OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Fifth (and Only) Option

While I'm certainly flattered by your interest in both my work and me, I must respectfully decline your well-intentioned offer. Why? Because of the age-old maxim "fool me once, shame on you......". Your agreeing this week to giving almost kowtowing center stage recognition, and on U.S. soil no less, to the Iranian leader as he masterfully divides and conquers whoever his target audience is, including the American public with his sham mantra of "nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only", or perhaps better characterized as his rendition of "read my lips, no....nuclear....weapons", makes about as much sense in the aggregate as giving land to a megalomaniac. Been there, done that.

Therefore, let me give you my opus on this growing crisis and encourage you to heed my words and advices.

In answer to your very direct question, I reply none of the above. All 4 options noted are not only wrong and bad but also categorically doomed to fail.

I'd be remiss if I did not strongly encourage you to embrace now rather than experience later, that very important and painful lesson too. You cannot and I repeat cannot appease, which includes diplomacy, a dictator, no matter what derivative or subversive form they take. I would argue your dilemma is instead not one of religion, any for that matter, nor its merits or expectation you have that it will constructively intervene, but rather simply a demagogue's ravenous hunger for power. That is what you are dealing with, whether you recognize it or not, and not just control of Iran. This person has much grander aspirations, bent on reincarnating himself as a second Saladin, the historical Crusades era Muslim leader who adeptly, skillfully and uniquely united all Arabs by leveraging a holy war mantra against the Christian crusaders. Ironically and vicariously through the coalition intervention in Iraq, that goal becomes much more easily realized with the downfall of Sadaam Hussein, his chief competitor for that role. Adding nuclear weapons to his bag of political tricks only hastens that rise. If you think this modern day version of United Arab World Leader is about anything else, I can only say then that his manipulation skills surpass even that of others I've come across. And I've met the Master.

Lacking any sincerity whatsoever, these type individuals seek (crave) only world stage attention, outrageous concessions and opportunities for diplomacy which only translate to further public eye visibility. You're seeing exactly that now this past week at the UN, and to my utter astonishment in the wake of potent historical precedents, you're giving (appeasing) him exactly what he seeks - world recognition and a (growing) voice to be reckoned with. Quite the opposite result of what I trust is your intent. I would add too that you quite astonishingly not only did it once, but gave opportunistic world stage access to an even bigger bombastic ego in Venezuela's President Chavez. The only good coming out of last week is perhaps the Iranian leader being savvy enough to realize the liability of being publicly linked or allied to closely with the volatile and uncivil media driven Chavez and quickly distance himself to break up that anything but good, emerging hate filled alliance, one which would contribute nothing but erosion of global peace.

You should have never given the President of Iran (and Chavez too) a visa to enter the U.S., nor opportunistic access to an influential audience he can masterfully manipulate as he has so brilliantly just done at the UN. You just compounded your problem ten-fold in doing so. Ironically too, an individual who stunningly and quite vocally and gleefully egregiously advocates the annihilation of at least one member country at that same UN where he craftily conducted a "seduce and snooker" pitch with talk of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Too, your giving unique access to an individual where strong speculation exists he was one of the U.S. Embassy hostage takers during the embarrassing and painful Iranian hostage crisis almost 3 decades ago. Finally, the ultimate self inflicted insult, your giving him access to a city, New York, brutally and ruthlessly attacked by a network of those he most certainly supports - Global Terror Inc., (aka Al Qaeda).

Instead, what must be done is still something between do nothing and military action, yet certainly as noted before, not appeasement and way beyond limited sanctions. Certainly, doing nothing or perhaps better referred to as See No Evil is a loser too. Action, and let me underscore it as responsible and substantive action, is most certainly required and I'm suggesting instead a 'fifth and only" option which you did not note, that confronts firmly and directly the bullying tactics, yet without continuing the insatiable demands a policy of appeasement yields, the ineffectiveness of limited sanctions, the crapshoot of do nothing, or the devastating escalation consequences of military action. The right and only option is pursuing a derivative yet emboldened form of containment - an "I-2" Strategy ("Isolate and Ignore").

To understand what this containment option entails, think in these terms. Never again give this threat to world peace the bully pulpit podium at the UN or any other world stage. Doing so, and quite astoundingly in my view I might add, particularly after boldly snubbing his nose at the world and the same UN vis a vis the IAEA (UN Nuclear oversight arm), on denying their requests to monitor and/or halt the uranium enrichment program, does nothing but legitimize the person. Had you instead restricted his access to the US and by default then the UN too for any of many legitimate reasons including non cooperation with the IAEA, you could have instead de-legitimized him to those he tries to recruit and follow, as the world and his followers would then have seen him excluded and not relevant. Use your leverage with other nations to isolate and exclude him from key world events. Subvert his ego, and don't stroke it. Help him implode in front of his followers rather than continue helping him burst in glory onto the world scene.

