This is a reaction to Wes Clark's Engage Iran diary (storyonly link). I apologize if some of this has been discussed already in the comments, but I am on a dialup this week and am unable to open the full thread.
What strikes me, now and before, on the debate on Iran in the US, is how misplaced the controversy is. I presume that Wes Clark's statement that the military option should be off the table for now (a "last, last, last resort") and diplomacy privileged will bring about the usual howls from the right, and will be seen as a bold move by a brave progressive.
I also presume that the first sentence of his diary is not the subject of any debate. And yet, it is there that the real controversy should be:
There is no doubt that Iran poses a threat to stability in the Gulf, to US allies in the region, and to our efforts in Iraq.
As long as Americans see Iran in that light and forget their own role in the region, no progress can be made.
Let's look at a few facts:
- Iran was invaded recently (less thna 25 years ago) by one of its neighbors with the open military and financial support of the West; such war cost the country more than a million lives;
- the country has seen two of its neighbors (Iraq, Afghanistan) invaded by the USA - the same country that has labelled it explicitly an enemy, using unambiguous languge with religious overtones (a member of the "axis of evil", the calls for a "crusade") and is furthermore using other neighbors (Azerbaijan, and various Persian Gulf countries) , as well as nearby open seas, to base massive military forces;
- the country saw its democractically elected government overthrown in a CIA-backed coup 50 years ago, and had to live under a nasty US-backed authoritarian regime for the next quarter century;
- Iran is told that, despite being a signatory of the NPT treaty which specifically authorizes civilian use of nuclear energy, it should not be authorised to go ahead with such technology; meanwhile, acknowledged wielders of the nuclear bomb which have not signed the NPT (India, Israel) are being provided military support and nuclear cooperation by the US and others ;
- Iran has seen that amongst the countries designated as enemies of the US (or hostile to it), those that have nuclear weapons (North Korea) are not attacked, whilst those that do not have such weapons (Iraq) are invaded and occupied;
Now, to get back to Wes Clark's sentence:
- who poses a threat to the stability in the Gulf: the country that has not invaded any neighbors for a century, or that which has invaded two of them in the past 7 years, has the most powerful military in the world by far, a big chunk of which is deployed in the region, is in the middle of a messy occupation which has left a quarter of the population of that ocuntry dead or a refugee, and is explicitly threatening military strikes against another?
- who poses a threat to US allies in the region, if not the country that supports unpopular authoritarian and corrupt regimes in many of these countries to ensure their 'friendship', at the price of a disaffected population which turns to Islamism as the only outlet for its frustration ?
- as to "efforts in Iraq" - efforts to do what, exactly? To empty the country of its population? To pass an oil law that would hand over the reserves of the country to Western oil majors (not that this will ever happen)? To protect the reputation of one individual in the White House, or the increasingly absurd notion that America is the "good guys" in the region?
Seen from the outside, America's attitude towards Iran appears that of a bully furious of the humiliation of having been spit at in the eye some time ago (the embassy hostage crisis) and bent on revenge at any cost.
While Iran threatens the US in no way, Iran has very obvious reasons to feel threatened by the US, and recent history does suggest that having access to nuclear weapons is the rational thing to do. Additionally, its regime has very obvious domestic reasons (its own economic incompetence and corruption) to play the victim to garner populist support. Yet, so far, it has chosen a path of ambiguity rather than of outright confrontation (with the IAEA - the only legitimate authority on the topic - saying that it has no reason to accuse Iran of breaching the NPT), and has on various occasions shown that it would be willing to proceed towards a real peace agreement.
That requires the US to stop seeing itself as the victim, but to acknowledge that it is not unreasonable to see it as a potential aggressor too. That requires stepping out of the mindset whereby Iran is either a client-state or an enemy.
Now, the one legitimate requirement from the US in any peace agreement would be that Iran recognises the existence, and the right to existence, of Israel. I expect that this will be obtained as soon as (but only if) the Israelis and Palestinians find an agreement for peaceful coexistence. I have no smart comments on that issue, and I suspect that relations with Iran will remain uneasy, at best, until this is resolved.
But ratcheting down the rhetoric against Iran, and focusing on the Israel-Palestine situation rather than on the non-existent Iranian menace would be a good first step.