Iran, The No Win Scenario

There is an eerie familiarity coming from current Western rhetoric on a certain Middle Eastern country intent on developing weapons of mass destruction. The Europeans, Japan, China, Russia, most of the U.N. membership and the vast majority of the U.S. leadership are united in the belief that this particular country is building a nuclear weapons arsenal and possesses the will and means to use it.

But we’re not talking about Iraq, we’ve switched gears to Iran and the clutter of noise seems to be the same: we must stop them; the Iranians must end their quest to go nuclear or face serious consequences, etc. Of course, agreeing on the meaning of “serious consequences” in this matter is the rub.

Just a short while ago, all sophisticated intelligence agencies had what they thought was hard evidence that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and were just months away from development of a nuclear weapon with which they intended to menace the region, particularly Israel.

There was a general outcry that Iraq, in violation of 14 U.N. resolutions, could not be reasoned with diplomatically and a vote within the U.N. and the U.S. Congress authorized all means necessary to force the errant Baathist leadership to comply or face those very same serious consequences. This included the use of military action.

A military solution was a long way off. For months following the two votes, there were several attempts to resolve the crisis diplomatically by Middle Eastern leaders, Russia, and several European countries; countries we now know were involved in making huge profits in the oil for food scam. There were even several attempts to decide the matter by brokering a deal that would allow Saddam to keep his billions and live the rest of his life in quiet seclusion. He rejected them all, including one arranged by the United Arab Emirates the day before the U.S. launched its first strike.

Having left the “serious consequences” for Iraq to the U.S., a number of thoughtful countries have turned their hollow saber rattling toward Iran. Threats have been made to send Iran to the U.N. Security Council woodshed and even French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy recently said the following undiplomatic words, "No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program. Now it's up to the Security Council to say what it will do, what means it will use to stop, to manage, to halt this terrible crisis of nuclear proliferation caused by Iran."

There are three reasons it’s unlikely anyone in Iran is quivering over this useless taunt. First, who could be frightened by anyone named Philippe Douste-Blazy. Second, Iranians have televisions and could watch the entire French government shut down and then cave to mob rule on a change in the country’s labor laws. And, third, it is now obvious to everyone paying attention that the French are all talk and no action when it comes to backing up anything they say – it’s just too easy to compare their tough talk prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and what was said in the days following.

Even Congress, now running from their own vote to authorize military action in Iraq, just voted 404-4 to approve a non-binding resolution expressing support for efforts to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, an act that Iran says will cause what is now the great fungible expression of our times, “serious consequences.”

There is a problem in Iran, to be sure, but is it any of our business? Is anyone asking us to police the world? Do we get any credit when we attempt to do so?

We have a terrible relationship with Iran and an even worse history there than we had in Iraq. In 1952, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was forced from elected office by a CIA-led coup (directed by Archie Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt’s son) and replaced by the Shah who was supported by the U.S. until he was overthrown in 1979. Most, if not all of this was about oil. We don’t remember those actions, but the Iranians do.

It’s a slippery slope for the U.S. to think in military terms regarding Iran and its stated desire to go nuclear. With the exception of Israel, the U.S. will get no support from any other country and we will be even more reviled by the rest of the world if that’s possible. Iran will someday be capable of launching a nuclear strike regionally, but it may be a generation away from being able to build or buy a missile that will be able to reach the U.S. Sure, a nuclear capable Iran will be able to back up a blockade of the Straits of Hormuz and cause oil prices to surge over $100 per barrel, but that will affect the genetically timid in Europe more than it will in the U.S. Besides, hasn’t the rallying cry of America’s brainless left been “no blood for oil?”

What is happening in Iran is seemingly the result of two colossal failures - the feeble international supervision, and the illusion that is being torn to shreds that the theoretical creature known as the international community can dictate a global anti-nuclear policy. We should step aside and let the tough talk come from those who talked tough but carried no stick prior to the military action in Iraq. It’s their turn to stand up to despotic leaders, not our turn.

Thinking this through, it’s easy to be reminded of the ending of the movie War Games. While trying to disarm the computer-controlled nuclear launch codes, the screen in the War Room was lit up with numerous first-strike launch scenarios. The computer was treating the simulation as a game and eventually reported, “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” With Iran, I think the U.S. leadership should take the same view and let others play the game, if they want. Otherwise, it’s difficult to see any value for the U.S. in playing a game of brinkmanship with Iran.