[Mb-civic] Bush Can't Afford Inaction on Iran Max Boot LATimes
michael at michaelbutler.com
Thu Sep 9 10:49:14 PDT 2004
Bush Can't Afford Inaction on Iran
September 9, 2004
Hyped reports about an Israeli "mole" in the Pentagon are falling apart
faster than the Kerry campaign. It now seems likely that the analyst in
question was, at worst, guilty of mishandling a classified document, not
espionage. According to news accounts, the memo he's accused of passing to
pro-Israel lobbyists called for U.S. support of Iranian dissidents trying to
overthrow their dictatorial government. This may not be spy-novel stuff, but
it does raise an important question: Why hasn't President Bush implemented
the recommendations reportedly contained in the Pentagon paper?
The case for action seems overwhelming in light of Bush's oft-stated
warning: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." There is
no question which side Iran is on.
The State Department calls Iran the "most active state sponsor of terrorism
in the world." Much of its support goes to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas,
but the 9/11 commission also reported that Al Qaeda members including
eight to 10 of those involved in the airplane attacks on the United States
were allowed to use Iran as a transit route to and from training camps in
Afghanistan. A number of Al Qaeda operatives remain in Iran, ostensibly
under house arrest but in all likelihood allowed to carry on their deadly
Iran has trained and armed Muqtada Sadr's militia, which has been attacking
U.S. forces in Iraq. Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, the cleric
who now heads an influential government council, makes no bones about what
his country is up to. In an April sermon, he declared that the situation in
Iraq posed "a threat because the wounded American beast can take enraged
actions, but it is also an opportunity to teach this beast a lesson so it
won't attack another country."
Why would Iran be worried about being attacked by the United States?
Because it is close to producing a nuclear bomb. It is also working on
missiles with the range to strike targets in Europe and North America,
though the likeliest vehicles for delivering an Iranian nuke would be its
terrorist networks. Hassan Abasi, a senior member of the Revolutionary
Guards, recently boasted that Iran had "a strategy drawn up for the
destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."
Faced with this grave and gathering threat, John F. Kerry advocates
appeasement. He recommends making a deal for Iran to give up its nuclear
weapons program in return for U.S. concessions, such as helping it to build
"civilian" nuclear reactors. There's no reason to think this approach would
work any better than a similar accord with North Korea in 1994. Iran has
already violated a 2003 agreement with Britain, France and Germany to
curtail its nuclear weapons development. The mullahs are hellbent on going
nuclear; they are not going to give up what one Iranian newspaper editor
calls "the rare pearl for which we have labored greatly."
If we can't trust Tehran to make a deal, then we need a more
confrontational approach. A military strike can't be ruled out, but it would
be hard to pull off, especially without better intelligence than we had on
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Luckily, Iran has a robust opposition
movement that makes peaceful change from within a feasible alternative.
Self-styled realists claim that the tyrants of Tehran can't be budged, but
then that's what they said about the Soviet commissars too, right up until
the fall of the Berlin Wall. As in the Soviet bloc, most people in Iran have
lost faith in their rulers. Many have even braved regime goons to protest in
the streets. If they can succeed in establishing a representative
government, it will not matter whether Iran has nuclear weapons, any more
than it matters that India, Israel, France or any other democracy has nukes.
Conversely, even without nukes, the terrorist-sponsoring mullahs would
remain a major threat. We need to focus on the nature of the regime, not
simply the nature of its weapons.
Bush has recognized the need for democratization in the Middle East, yet,
oddly enough, he doesn't seem to be doing much to help Iranian freedom
fighters. Bush's own deputy secretary of State has said that regime change
is not U.S. policy. I hope this is just a ruse to hide covert actions, but I
fear it's the truth. On Iran, as in so many other areas, the administration
seems to be paralyzed by disagreements between Defense Department hawks and
State Department doves. If Bush doesn't break through this gridlock soon, he
will greatly undermine his claim to offer strong leadership in the war on
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
Article licensing and reprint options
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
More information about the Mb-civic