OPINION
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
How to Avoid War
06-Dec-2011
Calls are rising in the West for tougher actions against Iran, especially after a mob attack on the British Embassy in Tehran, Iranian plans to kill a Saudi envoy in Washington, and the latest report on the country’s nuclear program.
Some Israeli leaders are again beating the war drums for an attack to prevent Iran from making atomic weapons. The US Congress wants to cripple Iran’s economy by punishing any country that does business with its central bank.
But there is another option, one far short of war or economic strangulation that could trigger war. It is based on the same strategy used by the West to bring down the Soviet Union, that is, to simply contain and constrain the regime until the flawed idea that is the very basis for its existence results in its own demise.
In the case of the Soviet Union (and precapitalist Maoist China), communism collapsed because of a fundamental delusion. Prosperity, it turns out, is not based on manual labor, as Marx supposed, or on material things. Rather, as the West long knew, real wealth is created from new ideas and the willingness of individuals to invest in creative visions, such as a better Web search engine or innovative concepts in solar energy. By the 1980s, the Soviet economy had become too weak to sustain a militaristic empire.
Iran’s regime, too, is based on flawed ideas and internal contradictions that are slowly undermining its authority.
Sharia law, for example, was never meant for constitutional order. Religious rule cannot be substituted for a freely elected government. Cultural purity cannot be imposed from above by unelected Muslim clerics. Anti-Semitism (or prejudicial hate) is no basis for a nation’s identity. And the original idea of jihadism does not justify the killing of innocent people through terrorist violence.
As recent infighting between Iranian factions shows, the Islamic Republic of Iran is steadily eroding because of its erroneous origins. Power grabs by followers of the two main rivals – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (“guardian of the revolution”) – are fraying the regime, which has already lost legitimacy with its people. The Arab Spring with its trumpeting of democratic ideals has also ruined Iran as a model of Islamism among Muslims. Iran’s sole Arab ally, Syria, is in civil war.
In 2009, three decades after Islamists took power in Tehran, the Iranian people were revolting on the streets. They knew the delusion was over. While the rulers crushed the Green Movement, the rot within the regime only continues.
RELATED: Iran sanctions 101
President Obama and other leaders in the West can hasten this slow demise with patient but firm containment strategy, to use the words of American diplomat George Kennan, who set forth the strategy against the Soviet Union. They must make stronger demands for transparency and inspection of Iranian nuclear facilities, thereby forcing the regime to come clean on its ambitions. They can use covert means, such as the Stuxnet computer worm, to delay its nuclear program.
Military attacks on Iran or extreme sanctions would only reinforce the regime. Still, “smart” sanctions that hurt the economy in a way that would further cause Iranians to blame their own leaders may work. Corruption and inflation have already made a start.
This sort of patient vigilance can prevent war and perhaps initiate the downfall of a regime that is built on the sands of empty ideas.
Editorial published in Christian Science Monitor.
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Love of Liberty: That was
by vildemose on Sat Dec 10, 2011 06:24 AM PSTLove of Liberty: That was a good article. Thanks for posting. But going to war with IRI is also not an option. Oil embargo is the only way this regime will collapse because it can no longer bribe its constituents with cash from oil revenues.
Separation of Church and State AND Corporation
General response
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Dec 07, 2011 07:09 AM PSTI don't like war and am not for it. But I will not accept anyone telling me what majority Iranians want without proof. Above 90% of Iranians live in Iran and are beyond reach of any survey. Therefore no way to know what they want.
Regarding war it all depends on how it is conducted and what the other option is. I bet the Kurds in Iraq were in favor of war against Saddam. I bet the Kuwaiti citizens favored invasion of Kuwait to kick of Saddam. I bet French were in favor of war to kick out Germans. Many other instances are available where people favored war. Regarding Iran: I don't know what people want. But I know that I don't know. So I don't make any claims other than my personal thought.
