 |
| Iranian President Hassan Rouhani |
In a recent article for Foreign Affairs, Suzanne Maloney puts to rest the tired argument
that the United States must intervene in Syria to send a message to Iran.
Certain vocal proponents of striking the Syrian regime assert that the Iranian
government will take a failure to punish chemical weapons use as encouragement
to push ahead toward a nuclear weapon. They argue that, lacking a sufficiently
large and bloodied stick, there would be no reason for the Iranians to
voluntarily relinquish their nuclear ambitions*. Maloney aptly points out that
these proponents lack an understanding of the Iranian point of view—one in
which Iran, far from being a belligerent warmonger bent on domination of the
region, has been unfairly pressed from all sides by a bullying America and a
conniving Israel.
That their
perception is wildly different from how American policy makers see events doesn't invalidate it. The perception is based on a different reading of history, but
Americans too often discount or outright ignore the value Iranians place on
Western slights against them. Indeed, Maloney points out that Iranian leaders are
bitterly upset that America should raise such a fuss over Syria’s use of
chemical weapons after silently looking the other way as Saddam Hussein gassed tens
of thousands of Iranians—civilian and soldier alike. To many in Iran, America
is simply seizing on an excuse to intervene and further its dominance of the
Middle East.
Maloney
writes that any attack would only strengthen recalcitrant hardliners in Iran, greatly
increasing the likelihood that the US and Iran would come to blows over that
country’s nuclear program by undermining the prospects of any diplomatic
resolution. I certainly agree and fear that those proponents who argue for
intervention on the basis of the “credibility” of our threat of force outright
desire such a conflict. These same people often denounce the offering of carrots
to go along with the stick, pushing the Iranian government into a corner and
creating the very problems we seek to avoid. Iran does have an elevated sense of its deserved role in the region, but
punitive American policy and rhetoric toward Iran ensures that role remain in
opposition to our interests.
In the
country’s most recent elections, the Iranian people voted out the hardliners
and raised a relative moderate, Hassan Rouhani, to the Presidency. It remains to be seen whether
the extent of his authority goes beyond what Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei,
but his win reflects the desire of the Iranian people to pursue a path forward
that both maintains the dignity of the Iranian people and improves relations
with the rest of the world. Anti-Iranian pundits have lost the bogeyman they
had in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who was, in fact, a lame duck years before this election),
but risk squandering the opportunity for dialogue by maintaining an all-stick
approach to Iran.
By pursuing
the diplomatic resolution to the chemical weapons problem as offered by Russia
and Syria, America demonstrates that its designs on the region are benign.
Bringing Iran into the conversation would help prospects for nuclear talks by
building trust and understanding that, if done right, may carry forward even
should the Syria initiative fall apart. American hardliners must not be allowed
to guide policy toward yet more conflict in the Middle East.
* Note that
Iran has not been discovered to be pursuing outright weaponization. Though they
are clearly pushing toward the capability
to construct a weapon should they so desire, UN inspectors have found no
evidence of the construction of a nuclear weapon. Iran should certainly be more transparent with their
program, but they do have a legitimate right to pursue peaceful development
under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
No comments:
Post a Comment