How to Stop Iran?
ALL
Why Trump Should Disrupt the Scandalous US-Saudi Relationship
by Elan Journo | May 21, 2017
Trump Should Break the American Tradition of Ignoring Egypt’s Abuse of Its People
by Elan Journo | April 03, 2017
After This Jordanian Criticized ISIS He Was Thrown In Jail Then Murdered
by Elan Journo | November 17, 2016
Understanding the Jihadist Menace
by The Editors | June 16, 2016
We Can’t Beat Jihadists Unless We’re Real About Their Motivations
by Elan Journo | April 21, 2016
The Misunderstood Mullahs
by Elan Journo | March 31, 2016
Iran’s Faux Multiple Personality Disorder
by Elan Journo | August 10, 2015
Paving the Way for a Nuclear Iran
by Elan Journo | July 14, 2015
After 9/11, Lessons Unlearned
by Elan Journo | September 11, 2014
The Israel-Palestinian War
by Elan Journo | July 28, 2014
With or Without Nukes, Iran Is a Mortal Threat
by Elan Journo | November 21, 2013
Twenty Years after Oslo: Where Next for U.S. Policy?
by Elan Journo | September 10, 2013
Islamist Winter
by Elan Journo | Fall/Winter 2013
World Upside Down
by Elan Journo | November 27, 2012
The Islamist Threat: From AfPak to Jyllands-Posten and Times Square
by John David Lewis | September 08, 2011
Upheavals in the Middle East: Assessing the political landscape
by Yaron Brook | September 08, 2011
Iran, Israel and the West
by Elan Journo | September 08, 2011
Our Self-Crippled War
by Elan Journo | September 10, 2009
An Unwinnable War?
by Elan Journo | Fall 2009
Obama Whitewashes Iran
by Elan Journo | March 03, 2009
The Price of Bush’s Commitment to Palestinian Statehood
by Elan Journo | March 28, 2008
How to Stop Iran?
by Elan Journo | June 26, 2007
The “Forward Strategy” for Failure
by Yaron Brook | Spring 2007
Washington’s Make-Believe Policy on Iran
by Elan Journo | February 12, 2007
What Real War Looks Like
by Elan Journo | December 07, 2006
The Jihad on America
by Elan Journo | Fall 2006
Why We Are Losing Hearts and Minds
by Keith Lockitch | September 06, 2006
The Indispensable Condition of Peace
by Onkar Ghate | July 21, 2006
The U.S.-Israeli Suicide Pact
by Elan Journo | July 20, 2006
Washington’s Pro-Hamas Foreign Policy
by Elan Journo | May 17, 2006
Death to “Diplomacy” with Iran
by Elan Journo | October 27, 2005
The Advent of Freedom?
by Onkar Ghate | October 12, 2005
The Perversity of U.S. Backing for the Gaza Retreat
by Elan Journo | August 30, 2005
Bush’s Betrayal of America: The Iraqi Elections
by Elan Journo | February 01, 2005
Arafat’s Undeserved Honor: The West’s Shame
by Elan Journo | November 16, 2004
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict . . . What Is the Solution?
by Yaron Brook | December 12, 2002
America Is Not Winning the War
by Onkar Ghate | August 29, 2002
Bush’s Vision for Peace: Prelude to War
by Onkar Ghate | July 01, 2002
Israel Has a Moral Right to Its Life
by Yaron Brook | June 24, 2002

MORE FROM THE BLOG:

Foreign Policy in Voice for Reason
Foreign PolicyMiddle East

How to Stop Iran?

by Elan Journo | June 26, 2007

Bush’s disastrous foreign policy — especially the Iraq fiasco — has led many to conclude that diplomatic “engagement” is our best hope for stopping Iran’s nuclear program. But while Bush’s policy is a failure, engagement is not the solution.

Bush’s “moralistic” approach, we’re told, entails denouncing nations as evil, refusing negotiations, and isolating and punishing hostile regimes. That, many believe, is how we landed in the catastrophe of Iraq.

