THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VII, Issue # 223, October 9, 2005
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
ONLY THREAT OF FORCE WILL TAME TEHRAN
By Michael Rubin
THE IRANIAN POLITICAL REGIME'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ISLAMIST & BAATHIST INSURGENCY IN IRAQ: WHAT CAN
CONTAIN THE IRANIAN CHALLENGE TO THE U.S.A. & GREAT BRITAIN IN IRAQ & ELSEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE EAST -- SKILLFUL
DIPLOMACY, BACKED UP BY A CREDIBLE THREAT TO USE MILITARY FORCE
FULL STORY:
Tony Blair confirmed last week that bombs used to kill eight British soldiers in Iraq were a type used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps and groups that it supports in Lebanon.
His words were circumspect, but the point was clear: London considers Tehran responsible for killing British troops in Iraq. Blair's
accusations confirm that the British-secured zone, once praised as a triumph for the "softly-softly" approach, is a model no more. In
recent weeks, death squads have kidnapped and murdered journalists, most famously Steven Vincent, an American freelance writer
who had warned of Iranian infiltration of the police. Dozens of Iraqis have fallen victim to Iranian-backed militias.
It did not have to be this way. The Iranian challenge in Iraq has long been apparent. In January, 2004, Lebanese Hizbollah opened
offices across southern Iraq. In the centre of Basra, Lebanese Hizbollah flags flew from an annexe to the Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq headquarters.
In exchange for quiet, British officials have turned a blind eye to the Iranian challenge. When Shia militias turned away from schools
girls not conforming to Muslim standards of dress, British forces did nothing to guarantee them a right to education. When young
gangs plastered the University of Basra with posters of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, British officials remained silent. An official
assessment following Muqtada al-Sadr's uprising in April, 2004, blamed a British political officer in al-Kut for "intentionally toning
down reports of [Shia] insurgent activity." In Amara, British officials transferred the Baath Party headquarters to the Badr Corps;
many locals wanted to use it as a health clinic instead. The Iranian-trained militia festooned their new headquarters with anti-coalition
slogans. British troops refused to be provoked.
For terrorists and their sponsors, British restraint is assumed. There is little fear of military reprisal. A major factor behind the Iranian
government's willingness to murder British troops has been the impotence and naivety of U.K. diplomacy.
It has become conventional wisdom among the foreign policy elite that military force is never appropriate. The outbreak of the Iraqi
insurgency and the fumbled reconstruction have reinforced antiwar sentiment among the chattering classes. If only President Bush
had listened to the international community and allowed United Nations inspectors to finish their job, they say, war might have been
averted.
War should always be the last resort. But a credible military threat is sometimes necessary to maintain peace. In the case of Iran,
British Cabinet officials have undercut diplomacy. As tension between Washington and Iran escalated last month, for example,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was asked about the possibility of military action. On 28 September, he told the BBC:
"U.S. Presidents always say all options are open. But it is not on the table,
it is not on the agenda. I happen to think it is inconceivable."
The headline of Al-Jazeera for Straw's statement was: "No military action against Iran."
Straw may have wanted to reinforce the notion that London remained committed to diplomacy, playing to a British public
conditioned to view the American President as a reckless cowboy and religious nut. But his words were interpreted in Tehran as
weakness.
Engagement alone can backfire. Between 2000 and 2005, trade between Iran and the European Union has almost tripled. During the
same period, Iran doubled its number of executions and spent several billion dollars on its nuclear programme.
Iranian diplomats may be sincere. They may have impressed Straw. But the Islamic republic's structure leaves them impotent. Only
the Supreme Leader, the Revolutionary Guards, and the Intelligence Ministry wield power. It is no accident that Iran's envoy to Iraq
was not from the Iranian Foreign Ministry, but from the division of the Revolutionary Guards charged with the export of revolution.
Diplomacy backed by the threat of military force can be a winning combination. What little success the negotiations regarding Iran's
nuclear intentions have had are due not only to European carrots, but also American sticks.
Iran is not alone in this. Examining Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi's decision to settle his differences with London and Washington,
U.S. columnist Charles Krauthammer suggested it was no coincidence that "Gadaffi's first message to Britain, the principal U.S. war
ally and conduit to White House war counsels, occur[red] just days before the invasion of Iraq. "
According to Krauthammer, Gadaffi's "final capitulation to U.S.-British terms occur[red] just five days after Saddam Hussein [was]
fished out of a rathole."
Had Straw assured Gadaffi he need never fear military reprisal, the Libyan leader would today be nearing completion of his nuclear
bomb. Might matters.
If constitutional democracy prevails in Iraq, the Iranian leadership understands that 70 million Iranians will clamour for the same
rights. Iraq's success poses an existential challenge. While Iran's youth crave Western pop, fashion and freedom, ideology
dominates the Islamic republic's leadership. Khomeini's constitution enshrines theocracy, dictatorship, and the export of revolution.
No amount of reform can change that. And no amount of engagement can ameliorate its challenge.
The best the West can hope for is containment. Diplomacy can repulse the Iranian challenge in Iraq, but nice words alone are
insufficient. Deals must be obeyed and promises kept. Sometimes that takes a willingness to use force.
Armies, not words, are a diplomat's most potent tool.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Middle East & the Problem of Iran
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
Page Two
Page One
The Problem of Rogue States:
Iraq as a Case History
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
The Anglosphere -- The English-Speaking World:
The U.S.A., Britain, Canada, Australia, & New Zealand
Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is the Editor of the Middle East Quarterly.
The foregoing article by Michael Rubin was originally published in The Observer, October 9, 2005, and can be found on the
Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum.
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
October 9, 2005
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VII, 2005
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues