Truthdig - The U.S. Is Playing With Fire on Iran .
{text-decoration:none!important;} table { display: none; } table.footer {
(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new
Date();a=s.createElement(o),
The U.S. Is Playing With Fire on Iran
Posted on Feb 7, 2017
By Scott Ritter
National security adviser Michael Flynn "putting Iran on notice" last
week.
(Screen shot via Politico)
Last Wednesday, national security adviser Michael Flynn appeared in the
White
House briefing room to issue a statement. He singled out what he
characterized
as Iran's "destabilizing behavior across the Middle East," including "a
provocative ballistic missile launch" that was, in his opinion, done "in
defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231," which was passed July
20,
2015. UNSCR 2231 endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA),
as
the nuclear deal among Iran, the United States, Russia, China and the
European
Union is officially known. "As of today," Flynn darkly declared, "we are
officially putting Iran on notice."
The Iranian test, which involved a Khorramshahr medium-range missile, took
place
three days earlier, on Jan. 29. After flying roughly 630 miles, the missile
exploded in midair in what appeared to be a failed test of a re-entry
vehicle.
As Flynn noted in his statement, the Security Council had, in its Resolution
2231, "called upon" Iran "not to undertake any activity related to ballistic
missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including
launches using ballistic missile technology."
Iran maintains that its missile test was not in violation of any Security
Council resolution, saying that it has no nuclear weapons program, its
missiles
are designed as conventional weapons only and it has a legitimate interest
in
self-defense, inclusive of the right to test and deploy ballistic missiles.
Ali
Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister and current policy adviser to
Iran's
supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, dismissed Flynn's statement as "baseless
ranting."
Legally, Iran has the stronger position. Although a previous U.N.
resolution,
UNSCR 1929, passed in 2010, directed "that Iran shall not undertake any
activity
related to ballistic missiles," that resolution was terminated as a result
of
the ground-breaking nuclear deal. It was replaced by the resolution cited by
Flynn. The later resolution, UNSCR 2231, only calls upon Iran not to test
missiles, a far less stringent standard that falls short of an outright
prohibition on missile testing. While the Obama administration, when
negotiating
the JCPOA, had opposed watering down of the language, Russia, China and
Europe
disagreed, and the new verbiage was approved.
But neither legality nor reality seems to be a defining feature in the
worldview
of the Trump administration. "Iran is playing with fire," President Trump
tweeted after the Iranian test. "They don't appreciate how kind President
Obama
was to them. Not me!" Shortly after the newly inaugurated president's tweet,
the
Treasury Department announced new sanctions against Iran for its "continued
support for terrorism and development of its ballistic missile program."
After
the sanctions were announced, Flynn issued a follow-on statement: "The days
of
turning a blind eye to Iran's hostile and belligerent actions toward the
United
States and the world community are over."
The charges supporting the Trump administration's justification for
sanctioning
Iran, however, are factually and intellectually unsustainable. While there
is no
arguing that Iran's behavior during the early years of the Islamic
Republic's
existence justified it being labeled as a sponsor of state terrorism, the
same
cannot be said of its policies since 2001. Iran was quick to condemn the
9/11
terror attack on the United States and played a role in supporting American
actions against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein
in
Iraq.
Iran's overt and covert actions in opposing what it viewed as an unjust and
illegal occupation of Iraq by the United States are often cited by those
opposed
to the theocracy in Tehran as proof of the ongoing legitimacy of the
"terrorist"
label. Viewed broadly, however, the Iranian policies toward Iraq since the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 are part and parcel of a coherent approach
to
opposing the very Sunni-based Islamic fundamentalism that motivated the 9/11
terror attacks and continue to drive al-Qaida, Islamic State and other
Islamic
extremist elements around the world today, a fundamentalism against which
the
United States wages its "global war on terror." Iran is helping lead the
fight
against Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria and is a sworn enemy of
al-Qaida in
Afghanistan and Yemen. Seen in this context, Iran is more ally than foe, and
the
label "state sponsor of terror" appears trivial and inappropriate-especially
when viewed beside the policies of erstwhile America allies such as Saudi
Arabia, whose citizens constituted the majority of the 9/11 attackers and
which
is responsible for underwriting the financial and material support of
Islamic
extremists around the world, including Islamic State and al-Qaida.
