America and Iran
Posted on February 21, 2007 - Filed Under American Politics, Politics | Leave a Comment
The blogosphere and the old media are both awash with speculation about a possible US strike on Iran, so I’ll give my thoughts on the matter here. I’m in no way qualified to pronounce on such affairs, but what the hell, that’s never stopped Fox News.
The first thing I’ll say is that I can’t see it happening. Although there are indications that the Bush administration is itching for a strike, I put these down to empty sabre-rattling. The reasons I don’t think America will bomb Iran are as follows:
1.) The Dearth of Potential Good Outcomes of a Strike
Despite the calamity that the US-led invasion of Iraq has degenerated into, at least W’s administration can point to some successes, such as toppling the regime of Saddam Hussain and introducing free-elections (however fleeting they may prove to be). It is difficult to see how a strike on Iran could lead to any good outcomes. The best thing that the Bush administration could claim having bombed its various targets is that if the Iranians had a weapons programme then it has probably been disrupted.
2.) The Futility of Military Action
If Iran is not currently working on a covert nuclear weapons programme then a US strike would probably drive the country towards one. If Iran is working on such a weapons programme then the country’s scientists can simply resume work on it in the aftermath of any strike, perhaps in more fortified locations.
3.) Likely Negative Outcomes
Whatever short-term benefits might be derived from a strike (and I don’t see many) would surely be far outweighed by the long-term effects. For one thing, another US military campaign against a predominantly Muslim nation would re-inforce the convictions of many people in the Middle East that Islam is under attack from America and the West. Another likely outcome of a strike would be the death of the pro-Western reformist movement in Iran.
4.) Ahmadinejad’s Unpopularity Inside Iran
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is under fire from conservatives and reformists alike in Iran at present, and so it may be hoped that he will not be re-elected in three years’ time. Not only are the electorate openly unhappy with him, but Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is said to have a more pragmatic position on the nuclear issue, and it is he who ultimately dictates what happens in this area.
5.) Ahmadinejad Himself
He often comes across as a delusional firebrand in the Western Media, but judging from this 60 Minutes interview he’s actually quite intelligent. Of course this is not to say that he isn’t a nefarious individual, and his Holocaust-denial is quite disgraceful, but I get the impression that he calculates his moves very carefully and would be unlikely to provoke a US strike.
6.) The US Presence in Iraq
While I’m sure Iran is over-stating its abilities when it claims that the US will pay dearly for any military action, it may be capable of stepping up attacks on US forces in the Shia-dominated regions of Iraq. Thus, some people in America might suggest that by attacking Iran Bush would be further endangering the US troops in Iraq.
7.) 2008
The Republican presidential candidates would be sure to take a hit if the current Republican president launches another dubious military adventure. While some would no doubt openly disagree with military action, any such action would probably increase the war-weary nation’s appetite for a peace-loving Democratic president.
8.) Media Recalcitrance
Having being taken for a ride by the administration in the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion, the American media is highly sceptical of any claims about Iranian misbehaviour emanating from the creative source that gave the world Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda, etc… Therefore any move towards military action can be expected to meet media resistance from all but the Bush administration’s most committed cheerleaders.
9.) The Worst Case Scenario Isn’t That Catastrophic
While nobody wants to see Ahmadinejad get his hands on a nuke (although he would have no say in its use; it is only Khamenei that can instigate Iranian military action), as Jacque Chirac recently rather carelessly pointed out “[i]t would not have gone off 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed to the ground.” The main disadvantage of Iran getting nukes is that it may spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, but since Israel, Pakistan and India (okay, maybe that’s not exactly the Middle East, but close enough) already have them it could be said that such a race is already under way. The only big Middle Eastern nation other than Iran not to have already nuked-up is Saudi Arabia, and its close ties to the US mean that it already has a nuclear deterrent of sorts.
10.) The White House’s Stated Position
Tony Snow and other administration officials have repeatedly made it clear that they do not intend to strike Iran. While in the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion the adminstration explicitly refused to take the military option off the table, in the case of Iran they are insisting that it is not even on the table. Of course the recent navel deployments to the Persian Gulf suggest otherwise, but I think this is probably more a show of strength than anything else. I see it as all part of the surge policy currently being implemented in Iraq, with the US keen to stamp out Iranian interference in the country as they try to clean up Baghdad.
So basically all this talk of a strike on Iran is just posturing in my opinion.
Comments
Leave a Reply
