Bush and Iran Create Risks
 Bush and Iran Create Risks While Russia bickers with Ukraine over lighthouses in Crimea, the rest of the world is anxiously watching the development of the far more ominous conflict between the United States and Iran. With U.S. President George W. Bush's approval ratings at an all-time low, launching a second major military operation in the Middle East would represent an enormous risk, especially since the situation in Iraq remains volatile. In the context of domestic U.S. politics, however, such a risk might be worth taking. Experts talk a lot about the balance of forces and conflict of interests in the Middle East, but somehow they neglect to mention that most armed conflicts today are the result of political struggles within, not between, states. Any U.S. military action against Iran would strengthen the anti-war movement back home, but it's gaining strength anyway. War with Iran would also distract attention from U.S. failures in Iraq and economic woes at home. The Republicans look certain to lose the White House in 2008 unless something drastic happens to change the political landscape - something like a second war in the Middle East, for example. This strategy could backfire, of course, but the Republicans don't have much to lose at this point. Bush is like a driver who hits the gas instead of the brakes just before a collision. The Iranian leadership is following the same logic. Iranian society is fed up with clerical politics and theocratic rule, but one issue still unites the ruling class and the people: a common hatred of the United States. Stoking the conflict with America is the most reliable way for the current regime to hang on to power. As the crisis deepens, popular support for the regime will only increase. U.S. leaders never tire of reminding us that they have a mandate from the American people. The current leaders of Iran were also elected by their people, however. This in no way inhibits their ability to pursue risky, extremist policies. The very fact that politicians in both the United States and Iran have to give an account of their actions to the voters, to win their sympathy and capture their attention, leads them to pursue irresponsible policies. Let's not forget that the current escalation of tensions in the Middle East began with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Before the war, the leaders in neighboring Iran were moderate reformers who were working to improve relations with the West. The new, radical leadership is just one result of the war in Iraq. Washington and Tehran are playing the same game. The course set by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad poses a very real threat to Israel. But has Bush's Middle East policy made Israel safer? Wasn't it the Americans who destabilized the entire region? The Iranian leadership is fond of making extremist pronouncements, but it doesn't have the capacity to back up its threats. Even Iran's nuclear program, which is at the center of the conflict with Washington, has not moved beyond a relatively early stage of development. There is no question that extremists armed with nuclear weapons pose a threat to humanity. This is why everyone is so frightened of Bush. Nuclear weapons have only been used against an enemy on two occasions - when the United States dropped two bombs on Japan in 1945. That decision to bomb was made by U.S. leaders far more moderate and responsible than their counterparts of today - and they were acting in a context of six long years of world war. What's to stop Bush from starting another war and then using nuclear weapons to deliver a quick and decisive victory? We can only hope that this horrific scenario does not come to pass. Domestic political concerns dictate that both Bush and Ahmadinejad take a hard line, making further escalation of tensions in the region all but inevitable. U.S. and Iranian leaders aren't operating in a vacuum, however. At some point, they'll have to look beyond their own borders and consider the other countries in the region, which have no interest in having another war in their own backyard. When it comes right down to it, neither Washington nor Tehran is entirely sure of its own strength. The Iranians have to understand that they have no hope of defeating the United States in battle. And the United States has to realize that it stands little chance of both conquering and effectively occupying a serious adversary such as Iran. It's much more likely that the two sides are engaging in brinksmanship, confident that when the time comes they will be able to prevent the conflict from spiraling out of control. Let's hope their confidence is not misplaced. Copyright 2006 The Moscow Times |
