[i] This trend began much earlier in London and Berlin[ii]. Neocons from Washington to Berlin are preparing the public for military strike against Iran. They believe that Economic Sanctions (cold war WMD) against Iran has not been successful and if the West dose not attack Iran, continuation of its hegemony in the Middle East will be very costly. They mention that the US has lost its credibility and its interests are threatened in the ME. They recommend that to decrease the costs and reestablish its hegemony, the US and its allies should strike Iranian peaceful nuclear facilities before they lose the option. They promise people a better and safer living place after the strike.
This is exactly the literature that neoconservatives used in 2003 to convince the people in the West to support the war against Iraq. At that time they succeeded in UK and the US but failed in Berlin and Paris. This time it seems that they have begun from Berlin. Those who supported invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to bring a better and more peaceful world for the US and EU and the people in the Middle East. However, those wars led to loss of life by hundreds of thousands of people in the US, Iraq, Afghanistan … and imposed billions of dollars on the US and EU economy. While Neocons are thinking about lunching another war, these countries are still paying the price of the past ones.
For the following reasons, military strike that Kroning and Read proposes, is the worst option not only for the region but also for the west. Kroning and other supporters of war mention that the US can escalate the tension, strike Iran and decrease the tensions. He assumes that the problem is only between Iran and the US and after the strike, they rationally calculate and reach to the conclusion that it is in their benefit to decrease the tensions. His arguments and others who support the war against Iran are based on many incorrect assumptions. First, they assume that the US and EU are not much vulnerable. The US and EU vulnerability in the region may be even more than Iran; Iran has expanded radar-evading technology to different fields from flying boats to missiles and drones. It is not so easy for the US and its allies to limit their damages.
Second, Kroning and others regard war as a rational behavior, while war happens when rationality ends. Rationality has no deadlock and reason is always problem-solver. Current deadlock between Iran and the West shows that EU and the US behaviors toward Iran are not rational. They ask Iran to submit to Western domination and Iran says no. Asking a country to submit is an emotional demands not a reasonable one. When a war happens the emotions are far more important than reasons. Emotional behaviors are not predictable and it is difficult to analyze them rationally. The US made all rational calculations before going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and those who were thinking about those preemptive attacks were much more intelligent and experienced than Kroenig and Read.
Third, there are many players with different interests and views both inside Iran and the US. Both countries have been involved in wars in recent decades and they know how difficult it is to create a consensus to manage and end a war. Consensus building process for escalation takes time and it increases the costs of the ongoing war.
Forth, they just see Iran and the US as the main players while there are many other players in the region and at global level with different interests. Some of them for sure will benefit from the war between Iran and the US and Washington and Berlin will not be able to prevent their interventions. Continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate how difficult it is to bring together different players and create a consensus among them to support peace. Fifth, they add that the US regional allies have urged the US to attack Iran. It means that the war will not be limited to Iran and the US and other players will involve. Those players that have such a request from Washington have their own weaknesses and are fragile. Consequently, expansion of the war, even for a short period of time, increases the vulnerabilities and flaws of these governments and they may even not to be able to remain Western ally during or after the war. As an example, there are extremist forces that are waiting to see least weak point in Saudi Kingdom. They are not Iranian allies but they have their own visions for future that are not compatible with Berlin or Washington views. Sixth, the main threat for the US allies in the ME comes from the people not from Iran. To suppress the people and divert their attention, dictatorships in the ME may be interested in lunching another war. But, military attack will prolong instability and war in the region. For sure the winner of such a war will not be the US or those who advise Washington to attack Iran. The main threat stems from unemployment, instability, frustration. War will not make any contribution to their resolution. The solution is preparing a peaceful environment for promotion of democracy and prosperity.
Seventh, turning into war will destabilize the EU neighborhood further. It will increase the challenges that EU already face like illegal immigration, narcotics, extremism and terrorism.
Eighth, most of the oil producing facilities are in the war zone. A regional war that is most probable will cause destruction of many oil facilities that sharply decrease their oil production capacity. Even if the war ends within a few months, these countries will not be able to increase their oil capacities to the prewar level soon. It will damage the world economy and lead to further proliferation of nuclear technology. Because many countries around the world will try to decrease their dependence on Persian Gulf oil and nuclear power plant is still an important option.
Ninth, some politicians in the west may think that a new war will shift the attention of the people for some times at home, provide more benefits for military-industrial complexes, lead to flight of capitals from Persian Gulf and the Middle East to EU and US financial markets and improve the economic situation. All of them may happen, however, finally the EU and US may achieve a Middle East that they do not want: An instable region, armed with latest Western military equipments and dominated by extremist forces. EU and the US may not remain strong enough to face that.
Tenth, the current debate about striking Iran may have other explanations; The scenario that has repeatedly been followed during the past 6 years: Propagating war, selling weapons, preparing new resolutions, beginning negotiations, leading negotiations to failure, putting the responsibility of the failure on Iranian side and ratifying the sanctions till the next round. This is another scenario that has been followed by Neocons in EU and the US. Even if we consider current debate as a psychological war, it is very shortsighted that leads to loss of Iran for ever by the West.
These are some of the reasons that demonstrate turning to force and advocating war with Iran is the worst option for the region and the West. The hot Chocolate that Kroning and Co tries to prepare and sell to the people in the US and the EU is too hot to be drunk.
This is the summary of the paper that has originally has been published in: Europe’s Word
[i] . Matthew Kroenig, Time to Attack Iran, Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option, Forign Affairs Jurnal, January-Febraruy 2012.
[ii] . The same War message published in Germany Internationale PolitiK much sooner. Tomas Read, Abschreckung zwecklos? Was ist, wenn der Iran die Bombe hat: Skizze einer überfälligen Debatte, Internationale Politik 5, September/Oktober 2011./
281
