For a very long time, many western politicians and pundits have claimed that "solving" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the key to peace, stability, and constructive development in the Middle East. When former Prime Minister Tony Blair accepted his new position as Middle East Peace Envoy of the "Quartet," the United States, Russia, the European Unon, and the United Nations, he told Parliament, "The absolute priority is to try to give effect to what is now the consensus across the international community - that the only way of bringing stability and peace to the Middle East is a two-state solution."
A different opinion has been expressed by Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies of the Council of Foreign Relations and Vali R. Nasr, Professor of International Politics at Tufts University in their article, "The Costs of Containing Iran: Washington's Misguided New Middle East Policy" published in Foreign Affairs, January-February, 2008.
Both men are important authorities on Iran. Both are fluent in its language. I agree with them that the political center of gravity of the Middle East is no longer in Israel-Palestine-Lebanon but in the Persian Gulf. Where I disagree somewhat is in their judgment that, "Iran is not, despite common depictions, a messianic power determined to overturn the regional order in the name of Islamic militancy; it is an unexceptionally opportunistic state seeking to assert predominance in its immediate neighborhood." They may be correct, but nevertheless there is a dangerous messianic-apocalyptic trend among some senior Iranian leaders. The jury is out on who will ultimately prevail, but if the messianic-apocalyptic tendency carries the day in an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, the world will be a much more dangerous place than it is today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
To comment on this post and a previous post depicting the different inclinations of the secular and religious authority in Iran, I glean ideas from three WSJ articles. “Mr. President, Don’t Forget Iran,” by Christopher Hitches, Oxford schooled atheist of God is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything, “The Long Arm of Iran,” by Dan Senor and “The Perils of Engagement,” by Jeff Robbins.
Hitchens takes a more rosy view of the Iranian dichotomy than most, urging the President to recognize the power of the Persian people to change the views of those at the top. Gleaning authority from a recent visit, he states, “Iran can boast quite an impressive ‘civil society’ movement, which would like both to replace the current ramshackle theocracy and to adopt better and closer relations with the US.” He then asks the President to take hold of a possible devastating earthquake as a strategic time to help key Iranian buildings and cities. This act will flood them with good will. This action, mixed with engagement of the liberation longing Shiites, will eventually yield strong diplomatic results.
Dan holds the view that the few on top are most dangerous because they can be directly traced to terrorist acts throughout the world. They have a sleeper cell networks everywhere, and the willingness to punish those who have upset the government, ex. Buenos Aires 1992 and 1994. He posits that even the claim of nuclear capability will escalate terrorist proxies. This is the opposite the pro-deterence argument of Stephen Biddle of the Council of Foreign Relations.
To further the argument, Robbins states that engagement falls on deaf ears. The Arab bloc/Palestinian people rejected the UN’s 1947 partition of Palestine into two states. He also points to the “Three No’s” of the Arab conference in Khartoum in 1967: “no peace with Israel, no negotiation with Israel and no recognition of Israel.” When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, they only intensified missile-launching campaigns. They obviously do not want to engage.
I agree with both camps, though half-heartedly with the British populist. His suggested engagement will indeed be valuable, and even if it doesn’t work, will yield the country great contacts/intel. It’s an ironic situation to simultaneously rescue a country while training an army for possible war with it. Hitchen’s atheism is clearly leading him to discredit the longer/lasting power of religion, compared to easily forgotten public opinion. Meanwhile, the messianic-apocalyptic nature of those figures in power, are still an unquantifiable danger and should remain priority #1. Perhaps they will tire each other out. Perhaps they need a different problem to focus on, like global warming.
jfong's concluding comment "the messianic-apocalyptic nature of those figures in power, are still an unquantifiable danger and should remain priority #1" sums up the most crucial puzzle facing the West (and Israel) concerning Iran. Nobody knows how far the messianic-apocalyptic group is willing to go. Unfortunately, I don't see much hope that Iran's leadership will switch to focusing on a "different problem" such as global warming. They derive too great a pay-off in terms of influence in the "Arab street" from their extreme hostility toward Israel. They also enlist the sympathy of the "Arab street" against their own governments as the "true" defender of Islam since the Arab governments are less afraid of Israel than they are of Iran. It allows the predominantly Shi'ite Iranian government to outflank the Sunni-majority Arab governments.
Post a Comment