The Iranian Cauldron

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said it was best to have your enemy in your tent, pissing out than to have them outside, pissing in. At the onset of his administration, President Obama suggested that the best course of action with regards to Iran was dialogue. He suggested that the isolation of Iran by previous administrations did not solve the problem, indeed, it made it worse. The best way to ensure Iran behaves itself and upholds international agreements was to be closer to them. This policy has met with mixed results.

The other week, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria suggested that increased sanctions and tough talk was not required as Iran was weak and posed no threat to anyone. As much as I admire Mr. Zakaria and enjoy his program and vast knowledge on international affairs, I’m not sure he could be more wrong. History is replete with examples of one country assuming weakness in another, only to be stung later by being unprepared. In U.S. history, we have been on both sides on the equation – Britain (1776) and Japan (1941) assumed our weakness and we did the same with the Philippines (1898) and Viet Nam (1968). To presume that Iran is weak because of internal strife and the devastating effect of international sanctions is foolish. The chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Force, Bennie Gantz, said before the Knesset that the extreme pressures on Iran does not mean they will knuckle under and he worries about possible actions from Iran.

Iran’s belligerence is the product of being backed into a corner and having a possible outlet with Iraq. I do not suggest we ease up – indeed, we should push harder. Iran is isolated in the region and long standing allies, China and Russia, are being pressured heavily to cut themselves off from the Islamic republic. The weaker its position becomes, the more dangerous it is to its neighbors, all Sunni Muslims, and the western powers. In order to calm or better control its increasingly restless population, Iran has the incentive of starting something internationally to take the attention away from its own crumbling house. We saw this with Syria. As protests grew there, the Syrian government blamed the civil unrest on everyone from the Israelis to al-Queda in hopes that a common enemy would nullify the anger in the streets and unify the people. So it is with the Iranian leadership.

With Iran teetering, we must now, more than ever, step up pressures with increased sanctions, increased pressure on China and Russia and greater cooperation with Iran’s Sunni neighbors. Additionally, as Iran edges closer to nuclear capability, we need to consider other options that would prevent a worse scenario from occurring. The U.S. should be planning a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and/or quietly encouraging the Israelis to do the same. There is enough concern in the Middle East to potentially bring certain Arab states into the planning so as to present a unified front against – whether it is diplomatically or militarily. The last part might be difficult to manage as the Arab states might be less incline to be seen supporting future American military action against a pre-dominantly Muslim nation.

If there is good news, it is that President Obama has options. As a combat veteran, I do not suggest a military option lightly but it might come to that and we should be prepared. Heightening our urgency for preparedness is the latest news of the captured American who traveled to Iran to visit a sick grandmother. The young man has been sentenced to death. If he is executed, Iran, as one State Department official told al-Jazeera news agency, will close any remaining doors to peace and cooperation. Iran is a country representing an impressive history and culture but currently controlled by competing forces and irrational policy makers. I hope the latter does not destroy the future of the former.