THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VI, Issue # 260, December 13, 2004
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
U.S. CONFUSION OVER THE EMERGING IRANIAN THREAT:
TAPPING THE HORNET'S NEST
By Michael Rubin
CONFUSION & DIVISION WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OVER WHAT FOREIGN POLICY IT
SHOULD PURSUE IN DEALING WITH THE GROWING THREAT TO AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY POSED BY AN IRAN RULED BY A
TYRANNICAL ANTI-WESTERN, ISLAMIC EXTREMIST POLITICAL REGIME & ON THE VERGE OF DEVELOPING A NUCLEAR &
INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE CAPABILITY
FULL STORY:
During the U.S. presidential campaign, debate over Iran policy received unprecedented attention. The reasons are multifold. With Iran
on the verge of developing both nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile capability, Washington policymakers can no longer
ignore the Iranian threat, especially when confidants of Supreme Leader Ali Khomenei lead televised chants of "American will be
annihilated," as Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati did last June.
American concern over a nuclear Iran is multifold. The danger is not necessarily that Iran would conduct a nuclear first strike,
although former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani threatened to do exactly that on December 14, 2001. Rather, Washington
fears that a nuclear Iran would feel itself immune from retaliation and so less obligated to international norms.
An anti-Western ideology remains at the core of the Islamic republic, even as the majority of Iranian citizens long to join the West.
The Islamic Republic founded Palestinian Islamic Jihad, bankrolls Hezbollah, and supplies other Palestinian factions with weapons.
According to the Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat, Iran shelters several hundred Al-Qa'ida members at Revolutionary Guard
facilities near the Caspian town of Chalus and Lavizan, on the outskirts of Tehran. Iranian diplomats know that Washington would
consider it a casus belli if Al-Qa'ida were to plan a terrorist attack from Iranian soil. But, if Tehran felt a nuclear deterrent would
prevent American or Israeli retaliation, it would have less incentive to rein in its proxy groups.
A nuclear Iran would also have profound impact upon ordinary Iranians. While the Islamic republic uses nationalism to justify its
nuclear program, once sympathetic citizens have second thoughts. Students I met in Tehran during the 1999 democracy protests
question whether, after getting the bomb, the country's ideological guardians might engage in a crackdown "10 times worse than
[China's 1989 assault on] Tiananmen Square." And, as the first anniversary of the Bam earthquake approaches, some
environmentalists also voice concern about the wisdom of a Russian-built reactor in an earthquake zone.
Despite the growing challenge, U.S. policy remains confused. The Bush administration has yet to reach a consensus on a national
security presidential directive for Iran. Bureaucrats continue to stumble over arcane questions about whether Jimmy Carter's
non-interference pledges -- made under duress during the 1979-1981 hostage crisis -- prohibit funding of Iranian opposition radio
and television broadcasts. Also unresolved is whether the dichotomy within Iran is between hard-liners and reformers, as the U.S.
State Department maintains, or between the government and democrats. The result has been muddle. While Bush included the
Islamic Republic of Iran in the "axis of evil," outgoing Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage labeled Iran a "democracy."
Before assuming her post, a senior director at the National Security Council criticized U.S. sanctions on Iran and the "rogue regime"
label. She suggested Washington engage Tehran, and dismissed opponents as the "Israel Amen" crowd. Her predecessor, upon
leaving government service, met with former Revolutionary Guard commander Mohsen Rezai, an encounter the Iranian press
suggested had White House sanction. National Security Council compromises brokered between the State and Defense
Departments were often worse than either's proposal. When faced with a hornet's nest, the choice to destroy it or leave it alone is
better than the compromise of lightly tapping it with a stick.
The clock is ticking for Iran. The insincerity of Iranian pledges regarding its nuclear program and its activities in Afghanistan and
Iraq undercut proponents of engagement. The Bush administration no longer has the luxury of indecision. The fundamental
question facing Bush now is not whether Washington can live with a nuclear Iran, but whether it can live with a nuclear Islamic
republic. Some policymakers argue that the White House may have no choice. On November 26, 2004, the State Department, without
administration sanction, posted a statement on its Web site labeling as "unwise, the possible use of military force by the United
States or Israel to eliminate Iran's nuclear installations."
The statement went on to argue that a strike on Iran's dispersed nuclear facilities would not only fail to eliminate the program, but
might spark a nationalist reaction and cause the Iranian leadership to unleash terrorist proxies against U.S. interests in the Middle
East and Israel.
Such concerns are valid, but terrorist blackmail should never determine foreign policy. The Islamic republic does not seek nuclear
weapons for security. On September 22, 2003, Iran paraded a Shihab-3 missile bearing the slogan, "Israel must be uprooted and
erased from history." Proponents of security do not threaten to annihilate neighbors. Any concern about Iranian-backed terror now
would only increase if the Islamic republic goes nuclear. Should engagement and diplomacy fail, Bush may have no choice but to
order a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Should he do so, then he should also target Iran's apparatus of repression, be it
Revolutionary Guard facilities or the guard towers at Evin Prison, where the Islamic republic imprisons its dissidents. Regardless,
the second Bush administration cannot afford to replicate the indecision of the first. The challenge is too serious and the stakes too
high. Diplomacy can only work when both sides are sincere. Let us hope that the Islamic Republic of Iran is, because time is running
out.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Middle East & the Problem of Iran
The Threat of Radical Islam
War & Peace in the Real World
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is editor of Middle East Quarterly. Until April, 2004, he was an
Iran and Iraq adviser in the Pentagon.
The foregoing article by Michael Rubin was originally published in Haaretz, December 10, 2004 and can be found on the Internet
website maintained by the Middle East Forum.
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
December 13, 2004
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VI, 2004
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues