- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
November 3, 2009
Nobel Irony
Iran’s rejection this week of a reported deal for the transfer of its enriched uranium to Russia is just another in a long line of maneuvers Iran has deployed for years to keep it on track towards its goal of possessing nuclear weapons. Much has been written about the recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama. Yet, the most ironic aspect of this grant has been overlooked: the person who will be singularly responsible for allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and thus, by extension, for all resulting destructive consequences, has been heralded as the most important current contributor to world peace.
The simple truth has always been and continues to be that, absent a full regime change in Iran, only the use of force stands a chance of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. At this point, Iran simply has no incentive to stop its march towards such weapons as its prospective leverage far outweighs anything it could obtain today by forfeiting such an effort.
Further, regime change must be severe and complete for any meaningful change to come about. Even if the recent Iranian presidential election had been awarded to opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, as long as Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his power structure remain in place, so would the nuclear weapons effort. The fantasy that severe sanctions upon Iran will change this nuclear priority is as unrealistic as the similar notion that countries such as Russia and China, among others, will ultimately assist some international effort to interfere with Iran’s nuclear progress. Only force now has the chance of success.
Negotiations have historically led nowhere. They are merely a tool to stall and to keep wishful thinking Westerners at bay soaking themselves in the hope that Iran places both peace and integration into the “world community” (whatever that truly means) above nuclear weapons and always will act, despite appearances to the contrary, “reasonably” in the ways Westerners use the word. Neither is the case.
President George W. Bush seemed to understand this but too much stood in his way. Stigmatized as the “war-monger,” Bush had a difficult time standing alone. Rather, all of the nation’s “anti-war” leanings were absorbed by powerful opposition figures and institutions. Accordingly, Congress, the State Department, the CIA, to name just a few, all pressured to avoid any application of force against Iran. Of course, the Iraq war, right or wrong, provided a convenient excuse to place doubts on our ability to successfully execute an application of force against Iran’s nuclear assets. But even the war can not explain the intentional manipulation of public perception generated by the National Intelligence Estimates, State Department pronouncements, efforts to stop real progress towards promoting regime change within Iran, efforts to handcuff Israel’s own actions, as well as rantings by powerful members of Congress, all of which essentially castrated Bush’s ability to generate any political will to confront Iran.
The liberal media was also a major enabler of the dismantling of our national will to insure that the Islamic Middle East does not acquire nuclear weapons. From magnifying and attacking Bush’s “axis of evil” designation to the continued repetition of unsubstantiated “facts” that Iran is harmless and always five to 10 years away from acquiring nuclear weapons capability (much less weaponization), the media effectively stripped the public of any inclination to fear and, hence, to confront Iran.
Enter our new Nobel Laureate. Obama masterfully magnified this comfort level and exploited public fears of being perceived as too “war-mongery.” He was able to become the Democrat nominee primarily on the simple notion that he (unlike then Sen. Hilary Clinton) had voted against the Iraq war. He won the election primarily by trumpeting anti-Bush, anti-war policies (and by creating the impression that he would be better able to handle our economic woes than the then apparently frazzled John McCain).
Obama’s weapon was the notion of “engagement.” This word single-handedly perked up the world’s ears by fortifying the fantasy that Iran could be stopped. Obama sold the dream that the proper application of “smart” and ‘soft” power will cause Iran to voluntarily cease its nuclear program. And who better to apply such tools than the charismatic one himself.
As president, however, Obama now singularly takes on and stands for all of the nation’s anti-force inclinations. He is the one to decide whether to attack Iran, whether to stimulate or assist regime change, whether to hamstring or free Israel to apply its own force, whether to stand up to Iran’s at least semi-allies and so forth. He is the one who must make the critical assessment as to how much time is left before Iran has reached the point of no return. And he is the one necessary to rally the public to support any such effort.
And this is precisely one of the critical meanings of “Change” that Obama craftily sold – that all of the national “anti-war” leanings are no longer powerlessly strewn across the nation’s institutions but are now consolidated within one man who can insure they are fulfilled.
Yet, as with any mass “cult-like” fantasy, responsibility also lies with the leader. Accordingly, while Obama may experiment with “engagement” and “productive” diplomatic maneuvers, he inherits full responsibility for the results. Should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, the Arab Middle East will face a new order as many countries race to obtain equal status. The current nuclear non-proliferation regime as we know it will end. Iran’s leverage over any of its neighbors catapults it to the region’s quasi super-power truly able to extract concessions previously unimaginable. Similarly, empowering Iran will profoundly aggravate and transform Sunni-Shia struggles.
Armed with nuclear weapons, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats to destroy Israel take on a greater likelihood with all associated horrors. Should Israel be forced to act militarily and alone, Iran’s threatened retaliation could be extreme, suggesting mass deaths, widespread destruction and crippling oil prices worldwide.
Ahmadinejad’s label for America as an “empire of the past” also foretells what is in store. As Arab countries realize that America is no longer a protective force in the region, relations will become more fragile, significantly impairing American interests in the region.
Iran, as a religiously ruled country whose leaders value world chaos as a condition precedent to the fulfillment of their particular religious aspirations, is not ripe for nuclear deterrence. (It is irrelevant that much of the country is considered to lack this same religious fervor as long as those with the strings of power do). None of America’s experience with Cold War mutually assured destruction techniques apply when dealing with such a fundamentalist regime. And, to the extent Iran can be partially deterred, it would come at extreme costs.
Whether made intentionally or by default from either inaction, poor calculation, or inept negotiation, the decision to allow a nuclear Iran in lieu of forcibly acting to insure it does not occur will turn out to be, perhaps, the most devastating one for the 21st century.
It is, of course, possible that events could change on their own; Ayatollah Khamenei could die giving rise to a meaningful change which results in a brand new approach to Iranian relations with the world and to their nuclear program. Such would have nothing to do with Obama. It is also theoretically possible Obama’s charm could succeed. Such achievement would certainly deserve high accolades if not serious consideration for the prize – after the fact. It is also possible that Obama may ultimately utilize force against Iran. Perhaps, if successful, he would be worthy of the prize. Yet, if the prize is to reward peace obtained through strength, Ronald Reagan and even George W. Bush have been astonishingly overlooked.
In every other case, a nuclear Iran means a world repositioned substantially further from any imaginable notion of peace and on a pathway to horrific ruin. It means a severe shift in the current world order toward even less stability and greater flammability. It is ironic that the previously most prestigious prize for peace should be offered to a man who might be singularly responsible for a world pitched for monumental destruction.
Bill Siegel is a contributing editor to FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
