Facing the Hard Facts on Iran

Today’s papers are, as usual, full of articles about Iran and how the world should deal with the growing nuclear threat emanating from that sorry corner of the world.

Talk continues about increasing sanctions, isolating the country and, of course, whether or not a military option exists and, if it is an alternative, which country (or countries) will do it? Frankly, I am tiring of the rhetoric which seems to have no effect whatsoever on the Iranian regime as it continues to thumb its nose at the entire world.

From the Israel Street, it seems to me that it is time to face the facts as they are today and as they pretty much will remain for some time to come:

• Sanctions would be wonderful if they could be applied uniformly but all evidence points to the fact that China and Russia, given their specific interests in cooperating with Iran, will never support effective sanctions again Iran. If they have not been willing to come to the table until now, most probably they never will.

• The US and Israel in particular speak about a military option but again, let’s face the facts. America is already fighting two wars in the region and most probably has no taste for entering a third area of conflict. Admiral Mullen, Head of the US’ Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Israel this week, has said in no uncertain terms that invoking a military option would be a disaster for the region. Anyone that high in the US government does not make statements like this unless they reflect the policy of the administration. So, no doubt, the US will not invoke a military option against Iran anytime soon.

• As for Israel, while we say that we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran, the fact is that a military strike by Israel, if successful, would not stop Iran’s nuclear program as their sites are too numerous and too well hidden to be successfully disabled (Iran is not the Iraq of 29 years ago). Secondly, Israel understands as well that such a strike on our part would cause mass casualties here and there is a real question whether we can psychologically recover from thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured by Iran’s response to an Israeli attack.

• There is also a great deal of talk about or hope for the destabilizing of the current regime in Iran. But that, too, if it happens, does not guarantee the end of the threat. The basic foundations of the political establishment in Iran operate on a set of principles and objectives that will, most probably, remain in place even if the dissidents were to take over. A new regime might be lest bombastic and even more pleasant to deal with, but we dare not delude ourselves into thinking that a Moussavi or his equivalent will present a kindler, gentler approach to the region and the rest of the world.

We can believe otherwise but the facts are staring us in the face and are difficult to refute.

Having said this, what real options are available to those of us who are sincerely and legitimately concerned about the direction that Iran is taking in its foreign policy? I think that there are only two that have any chance of success and both accept, in principle that the world will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

First, the world’s media should simply stop reporting on Iran and its maniacal leader. Every time Ahmadinejad is quoted in the papers spewing forth his vitriol against the US, Israel, the UK, the West, or whoever, it gives him exposure he does not deserve. At the risk of being too simplistic, I say “who cares what he says?” The world press should simply isolate Iran as a news item. Neither Ahmadinejad nor the regime there are important enough for me to read about every time I pick up a paper or go on line. And we can do this one country at a time, starting here.

Secondly, the President of Iran, given his continual calls for the destruction of a member state of the United Nations, does not deserve to be hosted by any country that considers itself a member of the community of nations. As such, countries should simply reject any request from Iran for its president to visit. The US, as an example, while it has to allow Ahmadinejad to come to New York for the annual opening session of the UN, does not have to permit him to stay in the country any longer than the time allotted for his speech. To permit him to travel the region and speak to universities and other public policy groups is simply encouraging him to become even more recalcitrant in his approach to countries with which he disagrees. He should be allowed to land, go to the UN, give his obnoxious speech and leave….end of story.

40 years ago when I started my first business in Chicago, I had an accountant with whom I met every month. He was also an investor in the company and at one of those meetings he said something that has stayed with me all these years: “Make sure you never believe your own lies.” We human beings tell ourselves all sorts of stories but we need to make sure that we never believe our own lies.

Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, 16 February 2010