Author: Gunner

The Guardian brings us a viewpoint opposing American military reaction against Iran and its nuclear ambitions, a view with some valid points.

Internal political divisions and economic weaknesses may present a bigger threat to the longevity of the Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than the US and Israeli air forces combined, a report published yesterday suggests.

The study, entitled Understanding Iran and produced by the Foreign Policy Centre, warns that military action against Iran’s suspect nuclear facilities could have disastrous consequences. “The only chance of modifying Iran’s behaviour in the short term will come from a serious effort to engage with the current leadership,” it says.

While the work contains much validity and I have often in the past pointed towards the seething popular desire for democracy among a large portion of the Iranian population, the article trips up slightly here with it’s vague reference to the “short term.” More on that in a bit.

Echoing calls for direct US-Iran talks made by Germany, the UN’s nuclear agency, and US politicians, the European thinktank’s report urges the creation of a Middle East security organisation similar to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It proposes mechanisms for facilitating dialogue to end the nuclear impasse and address other friction points. But in suggesting increased “economic, cultural, educational and social exchanges as a way of empowering the Iranian people and ultimately forcing the regime to loosen its restrictive practices” it also highlights the potentially fatal schisms and vulnerabilities of a government often portrayed as united in defiance of the west.

“Behind the scenes a fierce struggle is under way. In one camp is President Ahmadinejad, his supporters in the Revolutionary Guards and the paramilitary force known as the Basijis, and messianic fundamentalists inspired by the teachings of Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi. In the other camp is Iran’s embattled democratic movement [and] an array of forces that benefited from the status quo before Ahmadinejad came to power, including former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.”

The outcome of this battle was uncertain, but what was clear was that direct US intervention would play into the hands of the hardliners. “A strategy that gambles on a popular uprising to bring down the current regime runs the risk of undermining those very forces it purports to want to help.”

Back to that short-term matter. The article makes no effort to define the short term in length of years but does obliquely mention the messianic fundamentalism of the current leader (much more on that here). Does the short term that this article suggests bearing out fall inside the barrier of nuclear capability and will to use it that a deranged, messianic Iranian leader needs? If so, great for all. If not, the article is pretty much worthless. Also, the article doesn’t imply but clearly states that American military intervention against an Iranian nuclear program would clearly play to the favor of the ruling Iranian radicals. I simply don’t accept that as a certainty — there are far too many variables. What if the assaults were relatively clean? What if they were timed with popular riots that were assisted? The article errs, in my opinion, by speaking with a claimed clairvoyance that the author cannot possess.

The piece goes on to show some of the domestic factors accumulating against the current radical Iranian government.

The report looks at other pressures on the government: a population of over 70 million, of whom 65% are younger than 25; a largely state-dominated economy prone to corruption; an energy industry starved of investment that is producing steadily less oil for export, and a youth culture increasingly circumventing controls on foreign media and internet access.

‘According to the government’s own estimates some 900,000 new jobs are needed annually to accommodate the burgeoning labour force and prevent an increase in unemployment, officially at 16%, unofficially at over 20%,” the report says. It also focuses on gender discrimination, human rights abuses (including executions of minors and repression of minorities), and attempts to suppress free speech and independent media.

All these contentious issues, it suggests, carry the seeds of change from within and in the longer term could be catalysts for ending Iran’s post-1979 theocracy. But if the west was to understand Iran, it had to understand itself – and recognise that clumsy outside attempts to jump-start reform were likely to be counterproductive.

While all valid, the use of these points to support an argument for inaction by the West in the vaguely-declared “short term” actually need to be considered as a reason for possible action — and most assuredly current planning — by the West. While these points may eventually completely undermine the current tyrants of Iran, they very well may be the same factors that force those radical rulers into immediate bloody, fiery action against Israel, Iraq, Europe or other allies within their range … or even possibly on our shores in the form of terror activity.

While I believe a large chunk of Iranians ache for freedom and democracy, this does not assure that the nation will become friendly before it produces tragedy. Also, American intervention does not guarantee a nationalistic arrousal by the Iranian people for their current government, though that would be a possibility depending on circumstances. Simply put, there are too many alternatives available that undermine the occasional, though possibly deadly if accepted, certainties of this article.