See here.

Fascinating Discussion on Iran, the U.S., and Nuclear Weapons

Interesting discussion on Iran, the United States, and aggression.

Cold War II?

The radio is abuzz about VP Biden's so-called "green light" to Israel to attack Iran's nuclear arsenal. Maybe I'm over-analyzing VP Biden's comments, but I think the White House is trying to take pressure off Iran's protesters. In other words, this might be a classic diversion tactic.

Iran's current regime is in a tough spot. It lacks the manpower to pre-emptively attack another country, especially when so many of its military members have to handle protesters and internal dissent. Even setting aside international law, an Iranian attack against Israel would be a suicide mission because of Israel's nuclear arsenal. Attacking Saudi Arabia, an American ally, or American troops stationed in neighboring countries would also be a suicide mission for obvious reasons.

Israel, on the other hand, is also in a tough spot. Although it has the advantage in terms of weaponry, it must still weigh the overall benefits versus the costs of attacking Iran. At this time, the costs of an Iranian attack are undefined and possibly unmanageable because of Iran's influence in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Iran's long range ballistic missiles. In addition, Iran doesn't lack the ability to defend itself. Iran has wartime experience because of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and has formidable support in Hezbollah, which has recent experience fighting against Israeli troops.

As for VP Biden, he seems to be playing the role of bad cop to President Obama's good cop. That's not necessarily a bad strategy, because even if VP Biden goes overboard, his words aren't binding--after all, he's not the President. In any case, President Obama is also in a tough spot. He knows his options are limited. Most Americans do not want to sacrifice more American troops in another non-defensive war. As a result, it looks like a stalemate and another Cold War until the fall of the current Iranian regime and a Middle Eastern glasnost.

Update on July 7, 2009: I just saw CNN's ticker--President Obama said there is no "green light" for Israel to attack Iranian nuclear sites.

All this attention on Iranian nuclear capabilities ignores the possibility that the current Iranian regime might be out in the next three years. Meanwhile, North Korea already has nuclear weapons and has threatened American interests. If I lived in Hawaii, I'd be more than a little concerned to be within shooting distance of North Korea. I am concerned President Obama hasn't provided a plan for containing the North Korean threat. As of today, North Korea, not Iran, represents the greatest threat to the United States.

As for Israel, it should focus on peace with Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah are greater threats to Israel than Iran. A prosperous, friendly Lebanon will cause Hezbollah and Hamas to wind down operations the same way the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) gave up power to Sinn Féin once Ireland became prosperous. The 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war showed that force won't work in Lebanon. If Israel wants peace, having Lebanon as a peaceful partner is key. An Israeli-Lebanese partnership should be a higher priority for Israel than a possible Iranian threat three years from now.

But then again, what do I know? I've never visited North Korea, Lebanon, or Israel. Still, I hope one day to see all three countries experience lasting peace.

Bonus: Alan Dershowitz on Israel in the WSJ (7/3/09):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649366875483207.html

A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion. Thus the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel...

I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. "Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally," he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build "up" rather than "out." This seems fair to both sides...