Stay Firm on Iran: Worry About the Mullahs, not the Americans
What is there to do about Iran?
The debates revolving around the above question have come to the fore in recent weeks as a cataclysmic confrontation between the United States and the mullahs seems to be on the horizon.
As many should know, the Iranians shot down an American drone to which a galvanic Donald Trump almost responded by launching a strike that was ultimately called off upon his reflection on questions (such as how many were to die) that any strategist or President might have contemplated beforehand. Such hesitance was justified by the need for a “proportionate response” to the deeds of those in Tehran, whom the Americans have suspected to be complicit in attacks against ships and oil vessels. Some have seen merit in this wisdom, thinking that it may make for good strategizing as it could appear as a “final gesture of patience,” letting the Iranians decide what is to become of the current contest while measures like tight economic sanctions continue to weaken Iran’s hand. Others, in contrast, thought of Trump’s actions as foolhardy as a disproportionate response to attacks on “US assets are a good way” of warning enemies what may transpire if they continue to escalate, as Ben Shapiro opined.
Perhaps both can be correct. It’s a dangerous business to authorize a strike and then fold after indulging the second thoughts that you should have had before the consequential decision. But to show strength and prudence, Trump could appropriate the maxim that guided Richard Nixon’s foreign policy and adapt them to the contemporaneous predicament. Nixon’s vision was a Realpolitik doctrine that broadly emphasized “restraint through self-restraint.” Meaning, the national interests are to be pursued by avoiding “catastrophic confrontations” with adversaries by demonstrating self-restraint but also taking action to restrain them when it’s necessary. But such a balance must be consistently struck. Too much self-restraint begets cowardice — -or at least the impression of it — — and Trump’s indecision in this instance has been diagnosed as Iran calling his bluff when it comes to taking any substantial action. It could be, but I hope not.
To further analogize to Nixon, when contemplating policies to approach the spectre of communism in Chile under the elected Marxist, Salvador Allende, Nixon and his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger had three options: confrontation, a “cool, but correct” posture, and accommodation. Seeing that it best encapsulated Nixon’s foreign policy vision, they went with a “cool, but correct” posture, in which sanctions and covert operations were a prominent feature to counter Allende’s consolidation of power. All-out confrontation at this stage of the Cold War was injurious, and accommodation would have obviously provided Allende and the communist movement the space they needed to accelerate their advances. “Making the economy scream” through sanctions and covertly supporting Allende’s opposition contributed to conditions that ended up bringing an imperfect result (17-year rule of a repressive military dictatorship under Augusto Pinochet), but it was ultimately better in the long run as there was an eventual return to a free, stable and pro-American democracy.
The challenge of Allende is miniscule compared to an Islamist theocracy. Nevertheless, the policy concerns and strategy options over the past few years to contain the problem are similar. Especially when one considers how there is no “great” option, but there are ones that are just a lot better than others. This served as justification for the policy of appeasement that was the Iran nuclear deal. But the realities render it a fantasy.
The International Atomic Energy Agency have reported that Iran was in compliance with the terms, and this is oft-cited to prove Trump’s lapse in judgment and to blame him for any squabbles. But the mullahs have never allowed access to certain facilities while engaging in furtive and open actions (keeping reactors functional, enriching uranium which has only increased to a point it will now exceed the internationally agreed upon limit, etc.) that suggested the deal wasn’t going to curtail nuclear desires over the next decade one iota. Nor is it easing their aggression or ever impelling them to reappraise their support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The jihadist enterprise truly reaped the benefits of the billions of dollars to which the mullahs were entitled from the deal. The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, attested to the potency of the “father/son” relationship between his organization and the mullahs, saying that a now “rich and powerful Iran” will be able to support them and other allies in the region such as the “Palestinian cause” even more. Indeed, they’ve only been able to bolster their hegemonic designs.
Hezbollah wreaks havoc in Lebanon, Syria, and northern Iraq; are involved with drug cartels in South America and funnelling explosives into Europe through Cyprus; and members of North American factions have trained their sights on Canadian airports for possible terrorist attacks. This is just a sliver of the recent iniquity emanating from Hezbollah and is nothing to say of the various terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of Americans. But these are the brethren that have been lavishly supported by the mullahs. Any thought that the mullahs can sever these ties even incrementally without a change in temperament and worldview is tenuous at best.
Appeasement to bring about a healthy rapprochement is only procrastination for a future conflict. Critics always recognized this, and Trump was correct to leave the deal in its extant form. Trump and the West are now faced with the policy options they inevitably would have been no matter Trump’s decision last May.
A full-on invasion would likely be a quagmire. The accommodation Europeans have continually engaged in is naïve. It has only done more to nourish the mullahs and their projects while the West sits idly by; thus always culminating in ongoing tensions as Iran’s treachery becomes more conspicuous. The Americans’ posture — -not so much “cool” as it is “heated but correct” — — should continue to weaken the mullah’s standing.
The economy has plummeted, with oil exports ceasing as a result of sanctions and economic growth becoming one of the lowest in the world. The defence budget has decreased by 28 percent, and the Iranians have found it difficult to meet the expectations of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Sanctions on the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the Foreign Minister Mohamed Javad Zarif may aptly expose their involvement in less than savoury affairs. But of course, they have been said to jeopardize any future negotiations as the Iranians have threatened to scrap the deal if the other members of the pact can’t protect them from US sanctions.
