|
|
In his influential book The City and Man (1964) Leo Strauss boldly stated: “To make the world safe for the Western democracies, one must make the whole globe democratic, each country in itself as well as the society of nations. Good order in one country presupposes good order in all countries and among all countries.”
From this statement we see two points: first, we see a call for democracy to begin its conquest of the rest of the world; second, we see Strauss’s emphasis on how important it is to have good order. I think it is these two points that have been the pretext for America’s ultra right to wage its “crusade for freedom”—a campaign that has placed American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Time and time again, we have heard the cant of the Bush administration. We have repeatedly heard phrases that have by now become nothing other than insincere and morally bankrupt rhetoric. While embroidered with idealistic thoughts about global liberty—and hence security for the West—Strauss’s idea has been used by the West to once again enter the Middle East. This time, however, its entrance has been far less elegant.
The same hard-line voices that called for the bloody invasion of Iraq have also cried for an attack on Iran. American warships have been conducting war games in the Persian Gulf and have instigated Iranian war games in return. Iran came dangerously close to a confrontation with the West when it seized fifteen British sailors whom it claimed had trespassed into Iranian waters. More than being a message to Britain, this act was clearly a message to the United States and its allies in the region: “If you (the US) cannot or will not step in to protect your closest friend, how can any of your allies here rely on you?”
Tony Blair’s decision to resign, I believe, must have been at least in part influenced by this event. Iran succeeded in wanting to show American weakness. Soon afterwards we began hearing talk of a new cold war, this time between Iran and the United States. A new cold war? Many have dismissed such talk as being nothing more than drivel. But the point is clear enough: Iran is a power that must be reckoned with.
But here is the problem for America’s ultra right: they think that if they do not attack, Iran might soon become a nuclear power. This, to the ultra right (I am reluctant to call them conservatives), is unacceptable. So an aerial attack on Iran is still possible. The possibility of such an attack can only be made clearer by the possibility that Iran may seize American sailors that it claims have trespassed. If it does, the Bush administration may decide to retaliate, which may, in turn, invite an Iranian response. This could potentially expand the war to Iran.
But as Condolleeza Rice has herself said, Iran is not Iraq. If the above scenario were to happen, Iran may very well order its armies to go into Iraq to confront American forces, which are already suffering from intense combat stress and would, in my view, be at a severe disadvantage mentally. Iran has also gained years of combat experience in Iraq fighting Saddam Hussein’s armies; not that this is an immediate tactical advantage, but its soldiers have already played on that court. So they would not be unprepared mentally. And as the eight-year Iran-Iraq war showed, they would certainly not be reluctant to die.
What would happen then? There are three things that I think could happen. First, the United States could decide to withdraw from Iraq altogether, in which case it would strengthen Iranian influence in the country and fatally damage American prestige. Second, it could institute the draft to defeat Iran. In both cases, the United States would begin to seriously lose its power in the region and, consequently, in the world. Introducing the draft would bring about a Vietnam-like war on the other side of the ocean—a war that I suspect would be met with overwhelming opposition from not only the American people but from other nations also. This is, needless to say, all separate from the very real possibility of Iran confronting American forces in Afghanistan. But Iran would find greater justification in going to Iraq given that both countries are mainly Shiite and it could portray itself as liberator of holy Shiite lands from an Anglo-Saxon military presence—a presence that has before subjugated the country. It can be a formidable equation for the Americans.
In response to all this a third US response is conceivable. It may decide to decisively suppress Iranian power by striking with a nuclear weapon and use the explosion as “evidence” that Iran was indeed making a nuclear weapon. This may convince some, but it would leave the majority of the world with bewildered faces. This response would ironically place the United States as the only country that has repeatedly used nuclear force—but this time to stop the devastating power that such a weapon wields. But then again this would not be incongruent with Bush’s rationale of creating peace by causing war. If this third scenario were to happen, the United States would simply have its power seriously eroded by bankrupting the claimed moral basis of its global presence. It would decisively be in a position of decline. It would communicate to the world that if it is not able to defeat an army by conventional means, it would not hesitate to use the ultimate form of destruction.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Nima Shirali
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
