A Walk Through the Dark Iranian Forest

By seeing only the trees, we risk losing sight of where we are

A Walk Through the Dark Iranian Forest

Every Iranian action underscores why this regime cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. During the current conflict’s two months, Iran has managed to make its opponents’ case for them. And it has done so time and time again.

With so much news being generated daily about the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, it is easy to become distracted by debates over every single point examined: the amount and accessibility of Iran’s uranium cache, the level of degradation of Iran’s military weapons, its leadership’s functioning (or lack thereof), the exchange of negotiation proposals, whether the Strait of Hormuz is open—and if so to whom and for how long.

As we proceed, and each tree comes in view, we tend to increasingly lose sight of the forest engulfing us. It is therefore worthwhile to stop and look around at the whole. In this conflict, Iran has made it clear with each action why it wants nuclear weapons, what it would do with nuclear weapons, and on whom it would turn them. Taken together, we see one thing that rises above all the conflict’s debate points: The regime currently in charge of Iran must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

To understand why, simply look at what Iran’s regime has done throughout this conflict and before.

First, Iran has refused to simply renounce its intention to obtain nuclear weapons. This intention brought on the preemptive strike that buried much of Iran’s nuclear material under heaps of rubble last year. Yet, the U.S. and Israel’s resounding denial of the regime’s nuclear weapon ambitions was not enough. The sane response would have been to walk away from an intention which had been categorically denied to them. They would not. Their continued intention to pursue nuclear weapons brought on the current conflict now moving into its third month. Despite their military’s destruction to an extreme degree, Iran’s leadership still refuses to simply renounce their intention to pursue nuclear weapons, relinquish their capacity to produce them, and end a conflict that is devastating them militarily and economically.

Second, Iran has used the weapons at its disposal, mostly ballistic missiles and drones, with little concern about civilian casualties (nine in one attack on Israel; Iran has also used cluster bombs) and a maximum concern for disruption. These have been fired in enormous quantities at virtually every target in the region: Israel (of course), nations with U.S. bases, and even its neighboring countries. The end goal of Iran’s use of these weapons is not military in nature but to inflict any damage it can on those at whom it aims them. To prove the point, consider the outcome: None of Iran’s massive firings of these missiles and drones have improved its position militarily or diplomatically. Iran has only been more decimated as it has fired its missiles and drones, and the countries in which weapons these have landed have moved even further away from Iran than they were before. The result has only been terror; the same terrorism that Iran once sponsored through its myriad proxies, it now pursues baldly on its own. That is how it has chosen to use its military capability.

Third, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is an economic version of its military tactics. It is an indiscriminate use of an economic weapon against any and all parties within reach. It is designed to inflict as much pain as possible on these parties—primarily those residing half a world away from the conflict. Iran’s regime is wielding it to force the afflicted to pressure the U.S. and Israel to accede to its demands. It is simply another version of terrorism.

Fourth: Putting Iran’s military and economic tactics together and you get a straightforward strategy: terrorism.

Fifth, as Iran hemorrhages losses—militarily, economically, and diplomatically—it continues to slaughter its own people and subjugate them even more. Of course, there was the massive slaughter of tens of thousands of protestors during the uprising that occurred between the U.S. and Israel’s preemptive strike on its nuclear material and the current conflict. The public execution of regime opponents has continued apace. To continue keeping its undoubtedly growing internal opposition disorganized, it has done all it can to severe all internal and external communication: The result is that the rest of the world is unable to see even more of the atrocities that the regime is committing against its own people.

Sixth, Iran’s goal in all its so-called peace proposals is to begin negotiations that will buy it time and allow it to continue the pursuit of its objective: obtaining nuclear weapons. To offer as a goal, later negotiations over an outcome that has already been clearly denied militarily, economically, and diplomatically is to not offer to negotiate at all. It is merely a device aimed at those who want to believe the unbelievable. Plus, if a deal is reached, Iran has cheated on its deals before.

Seventh, in its diplomatic attempt in the current conflict, Iran has approached none other than Russia. If ever there was a nation with less credibility regarding peace it is Putin’s Russia which is embroiled in a four-year war of aggression against its Ukraine neighbor and during which it has pursued the same indiscriminate attacks against civilians that Iran has over the last two months. The terrorist state that is Iran has essentially turned to look in the mirror for advice.

What the surrounding forest should tell us is clear:

· Iran wants nuclear weapons at any cost—to itself, to its people, to the rest of the world.

· If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will use them the same way it has used the weapons it currently has at hand—indiscriminately, as either terrorist weapons or for greater leverage to inflict terror on anyone it sees fit to target with conventional terrorist attacks. Just as it has had no compunction on inflicting slaughter now—through its terrorist proxies, directly during the current conflict, or on its own people—it would have none inflicting slaughter on anyone who would oppose its goals later.

· With nuclear weapons, Iran will use them for every means of leverage—military, economic, and diplomatic. Just as it has sought to use every sort of leverage during the current conflict. In every future dispute with this Iranian regime, its nuclear capability would at the least be in the background.

· Terrorism remains the Iranian regime’s ultimate end and nuclear weapons its ultimate means of pursuing it.

Just over two months into the current conflict, even the most weak-kneed now know these things. There can be no mistaking what Iran wants, why Iran wants it, what Iran would do with it if attained, and how Iran would wield what it fanatically seeks.

Appeasing Iran will mean arming Iran; arming Iran will mean nuclear weapons; nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands will mean them being threatened or used against anyone who opposes its terrorist goals; and should this regime obtain nuclear weapons it will do everything possible to increase their reach with them.

Combined this would mean global subjugation to a terrorist state and its emboldened proxies on a level unprecedented even in the context of this regime’s prior hideous half century of terrorism.

While we can, and many undoubtedly will, continue to debate over each and every tree we pass, we cannot ignore the dark forest we are in with Iran.