Iraq and Afghanistan

Today’s Op-Ed by Kenneth Pollack makes several suggestions for anyone thinking about American policy toward Iran. Of course, his main point is that we should think many times before threatening another invasion. First, our forces are already spread too thin. Second, no matter how much they may hate their government, most Iranians are nationalists first. Third, acting peremptorily would shatter even further the worldwide web of alliances that was shaken by our actions in Palestine and Iraq. A fourth argument he does not make is that we would once again be threatening to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands for unclear gains.

Pollack’s answer is along the lines of Kerry’s “policy” for Iraq: consultation, consultation, consultation — with Iran and with the Europeans and Russians. Pollack is thinking of our need to somehow eliminate the specter of another nuclear state in the Middle East. But there are other reasons that might be more compelling. And as long as we do not change our effective nuclear policy it seems doubtful that we can stop any country determined to have nuclear weapons from eventually obtaining them.

My concentration is on another problem and another Iran. The theocracy is once again showing its teeth. More and more people are being imprisoned or silenced for trying to express themselves, attending overseas conferences, etc. The campaign has extended to the internet with growing restrictions on sites and on the people who have set them up. I note that one Iranian webmaster in Canada with a dissident site believes that he has been threatened with death. Today Iran still remains very far from the Afghanistan of the Taliban. But if it did veer in that direction, would we and the rest of the world just stand by and watch? Remember, in retrospect many have concluded that we should not have stood by after Hitler came to power.

What we need is a much more effective means to effect “regime change” or at least “regime moderation” without the use of bombers and gun ships. One always thinks of economic sanctions. But when is the last time one remembers economic sanctions actually working, particularly against a determined regime? Blasting the country with heavy handed propaganda or training and arming overseas dissidents are possibilities. But they are unlikely to work. For one thing the Iranians taken in by these measures would tend to become pariahs in their own country. An effective program would be much more subtle, much more under the control of patriotic Iranians who themselves want regime change. It is past time that we seriously develop such alternatives. We have seen that regardless how evil a regime may be, war to replace the regime is neither good for us, good for them, or acceptable by the international community. Consultation with our allies might be a part of a peaceful approach to regime change, but it would be only the beginning.