The
Big Lie: ‘Iran Is A Threat’
By Scott Ritter
09 October, 2007
CommonDreams.org
Iran
has never manifested itself as a serious threat to the national security
of the United States, or by extension as a security threat to global
security. At the height of Iran’s “exportation of the Islamic
Revolution” phase, in the mid-1980’s, the Islamic Republic
demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond
the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited
to war-torn Lebanon.
Iranian military capability
reached its modern peak in the late 1970’s, during the reign of
Reza Shah Pahlevi. The combined effects of institutional distrust on
the part of the theocrats who currently govern the Islamic Republic
of Iran concerning the conventional military institutions, leading as
it did to the decay of the military through inadequate funding and the
creation of a competing paramilitary organization, the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard Command (IRGC), and the disastrous impact of an eight-year conflict
with Iraq, meant that Iran has never been able to build up conventional
military power capable of significant regional power projection, let
alone global power projection.
Where Iran has demonstrated
the ability for global reach is in the spread of Shi’a Islamic
fundamentalism, but even in this case the results have been mixed. Other
than the expansive relations between Iran (via certain elements of the
IRGC) and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Iranian success stories
when it comes to exporting the Islamic revolution are virtually non-existent.
Indeed, the efforts on the part of the IRGC to export Islamic revolution
abroad, especially into Europe and other western nations, have produced
the opposite effect desired. Based upon observations made by former
and current IRGC officers, it appears that those operatives chosen to
spread the revolution in fact more often than not returned to Iran noting
that peaceful coexistence with the West was not only possible but preferable
to the exportation of Islamic fundamentalism. Many of these IRGC officers
began to push for moderation of the part of the ruling theocrats in
Iran, both in terms of interfacing with the west and domestic policies.
The concept of an inherent
incompatibility between Iran, even when governed by a theocratic ruling
class, and the United States is fundamentally flawed, especially from
the perspective of Iran. The Iran of today seeks to integrate itself
responsibly with the nations of the world, clumsily so in some instances,
but in any case a far cry from the crude attempts to export Islamic
revolution in the early 1980’s. The United States claims that
Iran is a real and present danger to the security of the US and the
entire world, and cites Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear technology,
Iran’s continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s
“status” as a state supporter of terror, and Iranian interference
into the internal affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan as the prime examples
of how this threat manifests itself.
On every point, the case
made against Iran collapses upon closer scrutiny. The International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated to investigate Iran’s nuclear
programs, has concluded that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing
a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the IAEA has concluded that
it is capable of monitoring the Iranian nuclear program to ensure that
it does not deviate from the permitted nuclear energy program Iran states
to be the exclusive objective of its endeavors. Iran’s support
of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon - Iranian protestors shown here supporting
Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during an anti-Israel rally
- while a source of concern for the State of Israel, does not constitute
a threat to American national security primarily because the support
provided is primarily defensive in nature, designed to assist Hezbollah
in deterring and repelling an Israeli assault of sovereign Lebanese
territory. Similarly, the bulk of the data used by the United States
to substantiate the claims that Iran is a state sponsor of terror is
derived from the aforementioned support provided to Hezbollah. Other
arguments presented are either grossly out of date (going back to the
early 1980’s when Iran was in fact exporting Islamic fundamentalism)
or unsubstantiated by fact.
The US claims concerning
Iranian interference in both Iraq and Afghanistan ignore the reality
that both nations border Iran, both nations were invaded and occupied
by the United States, not Iran, and that Iran has a history of conflict
with both nations that dictates a keen interest concerning the internal
domestic affairs of both nations. The United States continues to exaggerate
the nature of Iranian involvement in Iraq, arresting “intelligence
operatives” who later turned out to be economic and diplomatic
officials invited to Iraq by the Iraqi government itself. Most if not
all the claims made by the United States concerning Iranian military
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been backed up with anything
stronger than rhetoric, and more often than not are subsequently contradicted
by other military and governmental officials, citing a lack of specific
evidence.
Iran as a nation represents
absolutely no threat to the national security of the United States,
or of its major allies in the region, including Israel. The media hype
concerning alleged statements made by Iran’s President Ahmadinejad
has created and sustained the myth that Iran seeks the destruction of
the State of Israel. Two points of fact directly contradict this myth.
First and foremost, Ahmadinejad never articulated an Iranian policy
objective to destroy Israel, rather noting that Israel’s policies
would lead to its “vanishing from the pages of time.” Second,
and perhaps most important, Ahmadinejad does not make foreign policy
decisions on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the sole
purview of the “Supreme Leader,” the Ayatollah Khomeini.
In 2003 Khomeini initiated a diplomatic outreach to the United States
inclusive of an offer to recognize Israel’s right to exist. This
initiative was rejected by the United States, but nevertheless represents
the clearest indication of what the true policy objective of Iran is
vis-à-vis Israel.
The fact of the matter is
that the “Iranian Threat” is derived solely from the rhetoric
of those who appear to seek confrontation between the United States
and Iran, and largely divorced from fact-based reality. A recent request
on the part of Iran to allow President Ahmadinejad to lay a wreath at
“ground zero” in Manhattan was rejected by New York City
officials. The resulting public outcry condemned the Iranian initiative
as an affront to all Americans, citing Iran’s alleged policies
of supporting terrorism. This knee-jerk reaction ignores the reality
that Iran was violently opposed to al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan
throughout the 1990’s leading up to 2001, and that Iran was one
of the first Muslim nations to condemn the terror attacks against the
United States on September 11, 2001.
A careful fact-based assessment
of Iran clearly demonstrates that it poses no threat to the legitimate
national security interests of the United States. However, if the United
States chooses to implement its own unilateral national security objectives
concerning regime change in Iran, there will most likely be a reaction
from Iran which produces an exceedingly detrimental impact on the national
security interests of the United States, including military, political
and economic. But the notion of claiming a nation like Iran to constitute
a security threat simply because it retains the intent and capability
to defend its sovereign territory in the face of unprovoked military
aggression is absurd. In the end, however, such absurdity is trumping
fact-based reality when it comes to shaping the opinion of the American
public on the issue of the Iranian “threat.”
Scott Ritter
was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United
Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author
of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation
Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his
latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement”
(Nation Books, April 2007).
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.