A nation whose leaders demonize the United States, one that has strong nuclear and conventional weapons programs, has sponsored international terrorism in the past, and violently suppresses domestic dissent may have been involved in helping the 9/11 hijackers.
No, it’s not Iraq – it’s Iran. According to the 9/11 commission, Iran may have had a closer relationship to al-Qaida than Saddam Hussein ever had. No matter how substantive that relationship is, this revelation may be a harbinger of things to come for U.S. foreign policy.
Indeed, President Bush has already mandated a thorough review of existing intelligence on Iran. Hawks are setting their targets on Iran as the next venue for the war on terror, and those who opposed the war in Iraq are saying that Bush ignored real threats in order to overthrow Hussein. Regardless, both sides seem to agree that future foreign policy disputes point to Iran.
But thanks to the botched handling of both pre-war intelligence and post-war planning in Iraq, the options available to the United States in those disputes will be severely limited.
The winner of the presidential election could face a grave challenge from Iran, and will have to deal with it in a considerably different way than Bush approached the Iraq war. It is unlikely that the American people, or the U.S. military, for that matter, are ready for another pre-emptive war for regime change in Iran.
That may be one of the unfortunate consequences of the Iraq war – the forfeiture of a tough, forceful position regarding Iran and other Middle East nations that pose more of a threat to the United States than Iraq ever did.
Contrary to popular assertions, Iran is not on the verge of another revolution, but neither is it interested in causing widespread chaos in the region. The mullahs have effectively consolidated their power, and would like nothing better than to further cement that power by fomenting popular anti-U.S. sentiment in the event of a military intervention, declaring that such an invasion is a U.S. plot to keep Iran weak.
The Council on Foreign Relations has already issued a statement advising a “compartmentalized process of dialogue, confidence building, and incremental engagement” with Tehran on issues in which Iranian and U.S. interests merge, such as Iraq and nuclear weapons.
The U.S. can’t afford to continue isolating Iran. As the CFR said, “Iran’s isolation only impedes its people’s ongoing struggle for a more democratic government and strengthens the hand of hard-liners who preach confrontation with the rest of the world.”
Clearly, trouble looms. Engagement, at this point, is a better option than saber-rattling.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
