On Iran, or: Things to Ask Your Leaders When You're Dead

The word this week is that some of Obama's administration think military action against Iran is pretty much inevitable.  If America gets involved, it's a safe bet the UK would too - we being very much the Nick Clegg in this coalition.  So we are facing the real possibility of being involved in a war in the Middle East.  Again!  What was that definition of insanity...?

Subtler arguments seem to get lost with these issues, so let's stick with the obvious:  if we get into a war, people will die. 

Iranians will die.  Soldiers, some.  C'est la guerre.  Civilians.  Women and children.  Perhaps we'll see brief clips on the news, lifeless forms in alien dress, emotionally removed from the reality of their humanity.  We're pretty desensitised to such sights these days.  Will we care?

Americans will die.  We'll get plenty of exposure to the stars and stripes, weeping family members, military mugshots and spreadsheet figures.  Their brand of chest-beating patriotism seems a bit daft to us and numbers are numbers.  Will we care?

Brits will die.  We'll see Union Jack-covered coffins carried off a plane and somberly paraded through a small market town to the strains of Elgar's Nimrod, news pieces about the deceased and how they loved this or that which will get briefer and briefer as the numbers get higher and higher.  Now will we care?

That won't be a good moment to ask why.  Respect for the bereaved will rightly hold off the difficult question.  So we should ask now:  what will they all die for?

There are various lines on this.  The main thrust is that Iran gaining nuclear weapons would destabilise the region to a dangerous extent.  William Hague has said it would cause an arms race and Cold War scenario.  The most obvious argument against us saying another country cannot have nukes is that, well, we have nukes.  America has nukes.  Aren't we being hypocrites?  This is a naive argument but pretty tough to touch from a purely logical standpoint.  The counter would be, though, that the real pertinent point is the presence of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, hence Hague's Cold War comment.  The argument is that this would cause a destabilisation of the balance of power in the region, with potentially chaotic and dangerous consequences. 

The elephant glowing faintly in the corner is the fact that nuclear weapons are there already.  Israel's nuclear program is the worst-kept secret going, thanks to a whistle-blower exposing it to the world.  That scenario already exists, Mr Hague.  You're too late.

What it would actually cause is a shift in the balance of power, and if anything a more balanced region would result.  At the moment, Israel, perennially backed by a member of the UN security council, is pretty much untouchable.  Countless attempts to address Israel's frequently illegal actions have run up against the brick wall of America's veto.  Which makes America's outraged reaction to Russia vetoing the UN Syria resolution seem kind of......hypocritical?  All those dead Syrians make the irony hard to savour. 

Then there are Saudi Arabia and the Sunni states.  The power struggle between Sunnis and Shias is going pretty badly for the Shias at the moment, with Iraq a mess and Syria on the brink of, if not already well into, civil war.  The Arab Spring has been ridden out rather more smoothly by Saudi Arabia and co.  Purely coincidentally, these countries have tended to be rather more friendly and co-operative with The West than the Shia countries.  There's been a startling lack of attempted UN resolutions against these countries in their own repression of democracy and equality. 

With Western allies all round, and the increasing influence of Turkey to boot, one might think it's getting a bit one-sided in there.  If Iran were to gain a nuclear deterrent, as we like to call it when we have it, the balance might be redressed a bit.  No wonder this is A Bad Thing.

The other great line against Iran is that hey, they're crazy yo!  Can't let them have nukes!  Hmm.  Wars started by Iran since the revolution?  Zero.  Wars Iran involved in since the revolution?  One.  When Iraq invaded Iran.  Egged on by guess who? 

They want to wipe Israel off the map!  Hmm.  Yes, because politicians ALWAYS say what they mean and mean what they say, and never ever ever ever ever say things to play well with an audience.  Wars started by Iran?  Wars started by Israel?  Hell, one might even think that Iran is quite an insular nation that would like to be left alone.  Rather than having puppet rulers foisted on it by foreign powers, for example. 

It's a repressive, undemocratic regime that treats women abhorrently and cracks down brutally on dissent and difference!  Granted.  When do we bomb Saudi Arabia then?

In other words.....to cut a long story short, the current balance of power in the region suits the West just fine.  Western allies and West-friendly states are free to do like, whatever, man, and we get to pretend we have an ethical foreign policy when the rest step out of line.  No-one cares about Libya?  Right!  POW!  God, aren't we great?  We all look like George Clooney and our teeth sparkle.

Iran getting nukes might upset this cosy state of affairs so of course the West wants to stop that happening.  But that is not cool these days, such blatant self-interest.  We need a reason, and it damn well better be a good one.  No mystery WMD's or 45-minute warnings this time.  We need a proper good, old-fashioned casus belli.  A moral narrative.  So we're told Iran is this or that; them getting nukes would do this or that, a rebalance of power is called a destabilisation.  Politics is called lunacy - by politicians!

In answer to that question, what will they all die for?  Well....turns out it's the same thing that they've been dying for for centuries, on battlefields all across Europe, India, the Americas, Africa, The Middle East.  It''s hard to find a corner of the planet that some poor Tommy HASN'T died in for a cause constructed by leaders we trust to decide what's in our self-interest.