Nations in the West are discussing the need to increase pressure on the government in Tehran, and even overthrow it if required, due to its nuclear efforts. Meanwhile, the Americans and Israelis are exploring their options and making preparations to attack Iran if it is deemed necessary. Plans are being made and plots are being hatched. None of this is remarkable or objectionable if one is an American or an Israeli. Plans have long been made and studied in the U.S. on how to contain the Islamic regime in Tehran. But what if one is Iranian? How should an Iranian view the plans and preparations to "contain" it? It is not as though the U.S. and Israel have never launched attacks or worked to undermine governments when it was perceived that their national security interests were at stake. When the U.S. or Israel threatens you, you had better pay attention.
Israel has launched numerous "preemptive" and "defensive" attacks on its neighbors. Iran has attacked no one. But, Iran is the threat to peace in the Middle East. The U.S. has acted to over throw the governments of three nations in the region and is maneuvering to make Iran's ally Syria the fourth. Yet it is Iran that is accused of destabilizing the Middle East. We have demanded that Iran follow international law and treaties and comply with U.N. resolutions while we have often been selective in the enforcement and recognition of those same treaties and resolutions and creative in our interpretation of them. Yet, Iran is condemned as defiant. Every war fought by Israel, with the possible exception of its recent invasion of Lebanon, has ended to the benefit of Israel. It has a military that is unmatched in the region yet its survival is seen in constant jeopardy.
It is odd that Iran is viewed as the chief threat to peace in the Middle East. The U.S has bombed Libya. It has invaded and occupied two of Iran's neighbors and overthrown their governments. It has repeatedly threatened Iran and worked diligently to sabotage its economy and undermine its government. There are thousands of U.S. troops, and hundreds of U.S. aircraft nearby in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are dozens of U.S. warships patrolling not far off Iran's shore. And still, Iran is the threat. Israel has nuclear weapons, a formidable air force, and a powerful army. It has repeatedly used force to resolve its conflicts and has made it known that it is quite prepared to attack Iran. Nevertheless, Iran is the threat. Despite its bluster, Iran has little effective means to attack Israel, and none to attack the U.S. It has only a modest ability to defend itself. Yet it is argued that Iran is the chief danger in the region.
Iran claims it is being unfairly singled out for it's actions and policies. The U.S. asserts that Iran is being devious in its plans and dishonest in its statements. Perhaps the U.S. and Israel are correct in their concerns and prudent in their preparations. But still, it is hard to blame the Iranians if they feel they are being treated unfairly. North Korea built a bomb and stated its willingness to use it and no one has threatened to attack them. Israel has nuclear weapons and there has not been a peep out of Washington.
Having a nuclear weapon would not allow Iran to conquer the Middle East or destroy it's enemies. It would not even allow Iran to take over its neighbors. Surrounded as they are by Israel, India, Russia, and Pakistan, and with U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq and offshore, all with nuclear weapons, whatever territorial ambitions Iran may have, if any, would be unlikely to succeed. Militarily, even with a nuclear weapon, Iran is hopelessly outmatched. The only use Iran could make of a nuclear weapon would be for self defense or an act of spite. While some in Iran may boast and threaten, is difficult to believe the government in Tehran would accept the destruction of Iran for an act of spite. And let there be no doubt, it would be destroyed.
The greatest benefit of possessing nuclear weapons to Iran, other than the boost to its collective ego, is that those weapons would make Iran less susceptible to attack and threats from the West. Perhaps if the government in Iran felt less threatened and more secure, its ego, fears, and ambitions would be easier to assuage. It might at least be more willing to sit down and talk to it's adversaries.
There are many in Washington and elsewhere that are impatient and suspicious of Iran's motives and activities. They do not want to "waste" time negotiating. They would dearly love to add the government in Tehran to the list of toppled regimes in the region and change Iran's color on our maps. They advocate confrontation, covert activities, and even military action to undermine Iran's government and destroy its capabilities. They just flat out don't like Iran. But we should resist their calls. Iran is not Iraq or Libya. It would be a mistake to assume that the Iranian people will abandon their government and cheer if bombs and missiles start falling on their country. As for using "covert action" to sabotage Iran's economy or assassinate its leaders and scientists as some are advocating, that would be a peculiar policy to adopt for a nation that has spent the last decade fighting a crusade against terrorism. But then "terrorism" has often been a matter of perspective.
However an unprovoked attack on Iranian nuclear facilities might be portrayed in the press, it would not be a simple surgical strike or preemptive raid. It would be an act of war. It would also be the fourth Islamic nation attacked by the U.S and its allies in the last decade, a fact that would not be lost on the Muslim world.
Iran is a proud and ancient nation with a keen sense of self and it will fight back It is also a sophisticated and powerful nation with a long reach. An attack on Iran, to put it in terms befitting the region, would be the act of sowing the wind.
