By Muhammad Sahimi
In one of the most embarrassingly absurd,
historically baseless, and astonishingly one-sided speeches any U.S. president
has ever given, President Bush compared Iran to Nazi Germany in his speech to
Israel's Knesset. In doing so, the president repeated the same diatribes that
Norman Podhoretz, the godfather of the neoconservatives, and Benjamin Netanyahu,
the leader of Israel's Likud Party, have been making for quite some time.
Said
Bush:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate
with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade
them [that] they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion
before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator [William
Borah of Idaho] declared, 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this
might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the
false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Bush made his "argument" against "appeasement"
only days after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had called for a combination
of incentives and pressure to engage Iran. So, as Sen. Barack Obama pointed out,
even the president's own defense secretary is apparently an appeaser.
Comparing Iran with the 1939 Nazi Germany is
ridiculous. Germany was a powerful, industrialized nation that had been defeated
in World War I. It had grievances against the victors who had humiliated it.
Germany's culture was such that many Germans blindly followed their charismatic
leader, Adolf Hitler. Even the eminent physicist and Nobel Laureate Werner
Heisenberg, though no Nazi, worked for the regime. Most importantly, the 1939
Wehrmacht was the most powerful military in the world, backed by Germany's
advanced technology, industrial capacity, and a great corps of first-rate
scientists. At the point in time Bush was referring to, Germany was invading
Poland and had already annexed Austria and devoured Czechoslovakia.
Compare this with Iran, which has neither
territorial claims against any nation nor has it attacked its neighbors for
1,000 years, but was the victim of an eight-year war with Iraq, which was
encouraged and supported by the U.S. Persian culture is such that few Iranians
blindly follow their leaders. In 1905 Iranians set up the first constitutional
government in all of Asia and the Middle East. Despite its resources and
potential, Iran is only a developing nation, not an advanced industrial power.
Iran's armed forces have been designed to defend
the country, without any ability to project power outside the country's borders.
The massive presence of U.S. and NATO forces around Iran limits Iran's reach, as
do its terrible economy, restless population, and democracy movement. The U.S.
and Israel constantly point to Iran's aid to Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah as
evidence of its "evil intentions." But with relatively weak armed forces and
constant threats from the U.S. and Israel, Iran needs strategic depth to protect
its territorial integrity, hence its aid to both Hezbollah and Hamas.
Furthermore, Hamas won the democratic elections
of 2006 and is far more popular than Fatah. As Sen. John McCain said then, "They
are the government. ... It's a new reality in the Middle East.'' And contrary to
popular misconceptions, Hezbollah would be just as powerful without Iran's help,
because it was formed as a reaction to the invasion of southern Lebanon by
Israel in 1978 and 1982, which created hundreds of thousands of Shi'ite refugees
and tens of thousands of Shi'ite dead and wounded, while the U.S. and the rest
of the West stood by, doing nothing. Hezbollah and Hamas receive aid, not
orders, from Iran.
The president brazenly lies when he blames Iran
for all the problems that the U.S. and Israel face in the Middle East. Iran did
not provoke the U.S. to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, nor did it force the U.S.
to support Israeli aggression for decades. These are the main causes of
anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world. Half of all the foreign fighters
in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia, and the rest are from Egypt, Jordan, and other
U.S.-supported sunni States, as were the 9/11 terrorists. Almost all the suicide
bombers are Sunni, the majority of them Saudis. But instead of confronting Saudi
Arabia, President Bush has agreed to supply billions of dollars in advanced
weaponry, as well as nuclear technology, to that country.
Surely, Iran has considerable influence in Iraq.
It has been supporting the Badr Army and the Mahdi Army of Shi'ite firebrand
Moqtada al-Sadr. These groups spent years in Iran when Saddam Hussein was in
power. But Iran also supports the government of Nouri al-Maliki. There is a
strong rationale behind this. Iran was invaded by Iraq in 1980, so in order to
avoid another war with Iraq, Iran wishes to have influence there, regardless of
who wins the internal struggle among the various factions. At the same time,
though, Iran's influence has its limits because of the historical rivalry
between Arabs and Persians.
Worst of all, military attacks on Iran will only
consolidate the hardliners' grip on Iran, just when economic problems and
political repression are shaking the foundations of their power. President
Ahmadinejad is in deep trouble at home, even among his own base. The vast
majority of Iran's urban population, and in particular its university students,
despise him for his failed economic policies, political repression, and the
danger that his hollow rhetoric has created for Iran's national security. In the
March elections for the Iranian parliament, he was attacked fiercely not only by
the reformists, but also by pragmatic conservatives and former allies. But as
Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights advocate and the 2003 Nobel Peace
Laureate, said recently in a speech at Barnard College,
"Foreign attacks and threats on the Iranian
government will only harm human rights efforts, since the government would act
under the guise of 'national security' to suppress those who are seeking more
freedom in the country."
In April 2005, when the reformist Mohammad
Khatami was still president, Iran made a comprehensive proposal to the U.S.,
offering to enter serious negotiations and putting all the important issues on
the table. The offer was never taken seriously. What is not understood in the
U.S. is that, given the deep unpopularity of the hardliners, the absence of an
external threat to Iran's national security would make it much easier for
democratic groups to push for reforms. Therefore, détente, not war, with the
U.S. will make fundamental changes in Iran possible.
President Bush, however, is oblivious to such
realities. In his parallel universe, which is completely disconnected from ours,
rejecting negotiations with Iran in, of all the places, the Knesset is in
America's national interest. In his fantasies, the invasion and destruction of
Afghanistan and Iraq, his unstinting support for Israel, and a possible war with
Iran are all good for the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
How will Iranians react if their nation is
attacked by the U.S. and/or Israel? Most Iranians despise the hardliners, but as
Ebadi and the author stated in a
joint op-ed
published by the International Herald Tribune on Jan. 19, 2006,
"A military attack would only inflame
nationalist sentiments. Iranians remember the U.S. help to Iraq during its war
with Iran. They see the double standards when the United States offers security
guarantees and aid to North Korea and advanced nuclear technology to India [and
to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain], but nothing but sanctions and threats to Iran.
"Iran is not Iraq: Given the Iranians' fierce
nationalism and the Shi'ites' long tradition of martyrdom, any military move on
Iran would receive a response that would engulf the entire region in fire."
Thus, the president is playing with fire when he
threatens Iran at Israel's behest. In response to a question about how Iran is a
threat to the U.S., he once replied, "Its leader wants to destroy Israel." In
other words, Bush is willing to order attacks on Iran because of Iran's
nonexistent threat to Israel. Shi'ites across the Middle East will not respond
kindly.
About the author:
Muhammad Sahimi, professor of chemical engineering and materials science,
and the NIOC professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Southern
California in Los Angeles, has published extensively on Iran's political
developments and its nuclear program.
Related articles by Muhammad Sahimi:
Iran's Nuclear Energy
Program. Part VII: Are Referral of Iran's Nuclear Dossier to the Security
Council and Resolutions 1696, 1737, and 1747 Legal?
... Payvand News - 06/06/08 ... --
