The Iran Connection

Iran and World War III
By Doug Bandow

Despite occasional professions of peaceful intent, President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney appear ready for war against Iran. It would be no cakewalk: Iran is a more formidable power than was Iraq.

Concerns over a possible nuclear-armed Iran do not justify the kind of irresponsible rhetoric tossed around by Bush and Cheney.

First, the vice president said the administration would not stand by in the face of ``the Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power.''

Yet it has been more than two centuries since Iran attacked anyone. The administration has most destabilized the Mideast by taking out both of Iran's principal enemies: the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Moreover, in 2003 Iran indicated its willingness to negotiate a regional settlement on America's terms. The Bush administration, full of hubris, rejected Tehran's initiative.

In any case it is unclear how Iran could gain ``hegemony.'' Tehran can't supplant America as the globe's strongest power.

Last year the U.S. GDP was $13.2 trillion. Iran came in at number 31 with $212 billion, ranking just behind Argentina. America's military edge is equally overwhelming. The U.S. spends around 100 times as much as Iran on the military.

President Bush opined on the need ``to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat.'' The Europeans had a collective GDP of $14.5 trillion last year and spend thirty-some times as much on the military as does Iran. Moreover, France and Great Britain possess nuclear weapons.

How about regional hegemony? Israel is by far the Mideast's strongest military power, possessing upwards of 200 to 300 nuclear weapons. War with Israel would yield suicide, not hegemony, for Iran.

Absent evidence of ill intent more substantial than a rabid speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Tehran's presumed nuclear program looks more like an effort at deterrence than aggression. (Correctly translated, Ahmadinejad's famous threat against Israel apparently meant something closer to regime change than national destruction.)

Moreover, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has dismissed the frenzied rhetoric about Iran posing an existential threat to Israel. Former Mossad head Ephraim Halevy has voiced similar sentiments. As Trita Parsi details in his book, ``Treacherous Alliance,'' shared regional interests that have long bound Israel and Iran, even after the so-called Islamic revolution.

Even more wildly, President Bush declared: ``If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.''

Norman Podhoretz, a foreign policy adviser to Rudy Giuliani, says President Ahmadinejad is ``like Hitler'' in that the Iranian leader wants to replace the international system with ``the religio-political culture of Islamofascism.''

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) compared today's Iran to Nazi Germany: ``During the run up to World War II, Europe failed to heed the warnings.''

Precisely how would Iranian knowledge of nuclear weapon technology bring on World War III? Pakistan obviously knows. North Korea knows. Iraq knew. Libya probably knew. But no war, let alone world war, erupted.

Moreover, there's obviously a significant difference between knowing how to make nuclear weapons and building or using them.

But even if Iran develops nuclear weapons, war is unlikely to result ? absent an American attack on Iran. There's no evidence that the Iranian leadership is suicidal.

Nor is there any evidence that Ahmadinejad is a new Hitler. Does anyone other than Norman Podhoretz, who attacked Ronald Reagan for being an appeaser, believe that Ahmadinejad has the political support and military power to overturn the international system?

There was something uniquely hideous and evil about Hitler and the regime that he created. Moreover, he had the means to come distressingly close to achieving his objective.

In contrast, Tehran's recent behavior has been eminently rational despite the Islamic revolution. (Of course, that is not the same as saying that the Iranian government is moral, legitimate, or democratic.)

The Khomeini regime actually increased oil production after taking power and maintained back-channel relations with Israel.

Finally, all we have are suspicions rather than solid evidence that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons. Even in the worst case, the regime appears to be years away from creating a usable weapon.

The best way to test the Iranian position is to negotiate seriously with Tehran. The Bush administration should drop its foolish ``we don't talk to mean people'' stance. Just as it did with North Korea.

There are rare occasions when war is necessary, but Iran today is not one of those moments. It is Washington that risks triggering a much larger conflict than it imagines possible.

Maybe that's what Bush really meant when he talked about World War III.

Doug Bandow is the Robert A. Taft fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance and the author of ``Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire'' (Xulon Press). He is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He can be reached at ChessSet@aol.com .