One false flinch and there goes
There's noth’n “hollow” about President
August 30, 2005
Fareed Zakaria has held himself out as an expert on Iran.
I rise to point out some of the factually and logically flawed
espoused by Zakaria in his op-ed piece of August 16, 2005. His
basic premise is that President George W. Bush’s tough remarks
against Iran on the nuclear question are nothing but “hollow
agree that war is not the answer, but it is this writer’s
opinion that the “solutions” he forwards will inevitably
lead to armed confrontation. I challenge Zakaria to point to analogous
examples of where his thesis has come to fruition. Neither can
wishful thinking nor his anecdotal guess-work make it come true.
It's nice that Zakaria and his friends “find
[themselves] siding with the mullahs” on the issue
of nuclear development in Iran. However, “the mullahs” as
he puts it are not arguing that their plan is to make nuclear weapons
to have a “nuclear option.” Iran has
steadfastly and studiously maintained the position that the nuclear
program is for energy only.
Iran indeed has an energy crisis. This is Iran’s most compelling
and legitimate argument for having nuclear energy. Iran has to
actually import gasoline to meet its daily needs. Iran justifies
its need for Nuclear Power by, inter alai, truthfully pointing
to a 7.5 million-gallon per day, gasoline deficit. This is in large
part brought on by the destruction of its refineries and petroleum
infrastructure by Saddam Hussein during the bloody Iran-Iraq war.
Therein lies both the problem and the solution.
To call President Bush’s statements “hollow
threats” is, frankly, irresponsible and a dangerous way of
thinking. I suppose Zakaria can afford to guess wrong since
he is neither Iranian nor has family in the cross-hairs of a “preemptive
strike.” I wonder if he has forgotten that the President
is from Texas and regularly dresses in cowboy hats and boots?
If nothing else, Bush has demonstrated that once he takes on
a belief, he is “true” to his word and follows the
path of his neo-con advisors like a salmon swimming to spawn up
an ideological stream.
The Neo-Con “manifesto” is clearly already manifesting
itself. The theory, as it were, is that the U.S. must exploit the
power vacuum and the fact that it is THE sole global super-power.
Coincidentally, the U.S. now has two beautiful staging grounds
(bases) which happen to surround Iran from two sides (Iraq and
Afghanistan). Simultaneously, both sides are starting to ramp-up
What’s more, Iran’s recently elected President Ahmadinejad
(and new hard-line cabinet) have made it a much more appetizing
for attack than the smiling, innocuous face of Khatemi and his
(failed) “reform” platform. The figurative handwriting
is on the wall. Failing to take decisive and swift action here
and now is to invite a war so bloody that it will turn the stomach
of all of humanity.
Iran is a young nation, which still yearns for peace and reforms.
Actually, a similar comparison to Iran may be the events that took
place in Serbia during the Clinton Administration. I
will veture my own guess that labeling Iran a nuclear "power" would
be more of a liability than an asset. After all, Iran would
then be the global equivalent of the Brazilian with a backpack
in the London subway. One false flinch and there
goes Isfahan. An out of place sneaze, and so long Qazvin.
You get the picture.
The most realistic solution is to efficiently take out the justification
for nuclear energy by multi-laterally sending aid to build up Iran’s
oil refineries and infrastructure to their full capacity. At the
same time this would be leaps and bounds cheaper in terms of dollars
and less costly in terms of innocent human lives than (inevitably)
going to war after vacuous “negotiations.” Who knows,
this solution might also end up paying for itself by increasing
the supply of oil and therefore, a reduction of the price we are
all having to pay at the pump.
Afshin P. Pishevar, Esq.
Law Offices of A.P. Pishevar & Associates,
Rockville, Maryland. See PishevarLegal.com.