Iran: Neoconservatism's Last Stand? - by Christopher Deliso

Will Iran's recent parliamentary elections, which resulted in a big win for "the clerics," give the neocons a much-needed shot in the arm, or has an ideological twilight truly befallen them?

Refusing to bow out quietly after deceitfully mishandling Iraq, the neocons are now sounding the alarm regarding Iran's lack of democracy and alleged development of nuclear weapons. However, Iranian politics' impact on American security isn't actually their real concern here: the neocons are just using the issue as part of their desperate bid for political survival.

Now, there are two things that these spoiled, narcissistic chickenhawks cannot bear: being proven wrong and being ignored. Aware that the first tends to beget the second, neocon loudmouths such as Richard Perle are frantically trying to rescue their sinking public image in any way possible. The most expedient method for them right now is to shriek about some crisis of democracy and weapons of mass destruction in Evil Iran.

We know that the neocons view the majority of the Islamic world as a festering sore, some swollen boil which, if not immediately lanced, will rapidly infect the rest of the world's body politic. We know this because they tell us so themselves; as a new book by Richard Perle and David Frum prophesies, the vicious cancer of Radical Islam will soon devour the world, including America, if not excised quickly with "surgical strikes" on a raft of countries.

Now that Iraq is, ahem, back on the royal road to democracy, the other Islamic nations must swiftly follow. Iran has been singled out by the neocons as democracy's next great experiment, partly because of its long alienation from the West, and partly because Saudi Arabia is for now off-limits. As always, their only hope lies in creating an atmosphere of urgency for intervention.

Reality Intervenes with the Interventionists

However, they just can't seem to make it happen. Americans, woozily recovering from their brief imperial binge, have lost enthusiasm for exporting democracy to the far-flung corners of the world. So unless there is a compelling domestic security concern involved, Americans will take little interest in Iran's prevailing political system. Even worse for the neocons, who live and die according to cheap dualist constructs, the country has no Saddam, no Bin Laden, no visible leader who can easily be turned into a cartoon bogeyman. This is a distinct disadvantage for warriors out endeavoring against Evil.

The neocons know this. That is why their underlying political motivations must be cloaked in warnings of nuclear doom threatened by the clerics of Iran. However, it is clear that the country's new rulers are neither so powerful nor as united as the neocons would have us believe.

Facing the Facts

Take this recent analysis of the parliamentary elections. "Hardliners may not get their own way," announces the Singapore Straits Times. "…Their election victory may end the reform experiment, but their policies are constrained by social and economic realities."

According to the Times, alienation is increasing between the country's aging rulers and its masses of Westernized youth. Further, the Iranian economy is "ailing" and "in desperate need of foreign investment," while a "ubiquitous" US military presence in the region curtails any military aspirations Iran's leaders may have. In any case, the growth of that great globalizing force – the internet – is already resulting in an outspokenness that will only increase with time. Without much prodding, perhaps, the Iranians will come over to the side of The Good, sometime in the not too distant future.

As for the fearsome new government, it actually turns out that the oh-so dangerous conservative bloc is composed of ideological and pragmatic parties who "…married temporarily for the sake of defeating the reformists": in all likelihood, a "new conflict could be brewing" between these rival partners, one that will preclude the realization of any radical policies and simultaneously play into the hands of the currently thwarted reformers. The ineluctable group mechanics of internal strife – a simple phenomenon which the neocons seem unwilling to understand – will negate the need for any American intervention.

That said, one has to wonder whether the neocons naturally despise peace, or whether they just need to be put on Ritalin. After all, if clerical rule really is such an unnatural and defective political system, won't it die of natural causes, as did communism? The neocon obsession with pre-empting the "biological solution" through violent means (as in Iraq) only reifies and resuscitates an ideal that was already on life support anyway.

Indeed, as one hip young Iranian blogger avers about his country's religious leaders, "…it's very pleasant to have to talk with 18^th century people in 2004." The linked article shows how the government has become something of a joke to young people. The only thing that could reverse this trend, as happened in Iraq, would be for the neocons to launch an invasion. For better or for worse, economic globalization – and not grand military adventures – is the most dramatic factor changing our world. Even for Iran, it may only prove a matter of time:

"…like most young people worldwide, young Iranians want to be part of a consumer society and have access to international culture, but they are also politicised. They know that having the right to vote at the age of 15 empowers them. These children of Khomeini are not yet old enough to take power, but they have been well educated during the Khatami years and will continue to be so for the next five years. They can sharpen their ideas and translate them into political terms, to replace the apolitical, technocratic or Islamic elites clinging to power."

The Neocons' Great Fear…

Time, however, is what the neocons don't have. When they close their eyes, they no doubt see the fresh graves being dug for them somewhere out in the political wilderness. If George W. Bush loses come November, they will lose also. (Hell, even if he wins they may prove to be past their sell-by date). What the neocons fear most is a peaceful solution to the "crisis" in Iran (or anywhere else, for that matter) as such a solution would repudiate their oafish, belligerent approach to foreign policy.