When asked about the range of responses his administration might consider in
dealing with a recalcitrant Iran, Trump replied, "Nothing is off the table,"
implying a military option. Any military action against Iran, however, void
of
just cause and proper preparation and planning, would be foolish and
counterproductive to U.S. national security objectives in the Middle East
and
around the world. It would also be near suicidal for U.S. forces deployed in
the
region.
An American military strike against Iran based upon continued testing of
ballistic missiles would most likely trigger a response from Tehran that
would
neither be limited nor readily containable. American forces in Syria and
Iraq
that are currently focused on defeating Islamic State could be put at
genuine
risk from the thousands of Iranian troops and pro-Iranian proxies operating
in
their vicinity. Moreover, any military action against Iran could draw both
Israel and Russia into the fight (and not necessarily on the same side)
while
alienating European allies and creating levels of uncertainty that neither
the
American military nor foreign service is prepared to deal with.
Trump committed to a strong anti-Iranian stance during his campaign,
promising
to do away with the "bad deal" that was the JCPOA. While more pragmatic
minds
seem to have convinced the new president that it would not be in America's
best
interests to unilaterally withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran, the
words
and actions of the Trump administration seem to indicate a willingness to
foment
a crisis with the theocracy in Tehran. This is not sound policy.
In May of this year, Iran will hold elections for the office of president.
The
incumbent, Hassan Rouhani, has proved to be a moderating influence on the
more
conservative elements inside Iran-he was singularly responsible for Iran's
willingness to negotiate a nuclear deal that many inside Iran opposed.
Rouhani's
re-election is not a foregone conclusion; indeed, the recent death of his
long-time mentor and ally, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has substantially
weakened
the position of the Iranian president in the face of strong conservative
opposition to his policies, further complicating any re-election bid by the
incumbent.
Iran under Rouhani has shown itself more than capable of navigating
difficult
diplomatic waters made even more treacherous by inconsistent and often
hostile
American policy. A conservative Iranian president would not necessarily be
able,
or willing, to do the same. If the goal of the Trump administration is to do
away with the Iranian nuclear deal, there is no more certain path to that
outcome than the election of a conservative successor to President Rouhani.
Such
an outcome would be disastrous for Iran, the United States and the rest of
the
world. While the decision as to who will govern as president of Iran is
ultimately one that the people of Iran, through their constitutionally
mandated
processes, will decide, there seems to be a lack of recognition within the
Trump
team as to the ramifications of the administration's words and actions when
it
comes to shaping events involving Iran and other countries.
The Trump administration's foray into Iran policy-courtesy of Michael
Flynn's
statement-seemed to have been driven by a national security adviser flying
solo;
Secretary of Defense James Mattis was in Asia and Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson was not yet confirmed. One can only hope that Trump will, in the
future, rely more on the advice of such senior Cabinet officials when it
comes
to issues with the complexity and magnitude of Iran, and less on the
inflammatory words of Flynn. Military conflict with Iran is not desirable
policy. Playing with fire is one thing, getting burned another-especially
when
it is the United States holding the match.
var addthis_config = { data_ga_property: 'UA-344431-1',
data_ga_social :
true }; var addthis_share = { url_transforms : { shorten: { twitter:
'bitly' } }, shorteners : { bitly : {}} }
New on Truthdig
Will Facebook's Fake-News Detection System Lead to Censorship?
Posted on Feb 8, 2017
The Coretta Scott King Letter That the GOP Wouldn't Let Sen.
Warren
Read
Posted on Feb 8, 2017
Can Democrats Be as Stubborn as Mitch McConnell?
Posted on Feb 8, 2017
Kellyanne Conway Offers 'Olive Branch,' More Spin in CNN
Interview
With Jake Tapper
Posted on Feb 7, 2017
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion
Publisher Zuade Kaufman | Editor Robert Scheer
About Us | Contact Us | Advertise or Partner with Truthdig | User
Agreement | Privacy Policy | Comment Policy
C 2017 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
Website development by Hop Studios
