by LARRY HUFFORD

Larry Hufford, Ph.D., is a professor of International Relations at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, Texas.

______________

U.S. wages a campaign of fear against Iran

The current Bush administration is promoting a campaign of fear based upon Iran’s supplying of weapons to Iraqi insurgent groups. One explanation for this might be that since it is becoming increasingly obvious that the neoconservative plan to remake the Middle East into a pro-democratic, pro-West and pro-Israel region is a failed policy, the administration is now looking for a scapegoat.

It is not rocket science to state that Iran is training and arming selected Shia Iraqi insurgent groups. It is also known that the al-Maliki government, supported by the Bush administration, relies on 30 seats in the legislative assembly, controlled by the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, to remain in power.

The administration’s campaign of fear fails to mention that wealthy Sunni individuals in Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, perhaps with their government’s approval, are supplying money to Iraqi Sunni insurgent groups. The United States, meanwhile is supporting, training and arming the “police” force in Kurdish Northern Iraq.

Saudi Arabia has stated that it wants to develop “peaceful” nuclear capabilities as has Jordan. Russian President Putin was recently in Saudi Arabia stating his country would assist our “friends,” the Saudis, in building nuclear reactors. Iran looks around its neighborhood and sees that India, Pakistan, Israel and Russia have nuclear weapons. Iran also realizes the United States is less likely to invade a country with a nuclear arsenal. If Shia Iran has nuclear weapons, then it is easy to understand why the Sunni government of Saudi Arabia would want to go nuclear. This is the essence of realpolitik.

How can one make sense of all this? By rejecting neo-conservative ideology and returning to old-fashioned realism which has been with us since Thucydides wrote the history of the Peloponnesian War.

The nation-states in the Middle East are acting to preserve their national security within a realist framework. The reason the Reagan and Bush I administrations supported Saddam Hussein and Iraq during its eight-year war with Iran is basic balance of power politics. Saddam may have been engaged in acts of genocide against his own people, but the Unites States supported him because Iraq was a Sunni, secular government that provided a balance of power vis-à-vis Iran. During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States had military and intelligence advisers working with the Iraqi government, army and air force. Saddam may have been a S.O.B., but he was acting in concert with the perceived national interests of the United States. With the administration’s neo-conservative ideology, realist balance of power politics gave way to the use of military force to create a Western-style democracy in Iraq.

One simple principle in realist theory is that a country should never enter another militarily and then leave with the country and region more unstable than it was originally. This is exactly what the neo-conservative ideologues (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, Perle, et. al.) have accomplished, thus, the need to find a scapegoat in Iran.

Because of the need to refuel in mid-air and fly over other nations’ airspace, Israel could not carry out an effective air strike on Iran without U.S. approval and logistical support. With two aircraft carriers now in the Persian Gulf, the United States could launch an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. However, it would have to be a sustained strike lasting 7 to 10 days because Iran has effectively decentralized its nuclear facilities and several are constructed deep beneath ground level. It is conventional wisdom that air strikes ultimately require ground troops for stability and containment if military retaliation is to be avoided. In this case, we would need to move into Iran to ensure that the Iranian military would not respond with attacks on oil refineries and facilities in the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia.

The population of Iraq is approximately 27 million while Iran’s is close to 70 million. The geography of Iran is far more problematic than that of Iraq. The United States doesn’t have enough troops for a third ground war. Additionally, Iran could create major problems for U.S. troops in southern Iraq while mining the Strait of Hormuz (at one point only 50 kilometers wide). The latter would disrupt the supply of oil to the world’s economic powers.

What is the alternative? Diplomatically recognize Iran. No quid pro quo needed. Begin bilateral talks with Iran, earning the support of moderate political voices there.   Design a timeframe for the strategic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Work through the U.N. to create a multi-lateral Islamic peace force in the region.  Organize a regional summit of Middle East countries to discuss post-conflict regional stability, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Agree to work on long-term political, military and economic negotiations to create a peace that is more than the absence of war.

Any Congressperson or citizen who cares about the men and women in the U.S. military and civilians in Iran must resist the current campaign of fear. The country cannot militarily or economically support a second war of choice that would be predestined to fail.

Summarizing: