The Syria-Iran Axis
In a column in the Daily Star, Nizar Abdel-Kader argues that because of U.S. pressure and recent political changes in the Middle East, Syria and Iran now have only one logical strategic option: "to create under the auspices of Tehran a new, dangerous alliance encompassing Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, as a spearhead of resistance to American interests and to Israel."
My first response to that is, hasn't that dangerous alliance existed for a while now?
But Abdel-Kader is right to say that the Syrian and Iranian regimes must be feeling awfully lonely and down these days. If the mullahs in Tehran look west, they see a Shiite-dominated democratic government emerging in Iraq that could serve as an alternative model for Iran's Shiites; they also see 140,000 American troops. To the east, they see U.S.-allied Pakistan and Afghanistan--and more U.S. troops. To the south...nah, nothing but water--and the U.S. Fifth fleet. Finally, and most importantly, if they look around at home, they see a people increasingly fed up with living under a repressive theocracy. Bashar al-Assad's long-term prospects don't look much better. These are dead-end, unsustainable regimes that will collapse. And it's a good thing too, especially in the case of Iran, whose Islamic Revolution was critical in setting off the global wave of Islamist violence that culminated in the September 11th attacks.
But is Abdel-Kader right in his implication that in the short-term these regimes will become more dangerous? The answer to this question hinges on Iran's potential nuclearization as well as the potential responses from the U.S. or Israel. The idea of targeted military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites is being tossed around in some policy circles, but I'm of the opinion that these strikes would be extremely ill-advised. It seems unclear how much damage such an operation could actually do to Iran's nuclear program, and a foreign attack on Iran like that might actually prolong the life of the Iranian regime by providing a credible external enemy to focus national sentiment upon. The world should be able to contain a nuclear Iran, and the international stigma that will arise if Iran develops a bomb should add to its isolation.
In related news, Nizar Abdel-Kader happens to be a political analyst at the Lebanese newspaper Ad-Diyar, which is being prosecuted on charges of offending Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. As Ya Libnan puts it: "Without freedom of press there is no democracy!"
My first response to that is, hasn't that dangerous alliance existed for a while now?
But Abdel-Kader is right to say that the Syrian and Iranian regimes must be feeling awfully lonely and down these days. If the mullahs in Tehran look west, they see a Shiite-dominated democratic government emerging in Iraq that could serve as an alternative model for Iran's Shiites; they also see 140,000 American troops. To the east, they see U.S.-allied Pakistan and Afghanistan--and more U.S. troops. To the south...nah, nothing but water--and the U.S. Fifth fleet. Finally, and most importantly, if they look around at home, they see a people increasingly fed up with living under a repressive theocracy. Bashar al-Assad's long-term prospects don't look much better. These are dead-end, unsustainable regimes that will collapse. And it's a good thing too, especially in the case of Iran, whose Islamic Revolution was critical in setting off the global wave of Islamist violence that culminated in the September 11th attacks.
But is Abdel-Kader right in his implication that in the short-term these regimes will become more dangerous? The answer to this question hinges on Iran's potential nuclearization as well as the potential responses from the U.S. or Israel. The idea of targeted military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites is being tossed around in some policy circles, but I'm of the opinion that these strikes would be extremely ill-advised. It seems unclear how much damage such an operation could actually do to Iran's nuclear program, and a foreign attack on Iran like that might actually prolong the life of the Iranian regime by providing a credible external enemy to focus national sentiment upon. The world should be able to contain a nuclear Iran, and the international stigma that will arise if Iran develops a bomb should add to its isolation.
In related news, Nizar Abdel-Kader happens to be a political analyst at the Lebanese newspaper Ad-Diyar, which is being prosecuted on charges of offending Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. As Ya Libnan puts it: "Without freedom of press there is no democracy!"
posted by Josh
at 1:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home