An Island of Stability

Perhaps if there was a basic or underlying concept to American policy towards Iran, it would be that America is split over how to approach Iran, given that the current policy is a failure, and the alternative is being stonewalled by Israel. All of which emboldens and fuels Iran and leaves Iran free to pursue its goals in the Middle East. Thus, there are conflicting views over Iran, consisting of a wide spectrum of ideas and approaches. To borrow from one scholar:

“Some experts think a compromise might be reached if the United States would change its policies towards Iran and effectively insure Iran against military attack and attempts to overthrow its government, which would probably involve direct negotiations. Some believe an attack by the United States or Israel on Iranian nuclear sites is highly unlikely. Others think that Iran’s sites are too scattered, some near population centers, for an effective ‘surgical strike’ and that Iran could easily retaliate effectively against the United States and Israel in Iraq, Israel, Palestine, and elsewhere and could also greatly reduce oil exports. Some now think it is inevitable that Iran will, after several years, become capable of producing a bomb and that the world should adjust to this by attempting new approaches, including direct negotiations and compromises. Others stress nuclear reductions by all parties, with the ultimate aim of universal nuclear disarmament.” 

Some of these ideas make sense, and some are now moot, given the recent changes to the balance and order of the region. Also, given the recent changes to the balance and order in the Middle East, will Iran really go through with achieving its stated goal of destroying Israel? The bottom line is that “it is impossible to predict what will happen.” While the United States believes that Iran is determined to wage war against Israel as a result of this change in the balance and order in the region, others do not feel the same way. To borrow from the scholar: “The popular U.S. conviction that Iran is likely to launch war if it gets a nuclear bomb is not widely shared.” 

In short, no one knows what to think, and no one knows what will happen. The threat of “regime change” also unites Iranians and will prompt Iran to accelerate its nuclear program. As the scholar wrote: “Threats centering on the nuclear issue tend to unite Iranians, most of whom are not concerned with a bomb but with energy independence and having an important status in the region.” 

And overall, Iran “is in a strong position.” Even long ago, one American president dubbed Iran as “an island of stability” in an otherwise volatile region of the world that is the Middle East. The fact that Iran is independent and oil-rich and self-sufficient and a fairly large country with a military and industrial capacity that is larger than many other countries which can then convert into a nuclear weapons program, and the fact that American policy has failed and emboldened Iran to pursue its goals in the region means that the best way forward for the United States is to negotiate with Iran. As the scholar wrote: “All these forces should make the United States want to negotiate with Iran and eventually reopen relations, especially as almost nobody in Iran thinks the regime can be overthrown in the near future, though its policies are more flexible and open to diverse influences than most Americans think.”

And you can place the blame for what most Americans think about Iran on Congress and the media and certain segments of academia as well as very narrow foreign and special interests who are fundamentally opposed to an American national interest which serves the majority of Americans and which advances American national security and prosperity.