- Iran has never manifested itself as a serious threat
to the national security of the United States, or by extension as a security
threat to global security. At the height of Iran's "exportation of
the Islamic Revolution" phase, in the mid-1980's, the Islamic Republic
demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond
the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited
to war-torn Lebanon.
-
- Iranian military capability reached its modern peak in
the late 1970's, during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. The combined effects
of institutional distrust on the part of the theocrats who currently govern
the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the conventional military institutions,
leading as it did to the decay of the military through inadequate funding
and the creation of a competing paramilitary organization, the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC), and the disastrous impact of an eight-year
conflict with Iraq, meant that Iran has never been able to build up conventional
military power capable of significant regional power projection, let alone
global power projection.
-
- Where Iran has demonstrated the ability for global reach
is in the spread of Shi'a Islamic fundamentalism, but even in this case
the results have been mixed. Other than the expansive relations between
Iran (via certain elements of the IRGC) and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon,
Iranian success stories when it comes to exporting the Islamic revolution
are virtually non-existent. Indeed, the efforts on the part of the IRGC
to export Islamic revolution abroad, especially into Europe and other western
nations, have produced the opposite effect desired. Based upon observations
made by former and current IRGC officers, it appears that those operatives
chosen to spread the revolution in fact more often than not returned to
Iran noting that peaceful coexistence with the West was not only possible
but preferable to the exportation of Islamic fundamentalism. Many of these
IRGC officers began to push for moderation of the part of the ruling theocrats
in Iran, both in terms of interfacing with the west and domestic policies.
-
- The concept of an inherent incompatibility between Iran,
even when governed by a theocratic ruling class, and the United States
is fundamentally flawed, especially from the perspective of Iran. The Iran
of today seeks to integrate itself responsibly with the nations of the
world, clumsily so in some instances, but in any case a far cry from the
crude attempts to export Islamic revolution in the early 1980's. The United
States claims that Iran is a real and present danger to the security of
the US and the entire world, and cites Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear
technology, Iran's continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran's "status"
as a state supporter of terror, and Iranian interference into the internal
affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan as the prime examples of how this threat
manifests itself.
-
- On every point, the case made against Iran collapses
upon closer scrutiny. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated
to investigate Iran's nuclear programs, has concluded that there is no
evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore,
the IAEA has concluded that it is capable of monitoring the Iranian nuclear
program to ensure that it does not deviate from the permitted nuclear energy
program Iran states to be the exclusive objective of its endeavors. Iran's
support of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon - Iranian protestors shown here
supporting Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during an anti-Israel
rally - while a source of concern for the State of Israel, does not constitute
a threat to American national security primarily because the support provided
is primarily defensive in nature, designed to assist Hezbollah in deterring
and repelling an Israeli assault of sovereign Lebanese territory. Similarly,
the bulk of the data used by the United States to substantiate the claims
that Iran is a state sponsor of terror is derived from the aforementioned
support provided to Hezbollah. Other arguments presented are either grossly
out of date (going back to the early 1980's when Iran was in fact exporting
Islamic fundamentalism) or unsubstantiated by fact.
-
- The US claims concerning Iranian interference in both
Iraq and Afghanistan ignore the reality that both nations border Iran,
both nations were invaded and occupied by the United States, not Iran,
and that Iran has a history of conflict with both nations that dictates
a keen interest concerning the internal domestic affairs of both nations.
The United States continues to exaggerate the nature of Iranian involvement
in Iraq, arresting "intelligence operatives" who later turned
out to be economic and diplomatic officials invited to Iraq by the Iraqi
government itself. Most if not all the claims made by the United States
concerning Iranian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have not
been backed up with anything stronger than rhetoric, and more often than
not are subsequently contradicted by other military and governmental officials,
citing a lack of specific evidence.
-
- Iran as a nation represents absolutely no threat to the
national security of the United States, or of its major allies in the region,
including Israel. The media hype concerning alleged statements made by
Iran's President Ahmadinejad has created and sustained the myth that Iran
seeks the destruction of the State of Israel. Two points of fact directly
contradict this myth. First and foremost, Ahmadinejad never articulated
an Iranian policy objective to destroy Israel, rather noting that Israel's
policies would lead to its "vanishing from the pages of time."
Second, and perhaps most important, Ahmadinejad does not make foreign policy
decisions on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the sole
purview of the "Supreme Leader," the Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2003
Khomeini initiated a diplomatic outreach to the United States inclusive
of an offer to recognize Israel's right to exist. This initiative was rejected
by the United States, but nevertheless represents the clearest indication
of what the true policy objective of Iran is vis-à-vis Israel.
-
- The fact of the matter is that the "Iranian Threat"
is derived solely from the rhetoric of those who appear to seek confrontation
between the United States and Iran, and largely divorced from fact-based
reality. A recent request on the part of Iran to allow President Ahmadinejad
to lay a wreath at "ground zero" in Manhattan was rejected by
New York City officials. The resulting public outcry condemned the Iranian
initiative as an affront to all Americans, citing Iran's alleged policies
of supporting terrorism. This knee-jerk reaction ignores the reality that
Iran was violently opposed to al-Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan throughout
the 1990's leading up to 2001, and that Iran was one of the first Muslim
nations to condemn the terror attacks against the United States on September
11, 2001.
-
- A careful fact-based assessment of Iran clearly demonstrates
that it poses no threat to the legitimate national security interests of
the United States. However, if the United States chooses to implement its
own unilateral national security objectives concerning regime change in
Iran, there will most likely be a reaction from Iran which produces an
exceedingly detrimental impact on the national security interests of the
United States, including military, political and economic. But the notion
of claiming a nation like Iran to constitute a security threat simply because
it retains the intent and capability to defend its sovereign territory
in the face of unprovoked military aggression is absurd. In the end, however,
such absurdity is trumping fact-based reality when it comes to shaping
the opinion of the American public on the issue of the Iranian "threat."
-
- Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer
from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991
to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including "Iraq Confidential"
(Nation Books, 2005) , "Target Iran" (Nation Books, 2006) and
his latest, "Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement"
(Nation Books, April 2007).
-
|