Is Iran Going Nuclear? Will Iran Attack the Israelis, the Arabs and Just About Everyone Else?
In a recent posting on the prestigious G2000 List, Charles Naas raises some timely and fundamental questions regarding the "debate" over Iran. Before I address them, let me state my own position, having recently spent several months in the Gulf and in the Middle East (and having covered the region as a journalist since the mid 1970's): All the political posturing aside, the Bush Administration is not going to "attack" Iran by conventional means. And all the political posturing aside, the Iranians are not going to "attack" their neighbors or American interests through conventional means. That isn't to say that the political rhetoric and ante won't continue to be raised, or that foes of America won't continue their mischief-making through proxies. But anyone who's spent any length of time in the Middle East knows that it's difficult to parse a war of words. Nothing is what it seems, and nothing seems what it is.
--Why would Iran attack when it would mean the end of Iran as a place for habitation?
Response: Precisely.
--Are Iran's leaders really mad as hatters to invite national martyrdom?
Response: Regardless of the color of their turbans, members of Iran's multi-layered theocracy know that a domestic constituency of more than 71 million Iranians is scarcely likely to warm up to the prospect of national martyrdom. Within Iran's military circles, there's no consensus about going to war. As Colin Powell famously said, generals don't relish sending
soldiers to the battlefield. The memories of the cataclysmic Iran-Iraq war -- which was triggered by Saddam Hussein -- are still vivid in Iranians' minds. Anyone who visits the sprawling cemeteries in Isfahan and Tehran can see for themselves the lingering impact of that senseless conflict on everyday Iranians.
--Would Iran want to release nuclear fall-out across the area with the damage inflicted on its putative dependents: Hamas, Hizbollah and the rest of Shia Lebanon, the Shias of Iraq and the Middle East Islamic world as a whole?
Response: Of course not. But this is assuming that Iran is in a position to assemble and launch nuclear weapons. It isn't, and won't be for a very long time, if at all. It's one thing to possess nuclear technology; it's entirely another thing to use it correctly. Iran's scientific establishment is in disarray, and it's highly debatable that it, the military, civil society, the technocracy, the bureacracy, the merchant community, and the growing numbers of youths (Iran's population growth rate is 3.3 percent annually) can be mobilized to create a "perfect storm" to launch a nuclear war.
--Is it at all likely that Iran's leaders see nuclear war as a way of at once getting rid of Israel as the West's intrusion into the Muslim world and to settle the long struggle between Sunni and Shi'a?
Response: Iran's leaders -- at least the top echelon of the theocracy -- may display signs of heavy-headedness at times, but stupid they are not. They understand that their pressing problem is revitalizing the domestic economy and to tend to the deteriorating oil-and-gas sector. Nations rarely launch wars when there isn't food or gasoline to go around.
--How accurate is the intelligence re Iran's nuclear fruition. Better than the Americans and Iraq?
Response: Having heard CIA chief Michael V. Hayden speak at a luncheon at the Council on Foreign Relations last Friday, I'm more convinced than ever that the American intelligence community needs to be totally overhauled. Bluntly put, General Hayden seemed to be quoting his agency's own press releases. How accurate is the intelligence concerning Iran's nuclear
fruition? Well, how accurate are reports that Hitler is plotting a comeback in the jungles of Paraguay?
--Have the US and others, including Israel, done their best to avoid nuclear confrontation with Iran?
Response: In my mind, there's no question that below-the-radar communications have been established. One has only to observe the increase in traffic between the Gulf countries and Iran, especially featuring "businessmen" from third-party nations. Since when has Iran suddenly become such a popular tourist destination for Indians, Sri Lankans, Cypriots, Pakistanis, Moroccans, South Africans, etc.?
--Can we not have considerable trust in the IAEA's inspection program and ElBaredei's efforts? They were correct re Iraq.
Response: Mr. ElBaradei is a distinguished man, a Nobel laureate no less, but the IAEA shares a characteristic with its fellow members of the United Nations "common family": ineptness, turf wars, and mismanagement. And oh yes, nepotism. By all means, let's "trust" the IAEA's inspection program. But let's also informally persuade nations that are still friendly toward Washington to "listen" and "watch." Never hurts to get information from more than one source.
--Why do Ahmedenejad and others find warning and verbally attacking Israel domestically useful and striking a resonant chord in the area?
Response: President Ahmedenejad is hardly the first Persian leader -- or, for that matter, Arab leader -- to engage in verbal abuse of Israel. And he won't be the last. Everyone in the Middle East talks about the Arab-Israeli issue, but few do anything meaningful about it. Why does anti-Israel rhetoric resonate well throughout the Muslim world? Very simple: There's a sliver of land called Palestine that two sets of people claim to be their own. They need to settle the dispute with each other. Everyone else -- non-Palestinian Arabs, non-Israeli Jews, Persians, etc. -- is an outsider. And the notes that these outsiders strike are way, way off-key. Ahmedenejad's rhetoric probably finds more attentive audiences abroad than within Iran. "Crowds for hire" are easily assembled in most third-world countries, so don't be too fooled by TV images of "angry" mobs decrying America. Besides, attacking America has long been a popular sport, even in nations that are allegedly close to Washington. Anyone been to an anti-Bush demonstration in London lately?
--Are we as Jews who have found liberation in Israel condemned for all time to be under threat of extinction?
Response: Not necessarily. But the hatred of Jews in the region is historical and atavistic. What the Middle East needs is leaders of vision and personal enlightenment who can rise above history and chart a new path. I could name a couple of such leaders, but they know who they are. And as far as I know, some of them are already working quietly to ensure that no peoples -- Arab or Jew -- will ever face extinction.
--Is it just possible that Israel's policies since the 1967 war have contributed to the rise of Islamic extremism? Have the West Bank settlements, the second-class treatment of Israeli Arabs, the killing of over 3,000 Palestinians since the second intifada, the quiet help in the creation of Hamas, the death and destruction meted out in Southern Lebanon on multiple occasions, etc. profited Israel and regional peace?
Response: Nations rarely profit through war and chaos. We could argue endlessly about who did what to whom and when. The task at hand is to find a practical solution to a seemingly intractable problem: How do you get two sets of people to live side by side in peace on land to which they both can lay claim?
--Have Israeli governments negotiated seriously in the so-called "peace process"?
Response: To paraphrase Bill Clinton's response during the Monica Lewisky affair, (something to the effect of "it depends on what 'is' is") it depends on what one means by "seriously." No government -- Arab, Israeli, Indian or Pakistani -- relishes having its nation live constantly on the edge of a precipice. Just because negotiations haven't borne fruit, doesn't mean that the effort hasn't been made. Or that fresh efforts are being made. Not everything needs to be on video or audio tape, or YouTube.
--Yes, we must be prepared for war, but are we doing everything possible diplomatically and politically to avoid a new holocaust?
Response: There is never going to be another Holocaust again. Ever.