Oil,
Israel, And America: The Root Cause Of The Crisis
By Scott Ritter
10 October, 2007
Britannica
Blog
There
is no shortage of examples of historical points of friction between
the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States to draw upon in order
to illustrate the genesis of the current level of tension. One can point
to the Islamic revolution that cast aside America’s staunch ally,
Reza Shah Pahlevi, the period of reactionary exportation of Islamic
“revolution” that followed, the take over of the US Embassy
and subsequent holding of Americans hostage (replete with a failed rescue
mission), the Iranian use of proxies to confront American military involvement
in Lebanon, inclusive of the bombing of the Marine barracks and US Embassy
compounds, America’s support of Saddam Hussein during the 8-year
war between Iran and Iraq, the ‘hot’ conflict between Iran
and the United States in the late 1980s, or Iran’s ongoing support
of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon. The list could continue.
With the exception of the
current situation in Lebanon, most of these “friction points”
are dated, going back nearly three decades past. And when one examines
the ‘root’ causes of these past points of friction, we find
that there is no simple ‘black and white’ causal relationship
which places Iran firmly in the wrong. Much of the early animosity between
the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States was derived from
the resentment most Iranians felt over American support for a brutal,
repressive regime. This resentment, coupled with an uncompromising approach
taken by the United States towards maintaining cordial relations with
a post-Shah Iran, manifested itself in the furtherance of anti-American
activity in Iran, which in turn hardened the posture of the US government
against Iran, leading to a cycle of devolution that ultimately resulted
in the severance of all ties between the two nations.
The animosity between the
United States and Iran was further exacerbated by the US support for
Saddam Hussein during the bloody 8-year war between Iran and Iraq. This
support, which manifested itself by actually drawing the US military
into a shooting war with elements of Iran’s military during the
re-flagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers in the late 1980’s, in turn
created the conditions which led to the policy of “dual containment”
of both Iran and Iraq from 1991, in the aftermath of the first Gulf
War. “Dual Containment” was more a product of the lack of
policy between the United States and Iran than it was representative
of a singular policy direction. The end result, namely a failure to
achieve any discernable results, created the conditions for “policy
drift,” which by 1998 led to the adoption of a policy of regime
change in Iraq, and the embrace of ideologically-driven national security
strategies which expanded regime change to be inclusive of the Islamic
Republic of Iran. These policy directions on the part of the United
States took place in a virtual reality-deprived atmosphere, being driven
more from the perspective of a domestic American perspective based on
inaccuracies and misperceptions of Iran than they were from any hard,
factual analysis of the genuine state of affairs inside Iran. It is
largely because of this systemic lack of intellectual curiosity regarding
Iran that many in America, including the main stream media, find themselves
divining models of national behavior derived from actions and events
more than 20 years past.
Iran’s nuclear program,
far from being the “root cause” of Iranian-American animosity,
is simply a facilitator for those who are predisposed to accept at face
value anything that paints Iran in a negative light. The same can be
said of almost every effort undertaken by the US government, post-1998,
regarding Iran. A major impetus behind this trend towards rhetorically-based
negativism regarding Iran is the influence exerted on the US national
security decision making process by the government of Israel, and those
elements within the United States, both governmental and non-governmental,
which lobby on behalf of Israel. Israel has, for over a decade, listed
Iran as its most serious national security threat, and has lobbied extensively
to get the United States to embrace a similar policy direction.
A pre-occupation with Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq during the 1990s up to 2003 precluded such a shift
in policy. However, while the deteriorating situation in Iraq since
the march 2003 invasion and occupation by the United States has dominated
the US national security decision making hierarchy, the elimination
of Saddam Hussein, coupled with a less than satisfactory outcome regarding
holding to account the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 terror
attacks on the united States, created an ideologically-driven gap in
the threat models pushed by those making policy in the United States,
and since 2004 Israel has been successful in pressuring American policy
positions vis-à-vis Iran to more closely model the positions
taken by Israel, up to and including a characterization of Iran as a
nation pursuing nuclear weapons ambitions, operating as a state sponsor
of terror, and possessing a government which is fundamentally incompatible
with regional and global peace and security.
The Israeli perspective on
Iran is driven by two primary factors: a “zero tolerance”
for the acquisition of nuclear weapons by any nation deemed a threat,
either real or potential, that is so strict even nuclear energy-related
programs permitted under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Iran contends,
and the IAEA concurs, is the case regarding its nuclear activities)
are deemed unacceptable, and an inability to diplomatically resolve
the reality of the Lebanese Hezbollah Party on its northern borders.
The Israeli posturing regarding
Iran’s nuclear program, and America’s unquestioning support
of the Israeli position, has nullified any chance of meaningful diplomacy
in this regard, since diplomacy is at least nominally based upon the
rule of law as set forth under relevant treaties and agreements, a reality
Israel refuses to acknowledge as legitimate concerning Iran’s
nuclear ambitions. Hezbollah has further complicated the issue given
the fact that it a) receives considerable support, financial and material,
from Iran, and b) it has demonstrated an ability to embarrass Israel’s
vaunted military machine on the field of battle. National hubris, more
than legitimate national security concerns, drives Israel’s unyielding
stance concerning Hezbollah, which in turn colors American policy pronouncements
which list Iran as a state sponsor of terror, even though there is little
in the way of concrete evidence to back up such claims other than Iran’s
ongoing status as a major benefactor of Hezbollah.
But the key factor in the
calculus of what serves as the root cause of conflict between Iran and
the United States is energy, namely Iran’s status as one of the
world’s leading producers of oil and natural gas. The United States
has, for some time now, placed a high emphasis on Middle Eastern and
Central Asian oil and gas when it comes to determining future economic
development trends. In a fossil-fuel driven global economy, energy resources
have become one of the major factors in determining which nation or
group of nations will be able to dominate not only economically, but
also militarily and politically.
In the “Power Equation”
that gets factored into national security decision making here in the
United States, fossil fuels play a dominant role. America’s interest
in dominating the Middle Eastern region is driven almost exclusively
by the energy resources of that region. Iran’s situation is further
exacerbated by the reality that Iranian oil and gas represent a critical
part of the future economic growth of the world’s two largest
expanding economies, namely China and India. By leveraging its control
over Iranian energy production, as well as the other major centers of
fossil fuel production in the Middle east and Central Asia, the United
States is positioning itself to be able to control the pace of economic
expansion in China and India, a capability deemed vital when it comes
to the national security posture of the United States in relation to
these two nations and the rest of the world.
In short, there are many
factors involved in what one might term the “root cause”
of Iranian-US animosity. But the reality is all of the points of friction
between Iran and the US could be readily resolved with viable diplomacy
save two: Israel’s current level of unflinching hostility towards
Iran, and America’s addiction to global energy resources. These
two factors guarantee that there will be tension between Iran and the
United States for some time to come, and place blame for the continuation
of tension firmly on the side of the United States.
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).
© 2006-2007 Encyclopædia
Britannica, Inc.
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.