Last week a nuclear deal with Iran caused quite a controversy in the region and in the U.S. despite strong objections from Republican lawmakers and from Israel, both of whom were not happy with the outcome of the Iranian plan. The framework of the nuclear deal should support efforts to promote peace and stability in the region. I always believed that eventually, the West and the United States would be friendlier with Iran than with any of the Sunni countries in the region. The Arab Spring put an end to the secular Muslim dictators who ruled the Islamic countries for decades, and the Arab Spring gave rise to political Islam in the Middle East and Africa. The majority of Muslims are Sunni, and the majority of Muslim countries have rich resources and access to technology. What they are lacking is that they have not been united; if they were united, then this union would result in the end of Israel and Western civilization.
Thus, because of their factions, the West has the political card, and those countries always use the minority card for their long-term interests. Since Sunnis do not consider Shia a true religion and since especially the Arabs hate the expansion of Iran, now the West is trying to normalize their relation with Iran against the Sunni religion. I would not be surprised if soon the United States opens a trade office in Tehran. The problem with the West and the United States when they are involved in negotiations with the Muslim countries is that they tend to forget one of the most important things, which is trust. Muslims do not and will never trust infidels. For example, Ayatollah Khamenei, who makes the final decision on all matters of national security, including the nuclear deal, said it is not easy to shake hands with the devil, and the United States cannot be trusted to lift sanctions in a future nuclear deal, so that Tehran should instead develop an economy of resistance. Basically what he is saying is that Iran’s enemy cannot be trusted. The United States’ economic sanctions against Iran never worked, but rather they only helped the regime to stay in power by giving the diverse leaders a common enemy. In political science, Realists do not believe the role of values in foreign policymaking, instead holding that states always follow their national interests. The Realist theory acknowledges that anarchy, uncertainty, and security dilemmas are real problems facing states, and it is important for states to have material power and capabilities as opposed to liberal views of values and humanitarianism. The main premise of Liberals is based on three assumptions of the eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel Kant whose liberal vision for a peaceful order includes: shared democratic norms, economic trade and interdependence, and international institutions.
One question that comes to my mind is the character of Iran. Iran is a very good negotiator and also an effective deceiver; Iran has been cheating for a long time. What assurance does the West and Obama have that Iran will not cheat again? Liberals, like Obama, argue that it is possible to overcome the challenges of Iran’s ambition to develop nuclear bombs, and that dealing with Iran’s propensity to cheat and using international institutions can overcome the security dilemma, reduce the uncertainty, provide some rules and regulations, and monitor Iran to see if they obey the rules or disregard them. The problem lies with the international institutions like the UN because the UN itself is political. The five permanent Security Council members are more driven by national interests than by a desire to stop the bloodshed in Syria. The permanent members–Russia, China, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom–are more of a political club than one that secures the world. Liberals argue that free trade and economic interdependence increase levels of wealth and security, but what about the religious ideology of Muslims who believe they are superior and should be the rulers, not the ruled? How can the international institutions overcome the religious ideology that Muslims have? It was not a surprise to me when Iran’s spiritual leader used economic resistance against the infidels. President Bush tried to promote Democracy in the Middle East and the rest of the world, saying freedom can be the future of every nation. The idea of democratic peace theory, the most well-known International Relations theory, argues that democracies do not go to war with another democracy, and that a more democratic world is therefore a more peaceful world. The problem is that still there is no major consensus about what democracy entails. Each nation claims that it is the best democratic country. Communist China even calls itself the Democratic Republic of China.
Likewise, Muslims have their own way of applying democracy. Democratic peace theory’s main ideas are that democracies do not fight because war with another democracy is morally and ethically the wrong thing to do, and secondly, that the structure of democratic governments makes it more difficult for leaders to wage war. Unlike dictators, democratic rulers face governmental checks and balances, require some level of public support, and worry about reelection. Since Islam is the way of life, including the structure of the government, especially in the case of Iran that is run by Shia Islamic rules and one spiritual ruler who makes the final decision because he is the appointed one, how can democracy change that structure? How would you put constraints on the Islamic spiritual leader who believes that Allah is choosing him?
According to another Realist, John Mearsheimer, because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the balance of power has changed from bipolar to a multipolar system in which deterrence is more difficult because of this imbalance of power. Realists believe that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Israel will be suppressed, and that is why Israel bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Israel did the same in Syria in 2007, because If Israel lacks a nuclear monopoly, it will decreases Israel’s aggression against its Arab neighbor. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, it will decrease Israel’s aggression against the Arab country; furthermore, there would be zero chance that Iran and Israel will go to war against each other because if both countries fight, it means destruction for both nations.
The dangerous side of Iran’s nuclear power is that if it is not carefully controlled, some terrorists could use the nuclear weapons against other states, which is the Realist’s concern about an anarchy system. Some Realists argue that the only way to balance Israel’s power in the region is for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Realists believe International Relations do not involve charity. On the other hand, President Obama has had Liberal humanitarians like Susan Rice and John Kerry on his foreign policy staff. They are more optimistic about the possibility of peace and cooperation between Iran and the West on an Iranian nuclear deal than some of the Republican Realist lawmakers. Liberals, like Obama, believe that if Iran participates in international institutions, free trade and economic interdependence, as well as shared democratic norms and ideas, it will help increase the prospects of peace. I doubt it
Dr. Aland Mizell is President of the MCI and a regular contributor to Mindanao Times. You may email the author at:aland_mizell2@hotmail.com