Iran’s Geography
As
a large landmass of 1.6 million sq. km. (slightly
larger than Alaska), with two formidable mountain
ranges—Alborz and Zagros— that provide strategic
defensive terrain, Iran has much in its favor. It
also holds a strong
intermediate geographical
position vis a vis Iraq and Afghanistan —
both of which are presently occupied by what is
admittedly a relatively thin deployment of US
troops. Militarily, Iran would be much more
difficult to invade and occupy than Iraq. Even if
such a feat could be accomplished, the long-term
prospects for US success in changing the regime in
Tehran and establishing a sustainable pro-western
government would be highly doubtful.
Equally important as its size, is Iran’s key
location at the junction of the Asian continent and
the low, mostly desert areas of the Arab Middle
East. Stretching from the Caspian Sea to the
Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, and from the
rivers of Mesopotamia to the fringes of the Hindu
Kush, Iran is in one sense truly a colossus. Unlike
Iraq, almost totally landlocked and surrounded by
hostile borders, Iran is incapable of being
completely isolated and blockaded as Iraq was during
nearly fifteen years of cruelly punishing US-led
sanctions. Consequently, Iran is not susceptible to
the same kinds of economic pressures or the same
measure of pain as was Iraq. Yet even there,
sanctions failed. They cannot therefore be
considered a serious policy implement in the case of
Iran.
It
is true that large portions of Iran consist of
deserts and salt marshes, but these may function as
barriers to mechanized assault, just as they did
when the Carter Administration attempted to free
Tehran’s US hostages in a daring raid. That
ill-fated “Desert One” debacle left US helicopters
wrecked in the sand and US prestige in the region at
a new low. Nothing in Iran’s geography except
possibly its sheer magnitude prevents the use of
aerial attacks against selected targets, especially
when the use of cruise missiles or stealth bombers
is contemplated. President Bush has said, however,
that he disdains Clintonesque “pinprick strikes.”
No good options seem to be available to the Pentagon
at the moment.
When one considers the available US arsenal for use
against Iran, and the probable targets involved in
dealing with Iran’s supposed (or imaginary)
development of WMD, the outcome of this latest
“Clash of Civilizations” can only be guessed. True,
the US has developed bunker-busting bombs, but the
key Iranian facilities are reportedly hidden deep
underground. First in the bull’s eye would likely
be the uranium processing plant north of Isfahan.
The plant consists of a collection of boxy concrete
factory buildings set at the foot of steep, rocky
mountains. IAEA inspectors have repeatedly declared
that the plant is capable of producing only
low-grade enriched nuclear fuel for domestic power
generation. The question is what lies beneath the
ground and whether or not US air power can possibly
penetrate the mountain to sufficient depth to
obliterate whatever more sophisticated capabilities
may exist there.
The number of “ifs” implicit in such a scenario
boggles the mind. They could not be taken at all
seriously were it not for the fact that the
Bush-Cheney White House and Rumsfeld’s Pentagon have
been there before, unfortunately seeing not “ifs”
but certainties. The nuclear processing plant now
being developed by Russia cannot very well be
construed as a high-value target, since it is
definitely designed for peaceful uses, but it may
serve as one, given Rumsfeld’s worldview. The man
who complained that there were few high-value
targets in Afghanistan might be persuaded to launch
against the obviously high-tech facility at Bushehr.
All this is speculation. What is certain is that
Iran is capable of resisting Western encroachment
because of several often overlooked factors,
including its challenging geography, its position as
the veritable nexus of Southwest Asia, its history
of regional domination, and its strong cultural
identity. Iran’s population of over 70 million
today is expected to reach 100 million by 2050.
History and
Culture
Iranian history reveals that the nation, however its
government may have been organized, has consistently
exerted a powerful influence over neighboring
countries. Iranians are immensely proud of their
culture and heritage, and rightfully so. The Achaemenian Empire was the largest ever to rule the
ancient world, exceeded in Medieval times only by
Genghis Khan and the Mongols. In the first
millennium BC Persia exerted direct rule all the way
to Egypt and the upper Nile. Greece and Persia
clashed in the Persian Wars, leading to Alexander’s
conquests. The bloody, centuries long, struggles
between Rome and the Parthian and Sassasian Empires,
and much later, between Savafid Persia and the
Ottoman Empire, proved how difficult it can be for
external attacks to subdue a resolute people.
Historically, Persian rule extended all the way into
Central Asia, with a powerful cultural influence
still there today. Tajikistan and parts of
Afghanistan today speak Tajik and Dari, dialectical
variants of Farsi, and identify with the Persian
cultural sphere. Iranian religious influence is
also spread throughout southern Iraq and the Gulf,
and Iranian religious leaders dominate the Shi’a
areas of Iraq even more now than before the fall of
Saddam. Throughout history, successive dynasties in
the Tigris-Euphrates valley have been greatly
impacted by influences from the Iranian highlands.
This cultural element cannot be ignored in any
balance of power calculation, for winning hearts and
minds must be the ultimate aim of all political
discourse. Iran, whatever its government and
whatever attacks it may suffer in the future,
remains in a strong position throughout Western
Asia.
Political
Considerations
The compact resolve of Iran’s population of seventy
million when faced with an external threat should
also not be underestimated. It is true that the
Iranian people, by and large, are fond of
Americans. The youthful median age of the
population and the desire of many urban young people
for modernity have been seen by some commentators as
a secular and democratic revolution waiting to
happen. That outcome depends on how events unfold
and how Western intervention is perceived on the
streets of Tehran and other cities. The grip the
mullahs have on the public mind, as well as the
degree of popular legitimacy the viyalet-e-faqih
constitution holds in the body politic at large, is
difficult to judge. The 2005 elections were one
indicator of public support for the theocracy,
albeit a flawed measurement because so many
candidates were ruled out from the beginning.
Still, hard-line candidate Ahmadi-Nejad amassed
impressive vote totals and it would be a mistake to
misread these results. At the moment, those
determined to press forward to complete the
Khoemeini revolution are in charge in Tehran.
What can be deduced from all of this is that
hardheaded ideological regimes are in charge in both
Washington and Tehran, which surely spells trouble.
What is most disturbing is that the calls of
seasoned observers for engagement with Iran as a way
out of the impasse have not been heeded or even
listened to. Even though IAEA inspectors have spent
more than two years in Iran, they have not found
proof of nuclear weapons there. The “international
community,” meaning the US, some European countries,
and Israel, maintain deep suspicions about Iran’s
intentions. We have been down this road before.
Those who have a stake in the outcome, which
includes everybody in both countries, should
continue to press for the opening of a serious
dialogue. If the meeting of our “US Academics”
delegation with the Foreign Ministry’s key think
tank in Tehran during September is any indication,
the Iranians are certainly open to it. The ball is
now in Washington’s court.