Some are renouncing Trump as the “bully” and the one who will unilaterally drag America and her allies into a war. Trump’s actions or assessments haven’t been perfect by any stretch, but his administration’s overall firmness is sound. Portraying America as the antagonist is a temptation, as the debates on Iran are deluged with thoughts that any display of strength is tantamount to beginning a protracted war. The Democratic candidates are almost unanimously in favour of re-entering the nuclear deal and accuse the Trump administration of warmongering. Tulsi Gabbard calls the cabinet a group of “chickenhawks” (someone who advocates for wars but has never fought in one). It’s a superficially appealing argument, but a stupid one. 1) The Trump administration has had military veterans in various positions (does Jim Mattis lack gravitas?); and 2) it suggests that anyone who doesn’t have military experience can’t expound upon, or worse yet, contribute to formulating policy. It’s the equivalent of Kamala Harris telling Joe Biden he can’t discuss bus policy because he’s not black. Nothing useful comes from this, but it’s convenient to construct these false binaries, as Seth Frantzman calls them, to forward the arguments for their brand of diplomacy since any other policy will carve the path to all-out war.
Siddak Ahuja, a fellow TPM writer who is much more to the left than me, recently made a respectable argument for more diplomacy from a Canadian perspective. Criticizing policies such as Harper’s ceasing of relations, he urges that Canada must “reestablish diplomatic relations and understand reasons for Iran’s actions and reactions” to “bring back the US and its allies to the negotiation table.” In its capacity as a middle power, this has been a responsibility of Canada’s, and members of the Trump administration have said they may renegotiate if Iran demonstrates an intention to comply with demands honestly.
However, given the nature of the regime, I’m not convinced that productive negotiations will ever be possible. Harper’s move, in my opinion, was correct and an acknowledgement that relations with Iran will always be precarious as long as its government believes that the Supreme Leader is the human representative of Allah. I never thought Harper expected to prompt any transformation due to the chicanery they routinely engage in and the apocalyptic auspices that inspire them. He just recognized the fatuity of the relationship. How can one expect to mend it when one party always promises moderation, only to continually preach death to the American Satan and pledge that a Jewish state won’t exist within the next quarter century? Iran has been incensed by outside powers like any state, but the mullahs’ radicalism is what catalyzed the morphing of the state into an Islamic dystopia and their subsequent actions in the first place.
There are concerns over the international economy when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz if the Iranians decide to close it. In the recent past, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has said that they are the “sole guarantor of security of the waterway” and warned the US not to “play with the lion’s tail.” All the while Iranian forces have threatened the security of ships using the waterway. Their provocations — -while framing themselves as the ones being victimized — -beg for responses to protect commercial navigation, and certain retaliatory actions would likely be effective in securing waterways as they have historically.
Naturally, Trump is skeptical of tireless exertions towards protecting ships of other countries due to America’s decreased need for an oil hub. But this doesn’t mean that the need for Thomas Jefferson’s “Empire of Liberty” — -the world’s policeman — — has run its course. During the infant years of the Republic, the confrontation with the Barbary pirates who were compelled by Koranic injunction to raid American ships and capture sailors was one of the first events that confirmed there must be an American presence on the high seas. And America and her allies are now dealing with miscreants who have a comparable idea of what the proper way is to interact with others. America must sustain its primacy. No other country built upon shared values — -Canada, Britain, or France — -can fill the void that will need to be filled when a power like Iran or China is free to maneuver however they please.
Constant reversions to dialogue won’t bring any felicity unless a miraculous reversal of the mullahs’ conduct suddenly occurs.
And no matter what the ayatollah, weak-kneed Europeans, or demagogic Democrats might say, the source of hostilities aren’t our American cousins; it’s the mullahs — -whom we must separate from their shackled subjects who have long yearned for change, we just haven’t given them the response they deserve. In addition to responding to Iranian depredations where need be — -and the US, as any country should, continues to mobilize to prepare for potential skirmishes — — I agree with Andrew McCarthy and certain members of the Trump administration on the point that protest movements against the deceitful system also provide the West opportunities to try and solve the problem in lieu of an invasion. The Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, has long been campaigning for democracy in his homeland and has called upon the international community to support the uprisings. The ayatollah Khomeini’s grandson, Hossein Khomeini, once told Christopher Hitchens that even he would have liked to see regime change and a “swift and immediate American invasion of Iran.” Though it was said in the days of the Iraq War when there was more confidence in American adventurism, what’s showcased is a pro-Western and Americanist sentiment among Iranians that has only increased over the last decades that we must join in heeding.
It might be wishful to say, but the best prophylactic against war is a pluralist and secular Iranian regime interested in serving its people, not the delusions of one crackpot Islamist. Many are aghast at the idea of regime change, but Trump’s impulses suggest that cues should be taken from realist-like policies discussed earlier to bring a more favourable result through less disastrously violent and costly means. No option is flawless, but tightened economic sanctions coupled with political and covert support of the democratic movements will further cripple the regime while giving the dissidents the ability to move more swiftly. As far as us Canadians, we should provide moral support for such endeavours and stand firm alongside the Americans and the Iranian people. Lest we continue to choose appeasement today only to have to make tougher decisions tomorrow with an ayatollah who’d be even more arrogant and hell-bent on fomenting conflict.
