Why Iran?

There is a drumbeat against Iran across the US establishment, led by the Trump administration but echoed across much of Congress. I have been asking myself the question: why?

I get little help by parsing the public statements of US officials. Various platitudinous phrases appear repeatedly. Iran is supposedly the world’s leading sponsor of state terrorism. Its regime is controlled by mullahs who undertake severe cruelty on their own people and are determined to destroy Israel and the US.

Let us try to understand these one by one. Terrorism is a hard word to define and is inevitably loaded. Most credibly, it can be defined as a tactic of violence intended to sow chaos (terror) among innocent citizens. If it is state sponsored, then that excludes small groups acting independently of a state.

By this definition ISIL and Al Qaeda are terrorists. But if they state sponsored, it is not by Iran, an overwhelmingly a Shia Muslim nation while both groups are promoting Sunni goals. We can argue that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are sponsors, and also elements close to the state in Iraq and Syria, but not Iran.

When the US refers to terrorists sponsored by Iran, they usually mention Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. I may be wrong, but I am not sure any of these qualify. The stated goal of Hezbollah is to defend Lebanon and Syria from Sunni Islamist forces. In Lebanon they have generally tried to promote prosperity rather than chaos. In Syria they have become participants in Assad’s civil war, but are not the main source of civilian terror. In Gaza, Hamas has been corrupt and incompetent, but it surely has the interest of its citizens at heart. In Yemen, the conflict started with blame on both sides, but the Saudi side has certainly been the one sowing most chaos among the innocent.

There are many egregious examples of state sponsored terrorism in the world, many perpetrated against domestic citizens. China has actively suppressed up to a million Uighurs. Russia has infiltrated Ukraine and other countries such as Moldova and Latvia. The CIA and Mossad are active in many places – how could the murder of nuclear scientists in Iran be classified other than state sponsored terrorism? Examples are plentiful in Africa. Iran is no paragon, but the claim that it is the leading proponent of state sponsored terrorism appears indefensible.

So what about the regime of mullahs and their destructive goals? Well, it is true that the supreme leader and revolutionary guard hold a lot of the real power in Iran. Executions are high in Iran (among other places) and surveillance pervasive. But their cruelty to their own people pales when compared with many other countries. Saudi Arabia has been trumpeting trivial reforms while executing its own journalist. North Korea is a gulag. China’s Uighurs, Myanmar’s Rohinga and even Australia’s aboriginals suffer more persecution than any Iranian. Iran has freer elections than almost anywhere in its region and something of an artistic culture. It even has freedom of religion and a somewhat thriving Jewish population. Arguably, the most cruelty is perpetrated by external sanctions. There are certainly stronger candidate nations for domestic cruelty.

Then there is the threat to the US and Israel. The threat to the US feels rather laughable. Since 9/11, there have been few credible attacks towards US soil, and, as far as I can establish, none from Iranian origin. There is a large and lawful Iranian diaspora in the US. Israel seems eminently capable of defending itself too, though Hamas and Hezbollah can be a nuisance. It is true that “death to America” can be heard on the streets, but that happens on the streets of many countries. You can argue that Iranians even have some cause to fear and hate America. The regime before 1979 was an American puppet, Iraq was supported against Iran in the war between them, and there have been many sanctions since.

So, on the surface, the claims against Iran seem to lack substance and it does not seem to justify its rogue nation status in the US. Of course, there could be lots of facts outside the public domain. But given the pathetic quality of the propaganda machine, I would need some convincing.

So there must be other reasons. I can think of a few.

Iran is the main hindrance to Israeli dominance of the region. It has the capacity to develop nuclear weapons (though it could argue that this is defensible given Israel’s one undeclared ones). But is Iran really a threat to Israel, or is it rather the other way around? Even the proxies seem to have a more defensive than aggressive intent.

Two possible reasons might explain the stance. One is evangelical. The Pence lobby can at times feel almost like old-school crusaders, promoting the Judeo-Christian tradition almost as a biblical right. Perhaps the singling out of Iran has a direct biblical root, since it was Babylon that perpetrated the original Jewish exile? It all feels distasteful and hypocritical in the modern age. The other reason is simply money. Pro-Israel groups are very active in political funding, and that certainly carries weight in the US.

Then there is the other rich player in the game, Saudi Arabia, a country whose regime feels more toxic than the Iranian one by most measures, and, by the way, the breeding group of Al Qaeda. The Saudis have their own long-term religious enmity with Iran as the respective homes of Sunni and Shia Islam. Oh, and deep pockets to buy weapons. Oh yes, and also plenty of oil.

I have another theory. We tend to think of nations as bureaucracies, but those bureaucracies are full of humans, and humans make enemies. A lot of this political stuff is personal. Putin hates the Clintons. It is the same in business. I made the mistake of using leverage at a moment of strength, and made myself an enemy in the process. Years later, that same man paid me back.

As far as Iran is concerned, they have played Israel to a draw in a few conflicts, and they opportunistically outplayed the US in Iraq. The US also remembers the humiliation of the hostage crisis of 1979. Such resentments run deep and long. 

I wish that more of the discussion was in the open. The Economist, the best independent source for so much politics, hides behind the propaganda platitudes, no doubt vetted by MI6. It insults our intelligence, and it breeds long-term disrespect for elites, especially when any lies are eventually exposed. That leads to populism. At an international level, it harms alliances and makes international bodies ineffective. Who can argue with China refusing to criticize the domestic affairs of any country while the West seems so hypocritical?

There is one more argument against setting out towards conflict with Iran, beyond its fairness and its likely impact of innocent Iranians. That is just that it is dumb and self-defeating. The US has had many chances to learn that particular lesson on many costly battlegrounds and proxy battlegrounds.

In the meantime, I would just love to read a balanced justification for the Iranian policy, replete with evidence and comparison with other nations. Even without that, I’d love to read about a reasonable and attainable set of goals. I guess it may be a long wait.