The western world has a long and checkered history of meddling in the Middle East. Since 9/11, a witch's brew of terrorism and interest in oil has increased American intervention. Against a backdrop of ancient family and tribal rivalries, conflicts among religious sects, despotic rulers, and the desire of people for greater freedom, we have a tangled web that few can begin to understand.
To that tangled web, add Russia, American anxiety over terrorism, a controversial nuclear deal with Iran and an election season with a gaggle of candidates each trying to talk tougher than the next.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Well, just about anything, including mechanical failure, navigational error - the cause is still unclear - the end result of which was two U.S. Navy boats and 10 American sailors drifting into Iranian waters.
Such an accidental incident could easily escalate into a military exchange costing loss of life and limb, if not full scale war - that is, if hot heads with itchy trigger fingers on either side held sway. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, using diplomatic channels forged during the lengthy negotiations with Iran. The chief fallout of the incident has been disingenuous attempts by politicians opposed to the nuclear deal to escalate this into a major Iranian act of aggression.
Let's review a few benchmarks of Iranian history. In 1951, Mohammed Masaddegh was elected Prime Minister of Iran. One can quibble about whether he was justified in believing that Iranian oil belonged to the Iranians, but he nationalized the oil companies. The CIA engineered a coup in 1953, installing a Shah who was friendly to America. (It was the first CIA-engineered coup following W.W.II. Another would follow in 1954 in Guatemala.)
The Shah became despotic and unpopular. The revolution of 1979 brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power and strained relations with the West. The relations between Iran and the U.S. hit rock bottom with the kidnapping of 52 Americans, and holding them hostage for 444 days.
Though officially neutral, in the Iran-Iraq war beginning in 1980, the U.S. sided with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. This historical legacy made the recent negotiations with Iran more difficult.
During the First Gulf War of 1990, American allegiance switched, opposing Saddam Hussein in his squabble with Kuwait. With American victory, labeled Operation Desert Storm, then Secretary of Defense, Richard Cheney, explained that it would be unwise to push into Baghdad and topple Hussein's regime. Unfortunately, later as vice president, he changed his mind.
The tragic debacle of 9/11 changed everything. Something had to be done.
That "something" conflated into invasion of Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. But Iraq was accused of harboring terrorists, and believed to be developing nuclear weapons. Better to eliminate that threat, along with the Hussein regime, and make Iraq into an example of democracy for the rest of the Middle East, or so the thinking of our politicians went.
From the moment of military victory, occupation of Iraq was handled with gross incompetence. The toppling of Hussein created a power vacuum, giving free reign for rival factions to fight for power. This resulted in tremendous suffering and loss of life of Iraqi civilians and further loss of Americans.
Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden was believed to be somewhere in Afghanistan. He was eventually hunted down and killed in Pakistan, which is what Americans really wanted in the first place.
So instead of Saddam Hussein and the non-existent nuclear weapons in Iraq, we have ISIS. Add to that a cruel despot in Syria, Syrian rebels of unknown tendencies, antagonism between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and fear of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Throw Russia into the mix and, again, what could possibly go wrong?
In spite of tough talk and grandstanding, nobody has a widely acceptable solution to the Syrian situation, or how to fight ISIS without creating more enemies than we kill. And we can neither resolve the tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran, nor the long-standing tension between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
But there is something we, cooperating with other powers, can do to reduce volatility a bit, namely reduce or eliminate the prospect of Iran producing nuclear weapons.
Enter the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 (permanent members of the U.N. Security council - U.S., U.K., Russia, France, and China, plus Germany), plus the European Union. After over two years of painstaking negotiations, a deal was made. Given the long-standing ill-will between the U.S. and Iran, many Americans, including most Republican politicians, and some Democratic, oppose the deal.
What is missing from public discourse is that while the more hard-line Iranian religious leaders don't like the deal, Iranian businessmen and younger Iranians enthusiastically support it. There is a good chance that, given time, moderate interests in Iran will prevail. Iranian businessmen, heirs to a long-standing mercantilist tradition, and younger Iranians, long to be part of the broader world.
The timing of this Navy incident was bad, but could have been worse. Thanks to diplomatic channels developed during the negotiations, especially between Secretary of State John Kerry who himself has experienced war, and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif, the incident was quickly resolved, the sailors returned unharmed, and tragic military escalation was avoided.
Outraged critics assert that had this situation been reversed we would have treated Iranian sailors better than they treated ours. We surely hope that Iranian boats erroneously entering volatile waters would not have been blown out of the water, and that their errant young sailors would have been treated humanely and promptly returned unharmed.
