TJP

The Build Up for Proxy War of Choice

By Byron A. Ellis – October 20, 2009

During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama railed against the Bush administration build up to what has been labeled a war of choice, the preemptive attack on Iraq. It appears, however, that the Obama administration is mirroring the Bush build up for a preemptive attack on Iran. The arguments used against Iran are similar to those used by the Bush administration against Iraq.

The Bush administration pargued that Iraq was a grave threat to the world. And, that they had weapons of mass destruction. We know now that most of the Bush administration arguments were bogus.

The Obama administration claims that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. It also wants Iran to prove that they are not seeking to build a nuclear bomb. In essence, in order for Iran to disprove a negative, they would need to stop developing nuclear technology.

The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, ignores Israel’s nuclear technology and their possession of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Thus, the administration has set up a no win scenario by allowing Israel to possess nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction, but denying Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology.

Given such an openly hypocritical policy, how can the Islamic Republic of Iran accede to terminate its pursuit of nuclear technology? Conversely, if they do not consent to terminating their nuclear program how can the Obama administration allow them to continue?

What would an attack on Iran looks like and what would be the possible aftermath? Moreover, what would such a move signal to the Islamic world and to other potential western adversaries, such as China?

Of course any answer to those questions would be speculative. Nonetheless, an attack on Iran by the West could bring about a similar outcome as Iraq, whereby the West succeeds in destroying Iranian infrastructure, its military, inflict collateral civilian damages and imposes an unstable Western friendly government, a la Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was king of Iran from 1941 to 1979. He was forced to leave Iran in 1953 and the United States helped restore him to power. His regime, however, was repressive and in 1979 a theocratic revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, sent the Shah into exile. He came to the United States and later moved to Egypt where he died.

The other scenario is that the outcome could be quite different from Iraq. The Iranians could withstand the preemptive onslaught and fight back as they did when Iraq invaded Iran on September 22, 1980. Iraq attacked without warning, they hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran. However, Iraq was repelled by the Iranians who by 1982 had regained most of the territories lost to Iraq and for the next six years were on the offensive.

If the Iranians could repelled a preemptive attack by the West, it would mean that Western armies would be engaged  in unprovoked battles against Islamic nations on three fronts: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.

An attack on Iran, however, would involve retaliation from Iranian proxy armies. Moreover, it would validate the perception or recognition in the Islamic world of the drive for Western domination. Such recognition might cause even friendly Islamic nations to turn away from the West and overtly or tacitly support Iran, similar to the support received by the Taliban.

It is likely that Iran's retaliation would focus first on Israel, directly and subsequently through proxy armies. And, if Israel’s infrastructure is weakened by Iranian missiles, the support for Iran in the Islamic world would rise and fall for the West. Furthermore, perception of structural weaknesses in Israel would attract foreign Jihadists to the region.

Therefore, it is important for the West, particularly the Obama administration, to seriously account for the scenario that it is setting up and avoid the mistakes of the second Bush administration.

It may be tempting for warriors and defense contractors to continually fight wars in the name of “freedom.” However, there is always a point of diminishing returns, as well as unpredictable and unfavorable scenarios.

The Obama administration should continue to use language of peace and not allow the United States to boxed in to fight a proxy war for Israel. Moreover, it should be seeking to reduce its war footprint and increase is commercial footprint by not ceding commercial partners in Africa and Latin America to China.

Post Comment

SAVE DARFUR