Think twice before targeting Iran
Wed Aug 25, 6:27 AM ET Add Op/Ed - USATODAY.com to My Yahoo!
By Youssef M. Ibrahim
This is the wrong time for the United States to take on Iran, the dominant demographic, military and cultural force of the Persian Gulf, as its new foe.
Yet, that is exactly where the Bush administration is headed.
In the past few weeks, Bush administration officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), have said they will use any means to stop Iran from pursuing plans to build nuclear weapons. They leaked stories to the media about plans to bomb industrial sites in Iran, including the Bushehr nuclear reactor.
Iran's response was swift. Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corp, said that if attacked, Iran would "retaliate everywhere."
Even the country's defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, has warned that Iran retains the option of pre-emptive strikes to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities. Such a strike would likely target Israel - which took out Iraq (news - web sites)'s nuclear facility in 1981 - virtually ensuring a widespread war in the Middle East.
Nothing would unite Iranian moderates and hard-liners more than an attack on their country and, above all, the destruction of their prized nuclear reactor. Iranians are not easily intimidated. They lost nearly a million people in the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, launched by Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in 1980. In the end, the Iranians prevailed. Saddam backed down.
How quickly we forget.
Najaf's powder keg
Washington's threats could not come at a worse time. The ongoing standoff in the holy city of Najaf, Iraq, between U.S. forces and the American-selected Iraqi government on one hand and the elusive Mahdi Army of rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on the other, brings us closer to a confrontation with Iran.
For Shiites the world over, Najaf is the holiest of holy sites, the resting place of their superhero, Imam Ali. Ninety percent of Iran's 69 million people are Shiites. U.S. forces wisely have made every effort to avoid damaging the Imam Ali shrine, where al-Sadr and his militants have been holed up. Any desecration of the building would create huge popular pressure inside Iran and among Shiites the world over to support al-Sadr. The problems for the United States would then grow exponentially.
So, before the United States decides to take the plunge with Iran, it is imperative to ponder what happens the day after we lock horns.
A confrontation with Iran could considerably widen the Iraqi quagmire, threaten the survival of any government in Iraq and unleash a wave of terrorism, car- and suicide-bombing attacks against all American interests in Islamic countries as far as Pakistan and as close as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Iran would make sure of that. No cakewalks here.
Just as ominous, it is not possible to conduct two wars in the single region of the world where two-thirds of the global oil and natural gas reserves reside without pushing oil prices even higher than their current record levels of nearly $50 a barrel. Such a conflict would wreak havoc on the U.S. and world economies.
In a long conversation with me recently, a senior American diplomat in the region who is the top expert on Iran shrugged off Iran as a "paper tiger." That is a serious error, more so if this is the kind of advice flowing back to leaders in Washington.
Iran's vast influence
Iran's tentacles reach far and wide. They were amply demonstrated in the 1980s and 1990s in Lebanon, where Hezbollah, the Iran-sponsored militia, forced both the United States and Israel to unilaterally withdraw their troops.
Just as a reminder, a few weeks ago, the Iranians stirred a little trouble in Bahrain when threats were made against Americans. The words came from some of the 475,000 Shiites who constitute a majority of the population of Bahrain, where the United States maintains its largest naval base in the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration panicked and ordered all U.S. dependents to leave immediately.
If a confrontation with Iran erupted, we would be taking on more than a single country. Iran and Syria have maintained a 25-year strategic alliance. Both have been targeted by neoconservatives for "regime change."
Together, they share the longest open borders with Iraq. They have built and retained armed militias inside Iraq for years, and those forces have been considerably reinforced in the past 14 months.
More arms, men and logistical support would flow through these borders to attack overtaxed, demoralized U.S. troops already locked in a war of attrition. Both countries would also press into action various dormant terrorist cells, which would attack, among other things, oil facilities in the region.
Iran rejects the charge that it is making nuclear weapons. It has accepted international inspection of its nuclear facilities, but has defiantly declared that it will continue its uranium-enrichment program for scientific purposes. Russia, which is cooperating with Iran's nuclear efforts, supports that position.
There is room here for more talks and compromise. Translation: There is no need to lunge, again, into war, now or a year from now.
Neocons, be they Republicans or Democrats, ought to ponder the consequences of taunting Iran and opt instead for a dialogue.
Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former senior Middle East correspondent for The New York Times and energy editor of The Wall Street Journal, is managing director of a political risk-assessment group.
story.news.yahoo.com |
