By Richard Penaskovic, Emeritus professor, Auburn University-AL.com
In teaching a course in the Osher Live Long Learning Institute (OLLI) class at Auburn University last year, I said that “the best thing the U.S. could do in the Middle East is to stay out.”
Why so?
First, President’s top two advisers, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, both hawks, have threatened Iran with regime change that would make any nation terribly defensive and anxious. Moreover, Iran, not a perfect state by any means, is a sovereign and functioning democratic state that has fought against I.S.I.S. along with the U.S. However, unlike the US, Iran hasn’t invaded another country recently and was the second Muslim nation after Turkey to recognize the State of Israel.
Meanwhile, the President sends mixed signals to Iran by sending battleships, cruise missiles, and aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf, seemingly, to bait Iran into a war, while at the same time stating that he wants Tehran to call him to “make a deal.” Why in heaven’s name would Iran want to make a deal with a President who unilaterally reneged on the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action agreement (J.C.P.O.A.). Then, Mr. Trump imposed devastating sanctions on Iran, designed to stranglehold the Iranian economy, that, in itself, amounts to declaring economic war on Iran.
Adding fuel to the fire is this: the U.S. told other nations not to buy oil or other commodities from Iran. If they did, the U.S. would put sanctions on those countries who dare disobey Trump’s order.
Iran wants no part of a war with the U.S. since Iran has virtually no Air Force, no battleship and aircraft carriers, but only small skiffs. It would be suicide for Iran to attack the U.S. Second, our reputation around the world has been severely damaged by our attempts to police the world, as if we had a mandate to do so.
After all, what have we to show for our invasion of Iraq, our nineteen year-long war in Afghanistan (which our generals agree we cannot win), our interventions in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, except for increasing our national debt for which we now owe $226.3 billion in interest alone so far this year, up from 13.6% in 2018, and that’s expected to go up even more rapidly in following years?
Third, John Bolton has argued for years that the U.S. should bring about “regime change” in Iran. Of course, this goes against international law though this does not bother Mr. Trump and his advisers. Mike Pompeo has also proposed regime change in Iran, in part, because he has listened to Israel in the person of P. M. Netanyahu, the Crown Prince, Muhammad ben Salman of Saudi Arabia and President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the United Arab Emirate (UAE), since all three leaders and nations would benefit greatly if the mullahs in Iran were removed from power, as if that would resolve matters.
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirate and Israel should be careful about what they wish for. Instead of tackling Iran themselves, these three states are itching for, and encouraging the U.S. to take out Iran and its nuclear facilities. Iran itself, though a third-rate military power, has the backing of Hezbolllah with about 50,000 missiles that could devastate Tel Aviv, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi, the capital of the U.A.E. With that number of missiles at its disposal, Israel’s Iron Shield would not know what hit it and heavy damage would be inflicted on all three countries, thus possibly sparking WW III.
As far as I can tell, the majority of our citizens have no stomach for another war similar to our invasion of Iraq, but which would be more devastating to our country and to the world. In such a war we would not have the support of our allies in the European Union and NATO, because we would be the aggressors. We would be censured by the international community in the United Nations and would give our economy a humongous jolt, because such a war would cost us the loss of American lives, countless injuries, and add a minimum of five trillion dollars to our national debt. Is this something our nation wants to do?
Most pundits and political commentators are unaware that Iran has a tradition of pacifism going back to medieval times. The Shanamah or Book of Kings by Abu’ Iqasim Ferdowski (who died in 1020) argues against war and the clash of cultures. How is this book relevant today? It seems that this book has a timeless quality since it informs the moral conscience of many Iranians today, a thousand years after it was written. The Book of Kings avers that the militant perspectives imposed on a nation in the name of religion are morally bankrupt today.
Jafar Mahallati in The Ethics of War and Peace in Iran and Shi’i Islam (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018) asserts that religious traditions, per se, cannot guarantee that there would be no wars. However, in the history of Iran, the universal ethics of chivalry has acted as a “moral balancer.” Without such a moral code, Iran would not have been able to engage in violence as has I.S.I.S., or have the resilience to deal with the war started by Iraq against Iran (1980-88), or have had the tenacity to deal with the economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy for the past fifty years.
Mahallati’s book demonstrates that today’s Iran is moving beyond its past ideological and fundamentalist tendencies that have been detrimental to Iran’s security to date. President Rouhani has made deep changes in Iran’s foreign policy that are in line with his pragmatic approach to Iran’s political and social realities. For example, under Pres. Rouhani there are in Iran new ethical policies in regard to the use, making, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons.
What should be done to defuse the tension between the US and Iran? First, President Trump and his advisers ought to tone down the rhetoric, since it only adds gasoline to the fire. Second, the US cannot stop Iranian missile development and testing, just as it cannot stop Kim Jong Un from the development and testing of new missiles.
What the US can do is this: it can make a deal that neither country would manufacture missiles that would fly over 2,000 kilometers and carry nuclear weapons. This can be achieved by removing sanctions that are crippling the economies of both countries. Third, since both the US and international community are better off with the Iranian nuclear than without it, then why doesn’t President Trump initiate a dialogue with Iran about rejoining the Iranian nuclear agreement at the cost of removing US sanctions. This would be a win-win situation for all parties involved and is certainly more desirable than an all-out war in which both parties lose.
Richard Penaskovic is professor emeritus at Auburn University where he taught for 30 years. He co-edited a book called “Peacebuiding In A Fractious World ” published in November, 2017, by Pickwick Publications.
