Home >> United States & Canada >> Foreign Policy & Military

     Email   Print 

The Issues with Iran Were Not Caused by the Iraq War

Ross G. Kaminsky - 3/12/2005

Some have argued that the Iraq War has not been worth its long term strategic cost because of our current difficult and dangerous situation with Iran and with remaining Islamist terrorist organizations. In his recent piece, David Storobin of the Global Politician, argued that (1) Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are very dangerous, and maybe increasingly so; (2) Iran is not negotiating in good faith about their nuclear program and fully intend to develop a nuclear weapon; (3) For several reasons, Iran wants to destroy Israel; (4)"Iran is everything anyone ever said about Iraq and more"; (5)"US troops are stuck in Iraq." While the above facts may be accurate, they can hardly be attributed to the war in Iraq. Other than the US troops being "stuck" in Iraq, each of these facts would be at least as true had we not taken down Saddam.

The Hezbollah issue is exceptionally dynamic given the flux in Lebanon. Much will depend on whether Hezbollah chooses to side with Syria or with their "host" country. At first glance, they appear to be siding with Syria, but they'll change in a heartbeat if it will maximize their power. It's conceivable that Syria will be under so much pressure from other Arab countries, as well as the US, that they might abandon Hezbollah. While may be impossible to predict with great confidence how that might change Hezbollah's behavior, it is likely that they will be less inclined towards violence without a state sponsor. The same goes, but to a lesser extent, for Islamic Jihad since their state sponsorship is less obvious and less subject to US pressure at this time. In both cases, it is probably that our actions in Iraq make us safer with respect to groups of this type.

On the other hand, I do agree that terrorists getting a nuclear weapon from Iran is a frightening thought, but not one which has become more likely due to the war. It is only because Iran has seen that we can occasionally be more than a paper tiger that they are even pretending to negotiate. Had we not gone to war, Iran would likely be moving ahead much more secretly and rapidly with nuclear weapon development. I predict that we will see Europeans cautiously bringing out "sticks" to deal with Iran despite their usual predilection for doing whatever they think will annoy us most.

Although Iran probably understands that the United States' military options are limited at this time due to both by military and diplomatic constraints, it also understands that there is a limit beyond which the US will ignore those restraining considerations. One of these limits would be proof that they had transferred a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group. Israel will likely have a much quicker trigger finger than Washington, another thing which can not be lost on Iran and which is not substantially affected by the war.

Among the by-products of the war may have been removing some of the American restraint of Israel. More than elsewhere in the world, Middle Easterners respect fear and respond to power...and nothing else. The fact that Washington demonstrated power and allowed Israel use theirs is a clear positive by-product of the war. Iran's desire to destroy Israel is no more enhanced than is its realization that Israel and the US are more determined than ever to stop it.

The combination of the death of Arafat (the father of modern terrorism) and the war in Iraq also increases the chance of a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. If this happens it will be a strong stabilizing force in the Middle East and it will be due at least in part to having gone into Iraq. That said, a quick or easy resolution to the Israel/Palestinian issue cannot be predicted in no small part because a large faction of the Palestinians do not want a solution. They still print maps which do not show Israel. These people will be swept away in the tide of history, swept away by their own people who realize that such ideology keeps Palestinians poor and in constant danger, but it will probably take time.

But coming back to Iran: Gary Sick, currently of Columbia University and long-time member of the National Security Council, recently argued that American intelligence often simply assumed the worst about other countries such as Iran (and as they did with Iraq). While the worst might be true and while we must be prepared for the worst, we must also consider in our dealings with Iran that our intelligence could be wrong.

It could be a very dangerous, but clever ploy by the Iranians to sound as if they're proceeding down the nuclear path while not actually doing so. A little imagination could think of interesting reasons to play this very high stakes game. This is highly unlikely, but surely possible.

It is probably true that "Iran is everything anyone ever said about Iraq and more", as was noted by David Storobin. The key for Washington is to keep the Iranians (and even the Europeans) unsure about how the White House will react. While it is usually advisable to keep your policies predictable, this is a complicated matter and requires a different type of "strategery." Bush engaged in excellent strategery when he answered reporters: "Suggestions that we are about to attack Iran are ridiculous.....But no options are off the table." It might have sounded like a Bush-ism, but was almost definitely a well-calculated tactic in the ongoing mind game with the Mullahs.

In summary:

· Terrorist groups are losing state sponsorship to a significant degree which means losing weapons, protection, and especially financing.

· The regional powers and players finally have respect for American willingness to use power, as well as allowing Israel use theirs if necessary.

· Iran is very dangerous and complicated, but no more so than before the war. Even the Europeans are now getting more interested in stick and carrot, rather than just the fine vegetable plate they usually serve.

· US troops are temporarily stuck in Iraq in fairly large numbers, but will soon be stuck in Iraq in numbers too small to cause Washington's military options to be limited. Furthermore, having troops "stuck" there has serious strategic advantages in America's ability to project power, both in terms of rapidity, familiarity with terrain, and with the subtle, but unmistakable force of the world simply knowing we're there.