The most terrifying prospect for the neocons is that their fellow Westerners may choose to heed the wisdom of the market rather than their own shrill, pedantic call to ideological alienation. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "…although U.S. sanctions on Iran remain, many U.S. allies are eager to do business there." In fact,

"…the [Iranian] stock market has agreed on rules for individual foreigners to invest in Iranian firms. Last week, Turkcell, a Turkish firm listed on the New York Stock Exchange, won the contract to build a mobile phone network. Japan has agreed to invest $2 billion in developing oil fields. The French car manufacturer Renault has signed a deal to invest $750 million in Iran over the next few years."

Iran has long been blamed, often correctly, for isolating itself from the West. At least economically, however, the Iranians are now seeking rapprochement. This policy has now been confirmed by the election's biggest winners, the Abadgaran (Association of Advancement of Islamic Iran):

"…Our goal is to solve economic problems," said Emad Ghetassi, who works in Abadgaran's public relations office. "The last parliament ignored economic problems. We've promised to solve unemployment. We've promised to increase people's purchasing power and solve the inflation problem."

According to the same article, these oh-so-evil Islamists are planning to trample on human rights, by "…vowing not to crack down on women with hair showing beneath their headscarves or young people listening to pop music."

…And Their Solution

What to do? Weighted down by the onerous burden of reality, which concludes that Iran is politically unthreatening and even economically friendly, the only thing left for the neocons is to decry the dangers of a hypothetical Iranian nuclear weapons program.

In August 2002, evidence of an alleged Iranian nuclear program was conveniently discovered by the NCRI, a politically-enterprising, terrorist-linked group for which Richard Perle has developed a certain fondness. Since then the neocons have turned up the heat, repeatedly calling on the US government to take action through either sanctions or war. Quite understandably, the rest of the world grew very anxious to prevent the realization of neocon bloodlust.

Now, tensions seem to have eased somewhat, thanks to cool-headed European diplomacy. Although irritated, the neocons still hope any Iranian rapprochement can be pre-empted by force, as recent comments from the man who feeds Colin Powell's ulcer show:

"…US undersecretary of state for non-proliferation issues John Bolton had said earlier this month: 'There's no doubt that Iran continues a nuclear program.'

'There is no doubt we think that the case of Iran should be referred in the (United Nations) Security Council,' Bolton said."

Now, with the International Atomic Energy Agency set to meet next Monday in Vienna, the neocons are running out of time. They have just under a week to unearth evidence for Iran's top-secret, 45-minutes-to-deployment nuclear arsenal. No doubt they will be helped in this quest by Perle's boys in the NCRI, who may yet prove almost as trustworthy as his man in Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi. They're also getting help from their media amen corner, including those creepy pseudo-conservatives at the Washington Times. According to them,

"…In early December, Mr. Bolton said that Iran has 'deliberately and repeatedly lied to the IAEA' about its nuclear weapons programs.

…the problem, as Mr. Bolton has pointed out, is a systematic campaign of lies by Iran. It's time for the issue to be referred to the Security Council for further action."

Iran: Dropping the O-Bomb?

Nevertheless, Iran's rulers must feel confident that they'll win this round, if recent strong statements are indicative of anything. On Friday, Iran declared that no further nuclear inspections are needed, because it has complied sufficiently with the IAEA's requests. At the same time, the government denied charges that it has received nuclear materials from Pakistan.

A final fascinating detail here involves Iranian state radio's sensational claim that Osama bin Laden was captured "a long time ago" on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Citing new information from a "very reliable source" in Peshawar, the Iranian report declared on Friday that OBL has been kept in deep freeze and saved for a pre-election boost.

However, the Iranian Foreign Ministry officially dismissed this claim, and the Pentagon flat-out denied the story as being just "another piece of stray voltage that's passing around out there." A Pakistani official reacted with indecision when asked by reporters, before also denying it. But who knows? What if it's true? At this stage in the game, no one would put it past the Bush Administration to save one big stunt for November's grand finale. And if the Iranians are really in cahoots with al Qaeda, as US ambassador-at-large J. Cofer Black charged on Sunday, wouldn't they be the ones who should know?

Media all over the world are awaiting further details on this disappointingly slim story. As the US and Pakistan step up efforts against suspected al Qaeda militants on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border this week, maybe we will get some. It would be nice to know whether the Iranian insinuations are true, especially considering that so much remains unclear regarding the "capture" of Saddam Hussein, only weeks before the president's State of the Union address in January.

So Iran did not officially approve of the OBL capture tale. But it did allow state radio to waft it out there into the breeze. Considering the massive pressure being exerted on it by Perle, Bolton, and Co., could we not interpret Iran's usage of the OBL story as a gesture of self-defense? For if Iran really does know something about any secret arrest of Osama bin Laden, Richard Perle and the neocons won't have to worry about Teheran's nuclear projects; they, with the whole senior administration, will have to worry about an atomic bomb of white-hot public fury going off underneath them. These may prove to be interesting days indeed.