| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Our Rhineland Moment |
| 2006-04-23 |
| In conjunction with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement that the Islamic Republic has successfully enriched uranium, both Hugh Hewitt and Bill Kristol invoked the Rhineland analogy as a warning for America to act promptly to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran. It is an apt analogy -- not necessarily because the threat of a nuclear Iran closely parallels that of Hitler's Germany, but rather, because the United States politically and diplomatically finds itself nearly as hamstrung as France was during the Rhineland crisis seventy years ago. During the 1920s and 30s, France, more than any other great power, sought to take measures aimed at deterring and containing Germany. Repeatedly, they sought defensive security guarantees from both Britain and the United States. A pacifist Britain and an isolationist United States, however, refused to provide such concrete commitments. During the interwar years, France felt itself increasingly isolated diplomatically, and in some cases even demonized in the English speaking nations for trying to "dominate the continent" by keeping Germany weak. In 1936, therefore, a war-weary France recognized that any military action taken against Hitler would likely have to be taken alone. There are indeed many similarities between the sad plight of France during the Rhineland crisis and the ominous situation facing the United States in regard to preventing a nuclear Iran today. Similar to the Germans occupying the German Rhineland, the Iranians are violating international mandates, but they are doing so within their own territory. While in 1936 many did not consider the German actions to be aggression, asking "how can a nation illegally occupy its own territory", so too do many today question the right of the US to militarily invade to prevent a nuclear Iran. Also like the Rhineland occupation, a nuclear-armed Iran would substantially alter an already precarious strategic paradigm. Nukes in the hands of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs would run the risk of undermining nearly every major American foreign policy goal in the Middle East -- be it stabilizing and democratizing Iraq, rolling back the tide of Jihadist terrorism, or securing global energy resources. Just as the mandated demilitarization of the Rhineland was strategically well founded, so too are there sound reasons why the international community has forbidden the development of Iranian nuclear weapons. As Ilan Berman recently stated in the Claremont Review of Books, possible ramifications of a nuclear Iran include: 1) A Middle Eastern arms race, as other states seek to counter-balance the Iranian bomb, 2) Expanded proliferation as Iran exports its nuclear know-how, 3) Increased terrorism, as an emboldened Tehran, secure behind its nuclear shield, expands its use of terrorist groups to strike against the West, 4) Strategic blackmail, as Iran threatens US forces in the region as well as vital energy supplies, and 5) Greater longevity for the reigning Iranian mullahcracy. A nuclear Iran, as the Bush administration has stated, is indeed "unacceptable". However, as Bill Kristol noted in the Weekly Standard, so too did the French declare Germany's Rhineland occupation "unacceptable", while taking no decisive action to stop it. Fear, of both renewed war and diplomatic isolation, intervened and made sound strategic choices impossible. It is vital that we understand the similar binds that are precluding decisive American action today. First, America is war-weary. Although American losses in Iraq are nowhere near French or British losses in even a medium-sized battle of the First World War, a three-year-running 24 hour news cycle has taken its toll on the American psyche. A sizeable percentage of the American population has lost the stomach for the war in Iraq. Accordingly, a new, dramatically larger war against Iran, with a much larger population of 70 million, a larger and more able armed forces, and substantially tougher terrain, is politically almost unthinkable at the present juncture. Many believe that Iraq was an unnecessary war, and regardless of the strategic benefits, the American people will likely not support another preemptive war against another Middle Eastern regime to prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Second, America, like France during the Rhineland crisis, stands largely alone in its potential willingness to take military action against a very dangerous emerging threat. Echoing France's plight in 1936, polls reveal that many Europeans believe that America, the nation willing to deter the strengthening tyranny, poses a larger threat to global security than does the Islamist Republic itself. Indeed, a cursory navigation of the leftern-most regions of the blogosphere will reveal that more than a few Americans also believe this nonsense. A unilateral military action runs the substantial risk of further diplomatically isolating America -- not only in the Middle East that we are risking blood and treasure to liberalize, but from essential allies as well. War may indeed come with Iran, but for the American people to get behind it, such would necessitate a truly egregious action by the Iranians. It is one of the hallmarks of the American democracy that long and bloody wars will not be accepted in the absence of a clearly visible rallying event. Going back to the Revolution, with the Boston Massacre, the Stamp Acts, and the Intolerable Acts, Americans have necessitated a great offense against them before they will send their sons to die in large numbers. The Civil War was, of course, precipitated by myriad such acts -- be it bleeding Kansas and John Brown, the beating of Senator Charles Sumner, and of course, ultimately, Fort Sumter. In World War I, America would not commit until the Germans declared unrestricted submarine warfare, sank the Lusitania, and sent the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico. Even after Adolf Hitler's numerous invasions, genocidal policies, and full-scale bombing of London, the United States would not enter World War II until Japan flew onto American territory and bombed the Pacific Fleet. Afghanistan, Iraq, and the implementation of the Bush administration's proactive Middle Eastern policy necessitated the catalyst of September 11th. In the absence of such flagrant provocation, America will not rally to militarily destroy the Iranian regime. The Bush administration likely knows this. The question is, do the Mullahs? |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #3 "Egregious action" - like, say, American Hirsohima(s) where domestic Amer cities are attacked wid "dirty bombs", but which in reality are PC, disguised decapitation strikes against Dubya-GOP. Hillary and GORE-KERRY-DEAN, etc. will be POTUSes becuz they weirdly and mysteriously survived the terror attacks of Clinton-happy terrorists. The post 9-11 MSM > Muslim govts. in general, even Saddam Hussein and Osama, preferred Saint Bill or his policies. i.e. keep the illegal $$$ and illegal tech transfers flowin' while doing nothing to retaliate against domestic and international terror attacks on American interests. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-04-23 23:32 |
| #2 If our oil supply had depended on the Rhineland and if Hitler had spent 27 years referring to us as "The Great Satan" and supporting terrorism against us, then perhaps the sleeping giant would have awakened sooner. Besides, projecting power across the world was considerably more dificult for us then as compared to now. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-04-23 20:08 |
| #1 Going back to the Revolution, with the Boston Massacre, the Stamp Acts, and the Intolerable Acts, Americans have necessitated a great offense against them before they will send their sons to die in large numbers. The Civil War was, of course, precipitated by myriad such acts -- be it bleeding Kansas and John Brown, the beating of Senator Charles Sumner, and of course, ultimately, Fort Sumter. Great article, but my only complaint is that these were not really "big events" - unless you are referring to them as historical events. In this light you could refer to the Mohammed cartoon as a "big event". Pearl Harbor and 911 were "big events". 911 was our big event that will carry us through this generation. A subway bombing or a suicide bomber or some other bizarre yet-unknown incident could now be sufficient to persuade us. These guys put to much stock in the incoherent ramblings of the university wack-outs, Kos Kids and Air America types. They would be wise to note that Air America couldn't float itself in a single US city. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-23 10:46 |