On November 15, 2013 CNN reported that Western nations near initial deal to halt advancement in Iran nuke program. The negotiations have intensified since the ‘historic’ September phone call between president Obama and the newly elected ‘reformist’ president of Iran, Rouhani.
Couple of weeks ago, same ‘world powers’ were scrambling in Geneva, Switzerland, and wherever they can around the new/old prize; Iran. But this time what Iran has been calling for over thirty years as ‘the Great Satan’ has joined. The United States of America joined other world powers for the first time in engaging directly and publicly Iran’s ruling Mullahs in ‘conversations’ trying to curb the Mullahs appetite to have what looks like nuclear power capabilities.
Now, as a historical fact, Iran started its appetite for nuclear power since before the political Mullahs took over power from ‘ Shahenshah’ Muhammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979. Before 1979 Iran had an emperor, Shahenshah, now it has a supreme leader. Before 1979 it had the ruthless Savak to suppress its people, now it has the ruthless Basij to do the same job. The bottom line is nothing has changed in Iran except for instead of the out of touch Shah, Iran got a Mullah that calls himself a supreme leader.
Couple Of weeks ago demonstrations in Tehran against America did not mean a thing; typical politically staged demonstrations that the Iranian political system created on the verge of the massive political changes of the aftermath of the Shah. Since 1979 every Iranian move against the US has been done by religious apparatus in accordance with what they see as necessary to keep a certain image even when a ‘reformist’ president is at the helm. The Iranians are so predictable which in Middle Eastern politics means ‘ close but no cigar’.
The sequence of events that led to the Iranian revolution of 1979 show an orchestrated policy and events to remove the Shah who again was out of touch and completely distant from his people. The Pahlavi family until today probably does not understand that they brought the Mullahs to power through their political arrogance and blatant stupidity
Kamal Ataturk succeeded in Turkey because he led every single Turkish to believe that what he was doing will benefit them and will benefit Turkey. The Shah on the contrary led none and no one believed him. The hypothetical questions that come to mind are, would the Shah have accepted to be dragged into war with Iraq or would Iraq have dared to wage a war if the Shah remained in power. Second, would the Shah have accepted to create a terror organization by the name of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Third, would the Shah have accepted to verbally attack Israel in the comic way the Mullahs have been doing since 1979. The answers probably are a big No.
If Khomeini stayed in Iraq and was not allowed to leave to France, the Iranian revolution would not have succeeded. In 1979, it was clear to the United States that the Shah had cancer and he will die which he had and died one year later. The US knew that the Pahlavi family is finished and that the Shah son was not to be. Again, the Shah was a dreamer that did not reach out to his people but expected them to believe his distant voice and see his absent face telling them that things will be better and Iran will be a great nation-some day.
Iran, one of the richest countries in oil in the world was to start to play a role in Middle Eastern politics and was to assume the command of the Shiite Muslims uprising not against The United States and Israel but against their historic nemesis; the Arab Sunni Muslims of the Middle East. By verbally attacking Israel which anyone with any sense should have known that such attacks are seriously flawed, wrong, aimless and have no reason or logic or purpose except for to rally tiny populations in the Middle East and gain fake ‘revolutionary legitimacy’. The main reason of such policy is to bring together the Iranian people around a cause, even a false cause and keep feeding on and off into this cause to bring the oppressive Mullahs regime a reason to stay in power. Creating a nuclear program was another tool to keep the Iranians in line behind their oppressors.
The Shah oppressed his people and the Mullahs took over and since 1979 have been doing the same and worse. Iranian women cannot swim in public and cannot have a hairdo shown in public and cannot be human in public. Influential intelligence services in the Middle East know every single component of Iran’s much publicized nuclear program and they could bring it to a finish, to a halt, and finally destroy it if they choose to do so. But if they have done so, then the whole art of diplomacy and political science would have collapsed.
The theory since the end of Vietnam war has been that unless there is an imminent danger, the use of force-if any- to change adversary’s ‘attitudes’ should be the last resort. Al Qaeda terrorist organization was an imminent and present danger and the US acted in Afghanistan. Saddam in Iraq was not as imminent; the US took care of him in 1990, kicked him out of Kuwait, and then came back and finished the job in 2003. Now we have three regimes in three countries that the US has described for the longest time as rogue regimes. North Korea, Syria and Iran are the best example of the US doctrine of imminent and present danger. Obama promised to attack but not destroy Alassad if he uses chemical weapons. Al Assad did, Obama retracted and decided to let the international community represented by world powers and the UN to have the upper hand while pointing a stick in the face of the adversaries.
North Korea and Iran are the same story, sanctions, threat of use of force and then negotiations. North Korea and Iran did their part as well in this game of politics, North Korea has been attacking the US left and right verbally and Iran attacking Israel left and right verbally. The picture despite of all this back and forth world rhetoric is not so bleak- at the end of the day we might see diplomatic relations between Israel and Iran and a one united Korea under the free Enterprise system of South Korea. The art of diplomacy is based on conflict resolution. We safely can say that diplomacy would seize to exist if conflicts do not exist.
Accordingly, the use of force based on this theory is the last resort unless again there is an imminent and clear and present danger. The outcome of these three countries negotiations will result in many things- it could result in wars too- but most likely will result in creating precedents and SOPs -Standard Operating Procedures- for the game of engagement of similar future situations. The world cannot afford- no matter how attractive it is to just to knock down adversaries- to wage wars at the smallest provocation.
Other conclusions could include allowing Iran to have limited nuclear capacity- Korea already tested nuclear weapons but it is under full control of the Chinese- or just allowing Iran to have ’peaceful nuclear generators’ or no nuclear at all. In any case, experience, practice and politics for the last 34 years proved that Iran is not a country anyone should worry about or worry of or even have concerns that it would attack any country in the Middle East or the world. Iran is North Korea of the Middle East. So if you are a foodie, go ahead, enjoy a fantastic dish of Kabab Soltani with Salad Shirazi on the side, or swing by a Korean market and have a hot stone ball of Dol Sot Bi Bim Bap; no worries there.
 |
| *Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. Photos by Reuters |
*****Updated November 16, 2013
