Anyone with a marginally functional brain is of course skeptical of the
Bush administration's claims that Iran is directly fomenting
anti-American violence in Iraq. It's a transparently trumped-up charge
that looks a whole lot like the trumped-up charges that got us into
this misbegotten war. But what's worse, it's a stupid distraction from
a very real issue, which is that Iran really IS developing WMD's and
really IS a threat to the United States - or at least to whatever
friends we have left in the Middle East.
It's a fact that Iran has developed long-range missiles. And it's a
fact that they're working to develop nuclear power facilities. Once
they've accomplished that goal, it's a short step to adapt the
technology, add it to their missiles and come up with a deliverable
nuclear weapon. Maybe not this year or next, but soon.
And whether or not Tehran is directly supporting Iraqi insurgents that
are killing Americans (as opposed to supporting Iraqi Shi'ite militias
that are killing Sunnis, which they are), it's also a fact that they
are major boosters of Hizbullah and Hamas, the friendly folks trying to
bring down Lebanon's pro-Western government and to destroy Israel. Add
in the Iranian regime's eagerness for regime change in Saudi Arabia and
its often-stated desire to see Israel wiped off the map, and it's hard
to deny that Tehran is trouble.
Naturally, finding myself on the same side of any issue as George W.
Bush makes me question my judgment. One standard counter to concerns
about a nuclear-armed Iran is that even if they had nukes, they'd never
use them because to do so would invite a devastating counterstrike from
the US, Israel or both. That's a perfectly rational argument. The
problem is, the men in power in Iran aren't necessarily operating from
the same standards of rationality.
Former president Hashemi Rafsanjani href=" http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2.htm">
argued a few years ago that Muslim nations could confront Israel
if they had a nuclear weapon, since a single bomb could obliterate the
Jewish state, while a similar counter-attack would leave the Islamic
world hurt but still standing. "It is not irrational to contemplate
such an eventuality," he declared Rafsanjani. And he was considered a
moderate compared to his successor, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the man who
brought us the world's first Holocaust denial conference.
This is a regime that derives its legitimacy not from the people, but
from God. Ultimate power rests in the hands of an unelected council of
Islamic theocrats headed by Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-Khameini. These
are people who consider it a sacred duty to put put homosexuals to
death and who still call the United States "the Great Satan".
You can't count on reason to deter people who believe they're doing
God's work. It's worth trying, of course. By all means, let's open
negotiations with Tehran, as the Iraq Study Group recommended. It seems
to have helped in North Korea. And let's give all possible support to
the many moderate Iranians who oppose the theocrats. But if none of
that works, we - and I mean progressive/left/liberal folks like myself
- need to be ready to support more aggressive measures. Sanctions. And
if necessary, targeted air strikes on nuclear facilities.
It would obviously be a mistake to launch an Iraq-style invasion of
Iran. But it's not always a mistake to resort to force. Negotiations
and international sanctions didn't stop Serbia from trying to
ethnically cleanse Kosovo; NATO bombs did. That's a precedent worth
keeping in mind.