There is a renewed surge of energy and sense of urgency aimed at preventing Iran from going nuclear.
A new organization, United Against a Nuclear Iran is a 501 C3 charity styled after the Save Darfur coalition. Directed by Mark Wallace, a Republican lawyer, UANI is organizing diverse, bipartisan groups to prevent a nuclear Iran. UANI is supporting a coalition of Jewish organizations who demonstrated in New York, Washington, and other cities on Monday, September 22, before Iranian President Ahmadinejad spoke at the UN.
Gripped by a feeling of existential threat and the psychic imprint of the Nazi Holocaust, many Israelis fear annihilation. They believe that Iran, planning to physically "wipe Israel off the map." is close to getting a nuclear bomb. They believe the clock is ticking very fast and they have to act soon. There is a danger that Israel, with US support, will act on their fears and attack Iran -- doing our dirty work for us. Well-intentioned people, imagining they are preventing a "second Holocaust" could ignite a wider holocaust.
UANI claims they are not beating the drums of war. Drums are beating, nonetheless. On September 14, Fareed Zacharia, host of CNN's GPS, asked viewers whether they thought that Israel would attack Iran. About half believed they would.
In "Bush Agrees to War on Iran," September 16, 2008 Lord Stirling reported that,
(http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bush-Agrees-to-War-on-Iran-by-Lord-Stirling-080916-220.ht)
"The United States has agreed to sell to Israel 1,000 of the very advanced bunker buster GBU-39 bombs. This is a major development as the Bush Administration had denied previous recent Israeli requests for large numbers of this weapon system ... This indicates that the Israeli Government has succeeded in its request that America allow it to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. The GBU-39s will be used extensively in attacks on Iranian targets, as well as on Syrian and Hezbollah high value targets in both Syria and Lebanon."
Many Israelis believe Iran is much closer to having a nuclear weapon than intelligence indicates. They feel they must attack first. They focus on an exaggerated caricature of one man -- propagandized as another Hitler. Those who warn of the cataclysmic consequences of an Israeli attack are ridiculed as being like Germans who underestimated Hitler.
There is no reasoning with the few with the simplistic -- "my mind is made up don't confuse me with the facts" crowd who are loud and hysterical. Others are receptive to facts, reason, understanding historical forces and consequences. They recognize that Ahmadinejad is not that powerful and is not Iran.
Most are unaware that Iranians demonstrated in sympathy for us on 9/12/01, and enthusiastically helped us find Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, hoping to improve relations. Bush "rewarded" them by placing Iran on the axis of evil. Still, Iranians made an offer in 2003 to cooperate, accept IAEA inspections, recognize Israel, defend Hamas and Hezbollah, and more. The Bush administration ignored this opportunity for reconciliation after a complicated relationship with mutual traumatic memories.
Ahmadinejad was elected primarily for economic reasons. He is losing popularity, an embarrassment to many Iranians who attempted to impeach him. He will be voted out of office next June ... if Iran is not attacked. The obsession with Ahmadinejad ignores the fact that the Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding nuclear weapons.
While many thoughtful experts have described the inevitable cataclysmic consequences of a US and/or Israeli attack, many applying short-term, concrete thinking, are overconfident of success and in denial of the catastrophic consequences that would be unleashed.
Many Israelis have the glorious memory of the 1981 attack that destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor -- believing that they can take out Iran's facilities and live happily ever after. This fantasy of a "surgical strike" -- a manipulative frame -- is not applicable to this time and place.
It is widely believed that the only way to "prevent a nuclear Iran" without attacking is to apply pressure. If that doesn't work, apply more pressure. The false belief is that if we make the Iranians suffer enough, they will give in. Johan Galtung, pioneer and world leader in conflict transformation, calls this "the naïve theory of sanctions." Failing to understand the psychology of asymmetrical power, we may provoke what we are trying to avoid.
"Conventional wisdom" is that we exert control by threats, coercion, punishment, sanctions, and isolation. "Carrots and sticks" -- an advancement over just sticks - is external control through reward and punishment, which can be humiliating. By "diplomacy" we often mean that we make them do what we want without bombing them -- not really diplomacy.
Most believe that pressure is the best and only way to "deter" Iran. Never mind that former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, addressing AIPAC last June said, "Israel will not be deterred." Nor would we. If pressure doesn't work, -- and research suggests that sanctions fail 86% of the time -- depending on various factors -- then we have no choice but to go to war as a "last resort." But it's not our fault, because we tried sanctions. It's their fault that we have to bomb them.
Those who want war know that sanctions are often a prelude to war. Those who do not want war naively believe that sanctions prevent violence and war.
In "Liberal-democratic regimes, international sanctions, and global governance," in Raimo Väyrynen, ed., Globalization and Global Governance (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999), pp. 127-49. Kim Richard Nossal states,
"... there is an increasing body of evidence that demonstrates unequivocally that sanctions `work' only too well at producing negative effects on others besides the government of the target state. Sanctions hurt the civilian population of the target state; the countries that border the target state and are thus `sideswiped' by international sanctions; and even domestic groups within the sending state all without necessarily causing the governors of the target state to change the behavior that prompted the sanctions in the first place. Some studies focus on what is called "civilian pain" the impact of sanctions on the governed of a target state. Others focus on the often unintended consequences of international sanctions... the impact of sanctions on children... the tendency of sanctions to have highly gendered effects..."
