Hot air all around
If we are to believe what we are hearing and reading from a variety of confirmed and unconfirmed sources, in Israel and the US, some day in the next few months we may wake up to the news that Israel has bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. Or maybe not.
The Israelis appear to be deeply divided on the issue, sending mixed signals, almost daily, about their intentions, their capacity to execute such a mission, and even whether or not Iran’s reputed program poses an imminent danger.
The US is tied up in knots of its own making. Being in the throes of an election, no one wants to appear critical of Israel. And so while concerned with the consequences of a unilateral Israeli strike, statements from official Washington or from presidential aspirants range from hand-wringing and feigned powerlessness to full-throated support for any action Israel may take.
For their part, the Iranians, apparently loving the attention they are receiving, have engaged in provocative actions of their own and their fair share of rhetorical excess. Lost in this deadly game are a number of serious issues that should be considered – but, in all probability will not be.
In the first place, the matter of whether or not Iran is on a trajectory to build a bomb is not an incidental one. The last IAEA report, despite efforts to mischaracterise its findings, was not conclusive. At best, it hedged.
Next to consider is the exact nature of the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. While Israel projects itself as facing an “existential” challenge from Iran, this is hyperbolic nonsense. An Iranian attack on Israel would amount to Iran signing its own death warrant. It is a horror even to image, but the reality is that a nuclear attack anywhere in Israel, would murder tens of thousands of innocents, Jews and Arabs, with radiation fallout spreading death and deformity over a wide radius that would infect hundreds of thousands more in the neighbourhood. In other words, in the aftermath of any attack, not only would Iran be destroyed, but its fate would be sealed forever in the Arab and Muslim world—a consideration that could not be lost on the regime’s leadership. The bottom line: there is no “first use”.
Iran’s real intention is the dangerous game of bragging rights. And their target audience is across the Gulf. Their recent effort to recast the “Arab Spring” as an “Islamic Awakening” being led by the Islamic Republic provided a case in point. The Iranians still seek to prey on Arab anger at the West projecting themselves as being in the vanguard of Arab revulsion at the excesses of imperialism and Zionism.
If this is the game, then Israeli saber-rattling and American outrage play right into Iran’s hand. By exaggerating the threat posed by this regime, by pretending that it is a menace equal to Nazi Germany, the West succeeds only in giving the Iranians what they want most: an inflated sense that they are a real power to be feared.
My concern is that the escalating rhetoric by all sides poses a danger, in itself. The region is a tinderbox, and it is as if everyone is too busy playing with matches to think of the consequences of their behaviour.
Better than threats, which only serve to embolden Iran, I would suggest a combination of direct engagement (which has been tried too little) and continued targeted sanctions (which are having a real impact). What, one might ask the leaders of Iran, will they do with their nuclear programme? Can it feed their people, rebuild their neglected and decayed infrastructure, give hope to their unemployed young, or secure their role in the community of nations? Look at the region, as it is. As democracy movements advance in North Africa, and as the Gulf States make significant progress, providing a model for development and growth, Iran remains trapped in an archaic system which feeds off of fear and anger, and goes nowhere.
There are lessons to be learned in order to avoid a confrontation from which no one will emerge a winner. Those in the US who point to Israel’s 1981 strike against Iraq, conveniently ignore the fact that Saddam emerged undeterred. The next two decades witnessed Iraq and Iran engaging in an orgy of blood-letting, in part leading to Iraq’s fatal occupation of Kuwait and all that followed. Then there were Israel’s repeated invasions, occupations and bombardments of Lebanon which only devastated that country, leading to the emergence and empowering of Hizbollah.
The point is that it would be wise to call a halt to the escalating rhetoric for an attack on Iran; recognise the real danger posed by Iran to its own people and to its neighbours; stop enabling the Israeli and Iranian game of “chicken” with each other, when the unintended consequences of their continued dance with death will be felt not only by themselves, but by so many others.
The writer is President of the Arab-American Institute.
