If We Don't Insist on War with Iran, Will the Iranians Insist on War with Us?

By the standards established under the Bush Doctrine--which holds the state sponsors of terrorism responsible for the acts of terrorists--America should have declared war on Iran long ago. Iran is the world's largest sponsor of Islamic terrorism, a key backer of Sunni insurgents who have been killing US troops in Iraq for more than two years now, and also the power behind the theocratic militias in Southern Iraq who are likely to cause a whole lot more trouble in the future. And if that weren't enough, Iran is playing host to most of al-Qaeda's remaining leadership.

But the Bush administration has steadfastly refused to confront Iran or to formulate any real policy toward the Islamic Republic. While the Iranians are building nuclear bombs, we have delegated the task of confronting them to the Europeans--whose main goal is not to block Iranian nukes, but to block American action.

I don't fully grasp the cause of this inaction. I think our leaders are partly responding to the fact that the Iranian theocracy is widely opposed by the nation's educated, relatively pro-Western middle class, especially young students, so that our leaders hope they can just wait out the regime's spontaneous collapse. Or it may be that the administration and the Congress are so ideologically and politically exhausted by the unexpected insurgency in Iraq that they don't have the nerve to initiate a new conflict.

But there is one reason for hope: it looks as if the new Iranian president is trying his best to initiate the conflict for us. No matter how reluctant we are to destroy Iran's theocracy, they are dragging us in that direction, against our will. How is this happening--and why?

Most recently, President Ahmadinejad declared his desire to enact a new Holocaust, wiping Israel's five million Jews out of existence (see MEMRI's translation at http://tinyurl.com/chr2n). The result was an international uproar. Of course, Iran's fanatical leaders have said similar things in the past, so why the strong reaction now? Daniel Pipes explains it in today's New York Sun (by way of http://tinyurl.com/74qxc):

"The imminence of a nuclear-armed Iran transforms 'Death to Israel' from an empty slogan into the potential premise for a nuclear assault on the Jewish state, perhaps relying on Mr. Rafsanjani's genocidal thinking. Ironically, Mr. Ahmadinejad's candor has had positive effects, reminding the world of his regime's unremitting bellicosity, its rank anti-Semitism, and its dangerous arsenal. As Tony Blair noted, Mr. Ahmadinejad's threats raise the question, 'When are you going to do something about this?' And Mr. Blair later warned Tehran with some menace against its becoming a 'threat to our world security.' "

Ahmadinejad has done something that even the most brilliant American diplomat could not have done: he has united the world in expressions of horror at the bloodthirsty intentions of the Iranian terrorist state.

In a recent conversation, Jack Wakeland identified the peculiar nature of what is going on, and here is how he put it in an e-mail yesterday:

"In the usual order of the world it is the good guys who need to stand on principle in order to identify the evil for who they are. But while the West refuses to use philosophical principles, Iran's leadership _insists_, and in the process they are providing all of the undeniable evidence of their evil that the most principled Western observer could ever provide.

"It looks like the Iranians will, in the next couple of years, end our dithering by these purposeful provocations, and we'll give them what they--who are consistent in their evil--have always told us they want from us: death.

"While the Syrians evade and temporize and try to negotiate a plea agreement with us, the Iranians are presenting the case for their own prosecution, and they're doing a fine job of it."

They certainly are. See, for example, an op-ed by Martin Indyk, President Clinton's ambassador to Israel during the days of the "peace process," in today's LA Times at http://tinyurl.com/c9nzj, where he warns us that "Iran's Bluster Isn't a Bluff."

The question remains: why is the Iranian regime pushing itself toward destruction by asking for a final showdown with the United States? Here is what Ahmadinejad has to say on the subject:

"We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years. In this historical war, the situation at the fronts has changed many times. During some periods, the Muslims were the victors and were very active, and looked forward, and the World of Arrogance was in retreat. Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-à-vis the World of Arrogance.. During the period of the last 100 years, the [walls of the] world of Islam were destroyed and the World of Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over the Islamic world....

"This occupying country [i.e., Israel] is in fact a front of the World of Arrogance in the heart of the Islamic world.... This means that the current war in Palestine is the front line of the Islamic world against the World of Arrogance, and will determine the fate of Palestine for centuries to come. They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved."

"The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e., country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e., Israel ] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world."

This is just part of a wider vision that Ahmadinejad has articulated, one in which Iran is at the center of a new, expansive Islamic empire that is aggressively pushing back the power of the United States, in a struggle that will only end in the destruction of one of the two systems.

What drives him to articulate this vision? The fact that he is right: a struggle to the death is the logical end result of a conflict between our two civilizations. A theocratic dictatorship based on the imposition of religious dogma by brute force and terror cannot coexist in the world with a thriving secular republic based on the principle of individual rights. They have to come into conflict.

Our leaders are pragmatists, unused to dealing in absolute principles, so they like to skirt these big issues, to temporize, to pretend that Islam is really a "religion of peace" and that we can find some diplomatic middle ground. They resist being driven to the logical end-result of basic principles. But Ahmadinejad is a fanatical firebrand used to stating his principles in their starkest, most strident form. So are the other leaders of the Iranian system. So they are pushed to ask for a war with the US.