Besides sometimes people don't have information due to propaganda. For example Americans were told about WMD in Iraq. Now about nuclear in Iran except no one believes it. My point is people are routinely manipulated; their opinion is no always reality. Thanks to all the lies by all sides people are harder to manipulate now. That is good. I hope more people decide for themselves and stop believing media.
The discussion is between "war" and "avoiding war".
by Esfand Aashena on Wed Dec 07, 2011 06:48 AM PSTIf you've concluded that war with Iran is the "only way" then there you will dismiss all other arguments.
If you've concluded that war is not the "only way" then you seek other options to "avoid war".
If you do not live in Iran and advocating war you are only after your own self interest.
If you LIVE in Iran and advocating war AND don't plan to flee Iran once the war starts, then I'd like to hear from you.
Bottom line vast majority of Iranians do NOT want a war. Humans in general don't know the pain unless they suffer it themselves and that is a shame and so shallow.
Everything is sacred
Love of Liberty
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Dec 07, 2011 06:44 AM PSTThus, I think a better question to ponder is whether or not the West-and not just the US-will be able to continue to (somewhat) peacefully coexist with the regime in Iran for a period of time long enough for so-called "containment" to work...at least similar to the way the Cold War played out.
Yes they will because IRI is no threat to West at all. The victims really are Iranians. Better to ask is if Iranian people will be able to live with IRI much more. It is destroying people and sending them running to four corners of the world.
Biggest nation with brain drain why? Not because IRI is the most repressive but that Iranians don't want its ***. After seeing their relatives in the West they don't want it. After years of social freedom before IRI people don't want repression.
Worry about Iranians not this BS. IRI is no threat to anyone but its own people. West is so misguided of plain out lying to say anything different. Forget the nuclear worry about the social impact. Thanks to that SOB Carter and his idiot Brzezinski.
Containment assumes coexistence
by LoverOfLiberty on Tue Dec 06, 2011 03:50 PM PST
Thus, I think a better question to ponder is whether or not the West-and not just the US-will be able to continue to (somewhat) peacefully coexist with the regime in Iran for a period of time long enough for so-called "containment" to work...at least similar to the way the Cold War played out.And, just like the following historian concludes, I also "don’t see how we can coexist with (the Iranian regime) peacefully much longer."
"Will Power Make Them Nice?"Maybe this is a sign of my entire unfitness to write about foreign policy, but it’s not easy for me to see why a nuclear Iran would be less pushy and demanding than what we have now. If the mullocracy is arming terrorists, interfering with neighbors, inflaming the Middle East and making intercontinental nuclear deals with the bad guys when Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons, what makes us think that becoming less vulnerable to American countermeasures would make the Iranians settle down into responsible world citizens? If they blow off our threats and respond with contempt to our overtures when they are weak, why would they treat us with more respect as a nuclear power? Won’t getting nuclear weapons over our objections prove internally that the radicals were right while the moderates were vacillating, cowardly and wrong? And if we are unwilling to stand up to them effectively when they don’t have nuclear weapons, who on Planet Earth will think we will rediscover our backbones when they do?
Those who think we can reach a ‘grand bargain’ with Iran that would either stop the nuclear program or enable us to coexist peacefully with a nuclear Iran are, I fear, making the same failure that the 1930s and 1940s peace campaigners made about the Nazi and Soviet regimes. They are confusing the legitimacy of the grievances that helped the Iranian regime seize power with the aims of the regime once in place. This regime is, I fear, a tiger not a kitten. Concessions and consideration don’t make it more moderate; they tell it that you fear it, tell it that its tactics of pressure and threats work, and encourage it to raise its demands.
Now fortunately the Iranian regime doesn’t command a great power the way the Nazis had Germany and Stalin had the Soviet Union. But Iran’s strategic location gives it a power to harm US interests and the international system far in excess of its power potential by more conventional measurements. (If Iran somehow switched places with Australia, we could and would pay a lot less attention to its goals; location, not intrinsic power, is what makes Iran a big deal.) I don’t think we can ignore this regime and unless it substantially scales back its ambitions I don’t see how we can coexist with it peacefully much longer."
//blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/06/08/goo-goo-genocidaires-the-blood-is-dripping-from-their-hands/
Containment is a joke, the point is you can't contain IRI
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Tue Dec 06, 2011 02:27 PM PSTExtremism is uncontainable, how did containing Hitlers extremism work for the UK? They lost everything and were bankrupt and entirely dependent on the USA at the end of the war. The thing is, the USA can't even have dialogue with IRI, and it now wants to pursue containment? How did containment go with respect to Irans Nuclear Program? Trying to do it sets everyone up for a terrible tragedy of global proportions and it magnifies the suffering of the people of Iran too. But this will affect the west too, in unintended ways. I give the USA until 2018 if it tries this approach.
Whats wrong with Regime Change? That is certaily possible, but the real problem is it means the USA has to change its real agenda for Iran and that may never happen. Looks like the USA is setting itself up for a terrible outcome with this approach.
Here is a great new book to read, for clarity on why everyone in the USA is so secretive about Iran. Why the retired US diplomats don't even write 3 lines about the shah? It divulges never before known info that should be the basis for everyones views on Iran. The clear betrayal of the late Shah, leaving absolute fault with the USA up until and including today. I picked up the book expecting to read yet another book of lies and to my surprise found a book with 40% of it full of lists of good references. This book is rare in that it is actually trying to get to the truth without praising/condemning anyone. Giving details makes it substantial.
The Oil Kings: How the U.S., Iran, and Saudi Arabia Changed the Balance of Power in the Middle East by Andrew Scott CooperThis doesn't
by vildemose on Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:21 AM PSTThis doesn't help:
"Though Sunni extremist groups linked to what is now known as al-Qaeda in Iraq were responsible for most kidnappings of Westerners in the early years of the war, U.S. officials and security experts say the biggest threat in Baghdad now comes from Shiite militant groups affiliated with Iran, which could use kidnappings to promote Iranian influence in Iraq at the expense of the West.
“The increased tensions between the West and Iran are raising concerns that Iran may single out Westerners for kidnapping to pressure Western governments,” said John Drake, a risk consultant in Baghdad with the British security firm AKE. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is still active, however, especially in the mostly Sunni northern and western provinces, he said."
//www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iraq-kidnapping-threat-threatens-us-civilian-effort/2011/12/05/gIQAOT1bXO_story.html?wprss=rss_world
Separation of Church and State AND Corporation
Sound approach.
by Esfand Aashena on Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:21 AM PSTSooner or later, sooner rather than later, the 2009 revolt will be resurrected. However, for warmongers they may lose their chance to push for another war and possibly get their countries out of this economic funk.
The Iranian regime will fall under a full scale military attack, that's IF there is a full scale military attack and not like Gulf War I when Saddam was left in power, but the Islamic Ideology will get a boost and will wait to seek their revenge at another time.
War with Iran is not necessary. It can definitely be avoided.
Everything is sacred
The real problem
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:05 AM PSTwith this approach is it cements the IRR in its power. Yes maybe in a 100 years things might improve. Meanwhile people will suffer under the iron fist of Mollahs.Robbing of Iran goes on; brain drain ...
Iran’s regime, too, is based on flawed ideas and internal contradictions that are slowly undermining its authority.
Show me proof.
Sharia law, for example, was never meant for constitutional order.
Whoever said it does not know Islam. Shaira is just meant for that.
I don't trust West but I IRI is no better. Iran is an occupied nation. Don't tell me it is not we have been occupied since the Islamic invasion. I see no reason to "defned" the right of Islamist occupation of Iran.
I am all for sanctions with one request: A guarantee of Iranian territoy integrity. Give me that I will support sanctions.
The only trouble with this approach....
by Bavafa on Tue Dec 06, 2011 09:48 AM PSTFrom the West point of view, it leaves the future of Iran in the hand of Iranian people where the outcome might not be exactly of the linking of the West, again. In terms of Soviet Union, the aim was to remove a threat whereas in Iran’s case, the aim is to remove a disobedient regime.
'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory
Mehrdad