YORAM ETTINGER: IRAN…DELUSION VS. SOLUTION
Iran – Delusion vs. Solution
Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought”
YnetNews, July 29, 2010
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3926519,00.html
Western policy-makers grow increasingly-reconciled to co-existence with a
nuclear Iran. They assume that, notwithstanding the radical rhetoric, the
Iranian leadership is pragmatic, cognizant of its limitations, unwilling to
expose its people to devastating Western retaliation and considering nuclear
capabilities as a tool of deterrence – and not as an offensive weapon –
against the US, NATO and Israel.
However, a nuclear Iran would constitute a clear and present danger to
global security and peace, which must not be tolerated. In order to avert
such peril, it is incumbent to disengage from illusions and engage with
realism.
Unlike Western leaders, the Iranian revolutionary leadership is driven by
ideological and religious conviction, bolstered by ancient imperialist
ethos:
1. Jihad is the permanent state of relations between Moslems and
non-Moslems, while peace and ceasefire accords are tenuous.
2. The Shihada commits every Shiite to kill and be killed, in order to
advance Shiite Moslem strategy.
3. The strategic goal of Shiite Islam – which replaced illegitimate
Judaism and Christianity – is to convert humanity to Islam.
The religious Shiite zeal is intensified by the Persian-Iranian ethos,
shared by secular and religious Iranians, who believe Iran has been a
regional and a global power for the last 2,600 years.
Iran’s religious/imperialistic strategy has guided Teheran’s tactical policy
toward the US (the “Great Satan” and the key target for Iran’s terror and
nuclear), Central & South America (an anti-US terror platform), Iraq (the
chief Sunni rival in the Persian Gulf and an arena to weaken the US), Saudi
Arabia (an apostate regime), the Gulf States (targeted for revolution and
takeover), Afghanistan and Pakistan (arenas to erode the US’ image),
international terror organizations and terror cells in the US and Europe
(weakening Western societies), Syria, Lebanon, Hizballah and Hamas
(threatening Israel and advancing regional hegemony) and Israel (the “Little
Satan,” a Western outpost in the Abode of Islam, the source of
Judea-Christian values).
Western leaders are top heavy on “pragmatism” and low on ideology and
religion. Therefore, they are preoccupied with Iranian global tactical
policy, minimizing the study of Iran’s strategic infrastructure of religion,
ideology and history, which consider Shia, Jihad, Shihada and Persian
imperialism as Teheran’s Pillars of Fire.
Western leaders believe in engagement – and not in confrontation – with
Iran. However, Teheran’s revolutionaries regard such an attitude as a
symptom of Western fatigue, of a tendency to “blink first” and of a modern
version of the defeatist European slogan: “Better Red than Dead.” Moreover,
Teheran considers the US a superpower in retirement and retreat, gradually
adopting the European state-of-mind and losing its posture of endurance
since the 1973 retreat from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the 1979 terrorist
takeover of the US embassy in Teheran, the 1983 retreat from Lebanon
following the blowing up of the US embassy and Marine headquarters in Beirut
until the 2011 expected US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. At the
same time, Iran demonstrated its willingness to pay a brutal price for its
principles and interests, when sacrificing some 500,000 persons on the altar
of the 1980-1988 war against Iraq, including approximately 100,000 children
who were dispatched to clear minefields.
Teheran is encouraged by Western preoccupation with engagement and
sanctions, which constitute a delusion and not a solution. For instance,
Russia and China consider the US a rival and do not share the US assessment
of Iran. They benefit from a weakened US and therefore they do not
cooperate in the implementation of sanctions. Europe employs tough
rhetoric, but displays frail action. And, the UN will not support a tough US
policy toward Iran. The longer the sanctions and engagement process, the
more time is available to Iran to develop and acquire nuclear capabilities.
Teheran benefits from Western adherence to a supposed linkage between the
Palestinian issue and a successful campaign against Iran. However, there is
no linkage between the Palestinian issue – or the Arab Israeli conflict or
Israel’s existence – and the pillars of Iran’s strategy. The more
entrenched the “Linkage Theory,” the heavier the pressure on Israel and the
weaker the pressure on Iran.
In 1978, President Carter’s policy toward the Shah was perceived as the
backstabbing of a US ally, providing a tailwind to the anti-Shah opposition
and facilitating the Iranian Revolution. In 2010, Western policy toward
Iran is perceived as an acknowledgment of the potency of the revolutionary
leadership, thus serving as a headwind to a weakened domestic opposition and
minimizing the possibility of a domestically-generated regime-change.
A sustained Western policy toward Iran would confront the Free World with a
brutal dilemma: Accepting radical diplomatic, economic, military and
religious demands presented by a nuclear Iran, or facing a series of vicious
wars, including a rapidly escalated nuclear race among rogue regimes. In
order to avoid such a dilemma, it is incumbent to disengage from the
illusive options of deterrence and retaliation and engage with the realistic
option of military-preemption/prevention. Furthermore, the cost of military
inaction would dwarf the worst-case cost of a military preemptive action
against Iran.
Comments are closed.