And now Bush’s moral denunciations of Teheran have supposedly escalated the nuclear standoff, while his policy of pressuring and isolating Iran by limiting its use of foreign banks has made Iran more defiant. That is why, diplomatists claim, Iran responded to the latest American-backed U.N. sanctions by ramping up production of nuclear material. Military conflict, they warn, and an Iraq-like debacle, loom.

But engagement can supposedly end the Iranian threat bloodlessly, because it discards inflexible moral dogmas. Just as Iran has shown it will meet “confrontation with confrontation,” proponents write in the New York Times, so Iran will “respond to what it perceives as flexibility with pragmatism.” Iran’s recent release of 15 British hostages, we are told, was achieved precisely because Britain engaged in nonjudgmental, patient diplomacy. Putting aside our moral qualms about talking with monsters would free us to negotiate a deal whereby Iran stops its nuclear program in exchange for Western carrots.

This scheme presumes that Iran, like us, seeks peace and prosperity and that no one — not even the mullahs — would put their moral ideals before a steady flow of loot. But in the three decades since its Islamic revolution, Iran has dedicated itself to spreading its moral ideal — Islamic totalitarianism — by force of arms. Teheran spends millions every year, not to pursue prosperity for its tyrannized citizens, but to finance terrorism and to build a nuclear arsenal to wield against enemies of Allah. It is Iran’s commitment to the goal of subjugating infidels, not a quest for peace, that motivated its backing of the Hezbollah-Hamas war against Israel and its support for insurgents who slaughter American troops in Iraq.

Would diplomatic “incentives” encourage Iran to mitigate its ideology? No, they would only intensify its hostility. Negotiations buy Iran time; a settlement would provide loot to fund its nuclear program. Above all, diplomacy grants Iran moral legitimacy as a civilized regime: its hostile goals — “death to America” — and its murder of our citizens are made to seem reasonable differences of opinion. Such appeasement confirms the perverse notion that Allah’s warriors, materially weaker but morally self-righteous, can succeed in bringing down the mighty infidel West. The real lesson of the recent hostage incident is how readily Western nations will grovel to appease Iran’s blatant aggression.

The amoral policy of engagement fails for the same reason that Bush’s policy fails: both reject the need of morality in foreign policy. Iran is intransigent — but precisely because Bush’s policy merely pays lip service to rational moral principles.

What has been the administration’s response to Iran’s nuclear quest, to its funding of terrorists and Iraqi insurgents, to its hostilities stretching back to the 1979 invasion of our embassy? Did it morally judge Iran as an enemy regime waging war on America and fight to defend U.S. lives by militarily crushing Iran?

No. After 9/11, Washington cordially invited Iran into an anti-terrorism coalition; later, Bush denounced Iran as part of an “axis of evil”; now, he embraces diplomatic talks. To the extent that his administration does momentarily recognize Iran’s evil, its response has been ludicrous: to thwart Iran’s nuclear program, U.S. diplomats scrounged for votes at the U.N. to pass toothless sanctions, and tried to put financial “pressure” on Iran (e.g., by preventing it from trading oil in dollars), an absurdly futile scheme (Iran now trades in euros).

Moreover, when Bush has gone to war, it was not to crush an evil enemy, but to bring it “democracy.” Bush’s messianic crusade in the Middle East is a selfless war of sacrifice to needy Afghanis and Iraqis — not a war to uphold the moral goal of safeguarding the lives of Americans.

Bush’s self-effacing, immoral foreign policy — like the appeasing gambit of engagement — licenses Iran to pursue its hostile goals with impunity.

The rational alternative to both of these self-destructive approaches is a policy committed to American self-defense, on principle. It is a policy that morally judges Iran — and that ruthlessly renders Iran non-threatening by military force. That does not mean a selfless, Iraq-like crusade to bring Iranians the vote. It means upholding the moral right of Americans to live in freedom by destroying Teheran’s Islamic totalitarian regime. Nothing less will do.

About The Author

Elan Journo

Director and Senior Fellow, Ayn Rand Institute