A
year later than I expected, the drumroll has begun
towards a Western attack on Iran's nuclear
capability. Despite the best efforts of Western
diplomacy, the "moderate" option in Iranian
politics expired last week with President Mahmud
Ahmadinejad's triumphal consolidation of power.
A combination of economic distress and
external threats, Western capitals hoped, would
strengthen the position of the
loser in Iran's 2006
presidential elections, Hashemi Rafsanjani, and
external pressure would undo the decision of the
Iranian electorate. At best that would have been a
deal with the devil; unfortunately, the devil was
not returning phone calls last week.
It
never was to be. Iran has only two options: a
sickening slide into economic decay and internal
weakness as its oil-exporting capacity attenuates,
or a regional adventure against the Sunni
oligarchs of the Gulf oil-producing states. For
the Iranian street, Ahmadinejad's constituency in
the slums of Tehran and the Persian hinterland,
this is the Shi'ite moment, the
once-in-a-millennium opportunity to undo centuries
of perceived oppression.
European
diplomats woefully concede that Rafsanjani, who
maintained close ties to Germany in particular, no
longer offers a viable alternative. Arab
commentators are watching with alarm developments
in Iran, beginning with the dismissal of Iran's
nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani.
Elias
Harfouche wrote in the Lebanese daily Dal al-Hayat
on October 28, "The unease that accompanied the
replacement of Ali Larijani with Saeed Jalili as
the head of the negotiating nuclear team was
exceptional. Its importance was further reinforced
by the comment made by Ali Akbar Wilayati, the
former foreign minister and counselor to the
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and the statement of
Mohamed Hashemi, the brother of Hashemi Rafsanjani
on 'narrowing the decision-making circle' in the
executive authority as a result of Ahmadinejad's
decisions."
As usual, the American media
are slow to grasp how profoundly the landscape has
shifted during the past week. Writing in the
October 27 Washington Post, for example, David
Ignatius argued, quite incorrectly, that
Ahmadinejad "faces growing resistance, starting
with former president Ali Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani. Sources tell me that Rafsanjani's
allies have been advising officials in Europe and
the Middle East that Ahmadinejad is weak and
vulnerable." I do not know what Rafsanjani's
allies have been saying of late, but I am certain
that their credibility is exhausted.
Ignatius worries that if the United States
or Israel were to strike Iran's nuclear
facilities, Iran would retaliate through such
proxies as Hezbollah and various terrorist
operations under its control.
These fears
are well-founded. In February 2006, I argued that
a few sorties by American aircraft could put the
Iranian problem to rest, but that the window for a
clean military operation would not last long.
The longer Washington dallies, the
more resources Tehran can put in place,
including:
Upgrading Hezbollah's offensive-weapon
capabilities in Lebanon.
Integrating Hamas into its sphere of
influence and military operations.
Putting in place terrorist capability
against the West.
Preparing its Shi'ite auxiliaries in Iraq
for insurrection.[1]
One might
add to this complications on the Turkish-Iraqi
border, as Iran and its ally Syria have taken the
Turkish side against Kurdish rebels, which Iran
claims have the covert assistance of the United
States.
In early 2006, I predicted "war
with Iran on the worst terms", and that is what
the West is likely to get. I warned at the time,
"if Washington waits another year to deliver an
ultimatum to Iran, the results will be civil war
to the death in Iraq, the direct engagement of
Israel in a regional war through Hezbollah and
Hamas, and extensive terrorist action throughout
the West, with extensive loss of American life.
There are no good outcomes, only less terrible
ones. The West will attack Iran, but only when
such an attack will do the least good and the most
harm."
Rafsanjani's dialogue with Berlin
was the last, best hope of the anti-war faction in
the West. One winces at the chagrin of the German
partner in this relationship, given that
Rafsanjani likes the Germans because he admires
what Adolf Hitler did to the Jews of Europe. On
October 5, Rafsanjani told Iranian television in a
clip posted by MEMRI:
Europe resolved a great problem, the
problem of the Zionist danger. The Zionists
constituted a strong political party in Europe
and caused a lot of disorder there. Since they
had a lot of property and controlled an empire
of propaganda, they made the European
governments helpless. What Hitler and the Nazis
did to the Jews of Europe at that time was
partly due to these circumstances with the Jews.
They wanted to expel the Zionists from Europe
because they were always a pain in the neck for
governments there ... Their first goal was to
save Europe from the evil of Zionism, and in
this they have been relatively successful. [2]
The leading Iranian "moderate", in
short, is just as much the Islamo-Nazi as the
Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad. Rather than deny the
Holocaust, Rafsanjani applauds it. Reportedly,
Rafsanjani believes that the threat of military
confrontation of the West makes a bad gamble of
Iran's nuclear development program, unlike
Ahmadinejad, who is happy to take the risk.
Deals with the devil simply do not work,
even in the ethically challenged world of foreign
policy. The devil will act according to his
nature, whatever bargain one attempts to make with
him.
My proposed mantra for President
George W Bush, is, "There are no good options." To
be precise, there are options that are
considerably worse for others than for the United
States. The use of force against Iran without
doubt will make the Iraqi mess completely
unmanageable. It will have spillover effects in
Turkey, where the electoral majority that
supported the Islamists in this year's elections
will rise in outrage against the United States and
Israel. It may reignite the war between Israel and
Hezbollah. Nor should we have any illusions about
Iran's terrorist capacities. Western civilians
well may pay a heavy price for the excision of
Iran's nuclear program in the form of terror
attacks. The price may be steep, but it's worth
it.
The West has no choice but to attack
Iran, because Iran believes that it has no choice
but to develop nuclear weapons. Make no mistake:
this attack will destabilize the entire region,
past the capacity of the king's horses and king's
men to reassemble it. The agenda will shift from
how best to promote stability, to how best to turn
instability to advantage.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
