What Makes Iran Tick?
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
There has been a recent flood of news stories covering the rising tensions between Iran and the West, but much remains a mystery, even to the experts in the field of Middle Eastern issues. At first glance, Iran’s moves to antagonize the West and restart its nuclear program may seem irrational. And indeed, Iran remains a spawning ground of the unexpected.
You may be wondering: Why did we attack Iraq and not Iran? What is Iran’s motivation for these actions? What can the US/UN/EU do to resolve this issue? Is the leadership of Iran simply insane? Should I be afraid for my life? I will address each of these questions, although sometimes with vague and ambiguous answers, because hard understanding is lacking on this issue, and I do not intend to invent answers when the international press remains baffled. Instead, I will attempt to provide a comprehensive and concise outline of the issues at hand, which will likely emphasize how many of the motivations and intentions of the Iranian government remain unclear.
Why the Iraq war and not Iran?
The Iran crisis is not a problem that has suddenly emerged. As you may remember, Iran was an original member of the ‘axis of evil’ back in January 2002, and was later transferred to the more inclusive ‘outposts of tyranny’ by 2005. And yet, Iran seems to have been placed on the back-burner of American foreign policy, and left to the Europeans ( Britain, France, and Germany) to mitigate through diplomatic means. Well, in the words of British, French, and German negotiators, those diplomatic means have failed. Some have accused Bush II of choosing to target Iraq out of a family vendetta, but it is also key that Iran has much closer ties to Russia and China, who would have strongly opposed a military strike against Iran in 2003. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein possessed a more concrete record of human rights violations, and so could more justifiably be attacked.
What motivates Iran?
This is perhaps the biggest enigma. I will suggest a few possibilities, but please feel free to add your own to this list. First, Iran claims that the nuclear program is for economic development—but this would be a truly irrational plan, given the global political backlash and threat of economic sanctions resulting from Iran’s nuclear program. It is possible that the leadership of Iran is using the nuclear drive as a form of propaganda to win the favor of anti-American extremists in Iran and the region. Perhaps part of the motivation lies in a desire to antagonize the United States and/or Israel. Some would claim that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons rests in a true desire to destroy Israel; however, Iran should be aware that a nuclear attack against Israel would quickly result in the nuclear flattening of Iran by one of the western powers. Given that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, Iran could want them as a defensive mechanism to deter an attack by Israel. They may have also noticed that the U.S. has not attacked a nation that possesses nuclear weapons. A final option is that the leadership of Iran thinks that it can use the threat of its nuclear force to gain some sort of economic incentive from the West.
How should the world handle Iran?
The EU will continue to pursue dialogue with Iran towards limiting Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s violation of the IAEA’s restrictions on nuclear development could be brought before the UN Security Council, but again Russia and China are likely to oppose any action against Iran, including economic sanctions. China depends on Iran for its oil, while Russia is seeking to consolidate its influence over central Asia, and aggravating Iran would not help that cause. However, Russia could play an important role in reining in Iran—it has proposed that the uranium enrichment for Iran’s nuclear power plants could be completed in Russia, thus reducing, but not eliminating, the danger that Iran could use this material to make a bomb. Iran has so far not agreed to the measure, but it remains on the table. It is highly unlikely that the United States would launch a unilateral attack against Iran, given the existing strain on U.S. military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. French President Chirac said on January 17th that in the event of a terrorist attack, his response “could be conventional. It could also be of another nature.” This is one of the few cases in recent times that a Western leader has openly threatened the use of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel’s opposition to a nuclear Iran is no secret, and many in the Israeli government have suggested a plan to preemptively attack Iran in order to delay the nuclear program.
Is the leadership of Iran insane?
I will allow the Iranian president to speak for himself. At a conference in October 2005, titled, ‘A World without Zionism,’ Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proclaimed, “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.” On December 14th, 2005 Ahmadinejad claimed, “they have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets. Territory should be provided in Germany or Austria to establish Israel, if European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II.” On January 16th, 2006 he commented that, “Research is necessary for the life and dynamism of a nation.” The country’s leadership promises that Iran’s nuclear program is for economic ends—some interesting reasoning given that rather than being a highly profitable industry, nuclear energy has so far been a tremendous financial burden to the countries where it is employed.
So should you be afraid for your life?
The short answer is: only if you live in Israel. Iran will not have long range missile technology in the near future. The developments in Iran pose a threat to regional security in the Middle East, as Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons could quickly lead to an arms race among neighboring countries. Nuclear material could be transferred to terrorist forces. There is the possible threat of transfer to Venezuela, as Hugo Chavez has made his sympathies to the Islamic Republic clear, but this is also unlikely. The more immediate threat to the West is oil. On January 24th, 2006, Iranian Oil Minister Hossein Kazempour Ardebili said that he believes OPEC production should be cut by 1 million barrels per day to avoid an excessive oil stockpile. I will allow you to speculate as to the geopolitical motivations behind this comment.
In an electronic chess game you can set the style of your opponent to mimic the style of one of chess’s greatest, such as Kasparov, Fisher, Morphy, or Capablanca. You will have more success if you understand the style of your opponent, because their moves follow certain predictable patterns. Now imagine if you could set the game to ‘Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.’ You would suddenly find your opponent to be much less predictable, making moves that seem uncalculated and erratic, but later discovering that this was all part of a larger snare that was set to get you into checkmate. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not simply insane. So far his methods have proven very successful at achieving his objectives. The West remains divided on how to deal with the issue and looks impotent for its lack of ability to take decisive action on the matter. The challenge of Iran provides a chance for the Unites States and the European Union to reunite on foreign policy, after a difficult three year strain in transatlantic relations. Let’s hope the world can cooperate to prevent the situation from exploding.
