Volume 8, Issue 1
We begin a new year. Currently, however, we do not have hope in a new beginning. The Middle East is a complicated, intractable, political mess. President Trump’s motives are again being questioned. He has assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani for the claimed purpose of avoiding a war. The economy is expanding. The Democrats claim that the economic benefits are being unevenly shared. The vitriol between Democrats and Republicans in Washington, DC has become personally bitter. The term déjà vu has become a common description of current circumstances. Events, personalities, and human emotions are similar, but they are different in that no two rounds of cards are ever exactly the same.
To understand the course of proper diplomatic relations between the United States and the sovereign State of Iran requires an understanding of how the Iranian government plays the game of geopolitics. Their intention is never peace. It is domination in the region for their theocratic worldview. Further, they are equally determined to establish Sharia law and a Shiite government throughout the Muslim world. They have many self-professed enemies, not just the United States. Israel and Saudi Arabia are equally contemptable as seen through the lens of Iran’s strict cultural code. Moderate non-Muslim nations are tolerated only in sequence of time of confrontation.
General Soleimani was given unrestricted authority to wage terrorist acts of war against American, Israeli, and Saudi Arabian interests. He developed a network of proxy militias around the region to do his bidding and to serve as an outer ring of protection for Iran. He was a terrorist by every definition of the word.
Interesting, though, are the rules by which the General and Iran expected the world to play. Iran was to be allowed to attack embassies, ships at sea, oil fields, and private contractors. Any response from the United States was to be measured and equal. Meanwhile, Iran continues to arm militias like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and several lesser known militia groups throughout the region. Any response by the U.S. was also only to be taken against these outside groups, not Iran directly. All the while, the official statement from the Iranian government was denial that they are behind any of these terrorist attacks.
During the George W. Bush administration, Yasser Arafat was the head of the then most prominent adversary of Israel, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). A treaty was negotiated wherein the PLO agreed to discontinue arming terrorists in the Gaza for certain concessions from Israel on further settlement expansion. Within weeks of signing the agreement, Israel halted a suspicious ship at sea having no registration. U.S. personnel actually boarded the vessel. They found substantial arms and munitions in route to Gaza. President Bush called leader Arafat on the carpet. Arafat responded with exasperation, “We pretend to tell you the truth, and you have pretended to believe us. When did this cease to be the policy?” President Bush changed the rules of the game. He called Arafat’s hand.
Meanwhile, as Iran sponsors terrorism and expects a predictable, measured response, they are building up the arms and munitions of Hezbollah and other client groups to execute greater terrorist acts.
Predictable, measured responses allow Iran to gain strength illegally and unchallenged in the region until they are able to overthrow enemy governments. This is their stated goal and objective.
Why would the United States or Western powers play by these rules to the detriment of their own foreign policy? Iran’s entire military is no larger than a one task force of a single fleet of American ships. They are allowed to be bullies, not because of their size or strength, but because of the constant fear of what war could mean in an unstable Middle East, an instability created by the Iranians. In other words, Iran has little concern for the cause and effect of human misery. In fact, they operate strategically in the reality of it.
General Soleimani is believed to have caused the murder of more than 600 private citizens, including Americans, in the last year. What is a proper and measured response to his vicious, unremorseful taking of innocent lives? Throughout history, humanity has found itself in a quandary over one uncaring, despicable dictator inflicting injury on the general population for his own political gain or ideology. In some cases, it was a king unjustly ruling his subjects.
The colonies of America found themselves in such a situation in 1776. Of all the grievances inflicted, many said this was not the time to act. Declaring independence would be irrational. The outcome was unknown. Normal existence was not unbearable. Each new restriction just became the new normal. The prevailing argument that led to independence was that business as usual would not work out well for their children. Once a situation solidifies into a slowly circulating death spiral, the question of when to call the hand being played is when the risk of your children’s future is greater than the tolerance of the new normal.
The President’s critics are asking the wrong question. The proper question is not, why did he act now? It is not about making America safer in the moment.
The proper question to be asked is….is our children’s future safer if we don’t act?
Legend has it that aces and eights were in the hand held by “Wild Bill” Hickok when he was shot in the back while playing poker. When you call a hand in poker, you seldom know whether the guy you challenged has a better hand than you. Not calling a hand when you should have changes the dynamics and the psychology of the game for the rest of the night. The “dead man’s hand” is not governing.
In the game of poker, you can call a hand any time for any reason. The same rule exists in the diplomatic game of geopolitics. The claim that President Trump should not have acted at this time is founded on the theory, not that General Soleimani wasn’t a bad actor, but that Iran may now escalate to more heinous acts in retaliation.
The question then becomes, why does an inferior, lesser military opponent even have that option?
America is the world’s defender of freedom, literally. It is the deterrent of the U.S. military that keeps Iran in check and from invading its neighbors. There are times dictated by events when courage is required to play the hand dealt and not allow superfluous rules crafted by your opponent to curtail your strengths to cover their weaknesses. The end result of calling a hand is not known until all the cards are laid down. And so it is with the relationships of nations.
Only by taking action to right a wrong, even in the face of overwhelming odds as seen through the eyes of the privileged, can the future of a prosperous new order be saved.
Ask the Founding Fathers.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?