Drumbeat
Reuel Marc Gerecht has been one of the most persistent, and he's true to form in his latest. From Newsweek:
Iran represents a much greater threat than Europe typically recognizes. It is not a status quo state that favors stability, as most pundits and governments portray it. Iran is, instead, a radical revolutionary force determined to sow chaos beyond its borders. Assuming that normal negotiations can bring it around is, therefore, a grave mistake. The mullahs don't want peace in Iraq—just the opposite. War may come, but not because negotiations break down. The likely trigger is an Iranian provocation.Perhaps it's a "radical revolutionary" idea not to want a fairly large country on your western border to be shaped by the guidance of an extremely hostile foreign enemy nation. But I don't happen see why that's so. It's easy to characterize Iran as a country that doesn't want peace in Iraq when you define "peace" as a situation which Iran legitimately sees as dangerous and destabilizing to its own country. But, again, that doesn't make it so.
I too worry about "Iranian provocation" but I don't pretend that an incident (if one happens) will have just fallen from the sky. When Gerecht and others characterize the killing of American soldiers with Iranian weapons as de facto Iranian acts of war--as if our troops were stationed here at home minding their own business when a bunch of Iranians EFPs shredded them to bits--they're characterizing a great conflict--onethat unsurprisingly involves Iran--in a truly dishonest way.
Comments
I sure wish those pontificators on Iran would actually, you know, know something about Iran.
Over the weekend I found some good starting info at the Beeb:
Iran in Maps - Interactive is a good place to start. Notice the number and location of ethnic groups (on tab). Check the location of cities (and their size) and the oil/gas locations, while noticing that the Iranian border runs directly down center of the Persian Gulf. Observe that Iran has about 1000 miles of coastline on the Gulf and into the Arabian Sea. Also note the control of a long piece of coast on the oil-rich Caspian Sea where ALL of the great powers are contending for the action. Russia and China see this as their lake and their resources.
Then, the good stuff on the structure of the government and leading figures - which is way more complicated than portrayed by the US press. The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has little control over the real levers of power in Iran. The current president won his election over Rafsanjani (see below) essentially over domestic issues, not international relations, but that power conflict is now increased by recent actions.
This link on government structure is also nicely interactive: Iran - Who holds power. Notice that the Army reports to the Supreme Leader, not the President. Observe that former President Akbar Hashemi Rafasanjani now heads the Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts (as of Sept. 4, 2007, when Clerics picked Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on Tuesday to lead a powerful Iranian body, the Assembly of Experts, in a boost for the former president who wants better ties with the West and a blow to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He defeated his more conservative opponent, Ayatollah Jannati - who leads the Guardian Council. Click on each box in the chart and find out what they do and who leads each group.
The picture that emerges is of subtle but real infighting and great complexity, with the moderates gaining power over the more rigid conservatives. But that could change, of course. A key question for the US: will US threats or actual attack move control in the moderate or radical direction? The answer should be obvious - we don't know, but we should find out before doing anything.
I don't believe we understand as a country even 10% of what we should know about Iran before we make rigid decisions on our policy. We sure as hell shouldn't be starting a war with Iran when we know so little about internal dynamics in the country. This is quite like the hypocratic oath: First, do no harm (until you know what the disease is).
Post A Comment