On the issue of sanctions and weaving it in as but a component of the isolation piece, make sure above all else to include the media, something always overlooked when sanctions are discussed, yet the most effective of all. These ego-centric characters crave the camera, microphone and limelight as was clearly evident this week, so take those toys away, as you would sharp objects from a child. Instead of the usual ineffective sanctioning or blockading of simple foodstuffs et al, sanction that which is most important to him - media access, via some form of media blockade. On this point, it's important to note too that the media access he wants is to the West, not rest of world. It is therefore the West that must collectively and collaboratively form this important bulwark component of the isolation strategy.

Finally, seek collective global support and make it very clear from the world community - if and when that nation throws a first punch, it will be their last, oil or no oil. In other words, treat them as you would a spoiled child, and with authority, say no - ignore and don't spoil. If you spoil, they only get more difficult to reason with and/or control and demand even more. They soon evolve to brat, the last step before transformation to monster.

Some would say well what about the oil? Interestingly, the Achilles heel of Iran is the same as Iran argues is the rest of the world - oil. They threaten to shut off the oil if confronted, yet they fail to note that they need the revenues more than the world needs their oil, which can be re-supplied in due course through other sources awash in this resource and eager for the new revenues. Not only do the Iranians have to support a growing economy and increasingly demanding population with this baseline revenue backstop, the escalating financial demands to support their growing international political influence projection and arms supplying efforts makes them ironically prisoner if not hostage to "not" turning the spigot off. They critically need the money, and a lot of it, to support and bankroll that ambitious, expanding and aggressive global socio-political agenda.

China and other sympathetic countries are certainly alternative distribution markets, but that is not the market Iran wants or a relationship position they want to be in. The same for Venezuela. They want (and need) the West and they want you to be tied to them like an addict to heroin, knowing quite well if they either voluntary or involuntary lose that market, they will never get it back, and then whatever global political leverage or influence they had is gone. They become politically irrelevant. With China knowing Iran has lost the West as a market, the Iranians now become hostage to their new marketplace with no alternatives. In fact, I would counter-intuitively to most, argue instead that you immediately seize the provocative opportunity Iran is presenting and add this as a new component of the "Isolate" part of the I-2 Strategy. Push back hard on the Iranians and say, "go ahead, send your oil to China. We don't want it anymore". Let's see how the bully then reacts, because if (and they won't) and once they do, you are then in great position to "Ignore", as they lost their leverage. Change the perception paradigm - they need you more than you need them, so stand firm.

A final thought to those others outside your group who are bent on the very worst of the 4 really bad choices you presented, the military option. The noise for such action is getting disturbingly if not alarmingly louder by the day. Given hundreds of geographically dispersed facilities across a huge country, comprising the Iranian enrichment program, it's impossible to substantially and effectively destroy it without an invasion and occupying the country. If there is a silver lining with the Iraq situation, it's that the disastrous intervention in Iraq effectively took that option away in terms of public support. The Iranians studiously learned the facility dispersion lesson after the Israelis knocked out the geo-centric Iraqi nuclear program two decades ago, with but a single surgical air strike. While I certainly don't endorse it, in fact I vehemently oppose it given the consequences noted and too that a (much) better option exists, if the military option is however inevitable, I would suggest targeting something that will have an impact and meets your immediate objective - regime change with hope for a better one. Instead of nuclear facilities, strike the Iranian oil fields. The regime you are concerned with will implode with the ensuing economy collapse.

Unfortunately, any substantive military intervention has the high if not certain risk to unleash a chain reaction of hostilities around the world on a scale not seen before, as we make Iran a perceived victim of the West's might, and likely accelerating the rise of the Iranian leader (and the Bin Laden case/cause of the West vs. Islam) in not only the Arab but rest of world too. That picture will make Iraq look like a cake walk. It will be an absolute certainty if there is any use of nuclear weapons, which some reports frighteningly suggest is on the military option menu.

If you're being provocatively taunted by the Iranian leader to strike militarily as I would firmly argue you indeed are, it means he's concluded he will derive a huge benefit from an attack, and that should alone make you stop, think twice, not strike, and not appease that need - instead pursue a much different path.

Bottom line, appeasement won't yield the peace you seek, and therefore to high a cost to pursue. Neither will military action nor the usual superficial porous sanctions. And you can't just stand by and watch and do nothing. Those are four really bad options, leaving you with but one good. Containment using a disciplined, collective and coordinated "isolation and ignoring" approach to this mega-ego is the lone, prudent and responsible strategy. Making him appear impotent and irrelevant on the world scene will slowly, then rapidly siphon away his power and control and yield his ultimate political downfall.

1 | 2 | 3