It is undoubtedly the case that the Iranians get up to a number of very unhelpful activities, some of which are in the public domain, and not all of which we can get into here. The potential for another nuclear state in the area is also hardly a warm and fuzzy thought too.Originally Posted by JJackson
It is also true, however, that Iran has a set of understandable national security interests, that need to be addressed. They have a far more vital interset in (neighbouring) Iraq and Afghanistan than does the US, for example--especially given that the former attacked, and used WMD against them (with a degree of Western support). The impact of that war can't be overstated: Iranian casualties were, proportionate to population, greater than US casualties in WWII.
It is inevitable that Tehran will use whatever means it has available (money, weapons, diplomacy) to influence events there--much as the US would do if Iranian troops seized control of Canada and Mexico.
Support for Hizbullah is problematic in the light of its involvement in cross-border attacks and attempts to destabilize the current Siniora government. However, this isn't entirely black-and white either: Hizbullah was born in reaction to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by a US-armed and US-funded ally who had a green light from Washington. That war, everyone but the Lebanese and Palestinians tend to forget, resulted in some 15,000 or so dead and years of occupation. Hizbullah's growth also came in the context of a consociational political system that systematically disadvantages the Shi'ite plurality in the country. Finally, it is looking rather as if (much to my surprise) UN cartographers are now tending to the view that Shaba Farms is part of Lebanon after all, meaning (much to our embarrassment) Hizbullah might have been right about Lebanese territory still being under Israeli occupation.
One of the frustrating things about US-Iranian rivalry is that one can highlight a number of areas of potential common interest (AQ, stability in Iraq and Afghanistan) but complex internal political and ideological dynamics in both countries inhibit any sort of productive strategic dialogue, whether it be the US spurning Iranian overtures in 2003, the "Axis of Evil" speech (as a Canadian, btw, I apologize for David Frum), the covert activities of the IRGC and MOIS, and the anti-Semitic ramblings of Ahmadinejad. Now, sadly, I think its almost an impossible task, at least until we've had a change or two in presidential administrations.
My usual caveat applies here: I'm not suggesting any sort of moral equivalence here. I am suggesting that failure to understand Iranian national security concerns and policies results in suboptimal outcomes.
---
On a side note, I remember attending a conference where a US admiral went on at length at the Iranian threat to the US. In the discussion period, a much more junior Marine intel officer offered all the reasons why he thought Iranians might understandably regard the US as a national security threat too. The discussion grew more and more heated, especially when the latter suggested that configuring Iranian forces to try to take down a US carrier (in the event of conflict) seemed a perfectly sensible thing for them to do. Apparently, this idea does not go over well in the Navy
Bookmarks