[Update at end]
The Middle East is that area where the needs, passions, and desires of much of the world's population come together in a swirling amalgam of contention. It is sacred to three great religions, central to the operation of the world economy, and the font of the most destructive passions at play in the world today. At the moment, many critics of the Bush administration believe that there is an orchestrated campaign afoot, similar to the prodrome to the Iraq War, to prepare the American public and the world for war with Iran. The usual suspects believe that diplomacy is the only approach to take with Iran, often without recognition that a viable threat of violence is the only avenue with any chance of diplomatic success, while there are other voices calling for immediate attacks on and destruction of the Iranian nuclear program. Whether or not such attacks would work is uncertain, as is the state of the Iranian program.
Michale Ledeen is prominent among those who believe and have argued that the Iranian Mullahcracy is unstable and ripe for American pressure for regime change. He believes military force should be a last resort.
The wild card for American policy makers and for the diplomats is Israel. Since Iran's leadership, not confined to Ahmadinejad, has expressed openly genocidal wishes toward Israel and has spoken of using nuclear weapons to destroy the Jewish state and the Jewish people, Israeli sensitivity to such threats with the memory of the Holocaust indelibly stamped on her people, is understandable. Even as ineffective a government as that of Ehud Olmert will not long stand by idly while an existential threat grows on the horizon.
(I do not see the Iranian proxies in Southern Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories as yet having the capacity to represent an existential threat, though they are certainly a threat to the lives and safety of millions of Israelis.)
An Iranian nuclear weapon is unacceptable to the Israelis and those who suggest that we could live with an Iranian nuke are willing to tolerate a level of risk to the lives of Jews much higher than anyone should expect the Jews themselves to tolerate.
Victor Davis Hanson briefly summarizes the state of affairs in the Middle East and points out that the entire region is in flux:
Something is going on in the Middle East
What are we to make of these reoccurring stories of various weapons of mass destruction incidents in Syria, whether the accident in July of Iranians and Syrians arming Scud missiles with mustard (or sarin?) gas, or recent Syrian nuclear depositories being bombed by Israelis.
A number of issues arise: are the Gulf monarchies, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan essentially staying mum, with the quiet understanding that Israel is too be given a green light, if it acts stealthily, to contain these threats?
Is there a link to Saddam’s former arsenal and fugitive technicians—the now taboo missing WMD? Other clerical statements from once Sunni radicals, and recent polls of the Arab Street reveal a Sunni reaction to al Qaedism, as if the Anbar syndrome is spreading at the nation state level.
I know the anti-war talking points are that Iran is in "the driver’s seat" after our "catastrophe" in Iraq. But that pessimism is premature, and in fact probably flat wrong. Our lining up of concerned anti-Iranian allies in the Middle East, Europe, and inside Iraq, Iran’s own suicidal economic policies, and ethnic tensions, and the position of American troops near the border, have in fact weakened Iran. If we can turn Shiite militias, arrest even more Iranians inside Iraq, and get the Europeans on board for stiff sanctions, the regime will be isolated as never before. Ditto Syria.
When one looks at recent events in Lebanon with the crushing of the terrorist camp, the new generation in Libya, and the isolation of Hamas, the entire region is now in flux. And that is not necessarily bad, given its history the last quarter-century.
The Israeli attack in Syria on what was almost certainly an installation of WMD, presumably nuclear, is an important part of the mix and raises the question of whether the raid makes war more or less likely.
Consider some of the players and their situations:
Syria is in a terrible bind. In Honor Shame cultures ruled by strong men, weakness, especially being seen to be shamed, is deadly. Whether Bashar Assad is in fact in power or merely the face of his family's thuggocracy, the powers in Damascus must make a careful calculation. No response to Israel risks the perception among the people that the thugs are scared; this is not a prescription for long term health of the regime. On the other hand, an attack on Israel that is too obviously traced to Damascus risks an even more embarrassing, public debacle. They have almost certainly disappointed their Russian and Iranian patrons (and have presumably been disappointed in the performance of their expensive Russian anti-aircraft systems) and have very few friends in the neighborhood to fall back on. The status quo has become increasingly tenuous yet Assad's regime, which values survival more than glory, is unlikely to go "all in" and provoke a real war with Israel. If there are realists plotting behind the scenes in Syria, always a questionable supposition, the omens are inauspicious. At some point, Syria will be forced to decide whether going to war with Israel alone is worth the dangers that would pose.
Iran remains the key. Ahmadinejad's bellicosity suggests either that he believes his own rhetoric, that the United States is failing, or that he believes he can provoke a minor league limited war, sans invasion, which will enable his regime to consolidate its power while risking nothing of real value. The alternative is that he actually believes his religious rhetoric and hopes to spark Armageddon. If there are realists in Iran it would be a good time for them to step up and assert themselves. Certainly many of the mullahs have become quiet wealthy and comfortable running Iran. Many of them would be quite content to delay their ascension to the 72 virgins as long as possible. If so, the idea that the West and America are unwilling and unable to respond militarily because of the problems in Iraq, must seem more like wishful thinking than reality after the rather convincing display of technological and military prowess that Israel just put on.
We are entering a period in the Middle East where the realists who are believed to reside in Damascus and Tehran will be well advised to show their influence. The Malignant Narcissists who have been the public face of the regimes are speeding toward disaster. In one of those cosmic peculiarities that make one wonder about the underlying order to the universe, Grace Slick's old comments come to mind.
Stephen won't give his arm,
To no gold star mother's farm;
War's big business so give your son,
And I'd rather have my country die for me.
Grace Slick never had the ability to have her country die for her; Ahmadinejad is much better situated to bring about the sentiments that the pacifistic Slick so eloquently stated.
The question of whether Israel’s actions of earlier this month will make larger scale war more or less likely can only be answered by the Iranians and the Syrians; their answer(s) will be instructive.
Update: As if on cue, MEMRI reports of signs of conflict within the Iranian leadership:
As part of Iran's diplomatic efforts to prevent increased sanctions against it in the U.N. Security Council session slated for September 21, 2007, former Iranian Supreme National Security Council secretary Hassan Rohani is planning a trip to meet with European officials, according to reports in the Iranian media.
Rohani was in charge of Iran's nuclear dossier during the era of the previous Iranian president, reformist Mohammad Khatami, and was the chief negotiator with the West; currently, he is the representative of Iranian Supreme Leader 'Ali Khamenei in the council.
According to the reports, on September 19, 2007 Rohani is to meet with senior German government officials, and to speak to the E.U. Parliament; he is scheduled to meet the following day with E.U. foreign policy chief Javier Solana. [1]
This is not the first time that Supreme Leader 'Ali Khamenei has circumvented Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and presented more pragmatic stances in an attempt to solve crises which have escalated due to Ahmadinejad's extremist policies. During the 2006-7 Lebanese crisis, Khamenei maintained a direct channel of communication with Saudi King Abdullah via Khamenei's confidant, Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani, who was Ahmadinejad's competitor in the 2005 Iranian presidential election.
News of Rohani's upcoming trip to Europe as Khamenei's emissary has sparked harsh criticism in circles close to President Ahmadinejad, which stated that foreign diplomacy paralleling that of the Ahmadinejad government, "and particularly the carrying out of activity that is against regime policy, are like stabbing the officials in charge of this policy in the back." Also, President Ahmadinejad recently issued a warning about reformist Iranian officials who were formerly connected with Iran's nuclear negotiations with the West, conducting talks with elements in the West and giving them confidential information about Iran's nuclear progress - and even called them traitors.
Recent Comments