Since the end of WW I, American and European military powers have intervened in the Middle East by re-drawing national boundaries, overthrowing governments, supporting the establishment of Israel, and by fighting wars over oil, corporate profits, and terrorism.
Despite (or because of) the efforts of twelve American Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush the region has religious civil war, two nuclear armed states (Pakistan and Israel), and multiple nations unable to govern themselves. The anarchy has metastasized into northern Africa and southern Asia where residents of failed nations are easy prey for religious radicals and terrorists.
President Obama is trying something new and there is at least a glimmer of hope; but influential American and Israeli politicians are attacking the new strategies rather than helping them succeed. The principles of the President’s strategy are understood and supported by our allies but American and Israeli right-wingers seem to see only military solutions.
Here is a brief outline of current policy:
- Speak up clearly but not self-righteously for human rights including freedom of speech and religion.
- Speak strongly against terrorism, violence and repression of rights without associating them with Islam. The great majority of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims are neither terrorists nor anti-American. It is counterproductive to tar all of Islam with the terrorist brush because that makes it easier for the terrorists to recruit.
- Encourage all Muslim sects to stand together for freedom and rule of law; and against radicals and terrorists.
- Understand that the region can only be effectively governed by the people who live there. Today in Iraq we see Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish Muslims cooperating to take back territory from terrorists. Jordan, Egypt and Iran are active in the fight. If Sunni and Shia can unite in that effort, then there is hope; and their self-interest becomes aligned with our own. If Americans take over the fight, we will be perceived as Crusaders invading Muslim nations.
- Prevent nuclear proliferation. It is hard to convince Iran that they don’t need nuclear weapons. They have experienced intervention from Europe, the US, and the Soviet Union. We instigated the overthrow of a democratically elected government there in favor of the Shah (King). Iranians see that nuclear armed nations like Pakistan and Israel get more respectful treatment. The President and the Secretary of State have led economic powers including China, Russia, Britain, Germany, and France to impose powerful economic sanctions on Iran – a remarkable achievement. A negotiated settlement would lift the sanctions after Iran provides confidence that it will not develop nuclear weapons.
These strategies need and deserve congressional support. Instead, Republicans have continuously demeaned and opposed them – behavior that is foolish because it works against US interests. The letter from Republican Senators to Iran, notifying them that the US might revoke an agreement made by this President was a terrible betrayal. If there is an agreement, the US will be bound by it unless it is repudiated by a new President and a congress that can muster 60 votes in the Senate. If the US backs out of a negotiated agreement and other nations respond by dropping the economic sanctions then our negotiating leverage will be lost. Our remaining options will be to accept a nuclear Iran or to go to war. It is conceivable that China and/or Russia would arrange a mutual economic and defense deal with Iran. Then what?
Even before his speech, the world knew that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu opposed negotiations. He seemed to prefer a war (which the US would finance and probably fight). Why? If his only concern was nuclear weapons then a successful negotiation would be in his interest. Perhaps the real reason is that he fears an economically successful Iranian nation of 78 million people competing for influence in the region or that he uses fear of Iran for political gain.
A nuclear armed Iran does indeed pose a great danger. Neither Netanyahu nor Republican Senators have proposed a viable alternative to negotiation. Another war by American troops in Muslim nations may prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon but it will spread even more chaos across the region, creating fertile ground for the seeds of terrorism. And it will reinforce the perception of an American Crusade against Muslims, making it easier to recruit American and European Muslims to commit acts of terror in our own nation.
The wise course for Americans is to support the President’s policies and hope that they succeed. Those who would do otherwise should, at the very least, explain whatever alternative they would pursue. A negotiated settlement is surely better than another war.
Certainly a negotiated settlement, however short-lived or “loose” in language it might be, is preferable to a military solution. I am of the belief that this situation will pass and another shall replace it. Whatever we can do to restrict the proliferation of nuclear weapons should be done now, Including our voluntarily reducing our holdings and opening up our destruction of significant nukes for world-wide review and inspection.
Saying this, I will add that I don’t trust those who would come to inspect. But you begin somewhere; not by endless sound bites, but by taking definitive and verifiable steps of our own.
I too would like to voluntarily reduce our ” holdings” of nuclear weapons. We could start by detonating them over each suspected nuclear facility in Iran. This would help to achieve our mutually desired goals of nuclear arms reduction and give the Iranians the Jihad they so desperately deserve. Anyone who thinks we can achieve peace through acquiescence to the Mullah’s is mistaken.