The policy paradox is that despite the overwhelming evidence that sanctions simply do not "work" as their enthusiasts claim, they nonetheless continue to be a favored instrument for global governance responding to behavior deemed wrongful in international politics... many political leaders continue to reach almost reflexively for the sanctions option. Moreover, these leaders commonly shrug off the observation that the instrument they are reaching for will have little impact. Instead, they assert that this time it will be different; this time the sanctions will indeed work."
Absorbed in our own security concerns, we ignore how our actions provoke insecurity and self-protection in those targets of our rhetoric and policies. The US has not lived up to our treaty commitment to negotiate towards disarmament, is making nuclear deals with India, accepts Pakistan's nuclear program and Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal. I call this "nuclear narcissism." Demonized, rejected, and threatened by us, and her neighbors, Iran has reason to fear us and might feel a need to deter us.
For most Iranians, nuclear energy is an "inalienable right" guaranteed in Article 4 of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. (Article 4 is a trap, but that's another story). Most Iranians are against nuclear weapons, under fatwa.
Nuclear energy has become a matter of national pride. If we do not understand this our policies will fail and we won't know why. At the UN, Ahmadinejad said Iran will resist bullying. Sanctions will not make them back down - but make them more defiant, increase the popularity of hardliners and make innocent people suffer.
In the "mirror image of the enemy" each side sees itself as noble, just and true, while the enemy is hostile, evil and aggressive. According to the "ultimate attribution error" we attribute our intentions and behavior to situational factors and their behaviors are due to their character - and they do the same. Our actions are defensive, theirs are offensive.
People are more dangerous when afraid. Acting out of fear, we behave in ways that make them feel bullied, humiliated and backed into a corner. We validate their fears of us as we threaten them. They will resist and feel self-protective and behave in ways that will validate our fears of them. In this way, we will ratchet up tensions -- making the situation more volatile -- likely to provoke a war that most don't want that will spiral out of control.
Social psychologist Ralph K. White, Fearful Warriors , 1984, (who died last year at the age of 100), referring to Soviet American relations said, the "madness" that is carrying the world closer and closer to nuclear war has at its core a psychological explanation: Each side, though fundamentally afraid, misperceives the nature f the danger it faces. Each side imagines that it faces an inherently, implacably aggressive enemy, when it actually faces an enemy as fearful as itself -- an enemy driven mainly by fear, to do the things that lead to war.
It follows then that if we, the human race, want to avoid a nuclear catastrophe, our most urgent task is to promote realistic empathy, on each side of the East -- West conflict, with fear on the other side.
Military action taken out of fear, in the name of security is likely to
* escalate instability and cycles of violence
* increase the popularity of hardliners and drive extremism
* undermine moderates
* undermine popular movements for peace, democracy, and acceptance of Israel in the Muslim world
* provoke more nuclear proliferation and increase incentives for nuclear weapons development
* increase trauma, fear, humiliation, despair, and rage
* provoke desires for revenge, and the motivation and rationales for increased recruitment and terrorist actions
* alienate Israel from its neighbors and make it more dependent upon the U.S.
* Increase and justify anti-Semitism and anti -- American sentiments -- really fear of our use of power
* cause irreversible environmental catastrophe and health crises from radiation and oil fires
* desensitize people to the taking of human life on all sides
Experts predict that attacking Iran would produce immediate retaliation against U.S. and British troops in the region, attacks on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, increases in prices of oil and gas, and an explosion of violence against Israel, Jews, and United States interests around the globe. Israel could be subject to missile attacks by Iran or Hezbollah, and the war could become regional, spiraling out of control. The continuing toll of innocent life will play into extremists' hands, creating another generation of anti-American, anti-Israel terrorists, motivating attacks here and abroad.
As long as the problem is framed as a choice between bombing Iran or facing Iran's bomb, there will be an irrational compulsion to attack. "Preemptive" and "preventive" wars, in the 21st century, have become oxymorons. They are, more accurately called "provocative war." As Otto von Bismarck said, "Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death."
War is not a last resort. In today's world it is the worst resort. We do not support Israel by bombing enemies into escalation, Attempting to eliminate enemies, we create more. We can, however, eliminate "enmity." What works is paradoxical and "outside the box." There are strategies capable of reducing tension, preventing violence and transforming conflict that require higher-level nonviolent strategies, complex, long-range thinking, tension reduction, and correcting underlying causes of conflict. Methods that satisfy all peoples' needs for identity, dignity, security, autonomy, and development will remove the fundamental causes of Iranian hostility toward Israel and the West and can initiate a new era of cooperation.
The US and Israel have many common interests with Iran. Security assurances, positive inducements, face-saving ways out and win-win strategies work better than punitive, coercive methods. Rather than going down he slippery slope to violence, let's draw upon our collective wisdom and sound bodies of knowledge to produce the best-case-scenario.
Diane Perlman, PhD is a clinical and political psychologist, Co - chair, Psychologists for Social Responsibility Initiative on Global Violence, Terrorism and Nuclear Disarmament (psysr.org), Transcend (transcend.org) and Global Council, Abolition 2000.