Iran's Frightning Agenda

Like Senator John Kerry, I too would have supported the war in Iraq, even without Weapons of Mass Destruction. My entry yesterday shed some light on exactly why I believed our efforts in Iraq were both altruistic and defensive in the War on Islamic Terror. I have also written in the past how I believe the apparent discord in transatlantic alliances between the United States and Europe would have occurred with or without President Bush in office, and that it is mostly a bi-product of new dynamics in a post-Cold War world. I feel it is a fool-hardy policy to believe that changes in Presidential administrations will make the French so elated that they will be ready and willing to send their young men and women to die in Iraq, and send their financial support to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure. I do feel that Senator John Kerry will probably have a much more congenial relationship with European leaders than President Bush, but that is a matter of personalities. What I believe goes unrecognized is the fact that many European leaders also have an electoral obligation to their constituents, and European politico’s have an all-too recent reminder in the Spanish elections of what happens when elected officials step outside of the will of their own public and support the Iraqi people. Clearly, a change of heart can happen on the interpersonal basis of leader to leader between European and American officials, but to convince the vast throngs of uber-progressive populaces (by American standards) is something that I believe is above the ability of any American political leader.

This is all essential for me as a soldier, as I consider what lies on the horizon. As a reservist, I will return to civilian life after this deployment and wait until the next time my nation calls me to service. Perhaps we will be called to serve in Afghanistan, as the unit we replaced is rumored to have been, or perhaps it will be a much more dire situation that looms on the geo-political horizon.

Today, an article by Fareed Zakaria discusses what he refers to as “The Stealth Nuclear Threat.” In referencing Iran, he claims that it will be the next big test for the international community, perhaps a test even larger than was Iraq. Early in the article, Mr. Zakaria makes a statement that ties my earlier argument to what is the great threat just around the corner.

“The trouble is, if he is elected president, Kerry is going to find that promise hard to keep—at least with America's allies in Europe. Most of them would be delighted to see Kerry win, but that doesn't mean they will be more cooperative on policy issues. Terror is understandably on everyone's mind, but there is yet another growing danger over the horizon. Early into a Kerry administration, we could see a familiar sight—a transatlantic crisis—except this time it wouldn't be over Iraq but Iran.”

Discussing the fact that the threats by Saddam Hussein were perceived and based largely on evidence that was a decade old, the evidence of the impending WMD’s in Iran and their willingness to support terrorism is nearly unquestioned by the global community. Even with the frightening scenario looming that nuclear proliferation to rogue states is just around the corner, there is also the debate among the international community of what exactly Israel would do in such a situation. Many speculate that a replay of the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s nuclear program in Osirik would take place. Incidentally, when this happened, even the United States condemned the action. It was one however, that is heralded today and one in which people have retroactively thanked Israel for what was termed a brash and dangerous decision. Today, a decision by Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear program would no doubt bring the same level of criticism and condemnation, perhaps on an even more shrill level. The results however have the potential to be much different this time around with global terrorism more mobilized than ever against the United States and Israel.

Mr. Zakaria adds the following about the impending diplomatic crisis and potential conflict:

“In the face of these stark dangers, Europe seems remarkably passive. Having burst into action last fall, it does not seem to know what to do now that Iran has rebuffed its efforts. It is urging negotiations again, which is fine. But what will it tell Iran in these negotiations? What is the threat that it is willing to wield?”

“Last month the Brookings Institution conducted a scenario with mostly former American and European officials. In it, Iran actually acquires fissile material. Even facing the imminent production of a nuclear bomb, Europeans were unwilling to take any robust measures like the use of force or tough sanctions. James Steinberg, a senior Clinton official who organized this workshop, said that he was "deeply frustrated by European attitudes." Madeleine Albright, who regularly convenes a discussion group of former foreign ministers, said that on this topic, "Europeans say they understand the threat but then act as if the real problem is not Iran but the United States.”

I sincerely hope we are able to avoid what has long seemed to be an unavoidable crisis with Iran. It is essential to the long-term peace of the world that we limit nuclear proliferation in Iran and crucial to the War on Terror that we work with the world to engage Iran and bring an end to the frightful scenarios that unfold in the imagination if the situation continues.

Comments

[Brian H]

The whole European Pax is parasitic. Here's an important analysis. And here's another one, just as valuable.

[Brian H]

Ack. No html links! Here are the text urls:

http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19912,filter./news_detail.asp

[Kathleen A]

Chris - While I do believe that France might ease up just to pretend they are more cooperative with Kerry - in reality - Germany & France didn't help in Iraq because they were getting too much $$$ from the shadow Oil for Food program. Reality is as you say - Europe - who saw rise to Hitler and Mussolini - is STILL not with the foresight to destroy or neutralize a threat BEFORE it becomes imminent. THIS is why I'm glad we went into Iraq without their approval - we don't need their approval and waiting for it is at our own peril.

I found this article yesterday (had to seach for it hard) Allies NOT in formation on Kerry's troop plans and I think it's eye-opening to anyone who THINKS Kerry can change deep-seated attitudes about America and self-defense in Europe. You can not get blood from a stone.

Thanks for another great post.

[Kathleen A]

Sorry - didn't realize html links don't work.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040809/ts_latimes/alliesnotinformationonkerrystroopsplan

[Pat in NC]

Good post. Thanks Kathleen for the links.

[Brian H]

I like the line, "The Great Kerry Illusion". It's not just the Euros who are being encouraged to buy into one; the whole abdication of responsibility appeal he's making to the US is, as the article establishes but doesn't quite come out and say, an illusion and a deception. It may be self-deception before it's public deception, but it's still deception.