There is much discussion in Western political
discourse of the “threat” of Iran, spoken of as though it is a self-evident
truth, an assumption that underlies the entire spectrum of debate. To question such an obvious truism is
something that disciplined intellectuals understand is not proper of them to do.
Most likely the thought doesn't even cross
their minds, thanks to dignified university education and the values instilled
from it; there are some things not suitable for a respectable intellectual to
discuss, after all.
Senator John McCain recently stated that Iran will
pose “a
direct threat to the existence of the state of Israel” if it is allowed to
acquire nuclear weapons, warning further that “The
Iranians are on the march.” House
Speaker John Boehner recently said that “There
needs to be a more serious conversation in America about... the threat posted
by Iran,” further stating that Iran poses a “grave threat” to our “security
and way of life.” Israel’s US ambassador
Ron Dermer stated that the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran “could
endanger the very existence of the State of Israel,” going on to say that
Iran is “the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world.” Former US Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters went so
far as to say that “Iran
is building a new Persian Empire.”
Furthermore, in order to slow down Iran’s progress towards a bomb,
Netanyahu has threatened
to launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Threats which are credible,
according to officials from the Obama administration. Obama, over the years, has also used such
threats by telling other world leaders that toughening sanctions on Iran is the
only way to forestall an Israeli attack.
Obama himself has argued that a nuclear Iran poses a “profound”
national security threat to the US.
Given this ubiquitous rhetoric, there is an
obvious question that arises, one which is seldom asked: what exactly is this “threat” that a nuclear Iran poses? What exactly is such a grave and existential threat
that Western leaders would risk escalation and military confrontation by
threatening the Iranian republic with an attack? Fortunately, we have an authoritative answer
to this.
Each year the Department of Defense produces an unclassified,
congressionally mandated report
detailing the Pentagon’s assessment of the military power of Iran, which it is
required to submit to lawmakers. An
effort of intelligence evaluation which utilizes thousands of dollars to get
accomplished ($22,000 in
2012.) It is reported on sparingly in the media.
The 2014 report opens by stating that “Iran has not substantially changed its
national security and military strategies over the past year,” virtually
the same opening line as previous
reports, except for the addition: “however, Tehran has adjusted some of its
tactics to achieve its enduring objectives.
President Hasan Ruhani’s international message of moderation and
pragmatism is intended to support these objectives.”
It goes on to state that “Iran’s military doctrine
is defensive. It is designed to deter an attack, survive an initial strike, retaliate against an
aggressor, and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities while avoiding
any concessions that challenge its core interests.” Thus, Iranian military strategy is to attack
only in the event that it is aggressed upon, and still then only long enough to
force a diplomatic solution; its doctrine is defensive.
In the context of its ballistic missile development,
the report states “Since the Iran-Iraq War, Tehran has placed significant
emphasis on developing and fielding ballistic missiles to counter perceived threats from Israel and coalition forces in the
Middle East and to project its power in the region.” Iran is developing weapons stockpiles
specifically to counter the threats from Israel and the West, of which I have
documented above. This falls in line
with the defensive assessment of Tehran’s military; its buildup is a defensive
response, not an offensive one.
In terms of its nuclear capabilities, the Pentagon
admits that “Iran continues to develop technological capabilities that could be applicable to nuclear weapons
and long-range missiles, which could be
adapted to deliver nuclear weapons,” although at present no nuclear weapons
exist. (emphasis added)
Therefore, the “threat” of Iran, of which we are
constantly told to fear, the “grave threat” to our “security and way of life”,
this “new Persian Empire” that “could endanger the very existence of Israel”
that Obama warns is a “profound” national security threat to the US, is simply
the threat that scares Western policymakers the most: the threat of deterrence
and defense.
Worrying still is the fact that those who are most
adamant about warning us of this “threat” know perfectly well that their words
are not true. John McCain, who is quoted
above as saying that a nuclear Iran will pose “a direct threat to the existence
of Israel” previously employed a national security aide named Anthony Cordesman. In 2013 Cordesman published a research
paper for the Center for Strategic and International Studies of which he
concluded that it is Iran, and not
Israel, that faces a direct existential threat, “Israel now poses a more
serious existential threat to Iran than Iran can pose to Israel in the near term…
It seems likely that Israel can deliver an ‘existential’ nuclear strike on
Iran, and will have far more capability to damage Iran than Iran is likely to
have against Israel for the next decade.”
And as the DoD report states, if and when Iran does acquire nuclear
weapons capabilities, they will be deterrents used to defend against an attack.
Further confirmation of this is available from the
February 2014 Annual
Threat Assessment given before the Senate Armed Services Committee by the
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn. Detailing Iran’s threat assessment, Flynn
notes “Iran has threatened to temporarily impede international ship traffic
transiting through the Strait of Hormuz if
it is attacked or in response to further sanctions on its oil exports. Additionally, Iran has threatened to launch
missiles against U.S. targets and our regional allies in response to an attack.
Tehran could also employ its terrorist surrogates. However, it
is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict or launch a
preemptive attack.” (emphasis added)
Therefore, the threat of Iran is one of
deterrence, of defending itself in the event of an attack, and there exists no
evidence that it seeks to provoke or attack its adversaries.
