Europe's Three Concerns About Iran
04 June 2019By Amir Taheri
Talking to European think-tankers and policymakers in recent weeks one gets
the impression that, seen from Europe, Iran is a recurring nightmare that
everyone wishes would go away. A couple of years ago many in Europe believed
that it had faded into oblivion. Now, however, the nightmare is back with a
vengeance with drums of war beating in the background.
The truth is that, apart from wishing it would go away, the European Union has
never had a coherent policy for dealing with the nightmare. Eight years of
President Barack Obama's dancing around the Iran issue enabled the Europeans
to postpone serious analysis of the situation in the Islamic Republic.
That, in turn, seems to have led the Europeans obliged to gingerly rally to
the hardline posture adopted by the Trump administration in Washington.
Judging by the current discussions in European policy circles the European
powers may well throw their weight behind Trump's policy of "maximum pressure"
during the forthcoming G-7 summit in France in August.
In informal talks, European policymakers and advisers express three concerns
regarding the "maximum pressure" strategy.
The first is that the policy, ostensibly aimed only at persuading the
Khomeinist leadership to change its behavior on some foreign policy issues,
may, in fact, lead to systemic collapse in Iran and produce regime change with
unforeseeable consequences.
The question is: who will take the reins in Iran and make sure that the vast
country does not morph into yet another "ungoverned territory" in the heart of
the Middle East?
I think the question is designed to dodge the issue of confronting a rogue
regime that has provoked the current crisis. Iran has an old and
well-established bureaucracy, dating back to the 16th century, and capable of
operating within a strong culture of governance. Despite the serious damage
done to state structures by the mullahs and their acolytes, the reservoir of
experience and talent available is vast enough to ensure governance even on
autopilot.
The second concern is that regime change in Iran may trigger an avalanche of
refugees ultimately heading for Europe at a time EU nations are still
grappling with problems created by the influx of Syrian refugees. Iran's
population is almost four times that of Syria which means Europe may face four
times as many refugees. However, that concern too may be unwarranted.
To start, with Iran has been a source of refugees from the first days of the
Khomeinist regime. Right now, over eight million Iranians' about 10 percent of
the population, are in exile, mostly in Europe and the United States,
according to the Islamic Foreign Ministry. Replacing the present regime by
something less obnoxious may, in fact, inspire a reverse flow by Iranian
exiles returning home. Something like that happened in Iraq after the fall of
Saddam Hussein. In the first five years after liberation, an estimated 3.2
million Iraqi exiles, half of them in Iran, returned home.
History shows that nasty regimes produce refugees in the first decade of their
existence. We saw that in Cuba after Fidel Castro seized power. Today a change
of regime in Havana will almost certainly lead to a return of some Cuban
exiles, and not to a new outflow of refugees. The Syrian situation is
exceptional. The popular uprising against the Assad regime was not allowed to
succeed because Russia and the Islamic Republic intervened to crush it.
In the case of Iran, it is unlikely that Russia would want, or be able, to
repeat the Syrian scenario to save the mullahs. Also, there is no one to
assume the sidekick role that the Islamic Republic played in Syria.
The third concern that European express is that Trump's "proximity pressure"
strategy may lead to war. In that context, some Europeans claim that it is
fear of war that fans the fires of fanaticism in Tehran.
One senior European official tells us that the Islamic Republic is behaving
aggressively because it feels surrounded by "huge numbers of American troops".
That assumption is based on insufficient attention to facts. The US currently
has around 170,000 military personnel, out of total active military personnel
of 1,280,000, stationed in 66 countries, the lowest number since World War II.
Of these two-thirds are stationed in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. In areas
that Iran might regard as its glacis, US military personnel number under
15,000.
In contrast, in the same putative glacis, the Islamic Republic has over
100,000 troops, including Afghan, Lebanese, Iraqi and Pakistani mercenaries in
Syria and Iraq, not counting Hezbollah and Houthi units in Lebanon and Yemen.
Nevertheless, the possibility of war cannot be discounted.
A Persian classic on statecraft and warfare, says "words are the first arrows
shot in a war." The mullahs and their henchmen have set unimaginable records
in the number of anti-American "word-arrows" shot every day. On the American
side, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Brian Hook return the compliment with
interest.
However, a war of words could also lead to real war. In the "Melian Dialogue",
Thucydides shows how the war of words between Athens and Sparta and constant
military preparation in the island of Melos, ended up igniting the
Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC).
In the 15th century, the kings of Portugal and Spain went to war over the
ownership of an island that was later found out to have been put on the map by
a map-maker's mistake. Peace came when the Portuguese agreed to cede the
non-existent island to the Spaniards.
The mullahs are playing with fire and, ''He who plays with fire risks being
burned!''
Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from
1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications,
published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since
1987
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments