Posted on 07/28/2004 5:18:22 AM PDT by SJackson
The 9/11 Commission findings that Iran may have facilitated the passage of 10 hijackers across its territory surprised no one. Coupled with earlier acknowledgement that Iraq did not have WMDs or ties to the plotters, the findings raise new questions about President George W. Bush's choice in attacking Iraq, while allowing a more culpable Iran to get away.
Yet Bush critics now pointing a finger at Iran as a leading destabilizing factor in the (both pre- and post-9/11) Middle East shy away from proposing vigorous prescriptions against Teheran's mullahs. Some even argue that the best way to pacify Iran is through behind-the-scenes dialogue and cooperation; a modern-day detente with a new Evil Empire.
So why are the Bush critics so reticent? For the same reason the White House passed over Iran and invaded Iraq in the first place. Iran is simply too populous, its society too radicalized, its economy cash-rich from energy exports, and its military might unpredictably dangerous because of its own WMD.
As such, there were no reasonable guarantees that an invasion would have been remotely successful, nor that it could work in the future. The administration bypassed Saudi Arabia and Syria for somewhat similar reasons, despite their much more detailed ties to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Saudi Arabia would have been the prime candidate, but its ruling family is mostly pro-Western, and was sidestepped. Syria, meanwhile, is too close to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and came with an image as a Western partner; an image that would have been difficult to turn overnight.
Once Washington decided that it needed to send a message to the heart of the Islamic world because of 9/11, Iran and others were spared. Iraq ended up being the target due to simple mathematics. It was by far the weakest dictatorship of the four, and, to boot, had the rogue image that could be exploited right away.
BUT THE message the US wanted to send appears not to have reached Iran.
Most recently, among other serious transgressions, Teheran has resumed its nuclear program, abruptly ended the trial of persons accused of murdering Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi, and forced British patrol boats into Iranian waters only to arrest the sailors and have them make humiliating television apologies.
Iran clearly continues to be a menace, but is it also a society bent on suicidal means? Take Iran's policy on Bosnia in the early Nineties, the last global security problem prior to 9/11.
At the time when there was almost universal support for a Muslim-Croat alliance in Bosnia to fight the genocidal Belgrade machine of Slobodan Milosevic, Iran urged the Bosnian Muslims to ditch the Catholic Croats and form an alliance with the Orthodox Serbs, to create an eastern front against the West.
What could have been a suicidal policy for Bosnian Muslims was put an end to by Washington in early 1994, when it realized that Croatia was moving troops into Bosnia to stem the Muslim advances against the minority Croats.
The point man in this Iran endeavor, according to a recent book by Cees Wiebes on Western intelligences activities in Bosnia, was Hasan Cengic, a close aide and moneybag of Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic. Not surprisingly, shortly after the US-brokered truce between the Muslims and Croats, Washington made sure Cengic was removed from power in Sarajevo.
Iran of course later changed its policy, and instead of supplying the Muslims through Serbia and Montenegro, began supplying them via Croatia. But clearly, its early foray into the Balkans could have been disastrous for the Muslims there and costly for East-West relations; this only due to Teheran's knee-jerk anti-Western ideology. With Iran so ideological in its goals and so unpredictable in its policy, it is a dangerous foe indeed. And in some ways, it has now been emboldened.
Teheran realizes that the US, bogged down in Iraq, cannot afford to venture further. It feels free. Moreover, it has assumed the role of undisputed leader of the Muslim world, with Syria and Saudi Arabia weakened, and Egypt and Pakistan having lost credibility with ordinary Muslims. How to respond to this resurging Iran is the key question for the Middle East? Israel is clear – assertive containment – but the West is not.
The US keeps Iran in diplomatic isolation, quietly supports Israel's hard line on nuclear weapons, and at the same time remains silent on Europe's open dialogue with the mullahs.
Interestingly, were it not for its weapons program, Washington would be tempted to establish a modus vivendi with Iran just like Europe, but because of it, it will continue to look to strengthen Israel in any way possible.
Israel will remain a strategic proxy for the US, as first-strike deterrent and primary source of intelligence.
And Iran's new-found boldness will be kept within bounds.
The writer was ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the EU and NATO in 1998-2000.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Nuke Tehran. That'll send a message.
Agreed. Seriously though, If Bush gets a 2nd term they are going to really turn the heat up on Tehran. I don't think direct millitary intervention is necessary but clandestine operations and material support for opposition groups may do the trick.
We are like Gulliver versus the Liliputians: paralyzed by our own strength. We are afraid to use it. We are "civilized".
Apply the right tools for the job. We are being pecked to death by ducks.
Watching Hollywood's (naturally) botched version of "Starship Troopers", I was amazed at the idea of using machine guns againt zillions of giant insects. How about an asteroid made of RAID, boys?
The islamists are our own bugs; trying to swat them one at a time is an exercise in futility.
--Boris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.