- The alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador
to the United States raises more questions than can be answered readily.
The first question is: Why? The second is: In aid of what Iranian objective?
The third is: Why did this plot emerge only as the result of a scam? The
fourth is: Who benefits from it? And the fifth is: Why is this happening
now? So far we cannot find answers to any of these questions in the charges
being pressed by American or other officials. Just what is there to work
with?
-
- Why? One can concoct an answer to this question, but
the problem is supporting it with evidence. To be sure, the Iranians and
the Saudis are arch rivals in the Persian Gulf. However, neither has threatened
to invade the other, and both have been careful to avoid provocative behavior.
No new Saudi posture has emerged to alter this standoff. No new regional
situation has arisen that could be classed as a cause for the Iranians
to become more uncomfortable with the profile of US/Israeli threats against
them than has been the enduring case for years. If anything, the Iranian
leadership has been very careful not to be openly provocative, while, to
be sure, doing everything it can to protect itself from the blatant pattern
of US/ Israeli threats. But those moves have been inward and self- protective,
not aggressive. There simply is no rational answer to the Why question.
-
- Possible answers to the second question (in aid of what?)
are equally sterile. To be sure, Iran is the center of Shia Islam. It
has been so for centuries, and that has placed it at odds with the principal
defender of Sunni Islam, Saudi Arabia. Even that contention is not on Islamic
fundamentals (the five duties of all Muslims) that are shared alike by
Shia and Sunni. Iran is accused of Shia interventions in Iraq
on the side of Iraq's Shia majority of around 65%, and Shia-Sunni contention
has seen some extreme violent incidents, but that contention, as elsewhere
in the so-called Shia crescent (basically from Iran to Lebanon), at least
so far has not resulted in heavy on the ground Saudi/Iranian conflict.
Iranian assassination of the Saudi Ambassador, any Saudi official for
that matter, would greatly escalate tensions between the two, but there
is nothing in such an escalation for either the Iranians or the Saudis.
Doing the deed in Washington would not enhance the utility of such a crime;
it would merely enhance the risks to perpetrators, whoever they might be.
-
- The third question flows automatically from the repetitive
pattern of US "discovery" of "plots" against the United
States. At least the last three "threats" have been products
of scams run by US authorities. That includes the present alleged plot,
the airplane (underwear) bomber and the FBI sting involving threatened
attacks on synagogues in New York, all of which involved US scams which,
at critical moments in the threat design, could be exposed as a planned
attack on the US. The central assumption of the US threat model in these
cases is that people who have been deliberately cultivated and equipped
by US authorities to do the US bodily harm may indeed do that, if allowed
to continue. However, that makes the possible denouement in these cases
a contrived self-inflicted wound. Any real or remotely calculated threat,
if such exists, remains unexposed. It would be most reassuring to Americans
to know that our authorities are also fully capable of discovering and
thwarting plots they have not themselves contrived.
-
- The fourth question-who would benefit and how-takes careful
thought. For years the US and Israel have maintained an open and active
hostility toward Iran. The remarkable feature of the past decade or more
is that continued US/Israeli moves have not provoked Iran into a counter
attack. It is evident, however, that Iran has been arming itself for the
worst, properly concerned that at some point the Israeli/US confrontation
could go militarily violent. The US presence in Iraq puts the reminder
of that prospect close by, and no doubt Iran does what it can to protect
itself via spying and related covert activities in Iraq. In the circumstances,
who would not do that?
-
- In that context, even though Iran continues to assert
that its interests in developing nuclear capabilities are peaceful, the
pattern of US/Israeli provocations would make Iranian achievement of a
nuclear weapon a quite rational goal. In the meantime, Iran has to consider
the possibility-pretty openly discussed in the appraisals by western pundits-that
any proven Iran attacks on the US or Israel could yield literal destruction
of the country. Israel has been practically aching to bomb Iran, and any
serious Iranian attack could bring it on, whether or not any Israeli action
would be US supported. By widespread calculation, such an attack would
bring about regional conflagration. There is, in short, anything but possible
benefit from any proven Iranian attack.
-
- So why-the fifth question-is this happening now? For
one thing, the war on terrorism is running down. Reports of the past
few days indicate that the US does not intend to remain in Iraq. That
would reduce the apparent and sustained US military threat against Iran,
and as neo-conservative paranoia would have it, Iran would be freer to
make trouble. Therefore, excuses for tightening surveillance of Iran have
to be invented. The downside of those gestures, of course, is that Iran,
constantly under threat, will go on seeking better ways to assure it can
defend itself. If it remains under both military threats and sanctions,
more conservative elements in Iranian leadership will be pushed toward
achievement of nuclear weapons.
-
- On balance, the US/Israeli strategy, with or without
support from Sunni governments, is perversely self-defeating. Under continuing
military threat and confronted by economically painful sanctions, Iran
can well decide it has had enough. The reasonable prospect is that continued
efforts to deal with Iran in a virtually unequalled pattern of external
repression will heighten Iranian will to protect itself. The action principles
become obvious to all: If we want a well-armed and defensive country posing
some threat to the region and to us, keep pressing. If we want a
cooperative and peaceful Iran, back off.
-
- **********
-
- The writer is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer.
He has extensive experience in Middle Eastern, South Asian and Latin American
affairs. His pre-retirement assignments included Consul General in Sao
Paulo, Brazil, Chairman of the Department of International Studies at the
National War College, and Deputy Director of Counterterrorism and Emergency
Management in the State Depart. He will welcome comments at wecanstopit@charter.net
|
