The coming war between Iraq and Iran
Regional, Analysis, 2/17/1998

In an article and academic analysis by Anthony E. Mitchell, the military fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Mitchell asks in the title of his essay, "Is a Second Iran-Iraq war on the Horizon?"

Mitchell starts with the premise that "The failure of the United Nations to halt Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons program threatens Iran as much as any nation." Mitchell says that since the Gulf allies are not in favor of removing Saddam Hussein and that since Israel cannot do it by itself, then that puts "Iran in the unique position of being able to tie up a number of regional loose ends while the world gives it a wink."

On what does Mitchell base his assumption that Iran will do so? Mitchell stipulates that it is because of "Iran's current overtures to the United States through the words and gestures of President Mohammad Khatami may well be in pursuit of a subtle nod of approval for its potential war strategy." This kind of leapfrog conclusion and stipulation leads one to wander about the rigor of that kind of analysis, and any conclusions this may lead to.

But the speculation for a reason for Iran to engage in such a matter as serious as a war, after it suffered great human and economic loss over a period of some eight years as a result of its previous war with Iraq, is that "Iran is one of the very few nations in modern times that know chemical weapon attacks first-hand." This, according to Mitchell, is enough reason to draw the conclusion that Iran should/would/may go to war against Iraq.

But Mitchell continues to talk about the failure of the UN inspection team to rid Iraq of chemical weapons and the danger they pose to Iran, advising that "This is a threat Iran must take seriously."

Of course Mitchell fails to mention the very strong support Iran is giving to Iraq in its confrontation with the US , and Iran's strong objection to the use of military force against Iraq. Iran went so far in its support that as late as yesterday, almost issued a warning to the US that such action is not acceptable without defining what Iran will do if the US attacks Iraq.

Mitchell adds that "Weapons and technology flowed to Iraq in part because of the poor relationship between Iran and the United States after the fall of the Shah and the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran," implying perhaps that if Iran was a friend then, and perhaps now, the US would not have pursued its policy of supporting the lesser of two evils as Mitchell puts it.

Mitchell comments on US policy towards the region, referring to the US "dual containment" policy towards Iraq and Iran (that ArabicNews.com readers should be well acquainted with and its implication). Mitchell says, "The United States has long followed a dual containment strategy with respect to Iraq and Iran, but our Western allies are less and less enthusiastic about it. They are moving to end the isolation of both Iran and Iraq."

But Mitchell fails to recognize, or chooses to ignore, that this "dual containment" policy leads to the implication that as soon as the US is "done" containing Iraq, and demolishing its weapons that allows it to project power (i.e. long range missiles and chemical and biological potential capabilities), the US will quickly turn its attention to Iran to rid it of these same weapons or potentials.

Mitchell fails to enlighten his readers about the US strategy of wanting to disarm all nations that pose threats to US interests by those countries' use of "Asymmetric power projection." Asymmetric power projection allows non-advanced countries with long range missiles to prevent the US Naval fleet from being close to the theater of operations where they would be needed in case of a conflict. Specifically, the US would not be able to have its ships in the Gulf or anywhere that the long-range missiles of Iraq or Iran would reach, thus weakening the US's ability to project its military power.

But Mitchell does not stop there in his analysis and speculation. He says, "Iran may be maneuvering to become the West's new lesser of two evils. If speculation is correct and the average Iranian is dissatisfied with the fundamentalist regime, what better way for the regime to rally the masses than to renew an unresolved war and turn the focus away from internal problems?"

Here we can see Mitchell advocating a war to turn attention away from supposed Iranian internal problems. Mitchell fails to inform the reader what these internal problems are, or prove that the Iranian leadership is weak, which supposedly would be the reason that it would want to further distract the Iranians. Mitchell forgets that recently, Iran elected "popularly" a new president that has democratic support and approval that would be enviable in any western country, and that was in opposition to fundamentalist internal powers.

Mitchell then urges Iran to act and asks that the US should think about the possibility, saying "Iran must act while the opportunity presents itself"!

It is hard to call such an essay analysis, as Mitchell himself uses the word "speculate" too many times. It is not possible in good judgment to call it speculation either. What this boils down to is lots of wishful thinking by many in the US who have mastered the old game of keeping everyone down in the Middle East, two countries at a time, by sapping all their human, economic and military resources, by keeping them engaged in endless wars and conflicts that serve no one's interest but the US and its ally Israel.

Mitchell fails to recognize the growing awareness of the intelligentsia in those countries of these US tactics and strategies and their increasing resistance to fall victim to it. Iran has made remarkable progress in sending positive signals and actions about its wish to improve relations with its neighbors (Arab states including Iraq), as our many reports illustrate.

Iran is clearly moving forward in defining a new strategy based on dispute settlement through peaceful means, and integrating its economy with its Arab neighbors. The region is witnessing a remarkable transformation in its growing awareness of US strategies and their tactical implementations, and their wanting to chart a new course of development. The figure is not complete yet, but many see the outline of it, and the US is very likely to be the loser, with little influence and presence, if it insists on keeping this region from developing for fear that the region's countries may have control over their oil resources and destiny, and that such development would be threatening to its access to oil and its ally, Israel.

The US soon will have to face a new reality, and the old options that are on the books need to be replaced by win-win strategies as opposed to the old zero sum games and their win-lose strategies.

It remains to be seen if the US can summon enough political will to develop and perfect a positive strategy towards the region.

Previous Stories:
  Dissecting US sanctions: The domestic politics   (1/28/1998)
  Iran - Iraq improve bilateral relations   (1/19/1998)
  The Islamic Summit challenge: Iran, Turkey and the Arabs. Future conflict or peace?   (12/9/1997)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search