Because of our past experience with Iran, critics will insist that diplomacy is acting "out of weakness," and will continue to oppose the nuclear deal. But diplomacy has already paid dividends, namely the diplomatic channels created during the negotiations, the safe return of American sailors, and prevention of further military escalation.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
To that tangled web, add Russia, American anxiety over terrorism, a controversial nuclear deal with Iran and an election season with a gaggle of candidates each trying to talk tougher than the next.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Well, just about anything, including mechanical failure, navigational error - the cause is still unclear - the end result of which was two U.S. Navy boats and 10 American sailors drifting into Iranian waters.
Such an accidental incident could easily escalate into a military exchange costing loss of life and limb, if not full scale war - that is, if hot heads with itchy trigger fingers on either side held sway. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, using diplomatic channels forged during the lengthy negotiations with Iran. The chief fallout of the incident has been disingenuous attempts by politicians opposed to the nuclear deal to escalate this into a major Iranian act of aggression.
Let's review a few benchmarks of Iranian history. In 1951, Mohammed Masaddegh was elected Prime Minister of Iran. One can quibble about whether he was justified in believing that Iranian oil belonged to the Iranians, but he nationalized the oil companies. The CIA engineered a coup in 1953, installing a Shah who was friendly to America. (It was the first CIA-engineered coup following W.W.II. Another would follow in 1954 in Guatemala.)
The Shah became despotic and unpopular. The revolution of 1979 brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power and strained relations with the West. The relations between Iran and the U.S. hit rock bottom with the kidnapping of 52 Americans, and holding them hostage for 444 days.
Though officially neutral, in the Iran-Iraq war beginning in 1980, the U.S. sided with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. This historical legacy made the recent negotiations with Iran more difficult.
During the First Gulf War of 1990, American allegiance switched, opposing Saddam Hussein in his squabble with Kuwait. With American victory, labeled Operation Desert Storm, then Secretary of Defense, Richard Cheney, explained that it would be unwise to push into Baghdad and topple Hussein's regime. Unfortunately, later as vice president, he changed his mind.
The tragic debacle of 9/11 changed everything. Something had to be done.
That "something" conflated into invasion of Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. But Iraq was accused of harboring terrorists, and believed to be developing nuclear weapons. Better to eliminate that threat, along with the Hussein regime, and make Iraq into an example of democracy for the rest of the Middle East, or so the thinking of our politicians went.
From the moment of military victory, occupation of Iraq was handled with gross incompetence. The toppling of Hussein created a power vacuum, giving free reign for rival factions to fight for power. This resulted in tremendous suffering and loss of life of Iraqi civilians and further loss of Americans.
Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden was believed to be somewhere in Afghanistan. He was eventually hunted down and killed in Pakistan, which is what Americans really wanted in the first place.
So instead of Saddam Hussein and the non-existent nuclear weapons in Iraq, we have ISIS. Add to that a cruel despot in Syria, Syrian rebels of unknown tendencies, antagonism between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and fear of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Throw Russia into the mix and, again, what could possibly go wrong?
In spite of tough talk and grandstanding, nobody has a widely acceptable solution to the Syrian situation, or how to fight ISIS without creating more enemies than we kill. And we can neither resolve the tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran, nor the long-standing tension between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
But there is something we, cooperating with other powers, can do to reduce volatility a bit, namely reduce or eliminate the prospect of Iran producing nuclear weapons.
Enter the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 (permanent members of the U.N. Security council - U.S., U.K., Russia, France, and China, plus Germany), plus the European Union. After over two years of painstaking negotiations, a deal was made. Given the long-standing ill-will between the U.S. and Iran, many Americans, including most Republican politicians, and some Democratic, oppose the deal.
What is missing from public discourse is that while the more hard-line Iranian religious leaders don't like the deal, Iranian businessmen and younger Iranians enthusiastically support it. There is a good chance that, given time, moderate interests in Iran will prevail. Iranian businessmen, heirs to a long-standing mercantilist tradition, and younger Iranians, long to be part of the broader world.
The timing of this Navy incident was bad, but could have been worse. Thanks to diplomatic channels developed during the negotiations, especially between Secretary of State John Kerry who himself has experienced war, and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif, the incident was quickly resolved, the sailors returned unharmed, and tragic military escalation was avoided.
Outraged critics assert that had this situation been reversed we would have treated Iranian sailors better than they treated ours. We surely hope that Iranian boats erroneously entering volatile waters would not have been blown out of the water, and that their errant young sailors would have been treated humanely and promptly returned unharmed.
Because of our past experience with Iran, critics will insist that diplomacy is acting "out of weakness," and will continue to oppose the nuclear deal. But diplomacy has already paid dividends, namely the diplomatic channels created during the negotiations, the safe return of American sailors, and prevention of further military escalation.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
