Giving MEK´s control to the Iranian Regime and their Friends is Strategy Stupid
Kazem Kazerounian
August 29, 2008
By Professor Kazem Kazerounian
The current political climate in the US is influencing many politicians on both sides of the isle to promise early withdrawal of the troops by offering all sorts of time tables unsubstantiated by the reality of the situation. The debate over troop withdrawal must not be muddle up with rationalizing or arguing against the genesis of the Iraq war. While the countries are the same, the issues and the players are drastically different. The current war is not against remnants of Sadam´s army or Al-Qaida in Iraq or Taliban in Afghanistan. It is absurd to believe that these groups have been able to sustain an intense war against the mightiest armies on earth for half a decade and remain as strong as ever. The elephant in the room is that our current war is against the fundamentalist dictators of Tehran. Both in Afghanistan and Iraq, this war is against Iran´s strive for influence and power in the region.
Iran has made it unequivocally clear that hegemony in the region and achieving nuclear power status are ideological and strategic matters that they will not retrieve from. The theocratic regime in Iran, regardless of the faction in power, has methodically planned and implemented the course toward these goals. It is now well documented that Iran has infiltrated the Iraqi government, Iraqi police force, armed forces, judicial branch and even the Iraqi parliament. Iranian proxies are controlling the financial and economic flow of the country.
Iran has shrewdly controlled the level of violence in both Iraq and Afghanistan to manipulate the American public opinion and policy. Last week Army Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of the Multinational Corps, Iraq, told reporters that the Iranian surrogates, terrorists and insurgents fighting in southern Iraq have returned to Iran temporarily for more training and resources. He mentioned that "we expect that those leaders will try to come back at some point in time in the future". At the same time the "insurgency" in Afghanistan has significantly escalated. Who is his/her right mind would believe that this is incidental?
On the other hand, it is safe to assume that the US leaders, regardless of the party and election campaign rhetoric, will not tolerate a nuclear Iran bullying its neighbors and posing as a regional, maybe even global superpower. Anyone who denies Iranian and the American allegiance to their own positions is less than honest.
An intermediate, negotiated solution is not feasible either. Three decades of failed appeasement policy under five US administration attest to that. Sure enough engagement policy can buy time and lengthen the status quo. But status quo is exactly what Tehran wishes for. Under the confusion and irresolute environment of the current situation, Iran is progressing swiftly toward both of its strategic goals.
So is an ugly, disastrous war with Iran inevitable? The answer is directly connected to our strategy and persistence on our stated principles in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as our seriousness in stopping Iran from achieving nuclear power status. The Iranian president Mahmood Ahmadinejad has repeatedly assured the world that when Americans leave Iraq, Iran will fill the vacuum. As if he sincerely believes that world sleeps better if it is so assured. And who could possibly be naive enough to believe that Iran will stay content with Iraq and will not gaze at the rest of the region? Just this week Wall Street Journal reported that Iran has spent $50 million on Hezbollah connected groups. If we leave Iran to fill our void in Iraq, will we do the same in Afghanistan? What is next? If we can´t deal with Iranian ill desires now, how can we get the stomach to face it when they become a nuclear power in a couple of years?
Is a preemptive attack on Iran a solution? By no means. It will be a gaffe of colossal proportions. A war will create a mess that takes generations to clean up.
It seems that between two very wrong options we have chosen them both! Hence we are getting closer to a terrible war fast.
We talk the taught talk of attacking Iran and we reward their mischief handsomely. The latest debacle of our foreign policy is giving Iranian mullahs (through their friends in the Iraqi security forces) the control of Ashraf City, the compounds of their main opposition group - MEK. Never mind it is a humanitarian disaster in the making. Never mind that MEK members are recognized as protected persons under the 4th Geneva Convention. Never mind that MEK is the reason that world had become aware of Iranian nuclear strives. It is strategy stupid!
Professor Kazerounian teaches at the University of Connecticut and is a member of Connecticut Academy Of Science and Engineering.
The current political climate in the US is influencing many politicians on both sides of the isle to promise early withdrawal of the troops by offering all sorts of time tables unsubstantiated by the reality of the situation. The debate over troop withdrawal must not be muddle up with rationalizing or arguing against the genesis of the Iraq war. While the countries are the same, the issues and the players are drastically different. The current war is not against remnants of Sadam´s army or Al-Qaida in Iraq or Taliban in Afghanistan. It is absurd to believe that these groups have been able to sustain an intense war against the mightiest armies on earth for half a decade and remain as strong as ever. The elephant in the room is that our current war is against the fundamentalist dictators of Tehran. Both in Afghanistan and Iraq, this war is against Iran´s strive for influence and power in the region.
Iran has made it unequivocally clear that hegemony in the region and achieving nuclear power status are ideological and strategic matters that they will not retrieve from. The theocratic regime in Iran, regardless of the faction in power, has methodically planned and implemented the course toward these goals. It is now well documented that Iran has infiltrated the Iraqi government, Iraqi police force, armed forces, judicial branch and even the Iraqi parliament. Iranian proxies are controlling the financial and economic flow of the country.
Iran has shrewdly controlled the level of violence in both Iraq and Afghanistan to manipulate the American public opinion and policy. Last week Army Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of the Multinational Corps, Iraq, told reporters that the Iranian surrogates, terrorists and insurgents fighting in southern Iraq have returned to Iran temporarily for more training and resources. He mentioned that "we expect that those leaders will try to come back at some point in time in the future". At the same time the "insurgency" in Afghanistan has significantly escalated. Who is his/her right mind would believe that this is incidental?
On the other hand, it is safe to assume that the US leaders, regardless of the party and election campaign rhetoric, will not tolerate a nuclear Iran bullying its neighbors and posing as a regional, maybe even global superpower. Anyone who denies Iranian and the American allegiance to their own positions is less than honest.
An intermediate, negotiated solution is not feasible either. Three decades of failed appeasement policy under five US administration attest to that. Sure enough engagement policy can buy time and lengthen the status quo. But status quo is exactly what Tehran wishes for. Under the confusion and irresolute environment of the current situation, Iran is progressing swiftly toward both of its strategic goals.
So is an ugly, disastrous war with Iran inevitable? The answer is directly connected to our strategy and persistence on our stated principles in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as our seriousness in stopping Iran from achieving nuclear power status. The Iranian president Mahmood Ahmadinejad has repeatedly assured the world that when Americans leave Iraq, Iran will fill the vacuum. As if he sincerely believes that world sleeps better if it is so assured. And who could possibly be naive enough to believe that Iran will stay content with Iraq and will not gaze at the rest of the region? Just this week Wall Street Journal reported that Iran has spent $50 million on Hezbollah connected groups. If we leave Iran to fill our void in Iraq, will we do the same in Afghanistan? What is next? If we can´t deal with Iranian ill desires now, how can we get the stomach to face it when they become a nuclear power in a couple of years?
Is a preemptive attack on Iran a solution? By no means. It will be a gaffe of colossal proportions. A war will create a mess that takes generations to clean up.
It seems that between two very wrong options we have chosen them both! Hence we are getting closer to a terrible war fast.
We talk the taught talk of attacking Iran and we reward their mischief handsomely. The latest debacle of our foreign policy is giving Iranian mullahs (through their friends in the Iraqi security forces) the control of Ashraf City, the compounds of their main opposition group - MEK. Never mind it is a humanitarian disaster in the making. Never mind that MEK members are recognized as protected persons under the 4th Geneva Convention. Never mind that MEK is the reason that world had become aware of Iranian nuclear strives. It is strategy stupid!
Professor Kazerounian teaches at the University of Connecticut and is a member of Connecticut Academy Of Science and Engineering.
Print
Email
