What would the world do without Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? While
it may be pleasing to contemplate, the reality is that Iran's leader has become
the one nut job that many of the world's other leaders can't do without.
Consider for a moment the following cases:
-
Benjamin Netanyahu's apparent vision of himself turns on his
role as protector of Israel in the face of the existential threat posed by the
Iranians. And while the Iranians have long been seen as posing such a threat,
with a front man like Ahmadinejad who denies the Holocaust, defies
international law when it comes to nuclear weapons development and regularly
calls for the destruction of Israel, it makes Bibi's job that much easier.
- The Iranian religious elite, paradoxically, also must thank
goodness for their country's president on a regular basis because he often
makes them look thoughtful and reflective by comparison. The reality of course,
is that many of them live further down toward the end of Insanity Lane than
Ahmadinejad, but he is an ideal front man, a limit-tester who can take matters
to the brink and then be dialed back when it suits the real regime, the
clerical inner circle.
- The Iranian opposition, of course, is delighted to have a
thug like Ahmadinejad in power -- at least for the moment. Because he is the kind
of callous, brutal, crude politician that does more to stir up his enemies than
he does to effectively unite his allies. He is a big part of the reason that
thoughtful observers like the CFR's Richard Haass believe that regime change is
actually a plausible alternative in Iran. (Although it is unclear who we would
get after Ahmadinejad or whether they would actually change some of the
policies that make the West most uncomfortable.)
- The Saudi leadership and others from throughout the Arab
world have been worried about Iranian hegemony (or Iran's hegemonic
aspirations) for years. But thanks to the little guy in the tan windbreaker,
they are now increasingly gaining the support of the rest of the world in their
efforts to isolate and contain the country. He is also giving those that seek
it, a good excuse to cultivate their own nuclear weapons program.
- Hugo Chavez loves his BFF in Tehran because mere association
with him makes Hugo seem larger and more dangerous than he really is. Talk of a
"mysterious" daily flight from Caracas to Tehran is all the rage among the
anti-Chavistas carrying with it the most sinister sort of implications. Will
Venezuela go nuclear if Iran does? Is Venezuela a partner in a new kind of axis
of crackpots that will work to be destabilizing in a variety of situations
worldwide? By making people ask these questions, the five foot two Ahmadinejad
is like a pair of elevator shoes for the five foot eight Chavez.
- The government of Brazil has also embraced Iran as a way of
sending the message to the world that it is charting its own course, that it is
not in the thrall of U.S. or Western views. It sends a message of solidarity
with the new non-aligned without really having much impact except irritating
the U.S. government (which is a plus in many political circles in Brazil). Lula
hugs Ahmadinejad and says, we are a rising major power that will be quite
different from the 20th century-variety of major powers. Is it a responsible stance? Not if it gives
cover to dangerous Iranian programs or legitimizes repulsive Iranian
policies... but Brazil now also gets to offer itself up as a channel to the bad
guys, a useful middleman role that makes it relevant in two different worlds.
- Ahmadinejad also is helpful to the Russians and the Chinese.
While both dither over sanctions, they also both remain close to Tehran in
important ways -- from Russian security cooperation to Chinese dependency on Iran
for 20 percent of its oil. The United States is distracted and bears a huge cost through
the need to maintain militarily present in the region... and again, two rising
powers get to send a mixed message that well suits their domestic and
international objectives.
While this list goes on, however, there is another dimension
to the festering tensions with Iran over its nuclear program that may not, as
of yet, be fully understood. This relates specifically to Netanyahu's framing
of Iran as an existential threat. It may be just that, but not in the way he
was envisioning.
Because over the past several years, growing concerns over
Iran and its nuclear program have come to trump most others in the Middle East
proper. They have transcended in terms of the security threat involved those
associated with either the Israeli-Palestinian issue or those associated, at
least for now, with al Qaeda (thanks in part to defeats for al Qaeda like
today's killing of its leader in Iraq, and thanks in part to the fact that Iran
seems to be, in the words of a former colleague of mine who was a career naval
officer and Jack London fan, the wolf closest to the sled). Is a potentially
nuclear Iran more dangerous than an unstable Pakistan? Probably not... but that's
like saying you have two forms of cancer. You want to treat both, but the one
that is most threatening at the moment will dominate your attention.
The Israeli government has played up this threat for
completely legitimate and understandable reasons. Getting Iran's nuclear
program just a little bit wrong might be minor for the world but a really big
deal for Israel. However, having thus framed the issue, the Israelis have to
live with the consequences... and the consequences are not what they intended.
Because if, as seems likely, the ultimate result of the
Iranian nuclear program is (after "engagement" and sanctions ultimately prove
ineffective, as seems likely) that we accept the idea of a nuclear Iran and
revert to a strategy of containment, paradoxically Israel may move to be less
central to U.S. interests in the region, trumped by the urgent need for a
strong alliance with Arab states like Saudi, the UAE, Iraq, etc. designed to contain
the new Iranian threat. Further, if we create a "nuclear umbrella" for the
region, it is hard to imagine treaty or diplomatic language that did not, of
necessity, promise to protect those states from all nuclear threats including
those posed by Israel.
We're already seeing signs that the risks of having to live
with a nuclear Iran are sufficiently real that relations with anti-Iranian Arab
states are becoming more and more central -- and thus are likely to give those
states an ever greater voice in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Hence all the
buzz about seeking to set American terms for a peace, gain Arab support and
then go to the Israelis and say, here's the deal: You want to contain Iran, you
need to give this serious consideration.
Israel felt compelled to sell the Iranian threat. But their
pitch really only would work if they persuaded the world to preempt that threat.
If Iran got the bomb, then the geopolitics change, U.S. interests align more
closely with those of some historic enemies of Israel, and a difficult
relationship becomes even more complex. (And it's not so good now. My bet is
that if the Palestinians unilaterally declared independence tomorrow there
would be two kinds of reaction worldwide: celebration and, perhaps in a few
cases, effective silence. Another point the Israelis need to consider: in the
21st Century emerging powers that are less sympathetic to their case are
playing an increasingly important role in shaping multilateral outcomes.)
Ahmadinejad may be the region's indispensable lunatic, but
if things keep trending in the current direction, he may ultimately be one that
the Israelis could well have done without.
Read More
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE