US’ Iran Policy – Iranian Reality vs. Alternate Reality Yoram Ettinger
It has been maintained that Iran’s Ayatollah regime is Israel’s problem, does not pose a serious threat to the US and global stability, and is manageable via negotiation. However, this assumption is repudiated by the march of facts.
1. Irrespective of Israel, Iran’s Ayatollah regime is driven by a 1,400-year-old fanatical vision, that is underscored by Iran’s school curriculum, mosque sermons, official media and sustained policy. This fanatical vision mandates the toppling of all pro-US Sunni Arab regimes and bringing the “infidel” West to submission, primarily “The Great American Satan.” Since the February 1979 toppling of Iran’s Shah, the Ayatollah regime has emerged as the leading global epicenter of anti-US wars, terrorism, drug trafficking and the proliferation of advanced military systems. It considers Israel as “The Little Satan” – the vanguard of the US in the Middle East and its first line of defense. Moreover, the Ayatollah regime has expanded its anti-US rogue operations beyond the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, into Africa and Latin America, which is the soft underbelly of the US. For example, since the early 1980s, Iran has established terrorist training camps and ballistic missiles testing grounds in Latin America, solidifying strategic cooperation with drug cartels in Mexico, Columbia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Brazil, as well as with all anti-US Latin American governments, while proliferating terrorist sleeper cells on US soil (according to the FBI).
2. It is suggested that the Ayatollah regime is willing to talk, and therefore, supposedly, it is incumbent upon the US to expedite negotiations, attempting to clear up misconceptions. Supposedly, negotiation reduces the prospects of – and is preferable to – war.
However, as appealing as is the Iranian talk, the policy toward Iran must be based on the Iranian walk, which has been antithetical to its talk.
Moreover, while the US considers negotiation as a step toward potential reconciliation, the Ayatollah regime considers negotiation with a transient “infidel” Western entity as a step toward advancing its eternal fanatical vision, which transcends financial and diplomatic mega-benefits. Negotiation is used by Iran to run the clock down, recuperate from recent military blows, avoid a decisive military setback, and acquire nuclear capabilities (which may require a few months), in order to substantially erode the global strategic posture of the US.
3. The negotiation option is preferable to the military option, when conducted between parties, which respect the existence of each other.
But, negotiation is self-destructive when conducted with rogue Middle East entities, that are driven by a fanatical ideology and religion, which are the most critical features of their vision, mandating the crushing/subjugation of their “infidel” partners to negotiation. At best, negotiation with such rogue entities (e.g., the Ayatollah regime, Hamas, Hezbollah) could lead to another tentative accord, to be suspended when the rogue entity gains the power to defy its “infidel” negotiation partner.
For example, Israel managed to negotiate and implement defense and commercial cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and conclude peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and South Sudan, none of which is driven by a vision, which mandates the elimination of Israel. Their national visions are dedicated to the enhancement of their national security and standard of living. Thus, Saudi Arabia’s “Vision 2030” considers Israel as a prominent partner in the defense against the Ayatollah regime and the Muslim Brotherhood. Israel is, also, a productive partner in diversifying the energy-reliant Saudi economy and enhancing the state of the Saudi agriculture and irrigation, through the introduction of advanced Israeli technologies.
Moreover, irrespective of the recent resumption of Saudi diplomatic ties with Iran, the Saudi Crown Prince is fully aware that Tehran’s fanatical ideology transcends diplomacy and business considerations. In fact, US negotiation with – rather than a regime change in – Iran has been perceived by the Crown Prince as a self-destructive policy, which has intensified the Iranian threat, thus undermining Saudi confidence in the US, and therefore, setting Riyadh farther from the Abraham Accords.
On the other hand, the Ayatollah regime, Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO/PA are driven by fanatical ideologies (e.g., the 1979 Ayatollah Constitution, the 1959 and 1964 Fatah and PLO Charters) which are entrenched in their school curriculum and religious and media establishment, mandating them to bring their enemies (partners to negotiation) to submission.
4. It is the interest of the US – as it is for all Western democracies – to minimize, prevent and end wars and terrorism.
Nevertheless, a prerequisite for minimizing, preventing and ending wars and terrorism is the obliteration of the leading epicenter of anti-US global wars and terrorism, which has been the Ayatollah regime. Similarly, the attempt to minimize, prevent and end crime in any urban center is preconditioned upon the elimination of – not negotiation with – the leading crime families and gangs in the area. The attempt to end any rogue reality, on the one hand, and negotiating with the leading epicenters of that rogue reality, on the other hand, constitutes an oxymoron. It perpetuates and intensifies, not minimizes, prevents nor ends the rogue reality.
5. While the focus of the US policy on Iran has been on nuclear capabilities, it is Iran’s conventional and ballistic capabilities – energized by Iran’s fanatical and apocalyptic ideology – which has transformed it from “The American Policeman of the Gulf” to a leading threat to the US national security and homeland security. The conventional and ballistic capabilities of Iran – not merely a potential nuclear Iran – constitute the leading epicenter of anti-US wars, terrorism and drug trafficking.
6. It is claimed that there is no need to rush into regime-change.
Nonetheless, the 47-year-old negotiation option has bolstered the transformation
of Iran to the chief threat to US interests, including homeland security. In addition, the 40-year-old option of economic sanctions has been proven to be reversible (by a succeeding President).
There is a justifiable concern about the cost of regime-change, but refraining from regime-change (which has dealt a devastating blow to the majority of Iranians, who pray for a regime-change), would erode the US posture of deterrence, produce a tailwind to anti-US Islamic terrorism, pave the road to the nuclearization of the first ever apocalyptic regime (Iran), and would trigger a horrifically costly confrontation, dwarfing the cost of regime-change.
7. Will the US perpetuate and bolster the Iranian epicenter of anti-US war and terrorism by repeating past critical mistakes (negotiation and economic sanctions), or will it minimize war and terrorism by avoiding past critical mistakes, and proceed to obliterate the Iranian epicenter (regime change)?
Will US policy makers avoid the trap of: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Comments are closed.