Given this, it is hard not to wonder why there is
so much paranoia, fear, and thus belligerent and punitive rhetoric employed
against Iran. If the threat is
deterrence, then why all the hostility?
The characterization of Iran as a rogue,
aggressive, and hostile state has become a sort of dogma in Western discourse,
sharing similar characteristics with a fundamentalist religious belief. A main reason for this is simply the
intention of the United States to punish Iran; after all it does not follow
orders. However, as is seen with the
example of Cuba, in order to be hostile and punitive towards a recalcitrant
state there is a necessity to portray that state as the unreasonable aggressor
or a despotic terrorist, thereby making your actions against it appear to be
defensive and reactionary, rather than offensive and aggressive; people are
much more likely to approve of defensive actions rather than offensive ones.
In Cuba, the impetus for the aggression against it
stemmed from the fall of the US-supported dictator Batista to Fidel Castro and
Che Guevara, who subsequently expelled US corporations and nationalized the
land and resources they had been exploiting.
They didn’t like that much, and the US reacted in kind by immediately
launching military attacks and decades of terrorism
against Cuba, along with historic amounts of assassination and regime-change
attempts. The reasons were explained by
the State Departments Policy Planning Council, which warned
that “the primary danger we face in Castro is... in the impact the very
existence of his regime has upon the leftist movement in many Latin American
countries… The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of
the U.S., a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a
half,” referring to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, in which the US declared its
intention of dominating the hemisphere.
The Iran
case is similar. After the 1953 CIA-run
coup that overthrew the parliamentary government and installed the brutal
regime of the Shah, a day hasn't gone by that the US hasn't been torturing
Iran. After the Shah’s overthrow in
1979, the US immediately turned to supporting Saddam Hussein’s vicious invasion. The punitive measures exist to this day,
including crippling economic sanctions, threats of attack, and attacks against
allies such as Syria. The reasons for
this, as well, are similar: Iran too represents a successful defiance of US
power, and refuses to obey orders emanating from Washington. If your goal is world hegemony, and you feel
you have the right to use force freely wherever you want, then you simply
cannot tolerate such a deterrent.
There is another element to this as well, and that
is of a truism that should be evident to knowledgeable analysts of
statecraft. US leaders take for granted
the indelible presumption that we, as a nation, are good, and therefore by extension
it follows that whatever we do, is also good.
In contrast, of course the actions of our enemies are bad. So when we invade Afghanistan, we are
liberating Afghanistan. When Russia
invades Afghanistan, they are conquering Afghanistan. Similarly when we invade Vietnam or Iraq, we
are not conquering, we are bringing freedom and democracy. Applying the logic to Iran, given that Iran
represents an opposition to US policy and hegemony, which is of course
benevolent, they must then be evil. So
when we install a brutal dictator in their country, that is good, and when they
expel that dictator and pursue an independent policy of self-determination,
that of course is very bad. When we
threaten to attack Iran, it is out of a munificent desire to stop a grave
threat to the world, and so on. This is
the essence of the fanatical religion that exists in the West.
Another reason for portraying Iran as a hostile
threat is that it provides a useful scapegoat for the problems in the region,
and provides an excuse for Western offensive actions. It is well known to policy planners that
intervention and aggression are not goals shared by the populous, and therefore
a threat or enemy is needed to justify such actions. Former National Security Advisor to Jimmy
Carter and current Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed this notion in
1997 when he wrote that “Never before has a populist democracy attained
international supremacy. But the pursuit
of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a
sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being.”(1) And thus you have the Iranian “threat.”
This is of course not to say that the Iranian
government is righteous or beyond reproach, far from it, there is much
authoritarianism and internal repression to admonish, however that is a threat
to their domestic population, not the US and the West.
Coming back now to the actual “threat”, the one of
nuclear deterrence capabilities, there are ways to prevent against this. One way would be to institute a nuclear
weapons free zone in the region. That
would effectively eliminate any problems or threats, and further foster peace
and stability in the Middle East. That
proposal is strongly supported by Egypt and the Arab states, and has
overwhelming support in general worldwide, except that the United States and Israel
won’t allow it. They insist on a
precondition: that Israel be exempt. Obviously,
because of this the proposal won’t get anywhere.
And this very perfectly exemplifies the true picture of the situation: that
because of the United States and Israel’s aggression, hostility, and unilateral
insistence on not only maintaining their weapons capabilities, but assiduously
enhancing them forward, Iran is working towards preventive capabilities to
defend itself and deter a potential attack.
Ironically, it is then Israel’s insistence on maintaining
its power and ability to existentially threaten Iran that is in turn pushing
Iran towards pursuing nuclear capabilities and further military power.
These conclusions were as well echoed by a
prominent Israeli historian and professor, Martin van Creveld, who stated
succinctly back in 2004 that given the unilateral aggression shown by the West,
Iran is forced into a position of deterrence “The world has witnessed how the
United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the
Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they
would be crazy.”
Sources:
1.)
Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Eurasian Chessboard,” The
Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives (New
York, 1997), pg. 35-36.
But as the great Gareth Porter points out, Iran does not, and never had, a nuclear weapons program.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
yeup, exactly.
DeleteAlso posted on Lew Rockwell: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/steven-chovanec/what-iranian-threat/
ReplyDelete