While I recognize that the political situation surrounding Iran’s development of nuclear capability is complicated, I am unable to make sense of our developing policy. With military action against Iran imminent and another “preventive” (not “preemptive”) war possible, I think it is important for the American people to evaluate this policy carefully, attempt to discern the real reasons that the Bush administration is so intent on intimidating Iran, and put pressure on the administration to act in the best interests of the United States.
As I learn more about the status of the world’s nuclear power production and research reactors, the more I question the Bush administration’s actions and motives.
First off, Wikipedia lists 68 countries that have had power or research reactors and more than 30 countries currently have active nuclear power plants. So, the technology for peaceful use of atomic power is widespread and even more countries (including Libya and Vietnam) have active research reactors. Only one country (the United States) has deployed nuclear weapons in an act of aggression against another country. Only Israel has made a unilateral attack against another country’s nuclear reactor, destroying Iraq’s nascent nuclear facility in an air raid in 1981.
To protect against the unlimited spread of nuclear weapons, 187 nations have signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. Three countries commonly regarded as possessing nuclear weapons– Israel, India and Pakistan - have not.
Iran is a signator to the NPT and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. Since the conservative religious regime took over in 1979, Iran has never attacked another country, participating in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s only after it was invaded by Iraq. Iran is within the range of nuclear strikes by all three of the countries that have refused to sign the NPT. The Bush administration seems obsessed with the nuclear future of Iran and now talks almost daily about economic sanctions and possible military strikes.
Yet, while rattling its sabers in its dealings with Iran, President Bush has just given his blessing and technological support to India’s nuclear power program, even agreeing to a “hands off” policy for its nuclear weapons program. Yet, India has a much less admirable nuclear record. Although it has signed a Non First Use pledge, it has long refused to sign the NPT. It maintains unstable relations with Pakistan over their disputed border and there have been numerous border clashes between the two since the last full-fledged war in 1971. In 1998, it tested both fission (atom bomb) and thermonuclear (hydrogen) devices in the face of considerable international objections. Pakistan answered with its own nuclear test, and in 1999 the international community held its breath as the two countries threatened to turn the border clash known as the Kargil War into a nuclear holocaust.
Certainly, in recent years India has been a useful political ally and a willing economic partner for American corporations. Yet, it’s record of repeated military conflicts and insistence on provocative nuclear testing makes it an unlikely candidate to receive technological support and a “green light” for its nuclear program. Just eight years ago, under a different administration, the United States exerted considerable pressure on India to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
So what is the true motive behind our dealings with Iran? As with our motivation for the invasion of Iraq, I am baffled. The looming specter of the opening of Iran’s proposed oil bourse (petroleum trading market) and the negative impact of its Euro-based trading on the dollar is the first that comes to mind (if you are not familiar with this, do a Google search). If the US is successful in imposing economic sanctions on Iran, cooperating countries will not be allowed to purchase oil in Euros and the dollar’s value, severely eroded by Bush’s deficit spending and trade imbalance, will be less threatened.
Given the suspicions that Bush was simply out to win “Daddy’s War” in Iraq, it may be that his hostility toward Iran goes back to the overthrow of the Shah, the eviction of the US and the takeover of the US embassy in 1979. Despite the remarkable tendency of the US to move countries back and forth between the “friends” and “enemies” lists (think Saddam and the Taliban), the hostility toward Iran seems to be deeply rooted. Perhaps Bush sees himself as the President who will finally give payback to Iranian conservatives and settle an old score.
Then again, the threatened use of military power against Iran may be part of a larger neo-con vision that involves regime change in a number of Middle Eastern countries. Cheney may have visions of fluttering rose petals, dancing in the streets of Tehran, and victorious US soldiers “liberating” the Iranian people. Hopefully, this dream will be accompanied by nightmares of a strong Iranian military accompanied by a healthy dose of insurgent suicide attacks.
Of course, the situation in Iraq may have a strong influence on our policy toward Iran. Although we seem to have no coherent policy in our approach to the political and military problems in Iraq, Bush certainly fears the influence of Iran on our efforts. At this point, it seems likely that Iran would have considerable sway with a Shiite-majority government, perhaps pulling Iraq toward a more radical fundamentalism that shuns western influence. On the other hand, given the traditional animosity between the two countries, Bush may want to keep Iran busy on the sidelines so that it can not feed the conflict between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, furthering the likelihood of a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.
Another possible motivation is protection of Israel’s foreign policy interests. Israel greatly fears a nuclear strike from its Muslim neighbors and the United States routinely steps in to fight Israel’s political and diplomatic battles and tops off its military might. This policy could originate with Karl Rove, who sees an opportunity to co-opt a traditionally Democratic voting bloc for the next election.
Regardless of Bush’s motivation, two things seem clear to me. First, the reasons for our Iranian policy are inconsistent and suspect. So far, our Iran policy has been a small blip on the foreign policy radar. The American people must press this administration and our elected representatives for an explanation of the motivation for this policy and the true costs of any planned military action. We can not afford to give Bush another “blank check” on this one.
Second, our country can not afford to take military action against Iran. The financial and political consequences will be severe and the impact on our military forces will be devastating. Bush’s penchant for “wars of choice” and Cheney’s constant threats of military action are misguided and irresponsible. In twenty years, when we will still be discussing ways to extricate ourselves from Iraq, we will look back at the invasion of that country as the United States’ greatest foreign policy blunder. A repeat of this scenario will only further Muslim extremism, incite anti-American feelings, and increase the number and activities of religious terrorists.
