Essays on American politics and foreign policy By Donald E. Nuechterlein Donald Nuechterlein is a political scientist and writer who resides near Charlottesville, Virginia. He is the author of numerous books on American politics and foreign policy, including Defiant Superpower: The New American Hegemony, 2005 America Recommitted: A Superpower Assesses its Role in a Turbulent World, 2000 A Cold War Odyssey, 1997 INDEX CONTACT

ARE WE HEADED TO ANOTHER PERSIAN GULF WAR?

FEBRUARY 2012

Twenty one years ago, in January 1991, President George H.W. Bush sent several hundred thousand troops to the Persian Gulf to force Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, to abandon his brutal invasion and occupation of neighboring Kuwait.

Nine years ago, in March 2003, George W. Bush launched an invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein‘s regime and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Now, Barack Obama faces a new, but different Persian Gulf crisis: Should he acquiesce in, or try to prevent, Israel from launching a preemptive attack on Iran in order to stop its nuclear arms program?

If Iran refuses to negotiate an arrangement that resolves the nuclear weapons issue, should Obama launch a preventive war? Such action would resemble the course pursued by George W. Bush in Iraq in the 2003, which Obama strongly criticized

Israel's view

Two weeks ago, Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, told a group of top military and intelligence officials that air strikes against Iran's nuclear sites were likely, because time was running out for stopping its nuclear progress. "Whoever says 'later' may find that later is too late," he warned. ("Israel: Iran must be stopped soon:" Washington Post, Feb. 2, 2012). Leon Panetta, U.S. defense secretary, commented that Israel may attack Iran in the next few months.

Why is the Middle East again churning toward military confrontation?

• Iran's nuclear ambitions. All Arab countries, especially in the Persian Gulf region, live in fear of Iran's hegemonic ambitions. This was reinforced on February 3 when Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned the United States and Israel against challenging Iran, declaring that it would never curtail its nuclear program. In defiant terms he asserted, "Iran will not withdraw," adding that Western hegemony will be discredited and "the hegemony of Iran will be promoted." (Associated Press, Feb. 3)
• Economic sanctions. Recently imposed, tough economic sanctions on Iran are having a serious impact on the Islamic regime. The question is whether Ayatollah Khamenei will be persuaded to negotiate, or to precipitate a confrontation. The Obama administration believes that, given enough time, sanctions will give so-called moderates in Tehran the leverage to alter its nuclear policy. Israel thinks sanctions are a waste of time and that force will be needed to persuade Iran to give up its quest for nuclear arms.
• Syria's incipient revolution. Syria's Shiite-dominated regime, led by Bashar al-Assad, a close ally of Iran, is in danger of being ousted by a Sunni majority population demanding freedom. The Syrian protesters have the support of Arab countries and neighboring Turkey. Russia, however, supports Assad and recently vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for him to step down. If the Assad government is ousted, as is widely expected, Tehran would lose an ally. Turkey would then be a larger player in the Middle East and expand its influence in Iraq, as well as Syria and Lebanon.
• U.S. presidential election. The last thing Barack Obama wants in this election year is another Middle East war. Americans are tired of war and want their president, whoever that is next year, to concentrate on fixing the economy and providing jobs. Were Obama provoked into a new Persian Gulf war, it probably would cost him the election.

From Israel's point of view, the U.S. election opens an opportunity to inject the Iran nuclear threat into the campaign and persuade Obama to make a decision on using force. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was loudly cheered in a joint session of Congress last May, may think he can generate enough political pressure to get an OK from Obama to support Israel's bombing of Iran's nuclear plants. He plans to visit the United States again next month.

Newt Gingrich, the most pro-Israel of the Republican presidential candidates, is a case in point. His political action committee received $10 million in campaign contributions from one Las Vegas casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson, who is a strong supporter of Israel. Gingrich has long urged military action against Iran, as he did against Iraq during the Bush administration.

Obama's quandary

Here is one of several scenarios now facing Obama's national security team:

"Israel bombs Iran's nuclear facilities without Obama's blessing, and Iran retaliates by using its navy to mine the Strait of Hormuz, effectively closing the key waterway to international shipping. The U.S. Navy uses minesweepers and other means to clear a pathway through the mines, and one of them is hit by an Iranian missile and sunk. Iran claims its territorial waters were violated. Suddenly, the price of crude oil skyrockets on world markets."

Question: Should Obama call for urgent negotiations to avoid war, or authorize the Navy to bomb not only Iran's ships but also its shore installations? That choice has echoes of the 1964 Tonkin Gulf crisis in Vietnam, which started a war in Southeast Asia.

Although the U.S. government cannot instruct Israel on how to protect its vital national interests, it does have a responsibility to the American people to consider U.S. vital interests and avoid being led into another Gulf War if there is a possibility of avoiding it through non-military means. Obama and leading Republicans should choose that course.

File last modified on Thursday, 16-FEB-2012 10:43 PM EST