Iran Doesn’t Fear Attack

By Michael Goldfarb
Published February 12, 2007 9:54pm ET
Add Washington Examiner on Google

Whatever happens in Iraq, the initial invasion of that country was an unqualified success. American armor was sweeping through Baghdad only weeks after the first bombs were dropped on the city. And while the Taliban still pose a formidable challenge to American efforts in Afghanistan, the swift response of the American military in the weeks after 9/11 was devastating to that regime. Any enemy of the United States, or any rational enemy, should by now realize that American military action is to be feared. So why then does Ahmadinejad insist that Iran has nothing to fear from an American attack.

Sawyer: Do you personally fear an attack by us? And air strikes against Iran by the U.S.?

Ahmadinejad: Fear? Why should we be afraid? First the possibility is very low, and we think that there are wise people in the U.S. that would stop such illegal actions but our position is clear. Our nation has made it clear that anyone who wants to attack our country will be severely punished.

Matthias Küntzel, writing in THE WEEKLY STANDARD this week, offers this quote from Ayatollah Khomeini to shed some light on the problems of deterring Iran’s revolutionary regime:

“We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”

And yet some continue to persist with the notion that Iran, when push comes to shove, will behave like any other state. That Iran sued for peace in its war with Iraq in the 1980s is taken as evidence of rational behavior.

In fact, the diplomatic trajectory of the Islamic republic, under its current leadership and that of Khamenei’s predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini, is quite rational. As Israeli strategist Reuven Pedatzur has observed, “Past experience shows that the radical Iranian regime, headed by the most extreme of them all, Ayatollah Khomeini, behaved with absolute rationality at the moment of truth.”

Consider the Iran-Iraq war. Smoldering with radicalism from the Islamic revolution, Iran’s early rhetoric was uncompromising, and in November 1981, it issued clear proclamations that it had no intention of stopping the war as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power. As the conflict wore on, Iranian propaganda grew ever more eerie. The Islamic government built an infamous fountain of fake blood in Tehran, to indicate Iran’s supposed willingness for martyrdom.

However, the Iraqis began to make clear and decisive advances in the conflict, partly due to Western governments’ support for and arms sales to Saddam Hussein. By 1988, a long string of devastating tactical routs had made clear that outright strategic defeat was possible, so the Iranian leadership changed course. They sued for peace, jettisoning their original objective of deposing Saddam, and taking a deal that left Iran on the light side of the postwar balance of power.

But the Iranians only did so only after losing more than a million men. Of course, it is possible that bloodshed on such a scale would deter Iran from pursuing further confrontation with the United States. But that isn’t deterrence at all.

Tag:

Michael Goldfarb TWS Archive