Preemption, Provocation, Prevarication, Prevention

The January 20th edition of the New York Times carried an Op-Ed piece by a staff member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the Iranian Small Boats issue. A colleague asks if I think they are a problem, which prompts these thoughts.

I think the pattern is clear. We take preemptive measures to put our offensive forces directly in the face the defensive armies of our defined enemies (i.e. we have defined them as enemies – “Axis of Evil” speeches etc.). The acts are intended and serve effectively as provocation; they elicit the intended response of stirring those defensive forces into a “media” captured and disseminated story. (I.e. we force them to acknowledge our presence understanding that their internal politics require a response). We then prevaricate, labeling the response as an action initiated by them, even apparently by willingly manipulating the facts and reports, to justify the prospect of a still more aggressive action by our forces, to increase the support of a largely ignorant US audience, and further aggravating the situation within the other side by virtue of the self-evident lies to begin with. The path to prevention is the same here as it is anywhere else. Withdraw our troops and equipment from the field. Allow Iraq and Iran to negotiate their border in this case. Use the international waterway for commercial purposes that benefit all parties. Let regional players monitor the safety of passage.

Yes, the US Navy’s presence is most certainly, and as the article illustrates, has for 20 years been a provocation and a significant part of the problem. Everyone from President Ahmadinejad to Seyed (our guide on delegations we take to Iran) to students we met in the streets on those visits have said the same thing. What would be our reaction if the Iranian Navy were patrolling the international waters of the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic? What was our response when the Soviet Union put rockets in Cuba? Why would we expect the Iranians to react differently than we have in similar circumstances? The article illustrates the problem, but not the solution. A preemptive military attack only tightens the spiral and heightens the likelihood of expanded violence. The past can certainly inform us, but it is not a safe basis for prediction of the future. We have at hand enormous inventories of nonviolent tools and vehicles which we have not yet used to seek to renew a diplomatic relationship with Iran. Let’s talk, talk, talk…

Mark C. Johnson, executive director, FOR