There is another factor driving the Iranians to war with the US, aside from the sheer intellectual attraction of ideological purity. Their belligerent rhetoric serves a practical political purpose at home. The corrupt and oppressive Iranian regime is deeply unpopular at home. For the past eight years, it adopted a pragmatist tactic to curtail popular resistance: it allowed the election of a "reformist," former President Khatami, who promised to liberalize the system. But it was always a false promise, because Khatami was a figurehead with no real power (and with no real will to confront the ayatollahs who really run the country). That gambit played itself out, so the regime arranged for the election of someone who would energize the regime's remaining hard-core supporters.

In his recent book, "The Case for Democracy," Natan Sharansky offers some enlightening insights into the inner workings of a dictatorship. The subjects of an oppressive regime, he argues, always fall into three camps: a small handful of dissidents; a large group of "doublethinkers" who privately disapprove of the regime but mouth support for it out of fear; and a minority of "true believers." Ahmadinejad's threats against the West are meant to rally the true believers. This is captured by an article in the Christian Science Monitor, at http://tinyurl.com/7bfgw:

"Ahmadinejad, whose supporters are drawn by the zeal with which he advocates both the anti-imperial claims and social justice goals of Iran's Islamic revolution, appears more interested in shoring up his credentials at home than appeasing the US or Israel. 'I don't think he understands that if he says something like this the world will hear him. I think he's still in mayor of Tehran mode,'' says William Beeman.. 'He's definitely appealing to his base and his base are a group of people who are involved with a revolutionary rhetoric.' "

In a crisis, a government--any government--can only keep itself alive by appealing to its founding principles, and that is what Ahmadinejad is trying to do.

The contrast to Syria, cited by Jack Wakeland above, is very instructive. A dictatorial regime--especially at this advanced stage in its existence--faces two unappealing options: if it weakens its reign of terror and its external aggression, it no longer inspires the necessary fear and finds itself facing imminent collapse (as in Syria); if it tries to go the opposite direction, cracking down on dissidents and stepping up its attacks abroad, it makes itself more hated at home and risks provoking a war with a powerful adversary. Iran is taking that second road.

Add one more ingredient: to the extent they actually believe their own ideology, Iran's theocrats are just as deluded as Hitler was when he initiated World War II. If they really believe that God will intervene on their side, they will not hesitate to march their nation into a war that is, rationally, a predictable disaster.

This is the power of principle. All of the reasons that tell us we ought to go to war with Iran compel the Iranians to go to war with us, even if we try to evade the conflict.

Our leaders' evasions are not, of course, without cost. By refusing to recognize that the war is coming, we cede the initiative to our enemies and allow them more time to arm and prepare for the conflict.

So the only question is: how long will we put off the day of reckoning--and how much will that unnecessary delay cost us?

"What drives Ahmadinejad to articulate this vision? The fact that he is right: a struggle to the death is the logical end result of a conflict between our two civilizations. A theocratic dictatorship based on the imposition of religious dogma by brute force and terror cannot coexist in the world with a thriving secular republic based on the principle of individual rights. They have to come into conflict."

The theory goes that Iran is in fact two countries; one a liberal, young, western obsessed generation and the other, a bunch of old time hold-outs from the days of the revolution. There is also a large "muddled middle" that is just plain tired of the revolution and wants the theocracy controlled government to lighten up.

Bombing them just unites the three groups against the west. However, the US really can't afford to let the current government to control The Bomb and dominate the region.

Thus the dilemma. Those who propose war clearly don't grasp the complexities. However, those who promote peace really don't have any type of solution to propose.

The most likely outcome at this point will be an Iranian nuke, with some type of worldwide containment policy against them. Of course, containment won't work, since the Iranians still have plenty of oil and money to leverage. It is a perfectly lousy solution, but it beats a major war, at least for now.

"But the Bush administration has steadfastly refused to confront Iran or to formulate any real policy toward the Islamic Republic."

I would be very surprised if the Bush administration DIDN'T have a lot of ideas concerning Iran. I would also be very surprised if they went around blabbing them.

Iran isn't Iraq which isin't Afghanistan which isin't Syria which isn't...etc.......

Early on in this new kind of war for the 21st century the President articulated his thoughts on the position of any nation like Iran.

I've been wondering about that given recent statements and actions by the mullah leadership & government.

I wouldn't be surprised if they come after us more openly in Iraq, via the Iranian-controlled Shiite militias in the British sector, once they have nuclear weapons, in the belief that their nukes would deter a U.S. invasion.

"What drives Ahmadinejad to articulate this vision?"

All indications are that his motivation is based on fascism rooted in the certitude of spiritual righteousness. There is no room to argue with his god's will which is inseparable from his own. As the hand of god on earth, opinions contrary to his, are wrong. To him: We are decadent sinners - not artists. We are conspiring spies - not creative entrepreneurs. We are immature and lazy - not free. But it is he and his crew who suffers from the ultimate identity crisis, not us. We are humble and ask for reform while he wishes us dead... We are patient with his hate because we are wise - not because we are weak. We provide incentives to change - while he spits in our face. He and his crew are like children disobeying a room full of adults. But unlike a child, I see no capacity for Iran's leaders to grow out of their infantile phase. Why? Because they are fascist, certain and willing to kill the patient and wise... Hmmm, there is conflict on the horizon but it has always been there, hasn’t it? It’s growing larger but at a pace that breeds complacency in the free world. It’s as if no one can hear the alarm anymore… You hear it! So there is still hope… Great post!

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.