Despite how the situation often appears from inside the United States, Iran does not want war and her greatest fear is to be taken over by the United States. Of late, the Republicans are placing less emphasis on the Middle East and highlighting other issues, but there is no reason to believe they have given up their agenda for the Middle East.
And what is this agenda? It is a plan to subject all the countries of the area to American influence or outright control. We have seen signs of this intent for years. Putting Afghanistan to one side, three nations with governments unallied to the United States would be the targets - Iraq, Iran and Syria. Because Iraq was the most vulnerable, Bush focused there first, using false data. He invaded the country and destroyed its economy, and a civil war ensued. The civilian death toll was horrendous and those who could escape fled to nearby countries like Jordan.
Once Iraq was invaded Iran knew its turn was coming. She gave her support to Iraq, more for self-preservation than Moslem brotherhood, and provided them with arms and support. The purpose was to pin the United States down in Iraq, with the hope that an on-going struggle would preclude an attack on her. Iran has every reason to be nervous. There are American troops massed along its western border with Iraq and its eastern border with Afghanistan.
After Barack Obama's trip to Iraq, and fruitful meetings with Iraq's President, Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maleki, about a timeline for troop withdrawal and an Iraqi takeover, John McCain made a tactical political decision. He took credit for Obama's coup by declaring he would end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home. President Bush seconded it. Obama was outflanked. The Republicans stole his trump card - the ending of the war in Iraq. But are they ending it? That remains to be seen.
Some months ago Iran was one of the hot topics in the campaign. Republicans were in favor of launching an attack, the rationale being the threat of its nuclear capability. This was a smokescreen. Similar scare tactics worked for Iraq, why not for Iran? Meanwhile Iran let fly with its own threats, directing the harshest ones at Israel. Israel countered with talk of attacking Iran. The Israeli bellicose stance was thought by many to be a ploy for involving America in a war with Iran. As it happened, the electorate was not in the mood for another war, so McCain eased up on his rhetoric. That doesn't mean that Iran has been forgotten. It is merely simmering quietly on a back burner. There is every reason to believe the plan is still in place.
Should the aggressiveness of the Iranians be taken seriously? Iran has been railing against Israel since the revolution of 1979. Most of it had no bite and Iran continued trading with Israel during the revolution. Until recently Iran, an Indo-European culture, was only marginally involved in Arab affairs. For instance, when Israel was created Iran did not expel her Jews, who had been in the country since 539 B.C. In fact, some of the Jews that fled Arab countries sought refuge in Iran rather than Israel. But now that the remaining independent nations of the Middle East are in danger, Iran finds itself in common cause with the Arabs. Is she serious about attacking Israel? Of course not. That is just political posturing. Iran would have to be unbelievably stupid to attack the ally of a superpower. It could spell annihilation.
If the war in Iraq is actually winding down that puts Iran in more immediate danger, since troops would be available for deployment elsewhere. Obama has spoken out against war with Iran and, even though he is trying to sound somewhat hawklike to combat McCain's accusations of weakness, he favors negotiation. Does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, hope that Obama will be elected? It seems likely since that might offer a chance to avoid conflict. The Arab world would also favor an Obama presidency, for the same reason. The McCain camp would have us believe that the support of these nations for Obama demonstrates his support of the Palestinians, rather than the fear of additional American incursions. Were Iran to be conquered, the next in line is Syria, and the Arabs are aware of that.
As an aside, it would be foolhardy to try to invade Iran. In comparison with Iraq, Iran is more cohesive and tolerant and has a strong national identity. In contrast, Iraq was created by the Allies after WWI, with no thought to ethnicity. Even religiously there is cohesion; the population is overwhelmingly Shia Moslem. Many of the subgroups, such as the Kurds, the Turkoman and the Baluchi are semi-autonomous and this seems to work out quite well. This is by way of saying that sowing disharmony would not be particularly effective. And to cap it all, vast mountain ranges protect its borders. The only way to subdue Iran would be by extensive bombing, and that might not do it either.
Were the United States to become involved in an Iranian fiasco, there is the additional problem of Israel who appears to want to take an active part. If our attacking Iran did not destabilize the Middle East, surely the involvement of Israel would. Then all those simmering revolutionaries in Middle Eastern countries "friendly" to the United States would see their chance. Under those circumstances I would not want to be Israel.
Were the situation in the Middle East to spin out of control, the consequences would be felt throughout the world and we could become engaged in a war of unknown dimension. The time to put the brakes on is now, and only Barack Obama is willing to do it.
This week OffTheBus is publishing a variety of stories that cover the presidential election from an international perspective.